'Super Rugby' 2021
-
@NTA said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Super 8 - 5 Kiwi and 3 Aussie teams. It is the only way to proceed with a trans- Ta$man competition IMHO.
Good idea - dump the Brumbies.
@antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@NTA said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Super 8 - 5 Kiwi and 3 Aussie teams. It is the only way to proceed with a trans- Ta$man competition IMHO.
Good idea - dump the Brumbies.
After spending a weekend there in the freezing cold, it is no shock that nobody turns up to Bruce Mausoleum for rugby at night.
-
@NTA said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Super 8 - 5 Kiwi and 3 Aussie teams. It is the only way to proceed with a trans- Ta$man competition IMHO.
Good idea - dump the Brumbies.
@antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@NTA said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Super 8 - 5 Kiwi and 3 Aussie teams. It is the only way to proceed with a trans- Ta$man competition IMHO.
Good idea - dump the Brumbies.
can we dumb a team that has won the comp previously? wold feel werid, Canberra doesn't have a AFL team so feels a better location to try and re grow rugby than melbourne
-
@antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@NTA said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Super 8 - 5 Kiwi and 3 Aussie teams. It is the only way to proceed with a trans- Ta$man competition IMHO.
Good idea - dump the Brumbies.
can we dumb a team that has won the comp previously? wold feel werid, Canberra doesn't have a AFL team so feels a better location to try and re grow rugby than melbourne
@Kiwiwomble said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@NTA said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Super 8 - 5 Kiwi and 3 Aussie teams. It is the only way to proceed with a trans- Ta$man competition IMHO.
Good idea - dump the Brumbies.
can we dumb a team that has won the comp previously? wold feel werid, Canberra doesn't have a AFL team so feels a better location to try and re grow rugby than melbourne
I couldn't care if they were as successful as the Crusaders. It's their public servant supporters I want to see punished. They irritate the piss out of me.
-
Putting a PI based team in Auckland is a stupid idea. Racially based selection? Exclusion from NZR contracting and New Zealand representation?
Why would NZ do that?
@antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Putting a PI based team in Auckland is a stupid idea. Racially based selection? Exclusion from NZR contracting and New Zealand representation?
Why would NZ do that?
There has been plenty of talk about having a PI-based team in any future SR competition but that has many more hurdles to overcome like logistics and finances. This proposed team would solve those problems, with little or no cost to NZR, like the Force in Aust at present. There would be enough Fijian, Samoan and Tongan talent around, and they would add some variety to the competition. I would assume that this team wouldn't be under NZR control so those players wouldn't be eligible for the ABs. From the articles they would be targeting PI players currently in Europe and Japan as well as domestic PI players (the islands, NZ, Aust).
-
@antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Putting a PI based team in Auckland is a stupid idea. Racially based selection? Exclusion from NZR contracting and New Zealand representation?
Why would NZ do that?
There has been plenty of talk about having a PI-based team in any future SR competition but that has many more hurdles to overcome like logistics and finances. This proposed team would solve those problems, with little or no cost to NZR, like the Force in Aust at present. There would be enough Fijian, Samoan and Tongan talent around, and they would add some variety to the competition. I would assume that this team wouldn't be under NZR control so those players wouldn't be eligible for the ABs. From the articles they would be targeting PI players currently in Europe and Japan as well as domestic PI players (the islands, NZ, Aust).
@Bovidae said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I would assume that this team wouldn't be under NZR control so those players wouldn't be eligible for the ABs
Inoke Afeaki was interviewed about this on the Breakdown. He wanted it to be under NZR control
The reasons for this was the expertise that NZR has of running successful teams. Also, the corruption in problems that the PI unions have had since going pro.
He also said he wanted it to be based in Fiji. I think all the chat about it being in Auckland is just to make the articles more clickable in NZ
-
@Bovidae said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I would assume that this team wouldn't be under NZR control so those players wouldn't be eligible for the ABs
Inoke Afeaki was interviewed about this on the Breakdown. He wanted it to be under NZR control
The reasons for this was the expertise that NZR has of running successful teams. Also, the corruption in problems that the PI unions have had since going pro.
He also said he wanted it to be based in Fiji. I think all the chat about it being in Auckland is just to make the articles more clickable in NZ
-
@antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Putting a PI based team in Auckland is a stupid idea. Racially based selection? Exclusion from NZR contracting and New Zealand representation?
Why would NZ do that?
There has been plenty of talk about having a PI-based team in any future SR competition but that has many more hurdles to overcome like logistics and finances. This proposed team would solve those problems, with little or no cost to NZR, like the Force in Aust at present. There would be enough Fijian, Samoan and Tongan talent around, and they would add some variety to the competition. I would assume that this team wouldn't be under NZR control so those players wouldn't be eligible for the ABs. From the articles they would be targeting PI players currently in Europe and Japan as well as domestic PI players (the islands, NZ, Aust).
@Bovidae said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@antipodean said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Putting a PI based team in Auckland is a stupid idea. Racially based selection? Exclusion from NZR contracting and New Zealand representation?
Why would NZ do that?
There has been plenty of talk about having a PI-based team in any future SR competition but that has many more hurdles to overcome like logistics and finances. This proposed team would solve those problems, with little or no cost to NZR, like the Force in Aust at present. There would be enough Fijian, Samoan and Tongan talent around, and they would add some variety to the competition. I would assume that this team wouldn't be under NZR control so those players wouldn't be eligible for the ABs. From the articles they would be targeting PI players currently in Europe and Japan as well as domestic PI players (the islands, NZ, Aust).
That would just be the worst possible case. So any governance issues, players opting to represent NZ, malfeasance etc. would have NZR lambasted by all and sundry for no benefit.
-
@Duluth said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Inoke Afeaki
He's not part of the consortium that runs it tho, as far as I can see, so that's just another opinion - of many!
@Machpants said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
He's not part of the consortium that runs it tho, as far as I can see, so that's just another opinion - of many!
The Hawaii thing? They sound like they have a lot of work before being ready for the USA comp
-
@Bovidae said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
I would assume that this team wouldn't be under NZR control so those players wouldn't be eligible for the ABs
Inoke Afeaki was interviewed about this on the Breakdown. He wanted it to be under NZR control
The reasons for this was the expertise that NZR has of running successful teams. Also, the corruption in problems that the PI unions have had since going pro.
He also said he wanted it to be based in Fiji. I think all the chat about it being in Auckland is just to make the articles more clickable in NZ
@Duluth Afeaki's comments don't agree with what has been published in the media.
Kanaloa Hawaii chief executive Tracy Atiga told Radio New Zealand on Tuesday they had already discussed their Super Rugby credentials with New Zealand Rugby with a team that could be based in south Auckland. "We would essentially set up our satellite programme which is here in south Auckland to accommodate a second team," she said. "So we are not talking about one team that plays in the MLR and then they come and play in Super Rugby. We are talking about two pro teams that would have equally competitive athletes at that level and we would own and operate them in co-ordination with each other." -
@Duluth Afeaki's comments don't agree with what has been published in the media.
Kanaloa Hawaii chief executive Tracy Atiga told Radio New Zealand on Tuesday they had already discussed their Super Rugby credentials with New Zealand Rugby with a team that could be based in south Auckland. "We would essentially set up our satellite programme which is here in south Auckland to accommodate a second team," she said. "So we are not talking about one team that plays in the MLR and then they come and play in Super Rugby. We are talking about two pro teams that would have equally competitive athletes at that level and we would own and operate them in co-ordination with each other."Sure he was talking in general about a PI SR team.. which has been a possibility for years.
I think the chat out of the Hawaii group is hopeful at best. Why would NZ rugby give so much to an unproven group who haven't done anything but gain a US license?
-
How would a sixth NZ Super Rugby team look? It'd be based in North Harbour and Northland, and the Blues would be based on Auckland and Counties Manukau. If the region got its NPC players, and a few players from each squad (esp. those with a connection to the region), it might look like this:
- Karl Tu'inukuafe
- James Parsons sharing starting duty with Ricky Riccitelli
- Sione Mafileo
- Josh Goodhue
- Gerard Cowley-Tuioti
- Tom Robinson
- Dillon Hunt
- Teariki Ben-Nicholas/Sione Havili
- Bryn Hall
- Josh Ioane
- Braydon Ennor
- Michael Little
- Jack Goodhue
- Mark Talea
- Shaun Stevenson
- Luteru Tolai
- Reuben O'Neill
- Siate Tokolahi
- Jacob Pierce
- Ethan Roots
- Sam Nock
- Bryn Gatland
- Matt Duffie
@Tim said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
How would a sixth NZ Super Rugby team look? It'd be based in North Harbour and Northland, and the Blues would be based on Auckland and Counties Manukau. If the region got its NPC players, and a few players from each squad (esp. those with a connection to the region), it might look like this:
- Karl Tu'inukuafe
- James Parsons sharing starting duty with Ricky Riccitelli
- Sione Mafileo
- Josh Goodhue
- Gerard Cowley-Tuioti
- Tom Robinson
- Dillon Hunt
- Teariki Ben-Nicholas/Sione Havili
- Bryn Hall
- Josh Ioane
- Braydon Ennor
- Michael Little
- Jack Goodhue
- Mark Talea
- Shaun Stevenson
- Luteru Tolai
- Reuben O'Neill
- Siate Tokolahi
- Jacob Pierce
- Ethan Roots
- Sam Nock
- Bryn Gatland
- Matt Duffie
How would this leave the Blues? Following similar criteria, perhaps they could produce the following squad and XXIII:
- Alex Hodgman
- Kurt Eklund (he's spent the off-season practising his throwing)
- Ofa Tu'ungafasi
- Patrick Tuipulotu
- Scott Scrafton
- Akira Ioane
- Dalton Papalii
- Hoskins Sotutu
- Te Toiroa Tahuriorangi
- Otere Black
- Caleb Clarke
- TJ Faiane
- Rieko Ioane
- Tanielu Tele’a
- Stephen Perofeta
- Andrew Makalio
- Marcel Renata
- Angus Ta'avao
- Jack Whetton
- Blake Gibson
- Finlay Christie
- Harry Plummer
- Salesi Rayasi/Vince Aso
Props
Ezekiel Lindenmuth
Marco FepuleaiHookers
Ray Niuia
Locks
Aaron Carroll
Sam CairdLoose Forwards
Waimana Riedlinger-Kapa
James Tucker
Tony Lamborn
Nico Jones/Adrian Choat
Cameron SuafoaHalves
Jonathan Taumateine/Jonathan Ruru/Taufa Funaki
Zarn SullivanMidfield
Vince Aso
AJ Lam
Matt VaegaWing
Salesi Rayasi
Emoni NarawaFullback
Jordan Trainor
Jared Page -
Sure he was talking in general about a PI SR team.. which has been a possibility for years.
I think the chat out of the Hawaii group is hopeful at best. Why would NZ rugby give so much to an unproven group who haven't done anything but gain a US license?
Obviously there is a lot of work to be done if this eventuates, but all the risk is with the Kanaloa Hawaii ownership group if the team is 100% privately owned. Remember we are talking about an Oceania SR competition, not a NZR competition. I'm sure NZR (and RA) would want the MLR team operational first so they are confident the owners have the infrastructure and expertise in place.
-
I don't watch almost any games that don't involve NZ teams in Super Rugby.
I watch pretty much all games played in NZ.
I watch most games played on the east coast of Australia with an NZ team.
I rarely watch games in Perth or South Africa with NZ teams, except the Blues. I might watch highlights.
I would watch a PI team that can beat Australian or South African teams.
-
@pukunui said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
We don’t have the depth to dilute the current 5 teams and maintain the high performance he talks about in that article. Introducing more teams will be a disaster. Poorer quality in the name of expansion does not make for a more entertaining product. We saw that with the endless expansion of super rugby.
If the saffa’s are gone and a NZ only comp is not an option then an ANZ comp with the quality of teams kept as high as possible is the only option.
Super 8 - 5 Kiwi and 3 Aussie teams. It is the only way to proceed with a trans- Ta$man competition IMHO.
At the same time, the structures under the Aussie fully pro teams need to change in order to provide more players an opportunity to make a living out of rugby.
@NTA This makes perfect sense from a Kiwi perspective but little to none from an Australian perspective.
Many Australian fans at this stage want to ditch SR altogether and start from scratch (verging on a majority). So any proposed TT comp is already starting at a low base of support. We are then required to cut two teams (presumably excluding Twiggy's Force over cutting one of the more traditional franchises) to be allowed to participate in what will effectively be an exercise in All Black production. I'm failing to see the incentive.
Most people argue that one of the biggest contributing factors to the decline of SR in Aus is the lack of local derbies/home games and local content. A 5/3 split will represent a marginal improvement over the current format - but will cut 2/5ths of the Australian market from the comp. A poor trade off.
It's no sure thing that cutting two teams will magically make the other three stronger, either. Plenty of players will simply leave for Japan or Europe and the financial and marketing damage done in the process would, in my opinion, be a terminal move for the remaining Australian teams - before a ball is even kicked.
The inconsistency of suggesting that we must cut two teams but the comp must also include a PI team is also pretty frustrating. What are the odds of a PI team (after the majority of the funds get siphoned off by the likes of Killer Keane) actually being competitive?
Finally, Twiggy has regularly expressed an interest in pumping considerable investment into a competition with a single management body that is run in it's own interests (rather than being primarily run for the purposes of Wallaby and AB production). There have also been expressions of interest from PE firms in the US. McLellan has expressed an interest in releasing control of the second tier of Australian rugby to private equity. Given the rather enormous trade-offs involved in us participating in an 8 (or 9) team TT comp - why wouldn't we pursue this option?
Word is a NZ only comp is not financially viable so i don't get why a string of senior NZ figures are trying to strong arm Aus into a format that makes absolutely no sense to them?
-
@NTA This makes perfect sense from a Kiwi perspective but little to none from an Australian perspective.
Many Australian fans at this stage want to ditch SR altogether and start from scratch (verging on a majority). So any proposed TT comp is already starting at a low base of support. We are then required to cut two teams (presumably excluding Twiggy's Force over cutting one of the more traditional franchises) to be allowed to participate in what will effectively be an exercise in All Black production. I'm failing to see the incentive.
Most people argue that one of the biggest contributing factors to the decline of SR in Aus is the lack of local derbies/home games and local content. A 5/3 split will represent a marginal improvement over the current format - but will cut 2/5ths of the Australian market from the comp. A poor trade off.
It's no sure thing that cutting two teams will magically make the other three stronger, either. Plenty of players will simply leave for Japan or Europe and the financial and marketing damage done in the process would, in my opinion, be a terminal move for the remaining Australian teams - before a ball is even kicked.
The inconsistency of suggesting that we must cut two teams but the comp must also include a PI team is also pretty frustrating. What are the odds of a PI team (after the majority of the funds get siphoned off by the likes of Killer Keane) actually being competitive?
Finally, Twiggy has regularly expressed an interest in pumping considerable investment into a competition with a single management body that is run in it's own interests (rather than being primarily run for the purposes of Wallaby and AB production). There have also been expressions of interest from PE firms in the US. McLellan has expressed an interest in releasing control of the second tier of Australian rugby to private equity. Given the rather enormous trade-offs involved in us participating in an 8 (or 9) team TT comp - why wouldn't we pursue this option?
Word is a NZ only comp is not financially viable so i don't get why a string of senior NZ figures are trying to strong arm Aus into a format that makes absolutely no sense to them?
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Word is a NZ only comp is not financially viable so i don't get why a string of senior NZ figures are trying to strong arm Aus into a format that makes absolutely no sense to them?
NZ comp is financial viable, but a 5 team comp is not. NZ has said an option is an 8 team (NZ only or mix), that's it, an option. In addition, the 'senior NZ figures' are mostly press and ex figures. Nothing had been decided, the NZR board hasn't even seen the report, and most of this is just press shit stirring and individual opinion. The only official people who had said anything are Impey (nothing is decided, we haven't seen the report, and the conjecture is bollocks) and Foster (a generic comment that teams that are not competitive is good for no one - which is just stating the bloody obvious, and why we dint have a super 18 anymore!)
So really, Ozzie is getting is knickers twisted over nothing, the initial reporting all shit stirring from Oz media, then NZ replies. I think we should take more from the amount of working SANZAAR are doing to keep the RC this year, than press bullshit
-
I forgot my final point, being that no succesful comp in the world is perfectly balanced. To the contrary - the most valuable and succesful leagues are all pretty one sided with only a small percentage of the competing teams a realistic chance of winning the title. EPl, NFL, NRL, AFl, Bundesliga, NBL - they all have plenty of whipping boys.
-
There seems to be a weird field of unreality enveloping some Australian rugby fans at the moment. This idea that an Australian domestic competition would be profitable, let alone preferable to a trans-tasman one, is quite bizarre.
The top viewing figures in Australia are often for NZ derby games. We saw what happened when Australia had five teams - the rugby was dire. Who would pay to watch eight or even ten Australian teams? How many watch the NRC? Even with four teams, Australia has only one good team (Brumbies), one team of strivers who seldom win (Reds), and two teams of low quality.
This idea of "if NZ tries to keep us down with only three or four teams then we'll go our own way and lose even more money" is just nonsense.
-
@NTA This makes perfect sense from a Kiwi perspective but little to none from an Australian perspective.
Many Australian fans at this stage want to ditch SR altogether and start from scratch (verging on a majority). So any proposed TT comp is already starting at a low base of support. We are then required to cut two teams (presumably excluding Twiggy's Force over cutting one of the more traditional franchises) to be allowed to participate in what will effectively be an exercise in All Black production. I'm failing to see the incentive.
Most people argue that one of the biggest contributing factors to the decline of SR in Aus is the lack of local derbies/home games and local content. A 5/3 split will represent a marginal improvement over the current format - but will cut 2/5ths of the Australian market from the comp. A poor trade off.
It's no sure thing that cutting two teams will magically make the other three stronger, either. Plenty of players will simply leave for Japan or Europe and the financial and marketing damage done in the process would, in my opinion, be a terminal move for the remaining Australian teams - before a ball is even kicked.
The inconsistency of suggesting that we must cut two teams but the comp must also include a PI team is also pretty frustrating. What are the odds of a PI team (after the majority of the funds get siphoned off by the likes of Killer Keane) actually being competitive?
Finally, Twiggy has regularly expressed an interest in pumping considerable investment into a competition with a single management body that is run in it's own interests (rather than being primarily run for the purposes of Wallaby and AB production). There have also been expressions of interest from PE firms in the US. McLellan has expressed an interest in releasing control of the second tier of Australian rugby to private equity. Given the rather enormous trade-offs involved in us participating in an 8 (or 9) team TT comp - why wouldn't we pursue this option?
Word is a NZ only comp is not financially viable so i don't get why a string of senior NZ figures are trying to strong arm Aus into a format that makes absolutely no sense to them?
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Many Australian fans at this stage want to ditch SR altogether and start from scratch (verging on a majority)
Where's this data coming from? Aussie rugby fans aren't limited to those making the most noise on rugby forums.
@Tim said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
There seems to be a weird field of unreality enveloping some Australian rugby fans at the moment. This idea that an Australian domestic competition would be profitable, let alone preferable to a trans-tasman one, is quite bizarre.
Yeah, there's a lot of losing the plot going on before any decisions have been reached.
-
There seems to be a weird field of unreality enveloping some Australian rugby fans at the moment. This idea that an Australian domestic competition would be profitable, let alone preferable to a trans-tasman one, is quite bizarre.
The top viewing figures in Australia are often for NZ derby games. We saw what happened when Australia had five teams - the rugby was dire. Who would pay to watch eight or even ten Australian teams? How many watch the NRC? Even with four teams, Australia has only one good team (Brumbies), one team of strivers who seldom win (Reds), and two teams of low quality.
This idea of "if NZ tries to keep us down with only three or four teams then we'll go our own way and lose even more money" is just nonsense.
@Tim Viewing figures for NZ derbies in Aus, as far as i am aware, are never better than local games. They are still quite strong due to a high expat population though (i think on the weekend the Aus games, including kayo streams, got about 100k vs 50k each for the NZ derbies).
And i never said an alternative was a sure thing. But why continue to limp along like a wounded dog when we have some other options that could be explored that, in the long term, could be far more beneficial for the health of the game here?
