'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 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.
-
@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.
We can't sustain eight teams, further diluted by whoever signs for the PI team. 20 years ago, yes. But look at the level of the replacements coming into SR squads now: it fucking scares me.
-
@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.
We need elite not even.
I don’t get the Aussie angst over “cutting” the force.
The Force got cut from Super rugby a couple of years ago.
By Rugby Australia. Them playing in this years Aust comp doesn’t give them automatic entry back into super rugby. Just like it wouldn’t have if the Sunwolves played in the Aust comp like was being discussed.5x NZ plus 4x Aus makes sense to start with.
The Aussie teams will be competitive over time, NZ teams have lost a fair bit of depth since there was that 30-40 game streak of Aust teams not beating NZ ones.I don’t like the proposed Pacific team idea for many reasons.
-
-
-
@Machpants said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Tim is good that Jewish are keen in some way, and happy to shift stuff around
Auto correct I assume?
-
@Rapido said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
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).
CANZ was not played in 1991, and resumed in 1992 when North Harbour was involved along with Waikato, North Auckland, Otago and Canada. Super 10 took over from 1993.
-
@Nepia said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Machpants said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Tim is good that Jewish are keen in some way, and happy to shift stuff around
Auto correct I assume?
@Nepia said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Machpants said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Tim is good that Jewish are keen in some way, and happy to shift stuff around
Auto correct I assume?
The Japanese aren't Jewish? Learn something every day
-
-
By going for teams at a state/territory level, Aus never left themselves well suited for expansion in the old Super Rugby format.
If you step back and look at it dispassionately, expanding to Victoria and WA makes no sense, rather than a second Sydney team etc.
To have 40% of your teams as 'expansion' projects is a bit crazy.
Expanding to those locations would make sense if they were the 15th club in your league (like NRL and AFL expansion state teams), not your 4th.
-
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark Well it was entertaining which is the sole purpose of SR. If we can have entertaining rugby playing alone, why deprive an entire state of a team so that you lot have someone you deem suitable? It's a pretty good reason to go it alone.
In all seriousness, how do you think crowd and viewership numbers would go in an all-Aussie double round robin, compared to games vs the Crusaders, Hurricanes and Blues?
-
Really don't see the point of the Rebels. Melbourne is an Aussie Rules, League and Soccer town. There are only 25 Rugby clubs in Victoria
They've never challenged for the silverware and never made the playoffs. Their record is 15th, 13th, 12th, 15th, 10th, 12th, 18th, 9th, 11th
-
@sparky yep terrible on the pitch, but they're in a truly significant market and my understanding is they're well backed by corporates. Additionally, Victoria has turned out some decent players. So there's potential there.
I always liked the concept of the Rebels. Love Melbourne, great name, good stadium. I'd have gone along and adopted them had I still been living there when they entered the comp.
-
-
@NTA said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Aussie Rules, League and Soccer town
Not even League, really. The Adelaide Rams were better supported.
Than the storm? Really? If so maybe we should take that as a sign, one of the most successful teams in recent memory can’t even get good support
