'Super Rugby' 2021
-
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.
-
@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.
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@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.
compromise according to me! Tries to balance quality without ripping the heart out fo the Aussie game.
-
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:
4 Aus teams would be a good compromise.
You think that they have the players for that?
As @Derpus has mentioned, if they get some guys back due to covid, then maybe, but probably still short on quality to put 140+ in the squads ( 4 total) that would compete with the NZ teams.
-
@nzzp said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
4 Aus teams would be a good compromise.
You think that they have the players for that?
As @Derpus has mentioned, if they get some guys back due to covid, then maybe, but probably still short on quality to put 140+ in the squads ( 4 total) that would compete with the NZ teams.
-
Taking the entire SR, including the period of Ozzie Awesomeness (TM) these are the semi final appearances, which means you are there or there abouts
Semi-final appearances by team
17 New Zealand Crusaders (12 wins, 5 losses)
9 Australia Brumbies (6 wins, 3 losses)
9 New Zealand Hurricanes (3 wins, 6 losses)
8 South Africa Sharks (4 wins, 4 losses)
7 South Africa Bulls (3 wins, 4 losses)
7 Australia Waratahs (3 wins, 4 losses)
6 New Zealand Blues (4 wins, 2 losses)
6 New Zealand Chiefs (3 wins, 3 losses)
6 New Zealand Highlanders (2 wins, 4 losses)
4 South Africa Lions (3 wins, 1 losses)
4 Australia Reds (1 win, 3 losses)
4 South Africa Stormers (1 win, 3 losses)
1 Argentina Jaguares (1 win)Taking out the one nation team of the Jags you basically have the Super 12 5 NZ, 4 SA, 3 Oz. Which is about right for number of competitive teams
-
Setting all of this aside - you still haven't really provided a compelling reason why we should accept cutting a team. Even assuming the 'competitiveness' argument is valid. That really only benefits NZ. Why would Australia compromise?
The Force-Reds game last night was fantastic and they are both typically on the lower end of the scale. I just don't see any point in agreeing to cut someone.
-
Setting all of this aside - you still haven't really provided a compelling reason why we should accept cutting a team. Even assuming the 'competitiveness' argument is valid. That really only benefits NZ. Why would Australia compromise?
The Force-Reds game last night was fantastic and they are both typically on the lower end of the scale. I just don't see any point in agreeing to cut someone.
@Derpus because being un-competitive is killing Ozzie rugby. Less and less people are watching because they are sick of the decreasing level of competitiveness. The place to develop your depth is the level down (NPC, Currie, whattever Oz next thinks of) NOT the super competitive international level. AR accepted that, when they got rid of the Force, international super rugby is not where to spread the rugby gospel, by seeing your team at the bottom of the table most of the time
-
@Derpus because being un-competitive is killing Ozzie rugby. Less and less people are watching because they are sick of the decreasing level of competitiveness. The place to develop your depth is the level down (NPC, Currie, whattever Oz next thinks of) NOT the super competitive international level. AR accepted that, when they got rid of the Force, international super rugby is not where to spread the rugby gospel, by seeing your team at the bottom of the table most of the time
@Machpants If we only play ourselves that issue evaporates instantly. If anything, that's a more compelling reason to go it alone.
-
@Snowy I think you have to back the talent pathways, yes. With three teams the pool is super shallow
@nzzp said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
With three teams the pool is super shallow
Which it is. That is why they should only have three teams until they build these "talent pathways" and create the depth. Just have three good teams that people want to watch as they are actually quite good?
@Machpants Figures would back that up.
-
@Machpants If we only play ourselves that issue evaporates instantly. If anything, that's a more compelling reason to go it alone.
-
@Derpus Yup. Except there is not enough money to keep your best players on the back of SRAu 4 EVAR comp. So all your best players will be overseas. Maybe that will work? Doesn't for the Islands, but could for Oz. I dunno. Big risk.
@Machpants Just a big risk being subserviant to the All Blacks needs IMO, which is what agreeing to whatever NZRU want would mean.
Going it alone really depends on whether they can obtain the requisite funding to start it up. I have NFI if that is actually viable but they are apparently figuring it out at the moment.
-
@Machpants Just a big risk being subserviant to the All Blacks needs IMO, which is what agreeing to whatever NZRU want would mean.
Going it alone really depends on whether they can obtain the requisite funding to start it up. I have NFI if that is actually viable but they are apparently figuring it out at the moment.
-
Setting all of this aside - you still haven't really provided a compelling reason why we should accept cutting a team. Even assuming the 'competitiveness' argument is valid. That really only benefits NZ. Why would Australia compromise?
The Force-Reds game last night was fantastic and they are both typically on the lower end of the scale. I just don't see any point in agreeing to cut someone.
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Why would Australia compromise?
Because of standards and competition levels. The better the competition the higher the standards. You have to play against the best to be the best.
That is why we want good Aussie teams to play against, not diluted teams that have journeymen fillers.
-
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Why would Australia compromise?
Because of standards and competition levels. The better the competition the higher the standards. You have to play against the best to be the best.
That is why we want good Aussie teams to play against, not diluted teams that have journeymen fillers.
@Snowy maybe. I personally don't think it would have the effect you think. I think the majority of the players from cut teams would just leave the country. As demonstrated with the Force, it would also damage the existing support for the game in the country greatly.
The costs far outweigh the benefits IMO.
-
@Snowy maybe. I personally don't think it would have the effect you think. I think the majority of the players from cut teams would just leave the country. As demonstrated with the Force, it would also damage the existing support for the game in the country greatly.
The costs far outweigh the benefits IMO.
