Super Rugby 2023
-
@Chris If NPC goes amateur, we'll simply lose players to overseas' competitions (all those players who don't make the extended SR squads). It would kill the NPC.
I can't argue with that, And I will not like it when it happens,But I think NZR will eventually make it an amateur comp.
The cost of players of each Union is getting up to $3m +for some, it will be hard to sustain it in years to come. -
NPC will go amateur somewhere along the way,Then we may see SR extended and bigger squads
@Chris said in Super Rugby 2023:
NPC will go amateur somewhere along the way,Then we may see SR extended and bigger squads
@Chris The reality is Super Rugby needs to be extended.
In this part of the world, where rugby is concerned, money matters. Franchises need to offer sponsors and members value for their coin; engagement, hope, and as long a ride as they can possibly get.
Broadcasters need content; cut the season off and fewer matches will be reflected in fewer dollars paid. And with Rugby Australia and NZ Rugby already under extreme pressure to offer salaries competitive enough to keep players at home, these are decisions that, while made uneasily, are ultimately easy to make.
Perhaps things would be different if the season was longer, but each side plays a measly 14 matches. Super Rugby is over barely before it has begun. Get injured at the wrong time – like the Rebels’ Rob Leota, the Crusaders’ George Bell and many others – and the season is over before you can even lace up a boot.
In France’s Top 14, teams play 26 round-robin matches. And don’t forget to add European Champions Cup rugby on top of that.
-
@Chris said in Super Rugby 2023:
NPC will go amateur somewhere along the way,Then we may see SR extended and bigger squads
@Chris The reality is Super Rugby needs to be extended.
In this part of the world, where rugby is concerned, money matters. Franchises need to offer sponsors and members value for their coin; engagement, hope, and as long a ride as they can possibly get.
Broadcasters need content; cut the season off and fewer matches will be reflected in fewer dollars paid. And with Rugby Australia and NZ Rugby already under extreme pressure to offer salaries competitive enough to keep players at home, these are decisions that, while made uneasily, are ultimately easy to make.
Perhaps things would be different if the season was longer, but each side plays a measly 14 matches. Super Rugby is over barely before it has begun. Get injured at the wrong time – like the Rebels’ Rob Leota, the Crusaders’ George Bell and many others – and the season is over before you can even lace up a boot.
In France’s Top 14, teams play 26 round-robin matches. And don’t forget to add European Champions Cup rugby on top of that.
@kiwi_expat So it's back to a bloated comp then.... Not sure we'll get the Saffas back, so that leaves the Argies and Japan again
-
I think it will happen eventually, Doesn't make me a Fan of it happening at all, there is a lot of tradition and tribal loyalty that is special in the NPC.
@canefan nah, it would be the 12 current teams playing everyone home & away.
-
Simplest way is allow players from any teams wtg to be part of an injury pool be called in for injury cover, have them ranked by nzr so essentially you request a player and you get the best ranked player.
And make them available for any team until they play say 3 games for 1 side, then they can only play for them.
We have some teams have depth in one position while others don't, Murphys law says if you have depth in lock, you will have issues elsewhere, while someone else will have depth up front but need locks...
Then obviously we have these young players being signed in wtg just to stop other teams getting them, so in essence denying them the opportunity to step up and see if they are ready, if you aren't willing to take that risk, and another team is through necessity, why not.
-
Simplest way is allow players from any teams wtg to be part of an injury pool be called in for injury cover, have them ranked by nzr so essentially you request a player and you get the best ranked player.
And make them available for any team until they play say 3 games for 1 side, then they can only play for them.
We have some teams have depth in one position while others don't, Murphys law says if you have depth in lock, you will have issues elsewhere, while someone else will have depth up front but need locks...
Then obviously we have these young players being signed in wtg just to stop other teams getting them, so in essence denying them the opportunity to step up and see if they are ready, if you aren't willing to take that risk, and another team is through necessity, why not.
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2023:
Simplest way is allow players from any teams wtg to be part of an injury pool be called in for injury cover, have them ranked by nzr so essentially you request a player and you get the best ranked player.
And make them available for any team until they play say 3 games for 1 side, then they can only play for them.
We have some teams have depth in one position while others don't, Murphys law says if you have depth in lock, you will have issues elsewhere, while someone else will have depth up front but need locks...
Then obviously we have these young players being signed in wtg just to stop other teams getting them, so in essence denying them the opportunity to step up and see if they are ready, if you aren't willing to take that risk, and another team is through necessity, why not.
Thinking aloud here, but if this was the case would teams then hesitate to put time into developing WTG players? It'd be pretty frustrating to lose a player to another team if you have invested a lot into them. Maybe allow teams to 'protect' some WTG players?
-
Simplest way is allow players from any teams wtg to be part of an injury pool be called in for injury cover, have them ranked by nzr so essentially you request a player and you get the best ranked player.
And make them available for any team until they play say 3 games for 1 side, then they can only play for them.
We have some teams have depth in one position while others don't, Murphys law says if you have depth in lock, you will have issues elsewhere, while someone else will have depth up front but need locks...
Then obviously we have these young players being signed in wtg just to stop other teams getting them, so in essence denying them the opportunity to step up and see if they are ready, if you aren't willing to take that risk, and another team is through necessity, why not.
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2023:
Simplest way is allow players from any teams wtg to be part of an injury pool be called in for injury cover, have them ranked by nzr so essentially you request a player and you get the best ranked player.
And make them available for any team until they play say 3 games for 1 side, then they can only play for them.
We have some teams have depth in one position while others don't, Murphys law says if you have depth in lock, you will have issues elsewhere, while someone else will have depth up front but need locks...
Then obviously we have these young players being signed in wtg just to stop other teams getting them, so in essence denying them the opportunity to step up and see if they are ready, if you aren't willing to take that risk, and another team is through necessity, why not.
I like that idea, understand what @Crazy-Horse is concerned about, but maybe a pool and players are out on loan, still makes it worth developing players, and with benefoit they get some experience at playing at the level you want. I know the loan idea wroks in some comps and does have some up sides. I think I quite like that as one of good ideas worth thinking on.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2023:
Simplest way is allow players from any teams wtg to be part of an injury pool be called in for injury cover, have them ranked by nzr so essentially you request a player and you get the best ranked player.
And make them available for any team until they play say 3 games for 1 side, then they can only play for them.
We have some teams have depth in one position while others don't, Murphys law says if you have depth in lock, you will have issues elsewhere, while someone else will have depth up front but need locks...
Then obviously we have these young players being signed in wtg just to stop other teams getting them, so in essence denying them the opportunity to step up and see if they are ready, if you aren't willing to take that risk, and another team is through necessity, why not.
I like that idea, understand what @Crazy-Horse is concerned about, but maybe a pool and players are out on loan, still makes it worth developing players, and with benefoit they get some experience at playing at the level you want. I know the loan idea wroks in some comps and does have some up sides. I think I quite like that as one of good ideas worth thinking on.
@Dan54 not to mention different coaching ideas.
I know from coaching teens, when they go off to rep teams, they will be given the same message, but delivered from a different person and in a different way, but suddenly they get it, plus totally different ideas.
Just seems silly if we have teams with players in thier WTG, playing club rugby, while other teams are looking at thier own club players to cover injuries.
Yeah I get what @Crazy-Horse is saying too, but ultimately you cant hold onto every player, and again, surely its better your young player gets experience in other environments, possibly playing super rugby if another team needs them than playing club rugby. Think it would be as close to a draft as we can get, while exposing the greatest number of players to the next level we can.
It wont happen anyway, but just my thoughts.
-
Simplest way is allow players from any teams wtg to be part of an injury pool be called in for injury cover, have them ranked by nzr so essentially you request a player and you get the best ranked player.
And make them available for any team until they play say 3 games for 1 side, then they can only play for them.
We have some teams have depth in one position while others don't, Murphys law says if you have depth in lock, you will have issues elsewhere, while someone else will have depth up front but need locks...
Then obviously we have these young players being signed in wtg just to stop other teams getting them, so in essence denying them the opportunity to step up and see if they are ready, if you aren't willing to take that risk, and another team is through necessity, why not.
@taniwharugby have to say im not a fan, i think we need more tribalism in the game, more passion, we could end up with players playing a couple of games for all 5 teams in one season, i also want NZR less involved
id be much more keen for super team to only be able to pick up injury replacements from the local club comp. you can pick your squad from anywhere you want....but once the season starts you have to draw on local tallant, might make the super coaches a bit more interested in local clubs, maybe invite players to train
-
You would want club players that are training to a professional level like the provincial academy players and Provincially contracted players.
-
@mikedogz Yeah, you can't just use any club rugby player in SR. The difference is far too big.
@Stargazer come on man, its not going to be any old player, it will be the NPC players that havent picked up a super contract....like it is now often....but just stops teams picking up people coming off japanese contracts...before buggering off again or coming out of semi retirement and makes the super teams invest more time in the local scene
-
@Kiwiwomble I don't hink the idea of loan players is not something that is done lightly. and would't hace a case of players playing for 5 teams. You would only do it with long term injuries, and normal rules only allow for 1 loan team a year. And if you got a young fella that needs to get game time isn't it handy to have another team giving him some gametime and picking up his wages? Chiefs have already shown the way by sending Trask to Japan for a year (deal they set up) . No team would probably want a loan player if they got some NPC players in club scene in their area anyway. Just think it has pluses worth looking at.
-
@Kiwiwomble I don't hink the idea of loan players is not something that is done lightly. and would't hace a case of players playing for 5 teams. You would only do it with long term injuries, and normal rules only allow for 1 loan team a year. And if you got a young fella that needs to get game time isn't it handy to have another team giving him some gametime and picking up his wages? Chiefs have already shown the way by sending Trask to Japan for a year (deal they set up) . No team would probably want a loan player if they got some NPC players in club scene in their area anyway. Just think it has pluses worth looking at.
@Dan54 that a little different to a central pool with NZR rating players and stuff the teams could draw on for short contracts which is what was originally suggested
team loaning players to each other is effectively what happens now, often see player pop up (especially for the highlanders it feels) that were in another teams WTG the week before, so i dont quite see what gets changed/fixed
-
But what’s only just coming to light are the unintended consequences of that decision, the most significant of which has left the Sanzaar alliance – between New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Argentina – seriously considering the most radical change in living memory by shifting the Rugby Championship to March-April and playing Super Rugby between May and September.
-
NZ and Aus finally realising that the 6N is immutable
