Super Rugby Trans Tasman
-
@kruse the better option, IMO, is to keep TT as a champions cup style format and review where we are at in 5 years with the RA constitutional reforms, TV deal and SR team performance.
If we get our shit in order and start performing a little better then consider a full-blown TT competition.
@derpus said in Force v Highlanders:
@kruse the better option, IMO, is to keep TT as a champions cup style format and review where we are at in 5 years with the RA constitutional reforms, TV deal and SR team performance.
If we get our shit in order and start performing a little better then consider a full-blown TT competition.
You mean something like a top two teams from each comp? Or top 3?
Yeah - I could see that... and yeah - even if it's lopsided for the first couple of years... like we're all saying - eventually somebody's going to realise where the bottleneck is, and excise that cancer.
Obviously, TV companies are going to say... yeah, nah, we want X number of games - so fuck ya's all unless we get that. -
Here's how fucked "Premier" Rugby is in Sydney:
Remember: these are the Sydney Uni/Randwick level clowns who think they can implement a national club competition at a semi/professional level as a broadcast product, while simultaneously claiming "grassroots" status.
These are the guys who think they're the answer. For reference, a third grade player in Premier Rugby would be lucky to get a First Grade gig at an amateur club in my division.
-
@machpants I agree with this:
Reds coach Brad Thorn, who won a title as a player with the Crusaders in 2008, said the result was proof a purely domestic format was not the answer.
"I've said all year we need to play the New Zealanders if you want to get better," he said.
"Tonight you get a punch in the face, but you sit in the locker room afterwards and think, 'that's it, that's where we want to be'.
"We need to play these guys, we want to play them and we want to win.
"But there's a team that's far superior tonight, and you've got to wear that ... welcome to world-class, now you've got to get in the ring with them."You only get better if you play against better teams. Someone has been posting here that they prefer Australian teams only to play against each other because it's more fun to watch if their teams win games, but that would mean that the standard of Australian rugby won't improve.
For the same reason, I regret that we don't have some of the South African teams in the comp anymore. No matter how bad the time difference and travel distance were, they offered the kind of opposition that challenged NZ teams in different ways from how NZ teams can challenge each other. I also think that - at the moment - Japanese Top League teams can't offer the same kind of challenges.
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@machpants I agree with this:
Reds coach Brad Thorn, who won a title as a player with the Crusaders in 2008, said the result was proof a purely domestic format was not the answer.
"I've said all year we need to play the New Zealanders if you want to get better," he said.
"Tonight you get a punch in the face, but you sit in the locker room afterwards and think, 'that's it, that's where we want to be'.
"We need to play these guys, we want to play them and we want to win.
"But there's a team that's far superior tonight, and you've got to wear that ... welcome to world-class, now you've got to get in the ring with them."You only get better if you play against better teams. Someone has been posting here that they prefer Australian teams only to play against each other because it's more fun to watch if their teams win games, but that would mean that the standard of Australian rugby won't improve.
For the same reason, I regret that we don't have some of the South African teams in the comp anymore. No matter how bad the time difference and travel distance were, they offered the kind of opposition that challenged NZ teams in different ways from how NZ teams can challenge each other. I also think that - at the moment - Japanese Top League teams can't offer the same kind of challenges.
Totally agree about the South African teams. So many people were happy to see them leave but it has taken away
a huge amount of variety from Super rugby.
When they were playing well, some of those sides were really good and hard to beat. I think playing against those guys made NZ rugby stronger. Its been a long time since you could say that about an Australian team. -
@canes4life I may be wrong, but I think @sparky means that they should no longer first have a SRA and SR AU, followed by a SR TT.
I don't think that's what it's going to be if we get a 12 team comp. I expect an 11 week round robin in which franchises play each other once, home or away, followed by a Final (maybe with semi-finals).
IIRC, Australia still hasn't agreed to a comp with Fijian Drua and Moana Pasifika though.
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@canes4life I may be wrong, but I think @sparky means that they should no longer first have a SRA and SR AU, followed by a SR TT.
I don't think that's what it's going to be if we get a 12 team comp. I expect an 11 week round robin in which franchises play each other once, home or away, followed by a Final (maybe with semi-finals).
IIRC, Australia still hasn't agreed to a comp with Fijian Drua and Moana Pasifika though.
Either bring back the SA teams or the NZ teams against the champions of Oz, Japan & US.
-
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.
@hydro11 said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
The Australian teams are much worse than us. The draw does favour our teams though. The Hurricanes for instance are getting to rest some players with three easy games before taking on the Reds and the Brumbies. The Reds and Brumbies stand a chance of winning games, especially at home against our weaker sides. I think it will get tougher for them as the competition goes on.
If you had a format where you play teams for your own country twice and all the Aussie teams once, it would at least appear more even. The New Zealand teams would be more tired from playing each other.
Realistically, the best format would be 5 NZ teams, 4 Aus teams and 1 Pacific or Japanese team. That would provide the most even and balanced competition possible.
The Crusaders played the top two Australian teams in the first two weeks, including their champions away. The Highlanders got their best side and then a trip to Perth. The Chiefs had to start in Perth a week after our final.
How has the draw favoured NZ teams???
-
@kruse said in Force v Highlanders:
Surely... from @NTA 's comments particularly - you already know the current system is broken - and that you don't HAVE the competent administration, support staff, administrators, community engagement, etc.
So... yes! - narrow the pathway - until only the competent ones remain..NZ didn't reduce their teams to suddenly make the Highlanders or Chiefs competitive.
NZ didn't reduce their teams to suddenly make the ABs stop choking at RWC.
They did roughly what you are saying: evaluate the shit that works and discard what doesn't.
The issues in Australian Rugby - which are occasionally masked by the right combination of coaches and some once-in-a-generation players - are still rife.
"Go back to 3 teams when you were competitive" is about as sensible as the "just go back to club Rugby when we were competitive" rubbish that Poidevin etc trot out when they forget to take their pills
@nta said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kruse said in Force v Highlanders:
Surely... from @NTA 's comments particularly - you already know the current system is broken - and that you don't HAVE the competent administration, support staff, administrators, community engagement, etc.
So... yes! - narrow the pathway - until only the competent ones remain..NZ didn't reduce their teams to suddenly make the Highlanders or Chiefs competitive.
NZ didn't reduce their teams to suddenly make the ABs stop choking at RWC.
They did roughly what you are saying: evaluate the shit that works and discard what doesn't.
The issues in Australian Rugby - which are occasionally masked by the right combination of coaches and some once-in-a-generation players - are still rife.
"Go back to 3 teams when you were competitive" is about as sensible as the "just go back to club Rugby when we were competitive" rubbish that Poidevin etc trot out when they forget to take their pills
You have five teams ranging from from ordinary to garbage. In traditional Super Rugby comps there was rarely, I'd ever, more than one poor NZ team. So the analogy involving poor Chiefs and Highlanders teams is a really, really bad one.
-
@nta said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kruse said in Force v Highlanders:
Surely... from @NTA 's comments particularly - you already know the current system is broken - and that you don't HAVE the competent administration, support staff, administrators, community engagement, etc.
So... yes! - narrow the pathway - until only the competent ones remain..NZ didn't reduce their teams to suddenly make the Highlanders or Chiefs competitive.
NZ didn't reduce their teams to suddenly make the ABs stop choking at RWC.
They did roughly what you are saying: evaluate the shit that works and discard what doesn't.
The issues in Australian Rugby - which are occasionally masked by the right combination of coaches and some once-in-a-generation players - are still rife.
"Go back to 3 teams when you were competitive" is about as sensible as the "just go back to club Rugby when we were competitive" rubbish that Poidevin etc trot out when they forget to take their pills
You have five teams ranging from from ordinary to garbage. In traditional Super Rugby comps there was rarely, I'd ever, more than one poor NZ team. So the analogy involving poor Chiefs and Highlanders teams is a really, really bad one.
Cut Australian teams and you'll take away jobs for NZ coaches..
-
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@machpants I agree with this:
Reds coach Brad Thorn, who won a title as a player with the Crusaders in 2008, said the result was proof a purely domestic format was not the answer.
"I've said all year we need to play the New Zealanders if you want to get better," he said.
"Tonight you get a punch in the face, but you sit in the locker room afterwards and think, 'that's it, that's where we want to be'.
"We need to play these guys, we want to play them and we want to win.
"But there's a team that's far superior tonight, and you've got to wear that ... welcome to world-class, now you've got to get in the ring with them."You only get better if you play against better teams. Someone has been posting here that they prefer Australian teams only to play against each other because it's more fun to watch if their teams win games, but that would mean that the standard of Australian rugby won't improve.
For the same reason, I regret that we don't have some of the South African teams in the comp anymore. No matter how bad the time difference and travel distance were, they offered the kind of opposition that challenged NZ teams in different ways from how NZ teams can challenge each other. I also think that - at the moment - Japanese Top League teams can't offer the same kind of challenges.
Totally agree about the South African teams. So many people were happy to see them leave but it has taken away
a huge amount of variety from Super rugby.
When they were playing well, some of those sides were really good and hard to beat. I think playing against those guys made NZ rugby stronger. Its been a long time since you could say that about an Australian team.@pukunui said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@machpants I agree with this:
Reds coach Brad Thorn, who won a title as a player with the Crusaders in 2008, said the result was proof a purely domestic format was not the answer.
"I've said all year we need to play the New Zealanders if you want to get better," he said.
"Tonight you get a punch in the face, but you sit in the locker room afterwards and think, 'that's it, that's where we want to be'.
"We need to play these guys, we want to play them and we want to win.
"But there's a team that's far superior tonight, and you've got to wear that ... welcome to world-class, now you've got to get in the ring with them."You only get better if you play against better teams. Someone has been posting here that they prefer Australian teams only to play against each other because it's more fun to watch if their teams win games, but that would mean that the standard of Australian rugby won't improve.
For the same reason, I regret that we don't have some of the South African teams in the comp anymore. No matter how bad the time difference and travel distance were, they offered the kind of opposition that challenged NZ teams in different ways from how NZ teams can challenge each other. I also think that - at the moment - Japanese Top League teams can't offer the same kind of challenges.
Totally agree about the South African teams. So many people were happy to see them leave but it has taken away
a huge amount of variety from Super rugby.
When they were playing well, some of those sides were really good and hard to beat. I think playing against those guys made NZ rugby stronger. Its been a long time since you could say that about an Australian team.I’d much prefer the variety with more teams also, but in terms of quality that came from the Saffa SR sides, well some of it was diabolical. Many of the Saffa teams were amongst the highest penalised. Their teams were riddled with politics and whilst the massive stadiums for test matches are great, they barely filled half and the atmosphere in them in recent years has been poor.
-
@pukunui said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@stargazer said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@machpants I agree with this:
Reds coach Brad Thorn, who won a title as a player with the Crusaders in 2008, said the result was proof a purely domestic format was not the answer.
"I've said all year we need to play the New Zealanders if you want to get better," he said.
"Tonight you get a punch in the face, but you sit in the locker room afterwards and think, 'that's it, that's where we want to be'.
"We need to play these guys, we want to play them and we want to win.
"But there's a team that's far superior tonight, and you've got to wear that ... welcome to world-class, now you've got to get in the ring with them."You only get better if you play against better teams. Someone has been posting here that they prefer Australian teams only to play against each other because it's more fun to watch if their teams win games, but that would mean that the standard of Australian rugby won't improve.
For the same reason, I regret that we don't have some of the South African teams in the comp anymore. No matter how bad the time difference and travel distance were, they offered the kind of opposition that challenged NZ teams in different ways from how NZ teams can challenge each other. I also think that - at the moment - Japanese Top League teams can't offer the same kind of challenges.
Totally agree about the South African teams. So many people were happy to see them leave but it has taken away
a huge amount of variety from Super rugby.
When they were playing well, some of those sides were really good and hard to beat. I think playing against those guys made NZ rugby stronger. Its been a long time since you could say that about an Australian team.I’d much prefer the variety with more teams also, but in terms of quality that came from the Saffa SR sides, well some of it was diabolical. Many of the Saffa teams were amongst the highest penalised. Their teams were riddled with politics and whilst the massive stadiums for test matches are great, they barely filled half and the atmosphere in them in recent years has been poor.
@act-crusader
Not to mention the fact the exodus of saffas to Europe is even worse than Aus and NZ.I tentatively agree that Aus should stick with 5 teams. Even better if they put the MP side in Sydney too.
-
Apologies if this has been mentioned but the Aussie teams are all out of the running for the final if they lose again this weekend.
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
Apologies if this has been mentioned but the Aussie teams are all out of the running for the final if they lose again this weekend.
I suspect the only Aussies in the final of this competition will be match officials.
-
@shark said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
Apologies if this has been mentioned but the Aussie teams are all out of the running for the final if they lose again this weekend.
I suspect the only Aussies in the final of this competition will be match officials.
-
It sound odd but the aussie teams have the ability to compete they just don't seem to have the confidence to follow their gameplan. If one team can beat somebody this year I wouldn't be surprised if it changes all of the aussie teams.
It's just unfortunate that the force or brumbies couldn't pip the kiwis in the first round. It definitely dented some confidence...
-
McLennan won’t shy away from trans- Ta$man rugby next year. In fact, he wants the same competition structure in 2022. “They’re disappointing results but I’m unfazed with regards to our mission. If we want to be the world’s best, we have to beat the world’s best. And New Zealand has the best provincial rugby sides in the world,” McLennan told the Herald. -
There is a very real possibility that a NZ team is undefeated but still doesn't make the final. That's why BPs are so important. Still 3 rounds to go though.
@bovidae said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
There is a very real possibility that a NZ team is undefeated but still doesn't make the final. That's why BPs are so important. Still 3 rounds to go though.
Yeah. It's pretty crazy that you can be unbeaten and have a +22 points difference after two games and be 5th on the table.
-
Well, the Crusaders will go unbeaten, so of the remaining games which wouldn't be considered huge upsets if the Oz team won, which looks hardest?
Reds at Home (this week, Chiefs)
Reds at Home (next week, Blues)
Brumbies at home (next week, Canes)
Brumbies at home (June 11, Landers)None of this is to not say that the Rebels or Tahs couldn't trip up someone at home (like the fucking Chiefs) or that the Force couldn't steal one away, but, of those games, which look most likely?
I'd say next week Brumbies/Canes and this week Reds/Chiefs (Saders did the Chiefs no favors last week) look the most likely.
-
Well, the Crusaders will go unbeaten, so of the remaining games which wouldn't be considered huge upsets if the Oz team won, which looks hardest?
Reds at Home (this week, Chiefs)
Reds at Home (next week, Blues)
Brumbies at home (next week, Canes)
Brumbies at home (June 11, Landers)None of this is to not say that the Rebels or Tahs couldn't trip up someone at home (like the fucking Chiefs) or that the Force couldn't steal one away, but, of those games, which look most likely?
I'd say next week Brumbies/Canes and this week Reds/Chiefs (Saders did the Chiefs no favors last week) look the most likely.
-
@gt12 i'm pretty much expecting the Chiefs to go down this weekend
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@gt12 i'm pretty much expecting the Chiefs to go down this weekend
You're going to the game, right?
