Super Rugby - The Future
-
A few comments round the traps that it's wrong that there is a lucky loser.
It seems this malformed format is the result of a desire to maximise revenue, but it's only achieved one extra game net, being home matches for Canes and Chiefs at expense of Blues.
If the Top 14 format had been followed the Brumbies would have played Crusaders with winner away to Chiefs in semi. The Blues would have hosted Reds, with winner playing Canes away.
Who knows which team would have won that, but, at the end of the day, little, if any, difference to the semi's we've got.
-
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in Super Rugby - The Future:
I don't know how accurate this is but a quick Google tells me their netball averages about 6,000 and their Super Rugby 10-15,000.
the scary thing is they are comparable!
reds and tahs are over 10k
but brums and force are under 10
Fever draw more than the Force@mohikamo said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in Super Rugby - The Future:
I don't know how accurate this is but a quick Google tells me their netball averages about 6,000 and their Super Rugby 10-15,000.
the scary thing is they are comparable!
reds and tahs are over 10k
but brums and force are under 10
Fever draw more than the ForceWhat are ticket prices like for the two sports?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@mariner4life but then it still has to be funded some how.....so local sponser have to choose again.....and distracting locals....if i had someone form my club playing NPC i know im more likely to get behind them than the manufactured team full of guys from out of town
It would cost almost nothing in comparison.
The current structure of NZ Super Rugby is the following franchises:
- Blues
- Chiefs
- Hurricanes
- Crusaders
- Highlanders.
Which means that the following provincial unions are out of the running for inclusion in a 10 team comp:
- Auckland
- Waikato
- Wellington
- Canterbury
- Otago
To which you can add the following by reason of them basically being subsumed into existing Super Rugby franchises and not having sufficient population to stand alone:
- Mid Canterbury
- South Canterbury
- North Otago
- Southland
Which leaves me with the following additions:
- Counties Manukau
- Bay of Plenty
- North Harbour, and two of the following three
- Ta$man
- Hawke's Bay
- Manawatū
@antipodean said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@mariner4life but then it still has to be funded some how.....so local sponser have to choose again.....and distracting locals....if i had someone form my club playing NPC i know im more likely to get behind them than the manufactured team full of guys from out of town
It would cost almost nothing in comparison.
The current structure of NZ Super Rugby is the following franchises:
- Blues
- Chiefs
- Hurricanes
- Crusaders
- Highlanders.
Which means that the following provincial unions are out of the running for inclusion in a 10 team comp:
- Auckland
- Waikato
- Wellington
- Canterbury
- Otago
To which you can add the following by reason of them basically being subsumed into existing Super Rugby franchises and not having sufficient population to stand alone:
- Mid Canterbury
- South Canterbury
- North Otago
- Southland
Which leaves me with the following additions:
- Counties Manukau
- Bay of Plenty
- North Harbour, and two of the following three
- Ta$man
- Hawke's Bay
- Manawatū
If setting up a new comp, would you just disbanded the blues and have Auckland, counties, north harbour.
Transfer the blues setup to Auckland.
Same with the other super bases.
So 10 teams would be
Auckland,
Counties,
North Harbour,
Waikato,
Wellington,
Canterbury,
Otago,
plus 3 others.I realise it could be a legal minefield splitting up the super franchises, but if there was buy in from all involved it could be done.
-
Auckland to Japan is an 11 hour flight and a 3 hour time difference.
Auckland to Buenos Aires is more like 15 hours and a day behind.
These are not viable "partners" for a weekly rugby competition.And that's before you get to the point that the Japanese don't need or even want us. It's Australia or nothing. And if it is nothing, then throwing open the AB selection criteria is a given.
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
And that's before you get to the point that the Japanese don't need or even want us.
QLDers maybe.
Japan-NZ is different:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/the-detail/116578853/the-detail-how-japans-fallen-in-love-with-the-all-blacks-this-rugby-world-cup
-
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
-
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
-
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Dan.
It isn't about filling Australia's gaps. It is about creating a free market competition.
Our players already fill their gaps.
It is about saying to remain eligible for NZ you must play Super Rugby. As a by product it might see guys take opportunities around the competition. Which may mean their thirst of wanting to see the world a bit more is quenched.
This may even it out.
We need an even competition. An even competition is sustainable. Our quarter finalists this year were the same as last year.
-
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
If your only concern is New Zealand rugby (which I think it is in your case) you should want more potential All Blacks playing every week and you should want potential All Blacks playing higher quality teams more often. New Zealand rugby doesn’t improve by having players sit in the stands or run circles around second-rate opposition.
-
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it. -
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it.@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it.I know it won't help their national team, but if NZ players were able to sign for Aussie teams I am sure they would be cheaper than paying a shit ton for a league convert.
I still don't get that about RA. If NRL teams are happy to sign NZ players regardless of their nationality, then perhaps it's worth consideration. I guess rugby is different because league generally prioritise clubs over Test teams, at least in NZ we are the opposite
-
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it.@Dan54 my feeling is yeah thats possible, looking at all kinds of sports....teams get much more traction (advertising/socila media etc) signing in someone than just saying theyve developed someone, especilly if the one thing people in aus do know about rugby is the AB's are (one of) the best team in the world...they get to spash all of their socials that theyve "signed and AB"...even if its one cap....or "NZ wonder kid"...because they played well at school...that might be enough for them to get a new sponser over the line
and yes...i think there are some players that wouldnt mind living in sydney, or brisbane or melbourne compared to dunedin, christchurch is hamilton...even if the money was similar
-
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it.@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it.The point isn't that Australian franchises can match Japanese or European salaries. It's that they don't have to. For many players, an Australian Super Rugby contract plus continued All Blacks eligibility may be a more attractive package than a bigger overseas contract that takes them out of national selection. At the same time, moving some depth players to Australia would allow New Zealand franchises to concentrate more of their salary budget on retaining top-end talent.
-
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it.@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it.AS others have touched on - providing this option is in essence a lifestyle bonus - and likely be a pay rise anyway if they move from a squad member to a starter. Ive touched previously that we have 5 no. 10 jerseys to offer players each year, usually 3 of these are taken by incumbent all blacks. So 2 first fives get a crack each year. Even just an extra NZ first five getting to start each week would be a massive bonus to our depth and development as a nation - without losing a guy to Europe or Japan
-
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it.AS others have touched on - providing this option is in essence a lifestyle bonus - and likely be a pay rise anyway if they move from a squad member to a starter. Ive touched previously that we have 5 no. 10 jerseys to offer players each year, usually 3 of these are taken by incumbent all blacks. So 2 first fives get a crack each year. Even just an extra NZ first five getting to start each week would be a massive bonus to our depth and development as a nation - without losing a guy to Europe or Japan
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it.AS others have touched on - providing this option is in essence a lifestyle bonus - and likely be a pay rise anyway if they move from a squad member to a starter. Ive touched previously that we have 5 no. 10 jerseys to offer players each year, usually 3 of these are taken by incumbent all blacks. So 2 first fives get a crack each year. Even just an extra NZ first five getting to start each week would be a massive bonus to our depth and development as a nation - without losing a guy to Europe or Japan
Everyone has good points, although I think in long term if Aussie thinks importing players from NZ to play super ,I genuinely think it will hurt the Wallabies. The thing is in your example say 2 spare 10s go to Aus super teams, that's 2 Aussie 10s missing a chance to develop, and it's not going to be long before the Wallabies will pay the price. Could be good for Aus super teams, but will damage their test team, and that's where they get main support etc for the game. And knowing supporters in a few years they will be asking why their young players are going to NRL etc again.
-
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it.AS others have touched on - providing this option is in essence a lifestyle bonus - and likely be a pay rise anyway if they move from a squad member to a starter. Ive touched previously that we have 5 no. 10 jerseys to offer players each year, usually 3 of these are taken by incumbent all blacks. So 2 first fives get a crack each year. Even just an extra NZ first five getting to start each week would be a massive bonus to our depth and development as a nation - without losing a guy to Europe or Japan
Everyone has good points, although I think in long term if Aussie thinks importing players from NZ to play super ,I genuinely think it will hurt the Wallabies. The thing is in your example say 2 spare 10s go to Aus super teams, that's 2 Aussie 10s missing a chance to develop, and it's not going to be long before the Wallabies will pay the price. Could be good for Aus super teams, but will damage their test team, and that's where they get main support etc for the game. And knowing supporters in a few years they will be asking why their young players are going to NRL etc again.
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it.AS others have touched on - providing this option is in essence a lifestyle bonus - and likely be a pay rise anyway if they move from a squad member to a starter. Ive touched previously that we have 5 no. 10 jerseys to offer players each year, usually 3 of these are taken by incumbent all blacks. So 2 first fives get a crack each year. Even just an extra NZ first five getting to start each week would be a massive bonus to our depth and development as a nation - without losing a guy to Europe or Japan
Everyone has good points, although I think in long term if Aussie thinks importing players from NZ to play super ,I genuinely think it will hurt the Wallabies. The thing is in your example say 2 spare 10s go to Aus super teams, that's 2 Aussie 10s missing a chance to develop, and it's not going to be long before the Wallabies will pay the price. Could be good for Aus super teams, but will damage their test team, and that's where they get main support etc for the game. And knowing supporters in a few years they will be asking why their young players are going to NRL etc again.
Maybe they will have a quota? They are already signing NZers right now, just the past their prime ones. They are losing players to the NH already regardless. As long as they don't end up populating their teams with Kiwis at the expense of home grown guys who can play at SR level, I think it's a way to go half way for NZR
-
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it.AS others have touched on - providing this option is in essence a lifestyle bonus - and likely be a pay rise anyway if they move from a squad member to a starter. Ive touched previously that we have 5 no. 10 jerseys to offer players each year, usually 3 of these are taken by incumbent all blacks. So 2 first fives get a crack each year. Even just an extra NZ first five getting to start each week would be a massive bonus to our depth and development as a nation - without losing a guy to Europe or Japan
Everyone has good points, although I think in long term if Aussie thinks importing players from NZ to play super ,I genuinely think it will hurt the Wallabies. The thing is in your example say 2 spare 10s go to Aus super teams, that's 2 Aussie 10s missing a chance to develop, and it's not going to be long before the Wallabies will pay the price. Could be good for Aus super teams, but will damage their test team, and that's where they get main support etc for the game. And knowing supporters in a few years they will be asking why their young players are going to NRL etc again.
@Dan54 my gut feeling is a few high profile players go and play in aussie....we get some gain not losing them further overseas and the comp it slightly more compeditive and hopefully more engaging for fans
the aussie teams use this to build more success, get their head above water, get some more supporters, more supporters can translate to wider interest in rugby and so the next generation are locally developed
yes it all if buts and maybes but it possible...where as the current model isn't working well for anyone...basically picking from what is a dwindling player base
-
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it.AS others have touched on - providing this option is in essence a lifestyle bonus - and likely be a pay rise anyway if they move from a squad member to a starter. Ive touched previously that we have 5 no. 10 jerseys to offer players each year, usually 3 of these are taken by incumbent all blacks. So 2 first fives get a crack each year. Even just an extra NZ first five getting to start each week would be a massive bonus to our depth and development as a nation - without losing a guy to Europe or Japan
Everyone has good points, although I think in long term if Aussie thinks importing players from NZ to play super ,I genuinely think it will hurt the Wallabies. The thing is in your example say 2 spare 10s go to Aus super teams, that's 2 Aussie 10s missing a chance to develop, and it's not going to be long before the Wallabies will pay the price. Could be good for Aus super teams, but will damage their test team, and that's where they get main support etc for the game. And knowing supporters in a few years they will be asking why their young players are going to NRL etc again.
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@DurryMexted said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Dan54 said in Super Rugby - The Future:
One thing I do wonder , NZ rugby (rightly in my opinion) say you don't play for NZ teams you don't play for ABs. And we get a few people saying our players should be able to play in Aus teams, I say bollocks, they want to let their top players go overseas and still play for Wallabies, they can't expect NZ to fill up gaps.
Yeah its way better having talented guys sitting in the stands not playing at all aye. And then going to europe to play and ripping up.
You think Aus super teams will pay enough to stop players going to Europe?
If that the case why not pay their top players to stay home, or buy them from Europe. I not sure what answer is (well the answer is there, but unplatable) so I guess we have to keep working on it.AS others have touched on - providing this option is in essence a lifestyle bonus - and likely be a pay rise anyway if they move from a squad member to a starter. Ive touched previously that we have 5 no. 10 jerseys to offer players each year, usually 3 of these are taken by incumbent all blacks. So 2 first fives get a crack each year. Even just an extra NZ first five getting to start each week would be a massive bonus to our depth and development as a nation - without losing a guy to Europe or Japan
Everyone has good points, although I think in long term if Aussie thinks importing players from NZ to play super ,I genuinely think it will hurt the Wallabies. The thing is in your example say 2 spare 10s go to Aus super teams, that's 2 Aussie 10s missing a chance to develop, and it's not going to be long before the Wallabies will pay the price. Could be good for Aus super teams, but will damage their test team, and that's where they get main support etc for the game. And knowing supporters in a few years they will be asking why their young players are going to NRL etc again.
But, Dan, you don't care about Australian teams.
Seriously though, the concern that New Zealand players in Australian Super Rugby teams would block Wallabies pathways misses a couple of key points. Australia already selects Wallabies from overseas clubs, so its talent pool isn’t limited to Super Rugby in the same way the All Blacks are.
A limited number of New Zealand players wouldn’t replace Australian talent so much as raise the standard of a competition that currently struggles in depth and consistency. In the short term, that could make Australian teams more competitive while longer-term fixes like junior development, coaching investment and pathway reform take effect. It’s not about swapping out Australian players but about adding quality to strengthen the competition as a whole.
-
the other thing it does is that it brings outside ideas, new ideas, different perspectives, we have seen the impact of looking inward at NZR, it could certainly help some of the Aussie teams with an injection of outside talent and ideas, might get a few extra kids to stay in rugby instead of league, which is good for NZ & Aus.
-
the other thing it does is that it brings outside ideas, new ideas, different perspectives, we have seen the impact of looking inward at NZR, it could certainly help some of the Aussie teams with an injection of outside talent and ideas, might get a few extra kids to stay in rugby instead of league, which is good for NZ & Aus.
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby - The Future:
the other thing it does is that it brings outside ideas, new ideas, different perspectives, we have seen the impact of looking inward at NZR, it could certainly help some of the Aussie teams with an injection of outside talent and ideas, might get a few extra kids to stay in rugby instead of league, which is good for NZ & Aus.
I'm not sure it will actually bring in new ideas or different perspectives in either direction, NZ and Aus rugby are pretty intertwined these days.
I'm not anti the idea outright, but it would need to be implemented in a way to ensure that it doesn't negatively impact Aussie development.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby - The Future:
the other thing it does is that it brings outside ideas, new ideas, different perspectives, we have seen the impact of looking inward at NZR, it could certainly help some of the Aussie teams with an injection of outside talent and ideas, might get a few extra kids to stay in rugby instead of league, which is good for NZ & Aus.
I'm not sure it will actually bring in new ideas or different perspectives in either direction, NZ and Aus rugby are pretty intertwined these days.
I'm not anti the idea outright, but it would need to be implemented in a way to ensure that it doesn't negatively impact Aussie development.
@Nepia i feel thats because we've looked so insular, a free market free for all might change things, if an aussie team can lure a couple of AB's then they might also attract overseas coaches, currently super rugby just looks so small and only getting smaller
