Super Rugby 2023
-
@friedrugby i would also say teams should not be able to start injury cover ahead of original squad members, i'd feel like a piece of shit if i made a squad and then someone was brought in to start ahead of me
@Stargazer obviously a "9 month season" is a complete rethink of rugby in NZ, NPC would have to become a amature representative comp under super or one of the suggestions like ditching super and elevating 10 NPC teams to a new and improved NPC would have to be adopted
question though, can you elaborate more on the "cant wait for one rugby comp to end so i can watch another rugby comp" ?...isn't still the same amount of rugby roughly?
-
@Kiwiwomble It's not about the number of games, but about the comp. I prefer watching NPC over watching SRP. That's why I disagree with suggestions to ditch the NPC, make it a feeder comp for SRP, ditch provinces from the NPC to make it a 10 team comp etc etc.
-
Crusaders have used 48 players squads of 38 are a bit light.
-
@Stargazer so, would you look at it a different way, if it was NPC that got given a 9 month full home and away season?
-
@Kiwiwomble I'd prefer to keep both competitions. One after the other, just like now. Maybe make NPC a bit longer, so all provinces play each other once, but I see the practical difficulties in that, too.
Edit: what I would like to add is a proper SRP U20 competition (not the way they do it now), although that probably would be bad for local club rugby.
-
@Chris Yep but using 48 players is probably quite a difference to having that many under contract fulltime. Money becomes a huge problem, and before we get into how it works in England etc I not sure we got the coin in the game to go down theuir track. It's not just England, Wales are down to 3 teams etc. Just be careful what we start wishing for.
I do tend to go along with @Stargazer , I think it about long enough, we now have test season coming up followed by NPC, which I like Star, really enjoy, I know it's all just rugby to some, but NPC is OUR rugby!!
-
@Stargazer and as time goes on my personal feeling is i dont think its sustainable, i think we need to consolidate things, make one awesome competition we can sell, more attractive to sponsors etc rather than two shorter ones, thats me though
I mean, Mrs womble and I have been together for 18 years, shes been to loads of games with me...still gets mixed up between NPC and super rugby, i think we over estimate what the casual fan knows sometimes
-
-
-
@Stargazer I think take away the bye weeks, it really hurt the momentum that had been garnered in terms of interest & engagement at the mid-point of the competition this year, there was a lot of frustration on here about it, it really felt like an unnecessary handbrake on the season.
-
@Chris said in Super Rugby 2023:
NPC will go amateur somewhere along the way,Then we may see SR extended and bigger squads
Maybe Chris , but that won't help the super teams pay their wages if NPC is amateur. They are totally different things. Don't get me wrong, I think change will come, but when it does the NZ and NZ rugby will be poorer for it as more head off to overseas teams of lower levels.
-
-
I can't argue with that, And I will not like it when it happens,But I think NZR will eventually make it an amateur comp.
The cost of players of each Union is getting up to $3m +for some, it will be hard to sustain it in years to come. -
@Chris said in Super Rugby 2023:
NPC will go amateur somewhere along the way,Then we may see SR extended and bigger squads
@Chris The reality is Super Rugby needs to be extended.
In this part of the world, where rugby is concerned, money matters. Franchises need to offer sponsors and members value for their coin; engagement, hope, and as long a ride as they can possibly get.
Broadcasters need content; cut the season off and fewer matches will be reflected in fewer dollars paid. And with Rugby Australia and NZ Rugby already under extreme pressure to offer salaries competitive enough to keep players at home, these are decisions that, while made uneasily, are ultimately easy to make.
Perhaps things would be different if the season was longer, but each side plays a measly 14 matches. Super Rugby is over barely before it has begun. Get injured at the wrong time – like the Rebels’ Rob Leota, the Crusaders’ George Bell and many others – and the season is over before you can even lace up a boot.
In France’s Top 14, teams play 26 round-robin matches. And don’t forget to add European Champions Cup rugby on top of that.
-
@kiwi_expat So it's back to a bloated comp then.... Not sure we'll get the Saffas back, so that leaves the Argies and Japan again
-
Simplest way is allow players from any teams wtg to be part of an injury pool be called in for injury cover, have them ranked by nzr so essentially you request a player and you get the best ranked player.
And make them available for any team until they play say 3 games for 1 side, then they can only play for them.
We have some teams have depth in one position while others don't, Murphys law says if you have depth in lock, you will have issues elsewhere, while someone else will have depth up front but need locks...
Then obviously we have these young players being signed in wtg just to stop other teams getting them, so in essence denying them the opportunity to step up and see if they are ready, if you aren't willing to take that risk, and another team is through necessity, why not.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2023:
Simplest way is allow players from any teams wtg to be part of an injury pool be called in for injury cover, have them ranked by nzr so essentially you request a player and you get the best ranked player.
And make them available for any team until they play say 3 games for 1 side, then they can only play for them.
We have some teams have depth in one position while others don't, Murphys law says if you have depth in lock, you will have issues elsewhere, while someone else will have depth up front but need locks...
Then obviously we have these young players being signed in wtg just to stop other teams getting them, so in essence denying them the opportunity to step up and see if they are ready, if you aren't willing to take that risk, and another team is through necessity, why not.
Thinking aloud here, but if this was the case would teams then hesitate to put time into developing WTG players? It'd be pretty frustrating to lose a player to another team if you have invested a lot into them. Maybe allow teams to 'protect' some WTG players?
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2023:
Simplest way is allow players from any teams wtg to be part of an injury pool be called in for injury cover, have them ranked by nzr so essentially you request a player and you get the best ranked player.
And make them available for any team until they play say 3 games for 1 side, then they can only play for them.
We have some teams have depth in one position while others don't, Murphys law says if you have depth in lock, you will have issues elsewhere, while someone else will have depth up front but need locks...
Then obviously we have these young players being signed in wtg just to stop other teams getting them, so in essence denying them the opportunity to step up and see if they are ready, if you aren't willing to take that risk, and another team is through necessity, why not.
I like that idea, understand what @Crazy-Horse is concerned about, but maybe a pool and players are out on loan, still makes it worth developing players, and with benefoit they get some experience at playing at the level you want. I know the loan idea wroks in some comps and does have some up sides. I think I quite like that as one of good ideas worth thinking on.
