Super Rugby News
-
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby News:
@akan004 Actually the nz derbies are increasing. Currently each nz team plays 6 derbies, from next year it will be 8.
I like the NZ derbies. Also means less travel for our players.
I get the appeal of round robin, but from a selfish point of view I'll take more NZ derbies. It also means the games against the other conferences have some novelty appeal, like the Chiefs vs Stormers yesterday.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Damo although our conference being the toughest is better for our rugby long term though
Possibly in the medium term, but what is best for our long term future is the continued viability of Super Rugby. Having so many dud teams from SA and Aus was slowly killing Super Rugby.
-
@Damo Agree in the main - although (I as a dyed in the wool rugby supporter/diehard) - will watch all the SR games I can, I understand not everyone is the same, and admittedly some of the lop-sided results are not to everyone's palate and I can see why people might lose interest.
-
I used to try and watch all games involving NZ teams ,
and now from an entertainment angle , its slowly evolved into trying to watch all NZ derbies
-
The Force decision kind of makes sense - that time zone is a bit of a dead spot, and the complaint about the travel from Perth is valid.
The fucking bullshit they had with sponsors in the early years, as well as the issues with attracting talent so far away from families - also valid.
Recruiting South Africans, to the point where some people were sniggering about "Perthfontein" shows that the whole development argument is a bit of a dud.
I found Paul Cully's tweet interesting:
There will be some circling for players, but not coaches - rookies at all franchises.
-
Ffs. The biggest problem with super rugby isn't that there are a couple of shit teams. It's the stupid conference system and fucked up finals format where teams don't play the same opposition yet are put into a rankings table as if they do, then come finals time a team can have less points than others but gets a home final.
The new comp will be just as much of a joke. What is the point of over half the teams making the finals?
If you have to have conferences then keep them totally seperate and then have a knock out comp with the top 2 from each conference for the champions cup.I fully expect more shit teams to be added and formats to change in another two years.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Super Rugby News:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby News:
@akan004 Actually the nz derbies are increasing. Currently each nz team plays 6 derbies, from next year it will be 8.
I like the NZ derbies. Also means less travel for our players.
I get the appeal of round robin, but from a selfish point of view I'll take more NZ derbies. It also means the games against the other conferences have some novelty appeal, like the Chiefs vs Stormers yesterday.
From what I remember, the last time we had 8 derbies a year the players didn't like them because they were the most intense matches on the calendar and as a result, led to more injuries.
Increasing the local derbies makes it a shitload harder for NZ teams to make the final six, so I'm not a fan at all. Last year, where we had four teams in the final six, will probably never happen in the new structure.
-
@pukunui said in Super Rugby News:
Ffs. The biggest problem with super rugby isn't that there are a couple of shit teams. It's the stupid conference system and fucked up finals format where teams don't play the same opposition yet are put into a rankings table as if they do, then come finals time a team can have less points than others but gets a home final.
The new comp will be just as much of a joke. What is the point of over half the teams making the finals?
If you have to have conferences then keep them totally seperate and then have a knock out comp with the top 2 from each conference for the champions cup.I fully expect more shit teams to be added and formats to change in another two years.
Give that man a cold beer!!
That in a nutshell is exactly what is wrong with SR - the bloody format ie conference system is just crazy. Whatever happened to home and away FFS, something players and fans can understand. -
@pukunui said in Super Rugby News:
Ffs. The biggest problem with super rugby isn't that there are a couple of shit teams. It's the stupid conference system and fucked up finals format where teams don't play the same opposition yet are put into a rankings table as if they do, then come finals time a team can have less points than others but gets a home final.
The new comp will be just as much of a joke. What is the point of over half the teams making the finals?
If you have to have conferences then keep them totally seperate and then have a knock out comp with the top 2 from each conference for the champions cup.I fully expect more shit teams to be added and formats to change in another two years.
-
Beauden Barrett will front a Sanzaar judiciary on Monday night for his double yellow card effort against the Waratahs. Sanzaar's foul play review committee looked at the incidents on Sunday night and decided there was a case to answer for World Rugby's 2016 player of the year. The judicial committee for the video conference hearing will be Adam Casselden SC (Chairman), Mike Mika and De Wet Barry.
This will be a test case in the event another player also receives 2 YCs in the future.
-
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby News:
Beauden Barrett will front a Sanzaar judiciary on Monday night for his double yellow card effort against the Waratahs. Sanzaar's foul play review committee looked at the incidents on Sunday night and decided there was a case to answer for World Rugby's 2016 player of the year. The judicial committee for the video conference hearing will be Adam Casselden SC (Chairman), Mike Mika and De Wet Barry.
This will be a test case in the event another player also receives 2 YCs in the future.
Surely no case to answer. No foul play should mean no sanction. I can't even imagine a scenario where a professional foul would warrant a ban. Maybe the "Hand of Back"? Even that's pushing it.
-
@pukunui said in Super Rugby News:
Ffs. The biggest problem with super rugby isn't that there are a couple of shit teams. It's the stupid conference system and fucked up finals format where teams don't play the same opposition yet are put into a rankings table as if they do, then come finals time a team can have less points than others but gets a home final.
The new comp will be just as much of a joke. What is the point of over half the teams making the finals?
If you have to have conferences then keep them totally seperate and then have a knock out comp with the top 2 from each conference for the champions cup.I fully expect more shit teams to be added and formats to change in another two years.
It wasn't broke when it was Super 12. Why did the fisheads ( great description btw Norm Hewitt ) feel the need to fix it? I do understand expansion and adding a couple of teams but the convoluted and confusing nature of the competition means it has alienated a shitload of fans which is typified by attendances at games.
-
-
The people making the decisions at Sanzaar really do need to be taken out back and shot. Their idiotic decisions have been leeching the life out of the comp ever since the move to the Super 14. Either have a proper conference system or a proper round robin system, this in-between bullshit (and 8 teams making the finals!) is a mess.
As for BB, I think one week would be fair. If the yellow cards were for two different infringements, that'd be one thing, but the same exact infringement twice in the same game? That's just fucking dumb.
-
sometimes i think we are too hard on SANZAAR. They are trying to create a competition that ticks so many boxes (exposure, revenue raising, fairness, development of 4 different domestic games) but has to overcome some very significant hurdles (geography, distance, small markets, poor economies).
And it has to do well enough to compete with a Northern competition that has all the worlds biggest rugby markets in a geographical location smaller than Australia. But fuck loads more people and money.
And we as fans want everything. Lots to watch on TV, but at the times we want. We want quality (more games against NZ teams!), and we want variety (less games against NZ teams!). And we as kiwi fans are one of 5 sets of fans that the governing body has to keep happy.
Then politically, every country wants something different. We want a competition that provides the best All Blacks. Aus want a competition that is big enough domestically to grow their player base and compete with the other codes. South Africa need to use it as a change agent. The Japanese and Argentinians just want a seat at a table.
How the fuck do you make everyone happy given those agendas, and still give the broadcaster something they like enough to pay you the money you require to pay for your players? Players who will be offered shitloads to play elsewhere.
Short term this change probably helps. But is it really a long-term strategy? Will this competition ever really work? Do we know what "work" looks like (I mean for everyone, not just NZ).
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@rotated there were numerous flaws with thier criteria and a convenient way of rating some of it for dropping the 2 teams, and as such the plan got rightly shafted.
IIRC Southland should have been dead certs to drop based on the criteria, that should have had them dead last, but somehow they were safe ranked about 9th, think after that it was Northland, Ta$man, Counties and maybe one other on the cusp who had varying 'criteria' that was for/against them.
Absolutely missing the point. It was decided that two teams needed to be moved from the top tier for the betterment of the NZ rugby as a whole. You can quibble on the criteria and what teams deserved a bullet (at least four did for various reasons). But once the decision was made for the benefit of the greater good to move towards a smaller top tier competition they needed to follow through.
The Rebels, Force and even Brumbies depending on how you weigh criteria all could be the team to go. Deciding none of them because there isn't an obvious candidate is not a solution.
@Chris-B. said in Super Rugby News:
@rotated I agree somewhat that it will surprise me if they manage to get rid of any teams - there's certainly no-one I've seen with their hand up saying pick me.
Every time Ta$man picked up the phone to get another cash infusion from the the NZRU in 06-08 they were pretty much begging for it. But as you say Ta$man really is a major success story and once the convoluted contracting structure got straightened out amongst other things they've been a real producer for NZ rugby. Never was a fan of Ta$man being contracted in '08 purely from a geographic perspective, but their financial performance was so egregious at the time they couldn't avoid it.
FWIW Northland and Southland were the best candidates from a redundancy, player quality and financial perspective.
Ultimately though things have worked out pretty well. The NPC is producing better talent, the Unions finances aren't as perilous and at least in the case of Northland we got a happy compromise where their fans got their wish of staying the the Mitre 10 Cup Competition and the NZRU got their wish of seeing them play Heartland-quality rugby for the next decade.
Not that any of that had to do with the main point which is, they've decided now do it even if it has to be Waratahs, Stormers and Bulls.
