Premiership/Championship.
-
I have never understood playing for points against teams in another competition. It's retarded.
@mariner4life said in Premiership/Championship.:
I have never understood playing for points against teams in another competition. It's retarded.
It's more a hybrid than two separate competitions in this set-up. I think it's justified, because the difference between the teams in the bottom half of the Premiership and the top half of the Championship is not that big. As Manawatu showed yesterday against Canterbury, almost anyone can beat everyone. I don't see how two separate 7-team-competitions would be better.
I'm fine with it the way it is now, even if it's not without flaws.
Just some thoughts:
The consequences of, for example, creating one single 10 team Mitre 10 Cup, by dropping teams from - for example - Southland, Northland, North Harbour and BOP (last year's bottom 4 of the Championship) - would be too big. These regions are too important for the development of players for higher levels (SR). Dropping them to, say, the Heartland Championship would also create problems because that's an amateur competition with not quite the same level of rugby.
Creating two separate professional or semi-professional competitions of 8 or 10 teams would mean that some teams from the Heartland competition would have to become professional. Are they up to that? How do you finance that? NZ is probably too small for that.
-
@mariner4life not too different to the SuperXX comp though isnt it....just the way it is
@taniwharugby it's pretty different. There is no way BOP can play Canterbury in a final to win everything
-
@taniwharugby it's pretty different. There is no way BOP can play Canterbury in a final to win everything
@mariner4life still teams you play against from another conference, and realisitically, some teams are never gonna make the final so is the same as playing teams from another comp
I didnt say it was perfect, I think it is the best we can do, just the 2 groups of 7 playing one another for finals isnt long enough, 14 weeks plus finals too long....cross over matches are just bonus points if you can win them
-
@mariner4life still teams you play against from another conference, and realisitically, some teams are never gonna make the final so is the same as playing teams from another comp
I didnt say it was perfect, I think it is the best we can do, just the 2 groups of 7 playing one another for finals isnt long enough, 14 weeks plus finals too long....cross over matches are just bonus points if you can win them
@taniwharugby they're not even close to the same. Are we going to have the same arguments we had years ago?
Mine. 2 distinct divisions of 8 teams each. Playing only in their div. Top 2 from 2nd div promoted every year.
Ranfurly Shield changes to an FA cup style knockout comp played mid-week, unseeded, including all unions, even heartland.
NZR can guarantee funding and TV coverage to appease the lesser unions.
-
We'll agree to disagree then, dont recall the argument we had 2 years back (and I have a pretty good memory, so maybe it was with someone else??)
While this comp isnt perfect I am not sure there are any better options out there, so I dont think I'd of argued that hard on it.
So where do the extra teams come from?
Split up Ta$man and promote Wanganui or King Country?
The stadium we had up here wasnt up to scratch for the NZRU, I dont think any of the teams in heartland have the facilities to provide the required level, unless NZRU backtracks on that.
As for your RS suggestion, er, no!
-
We'll agree to disagree then, dont recall the argument we had 2 years back (and I have a pretty good memory, so maybe it was with someone else??)
While this comp isnt perfect I am not sure there are any better options out there, so I dont think I'd of argued that hard on it.
So where do the extra teams come from?
Split up Ta$man and promote Wanganui or King Country?
The stadium we had up here wasnt up to scratch for the NZRU, I dont think any of the teams in heartland have the facilities to provide the required level, unless NZRU backtracks on that.
As for your RS suggestion, er, no!
@taniwharugby nah this was years back when we thought teams might get cut.
Yes promote the best heartland teams. Fuck the stadium requirements.
The shield has gone stale. Needs a revamp. At least my way has a chance of someone other than Canterbury holding it
-
so about 8 years ago then...I recall arguing plenty back then
-
@taniwharugby nah this was years back when we thought teams might get cut.
Yes promote the best heartland teams. Fuck the stadium requirements.
The shield has gone stale. Needs a revamp. At least my way has a chance of someone other than Canterbury holding it
@mariner4life said in Premiership/Championship.:
@taniwharugby nah this was years back when we thought teams might get cut.
Yes promote the best heartland teams. Fuck the stadium requirements.
The shield has gone stale. Needs a revamp. At least my way has a chance of someone other than Canterbury holding it
I think it has been years since Canterbury last held the shield. I don't think the NZRU wants
teams to be worried about whether or not they get relegated with dire consequences. The crossover games mean that players in Northland still want to play for Northland. Northland players still get the chance to play the big teams and all their games are televised.I
-
I don't mind the current structure - it's got far less flaws than the Super rugby structure, which is pretty shit (IMHO of course).
I think there's a fair likelihood that Canterbury are lining up for a substantial Shield tenure, but that's happened before and Manawatu give everyone else a bit of hope. Canterbury really shouldn't be as dominant as they have been over the past 6-7 years.
Really needs some of the other big unions to stand up and no surprises I'm especially looking at Auckland and Wellington - with Waikato and Otago being a bit soft in recent years, as well.
It's not setting the bar high when the main competition to Canterbury is Taranaki and Ta$man.
-
Leave it how it is I reckon.
It ticks some good boxes in that:
it's still going reasonably profitably (eh Australia?)
There's games on about 4 days a week
Two finals keeps broadcasters and sponsors happy
Upsets do happen
The talent is spread around pretty welllike Chris says, you can't bame the comp for the big unions putting out pansies (although Otago have been on the up lately)
Given the doom and gloom preceding this current incarnation I'd like to see it progress and stay in decent shape
-
@mariner4life said in Premiership/Championship.:
@taniwharugby nah this was years back when we thought teams might get cut.
Yes promote the best heartland teams. Fuck the stadium requirements.
The shield has gone stale. Needs a revamp. At least my way has a chance of someone other than Canterbury holding it
I think it has been years since Canterbury last held the shield. I don't think the NZRU wants
teams to be worried about whether or not they get relegated with dire consequences. The crossover games mean that players in Northland still want to play for Northland. Northland players still get the chance to play the big teams and all their games are televised.I
@hydro11 said in Premiership/Championship.:
@mariner4life said in Premiership/Championship.:
@taniwharugby nah this was years back when we thought teams might get cut.
Yes promote the best heartland teams. Fuck the stadium requirements.
The shield has gone stale. Needs a revamp. At least my way has a chance of someone other than Canterbury holding it
I think it has been years since Canterbury last held the shield. >
Yes, as I posted in another thread: the last time Canterbury won the Shield was on 9 October 2010, when they took it off Southland. On 23 July 2011, after only 2 successful defences, they lost it again ... back to Southland.
-
I don't mind the current structure - it's got far less flaws than the Super rugby structure, which is pretty shit (IMHO of course).
I think there's a fair likelihood that Canterbury are lining up for a substantial Shield tenure, but that's happened before and Manawatu give everyone else a bit of hope. Canterbury really shouldn't be as dominant as they have been over the past 6-7 years.
Really needs some of the other big unions to stand up and no surprises I'm especially looking at Auckland and Wellington - with Waikato and Otago being a bit soft in recent years, as well.
It's not setting the bar high when the main competition to Canterbury is Taranaki and Ta$man.
@Chris-B. Auckland have gone alright in recent years. Should have had a title in this decade. Our season so far would be our worst in a while. Wellington are obviously still recovering from 2014 but seem to be on the right track. They too, should have had a title or 2 in the last 5-10 years.
Ta$man, like Auckland have also been a bit underwhelming this season. 2014 was probably their best shot at the title? Taranaki are looking alright and look like Canterbury's main challengers this season.
I agree that the current structure is ok and as someone earlier in the thread said, it gives everyone something to play for.
-
What is great is that the competition has really evened up. Canterbury aside, there are no 'gimme' games any more. Long term, this is great for NZ rugby.
What worries me most is the age of the people playing. Liaki Moli is the oldest Auck at 26. 26!!! Back in the day, that wouldn't be unusual for someone to be just settling into the squad, forget about leading it.
-
despite my earlier posts, i don't actually have too many problems with the structure. Given the restrictions/demands in place, i can't think of too many ways that NZR can do it better.
Still think playing for points against a different comp is stupid though...
-
@Chris-B. Auckland have gone alright in recent years. Should have had a title in this decade. Our season so far would be our worst in a while. Wellington are obviously still recovering from 2014 but seem to be on the right track. They too, should have had a title or 2 in the last 5-10 years.
Ta$man, like Auckland have also been a bit underwhelming this season. 2014 was probably their best shot at the title? Taranaki are looking alright and look like Canterbury's main challengers this season.
I agree that the current structure is ok and as someone earlier in the thread said, it gives everyone something to play for.
@African-Monkey said in Premiership/Championship.:
@Chris-B. Auckland have gone alright in recent years. Should have had a title in this decade. Our season so far would be our worst in a while. Wellington are obviously still recovering from 2014 but seem to be on the right track. They too, should have had a title or 2 in the last 5-10 years.
Ta$man, like Auckland have also been a bit underwhelming this season. 2014 was probably their best shot at the title? Taranaki are looking alright and look like Canterbury's main challengers this season.
I agree that the current structure is ok and as someone earlier in the thread said, it gives everyone something to play for.
Yeah - both Auckland and Wellington should have been able to tip up Canterbury somewhere over the past seven seasons (or however long their run is), but, in fact, only Ta$man has beaten them in a play-off game, and only Taranaki has won a title during that time.
We are, unfortunately, on the slide. Our forward pack is missing from last year - through defections and injuries - Siua Halanukonuka, Quentin MacDonald, Joe Wheeler, Alex Ainley , Liam Squire and Vern Fredericks. Particularly struggling in the lineout, but not quite as dynamic around the park either. However, we're currently better placed than our position on the table suggests, because the second half of our season should be easier than the first half - we've already played Canterbury, Taranaki and Waikato (and Otago and Northland) - Hawkes Bay, Auckland, Counties, Harbour, Southland shouldn't be quite as tough.
Assuming we avoid relegation this year, I think we'll be prime candidates next year when Marty Banks (and Fonotia and probably others) will be gone.
