'Super Rugby' 2021
-
@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
-
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
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
I agree with this. The Rebels came to the party far too late. the AFL is a juggernaut and captures so much of the public's attention in Melbourne that even a super successful franchise like the Storm - which I understand loses money year after year and always has done - barely gets a mention or crowd. Truth is, most rugby people in Melbourne are going to support a Kiwi franchise over the Rebels anyway and the others all supported the Brumbies for the 15+ years of SR before the Rebels came along. Seriously, no one in Melbourne will notice or care if the Rebels are disbanded.
-
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@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.
Yes, everything is there in theory to have a decent franchise with a small, but strong following together with some outside interest as a boutique novelty sport for those who traditionally support AFL. However, it just doesn't work that way in Melbourne and it wouldn't make a difference if the team was really successful - the Storm are evidence of this. (And with the Storm, you've got to remember that much of their fanbase is actually built on Union supporters, with the NRL being the closest thing in town to proper rugby for a very long time.)
You have to put it into the too hard basket now, I think. There's too many vested interest in the overall sporting landscape in Melbourne to allow a rugby union franchise to flourish.
-
I think if the Rebels were to enjoy any significant success at all, they would capture Melbourne's interest. Why, given the wildly successful Storm never has, you ask? Because the Rebels play (played?) in an internationally recognised competition. Melbournites would get that, and get behind them. They know rugby union is a global sport. I don't think they've got behind the Storm because the Storm have simply won titles in a domestic comp in a global minority sport, and one they all regard as significantly inferior to the AFL in stature. Further, league isn't viewed any differently there to how it is in NZ; a sport for boofheads, thugs and lunatics. Rugby on the other hand can be easily supported by corporates and families.
-
This is where RA seem to be at:
Australia to stand firm on five Super teams
The Rugby Australia board will meet on Monday and New Zealand's Super Rugby invitation is high on the agenda.
Fair dinkum crossroads: Australia to stand firm on five Super teams
Rugby Australia is hardening its resolve around a five-team Super Rugby future despite New Zealand's unilateral invitation to contribute as few as two to next year's competition.
An RA board meeting will on Monday discuss New Zealand Rugby's Aratipu review, which was released on Friday with a pitch for an eight- or 10-team competition, including its own five sides and a Pasifika team.
Later this week RA boss Rob Clarke will take an operational call from his Kiwi counterparts to discuss in more detail the review and what NZR has in mind for the future of the trans- Ta$man partnership.
But RA chairman Hamish McLennan said Australia was firm on defending its five-team footprint - the Waratahs, Reds, Rebels, Brumbies and Force - and would continue to explore striking out on its own with an Argentinian, Japanese and South African flavour.
"We're looking at two plans, one with the Kiwis and one without. The call as I understand it, between [NZR boss] Mark Robinson and Rob [Clarke] was quite perfunctory," McLennan said.
"It's pretty obvious to me that we have the chance to build the best professional competition in the world together, with a bit of a twist, so I hope they can seize the opportunity. As countries we are best alone, better together."
