Super Rugby - The Future
-
@Bones said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Nepia don't forget Super Rugby doesn't prepare players for international rugby if I conveniently ignore many in form SR players delivering at test time.
Apparently it's a lesser competition to the Top 14, URC, and English Prem too.
-
@WoodysRFC said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Bones said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Nepia don't forget Super Rugby doesn't prepare players for international rugby if I conveniently ignore many in form SR players delivering at test time.
Apparently it's a lesser competition to the Top 14, URC, and English Prem too.
If we put aside games in those competitions where there are large winning margins, games in SR where there are large winning margins illustrate this point succinctly.
-
@WoodysRFC said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Bones said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Nepia don't forget Super Rugby doesn't prepare players for international rugby if I conveniently ignore many in form SR players delivering at test time.
Apparently it's a lesser competition to the Top 14, URC, and English Prem too.
Here's the thing.
It probably is.
It's not necessarily the quality, but also the variation we are missing. -
@gt12 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@WoodysRFC said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Bones said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Nepia don't forget Super Rugby doesn't prepare players for international rugby if I conveniently ignore many in form SR players delivering at test time.
Apparently it's a lesser competition to the Top 14, URC, and English Prem too.
Here's the thing.
It probably is.
It's not necessarily the quality, but also the variation we are missing.Variation meaning?
-
@Mr-Fish said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@sparky said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Somehow linking up with North American and Japanese competitions is the only way I can see Super Rugby surviving in the medium term. International interest in the competition since the South Africans left is virtually zero.
Was there much international interest in Super Rugby before South Africa left...?
Maybe due to a few games being played in the timezone as Europe, but that wouldn't be the case just because of NA/Japan joining the competition...
Son who lived in Italy used to watch games with mates all the time, and even used to watch NPC games live over there. Actually has another mate laughed, he was driving trucks in USA and said he stopped outside on town at a truck stop, and found a couple of fellas sitting in a truck watching super, realsied they were all on over there and used to watch all the time.
-
What we've lacked since the South African sides left - and the Jaguares, Sunwolves and Pacific franchises joined - is a viable meaning or context to the competition.
Previously it was the best domestic sides from the three powerhouses (and most successful nations) of professional rugby. The team that won (and, importantly, its fans) could claim to be the best domestic side in the world. That meant something; either side of the equator.
With South African leaving and far-flung franchises joining (and not ignoring the recent downfall of the Wallabies) we now have a competition that crowns a champion of no real relevance or significance.
The old Super 12/14/15 had true sporting context. Yes, there were mismatches and games played at odd times for various sets of viewers but it always progressed to a tangible context at season's end.
People complained about about those viewing times being the downfall of the old Super 12/14/15. I've seen the current ratings and still Kiwi fans won't watch anything outside of 4:30pm and 7:05pm kickoffs - even when NZ sides are involved.. And I'd imagine the equivalent is true of Aussie viewers.
So if no one is watching un-appealing kick-offs in a Pacific-only comp then then South African 3am kick-offs aren't the issue no matter what the alignment of sides within Super Rugby.
-
@Nepia said in Super Rugby - The Future:
We've had three years of "Super is shit because the Saffas aren't here", now we've got a page of the thread full of the "Saffas were shit".
My point was the Saffa forwards made our forwards and the Aussie forwards harder regardless of the overall quality of their teams. That's not saying SRP is shit.
-
@WoodysRFC said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@gt12 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@WoodysRFC said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Bones said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Nepia don't forget Super Rugby doesn't prepare players for international rugby if I conveniently ignore many in form SR players delivering at test time.
Apparently it's a lesser competition to the Top 14, URC, and English Prem too.
Here's the thing.
It probably is.
It's not necessarily the quality, but also the variation we are missing.Variation meaning?
For starters, we miss the best domestic sides from the current b2b WC.
As they play in their own manner, we miss the variation in strategy and approach from the SA sides.
Altogether, it lessens the competition - we are just a little competition representing two small countries, one of whom hardly matters are the moment.
About 5 years ago Super rugby represented the southern hemisphere, even one Argie side mattered.
That's gone and that's why they should have done more to keep the SA sides.I see that @Wurzel has got here ahead of me on some of this.
-
@gt12 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
About 5 years ago Super rugby represented the southern hemisphere, even one Argie side mattered.
I'd go so far as to say, the periods when Super is strong correlate with All Black/southern hemisphere dominance.
It's been brutally mismanaged. We got to 18 sides remember, and then the bottom fell out. We're now at 11 and possibly 10, and they are marginally sustainable. There is no doubt in my mind the quality of Super over the last 10 years has been in decline (possibly this year excepted).
-
@nzzp said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@gt12 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
About 5 years ago Super rugby represented the southern hemisphere, even one Argie side mattered.
I'd go so far as to say, the periods when Super is strong correlate with All Black/southern hemisphere dominance.
It's been brutally mismanaged. We got to 18 sides remember, and then the bottom fell out. We're now at 11 and possibly 10, and they are marginally sustainable. There is no doubt in my mind the quality of Super over the last 10 years has been in decline (possibly this year excepted).
There were still 3 SH sides in the RWC semis mind you.
-
@Kiwiwomble When we lived in SA we could watch the NZ games in the morning, then any Aus match and that would fold in to the home games in SA. It was a whole day's viewing if you wished.
-
having had a read of the collective agreement thread, i'd be happy to give SR to the players
they threatened to go their own way, so give it to them and see we they can do
i.e. SANZAR SR being completely separated out and left to operate independentlya lot/most? sports have their pro branch separated out from the national sports associations
just so long as NZR doesn't grant them any money, let the comp survive or die on its own
the only NZR involvement would be the loan to SR of their AB contracted players, which is sort of what happens now
NZR would be responsible for the black teams, and grass roots/development -
I watch it but highlights package on YouTube
Sky prices in the UK are a joke
So I know what's going on and enjoy the product but don't get counted in the stats
I can't be alone in that
-
@WoodysRFC said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Bones said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Nepia don't forget Super Rugby doesn't prepare players for international rugby if I conveniently ignore many in form SR players delivering at test time.
Apparently it's a lesser competition to the Top 14, URC, and English Prem too.
Top 14, right now yes. URC and English Prem, nope.
