Super Rugby 2024
-
@frugby I would take out Morrison as a potential lock for the Hurricanes and swap him for Hugo Plummer. After debuting this year for the Canes and after putting on the kgs, I think Plummer is primed to pick up a contract next year, especially if Blackwell moves on.
-
@Canes4life Morrison is already in the Hurricanes frame via his NDC contract (2nd year). Although, I don't expect him to be signed by the Canes for 2024, stranger things have happened. There's no reason to remove him.
-
@Canes4life said in Super Rugby 2024:
@frugby I would take out Morrison as a potential lock for the Hurricanes and swap him for Hugo Plummer. After debuting this year for the Canes and after putting on the kgs, I think Plummer is primed to pick up a contract next year, especially if Blackwell moves on.
Even if Blackwell doesn't move on we need another tall (1.98) bigger lock. Then Delany can focus on 6. Hopefully Plummer gets enough game time in the NPC to see if he's good enough.
-
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby 2024:
@Canes4life Morrison is already in the Hurricanes frame via his NDC contract (2nd year). Although, I don't expect him to be signed by the Canes for 2024, stranger things have happened. There's no reason to remove him.
Is he injured or not good enough to make the u20 starting side. If not good enough he won't get a canes contract for 2024. Whereas Plummer has already played for the Canes so might if there is a lock required. So if frugby is including a guess Plummer would be a better one. Or leave it blank
-
@Stargazer isn’t that a list for guys we expect to see signed for 2024? If you don’t think he will be signed next year then he shouldn’t be on the list. NDC contract or not.
There is also Anthony Pettett who’s back playing rugby after a two year layoff. He came through the Wellington system the same time as Naitoa Ah Koui and Taine Plumtree before falling out of love with the game. He’s since returned bigger and stronger, and at 2.01m he could be another big lock the Canes should be looking at. He’s in the Ranfurly Shield squad so it will be interesting to see if he’ll get much game time.
-
Noted. I'll probably change the majority of guesses to blanks next time. Mostly to give an idea of what sort of player the franchises will probably be targeting.
My guess would be, where rumours don't already exist, those signed will either be academy players, NPC players, or a wildcard from overseas.
-
https://www.theroar.com.au/2023/06/27/super-rugby-can-be-fixed-heres-how/
I believe that Super Rugby should become a free movement area for anyone that plays in the competition, without impacting eligibility for a country. This way, young prospects can still develop in their country and older more established players can move around a bit more. A few years ago, James O’Conner was linked with the Chiefs and Jordie Barrett enticed the idea of playing in Australia. I also believe that more All-Black players would rather sign for Australian sides instead of moving overseas, for the economic and lifestyle benefits. Some Aussies might even move to New Zealand to learn from their systems and world class coaches. Aussie teams get to sign world class players and New Zealand rugby can depose some of their All Blacks from their books, creating more opportunities for their never-ending pipeline of talent coming through. It’s a win-win situation for both unions. I do believe that the two pacific sides do however need to be treated differently. Their purpose has always been to develop players for the pacific nations. If you allow the free movement of all players in the competition, what prevents them from signing Aussies and Kiwis at the expense of pacific talent? The limit on the amount of foreign talent that they might sign should still be implemented, together with a new rule that they get exclusive signing rights on players developed in the pacific. The movement of talent will improve all the teams’ prospects in the competition while also allowing for the development of players in different systems.
-
@kiwi_expat If you quote an article, it would be helpful if you actually show it as a quote. The easiest way to use the " button or by typing a > before you paste the copied text. (This doesn't work in "quick reply").
-
@kiwi_expat I would sooner NZ sort out the NZ teams first. As one team always winning indicates an issue that needs to be addressed. This issue is as bad as weak Aussie teams.
Otherwise the weaker teams like the highlanders will just be weakened even more. With next level players moving to aust. For example PUJ may as well play in aust if he can still make the ABs. It would also piss me off if canes abs moved to aust. One adv when they make the ABs is the extra money paid to them by NZR. This can keep them in NZ. That adv would disappear.
-
@Winger would players from the team that came last be their first targets? surely players from winning team would be more attractive
-
There's some really stupid stuff in that article, but no surprise if it's posted on the Roar.
I'm not convinced an All Black would want to play in Australia for franchises other than the Brumbies. The other franchises are simply too weak and playing there wouldn't be helpful for their career in black. If it happened, the divide between the Brumbies and the other Aussie franchises would only grow bigger.
Also, the NZ players would be further away from their family and the Aussies wouldn't pay enough compared to Japanese clubs, so I don't think there would be too much interest anyway, at least for NZ to Oz movements.
I think the only NZ players who maybe could be interested are the 3rd stringers who don't get much game time, so non-All Blacks. That's the players you don't want to lose as a NZ franchise, because they're the depth you need in case of injuries.
The article also doesn't discuss the issue that if a NZ franchise signs an Australian player, they're weaking the already weaker franchises in Australia. It also doesn't address the impact on player development in Australia, which is seriously flawed. This author doesn't realise that these ideas of signing NZ players will harm the pathways of Aussie players.
@Winger said in Super Rugby 2024:
@kiwi_expat
With next level players moving to aust. For example PUJ may as well play in ayust if he can still make the ABs. It would also piss me off if canes abs moved to aust.Yep, 100%. As NZ fans, we don't want to see "our" players playing for Aussie teams. It was hard enough to see Beauden Barrett move from the Canes to the Blues. Imagine someone like Jordie Barrett, Rieko Ioane or Will Jordan playing for the Reds or the Brumbies.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2024:
@Winger would players from the team that came last be their first targets? surely players from winning team would be more attractive
Aust would target any player they could get. Esp AB 15 players. Or close to like Flanders or Delany. With their larger size it could be an attractive option.
The pool of quality players in NZ would become smaller. This would impact most on the weaker teams with the current NZ set up. Esp when NZR pay players from the stronger teams on average a lot more money.
And allowing ABs to play for another country is a door I don't want opened. It would start with aust then the world. Slowly at first though. Just 3 or 4 then more ...
-
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby 2024:
I think the only NZ players who maybe could be interested are the 3rd stringers who don't get much game time, so non-All Blacks. That's the players you don't want to lose as a NZ franchise, because they're the depth you need in case of injuries.
But that's the point, it'd be better for the competition if they did go elsewhere, but people such as yourself are so fixed on what serves us best, instead of looking at the bigger picture.
-
@kiwi_expat I'm a rugby fan who's pretty happy with the current competition. I'm also looking at the bigger picture: that of NZ franchises (collectively). None of these proposals make NZ rugby better.
-
even im getting sick of going around and around
I think there is a fundamental difference between those that think a "good" or "successful" comp is one with a large number of competitive teams and those that think its the highest quality of rugby
i think that unless we have a much larger player pool those two are almost mutually exclusive
I am probably the former but lots of people are the later and thats fine and valid...but i dont think we can all be happy
-
I think some people are missing a particularly important point and question. What do the players want? Do they want to have the opportunity to try a different environment and remain eligible for the All Blacks? Do they want to live somewhere different for a year and still be able to play international rugby? Is this a good move for the player's personal development. Looking past what is best for NZR and our franchises. Is this beneficial for our players as people. If the answer is yes and it had the potential to add some intrigue to the competition. Sounds a good idea to me.
