The Current State of Rugby
-
@taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble but for the club guys, club finals and playing for thier province is the highlight, pre-season be thier only run for some?
might be right
i guess more an indictment of there is always going to be the lulls when transitioning between competitions and so it kind of sucks for those of us that follow club>NPC>Super>international
most other sports players kind of only play one of the first 3 and then maybe the last and so the competitions are designed to last the whole "season"
-
@Kiwiwomble I think as @mariner4life has alluded to plenty of times, particularly about the NRL how everything is concurrent, whereas Rugby has thier seperation of comps.
Although do we usually have a gap like this prior to TRC? Does seem unusual?
-
@taniwharugby i think its most sports, rugby in NZ is the only one i can think of that fits different levels at different times and has players playing in all of them
it does feel unusual....but it also feels like it slightly different every year
-
Yes. Is unusual.
An AB is actually a member of 4 teams at 4 different levels club/province/super/national. And could play at every level in one season.This does not happen in any other pro football code. They play in 2 at most. Usually their club and national team.
The spanner in the works is Super Rugby. For those who dont know, it was originally a preseason comp for the PUs. And that is why it is played at the start of the season, not at the end, where you'd think it naturally would fit.
SR was controversial right from the start! It didn't include all the PUs. Organised by the Auckland/Wellington/Canterbury PUs (not the NZRU) it shut out all the others. Who were pissed off, and right to be as it turned out.
When they game went pro in 95 it was used by the establishment (led by Jock Hobbs) as an alternative to a non-establishment comp being organised (by Kerry Packer if I remember correctly).
In retrospect.....probably better off if we went with Packer. Would have had a full season Super comp, with regular national team breaks.
-
@mohikamo said in The Current State of Rugby:
SR was controversial right from the start! It didn't include all the PUs. Organised by the Auckland/Wellington/Canterbury PUs (not the NZRU) it shut out all the others. Who were pissed off, and right to be as it turned out.
That was a completely different competition than the pro Super Rugby that started in 1996.
-
What I recall happened was....
Before 1996 SR was sanctioned by the NZ/SA/Aus NUs, but the PUs organised it themselves.
In latter 1995, after the World Cup, there was a battle between the establishment and outside investors over who was going to control the new pro rugby game. The outsiders proposed a super comp combining the Currie Cup and NPC with some Aus teams. The Establishment led by Hobbs won.
After the rugby war was over, the national unions took the SR comp over. The amateur SR comp has never been seen since.
The only real difference being 2 extra NZ teams, with all the NZ PUs were now involved. Which has echos down the decades with the current struggle for the control of rugby in NZ.
AND THE PLAYERS WERE BEING PAID!
I have not checked, but the actual team lists from 95 season to 96 season would probably have been very similar. SA and Aus teams would have been nearly indentical.
For example, the amateur Auckland/Wellington/Canterbury PU teams of 95 would have been very similar to that of the pro Blues/Hurricanes/Crusaders 96.
-
@mohikamo said in The Current State of Rugby:
What I recall happened was....
Before 1996 SR was sanctioned by the NZ/SA/Aus NUs, but the PUs organised it themselves.
In latter 1995, after the World Cup, there was a battle between the establishment and outside investors over who was going to control the new pro rugby game. The outsiders proposed a super comp combining the Currie Cup and NPC with some Aus teams. The Establishment led by Hobbs won.
After the rugby war was over, the national unions took the SR comp over. The amateur SR comp has never been seen since.
The only real difference being 2 extra NZ teams, with all the NZ PUs were now involved. Which has echos down the decades with the current struggle for the control of rugby in NZ.
AND THE PLAYERS WERE BEING PAID!
I have not checked, but the actual team lists from 95 season to 96 season would probably have been very similar. SA and Aus teams would have been nearly indentical.
For example, the amateur Auckland/Wellington/Canterbury PU teams of 95 would have been very similar to that of the pro Blues/Hurricanes/Crusaders 96.
Before pro Super Rugby there was the Super 10s, the Super 6, the SPC, and the CANZ series.
There's a clear dividing line between those comps and the pro Super 12 introduced in 1996 - unless you're a Queenslander or Transvaalian and want some extra wins in your column.
The Blues team of 1996 would likely be similar to the 1995 Auckland team, I daresay not so much the Crusaders and Canterbury.
-
The amateur Super 10 did include 'theoretically' all 27 PUs. It ran for only 3 years from 93 to 95.
The top 3 NZ npc qualified for it.
The predecessor to that. The South Pacific Championship which later changed its name to Suoer 6. Was a closed shop outside of the NZRU's remit. With Auck, Wgtn, Canty permanent entrants.
-
I recall fondly through late 1995, Ritchie Guy getting annoyed at media lazily labeling the new proposed professonal rugby competition to atart the following year as the Super 12.
It had a 'working name' as the 'International Provincial Championship' (IPC) when Sanzar thrashed out their new Murdoch deal.
Then a few months later once the marketing consultants had been engaged to come up with a brand for the IPC, they gifted us the totally left field name of 'Super 12'.
-
@mohikamo said in The Current State of Rugby:
What I recall happened was....
Before 1996 SR was sanctioned by the NZ/SA/Aus NUs, but the PUs organised it themselves.
In latter 1995, after the World Cup, there was a battle between the establishment and outside investors over who was going to control the new pro rugby game. The outsiders proposed a super comp combining the Currie Cup and NPC with some Aus teams. The Establishment led by Hobbs won.
After the rugby war was over, the national unions took the SR comp over. The amateur SR comp has never been seen since.
The only real difference being 2 extra NZ teams, with all the NZ PUs were now involved. Which has echos down the decades with the current struggle for the control of rugby in NZ.
AND THE PLAYERS WERE BEING PAID!
I have not checked, but the actual team lists from 95 season to 96 season would probably have been very similar. SA and Aus teams would have been nearly indentical.
For example, the amateur Auckland/Wellington/Canterbury PU teams of 95 would have been very similar to that of the pro Blues/Hurricanes/Crusaders 96.
Quit talking shit
The Blues had a couple of very important inclusions from Counties.
The Chiefs had a Waikato (and northland) forward pack and a harbour backline.
This was not the same and you are talking shit.
-
96 hurricanes were nothing like a 95 Wellington clone.
Were a proper LNI team. 2nd div players playing super rugby. Such as Cullen, Hewitt, Hansen, Randle, Ranby, Konia, Chresten Davis. In fact Bruiser Hansen might have even been 3rd div
Was awesome.
-
Great chat by Keo and Zels here about head contact/red cards etc with David Kriels recent red at the forefront.
I think these two lads are the best pundits on the circuit in 2024.
Humour, good feel for the game, relatable to the average punter , little bit of trolling, but with a genuine love for the sport underneath it all.
