Super Rugby 2023
-
the crazy thing is
its not even like the NRL is this wide open competition. The Roosters, Melbourne, Souths and recently Penrith go in to every year thinking they can win. The Tigers haven't played finals in like 12 years. The Warriors once in a decade.
But their expansion team is sitting top 4. And if the previously unbeaten Broncos rested Reynolds, Carrigan, Haas, and Walsh they would lose to the winless Tigers.
-
@Winger said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby 2023:
Now the idea of evening up teams like through drafts etc , just tends to almost encourage teams to not go well once they realsie thay can't win,
For me its essential to have a more even competition if SRP wants to survive. One team always winning (and then being able to attract the best young players) is not a great way to get the crowds back
One option would be to just give the weaker teams more money. To attract the better players. This could apply within countries but also overall. Say a percentage of broadcasting money would be allocated to ensure team are more competitive.
Once again encourages teams that aren't going to win comp to not show interest as lower they are more money they get?
Think they have had same problem a few years back in AFL, and definitely read about in NFL and NBA in US.
I lived for 20 odd years in Brisbane and read every year the Broncos were unbeatable favourites because the Sydney clubs were disgusted they were a 1 team city so got more coin than the rest.. Seems that was just whining, when they got arses in gear.
And I never watched NRL, just saw it in papers, and was proof everyone can come up with excuses or just f***en do better! -
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby 2023:
Four NZ teams paying between $3 and $6.50 to win the comp. The Brumbies at $11. The Highlanders at $34 (massive unders), Everyone else is three figures.
If the Aussies only had two teams, they would be right up there with the best NZ sides. That is not going to happen
I'll repeat myself but would prefer a consolidation of pro/semi pro rugby in NZ. 5 teams is too few, 14 teams is too many. The AB's produced very good sides with 9 first div NPC sides
8-10 NZ sides would match very well with the Aussies. A more competitive competition with games played in more locations. Players playing closer to their real homes would increase tribalism
But SR & NPC are sacred cows. Both must continue to exist forever in front of smaller & smaller & older crowds.
-
@Duluth ^^^100 time this
spread out the tallent, eventually the tide will raise all, connect players better with regional fans and have one slightly larger comp to concentrate on
if they ever did amalgamate teams to make 8-10 (rather than just picking the top 8-10 teams) then i think they would need to really lean into both unions histories, so if if its effectively the highlanders...then something more like "Otago Southland Rugby", ive said before the Otago "O" and the Southland "S" could easily be combined into a logo that actually showed its connections to both Major Unions, throw in a Penguin mascot for North Otago and we're winning
all this is said knowing lots wont agree and that it would never happen
-
@kiwi_expat said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Nepia said in Super Rugby 2023:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby 2023:
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Nepia said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Winger Posting Reason is an insta ban isn't it?
it's not a bad article actually
Actually it's much better than that. It's bang on the money.
We complain about the Herald who are nothing more than NZR's marketing branch and obsequious journos. This is the type of contrarian article we should be supporting. Nothing kills a competition more than predictable (don't look at my tipping) outcomes and one fucking team constantly winning it.
And having the ball in play more actually exacerbates the problem. They're fixing the wrong things at the wrong level.
SR should be competitive between teams.
Tests are the ones needing more time in play to reduce the behemoth turgidity.
On this point, the Crusaders are essentially playing their C team this week and they're still fielding more ABs than the Highlanders. That's fucked up. Clearly their are contracting improvements that can be made that spread the NZ talent around ...
they were Crusaders before they became All Blacks, it's not like they were brought in from elsewhere, how many of them were no-names before they were developed by them? Bridge was a guy didn't even make his school's 1st XV, didn't make any representative teams, was a labourer with no intention to play professionally and didn't get started until he was 21/22, George Bower was a Highlanders discard from their development squad, he was behind several players & unwanted by them - George Bell, Noah Hotham, Christian Lio-Willie, were all unwanted by the Highlanders also!
Also how about some context.
How many are currently mainstays? those players are mostly at Chiefs, Blues, Hurricanes, none of them (not even Richie) would make my All Black starting side going by form of past 2 seasons, & most are just fringe players like Ennor, Bower, etc..
just because someone is a capped player doesn't mean they're better than another who's coming through.
Marino Mikaele Tu'u, Cameron Millar, Folau Fakatava, Ayden Johnstone, Shannon Frizell, Andrew Makalio, Sam Gilbert, Pari Pari Parkinson, Jermaine Ainsley, Daniel Lienert-Brown, Saula Ma'u, Thomas Umaga-Jensen, Aaron Smith, Billy Harmon, Sean Withy, Ethan de Groot, Fabian Holland.
A number of these players 1) could've easily done a job for ABs 2) are already making AB squads, Or 3) will likely see capped in the future.
Landers wanted all three of Bell, Hotham and Lio-Willie, but they were never going to get them... why would Hotham sign to be the Landers third string (then second behind Fakatava) when he could potentially become the Crusaders' number one this season?
Bell was always heading to Lincoln, Landers continued to offer deals to bring him back, but again, why would he come?
Lio-Willie was also offered a deal, but again, realistically he was always getting more game time at the Crusaders...
-
@friedrugby and he quite possibly wouldn't even be 2/3, arscott has been a project for a while and come through the Landers System
-
@Kiwiwomble Arscott was 100% below Hotham in the pecking order... Hotham was the U20 captain, they had high hopes for him, but it became a numbers game. I think as opposed to Smith, Fakatava was more the issue, as he is the likely no. 1 next season.... could be egg on the face if the Landers don't sew that one up though.
-
@friedrugby i mean...they kept one and not the other so not sure it was that clear to the Highlanders
-
@Kiwiwomble They may well rate Hastie ahead of Hotham, but you are dreaming if you think they had Arscott ahead of him. Hotham is clearly talented, and the opportunity was there at the Crusaders.
-
@Duluth said in Super Rugby 2023:
But SR & NPC are sacred cows. Both must continue to exist forever in front of smaller & smaller & older crowds.
it'll never happen because there will be losers. And those losers will kick off
But a 14-15 team comp playing all year would be fucking great.
But i can already hear it
The hard core NPC guys will whinge
The provinces who miss out will whinge
Moana Pacifica will whinge and cry racism when they get cut too.And there isn't a Board with the balls to tear it up and start again.
-
It'd take a crisis to force through a change. In late 1995 there was a bidding war and that lit a fire under NZRFU's arse.. covid was probably a missed opportunity
-
@Duluth said in Super Rugby 2023:
It'd take a crisis to force through a change. In late 1995 there was a bidding war and that lit a fire under NZRFU's arse.. covid was probably a missed opportunity
i've made the comment before about whether rugby is an international or a club game
I believe the NZRU view it as an international game, and the only role of the club game is to provide players to the ABs. In which case every single decision they make appears to be strategically on point. I reckon the ARU see it much the same way.
Expecting change when the current structure suits their strategic goals is folly.
-
@mariner4life you're right, but NZR focusing on international game whilst also holding the licences for super rugby is stupid
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby 2023:
only role of the club game is to provide players to the ABs.
The current structure isn't great for that either
Take a position like hooker where the AB's will have three in the squad. Expect at least one injury in a given year and the ABs need four hookers.
The competition has five regular starting hookers. That's not ideal. -
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Duluth said in Super Rugby 2023:
It'd take a crisis to force through a change. In late 1995 there was a bidding war and that lit a fire under NZRFU's arse.. covid was probably a missed opportunity
i've made the comment before about whether rugby is an international or a club game
I believe the NZRU view it as an international game, and the only role of the club game is to provide players to the ABs. In which case every single decision they make appears to be strategically on point. I reckon the ARU see it much the same way.
Expecting change when the current structure suits their strategic goals is folly.
Almost every rugby board in the world know that their money that money is made by international rugby. Hell in Aus the kids team have to (or did when I was there) pay money towrds their rugby board. So that RA can make enough money to administer game through test rugby. Have a look anywhere in world it's the case , and even in other sports all lower gade comps are really aimed at filling out higher grade teams. Have a look at the league comps in Aus, all the lower grades are just really in existence to fill out NRL teams, which is the pinnacle comp for league. AFL also has feeder clubs, it's not much different anywhere that I am aware. Even in places like France etc their teams that are completely seperate to their rugby board are now restricted on foriegn players for one reason, so teams produce more players that are eligible for France or Englnador wherever. Japan is same.
We kidding ourselves if we think any sport isn't trying to feed upper echelons of said sport.And it was always going to be case when game went pro.
-
@Dan54 the national organisations may have to focus on the international game for money...but looking at the UK, the domestic teams are independent of that, not controlled by the RU like NZR controls SR
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Dan54 100% missing the point
of course every sport has a top level. I am dumb but i'm not retarded
But every sport has a pretty significant distinction between which is the most importnat
Soccer, by far the biggest sport, is a club game, where aside from international tournaments for 6 weeks every two years, the International game is an unwelcome distraction
Basketball is a club game where the pinnacle is the NBA and quite frankly the international game is irrelevant.
Cricket is an international game where domestic cricket is watched by 8 people who probably wandered in to the ground by accident (incidentally T20 is probably the reverse)
League is a club game where internationals are an after-thought.Rugby is still trying to make both Internationals constantly relevant, while also trying to maintain the club game is as well. A season where a player will play as often for the ABs as the Chiefs has its priorities all over the shop.
-
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby 2023:
Once again encourages teams that aren't going to win comp to not show interest as lower they are more money they get?
Don't think this would happen.
But I believe they have got to try something. This is just one option. Give more money to a small number of teams (NZ conference would include MP - a lot - and Highlanders less) and see how it goes
