'Super Rugby' 2021
-
Yeah of all the options floating around the best and easiest to get sorted would be to keep Aust and NZ seperate 5 team comps then split that off into two tiers of shorter “post season” comps.
That or we just say fuck everyone else and add an extra round of games to Rugby Aotearoa with the third game between each team to be played at a regional venue or in the pacific islands. Then everything can be re-assessed when we know what the world is going to look like after 2021.
-
right now, as a Chiefs fan, i miss the days where, when things got hard, we got a nice run of games against Aus and SA sides to jag some wins and some form. Bring it all back i say...
-
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Machpants said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Problem is that SR money is very much tied to the SR names, especially overseas (a large portion of the cash). Sky don't want, and neither do the punters, the NPC revived. We'd go financially down the gurgler even faster with that idea. So I don;t see it coming back as NZ premier comp until such a point all our best players are overseas and being picked by ABs
I'm talking about 2021 and 2021 only. Not a long term solution, but one to fill a significant void in the absence of a legitimate franchise comp.
I like this too, but what would you do with the super franchise costs while this was running? They would effectively be mothballed for two years.
Maybe an option would be for the superbases to take on the five "weakest" teams to bolster the standard? Blues with Northland, Highlanders with Southland, Chiefs with Waikato (couldn't resist), etc.
Then the Auckland, Canterbury, Wellingtons of the world run as normal but with their SR players?
-
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
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.
Really? How many know there are two different types of Rugby?
(Am a little late to this thread ... catching up slowly.)
-
@booboo i know i'm continuously explaining the difference between Union and League to well meaning aussies when they try engage in some rugby chat, thats melbourne thought
-
@mariner4life said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
right now, as a Chiefs fan, i miss the days where, when things got hard, we got a nice run of games against Aus and SA sides to jag some wins and some form. Bring it all back i say...
Gatland has reversed the Cooper playbook of starting off shit and then coming good, he started good and then got really really really shit.
-
Safety first in the short-term, but be ambitious in the long-term.
My preference now would be a second season of Super Rugby Aotearoa in 2021.
Then Super Rugby 12 2.0 in 2022 (hopefully Covid will be in retreat by that time). Five NZ teams, Five Aus franchises, a franchise in Hong Kong, a franchise in Hawaii. Sponsors and broadcasters will love it. Everyone plays each other once. Semis, then finals. 69 Games in 13 weeks.
-
-
-
-
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@sparky I thought any player is capped at a maximum of 30 games per year? (dont quote me)
69 Games total. No player would play more than 13 games of Super Rugby a year, allowing for involvement in Internationals, Tours, North Vs South games and even the NPC.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@booboo i know i'm continuously explaining the difference between Union and League to well meaning aussies when they try engage in some rugby chat, thats melbourne thought
But they know they're different sports. And I'm sure they know which one has an international profile and which doesn't. Explaining the difference is something else entirely. The point is, I reckon if the Storm and the Rebels each played a final at the MCG; the Storm vs the Roosters and the Rebels vs the Crusaders - with the proviso that they're equally well marketed - the latter would draw a much larger crowd because the game has an international profile and that would spin their wheels hard. Likewise a BC test vs a Kiwis vs Kangaroos test. And lastly, if you asked your average Victorian which of the two Australia national sides they knew of, the vast majority would say the Wallabies.
-
i dont know if i agree with that, lots aren’t 100% that they are different sports, not with the people i talk too, I think they identify with the club approach like the nrl rather than the region approach or rugby
even if they did i dont know if international sport is an attraction...Melbournians love the AFL even thought its barely followed outside Melbourne let alone aus
-
I lived in Melbourne in 2002 and 2003. There was a buzz around the city in 2003 for the RWC. The All Blacks were based there and drew a lot of media attention. The locals curiosity was piqued, beyond a doubt. And then you look at the crowds that have been drawn to BC and Lions tests. Huge travelling contingents for sure, but plenty of local fans as well.
-
@shark I agree with this. I think there are loads of latent fans that just switched off because Rugby management in Aus couldnt run a piss up in a brothel and it's been run into the ground. If we could:
a) get our best players back;
b) get the bigger games on FTA with effective marketing;
c) win the occasional thing; and
d) deport Phil Kearnsthe crowds would come back, and quickly.
Only 20 years ago that the Bled was played in front of 110k.
-
@shark i think a lot has changed in the last 17 years, we're talking about a time when Aussies teams we're up there, the brumbies won it in 2001 and 2004 plus obviously the WC so i bet there was a bit of hype
the A-League has started since then and now had three teams in melbourne, one of which is the comps most successful team so that draws off a bit of winter support too
i think short of the Rebels actually being a contender...marketing might not be enough nd even
-
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@booboo i know i'm continuously explaining the difference between Union and League to well meaning aussies when they try engage in some rugby chat, thats melbourne thought
But they know they're different sports. And I'm sure they know which one has an international profile and which doesn't. Explaining the difference is something else entirely. The point is, I reckon if the Storm and the Rebels each played a final at the MCG; the Storm vs the Roosters and the Rebels vs the Crusaders - with the proviso that they're equally well marketed - the latter would draw a much larger crowd because the game has an international profile and that would spin their wheels hard. Likewise a BC test vs a Kiwis vs Kangaroos test. And lastly, if you asked your average Victorian which of the two Australia national sides they knew of, the vast majority would say the Wallabies.
Yes, this is quite true, but less so in the last 10 years or so. In any event, people still won't care for a domestic rugby team, in the way that they can for an international team, because the domestic team plays (a) far more often and (b) often at the same times as an AFL game, both of which are a potential distraction from a Victorian's true passion, i.e. their AFL team.
