The future of NZ Rugby
-
@kev said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@Nepia NPC is the competition that matters. It is the competition that has made NZ rugby great. Take that away and in 20 years we will be like Scotland. We can’t compete with those that have more money.
You do realise that the NPC only started in like the late 1970s. For much of the tile between then and the start of Super Rugby, the ABs were shit, being regularly beaten by the Aussies. Since the advent of Super Rugby, our overall winning % has increased, we’ve won like 3 Grand Slams, won 2 world cups and had many other significant achievements (such as blanking the Lions and winning in RSA for the first time)
-
@junior NPC was only one form of provincial based rugby that together with club rugby that has provided a wide base for success at the top over a very long period of time. More importantly Rugby In NZ because of its high participation rates has enjoyed a very privileged position in NZ society. You remove support for that wide base and the layers in between and you will (have been) ruin the long term future of the sport. Any short term success will be overtaken by impacts of reduced participation.
The problem Rugby has is it is paying its professional players too much. You have Clubs all around the world living beyond their means and inflating salaries for players. It’s just like the housing market. The fundamentals aren’t there and World Rugby needs to manage the game.
-
@kev said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@junior NPC was only one form of provincial based rugby that together with club rugby that has provided a wide base for success at the top over a very long period of time. More importantly Rugby In NZ because of its high participation rates has enjoyed a very privileged position in NZ society. You remove support for that wide base and the layers in between and you will (have been) ruin the long term future of the sport. Any short term success will be overtaken by impacts of reduced participation.
The problem Rugby has is it is paying its professional players too much. You have Clubs all around the world living beyond their means and inflating salaries for players. It’s just like the housing market. The fundamentals aren’t there and World Rugby needs to manage the game.
Would love to see stats on this versus other sports. I imagine cricketers would take a greater % for themselves than rugby players but could be wrong. Even if you are right, it's hard to know what to do about it.
-
Also, NZR are an incorporated society, which means they can't operate for the pecuniary gain of members, which are the provincial unions in their case. In English, that means NZR can't just run at a profit and distribute cash to the unions, they have to pay the unions for services rendered, like junior coaching, staff, players, equipment etc. That will also shape the outcome of any review.
-
-
The Rugby Championship will be revamped in 2021 with an old-fashioned tour theme being injected that will see the All Blacks play the Springboks at home only every other year.
The shift in format will put an end to the All Blacks having to travel to both Argentina and South Africa in one calendar year.
Instead, they will play two home tests against one of the Pumas or Boks and two away tests against the other.
The Wallabies will do the same in mirror image, with the fixtures reversing the next year to ensure that whichever side the All Blacks played at home in 2021 they play away in 2022.
Australia and New Zealand will continue to play each other home and away as will South Africa and Argentina.
-
Here is a link to an accessible article
Rugby Championship set for significant revamp next year
The Rugby Championship is set for its first overhaul since Argentina was admitted into the competition eight years ago.
-
This will make the competition really change - two away tests against the Boks is a massive task, versus two away against Argentina. Playing each team once plus each getting longer tours from NH sides would have been better way of doing things, and of course, adding Japan and Fiji.
-
@gt12 said in The future of NZ Rugby:
This will make the competition really change - two away tests against the Boks is a massive task, versus two away against Argentina. Playing each team once plus each getting longer tours from NH sides would have been better way of doing things, and of course, adding Japan and Fiji.
just realised, though, that it makes a tour worthwhile again. 10 days in Argentina or SA, 2 AB tests away from home, plus maybe a midweek game. Would be awesome fun!
-
"The added bonus of making the Rugby Championship a more difficult competition to win by reverting the number of annual matches to just four per side is also a prominent factor in the scheduling overhaul."
That is totaly wrong, there is still the same number of matches. RP/NZH can't count, muppets.
-
Still think they would have been better off following the 6N format, where you still play each team, but alternate home and away each year.
Only having the Boks 1 time in NZ every other year would mean those ones when they are here more significant again.
But I guess thats the point, lets just do something different and see how that works?
-
Rugby: SANZAAR faces axe as details of NZ Rugby's 'Aratipu' review emerge (video in article)
Southern hemisphere rugby could be set for a major shakeup , with doubts emerging over the ongoing existence of SANZAAR. Sources tell Newshub that the governing body could disband altogether to leave international unions to go it alone, in one of a handful of key recommendations to come from the 'Aratipu' report commissioned by New Zealand Rugby in April. Newshub can reveal that SANZAAR's days of running the competition appear to be over from next year. As it stands, Super Rugby involves teams from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Argentina. The draft 'Aratipu' review recommends major changes from 2021 - namely a trans- Ta$man competition with the addition of a team from the Pacific. Without teams from South Africa and Argentina, SANZAAR's governance of the competition would inevitably cease. The proposed changes to the competition have been welcomed by those involved. "As long as it keeps the qualities that are making this competition really successful," says Blues coach Leon MacDonald. "Strong teams right across the board, strong games... there's a little bit of a recipe here that as long as they don't deviate too far away from would be well received." But the 'Aratipu' review highlights the need for Super Rugby to be a feeder into something with much broader international appeal. It's understood that is what's seen as the missing piece to the Super Rugby puzzle and was identified by review chair Don Mackinnon from the outset. "Do we look at a Heineken cup type playoff model in the short to medium term whereby we're looking at the best of the best playing," Mackinnon queried at the announcement of the review in April. Crusaders coach Scott Robertson has also expressed his desire for there to be something more for the Super Rugby winners. "I love the idea of how we can connect up if we have a competition down here and then we can link to the north, that would make it pretty special," Robertson suggested in May. SANZAAR's sole purpose moving forward would be to oversee the Rugby Championship. But Tuesday's developments suggest that after quarter of a century, southern hemisphere rugby's united front could soon be over.So, really not that much more than we already knew.
-
-
@mofitzy_ I suspect the Jaguares would have no other option than joining the Súper Liga Americana de Rugby, if that competition survives. I can't see them joining the MLR, which probably has a slightly higher standard of rugby. The Jags would dominate both competitions though, even if they lose all their best players to Europe ....
-
Just a few thoughts on the PI team.
If the PI team would be based in Suva (or Nukuʻalofa, or Apia), the independence from the PI unions and governments should first be guaranteed. There now is too much corruption and political influence in rugby overthere. You don't want the situation in which a president or minister can sack a coach or influence selections, or do a money grab and players not getting paid.
Also, wherever the PI franchise would be based, they'd also need some guarantees that the non-PI franchises don't lure the most talented players away from the PI franchise, if these non-PI franchises would be richer and could pay players more. At the same time, you'd want some guarantees that the PI franchise first and foremost selects players from the Islands, and doesn't drain the player pool in NZ (and Oz). Otherwise, you'd get the same effect as a 6th NZ franchise would have, without any benefit to the local, PI player development.
Maybe there'd need to be a foreign player cap, just like NZ now has (with having PI heritage not automatically making you a domestic player)? This needs some more thought, obviously.
-
I disagree on your caps and nationalities thing. One PI team based there is not going to make a big impact on players in NZ and Oz, or thethree international teams of the PI Nations. Super rugby doesn't need those sort of blocks, is not international rugby and you need freedom for players to choose where to play. It's also pro rugby, so you're right in that the governance just be informant off the corrupt PI RUs, otherwise we'll have murdering Bros on three board!
