Skip to content
  • Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

  • Tipping
  • Team Sheets
  • Highlights
  • Results
    • All Blacks

      Search every All Blacks Test. Filter results by year, opposition, location, venue, city and RWC stage

    • Super Rugby

      Search every Super Rugby since match 1996

    • NPC

      Search NPC results. Only first division matches from 1976-2005. All results from the 14 team competition (2006-present) are included

'Super Rugby' 2021

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Sports Talk
1.9k Posts 81 Posters 169.5k Views 5 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • D Derpus

    @Kiwiwomble I can't really be bothered to reiterate why. I've said it before in this thread.

    sharkS Offline
    sharkS Offline
    shark
    wrote on last edited by
    #1167

    @Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

    @Kiwiwomble I can't really be bothered to reiterate why. I've said it before in this thread.

    But you've just massively, MASSIVELY contradicted yourself!

    You can't be bothered reiterating why RA should persevere with the Rebels in Melbourne, but you admit the NRL is "pushing shit uphill" with massively superior resources and an already successful Storm side??

    D 1 Reply Last reply
    3
    • sharkS shark

      @Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

      @Kiwiwomble I can't really be bothered to reiterate why. I've said it before in this thread.

      But you've just massively, MASSIVELY contradicted yourself!

      You can't be bothered reiterating why RA should persevere with the Rebels in Melbourne, but you admit the NRL is "pushing shit uphill" with massively superior resources and an already successful Storm side??

      D Offline
      D Offline
      Derpus
      wrote on last edited by Derpus
      #1168

      @shark nah - they'll never be the biggest team in Melbourne. Doesn't mean they arent worthwhile.

      But even if they should be cut, this doesnt contradict any of the reasons I gave as to why they wont.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • sharkS Offline
        sharkS Offline
        shark
        wrote on last edited by
        #1169

        That can't have been good. What'd he say??

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • sharkS Offline
          sharkS Offline
          shark
          wrote on last edited by
          #1170

          The thing is, I've advocated for the Rebels. But holy fuck, that was the mother of all contradictions.

          mariner4lifeM D 2 Replies Last reply
          1
          • sharkS shark

            The thing is, I've advocated for the Rebels. But holy fuck, that was the mother of all contradictions.

            mariner4lifeM Offline
            mariner4lifeM Offline
            mariner4life
            wrote on last edited by
            #1171

            @shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

            The thing is, I've advocated for the Rebels. But holy fuck, that was the mother of all contradictions.

            AUSSIE RUGBY IS FINE YOU ARROGANT KIWI!!

            VIVA LA FORCE!

            D 1 Reply Last reply
            2
            • sharkS shark

              The thing is, I've advocated for the Rebels. But holy fuck, that was the mother of all contradictions.

              D Offline
              D Offline
              Derpus
              wrote on last edited by Derpus
              #1172

              @shark I didn't mean to delete it.

              I said that i don't think that not being able to be the top team in a city means that the sport is not worth pursuing at all in that area. Just have to accept it's going to be small.

              But, regardless, it still does not contradict the reasons that i gave as to why RA would never agree to cut another team. I mean, how could a sport with 5 teams averaging 50k a game x 2 a week cut one of the teams contributing to it? madness. RA would not survive another cut. Hell you could argue that RA going bankrupt might be better for rugby in the long long run. But RA itself would never facilitate it.

              KirwanK 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • mariner4lifeM mariner4life

                @shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                The thing is, I've advocated for the Rebels. But holy fuck, that was the mother of all contradictions.

                AUSSIE RUGBY IS FINE YOU ARROGANT KIWI!!

                VIVA LA FORCE!

                D Offline
                D Offline
                Derpus
                wrote on last edited by Derpus
                #1173

                @mariner4life righto buddy. I have been trying to engage meaningfully, and you are in fact acting like an arrogant kiwi.

                MajorStokesM mariner4lifeM 2 Replies Last reply
                0
                • D Derpus

                  @mariner4life righto buddy. I have been trying to engage meaningfully, and you are in fact acting like an arrogant kiwi.

                  MajorStokesM Away
                  MajorStokesM Away
                  MajorStokes
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #1174

                  @Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                  @mariner4life righto buddy. I have been trying to engage meaningfully, and you are in fact acting like an arrogant kiwi.

                  I think I get where you are coming from.

                  I've hated the rebels since their first ever existence. The whole thing felt very corporate, from their signings to their management. They were saved in that hey had some really good players in their early years. Correspond that with the Force, who always seemed to get decent crowds, were fantastically placed for teams going to/from SA and seemed to be more about establishing rugby in the region. I was gutted when they were cut & the Rebel's continued.

                  Corporate led teams are always going to prosper in the short term, but eventually go to shit in the medium - long. Where as I thought the Force were doing the opposite.

                  What would I know, I suppose.

                  SnowyS 1 Reply Last reply
                  4
                  • MajorStokesM MajorStokes

                    @Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                    @mariner4life righto buddy. I have been trying to engage meaningfully, and you are in fact acting like an arrogant kiwi.

                    I think I get where you are coming from.

                    I've hated the rebels since their first ever existence. The whole thing felt very corporate, from their signings to their management. They were saved in that hey had some really good players in their early years. Correspond that with the Force, who always seemed to get decent crowds, were fantastically placed for teams going to/from SA and seemed to be more about establishing rugby in the region. I was gutted when they were cut & the Rebel's continued.

                    Corporate led teams are always going to prosper in the short term, but eventually go to shit in the medium - long. Where as I thought the Force were doing the opposite.

                    What would I know, I suppose.

                    SnowyS Offline
                    SnowyS Offline
                    Snowy
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #1175

                    @MajorRage said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                    Corporate led teams are always going to prosper in the short term, but eventually go to shit in the medium - long. Where as I thought the Force were doing the opposite.

                    Do the Force not fit the former category by having a billionaire benefactor (now if not initially)?

                    MajorStokesM 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • SnowyS Snowy

                      @MajorRage said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                      Corporate led teams are always going to prosper in the short term, but eventually go to shit in the medium - long. Where as I thought the Force were doing the opposite.

                      Do the Force not fit the former category by having a billionaire benefactor (now if not initially)?

                      MajorStokesM Away
                      MajorStokesM Away
                      MajorStokes
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #1176

                      @Snowy they didn’t when I followed them.

                      SnowyS 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • D Derpus

                        @shark I didn't mean to delete it.

                        I said that i don't think that not being able to be the top team in a city means that the sport is not worth pursuing at all in that area. Just have to accept it's going to be small.

                        But, regardless, it still does not contradict the reasons that i gave as to why RA would never agree to cut another team. I mean, how could a sport with 5 teams averaging 50k a game x 2 a week cut one of the teams contributing to it? madness. RA would not survive another cut. Hell you could argue that RA going bankrupt might be better for rugby in the long long run. But RA itself would never facilitate it.

                        KirwanK Offline
                        KirwanK Offline
                        Kirwan
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #1177

                        @Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                        @shark I didn't mean to delete it.

                        I said that i don't think that not being able to be the top team in a city means that the sport is not worth pursuing at all in that area. Just have to accept it's going to be small.

                        But, regardless, it still does not contradict the reasons that i gave as to why RA would never agree to cut another team. I mean, how could a sport with 5 teams averaging 50k a game x 2 a week cut one of the teams contributing to it? madness. RA would not survive another cut. Hell you could argue that RA going bankrupt might be better for rugby in the long long run. But RA itself would never facilitate it.

                        I put it back for you.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • MajorStokesM MajorStokes

                          @Snowy they didn’t when I followed them.

                          SnowyS Offline
                          SnowyS Offline
                          Snowy
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #1178

                          @MajorRage said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                          @Snowy they didn’t when I followed them.

                          Yeah. Present day Force is a bit different and agree with the sentiment about the Rebels.
                          If SA teams aren't involved in a "Super" comp it changes quite a lot geographically. The Force were always a stopover for their home matches.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • D Derpus

                            @mariner4life righto buddy. I have been trying to engage meaningfully, and you are in fact acting like an arrogant kiwi.

                            mariner4lifeM Offline
                            mariner4lifeM Offline
                            mariner4life
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #1179

                            @Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                            @mariner4life righto buddy. I have been trying to engage meaningfully, and you are in fact acting like an arrogant kiwi.

                            i am an arrogant kiwi

                            you keep saying stuff, but none of it is based on reality, it's wish list stuff

                            The problem with both the Rebels and the Force is they are not backed up by anything. The only place they can get players is to raid the NSW/Qld development pathways and pinch their players. Are those states producing enough talent to prop up 5 super sides? really?

                            Your argument is basically that the comp should just muddle along until such time that local pathways develop themselves in Melbourne and Perth. The chances of that happening are pretty bloody slim, even in 20 years.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            4
                            • sharkS Offline
                              sharkS Offline
                              shark
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #1180

                              So this proposed Pasifika franchise being supported by Beegee Williams, despite being promoted to the contrary, can only take away from the already thinning depth of the five NZ SR squads.

                              They're saying they'll focus on bringing back European-based Pasifika players for 2022. Now given they're Auckland-based, commercially this makes zero sense as who is going to spring up out of nowhere to give them the money to achieve something NZ Rugby with much greater revenue streams hasn't been able to achieve over years and years? The only guys I would imagine they could afford to pay when competing with the Pound or Franc, would be guys at the end of their careers.

                              The other source of players - and the only one mentioned for 2021 - is fringe SR players of Pacifika heritage in the NPC. This only serves to undermine the five wafer-thin and increasingly youthful NZ squads.

                              They speak of developing Pasifika players in NZ. Sorry, but if they're worth developing they've already been identified and are in the system. Again, there's no undiscovered player well yet to be plumbed.

                              Lastly, this especially undermines the Blues, dividing their support base, further pressuring their development system and possibly costing them commercial partners.

                              Yuck.

                              pukunuiP 1 Reply Last reply
                              10
                              • sharkS shark

                                So this proposed Pasifika franchise being supported by Beegee Williams, despite being promoted to the contrary, can only take away from the already thinning depth of the five NZ SR squads.

                                They're saying they'll focus on bringing back European-based Pasifika players for 2022. Now given they're Auckland-based, commercially this makes zero sense as who is going to spring up out of nowhere to give them the money to achieve something NZ Rugby with much greater revenue streams hasn't been able to achieve over years and years? The only guys I would imagine they could afford to pay when competing with the Pound or Franc, would be guys at the end of their careers.

                                The other source of players - and the only one mentioned for 2021 - is fringe SR players of Pacifika heritage in the NPC. This only serves to undermine the five wafer-thin and increasingly youthful NZ squads.

                                They speak of developing Pasifika players in NZ. Sorry, but if they're worth developing they've already been identified and are in the system. Again, there's no undiscovered player well yet to be plumbed.

                                Lastly, this especially undermines the Blues, dividing their support base, further pressuring their development system and possibly costing them commercial partners.

                                Yuck.

                                pukunuiP Offline
                                pukunuiP Offline
                                pukunui
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #1181

                                @shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                                So this proposed Pasifika franchise being supported by Beegee Williams, despite being promoted to the contrary, can only take away from the already thinning depth of the five NZ SR squads.

                                They're saying they'll focus on bringing back European-based Pasifika players for 2022. Now given they're Auckland-based, commercially this makes zero sense as who is going to spring up out of nowhere to give them the money to achieve something NZ Rugby with much greater revenue streams hasn't been able to achieve over years and years? The only guys I would imagine they could afford to pay when competing with the Pound or Franc, would be guys at the end of their careers.

                                The other source of players - and the only one mentioned for 2021 - is fringe SR players of Pacifika heritage in the NPC. This only serves to undermine the five wafer-thin and increasingly youthful NZ squads.

                                They speak of developing Pasifika players in NZ. Sorry, but if they're worth developing they've already been identified and are in the system. Again, there's no undiscovered player well yet to be plumbed.

                                Lastly, this especially undermines the Blues, dividing their support base, further pressuring their development system and possibly costing them commercial partners.

                                Yuck.

                                Agree with this 100%
                                A terrible idea which has the potential to do a lot of damage but will add very little.

                                It totally undermines our one advantage which is 5 strong super rugby teams.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                2
                                • sharkS Offline
                                  sharkS Offline
                                  shark
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #1182

                                  It's embarrassing for the organisers that they're even attempting this with a straight face.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • SnowyS Offline
                                    SnowyS Offline
                                    Snowy
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #1183

                                    Throw in a definition of Pasifika too. Technically they are Kiwis.

                                    "“Pasifika” and “Pasifika peoples” are terms used by the Ministry of Education to “describe people living in New Zealand who have migrated from the Pacific Islands or who identify with the Pacific Islands because of ancestry or heritage.”

                                    OR:
                                    Pasifika is a term that is unique to Aotearoa and is a term coined by government agencies to describe migrants from the Pacific region and their descendants, who now call Aotearoa home.

                                    I used those because that is the government definition.

                                    So no Fijians either. Pasifika are supposed to be Polynesian, not Melanesian. Do we really want a racially selected side? Who qualifies? Born there? A parent from there? Had a week there on holiday? How brown do you have to be? We have been through these arbitrary qualification issues with international rugby and had Grannygate and suchlike.

                                    Luring players back from overseas? Why did they leave in the first place? It might have been the money, not lack of opportunity? Or they might not have been good enough to make one of our existing teams.

                                    Should we have a dentists of Chinese origin side? A pilots descended from Vikings side? Bass players from Wellington? Ex pats from Eastbourne who like Hummus?

                                    Then add in dilution of talent as @shark says and you end up with:

                                    Yuck.

                                    NepiaN 1 Reply Last reply
                                    3
                                    • sharkS Offline
                                      sharkS Offline
                                      shark
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #1184

                                      You'd think, if this ever was to work, that it'd have to be open to players of all ethnicities but with a strong Polynesian flavour. You couldn't make it officially a racially selected side when it's not even a national team, surely.

                                      pukunuiP 1 Reply Last reply
                                      1
                                      • sharkS shark

                                        You'd think, if this ever was to work, that it'd have to be open to players of all ethnicities but with a strong Polynesian flavour. You couldn't make it officially a racially selected side when it's not even a national team, surely.

                                        pukunuiP Offline
                                        pukunuiP Offline
                                        pukunui
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #1185

                                        @shark said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                                        You'd think, if this ever was to work, that it'd have to be open to players of all ethnicities but with a strong Polynesian flavour. You couldn't make it officially a racially selected side when it's not even a national team, surely.

                                        Yeah, that sounds like a good concept. You could base it in Auckland where there is a large base of pacific islanders.
                                        You could give it a name like “The Blues” or something catchy like that.
                                        Would take about 25 years to build up a long history of great pacific island ex players though.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        3
                                        • SnowyS Snowy

                                          Throw in a definition of Pasifika too. Technically they are Kiwis.

                                          "“Pasifika” and “Pasifika peoples” are terms used by the Ministry of Education to “describe people living in New Zealand who have migrated from the Pacific Islands or who identify with the Pacific Islands because of ancestry or heritage.”

                                          OR:
                                          Pasifika is a term that is unique to Aotearoa and is a term coined by government agencies to describe migrants from the Pacific region and their descendants, who now call Aotearoa home.

                                          I used those because that is the government definition.

                                          So no Fijians either. Pasifika are supposed to be Polynesian, not Melanesian. Do we really want a racially selected side? Who qualifies? Born there? A parent from there? Had a week there on holiday? How brown do you have to be? We have been through these arbitrary qualification issues with international rugby and had Grannygate and suchlike.

                                          Luring players back from overseas? Why did they leave in the first place? It might have been the money, not lack of opportunity? Or they might not have been good enough to make one of our existing teams.

                                          Should we have a dentists of Chinese origin side? A pilots descended from Vikings side? Bass players from Wellington? Ex pats from Eastbourne who like Hummus?

                                          Then add in dilution of talent as @shark says and you end up with:

                                          Yuck.

                                          NepiaN Offline
                                          NepiaN Offline
                                          Nepia
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #1186

                                          @Snowy said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:

                                          So no Fijians either. Pasifika are supposed to be Polynesian, not Melanesian.

                                          The two definitions you posted don't specify that Pasifika is a term for Polynesians only.

                                          BonesB 1 Reply Last reply
                                          2
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Search
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Search