Super Rugby 2023
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Nepia they both did change their comps quite a bit, teams having to be away for months, whilst melbourne was locked down the melbourne teams all played away, they had hubs and super rounds etc....rugby just kind of said..."too hard"
I think what i have taken from above is an independent board running the comp might have worked a way to do it rather than 5 independent nations trying to nut it out and failing
There's a big difference between changing a domestic comp (+1) and changing a comp played over 5 different countries, again, it's apples and oranges. Also, I highly doubt that the three main Sanzar nations didn't look to see if hubs etc were feasible.
@Machpants said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Nepia said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Nepia said in Super Rugby 2023:
@nzzp said in Super Rugby 2023:
Hore nails the issue I reckon. And incredible figures comparing NRL to Super; $100M vs $16M in '96, and now NRL has gone from 16 to more than $400M. Compared to NRL and NH comps, Super has gone backwards bigtime.
Hore's been very impressive at the Blues; hope this gets a discussion started inside NZR because if they keep going down this road they will lose. If NRL was prime time in NZ, I think you'd lose a huge number of viewers to it; it's demonstrably a better, more enjoyable product (that I'm not interested in, to be clear)
I don't think it makes sense to look at those figures and impart anything on what's happening today. Super Rugby now is not the Super Rugby of back then, and neither for that matter is the NRL.
Super Rugby today is essentially a new comp struggling to find it's feet, I'll return to this point. Back then it was set up as part of a war between rival broadcasters, also, the big money in league came after a similar style war and has led to their huge broadcast deals of today. Back in the 90s Aussie league was based more on pokies than broadcast deals.
But, of course the NRL is going to pull in bumper money today, it's huge in two states with two urban areas that both alone have more people or the same as NZ. Because the Saffas left (and the cowardly WR let them) Super Rugby is essentially running on the money that NZ can provide. Comparing NRL with Super Rugby isn't really apples with apples.
As I noted above SRP is a new comp. One that grew out of necessity due to a once in a lifetime event. Also, I know the narrative is to blame NZR for the Saffas leaving, but, we all know that is pure bullshit. Throughout the entirety of SR they were always threatening to leave to the NH. They took their chance when a pandemic hit. They could still be playing SR, that they're not is entirely on them.
On league, it is on life support as a domestic sport in NZ. The numbers have been dropping even in Auckland and they've made a point to specifically not to even blame Covid for it (it's so dead in Hawkes Bay that it didn't even rate a mention in the districts section of the NZRL annual report - I don't think the comp I played in even exists anymore). I don't think it's the slam dunk in NZ that the Warriors having good form this year suggests.
Not sure Hore nailed it, the comp his team plays and his team exists because of the international top down model. From what I can parse out he wants to create a long running NRL style comp run by the privatised "clubs". But, he needs to be focussing on how to make Super work better considering the constraints that do exist. The NZ rugby model likely breaks in its entirety if Super teams become fully private, but some of his ideas can still work within those constraints.
I'm currently watching the Warriors bumble around so wont comment on the "product" aside from to say the hype the NRL, Oz media etc generate is way better than anything rugby comes up with - they can make a game between the two bottom teams in the comp seem like an origin match.
isn't the fact that super rugby is currently effectively a new comp...yet again kind of the point? NRL and AFL have committed to growing where as super rugby has kept reinventing itself and ignored lessons learnt by other sports, determined that international games are the only thing that matter despite the biggest sports in the world generally having a string club/domestic comp and the international versions of those just being a spectacle
are we happy for them to keep hitting reset and using that as an excuse for poor attendances, financial losses and having to look for external investment?
Super Rugby is only a new comp because of Covid. The NRL and AFL did not have to reconfigure their comps due to Covid. SR did as the Saffas used it as an excuse to leave.
I seem to remember the geniuses at NZR kicking out Argentina, SA, and 3 of 5 Ozzie teams too
That's mostly B/S as I alluded to above.
Covid forced NZR to act, it was either create a competition quickly so that teams could play or just let things wither on the vine and have no sport. The Sunwolves were already leaving for financial reasons so unsure how that can be laid at NZ's feet.
The Saffas voted to leave Super Rugby before the end of 2020, yet despite every article (sourced from the South African CEO) blaming NZ it was their decision to leave, and as well all know they've been threatening to do it for years.
Ironically NZ wanted to limit the Oz teams in a new comp due to competitiveness, which is what most of the complaints about the new comp are now.
-
@Nepia and both Oz and SA domestic rugby (ie their Super Teams) have weakened due to allowing top players to ply their trade elsewhere..
I think NZR were on the right path to 'own' Super Rugby themselves and invite other franchises in on a commercial basis.
Andrew Hore is also correct that NZR need to stop at the point of being the overall comp owner and let franchises do their own thing. NZR can always put some rules around numbers of NZ based/eligible players which should keep the pathways in place.
The comp desperately needs a quality uplift outside of the 5 current quality teams. We aren't achieving that from the NZ/PI/Oz pool so need to look wider. -
-
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Crucial It simply has too many teams to get quality with the depth in some areas.
To build the strength and not weaken teams to even it out you would have to cut team, and I not sure anyone wants to go there.No. I can see the Oz view as they have proved with their womens comp that if they keep the comp in house the quality doesn't matter. Ozzies just don't like going and watching games that either their own team won't win or no Oz team will win overall.
Maybe we need to ditch Super and rebrand the NPC. Allow overseas players and put a system in place initially to spread the talent back out of the franchise hubs. -
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2023:
@antipodean said in Super Rugby 2023:
@chimoaus said in Super Rugby 2023:
We really do need to look at the AFL and figure out how they have some of the highest attendance figures on a regular basis.
Because unlike NRL, it's a game that doesn't translate to TV well - you don't get a concept of the space available for AFL teams to exploit. NRL is tailormade for TV; simple to understand and easy to capture given it's so one dimensional.
i dont think i agree because all the pubs around me are also packed with people watching, most have a tipping comp running for locals etc
I was also going to mention there's nothing else to do in Melbourne.
-
@nzzp said in Super Rugby 2023:
Hore nails the issue I reckon. And incredible figures comparing NRL to Super; $100M vs $16M in '96, and now NRL has gone from 16 to more than $400M. Compared to NRL and NH comps, Super has gone backwards bigtime.
Hore's been very impressive at the Blues; hope this gets a discussion started inside NZR because if they keep going down this road they will lose. If NRL was prime time in NZ, I think you'd lose a huge number of viewers to it; it's demonstrably a better, more enjoyable product (that I'm not interested in, to be clear)
It's just not working that NZRU treat SRP as a training run.
The best option is for SRP to become a standalone competition, with no management input from RA or NZRU. Let an independent board turn it into a money making venture that can afford to pay the best players to be part of it. Let players move between all clubs. An Independent panel helped the URC go from training league for teams to competitive league.
NZR has to open up to our players in Australian clubs in the SRP if the competition is to survive. They are so paranoid about losing control of their players. They are in most cases a 2 hour flight away & they are all playing in the same competition.
Our rugby comp would be so much more balanced in terms a teams from both side of the ditch compared to league & also geographically diverse eg. not having 8 teams from the one city. We have to get teams more competitive for it to be attractive.
-
@Crucial said in Super Rugby 2023:
Andrew Hore is also correct that NZR need to stop at the point of being the overall comp owner and let franchises do their own thing. NZR can always put some rules around numbers of NZ based/eligible players which should keep the pathways in place.
SA and AU pick from every competition, though they restrict the numbers they choose. I can't see NZR allowing players to play in Northern Hemisphere comps and get selected for AB's any time soon, but I can see them eventually allowing players to be picked from the competition they are aligned with (SRP). Meaning NZ players in the 5 Australian clubs would become eligible, which would strengthen them, strengthen SRP and give players being dragged off into marginal contracts in Europe, USA and Japan a different route.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Crucial said in Super Rugby 2023:
Andrew Hore is also correct that NZR need to stop at the point of being the overall comp owner and let franchises do their own thing. NZR can always put some rules around numbers of NZ based/eligible players which should keep the pathways in place.
SA and AU pick from every competition, though they restrict the numbers they choose. I can't see NZR allowing players to play in Northern Hemisphere comps and get selected for AB's any time soon, but I can see them eventually allowing players to be picked from teams in competitions they are aligned with, such as SRP. Meaning NZ players in the 5 Australian clubs would become eligible, which would strengthen them, strengthen SRP and give players being dragged off into marginal contracts in Europe, USA and Japan a different route.
I can't think of a better way to force a decline in the All Blacks.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Super Rugby 2023:
An Independent panel helped the URC go from training league for teams to competitive league.
The one dominated by Leinster over the last decade? It's about as competitive as SRP.
-
Had a look at some stats and found this which I thought was interesting.
Blues, Chiefs, Crusaders, Hurricanes and Brumbies are all reasonably similar in tries scored (from 39 to 45) yet quite dissimilar in Clean Breaks made.
If you think of a the ratio between the two as an indicator of ruthlessness ie the try count will be higher the more clean breaks are made (even including tries not from breaks) then the Crusaders and Brumbies ratios around 88% are pretty good.
Of that list though, the Blues have made the most line breaks but that hasn't resulted in a higher try count (56%). Chiefs and Canes around 63%
What would be interesting to see is tries resulting from a clean break (say within three phases).
These numbers suggest that the Crusaders and Brumbies work their way to the line rather than penetrate well behind the defence.
Blues on the other hand are very good at getting through the defence (eg 75 times compared to Brumbies 49) but aren't getting any better reward for it in the try count (42 to 43)
Interesting comparison of styles I guess -
This post is deleted!
-
@antipodean said in Super Rugby 2023:
@kiwi_expat said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Crucial said in Super Rugby 2023:
Andrew Hore is also correct that NZR need to stop at the point of being the overall comp owner and let franchises do their own thing. NZR can always put some rules around numbers of NZ based/eligible players which should keep the pathways in place.
SA and AU pick from every competition, though they restrict the numbers they choose. I can't see NZR allowing players to play in Northern Hemisphere comps and get selected for AB's any time soon, but I can see them eventually allowing players to be picked from teams in competitions they are aligned with, such as SRP. Meaning NZ players in the 5 Australian clubs would become eligible, which would strengthen them, strengthen SRP and give players being dragged off into marginal contracts in Europe, USA and Japan a different route.
I can't think of a better way to force a decline in the All Blacks.
I believe there is an element of tunnel vision from NZR and it's been this way pretty much since the game went pro, or at least this century. Everything leads to the All Blacks, which is fine as far as it goes, but don't drop the talent and the fanbase ball, don't reap the short term benefits at the risk of ruining the game long term (now medium term IMO).
-
Super Rugby can revive itself with a quasi-American model
The goal of Rugby Australia and New Zealand Rugby should be to create an entertainment product worth more than the All Blacks and Wallabies.
Don't agree with a draft but I'd say most can get on board with this...
**One of the biggest commercial failings of New Zealand Rugby is not finding a way to work with Rugby Australia to get a piece of the Australian sports market, which is competitive, but a much, much larger pie than their own.
If they can work together on re-imagining Super Rugby into an elite sporting league and agree on a new revenue sharing model, they will both end up in much stronger positions if it is a success.
Taking steps to address the unequal distribution of playing talent across Super Rugby is a necessity to achieving that.
New Zealand’s stronger playing pool is not shared, leaving Australian teams to remain behind them most of the time. A ton of young New Zealand players that could be playing simply aren’t.
We hear frequently of New Zealand fans lack of interest in watching Australian teams play and even trans- Ta$man clashes if their own team isn’t featuring.
All Blacks and Wallabies’ eligibility must be expanded within Super Rugby to spread the playing resources, breaking the current mould.
As long as players are contracted within in the competition, they can remain available for international duty.**
-
The problem with such a model is neatly summed up by the following scenario: High profile All Blacks move across the Ta$man for more money and an attempt to increase interest with marquee signings. These players play every minute of every match to get the best possible return for their new team, leaving them flogged or injured so as not in peak form for the All Blacks. Even aspiring players are going to be at the mercy of poor coaching S&C routines etc.
-
@antipodean said in Super Rugby 2023:
The problem with such a model is neatly summed up by the following scenario: High profile All Blacks move across the Ta$man for more money and an attempt to increase interest with marquee signings. These players play every minute of every match to get the best possible return for their new team, leaving them flogged or injured so as not in peak form for the All Blacks. Even aspiring players are going to be at the mercy of poor coaching S&C routines etc.
How are the Aussie teams going to find all this money to attract high profile All Blacks anyway? There are none rolling in it as far as I can see. But agree with your other points though.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Super Rugby 2023:
One of the biggest commercial failings of New Zealand Rugby is not finding a way to work with Rugby Australia to get a piece of the Australian sports market, which is competitive, but a much, much larger pie than their own.
Trouble is that Aus have proven over the years the their successful sports comps are 'in house'. I mentioned before how even their womens rugby comp does well as Oz v Oz. Add in some Aupiki teams and the table would look like the men's one and Oz fans would lose interest.
Basketball has had endless accusations of the comp trying to make things as hard as possible for the Breakers, Football with the Phoenix and League with the Warriors. Thos examples are only one NZ potentially upsetting the picture of Australian sporting greatness.
Supercars (V8s) are one of the few that haven't suffered from kiwis doing well (McLaughlin and SVG being dominant) but that's because the drivers are aligned to either true Oz teams or the Ford v Holden rivalry.
It is very difficulet to get a piece of the Oz sorts market/ population without them picking up their ball and going home. I can't see how Women's rugby will solve the puzzle either. We want more games and a wider market, they want winners. -
It has been mentioned here before but fans love stats . If we like the US models you can't ignore that they are brilliant at providing talking points through stats.
Here, it is a huge struggle for anyone bar media and staff to access the detailed stats in a comp.
Some third parties have tried to create stat based websites (eg https://www.rugbydatabase.co.nz/competition/index.php?competitionId=1010) but it is very light on detail for punters, discussion and shonky analysis.
How many times have you heard or read a comment in media and though "I wish I could see that for someone else"
It has been a rugby failing for a long time. Even the basic AB records over the years were held in Almanacs for so long that it took the Rugby Museum (via an ex-ferner) to build a database which existed by itself for a long time until NZR saw the value. -
As it is you could make a team out of Kiwis playing in Oz franchises, if you took away Kiwis already in their franchises they would really struggle, I am yet to see that being acknowledged.
