Super Rugby Trans Tasman
-
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean i have to disagree, rugby in aus is just in a completely different situation than in NZ, they actually need to grow interest and grow fans that will still watch team when theyre not winning, Nz fan just want the best rugby, finding something that fixes both is going to tough if not impossible
How does RA grow the game playing amongst themselves?
do we really need to mix thing up? top five NPC teams play in a trans Ta$man comp but we keep SRA for the higher level. most people seemed to think playing the aussie teams wasn;t doing much for our top players other than risking injury...but it might help younger NPC level guys
How does RA get better playing substandard opposition? What happens when they come up against good teams?
...it grows interest, as it did during SRAU, more people watched that than SRTT games.
What we're not privy to is discernible markers of this increased interest - crowd numbers, memberships, supporter gear purchases etc.
isn't that a very oldschool approach, hasn't tv demand and associated revenue long surpassed those turning up to the ground, especially when talking about a national/international comp and especially especially during covid when the rare few that might fly around to watch their team...cant/wont
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean i have to disagree, rugby in aus is just in a completely different situation than in NZ, they actually need to grow interest and grow fans that will still watch team when theyre not winning, Nz fan just want the best rugby, finding something that fixes both is going to tough if not impossible
do we really need to mix thing up? top five NPC teams play in a trans Ta$man comp but we keep SRA for the higher level. most people seemed to think playing the aussie teams wasn;t doing much for our top players other than risking injury...but it might help younger NPC level guys
Players often talk about the relentless nature of the Nz v NZ clashes. Having teams at a lower standard (usually one or two of Oz and SA) gave the players a break in the intensity (and probably the same for the Saffas).
That means our players will last longer. Look at the injury attrition this year.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
do we really need to mix thing up? top five NPC teams play in a trans Ta$man comp but we keep SRA for the higher level. most people seemed to think playing the aussie teams wasn;t doing much for our top players other than risking injury...but it might help younger NPC level guys
I don't see any benefit to NZ rugby. It would only create a greater divide between those top 5 NPC teams and the other 9 NPC teams.
-
@kirwan said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean i have to disagree, rugby in aus is just in a completely different situation than in NZ, they actually need to grow interest and grow fans that will still watch team when theyre not winning, Nz fan just want the best rugby, finding something that fixes both is going to tough if not impossible
do we really need to mix thing up? top five NPC teams play in a trans Ta$man comp but we keep SRA for the higher level. most people seemed to think playing the aussie teams wasn;t doing much for our top players other than risking injury...but it might help younger NPC level guys
Players often talk about the relentless nature of the Nz v NZ clashes. Having teams at a lower standard (usually one or two of Oz and SA) gave the players a break in the intensity (and probably the same for the Saffas).
That means our players will last longer. Look at the injury attrition this year.
100%...but that only work for us, and even then you still risk injury and there was more than one or two call on here for it being a waste of time and aus still see those games as super tough, can we really begrudge them for not being keen?
-
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
do we really need to mix thing up? top five NPC teams play in a trans Ta$man comp but we keep SRA for the higher level. most people seemed to think playing the aussie teams wasn;t doing much for our top players other than risking injury...but it might help younger NPC level guys
I don't see any benefit to NZ rugby. It would only create a greater divide between those top 5 NPC teams and the other 9 NPC teams.
i have gone back a looked at this before and its not the same 5, sure canterbury and auckland are often up there but the other 3 spots has had a really good rotation over the last 10 years
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean i have to disagree, rugby in aus is just in a completely different situation than in NZ, they actually need to grow interest and grow fans that will still watch team when theyre not winning, Nz fan just want the best rugby, finding something that fixes both is going to tough if not impossible
How does RA grow the game playing amongst themselves?
do we really need to mix thing up? top five NPC teams play in a trans Ta$man comp but we keep SRA for the higher level. most people seemed to think playing the aussie teams wasn;t doing much for our top players other than risking injury...but it might help younger NPC level guys
How does RA get better playing substandard opposition? What happens when they come up against good teams?
...it grows interest, as it did during SRAU, more people watched that than SRTT games.
What we're not privy to is discernible markers of this increased interest - crowd numbers, memberships, supporter gear purchases etc.
isn't that a very oldschool approach, hasn't tv demand and associated revenue long surpassed those turning up to the ground, especially when talking about a national/international comp and especially especially during covid when the rare few that might fly around to watch their team...cant/wont
I think we can agree that it's a declining percentage as viewership increases, but there will still, be those who engage/ reengage. I sincerely doubt the Tahs crowds were impacted by covid, rather than their results.
Ultimately it's up to Australians themselves whether they accept that Australian rugby has moved back to its historical mean. There's an awful lot of supporters around my age who expect and yearn for the success they had during the 90s. And they're bitter and angry. For some reason it's New Zealand's fault for not losing more.
-
@antipodean yeah, fair enough
I just think we might need to leave them too it for a while then at a club/domestic level as i think smashing them in 90% of cross over games may do more harm than good. As i said, the hard out rugby guys, guys that couldn't care less about AFL/NRL at my club had no interest in SRTT...so paying for a comp thats doing nothing for rugby in general much be a tough call for RA
-
@kirwan said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean i have to disagree, rugby in aus is just in a completely different situation than in NZ, they actually need to grow interest and grow fans that will still watch team when theyre not winning, Nz fan just want the best rugby, finding something that fixes both is going to tough if not impossible
do we really need to mix thing up? top five NPC teams play in a trans Ta$man comp but we keep SRA for the higher level. most people seemed to think playing the aussie teams wasn;t doing much for our top players other than risking injury...but it might help younger NPC level guys
Players often talk about the relentless nature of the Nz v NZ clashes. Having teams at a lower standard (usually one or two of Oz and SA) gave the players a break in the intensity (and probably the same for the Saffas).
That means our players will last longer. Look at the injury attrition this year.
I actually think this uneven competition with pseudo-byes v the weaklings followed by hell for leather NZ derbies produce bad All Blacks (and bad coaches).
(I could argue that) it results in NZ splunking like crazy with a 110% quarterfinal effort backed up by a 70% effort semifinal.
I'd rather NZ rugby players perfected operating at 85 to 90% for the whole season. Win ugly even when tired or 'un-stimulated'. Playmakers experienced at dragging some mediocre players with them not operating an RS4 on cruise control.
The hollowing out of South African and Australian franchises by NH clubs (and expansion) has changed the landscape, yet we are pretending we can operate like it is still 2001.
-
But I'm biased.
I think NZ and Australia should be operating approx 10 team domestic comps.
With the North v South and NSW v Qld rep games, plus a Champions Cup, counting as the stepping stones to higher intensity test rugby.5 pro teams is bad.
International week-by-week club/franchise comps are bad. -
I would be totally uniterested in a competition involving only the top 5 NPC teams if my team is not one of that top 5. At least with SR franchises there will be players of my NPC team in at least three franchise teams. Lose that connection, and I'll stop my Sky sub.
-
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I would be totally uniterested in a competition involving only the top 5 NPC teams if my team is not one of that top 5. At least with SR franchises there will be players of my NPC team in at least three franchise teams. Lose that connection, and I'll stop my Sky sub.
no you won't
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I would be totally uniterested in a competition involving only the top 5 NPC teams if my team is not one of that top 5. At least with SR franchises there will be players of my NPC team in at least three franchise teams. Lose that connection, and I'll stop my Sky sub.
no you won't
You're probably right
, I won't stop my Sky sub, because I'm too much of a rugby nerd aka suffer from rugby OCD, but I wouldn't watch each game anymore and couldn't wait for that comp to be over, so I could watch something I'm interested in. -
@stargazer would it make a difference if the alternative was just two seperate comps? where are all the people that were talking about how they would always support a NZ team against an aussie one?
-
like it or not, there is simply no way NZ rugby can afford to just do something that 100% works for them. And nor can Australia
And that means compromise you dick-waving idiots on both Boards. Stop resting on the past, and think of the future.
-
I have no idea why you include your second sentence, but you know the difference between being interested in games and supporting teams that play in them, don't you? Not sure if that's what you mean, but in a comp with 5 NPC teams (not including my team) playing Aussie teams, I would still want the NPC teams to win (so I'd support them in those games), but that doesn't mean I'm interested in the comp. I'm interested in a comp in which I can watch players from my NPC team play.
-
@mariner4life whats the compromise though?
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@mariner4life whats the compromise though?
I don't know! I don't know what they both want!! i can't see why a 10 team home and away can't work, with a top 4. But then i am not in possession of all teh facts.
And, i totally get the lack of appeal in Australia for a comp that doesn't look, on current evidence, that will have any Aussie teams in the post-season.
