Super Rugby - The Future
-
but, but, but, i have been reliably informed by people on this very forum that the South African sides added nothing to the comp and are not missed at all...
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
but, but, but, i have been reliably informed by people on this very forum that the South African sides added nothing to the comp and are not missed at all...
i was probably guilty of some of that although i think my main probably was game times and scheduling etc
@Machpants said in Super Rugby - The Future:
That's why I said leading up to
fair
-
You're not wrong
It's because, here in Australasia, rugby is a national game
It's kiwis v Aussies
We hate them, they hate us.
That's how it's marketed, that's how it's presentedBut, I reckon if DMac led.the Reds to championship they would love him.
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
You're not wrong
It's because, here in Australasia, rugby is a national game
It's kiwis v Aussies
We hate them, they hate us.
That's how it's marketed, that's how it's presentedThat's only true for the Bledisloe IMO
But, I reckon if DMac led.the Reds to championship they would love him.
Australians love winners. The disparity in crowds when the Reds sucked and when they won tells us everything - it's the clear direction to broadcasters that their spastic commentary teams needs to stop referring to SR sides as NPC hangovers.
-
but, but, but, i have been reliably informed by people on this very forum that the South African sides added nothing to the comp and are not missed at all...
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
but, but, but, i have been reliably informed by people on this very forum that the South African sides added nothing to the comp and are not missed at all...
Two different parts to the conversation. The rugby and the competition
The variety of rugby styles is missed
Towards the end the viewing figures for games in SA were abysmal in Aus/NZ because of the time zones. Supporters of teams weren't bothering to watch their own team on tour. All the competition games being in a similar timezone is an improvement (Perth afternoon games work as an late evening game)
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby 2024:
if you ask a large amount of people of a certain vintage (ie the demographics of this forum) they'll point to somewhere about 1997 as the pinnacle. Super 12 was new and exciting and awesome. ABs played the NPC in front of big crowds and it was awesome. The ABs won heaps, the Tri Nations was new and awesome. So how did they fit it all? I had a quick look
in 1997 the season was broken up like this
Super 12 Feb 28 to May 24th
3 AB tests (Fiji and Argentina x2) in June
3N July 19 to August 23
NPC August 15 to October 26 (9 teams)
AB Tour 4 tests in November (12 tests for the year)In 2022, the season was
Super Rugby February 18 to June 18
3 AB tests in July (Ireland)
Rugby Championship August 6 to September 24
NPC August 5 to Oct 22
AB 4 tests in November (13 for the year)Effectively we have just stretched the same number of games out, and completely removed the top 35-40 players in the country from any tier 2 rugby for half the season (and spread the talent across more teams)
I grabbed one random player, and Andrew Mehrtens played 23 games in 1997 (7 Super Games, 6 tests and all 10 NPC games). In 2022 Ardie Savea played 22 games, 11 Super Rugby and 11 tests.I don't really have a point, other than it is interesting that we have the same basic structure 27 years later, but interpreted differently.
Would take a little more investigation, but i wonder that the difference a year looks like for an AB squad player now as opposed to 97?Really interesting post.
I guess the biggest difference between then and now is the battering that player bodies take, especially if they play in most of the test matches.
My feeling is that the Super / NPC division should be put out to pasture - that is too many teams and not enough focus on having the best players with their squad for most of the year. The way to get around it is to have players with a new competition and the ABs, so we would have Super, then break for ABs, then more Super, then more ABs.
Without really thinking, I wonder whether we should (1) add some Japanese teams to a cross-over super competition that acts as a club Championship / Plate (maybe we might need a bowl) with teams seeded based on their J-League and home competition results. That would be 'Super' rugby in my model and teams would play with their 'home' teams with quite big squads.
In place of NPC, I would (2) add two-three super teams (which would be the shit fight) and play a local competition with our 'super' sides , under which I'd run 'reserve' super sides, and players could go up and down as needed. Australia could do the same thing and I would suggest they take on Moana Pasifika to add teams. This competition would be the qualification for which division you play in for Super rugby club championship.
@gt12 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Without really thinking, I wonder whether we should (1) add some Japanese teams to a cross-over super competition that acts as a club Championship / Plate (maybe we might need a bowl) with teams seeded based on their J-League and home competition results. That would be 'Super' rugby in my model and teams would play with their 'home' teams with quite big squads.
In place of NPC, I would (2) add two-three super teams (which would be the shit fight) and play a local competition with our 'super' sides , under which I'd run 'reserve' super sides, and players could go up and down as needed. Australia could do the same thing and I would suggest they take on Moana Pasifika to add teams. This competition would be the qualification for which division you play in for Super rugby club championship.
I think we are drifting towards something a bit like that.
With possible Japanese involvement I wonder if a fix for Moana Pasifika is to resurrect the old Pacific Barbarians concept? It was based in Singapore and coached by Umaga. No one watches them in NZ it's a complete failure. Give them a home, a good stadium and better access to sponsorship money.
The Baabaas didn't do great either but they had no meaningful rugby
-
@gt12 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Without really thinking, I wonder whether we should (1) add some Japanese teams to a cross-over super competition that acts as a club Championship / Plate (maybe we might need a bowl) with teams seeded based on their J-League and home competition results. That would be 'Super' rugby in my model and teams would play with their 'home' teams with quite big squads.
In place of NPC, I would (2) add two-three super teams (which would be the shit fight) and play a local competition with our 'super' sides , under which I'd run 'reserve' super sides, and players could go up and down as needed. Australia could do the same thing and I would suggest they take on Moana Pasifika to add teams. This competition would be the qualification for which division you play in for Super rugby club championship.
I think we are drifting towards something a bit like that.
With possible Japanese involvement I wonder if a fix for Moana Pasifika is to resurrect the old Pacific Barbarians concept? It was based in Singapore and coached by Umaga. No one watches them in NZ it's a complete failure. Give them a home, a good stadium and better access to sponsorship money.
The Baabaas didn't do great either but they had no meaningful rugby
@Duluth said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@gt12 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Without really thinking, I wonder whether we should (1) add some Japanese teams to a cross-over super competition that acts as a club Championship / Plate (maybe we might need a bowl) with teams seeded based on their J-League and home competition results. That would be 'Super' rugby in my model and teams would play with their 'home' teams with quite big squads.
In place of NPC, I would (2) add two-three super teams (which would be the shit fight) and play a local competition with our 'super' sides , under which I'd run 'reserve' super sides, and players could go up and down as needed. Australia could do the same thing and I would suggest they take on Moana Pasifika to add teams. This competition would be the qualification for which division you play in for Super rugby club championship.
I think we are drifting towards something a bit like that.
With possible Japanese involvement I wonder if a fix for Moana Pasifika is to resurrect the old Pacific Barbarians concept? It was based in Singapore and coached by Umaga. No one watches them in NZ it's a complete failure. Give them a home, a good stadium and better access to sponsorship money.
The Baabaas didn't do great either but they had no meaningful rugby
I agree that they need a real home. Personally I'd like to see them based out of Apia / Nukuʻalofa.
I can see why in reality that is pretty hard to get done, so Singapore could be a good place, especially if they are tied to an Australian local competition.
One of the reasons why I like this two-competition idea is that the Aussies sides could also have a domestic competition. If the Rebels were wrapped up, then with MP they'd have 6 teams for a local competition and could then divide them in two for the club championship.
I hope that the NZRU is trying to make something like this happen.
I think we could then easily move to a loosening of the AB requirements, probably so that once you are capped (perhaps with some sort of Giteau rule), you can be recruited to a team within the competition and maintain eligibility.
Personally, I'd be looking at it as one way to get really expensive players paid without us needing to stump up all of the cash, however to do that we'd need a much clearer distinction between National / Super contracts and an enforced salary cap.
-
@Duluth said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@gt12 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Without really thinking, I wonder whether we should (1) add some Japanese teams to a cross-over super competition that acts as a club Championship / Plate (maybe we might need a bowl) with teams seeded based on their J-League and home competition results. That would be 'Super' rugby in my model and teams would play with their 'home' teams with quite big squads.
In place of NPC, I would (2) add two-three super teams (which would be the shit fight) and play a local competition with our 'super' sides , under which I'd run 'reserve' super sides, and players could go up and down as needed. Australia could do the same thing and I would suggest they take on Moana Pasifika to add teams. This competition would be the qualification for which division you play in for Super rugby club championship.
I think we are drifting towards something a bit like that.
With possible Japanese involvement I wonder if a fix for Moana Pasifika is to resurrect the old Pacific Barbarians concept? It was based in Singapore and coached by Umaga. No one watches them in NZ it's a complete failure. Give them a home, a good stadium and better access to sponsorship money.
The Baabaas didn't do great either but they had no meaningful rugby
I agree that they need a real home. Personally I'd like to see them based out of Apia / Nukuʻalofa.
I can see why in reality that is pretty hard to get done, so Singapore could be a good place, especially if they are tied to an Australian local competition.
One of the reasons why I like this two-competition idea is that the Aussies sides could also have a domestic competition. If the Rebels were wrapped up, then with MP they'd have 6 teams for a local competition and could then divide them in two for the club championship.
I hope that the NZRU is trying to make something like this happen.
I think we could then easily move to a loosening of the AB requirements, probably so that once you are capped (perhaps with some sort of Giteau rule), you can be recruited to a team within the competition and maintain eligibility.
Personally, I'd be looking at it as one way to get really expensive players paid without us needing to stump up all of the cash, however to do that we'd need a much clearer distinction between National / Super contracts and an enforced salary cap.
-
@gt12 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
I can see why in reality that is pretty hard to get done, so Singapore could be a good place, especially if they are tied to an Australian local competition.
Hawaii is another possibility that gets mentioned
@Duluth said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@gt12 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
I can see why in reality that is pretty hard to get done, so Singapore could be a good place, especially if they are tied to an Australian local competition.
Hawaii is another possibility that gets mentioned
I like the idea, but then the travel for a local competition gets very tricky.
My feeling is that it would be better for Hawaii to be part of MLR and then we could at some point add them to the club competition. Then there would only be a smaller travel burden for the clubs during that competition.
-
The best Japanese company sides are good enough. I don't know how many good sides there are though?
How many sides would be competitive in a SR Div 1? Say be a decent chance of beating the Highlanders at a neutral venue?
How many would be good enough for a SR Div 2? Be a decent chance of beating the Force at a neutral venue?
-
The best Japanese company sides are good enough. I don't know how many good sides there are though?
How many sides would be competitive in a SR Div 1? Say be a decent chance of beating the Highlanders at a neutral venue?
How many would be good enough for a SR Div 2? Be a decent chance of beating the Force at a neutral venue?
@Duluth said in Super Rugby - The Future:
The best Japanese company sides are good enough. I don't know how many good sides there are though?
How many sides would be competitive in a SR Div 1? Say be a decent chance of beating the Highlanders at a neutral venue?
How many would be good enough for a SR Div 2? Be a decent chance of beating the Force at a neutral venue?
With foreign players such as Ardie etc, I would say that many of the best sides could tip up the Landers. That for me, is probably the sticking point to make it work - we might need to give up a Giteau exception.
I haven't been watching much this year though, I have to admit so others might be able to give a better view on exactly how good / poor the J-league teams are.
-
In all honesty unlike others who look to other sports, their comps and setups, and want to repeat that with rugby, I've always preferred the rugby structure.
Maybe it's because I'm not interested in most other sports (aside from on the Playstation) so I don't have that exposure and my other sport I follow is the bogan rugby and in most years the Warriors are bottom of the table so by July/August my interest has usually dropped.
@mariner4life Why do you league/basketball/Aussie fans not care?
But I don't know if there is an answer that will satisfy other than we do. I get annoyed when the Warriors have too many Australians, I get annoyed when the Pies have too many out of towners. Maybe, for me personally it was because we were in second division most of my younger years so only got to see our players at the ground? Maybe in general it's because the game in NZ was always traditionally based on provinces and we're stuck in our ways since pre the start of Super in 1996?
In all honesty, as much as I'll watch Super rugby these day and have a Stan subscription, if the NPC went the way of the Moa I think I'd probably only get it for the AB test season. To watch some Super now I'm often having to make a choice between going out to dinner/going away etc and watching the games. So a lot of my watching now is delayed or highlights.
I know the aim for NZR is to chase the young-uns, but it's the oldies who are funding the game these days with their Sky subscriptions. Tik tok views and other clicks that feed into hype doesn't actually sustain the sport (yes I'm taking a swipe at Warriors bandwagoners, and no I don't have problem with them getting on board, I just hope more stay around when the Warriors inevitably return to normal service - and yes I'm the world's biggest pessimist when it comes to the Warriors, they're The Walking Dead of sport). If they lose the oldies things are just going to get worse as they'll start losing TV viewers to go with the losses at the ground.
In saying all that I don't know what the answer is, I'm just rambling jibber jabbering while I procrastinate at work, I'm an NPC-stan yet lots on here are Super-stans, so someones going to be disappointed.
-
There are a lot more problems in Australian rugby than trying to fill teams.
The structure is a mess they need to restructure their development and identification programs they are sub standard and disjointed.
Throwing NZ players at their SR teams will not help in the long run in fact it will make it worse, less spots for the young talent coming through to secure, opening the way for NRL and AFL to poach more players.
Putting more Kiwis in to the Australian teams is just a band aid that would eventually kill the pathways underneath.
Australia needs to sort out how their players arrive at a decent SR level by doing the work underneath the top tier. -
There are a lot more problems in Australian rugby than trying to fill teams.
The structure is a mess they need to restructure their development and identification programs they are sub standard and disjointed.
Throwing NZ players at their SR teams will not help in the long run in fact it will make it worse, less spots for the young talent coming through to secure, opening the way for NRL and AFL to poach more players.
Putting more Kiwis in to the Australian teams is just a band aid that would eventually kill the pathways underneath.
Australia needs to sort out how their players arrive at a decent SR level by doing the work underneath the top tier.@Chris i dont think its "throwing NZ players" at them
I think it is setting things up so that these teams can attract sponsors and investors with the prospect of being able to bring in some talent...build some success...and build off that
There is a chicken and eggs situations going on...its bloody hard to convince players to play rugby when the only thing they can look forward too is getting smashed
-
@Chris i dont think its "throwing NZ players" at them
I think it is setting things up so that these teams can attract sponsors and investors with the prospect of being able to bring in some talent...build some success...and build off that
There is a chicken and eggs situations going on...its bloody hard to convince players to play rugby when the only thing they can look forward too is getting smashed
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris i dont think its "throwing NZ players" at them
I think it is setting things up so that these teams can attract sponsors and investors with the prospect of being able to bring in some talent...build some success...and build off that
There is a chicken and eggs situations going on...its bloody hard to convince players to play rugby when the only thing they can look forward too is getting smashed
Being in the Cricket world at QLd state level we are always fighting especially AFL for the real athletes the tall ones with long levers.
AFL are offering contracts at 12 years old to secure them.
I talk to a lot of parents and players who are cross over code players.I hear a lot of what parents are saying about development and the structure of Rugby here in QLD.
Young players are looking further up the chain for career opportunities.
Parents of elite youngsters who I talked with and have discussed the opening up of NZ players to SR sides they hate the idea,Less contracts for their children to secure and they tell me it is dilluting the teams from being Australian.
It is what I hear, some players I coach have siblings and friends in the Qld Reds system they all seem to be on the same page.
As far as attracting players that comes down to how well Rugby is doing those things in their development structure which is poor.
If that is not fixed NZ will have 10 SR teams Australia none. -
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris i dont think its "throwing NZ players" at them
I think it is setting things up so that these teams can attract sponsors and investors with the prospect of being able to bring in some talent...build some success...and build off that
There is a chicken and eggs situations going on...its bloody hard to convince players to play rugby when the only thing they can look forward too is getting smashed
Being in the Cricket world at QLd state level we are always fighting especially AFL for the real athletes the tall ones with long levers.
AFL are offering contracts at 12 years old to secure them.
I talk to a lot of parents and players who are cross over code players.I hear a lot of what parents are saying about development and the structure of Rugby here in QLD.
Young players are looking further up the chain for career opportunities.
Parents of elite youngsters who I talked with and have discussed the opening up of NZ players to SR sides they hate the idea,Less contracts for their children to secure and they tell me it is dilluting the teams from being Australian.
It is what I hear, some players I coach have siblings and friends in the Qld Reds system they all seem to be on the same page.
As far as attracting players that comes down to how well Rugby is doing those things in their development structure which is poor.
If that is not fixed NZ will have 10 SR teams Australia none.@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Young players are looking further up the chain for career opportunities.
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Putting more Kiwis in to the Australian teams is just a band aid that would eventually kill the pathways underneath.
and maybe thats another issues...its not the same problems throughout Aus, In Vic it seems the opposite, the young guys around the club are looking at their future and seeing losing as a reason not to try, no one seems to care if its a kiwi or a pom in the rebels...they just want to see their team win, they also dont seem to see a 25 year old pro as a threat to a development or youth team contract/opportunity
-
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Young players are looking further up the chain for career opportunities.
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Putting more Kiwis in to the Australian teams is just a band aid that would eventually kill the pathways underneath.
and maybe thats another issues...its not the same problems throughout Aus, In Vic it seems the opposite, the young guys around the club are looking at their future and seeing losing as a reason not to try, no one seems to care if its a kiwi or a pom in the rebels...they just want to see their team win, they also dont seem to see a 25 year old pro as a threat to a development or youth team contract/opportunity
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Young players are looking further up the chain for career opportunities.
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Putting more Kiwis in to the Australian teams is just a band aid that would eventually kill the pathways underneath.
and maybe thats another issues...its not the same problems throughout Aus, In Vic it seems the opposite, the young guys around the club are looking at their future and seeing losing as a reason not to try, no one seems to care if its a kiwi or a pom in the rebels...they just want to see their team win, they also dont seem to see a 25 year old pro as a threat to a development or youth team contract/opportunity
Victoria not really being a Rugby state the mind set maybe different in Rugby circles.
But QLD is along with NSW the major Rugby states in Australia more depth when it is not pinched and have some development systems.
I would guess Rugby for an aspiring Victorian athlete would be a very last resort way behind AFL and Cricket and other sports as a choice so Victoria are having to import players due to its systems underneath the Rebels. I don't see that getting much better in time.Probably means the Rebels are doomed. -
In all honesty unlike others who look to other sports, their comps and setups, and want to repeat that with rugby, I've always preferred the rugby structure.
Maybe it's because I'm not interested in most other sports (aside from on the Playstation) so I don't have that exposure and my other sport I follow is the bogan rugby and in most years the Warriors are bottom of the table so by July/August my interest has usually dropped.
@mariner4life Why do you league/basketball/Aussie fans not care?
But I don't know if there is an answer that will satisfy other than we do. I get annoyed when the Warriors have too many Australians, I get annoyed when the Pies have too many out of towners. Maybe, for me personally it was because we were in second division most of my younger years so only got to see our players at the ground? Maybe in general it's because the game in NZ was always traditionally based on provinces and we're stuck in our ways since pre the start of Super in 1996?
In all honesty, as much as I'll watch Super rugby these day and have a Stan subscription, if the NPC went the way of the Moa I think I'd probably only get it for the AB test season. To watch some Super now I'm often having to make a choice between going out to dinner/going away etc and watching the games. So a lot of my watching now is delayed or highlights.
I know the aim for NZR is to chase the young-uns, but it's the oldies who are funding the game these days with their Sky subscriptions. Tik tok views and other clicks that feed into hype doesn't actually sustain the sport (yes I'm taking a swipe at Warriors bandwagoners, and no I don't have problem with them getting on board, I just hope more stay around when the Warriors inevitably return to normal service - and yes I'm the world's biggest pessimist when it comes to the Warriors, they're The Walking Dead of sport). If they lose the oldies things are just going to get worse as they'll start losing TV viewers to go with the losses at the ground.
In saying all that I don't know what the answer is, I'm just rambling jibber jabbering while I procrastinate at work, I'm an NPC-stan yet lots on here are Super-stans, so someones going to be disappointed.
@Nepia said in Super Rugby - The Future:
I'm an NPC-stan yet lots on here are Super-stans
i would very much like to revert to Provincial sides. The problem is the Super teams are 30 years old and are going nowhere.
Make the comp bigger, play it all year. 8 NZ sides, 5 Aussie ones, and two pacific ones. Play 20+ rounds and finals. -
@Nepia said in Super Rugby - The Future:
I'm an NPC-stan yet lots on here are Super-stans
i would very much like to revert to Provincial sides. The problem is the Super teams are 30 years old and are going nowhere.
Make the comp bigger, play it all year. 8 NZ sides, 5 Aussie ones, and two pacific ones. Play 20+ rounds and finals.@mariner4life I think I'd prefer two more NZ sides so both your Bay and my Bay make it so we can continue the battle of the bays. And I'm still not a fan of the 20+ rounds NRL style, but that's by the by.
I'll bottle the first person who suggests my Bay merge with the Poo or who posts an orange Vikings jesery.
-
@Nepia said in Super Rugby - The Future:
I'm an NPC-stan yet lots on here are Super-stans
i would very much like to revert to Provincial sides. The problem is the Super teams are 30 years old and are going nowhere.
Make the comp bigger, play it all year. 8 NZ sides, 5 Aussie ones, and two pacific ones. Play 20+ rounds and finals.@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Make the comp bigger, play it all year. 8 NZ sides, 5 Aussie ones, and two pacific ones. Play 20+ rounds and finals.
Or expanding on @gt12 's suggestion
8 NZ sides
6 Aus sides plus 2 PI sides
8 Japanese company sidesA first divsion of 12
A second division of 12First division is always 4 from each region. Automatic promotion/relegation for a side from each region
Cross over games with the other teams from your region for a domestic competition
Each year there is a:
SR champ
SR 2nd Div Champ
A NZ region champ
An Aus region champ
A Japanese region champBottom end of the top division would be really interesting to avoid the drop
Yes there would be yoyo teams but you'd never lose contact with the other teams from your region. A team in the 2nd division could still win the regions competition
-
@mariner4life I think I'd prefer two more NZ sides so both your Bay and my Bay make it so we can continue the battle of the bays. And I'm still not a fan of the 20+ rounds NRL style, but that's by the by.
I'll bottle the first person who suggests my Bay merge with the Poo or who posts an orange Vikings jesery.
@Nepia said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@mariner4life I think I'd prefer two more NZ sides so both your Bay and my Bay make it so we can continue the battle of the bays. And I'm still not a fan of the 20+ rounds NRL style, but that's by the by.
I'll bottle the first person who suggests my Bay merge with the Poo or who posts an orange Vikings jesery.
no mergers.
picking 8 would be hard, but they need to be fully professional (paid for by making any provincial comp below it fully amateur)
Obviously the existing 5, probably the two Bays on population alone. One of Harbour and Counties probably the other. -
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Make the comp bigger, play it all year. 8 NZ sides, 5 Aussie ones, and two pacific ones. Play 20+ rounds and finals.
Or expanding on @gt12 's suggestion
8 NZ sides
6 Aus sides plus 2 PI sides
8 Japanese company sidesA first divsion of 12
A second division of 12First division is always 4 from each region. Automatic promotion/relegation for a side from each region
Cross over games with the other teams from your region for a domestic competition
Each year there is a:
SR champ
SR 2nd Div Champ
A NZ region champ
An Aus region champ
A Japanese region champBottom end of the top division would be really interesting to avoid the drop
Yes there would be yoyo teams but you'd never lose contact with the other teams from your region. A team in the 2nd division could still win the regions competition
