'Super Rugby' 2021
-
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Gunner Under 20s results
Based on one year's u20s result. Let's just conveniently ignore the previous five years.
-
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@akan004 well, regardless, they are promising.
Yes, but won't make 5 strong super teams.
-
@Snowy oh are we only allowed to select players for a single year group? you are intentionally missing my point.
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Snowy oh are we only allowed to select players for a single year group? you are intentionally missing my point.
No, I'm not. What is your point?
Do you believe that (as has been mentioned the previous 5 years failures) will build the depth for 5 super teams? -
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Snowy oh are we only allowed to select players for a single year group? you are intentionally missing my point.
No, I'm not. What is your point?
Do you believe that (as has been mentioned the previous 5 years failures) will build the depth for 5 super teams?@Snowy My point is that the dip in form post RWC15 was due to the player drain and that prior to that results had been reasonable. Following that, RC did work to secure talent pathways which is already reaping dividends and results had been improving. Hell, even the much derided Rebels beat the Highlanders away this year. The Brumbies also knocking off the in-form Chiefs.
To predicate the structure of the entire competition on the lack of performance post RWC15 would be silly, IMO. Particularly when the other 4 NZ teams have themselves not demonstrated that they can compete with the Crusaders on a regular basis anyway.
Im basically pointing out that the prevailing assumption that 'Aussie teams are all garbage' and 'NZ teams are amazing and constantly competitive' is pretty flawed.
-
@Snowy My point is that the dip in form post RWC15 was due to the player drain and that prior to that results had been reasonable. Following that, RC did work to secure talent pathways which is already reaping dividends and results had been improving. Hell, even the much derided Rebels beat the Highlanders away this year. The Brumbies also knocking off the in-form Chiefs.
To predicate the structure of the entire competition on the lack of performance post RWC15 would be silly, IMO. Particularly when the other 4 NZ teams have themselves not demonstrated that they can compete with the Crusaders on a regular basis anyway.
Im basically pointing out that the prevailing assumption that 'Aussie teams are all garbage' and 'NZ teams are amazing and constantly competitive' is pretty flawed.
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Im basically pointing out that the prevailing assumption that 'Aussie teams are all garbage' and 'NZ teams are amazing and constantly competitive' is pretty flawed.
Well we can agree on that.
I don't believe that Aus can make 5 competitive teams though. Three worked.
As for other NZ teams v Crusaders? Well they have sent the benchmark and it doesn't matter which countries franchises are measured against them. The Kiwi teams have done just fine against everybody else.
-
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Im basically pointing out that the prevailing assumption that 'Aussie teams are all garbage' and 'NZ teams are amazing and constantly competitive' is pretty flawed.
Well we can agree on that.
I don't believe that Aus can make 5 competitive teams though. Three worked.
As for other NZ teams v Crusaders? Well they have sent the benchmark and it doesn't matter which countries franchises are measured against them. The Kiwi teams have done just fine against everybody else.
@Snowy this also brings me back to another point. Why does Australia have to have 5 competitive teams at any one point? NZ have very rarely put forward 5 teams that are all competitive at the same time.
Very few competitions ever have an even spread.
I can see the concern if one team consistently under performs, but as someone else pointed out much earlier in the thread. It takes a very long time for a team to develop the culture required to win consistently against high quality opposition. It won't happen overnight.
I've yet to see a very compelling argument for forcing Australia to cut off one of it's limbs.
-
@Snowy this also brings me back to another point. Why does Australia have to have 5 competitive teams at any one point? NZ have very rarely put forward 5 teams that are all competitive at the same time.
Very few competitions ever have an even spread.
I can see the concern if one team consistently under performs, but as someone else pointed out much earlier in the thread. It takes a very long time for a team to develop the culture required to win consistently against high quality opposition. It won't happen overnight.
I've yet to see a very compelling argument for forcing Australia to cut off one of it's limbs.
-
I seriously am not interested in watching a Rebels v Force match. It ain't "super". Do you see what I am getting at?
@Snowy yeah - but the same could be said of the two weakest NZ teams at any given time. Or the Saffa teams for that matter.
You demand something you don't even provide yourself. It's a nonsense. Which makes the desire for a Pasifika team all the more perplexing. You demand greater competition but you want to add a team with next to no chance of being competitive. Righto.
-
@Snowy yeah - but the same could be said of the two weakest NZ teams at any given time. Or the Saffa teams for that matter.
You demand something you don't even provide yourself. It's a nonsense. Which makes the desire for a Pasifika team all the more perplexing. You demand greater competition but you want to add a team with next to no chance of being competitive. Righto.
-
@Snowy yeah - but the same could be said of the two weakest NZ teams at any given time. Or the Saffa teams for that matter.
You demand something you don't even provide yourself. It's a nonsense. Which makes the desire for a Pasifika team all the more perplexing. You demand greater competition but you want to add a team with next to no chance of being competitive. Righto.
@Derpus We have the player base in NZ to support 5 good professional teams that could compete in most competitions and do O.K. Australia does not. Yes you can build it, yes you can change it it but history suggests (and right now), you don't have the depth.
-
The Blues finished 14th in 2018 and 13th in 2019. Should they have been labelled 'uncompetitive' and blocked from the competition?
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
The Blues finished 14th in 2018 and 13th in 2019. Should they have been labelled 'uncompetitive' and blocked from the competition?
They had a massive disadvantage of being in the NZ Conference. They hardly ever lost to an Aussie side during that period though.
-
The Blues finished 14th in 2018 and 13th in 2019. Should they have been labelled 'uncompetitive' and blocked from the competition?
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
The Blues finished 14th in 2018 and 13th in 2019. Should they have been labelled 'uncompetitive' and blocked from the competition?
More about the number of teams in the comp than where each team comes each year.
Should we have a "Super" 50? Which isn't very super. Just limit the number of teams to get the best players involved and leave the not so talented dross out. Concentrate the talent.
Fuck the way it was going I would get a contract.
-
The Blues finished 14th in 2018 and 13th in 2019. Should they have been labelled 'uncompetitive' and blocked from the competition?
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
The Blues finished 14th in 2018 and 13th in 2019. Should they have been labelled 'uncompetitive' and blocked from the competition?
that's a bit disingenuous as we played the NZ sides twice each, and generally went well in games against overseas teams.
Remember the Lions topped the table without playing NZ sides, and then lost despite having home advantage. The Blues were terrible compared to other NZ sides, but competetive with SA and AUS conference sides.
-
also, I think 4 Aus teams would be a good compromise.
9 Teams, play home and away, eastern seaboard keeps the travel down; 16 games, then semis and final, seeded on position. Would keep the quality up, and the travel down.
@nzzp said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
also, I think 4 Aus teams would be a good compromise.
9 Teams, play home and away, eastern seaboard keeps the travel down; 16 games, then semis and final, seeded on position. Would keep the quality up, and the travel down.
Compromise according to who? The Aussies want five teams in the new competition.
