Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@Kiap said in Aussie Rugby:
@mariner4life said in Aussie Rugby:
Yeah we totally need the force in super rugby...
Force need recruitment.
Have a higher upside ceiling than alternates.
Based on their entire history this statement is pretty much bullshit
-
I'll stick up for them.
They were thrust into this SuperAU competition at the last minute, and forced to move across the other side of the country where they have been for about two months now.
A number of their recruits have been last minute rush jobs (Lance, Prior, Kahui) and on top of that they've had a bad injury toll (which I'm sure can be attributed partly to the circumstances they are in).
In the last two weeks the wheels have fallen off a bit, but before then they have been competitive every week.
I don't think they will be a Super powerhouse but it's also pretty harsh to judge them on this competition, which has been stacked against them from the beginning.
-
No, that's fair.
But they had good crowds and support throughout, and they did have a few years where they put out top 10 sides. I think they had a 6th one year.
Sure that was in the early days of the team, but they have had some success over the years.
-
I have followed the Force through GRR and Super rugby. I am staggered and pleased at how competitive they have been up to this week with all the disadvantages sent their way. The other teams had first choice of the players for pete's sake, and they have challenges re travel and preparation time. Have any of the TSF critics been to Perth and seen how strongly the locals support their sports teams?
My background is in community sport delivery and I am saddened by the people who focus on pooling all resources to the top of the tree for their own gratification, while dismissing as unworthy of being opponents, the teams and areas that will provide their competition in the next decade if development pathways there are supported. -
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby:
they did have a few years where they put out top 10 sides
If there are only ten teams though...
They were 7th in 2007, would have been Super 14 then I think, so just made the top half. A couple of wins over the Crusaders over the years which makes most of us a little more fond of them.
-
@ARHS said in Aussie Rugby:
Have any of the TSF critics been to Perth and seen how strongly the locals support their sports teams?
Yes, and I know several of the previous season ticket holders for the Force - they were all South African( but whatever) they were still Force supporters and I did go to a match with them in Perth many years ago. Can't even remember the opposition but the Force lost.
Having teams making up the numbers isn't a great idea for a competition just because they have passionate supporters.
-
Short memories.
The Highlanders and Chiefs were shit (and boring) for years but were still allowed to play. The Blues were fucking kidding themselves for long periods.
Nobody is saying the Reds can't be in a new 10 team comp, despite them having a decade of utter dross up until their title, then shitting the bed after.
If, and it is admittedly a big if, RA get their shit together and we start seeing some genuine support for all the Aussie teams, the Force will be fine.
However, geography is against them. And it would need RA to start using Twiggy's money wisely #faust
-
@NTA Not really Nick. Highlanders results aren't that bad.
The Chiefs had a few good results:
Force average a little over 5 wins per season. Highlanders a little under 7. Chiefs 9.75. Different sample sizes given the Force only had ten years or so, but that was the expanded ten years where there were weaker teams too (Cheetahs, Kings, early Jags). If I just do those ten years it will look even worse.
-
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
Nobody is saying the Reds can't be in a new 10 team comp, despite them having a decade of utter dross up until their title, then shitting the bed after.
Just going to come back to this - quite a few of those years were after the Force and then Rebels were introduced into the comp. A couple of good years in between for the Reds.
Correlation? Depth issues? They might well have been a bit better if the player pool wasn't spread so thin? The 'Tahs probably would have been better too. The Brumbies are actually an outlier in Aussie rugby, pretty consistently good, but latter years finals appearances distorted by automatic qualification due to conference system.
-
@Bovidae They will lose players regardless - they are all being told to shrink their salary cap by sizeable margins.
The Force can become competitive pretty easily if Twiggy opens the cheque book. Bring in McMahon, Skelton, the two Arnolds, Latu, Kerevi, any of the 400 professional outside backs in Europe and Japan, etc.
They could very easily go from the worst team to the best. Don't see it happening though.
I still don't see the Force being shit as a problem. No comp is without whipping boys. And if they draw crowds and Twiggy investment who gives a fuck if they suck.
-
@Snowy said in Aussie Rugby:
The 'Tahs probably would have been better too.
The Tahs have been utter fucking pretenders for 20 years out of the competition - before AND after introduction of Force and then Rebels.
So it is less about player depth than politics, back office, and org structure.
-
@Bovidae said in Aussie Rugby:
If the Force are to continue RA needs to ensure there is a more even distribution of players but will the other 4 teams be prepared to lose players for the greater good? The Rebels already took their best players.
I think you also need to factor in that Perth is a fucking long way from anywhere, which is distinctly unattractive to players who are at the top of the pyramid and want to be close to home, family, and familiar things.
Also flight times:
Auckland to Dunners is what - 2 hours?
Melbourne to Perth is double that - which is your nearest game in the competition.
Sydney or Brisbane 5 hours.
Add on another 2-3 for NZ depending on where you route.
Canberra you can't even go direct so add a few hours on top. -
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
@Snowy said in Aussie Rugby:
The 'Tahs probably would have been better too.
The Tahs have been utter fucking pretenders for 20 years out of the competition - before AND after introduction of Force and then Rebels.
So it is less about player depth than politics, back office, and org structure.
Fair call, the Blues have certainly been there, but would the Tahs have been better if they had some depth? Good players scattered around the country but not playing in the same teams was my point.
@Derpus Yes you do produce plenty of talent, which is why the Wallabies are mostly there or thereabouts with most international teams. A few injuries though and things can look a bit sparse.
-
@Snowy said in Aussie Rugby:
Fair call, the Blues have certainly been there, but would the Tahs have been better if they had some depth? Good players scattered around the country but not playing in the same teams was my point.
In the early 2000s they had one of the highest paid rosters probably anywhere in the world, even if the backline was store-bought from league (Rogers, Tuqiri, Sailor). Burned bright in the first 5-6 rounds then died as their shortcomings in organisation and cohesion were undone.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
@Bovidae said in Aussie Rugby:
If the Force are to continue RA needs to ensure there is a more even distribution of players but will the other 4 teams be prepared to lose players for the greater good? The Rebels already took their best players.
I think you also need to factor in that Perth is a fucking long way from anywhere, which is distinctly unattractive to players who are at the top of the pyramid and want to be close to home, family, and familiar things.
Also flight times:
Auckland to Dunners is what - 2 hours?
Melbourne to Perth is double that - which is your nearest game in the competition.
Sydney or Brisbane 5 hours.
Add on another 2-3 for NZ depending on where you route.
Canberra you can't even go direct so add a few hours on top.Agree with that and probably why they got chosen to be dropped.
Highlanders (rugby union) - Wikipedia
