Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@antipodean So the Force must be competitive but they must only be competitive with locally sourced players?
They are 31 and 26 year old internationals, by the way.
It's actually pretty hard to gauge what NZ actually want. is it competitive teams, or locally sourced talent, or is it new markets, or Pacifika team based no-where near any of it's 'locally sourced players'? flopping around like a dead fish.
@Derpus said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean So the Force must be competitive but they must only be competitive with locally sourced players?
Wasn't the argument that reinstalling the Force would address Australia's depth?
They are 31 and 26 year old internationals, by the way.
End of their careers until they can get to Europe.
It's actually pretty hard to gauge what NZ actually want. is it competitive teams, or locally sourced talent, or is it new markets, or Pacifika team based no-where near any of it's 'locally sourced players'? flopping around like a dead fish.
I didn't realise I spoke for all of NZ, let alone have adopted those positions.
-
@Stargazer sounds like more of a (fair) shot at NZR to me
-
@Derpus said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean So the Force must be competitive but they must only be competitive with locally sourced players?
Wasn't the argument that reinstalling the Force would address Australia's depth?
They are 31 and 26 year old internationals, by the way.
End of their careers until they can get to Europe.
It's actually pretty hard to gauge what NZ actually want. is it competitive teams, or locally sourced talent, or is it new markets, or Pacifika team based no-where near any of it's 'locally sourced players'? flopping around like a dead fish.
I didn't realise I spoke for all of NZ, let alone have adopted those positions.
-
@antipodean Did i say it was hard to gauge what you want?
@Derpus said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean Did i say it was hard to gauge what you want?
It was a direct response to me, otherwise you're making up positions for NZ too.
-
@Derpus said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean Did i say it was hard to gauge what you want?
It was a direct response to me, otherwise you're making up positions for NZ too.
-
@KiwiMurph I'm not sure it's a "fair" shot at NZR. Although the way NZR have been communicating is below par, I think their considerations are pretty valid.
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby:
@KiwiMurph I'm not sure it's a "fair" shot at NZR. Although the way NZR have been communicating is below par, I think their considerations are pretty valid.
So they initially came out with
"We want teams that are competitive and that fans will want to watch go head to head, week in, week out."Now they want to add 3 new teams from 2022 with the 5 options being Force, BOP/China, Kanaloa Hawaii, Moana Pasifika, Fiji Drua
-
@antipodean what the hell are you talking about? i said it's hard to gauge what NZ want. All of those things that i mentioned have been discussed by any of fans, media or NZRU.
@Derpus said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean what the hell are you talking about? i said it's hard to gauge what NZ want. All of those things that i mentioned have been discussed by any of fans, media or NZRU.
You'd have to be retarded to think disparate commentaries about different matters rule each other out. What fucking relevance would a Pacifika team in Auckland have with Australian depth or Force competitiveness?
-
Western Force. Fixing Australia's depth by hiring one ineligible retiree at a time.
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby:
Western Force. Fixing Australia's depth by hiring one ineligible retiree at a time.
I have no problem with this.
My problem with 5 Australian teams is if it is too tightly coupled with central contracting of Australian or future-Australian eligible players.
-
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby:
@KiwiMurph I'm not sure it's a "fair" shot at NZR. Although the way NZR have been communicating is below par, I think their considerations are pretty valid.
So they initially came out with
"We want teams that are competitive and that fans will want to watch go head to head, week in, week out."Now they want to add 3 new teams from 2022 with the 5 options being Force, BOP/China, Kanaloa Hawaii, Moana Pasifika, Fiji Drua
@KiwiMurph I assume NZR postponing the addition of a Pasifika team in 2021, because the two candidate teams couldn't assure sufficient competitiveness and financial backing for 2021, means that they'll also use those criteria in assessing whether any of the other possible teams are ready, or not, to be added in 2022. Or at least have the plans ready that can achieve the standard that NZR expects from new participating teams. I don't have a functioning crystal ball whether NZR will indeed apply these criteria; if they do, fine; if they don't, they deserve all the criticism they'll get.
-
@Derpus said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean what the hell are you talking about? i said it's hard to gauge what NZ want. All of those things that i mentioned have been discussed by any of fans, media or NZRU.
You'd have to be retarded to think disparate commentaries about different matters rule each other out. What fucking relevance would a Pacifika team in Auckland have with Australian depth or Force competitiveness?
@antipodean because they are directly contradictory. On the one had some say that Force can't cut the mustard, on the other they say they want the Force in a SR Aoteroa comp. Or, they don't. They want a Pacifika team that could never be competitive. Or, even more laughably, a China team based in NZ.
Then, on the third hand (you have a lot of hands) to participate Australia needs to cut teams - because they aren't competitive enough. Just ignore the aforementioned fact that one of the teams we are to exclude is posited as your alternative and none of the posited alternatives will be anywhere near as competitive as existing Australian franchises.
They are not different matters. They all pertain to the future structure of SR. My point being, it's difficult to gauge what NZ (union, fans, media) want out of it.
Your confusion is understandable, though. Given the above.
-
@KiwiMurph I assume NZR postponing the addition of a Pasifika team in 2021, because the two candidate teams couldn't assure sufficient competitiveness and financial backing for 2021, means that they'll also use those criteria in assessing whether any of the other possible teams are ready, or not, to be added in 2022. Or at least have the plans ready that can achieve the standard that NZR expects from new participating teams. I don't have a functioning crystal ball whether NZR will indeed apply these criteria; if they do, fine; if they don't, they deserve all the criticism they'll get.
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby:
@KiwiMurph I assume NZR postponing the addition of a Pasifika team in 2021, because the two candidate teams couldn't assure sufficient competitiveness and financial backing for 2021, means that they'll also use those criteria in assessing whether any of the other possible teams are ready, or not, to be added in 2022. Or at least have the plans ready that can achieve the standard that NZR expects from new participating teams. I don't have a functioning crystal ball whether NZR will indeed apply these criteria; if they do, fine; if they don't, they deserve all the criticism they'll get.
Well what they've said is
“The board is committed to approving a minimum of three teams from the shortlist, with that decision to be made on 30 November.” -
@antipodean because they are directly contradictory. On the one had some say that Force can't cut the mustard, on the other they say they want the Force in a SR Aoteroa comp. Or, they don't. They want a Pacifika team that could never be competitive. Or, even more laughably, a China team based in NZ.
Then, on the third hand (you have a lot of hands) to participate Australia needs to cut teams - because they aren't competitive enough. Just ignore the aforementioned fact that one of the teams we are to exclude is posited as your alternative and none of the posited alternatives will be anywhere near as competitive as existing Australian franchises.
They are not different matters. They all pertain to the future structure of SR. My point being, it's difficult to gauge what NZ (union, fans, media) want out of it.
Your confusion is understandable, though. Given the above.
@Derpus said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean because they are directly contradictory. On the one had some say that Force can't cut the mustard, on the other they say they want the Force in a SR Aoteroa comp. Or, they don't. They want a Pacifika team that could never be competitive. Or, even more laughably, a China team based in NZ.
Different people offering different opinions doesn't make them contradictory unless they're held by the same people. And that's the domain of NZR which appears to be doing its level best to confuse all parties if the media reporting by NZH and Stuff are to be believed. Both of them being well known supporters of NZR. Laughably in Australian media the NZH is reported as NZR's mouthpiece.
They are not different matters. They all pertain to the future structure of SR. My point being, it's difficult to gauge what NZ (union, fans, media) want out of it.
Perhaps stretch your mental faculties to recognise that different people may have different opinions on different topics.
-
@Derpus said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean because they are directly contradictory. On the one had some say that Force can't cut the mustard, on the other they say they want the Force in a SR Aoteroa comp. Or, they don't. They want a Pacifika team that could never be competitive. Or, even more laughably, a China team based in NZ.
Different people offering different opinions doesn't make them contradictory unless they're held by the same people. And that's the domain of NZR which appears to be doing its level best to confuse all parties if the media reporting by NZH and Stuff are to be believed. Both of them being well known supporters of NZR. Laughably in Australian media the NZH is reported as NZR's mouthpiece.
They are not different matters. They all pertain to the future structure of SR. My point being, it's difficult to gauge what NZ (union, fans, media) want out of it.
Perhaps stretch your mental faculties to recognise that different people may have different opinions on different topics.
-
@antipodean you can only contradict an opinion if it's made by yourself? I think we are done here.
@Derpus said in Aussie Rugby:
@antipodean you can only contradict an opinion if it's made by yourself? I think we are done here.
Are any of the following diametrically or mutually opposed?
@Derpus said in Aussie Rugby:
It's actually pretty hard to gauge what NZ actually want. is it competitive teams, or locally sourced talent, or is it new markets, or Pacifika team based no-where near any of it's 'locally sourced players'?
You do realise you can have locally sourced talent that's competitive? A Pacifika team can be based with locally sourced players?
-
Christ we need some rugby, and soon. I'm earmestly reading threads with people arguing semantics and I'm contemplating getting involved. Its not right
-
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/rugby-australia-looks-to-strike-rights-deal-with-nine-20201008-p56386.html?fbclid=IwAR3GCsnDZSXfp3gxNMu_9FgBystVOH0q42vdXuaWRcz2CC-443Ua5va3CD4
promissing, if they showed all the super games...id only have foxtel for the AB's and NPC...so would have to really think abut it...i have a pub about 100m awaycould be a play to get more people interested in rugby, if they didn't have to pay to watch it
-
-
Oh go jump, the lot of you. It's not the message, it's the messenger.
Would you guys like some tips on cricket success from Brad Haddin?
I don't have time for Hansen. I find him a miserable, condescending prick. Maybe that's just me, but whatever.
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby:
Oh go jump, the lot of you. It's not the message, it's the messenger.
Would you guys like some tips on cricket success from Brad Haddin?
I don't have time for Hansen. I find him a miserable, condescending prick. Maybe that's just me, but whatever.
Once upon a time, we did it.
-
