'Super Rugby' 2021
-
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.
-
This guy is singing from my hymn sheet. Probably a kiwi
-
@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:
can we dumb a team that has won the comp previously?
A different competition. This is a new start hopefully
-
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.
They can't support 4 teams. And maybe not afford 4 teams either. Just maybe the Aussies want NZ to push for 2 or 3 teams (with 3 the aim) because the affordability factor
-
@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.
-
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.
-
Well, yeah. If you accept that we have to cut a team the Rebels are the only choice. Would still be a massive mistake IMO.
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Well, yeah. If you accept that we have to cut a team the Rebels are the only choice. Would still be a massive mistake IMO.
8 teams is the only sensible option for now. Aust are not in great financial shape and 1 extra team is a big cost.
Maybe combine the Rebels with the Brumbies. But I want to want to watch Aussie teams play. As I did in the past with the Brumbies. At there best they were sometimes a joy to watch
-
@Derpus In March Australia only had 4 teams and nobody complained about it. Now you Aussies are acting like it's the end of the world if you don't get your 5 teams.
@akan004 said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Derpus In March Australia only had 4 teams and nobody complained about it. Now you Aussies are acting like it's the end of the world if you don't get your 5 teams.
Its an ego thing re NZ. The wise decision is 3 team but as NZ have 5 teams its hard for the bigger fish to accept
-
@akan004 said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Derpus In March Australia only had 4 teams and nobody complained about it. Now you Aussies are acting like it's the end of the world if you don't get your 5 teams.
Its an ego thing re NZ. The wise decision is 3 team but as NZ have 5 teams its hard for the bigger fish to accept
@Winger Easy to talk about 3 Aussie teams on an internet forum, but in reality it's very tough to implement.
That's another fanbase without a team, players and staff without a job, another major market where rugby leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
I can understand the arguments from a rugby standpoint. But saying this is about ego is well wide of the mark IMO.
-
It would be nice if NZ, OZ, Japan, and the Pacific islands got together and tried to make a ‘premium’ competition with a second tier below it, but with some system for teams to move from the top tier to second tier, and vice versa (maybe not in the initial years, but after a couple of iterations).
Perhaps two tiers of 8 teams, such as the following:
Super 8: NZ teams, 3 Oz teams
Pacific 8: 2 Oz, 1 Pacific, 5 Japan -
It would be nice if NZ, OZ, Japan, and the Pacific islands got together and tried to make a ‘premium’ competition with a second tier below it, but with some system for teams to move from the top tier to second tier, and vice versa (maybe not in the initial years, but after a couple of iterations).
Perhaps two tiers of 8 teams, such as the following:
Super 8: NZ teams, 3 Oz teams
Pacific 8: 2 Oz, 1 Pacific, 5 Japan@gt12 problem is with two tier comps is no one and no money goes to 2nd tier, you've got to share revenue or prop up the tier below. All the quality players and money go to the top tier, look how often newly promoted premiership teams go straight back down. Not always, but very common
