'Super Rugby' 2021
-
@Machpants said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Tim is good that Jewish are keen in some way, and happy to shift stuff around
Auto correct I assume?
-
@taniwharugby said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Crazy-Horse that's who google said it was, but I thought Northland was part of CANZ at one point but no mention of Northland so there either...I might have to hunt out the old programme I have from when we played one of the Arg sides.
The SPC, started 1986, which changed name later to Super 6. Was closed shop private 'ring fenced' tournament of Auckland, Wellington, Canterbury, NSW, Qld, Fiji.
Made sense in 86 and 87, but by 1989 both Wellington and Canterbury were awful and Waikato and Otago couldn't get in.
Was seen as huge recruiting shamateurism advantage for these 3 provinces to capture the urban drift.
CANZ started in 1989. Movers were Otago and Waikato. 3rd expected team was North Harbour, but they declined, and North Auckland were included instead. Canada and the 2 Argentine clubs mentioned by Bovidae made up the 6.
Argentines lasted only 1 year. Then it was just 4 teams. Competition ran 89 , 90, can't remember how many years after that (e.g. if ran in 91 and 92).
1993, Super 10 started. Was merit based for NZ and Saf and Pacific teams. Top 4 Currie Cup, top 3 NPC, winner of Pacific Cup, plus the 2 Aussie states.
Was bankrolled by SAF tv money, hence the most teams. Plus final was guaranteed to be played in SAF if a Saf team made the final.
Fiji never played in it. Was Samoa twice and then Tonga in 95. Dont think Canterbury or Wellington were ever good enough to make NPC top 3 in those years. Auckland, Harbour, Waikato, Otago did.
Remember Samoa playing at least some, if not all, home games at Athletics configured Mt Smart stadium. Where as back in the SPC days, Fiji always played home games in Suva.
@Rapido said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
CANZ started in 1989. Movers were Otago and Waikato. 3rd expected team was North Harbour, but they declined, and North Auckland were included instead. Canada and the 2 Argentine clubs mentioned by Bovidae made up the 6.
Argentines lasted only 1 year. Then it was just 4 teams. Competition ran 89 , 90, can't remember how many years after that (e.g. if ran in 91 and 92).
CANZ was not played in 1991, and resumed in 1992 when North Harbour was involved along with Waikato, North Auckland, Otago and Canada. Super 10 took over from 1993.
-
@Machpants said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Tim is good that Jewish are keen in some way, and happy to shift stuff around
Auto correct I assume?
@Nepia said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Machpants said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Tim is good that Jewish are keen in some way, and happy to shift stuff around
Auto correct I assume?
@Nepia said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Machpants said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@Tim is good that Jewish are keen in some way, and happy to shift stuff around
Auto correct I assume?
The Japanese aren't Jewish? Learn something every day
-
@Derpus said in '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.
Great. The Force and Reds are as bad as each other, so they created a contest. This is a truly compelling argument for five Australian teams.
-
By going for teams at a state/territory level, Aus never left themselves well suited for expansion in the old Super Rugby format.
If you step back and look at it dispassionately, expanding to Victoria and WA makes no sense, rather than a second Sydney team etc.
To have 40% of your teams as 'expansion' projects is a bit crazy.
Expanding to those locations would make sense if they were the 15th club in your league (like NRL and AFL expansion state teams), not your 4th.
-
By going for teams at a state/territory level, Aus never left themselves well suited for expansion in the old Super Rugby format.
If you step back and look at it dispassionately, expanding to Victoria and WA makes no sense, rather than a second Sydney team etc.
To have 40% of your teams as 'expansion' projects is a bit crazy.
Expanding to those locations would make sense if they were the 15th club in your league (like NRL and AFL expansion state teams), not your 4th.
-
@shark Well it was entertaining which is the sole purpose of SR. If we can have entertaining rugby playing alone, why deprive an entire state of a team so that you lot have someone you deem suitable? It's a pretty good reason to go it alone.
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@shark Well it was entertaining which is the sole purpose of SR. If we can have entertaining rugby playing alone, why deprive an entire state of a team so that you lot have someone you deem suitable? It's a pretty good reason to go it alone.
In all seriousness, how do you think crowd and viewership numbers would go in an all-Aussie double round robin, compared to games vs the Crusaders, Hurricanes and Blues?
-
Really don't see the point of the Rebels. Melbourne is an Aussie Rules, League and Soccer town. There are only 25 Rugby clubs in Victoria
They've never challenged for the silverware and never made the playoffs. Their record is 15th, 13th, 12th, 15th, 10th, 12th, 18th, 9th, 11th
-
Really don't see the point of the Rebels. Melbourne is an Aussie Rules, League and Soccer town. There are only 25 Rugby clubs in Victoria
They've never challenged for the silverware and never made the playoffs. Their record is 15th, 13th, 12th, 15th, 10th, 12th, 18th, 9th, 11th
@sparky yep terrible on the pitch, but they're in a truly significant market and my understanding is they're well backed by corporates. Additionally, Victoria has turned out some decent players. So there's potential there.
I always liked the concept of the Rebels. Love Melbourne, great name, good stadium. I'd have gone along and adopted them had I still been living there when they entered the comp.
-
Really don't see the point of the Rebels. Melbourne is an Aussie Rules, League and Soccer town. There are only 25 Rugby clubs in Victoria
They've never challenged for the silverware and never made the playoffs. Their record is 15th, 13th, 12th, 15th, 10th, 12th, 18th, 9th, 11th
-
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Aussie Rules, League and Soccer town
Not even League, really. The Adelaide Rams were better supported.
@NTA said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Aussie Rules, League and Soccer town
Not even League, really. The Adelaide Rams were better supported.
Than the storm? Really? If so maybe we should take that as a sign, one of the most successful teams in recent memory can’t even get good support
-
Really don't see the point of the Rebels. Melbourne is an Aussie Rules, League and Soccer town. There are only 25 Rugby clubs in Victoria
They've never challenged for the silverware and never made the playoffs. Their record is 15th, 13th, 12th, 15th, 10th, 12th, 18th, 9th, 11th
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Really don't see the point of the Rebels. Melbourne is an Aussie Rules, League and Soccer town. There are only 25 Rugby clubs in Victoria
They've never challenged for the silverware and never made the playoffs. Their record is 15th, 13th, 12th, 15th, 10th, 12th, 18th, 9th, 11th
I agree with this. The Rebels came to the party far too late. the AFL is a juggernaut and captures so much of the public's attention in Melbourne that even a super successful franchise like the Storm - which I understand loses money year after year and always has done - barely gets a mention or crowd. Truth is, most rugby people in Melbourne are going to support a Kiwi franchise over the Rebels anyway and the others all supported the Brumbies for the 15+ years of SR before the Rebels came along. Seriously, no one in Melbourne will notice or care if the Rebels are disbanded.
-
@sparky yep terrible on the pitch, but they're in a truly significant market and my understanding is they're well backed by corporates. Additionally, Victoria has turned out some decent players. So there's potential there.
I always liked the concept of the Rebels. Love Melbourne, great name, good stadium. I'd have gone along and adopted them had I still been living there when they entered the comp.
@shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@sparky yep terrible on the pitch, but they're in a truly significant market and my understanding is they're well backed by corporates. Additionally, Victoria has turned out some decent players. So there's potential there.
I always liked the concept of the Rebels. Love Melbourne, great name, good stadium. I'd have gone along and adopted them had I still been living there when they entered the comp.
Yes, everything is there in theory to have a decent franchise with a small, but strong following together with some outside interest as a boutique novelty sport for those who traditionally support AFL. However, it just doesn't work that way in Melbourne and it wouldn't make a difference if the team was really successful - the Storm are evidence of this. (And with the Storm, you've got to remember that much of their fanbase is actually built on Union supporters, with the NRL being the closest thing in town to proper rugby for a very long time.)
You have to put it into the too hard basket now, I think. There's too many vested interest in the overall sporting landscape in Melbourne to allow a rugby union franchise to flourish.
-
I think if the Rebels were to enjoy any significant success at all, they would capture Melbourne's interest. Why, given the wildly successful Storm never has, you ask? Because the Rebels play (played?) in an internationally recognised competition. Melbournites would get that, and get behind them. They know rugby union is a global sport. I don't think they've got behind the Storm because the Storm have simply won titles in a domestic comp in a global minority sport, and one they all regard as significantly inferior to the AFL in stature. Further, league isn't viewed any differently there to how it is in NZ; a sport for boofheads, thugs and lunatics. Rugby on the other hand can be easily supported by corporates and families.
-
This is where RA seem to be at:
Fair dinkum crossroads: Australia to stand firm on five Super teams
Rugby Australia is hardening its resolve around a five-team Super Rugby future despite New Zealand's unilateral invitation to contribute as few as two to next year's competition.
An RA board meeting will on Monday discuss New Zealand Rugby's Aratipu review, which was released on Friday with a pitch for an eight- or 10-team competition, including its own five sides and a Pasifika team.
Later this week RA boss Rob Clarke will take an operational call from his Kiwi counterparts to discuss in more detail the review and what NZR has in mind for the future of the trans- Ta$man partnership.
But RA chairman Hamish McLennan said Australia was firm on defending its five-team footprint - the Waratahs, Reds, Rebels, Brumbies and Force - and would continue to explore striking out on its own with an Argentinian, Japanese and South African flavour.
"We're looking at two plans, one with the Kiwis and one without. The call as I understand it, between [NZR boss] Mark Robinson and Rob [Clarke] was quite perfunctory," McLennan said.
"It's pretty obvious to me that we have the chance to build the best professional competition in the world together, with a bit of a twist, so I hope they can seize the opportunity. As countries we are best alone, better together."
-
This is where RA seem to be at:
Fair dinkum crossroads: Australia to stand firm on five Super teams
Rugby Australia is hardening its resolve around a five-team Super Rugby future despite New Zealand's unilateral invitation to contribute as few as two to next year's competition.
An RA board meeting will on Monday discuss New Zealand Rugby's Aratipu review, which was released on Friday with a pitch for an eight- or 10-team competition, including its own five sides and a Pasifika team.
Later this week RA boss Rob Clarke will take an operational call from his Kiwi counterparts to discuss in more detail the review and what NZR has in mind for the future of the trans- Ta$man partnership.
But RA chairman Hamish McLennan said Australia was firm on defending its five-team footprint - the Waratahs, Reds, Rebels, Brumbies and Force - and would continue to explore striking out on its own with an Argentinian, Japanese and South African flavour.
"We're looking at two plans, one with the Kiwis and one without. The call as I understand it, between [NZR boss] Mark Robinson and Rob [Clarke] was quite perfunctory," McLennan said.
"It's pretty obvious to me that we have the chance to build the best professional competition in the world together, with a bit of a twist, so I hope they can seize the opportunity. As countries we are best alone, better together."
@barbarian I love some of the language coming from the Oz media at the moment ... “unilateral decision to contribute as a few as two”.
Also, now the Aussies want to play with the Saffas?
-
There's a lot of negotiation by media at the moment. It's like a league player when their contract is almost up, and all of a sudden journalists are reporting that they are fielding offers from union, AFL and the Dallas Cowboys.
Not quite sure what to believe.
-
This is where RA seem to be at:
Fair dinkum crossroads: Australia to stand firm on five Super teams
Rugby Australia is hardening its resolve around a five-team Super Rugby future despite New Zealand's unilateral invitation to contribute as few as two to next year's competition.
An RA board meeting will on Monday discuss New Zealand Rugby's Aratipu review, which was released on Friday with a pitch for an eight- or 10-team competition, including its own five sides and a Pasifika team.
Later this week RA boss Rob Clarke will take an operational call from his Kiwi counterparts to discuss in more detail the review and what NZR has in mind for the future of the trans- Ta$man partnership.
But RA chairman Hamish McLennan said Australia was firm on defending its five-team footprint - the Waratahs, Reds, Rebels, Brumbies and Force - and would continue to explore striking out on its own with an Argentinian, Japanese and South African flavour.
"We're looking at two plans, one with the Kiwis and one without. The call as I understand it, between [NZR boss] Mark Robinson and Rob [Clarke] was quite perfunctory," McLennan said.
"It's pretty obvious to me that we have the chance to build the best professional competition in the world together, with a bit of a twist, so I hope they can seize the opportunity. As countries we are best alone, better together."
@barbarian said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
But RA chairman Hamish McLennan said Australia was firm on defending its five-team footprint - the Waratahs, Reds, Rebels, Brumbies and Force - and would continue to explore striking out on its own with an Argentinian, Japanese and South African flavour.
That has to be a bluff, would SA want to fly all that way just to play aussie teams?
