Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby:
@NTA Wouldn't it be 3 1/2 hours and 5 1/2 hours flying time from NZ, then add in checking in, waiting time etc? Are there direct Akl-Per flights? Which I assume would stop in Sydney, but ones where they don't have to go through customs etc.
I think there are direct flights AKL-PER but haven't looked. And yes, I'm just talking time from takeoff to touchdown. MEL-PER is 4h10m according to QANTAS but I think it is a bit shorter going west to east because physics
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby:
@NTA Wouldn't it be 3 1/2 hours and 5 1/2 hours flying time from NZ, then add in checking in, waiting time etc? Are there direct Akl-Per flights? Which I assume would stop in Sydney, but ones where they don't have to go through customs etc.
I think there are direct flights AKL-PER but haven't looked. And yes, I'm just talking time from takeoff to touchdown. MEL-PER is 4h10m according to QANTAS but I think it is a bit shorter going west to east because physics
Yeah, it's always quicker going Oz - NZ than the other way, and when I went to Perth I think it was over 5 - 5 1/2 heading there, and under 5 heading back. One of my mates went on Qantas and they were quicker than virgin.
-
@Snowy said in Aussie Rugby:
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
even if the backline was store-bought from league (Rogers, Tuqiri, Sailor).
There in lies the problem. Buying backs for starters, then you did it from league FFS.
Was that because there wasn't the depth? Or just a desperate attempt to attract crowds with big name signings?
Marketing probably.
If you didn't have extra teams in Aus they might not have had to do that and be more financially successful, as well as on the field.
I'm not following you there, mainly because of timing. Remember that around this time we had dozens of players offshore because they weren't able to get professional contracts here in the 3-team system. The Force didn't come into being until 2006.
This was all prior to 2003 RWC - the profits from which we pissed away rather than strengthening our junior systems and club pathways to the point where we didn't need an NRC.
I'm not suggesting any of this is easy, or that we'd be able to turn the Force into competition winners in the first two years. But if we are forced to cut a team (again) it will have dire consequences for the sport here.
-
@NTA Yeah aware of the timing. I'm not sure about the dire consequences though. 3 good teams might be better than 5 shit ones? Create a better competition? A more marketable product is the object. As you correctly pointed out the travel is also an issue for the force.
Losing players overseas is a problem for all of us, so going to discount that - it wasn't because you didn't have enough teams, but the money was better elsewhere. We all have to live with that.
-
@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.
I've flown Auckland to Perth before and it was a ~7 h flight.
The AFL survives in WA with travel across Aust. Are all the Eagles and Dockers players local?
-
@Snowy I think this is what NZers just can't fathom. The damage to the (already diminishing) popularity of Rugby here following the most recent dramas, particularly cutting of the Force and the Folau saga, was palpable. Cutting another team really could genuinely turn rugby terminal. I would be extraordinarily surprised if we ever agreed to it, and i think we will push very hard to include Twiggy at every turn.
You may be right in that we would be more competitive now if we never expanded. But it's just too late to say 'welp wind it all back'. That ship has sailed. If we cut a team now - the majority of those players will simply leave.
And besides - the idea that two squads combined dramatically improves them doesn't seem self evident to me. It's not like having Harrison and Toomua in the same squad suddenly means we've got Beauden Barrett. When the Rebels and the Force effectively combined following the cutting of the Force, the Rebels stayed exactly as shit as they were.
-
@Derpus I am genuinely not having a crack at you guys here. Aus rugby being strong is good for us too.
I just want a good competition and diluting talent is an issue. Even the mighty AKL side of the late 80's was weakened when we had the North Harbour split (and Harbour weren't good either).
Good coaching and selection is a part of your last comment, and competition between players is pretty well recognised as improving performance throughout a squad.
-
It's clear looking back to the advent of Super 14 that including additional teams in Australia has not been a success. The Force managed to come as high as seventh in Super 14. There's been 19 teams involved in Super Rugby since 2006 and the Force have the sixth worst points differential of all of them accounting for seasons played. Not including this years domestic SR (where they currently have a points difference of -117 after six games), they finished with -1035.
2011 the Rebels are included and the best they've done is eighth - the year after the Force was dropped. The have the worst points differential for any Australian team.
-
@antipodean Yep. We are not making this stuff up.
-
-
The Blues has been NZ's worst team for some time, and still has a positive win-loss record against Australian teams both home and away. Whatever is going on there, our worst team is still substantially better than Australia's worst team.
However, I'm always a fan of watching us smash Aussie teams, so have as many as you want.
-
-
-
@Godder said in Aussie Rugby:
However, I'm always a fan of watching us smash Aussie teams, so have as many as you want.
The problem is Australians don't. So if history repeats itself they bring nothing of benefit to the competition and in fact make it worse for Australians by diluting their existing teams. I don't know why they want this.
-
@Derpus said in Aussie Rugby:
@Snowy But you are entirely missing the point. Cutting a team isn't going to happen.
I'm not missing the point. We are discussing the relative merits of extra teams in the competition. Are you RA and involved in the dialogue?
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
The problem is Australians don't. So if history repeats itself they bring nothing of benefit to the competition and in fact make it worse for Australians by diluting their existing teams. I don't know why they want this.
Amen.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby:
@Derpus said in Aussie Rugby:
@Godder 'NZ are the best at rugby'. My world view has been shattered.
I'm shocked we will even be allowed to have 1 team, TBH
fuck you Aussies are funny
Maybe 4 teams is the best for what your talent levels are?
Oh, so we have only 8 good players in the whole country aye?
You already dropped the force. For good reasons. In their entire history they've added fuck all except a place for kiwi and saffer expats to watch code.
They don't produce players, they pick up what every other team in Australasia don't want.
-
Also, you guys see Michael Cheika is on the Roosters coaching staff?
-
@mariner4life said in Aussie Rugby:
Also, you guys see Michael Cheika is on the Roosters coaching staff?
Now THAT is actually funny.
