'Super Rugby' 2021
-
It would be nice if NZ, OZ, Japan, and the Pacific islands got together and tried to make a ‘premium’ competition with a second tier below it, but with some system for teams to move from the top tier to second tier, and vice versa (maybe not in the initial years, but after a couple of iterations).
Perhaps two tiers of 8 teams, such as the following:
Super 8: NZ teams, 3 Oz teams
Pacific 8: 2 Oz, 1 Pacific, 5 Japan -
@gt12 problem is with two tier comps is no one and no money goes to 2nd tier, you've got to share revenue or prop up the tier below. All the quality players and money go to the top tier, look how often newly promoted premiership teams go straight back down. Not always, but very common
-
Let Aussie have five, we go up to eight, add one PI to make it 14.
That will even up the comp, consolidate the NPC and Super Rugby to make it sustainable, and go back to provinces.
Let Aussie build depth, let’s more players in NZ actually play instead of sitting on stacked benches.
-
when rugby was amatuer we had the Super 10 and CANZ
Super 10 was Auckland, Natal, Samoa, Queensland, Otago, TRansvaal, NSW, Noth Transvaal, NH & Waikato (not a cantab in sight
)I cant recall the specific teams for the CANZ but was otrher NZ provincial teams, and Canada and Argentina
Back when it was thought Canada would become a major player in rugby!
-
@gt12 said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
It would be nice if NZ, OZ, Japan, and the Pacific islands got together and tried to make a ‘premium’ competition with a second tier below it, but with some system for teams to move from the top tier to second tier, and vice versa (maybe not in the initial years, but after a couple of iterations).
Perhaps two tiers of 8 teams, such as the following:
Super 8: NZ teams, 3 Oz teams
Pacific 8: 2 Oz, 1 Pacific, 5 JapanMaybe a "secondary" comp like the euro cup that runs either during and after or just after?
-
@Kirwan said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Let Aussie have five, we go up to eight, add one PI to make it 14.
That will even up the comp, consolidate the NPC and Super Rugby to make it sustainable, and go back to provinces.
Let Aussie build depth, let’s more players in NZ actually play instead of sitting on stacked benches.
NZ can barely afford 5 fully professional teams.
And 5 teams works well for NZ. NZ has been disadvantaged while SA and Aust muck around with more teams than they can support. How about Aust doing the right thing for our combined rugby once again (as they did starting out)
-
-
@Kirwan I think the counter argument you'll get is 'it dilutes the 'quality' too much and won't effectively prepare ABs'. Which goes to the root of the issue, SR is just an AB factory for NZ. It's not about running an effective comp in it's right.
-
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@gt12 Rugby in Japan is a corporate ego trip - Eddy Jones left because he said they have no real interest in progressing rugby over there. I can't see them participating in any major way - particularly the corporate owned teams.
Thanks, I don’t know anything about rugby in Japan.
-
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Kirwan said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Let Aussie have five, we go up to eight, add one PI to make it 14.
That will even up the comp, consolidate the NPC and Super Rugby to make it sustainable, and go back to provinces.
Let Aussie build depth, let’s more players in NZ actually play instead of sitting on stacked benches.
NZ can barely afford 5 fully professional teams.
And 5 teams works well for NZ. NZ has been disadvantaged while SA and Aust muck around with more teams than they can support. How about Aust doing the right thing for our combined rugby once again (as they did starting out)
Can if we make the NPC amateur
-
@taniwharugby said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
when rugby was amatuer we had the Super 10 and CANZ
It all started with the South Pacific Championship and Super 6, which had 3 x NZ, 2 x Aust and Fiji.
Super 10 was Auckland, Natal, Samoa, Queensland, Otago, TRansvaal, NSW, Noth Transvaal, NH & Waikato (not a cantab in sight
)I cant recall the specific teams for the CANZ but was otrher NZ provincial teams, and Canada and Argentina
They were Argentinean clubs too, like San Isidro and Banco Nacionale.
-
@Kirwan said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Winger said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Kirwan said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Let Aussie have five, we go up to eight, add one PI to make it 14.
That will even up the comp, consolidate the NPC and Super Rugby to make it sustainable, and go back to provinces.
Let Aussie build depth, let’s more players in NZ actually play instead of sitting on stacked benches.
NZ can barely afford 5 fully professional teams.
And 5 teams works well for NZ. NZ has been disadvantaged while SA and Aust muck around with more teams than they can support. How about Aust doing the right thing for our combined rugby once again (as they did starting out)
Can if we make the NPC amateur
I'm all over that. A rep comp for club players
-
@taniwharugby said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Super 10 was Auckland, Natal, Samoa, Queensland, Otago, TRansvaal, NSW, Noth Transvaal, NH & Waikato (not a cantab in sight
)Are you sure? Too lazy to look it up, but my (somewhat hazy) memory tells me Canterbury were involved at some point.
-
@Crazy-Horse that's who google said it was, but I thought Northland was part of CANZ at one point but no mention of Northland so there you go...I might have to hunt out the old programme I have from when we played one of the Arg sides.
-
@taniwharugby said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Crazy-Horse that's who google said it was, but I thought Northland was part of CANZ at one point but no mention of Northland so there either...I might have to hunt out the old programme I have from when we played one of the Arg sides.
The SPC, started 1986, which changed name later to Super 6. Was closed shop private 'ring fenced' tournament of Auckland, Wellington, Canterbury, NSW, Qld, Fiji.
Made sense in 86 and 87, but by 1989 both Wellington and Canterbury were awful and Waikato and Otago couldn't get in.
Was seen as huge recruiting shamateurism advantage for these 3 provinces to capture the urban drift.
CANZ started in 1989. Movers were Otago and Waikato. 3rd expected team was North Harbour, but they declined, and North Auckland were included instead. Canada and the 2 Argentine clubs mentioned by Bovidae made up the 6.
Argentines lasted only 1 year. Then it was just 4 teams. Competition ran 89 , 90, can't remember how many years after that (e.g. if ran in 91 and 92).
1993, Super 10 started. Was merit based for NZ and Saf and Pacific teams. Top 4 Currie Cup, top 3 NPC, winner of Pacific Cup, plus the 2 Aussie states.
Was bankrolled by SAF tv money, hence the most teams. Plus final was guaranteed to be played in SAF if a Saf team made the final.
Fiji never played in it. Was Samoa twice and then Tonga in 95. Dont think Canterbury or Wellington were ever good enough to make NPC top 3 in those years. Auckland, Harbour, Waikato, Otago did.
Remember Samoa playing at least some, if not all, home games at Athletics configured Mt Smart stadium. Where as back in the SPC days, Fiji always played home games in Suva.
-
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
The Blues finished 14th in 2018 and 13th in 2019. Should they have been labelled 'uncompetitive' and blocked from the competition?
If memory serves, one year they also finished on more points than an Australian QF qualifier but due to the diabolical conference system were excluded to the benefit of possibly the Brumbies. All things being equal that year, the Blues should have made the finals which would have been - I think - all five Kiwi teams in an eight team finals series. And that was without beating a NZ side. This was post RWC 2015, when all SH countries had been pillaged by NH clubs, not just Australia. This is one of many tangible examples of how even five eroded NZ franchises can be supported, and five Australian franchises is a shit idea.
-
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Setting all of this aside - you still haven't really provided a compelling reason why we should accept cutting a team. Even assuming the 'competitiveness' argument is valid. That really only benefits NZ. Why would Australia compromise?
The Force-Reds game last night was fantastic and they are both typically on the lower end of the scale. I just don't see any point in agreeing to cut someone.
Great. The Force and Reds are as bad as each other, so they created a contest. This is a truly compelling argument for five Australian teams.
