'Super Rugby' 2021
-
@Derpus said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
Im basically pointing out that the prevailing assumption that 'Aussie teams are all garbage' and 'NZ teams are amazing and constantly competitive' is pretty flawed.
Well we can agree on that.
I don't believe that Aus can make 5 competitive teams though. Three worked.
As for other NZ teams v Crusaders? Well they have sent the benchmark and it doesn't matter which countries franchises are measured against them. The Kiwi teams have done just fine against everybody else.
@Snowy this also brings me back to another point. Why does Australia have to have 5 competitive teams at any one point? NZ have very rarely put forward 5 teams that are all competitive at the same time.
Very few competitions ever have an even spread.
I can see the concern if one team consistently under performs, but as someone else pointed out much earlier in the thread. It takes a very long time for a team to develop the culture required to win consistently against high quality opposition. It won't happen overnight.
I've yet to see a very compelling argument for forcing Australia to cut off one of it's limbs.
-
@Snowy this also brings me back to another point. Why does Australia have to have 5 competitive teams at any one point? NZ have very rarely put forward 5 teams that are all competitive at the same time.
Very few competitions ever have an even spread.
I can see the concern if one team consistently under performs, but as someone else pointed out much earlier in the thread. It takes a very long time for a team to develop the culture required to win consistently against high quality opposition. It won't happen overnight.
I've yet to see a very compelling argument for forcing Australia to cut off one of it's limbs.
-
I seriously am not interested in watching a Rebels v Force match. It ain't "super". Do you see what I am getting at?
@Snowy yeah - but the same could be said of the two weakest NZ teams at any given time. Or the Saffa teams for that matter.
You demand something you don't even provide yourself. It's a nonsense. Which makes the desire for a Pasifika team all the more perplexing. You demand greater competition but you want to add a team with next to no chance of being competitive. Righto.
-
@Snowy yeah - but the same could be said of the two weakest NZ teams at any given time. Or the Saffa teams for that matter.
You demand something you don't even provide yourself. It's a nonsense. Which makes the desire for a Pasifika team all the more perplexing. You demand greater competition but you want to add a team with next to no chance of being competitive. Righto.
-
@Snowy yeah - but the same could be said of the two weakest NZ teams at any given time. Or the Saffa teams for that matter.
You demand something you don't even provide yourself. It's a nonsense. Which makes the desire for a Pasifika team all the more perplexing. You demand greater competition but you want to add a team with next to no chance of being competitive. Righto.
@Derpus We have the player base in NZ to support 5 good professional teams that could compete in most competitions and do O.K. Australia does not. Yes you can build it, yes you can change it it but history suggests (and right now), you don't have the depth.
-
The Blues finished 14th in 2018 and 13th in 2019. Should they have been labelled 'uncompetitive' and blocked from the competition?
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
The Blues finished 14th in 2018 and 13th in 2019. Should they have been labelled 'uncompetitive' and blocked from the competition?
They had a massive disadvantage of being in the NZ Conference. They hardly ever lost to an Aussie side during that period though.
-
The Blues finished 14th in 2018 and 13th in 2019. Should they have been labelled 'uncompetitive' and blocked from the competition?
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
The Blues finished 14th in 2018 and 13th in 2019. Should they have been labelled 'uncompetitive' and blocked from the competition?
More about the number of teams in the comp than where each team comes each year.
Should we have a "Super" 50? Which isn't very super. Just limit the number of teams to get the best players involved and leave the not so talented dross out. Concentrate the talent.
Fuck the way it was going I would get a contract.
-
The Blues finished 14th in 2018 and 13th in 2019. Should they have been labelled 'uncompetitive' and blocked from the competition?
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
The Blues finished 14th in 2018 and 13th in 2019. Should they have been labelled 'uncompetitive' and blocked from the competition?
that's a bit disingenuous as we played the NZ sides twice each, and generally went well in games against overseas teams.
Remember the Lions topped the table without playing NZ sides, and then lost despite having home advantage. The Blues were terrible compared to other NZ sides, but competetive with SA and AUS conference sides.
-
also, I think 4 Aus teams would be a good compromise.
9 Teams, play home and away, eastern seaboard keeps the travel down; 16 games, then semis and final, seeded on position. Would keep the quality up, and the travel down.
@nzzp said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
also, I think 4 Aus teams would be a good compromise.
9 Teams, play home and away, eastern seaboard keeps the travel down; 16 games, then semis and final, seeded on position. Would keep the quality up, and the travel down.
Compromise according to who? The Aussies want five teams in the new competition.
-
@nzzp said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
also, I think 4 Aus teams would be a good compromise.
9 Teams, play home and away, eastern seaboard keeps the travel down; 16 games, then semis and final, seeded on position. Would keep the quality up, and the travel down.
Compromise according to who? The Aussies want five teams in the new competition.
@sparky said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
@nzzp said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
also, I think 4 Aus teams would be a good compromise.
9 Teams, play home and away, eastern seaboard keeps the travel down; 16 games, then semis and final, seeded on position. Would keep the quality up, and the travel down.
Compromise according to who? The Aussies want five teams in the new competition.
compromise according to me! Tries to balance quality without ripping the heart out fo the Aussie game.
-
also, I think 4 Aus teams would be a good compromise.
9 Teams, play home and away, eastern seaboard keeps the travel down; 16 games, then semis and final, seeded on position. Would keep the quality up, and the travel down.
@nzzp said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
4 Aus teams would be a good compromise.
You think that they have the players for that?
As @Derpus has mentioned, if they get some guys back due to covid, then maybe, but probably still short on quality to put 140+ in the squads ( 4 total) that would compete with the NZ teams.
-
@nzzp said in 'Super Rugby' 2021:
4 Aus teams would be a good compromise.
You think that they have the players for that?
As @Derpus has mentioned, if they get some guys back due to covid, then maybe, but probably still short on quality to put 140+ in the squads ( 4 total) that would compete with the NZ teams.
-
Taking the entire SR, including the period of Ozzie Awesomeness (TM) these are the semi final appearances, which means you are there or there abouts
Semi-final appearances by team
17 New Zealand Crusaders (12 wins, 5 losses)
9 Australia Brumbies (6 wins, 3 losses)
9 New Zealand Hurricanes (3 wins, 6 losses)
8 South Africa Sharks (4 wins, 4 losses)
7 South Africa Bulls (3 wins, 4 losses)
7 Australia Waratahs (3 wins, 4 losses)
6 New Zealand Blues (4 wins, 2 losses)
6 New Zealand Chiefs (3 wins, 3 losses)
6 New Zealand Highlanders (2 wins, 4 losses)
4 South Africa Lions (3 wins, 1 losses)
4 Australia Reds (1 win, 3 losses)
4 South Africa Stormers (1 win, 3 losses)
1 Argentina Jaguares (1 win)Taking out the one nation team of the Jags you basically have the Super 12 5 NZ, 4 SA, 3 Oz. Which is about right for number of competitive teams
-
Setting all of this aside - you still haven't really provided a compelling reason why we should accept cutting a team. Even assuming the 'competitiveness' argument is valid. That really only benefits NZ. Why would Australia compromise?
The Force-Reds game last night was fantastic and they are both typically on the lower end of the scale. I just don't see any point in agreeing to cut someone.
-
Setting all of this aside - you still haven't really provided a compelling reason why we should accept cutting a team. Even assuming the 'competitiveness' argument is valid. That really only benefits NZ. Why would Australia compromise?
The Force-Reds game last night was fantastic and they are both typically on the lower end of the scale. I just don't see any point in agreeing to cut someone.
@Derpus because being un-competitive is killing Ozzie rugby. Less and less people are watching because they are sick of the decreasing level of competitiveness. The place to develop your depth is the level down (NPC, Currie, whattever Oz next thinks of) NOT the super competitive international level. AR accepted that, when they got rid of the Force, international super rugby is not where to spread the rugby gospel, by seeing your team at the bottom of the table most of the time
-
@Derpus because being un-competitive is killing Ozzie rugby. Less and less people are watching because they are sick of the decreasing level of competitiveness. The place to develop your depth is the level down (NPC, Currie, whattever Oz next thinks of) NOT the super competitive international level. AR accepted that, when they got rid of the Force, international super rugby is not where to spread the rugby gospel, by seeing your team at the bottom of the table most of the time
@Machpants If we only play ourselves that issue evaporates instantly. If anything, that's a more compelling reason to go it alone.
