Super Rugby Trans Tasman
-
@antipodean I'm pretty sure this is tongue in cheek but it's my preference.
The Aussie SR sides won't be competitive with their NZ counterparts. Even with major structural reform and a sudden influx of cash that meant we could actually retain our talent, it'd still take years (five to ten at least), before they are up to speed.
TT is a complete non-starter.
To be honest, it's kind of hard to see how RA gets itself out of this death spiral at all. Every single alternative option for players is more attractive. Salaries in Japan and Europe are only bettered by the salaries in AFL and NRL.
-
@derpus disagree totally. You keep more quality players in Aus by giving them a more meaningful local program. Playing kiwi sides does that. They will be better for it and depth will improve as the Jersey becomes more attractive.
-
@arhs i mean up until last year there was an even MORE meaningful comp and aussie (and nz) was still losing players overseas
what was the record the Highlanders stuffed up a few years ago? 25 wins in a row to NZ teams over aussie ones
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
what was the record the Highlanders stuffed up a few years ago? 25 wins in a row to NZ teams over aussie ones
Hopeless your lot. We can try for better this year. Don't let us down.
-
@derpus disagree totally. You keep more quality players in Aus by giving them a more meaningful local program. Playing kiwi sides does that. They will be better for it and depth will improve as the Jersey becomes more attractive.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
what was the record the Highlanders stuffed up a few years ago? 25 wins in a row to NZ teams over aussie ones
Hopeless your lot. We can try for better this year. Don't let us down.
-
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The Australian teams are much worse than us. The draw does favour our teams though. The Hurricanes for instance are getting to rest some players with three easy games before taking on the Reds and the Brumbies. The Reds and Brumbies stand a chance of winning games, especially at home against our weaker sides. I think it will get tougher for them as the competition goes on.
If you had a format where you play teams for your own country twice and all the Aussie teams once, it would at least appear more even. The New Zealand teams would be more tired from playing each other.
Realistically, the best format would be 5 NZ teams, 4 Aus teams and 1 Pacific or Japanese team. That would provide the most even and balanced competition possible.
The Crusaders played the top two Australian teams in the first two weeks, including their champions away. The Highlanders got their best side and then a trip to Perth. The Chiefs had to start in Perth a week after our final.
How has the draw favoured NZ teams???
I thought my post explained it clearly.
It's obvious. The Brumbies and Reds have 5 tough games in a row (after their final). The Hurricanes had a week off, play 2 easy teams, the Force and then the Brumbies/Reds. Every Australian team has a tough draw because they do not have to play the other Australian teams!
In a round-robin format, the Brumbies/Reds would get to intersperse games against New Zealand teams with easy games against Australian opposition. This would give them a greater chance of winning these games and would make them more competitive.
So it's a tough draw for the Australians, because they're not good, and have to play five superior teams in a row? That's not a tough draw so much as incompetence.
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The Australian teams are much worse than us. The draw does favour our teams though. The Hurricanes for instance are getting to rest some players with three easy games before taking on the Reds and the Brumbies. The Reds and Brumbies stand a chance of winning games, especially at home against our weaker sides. I think it will get tougher for them as the competition goes on.
If you had a format where you play teams for your own country twice and all the Aussie teams once, it would at least appear more even. The New Zealand teams would be more tired from playing each other.
Realistically, the best format would be 5 NZ teams, 4 Aus teams and 1 Pacific or Japanese team. That would provide the most even and balanced competition possible.
The Crusaders played the top two Australian teams in the first two weeks, including their champions away. The Highlanders got their best side and then a trip to Perth. The Chiefs had to start in Perth a week after our final.
How has the draw favoured NZ teams???
I thought my post explained it clearly.
It's obvious. The Brumbies and Reds have 5 tough games in a row (after their final). The Hurricanes had a week off, play 2 easy teams, the Force and then the Brumbies/Reds. Every Australian team has a tough draw because they do not have to play the other Australian teams!
In a round-robin format, the Brumbies/Reds would get to intersperse games against New Zealand teams with easy games against Australian opposition. This would give them a greater chance of winning these games and would make them more competitive.
So it's a tough draw for the Australians, because they're not good, and have to play five superior teams in a row? That's not a tough draw so much as incompetence.
Look, it is a tough situation. The problem is Super Rugby Aotearoa is not sustainable. New Zealand Rugby's solution to the problem is to create two Pacific Island teams. They are going to be even worse and drag the competition down.
The best scenario is some sort of compromise. We would be a lot better off having a trans Ta$man competition. This means we have to let in some uncompetitive Aussie teams and probably give them a home semi final.
-
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
-
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
Yes but the NZRU offered Australia just two professional teams and they told us to get stuffed. Now we are creating Pacific Islands teams.
I 100% agree that Australia only having 4 teams is a clear and obvious way forward.
-
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
Yes but the NZRU offered Australia just two professional teams and they told us to get stuffed. Now we are creating Pacific Islands teams.
I 100% agree that Australia only having 4 teams is a clear and obvious way forward.
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
Yes but the NZRU offered Australia just two professional teams and they told us to get stuffed. Now we are creating Pacific Islands teams.
I 100% agree that Australia only having 4 teams is a clear and obvious way forward.
Have you got a source for that?
-
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
Yes but the NZRU offered Australia just two professional teams and they told us to get stuffed. Now we are creating Pacific Islands teams.
I 100% agree that Australia only having 4 teams is a clear and obvious way forward.
Have you got a source for that?
@frye said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
Yes but the NZRU offered Australia just two professional teams and they told us to get stuffed. Now we are creating Pacific Islands teams.
I 100% agree that Australia only having 4 teams is a clear and obvious way forward.
Have you got a source for that?
Not a statement from the NZRU but it was widely reported in the media last year. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/300053117/nz-rugby-super-rugby-review-identifies-eightteam-model-as-optimal-format
-
@frye said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
Yes but the NZRU offered Australia just two professional teams and they told us to get stuffed. Now we are creating Pacific Islands teams.
I 100% agree that Australia only having 4 teams is a clear and obvious way forward.
Have you got a source for that?
Not a statement from the NZRU but it was widely reported in the media last year. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/300053117/nz-rugby-super-rugby-review-identifies-eightteam-model-as-optimal-format
-
@snowy almost guaranteed too now...thanks
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@snowy almost guaranteed too now...thanks
Rather you than us, and we are more than capable of it, so you're welcome.
-
Yeah two seemed VERY odd given they had three very competitive sides until the Force joined.
@shark if you actually look at win percentage and overall success in the comp only the Brumbies have ever been consistently competitive. And even they only won the comp a couple times more than a decade ago.
I love this fantasy world you guys have concocted where RA are gunna start cutting teams to ensure SR is suitable for NZ.
Setting aside the competitive arguments, cutting teams is clearly not what fans want, so why should they. What's the point of rugby? Plus who do you cut? Force are probably the second best supported side.
-
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
-
@frye said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@hydro11 Yeah that says 3, not 2.
A lot of the reports were 2 Aussie teams and 1 Pacific team
@frye said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@hydro11 Yeah that says 3, not 2.
-
@frye said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
Yes but the NZRU offered Australia just two professional teams and they told us to get stuffed. Now we are creating Pacific Islands teams.
I 100% agree that Australia only having 4 teams is a clear and obvious way forward.
Have you got a source for that?
Not a statement from the NZRU but it was widely reported in the media last year. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/300053117/nz-rugby-super-rugby-review-identifies-eightteam-model-as-optimal-format
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@frye said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
Yes but the NZRU offered Australia just two professional teams and they told us to get stuffed. Now we are creating Pacific Islands teams.
I 100% agree that Australia only having 4 teams is a clear and obvious way forward.
Have you got a source for that?
Not a statement from the NZRU but it was widely reported in the media last year. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/300053117/nz-rugby-super-rugby-review-identifies-eightteam-model-as-optimal-format
Throw in Sunwolves and Jaguars to make Super X?
-
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The 10-0 start is simply proving beyond doubt that the right move was made in cutting the Force a couple of years back. Aussie rugby fans have a choice: maximum number of teams, or a lesser number of competitive teams. Going from 5 to 4 is only losing 35 or so professional contracts, of whom only a handful might go overseas but the balance of the squad who are any good would strengthen the other four teams.
Maybe need to think about some form of first and second division, with promotion/relegation?
