Where to for Super Rugby?

[Dan54]

Without being critical of WSR, it not really there to promote and or help Australian talent, I mean haven't they recruited Jeremy Thrush? You see it easier to state your aims than to actually try to reach them I suspect. I hope it get's some success, but with the level of comp they got surely grabbing ex-All Blacks after they finished earning their retirement pay overseas is not within what they saying they want to do. If they have done it to have a star name etc, because he is an ex All Black, isn't that just saying all this who needs the kiwis argument falling down??
I like where someone has mentioned how well the timezone with Hawaii works for USA team (which I am not advocating by any means), but in the moans about NZ not wanting a trans tasman only comp you see the point? Hawaii is actually a better time than Perth for NZ, and probably better than Australia, as when we see people saying about trans tasman and watching games at a good time in Aus, it really is not good for NZ, as a 7.45 kickoff in Aus is 9.45 in NZ so really there isn't a lot of advantage to NZ to having that comp. Don't ask me what the answer is , I don't know anymore than anyone here, but just thought you needed to see there are a lot of issues that Sanzaar have to work with.

 

[RugbyReg]

Reg, Reg,Reg!

Harking back to the bad old days of the 80's and 90's, there was always a couple of bright young up and coming stars in the local comp who took the big step of moving east. Some made the move permanent, some returned, their dreams falling short . A few made it through to the big time. Kudos to all of them for following their dreams. The fundamental issue here is that most of them were lost to the local scene and for what? Simply for them to bide their time as the third-in-line inside centre for a Shute Shield club? How does that benefit Australian Rugby as a whole?

Would Godwin, the DHP's, Keiren Longbottom etc ever made it through that log jam or ever even made the journey in the Good Old days you refer to? The mere fact that there are now more WA-born/developed players in the Wallabies squad suggests probably not. Whilst the cultural belief of inadequacy may be gone it is still a hell of a commitment to pull up stumps from one side of the country and place everything on Black. As we have seen, developing a pool of high quality Wallabies candidates come from exposing players to higher grade competition on a regular basis - if not, why are we bothering with the NRC?

Kids aspire to play rugby most when they have a connection with their stars - knowing that they - Godwin, Haylett-Petty's, Longbottom etc played or still play at the same local clubs they do gives them self-belief. The correlation between the increase in junior participation in WA and the foundation of the Force and the number of WA players in the Wallabies is a demonstration of that.

This begs the question is what are Australian players lacking at this higher level that leads to the Wallabies dismal performance? Is it poor coaching, skills deficiencies, fitness or a combination? Given that we've had a few players picked up by Kiwi teams in the past few years, 'd suggest coaching is a bigger part of the problem than some believe.

DHP, Godwin and Longbottom would have made it through the log jam if they were good enough. So DHP would’ve made it through. And even he had to go to France to grow his game.

Make no mistake that skill development (coaching) is a major issue and needs addressing. As sunnyboys suggests administration is a massive issue too. And this won’t happen without quality administration.

“Kids aspire to play rugby most when they have a connection with their stars - knowing that they - Godwin, Haylett-Petty's, Longbottom etc played or still play at the same local clubs they do gives them self-belief.”

I don’t agree with this. Perhaps some. Perhaps those in Perth. My sons favourite player when he was young and first started playing rugby was Lachie Turner. He didn’t even play for Qld let alone my sons club.

Kids aspire to play rugby when they see success. A winning wallaby team for starters.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

DHP, Godwin and Longbottom would have made it through the log jam if they were good enough. So DHP would’ve made it through. And even he had to go to France to grow his game.

Make no mistake that skill development (coaching) is a major issue and needs addressing. As sunnyboys suggests administration is a massive issue too. And this won’t happen without quality administration.

“Kids aspire to play rugby most when they have a connection with their stars - knowing that they - Godwin, Haylett-Petty's, Longbottom etc played or still play at the same local clubs they do gives them self-belief.”

I don’t agree with this. Perhaps some. Perhaps those in Perth. My sons favourite player when he was young and first started playing rugby was Lachie Turner. He didn’t even play for Qld let alone my sons club.

Kids aspire to play rugby when they see success. A winning wallaby team for starters.

I have to disagree with you Reg that players like DHP, Godwin and Longbottom would have made it through in the old system. There was a lack of a professional outfit in WA prior to the Force had an effect on the quality of Junior player development.

100 years prior to the Force WA produced 1 Wallaby since the Force WA have another 3-4 (depending on how you view things). That is as a direct result of quality coaching of Junior players as a byproduct of a professional outfit.

I could name numerous quality players across the years which given the opportunity could have made it however that would have required a move east which many were not willing to do. WA players who made it into the Aus age based teams however never progressed further due to that lack of opportunity in the West to assist them to develop further.

Its not by accident that in the past few years the number of WA juniors who progress to the professorial arena has increased.

The likes of Hardwick, RHP, Godwin, Lacey, Ngamanu, Koteka, Penny, Scoble. Jooste ect were all under the age of 12 when the Force were created and they were identified at a young age and received coaching and training which has meant they were able to make the transition to the pro's at levels not seen before in WA.

Had Twiggy not stepped up and funded the Force this year all those path ways would be non existent. WA receives about 250k a year from the ARU to run Rugby in this state and with out the Force we would not have achieved what we have to day and to say any different would not be true.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

TBF, the US could work for the likes of Argentina. But if you're adding another far-flung destination to the sort of soup format used now (or even worse, a round-robin) it's going to be trouble.



The only way something like that might be do-able , in my view, would be in a late season champs cup.



Hawaii … dunno. Maybe. It's further east in terms of time-zones than people sometimes realise. The same sort of distance as Pakistan if flying north west. But in an NZ conference where SA and OZ don't go there too often I suppose it might be viable.

Yep I see a world where MLR could morph into something significant where Argentina could join and this be a major comp in say a decade from now, but for soup expansion no thanks I have more belief in the Twiggy Asia Pacific model and more likely will be supporting that and my WSR western Sydney team then a Super Rugby competition looking for expansion teams in US. If Soup and WSR work together I might support both but I want to see co-ordination not conflict/war from RA perspective. As for rest of SANZAAR partners I really could not give a flying f......as to be frank we have cared about them too much to the detriment of our own backyard needs.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Without being critical of WSR, it not really there to promote and or help Australian talent, I mean haven't they recruited Jeremy Thrush? You see it easier to state your aims than to actually try to reach them I suspect. I hope it get's some success, but with the level of comp they got surely grabbing ex-All Blacks after they finished earning their retirement pay overseas is not within what they saying they want to do. If they have done it to have a star name etc, because he is an ex All Black, isn't that just saying all this who needs the kiwis argument falling down??

I like where someone has mentioned how well the timezone with Hawaii works for USA team (which I am not advocating by any means), but in the moans about NZ not wanting a trans tasman only comp you see the point? Hawaii is actually a better time than Perth for NZ, and probably better than Australia, as when we see people saying about trans tasman and watching games at a good time in Aus, it really is not good for NZ, as a 7.45 kickoff in Aus is 9.45 in NZ so really there isn't a lot of advantage to NZ to having that comp. Don't ask me what the answer is , I don't know anymore than anyone here, but just thought you needed to see there are a lot of issues that Sanzaar have to work with.

Nah whole concept of allow marquee players to improve the standard so more fan appeal which is more commercial attractiveness and more dollars and opportunities for expansion and more pathway opportunities. Sorry I have no problems with what twiggy doing with some imports as in time as competition matures hopefully less imports but then again if got more oz teams with expansion then who cares re: French ruby model where attract best talent to create fan appeal and enough opportunity for local players.

p.s yep let NZ play teams in Hawaii and SA and just do their own thing as quite frankly I am over NZ personally in terms of focus as I can't reconcile how that has helped us over the last 15 years.

 

[Omar Comin']

Rugby has and should use it as it’s showpiece. It should be about the Wallabies. Less teams (like we had in the 80s and 90s), best the all blacks and win world cups, remember how the national team was considered up there with Waugh’s cricketers

Problem is that the evidence suggests this doesn't really work very well (in terms of competing against the other football codes) unless the Wallabies are number 1 in the world, or in the argument.

And how often can we expect this to be the case? We got the jump on everyone else at the start of the professional era, but then everyone else caught up. What advantages do we have now over other major rugby nations that we could ever expect to be consistently ranked above the likes of NZ, South Africa and England? And should we not also expect to sometimes be worse than the likes of France, Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Argentina?

Add to that the fact that international rugby is getting more competitive, not less. In the longer term there will likely be more competitive nations than there are now, i.e. more teams that will occasionally be better than us.

 

[half]

Rugby Reg

I hear and feel what you are saying, however what you want can never happen. Wishing for something to return to a mythical point in time gets in the way of developing ways out of our present situation.

Omar is spot on when he said we got a jump start on many nations and they are improving as we are in decline.
Your comment pertaining to the Wallabies, in the 80’s and what they stood for and how they were received among the broader Australian community, belies the facts. In the 80’s the Socceroo’s received maybe some media every four years in a final world cup qualifier, but very little. Netball as a national presence had not entered national recognition and Basketball at an international level was also near non existence.

Today many argue the Socceroo’s & Matilda’s are Australia leading national sides, Cricket would argue their case but I mention this to highlight the contrast with the 80’s. Netball is exploding and Basketball today boasts I think 6 of the top paid Australian sports people playing in the US.

Also the success of the Socceroo’s in making FIFA world cups has been used by many league and AFL folk to argue that Rugby is a minor sport with weak nations. The 2010 FIFA world cup in South Africa gave these critics from league & AFL heaps to work with when they said South Africa is not a rugby country it’s a soccer country.

What this means is brand Wallaby is today not what it was in the 80’s.

The belief the Wallabies can support union beggars disbelief.

We actually have a working example in front of us that demonstrably proves National Domestic Competitions work better and provide more funds than national teams.

When FFA signed there previous media deal it was 40 million of which 25 million per year for the Socceroos and 15 million for the A-League. The Asian Football Confederation took the right of their member nations away to sell the rights to Asian & World Cup Qualifiers, and they sold the rights and pay each country 1 million per away game.

The last media deal is 54 million, all for the A-League no Socceroo money at all. It’s what the is fight is over.
Various media articles have the A-League bring in 80% of FFA revenue today. At 120 million that’s 96 million and to that you can add 1.6 million crowd at say $ 25.00 a ticket and about 2.5 million in sponsorship per team, the A-League brings in about 200 million and the Socceroos say 30 million.

While I respect your views, consider today, Netball, Basketball, Soccer national teams compared to the 80’s and Cricket today, Test, ODI, 20 20, . Its time to look to a solution face facts at what our true position is.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Half, I get where you are coming from mate, but rugby union in Australia was nowhere near as popular in the 80s as you seem to think it was

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[half]

Half, I get where you are coming from mate, but rugby union in Australia was nowhere near as popular in the 80s as you seem to think it was

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Stew, I was responding to Rugby Reg's post about the 80's. In the 80's the loss of players to league was huge, Ray Price, O'Conner, Matthew Ridge to name but a few.

TWAS the driving force behind the establishment of Super Rugby to counter league. Understand where you are coming from, but as i said I was responding to Rugby Reg not the state of rugby as a whole.

 

[Joe King]

Problem is that the evidence suggests this doesn't really work very well (in terms of competing against the other football codes) unless the Wallabies are number 1 in the world, or in the argument.

And how often can we expect this to be the case? We got the jump on everyone else at the start of the professional era, but then everyone else caught up. What advantages do we have now over other major rugby nations that we could ever expect to be consistently ranked above the likes of NZ, South Africa and England? And should we not also expect to sometimes be worse than the likes of France, Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Argentina?

Add to that the fact that international rugby is getting more competitive, not less. In the longer term there will likely be more competitive nations than there are now, i.e. more teams that will occasionally be better than us.

I think this is the key counter-point.

There is merit in the argument, that a winning Wallabies team would have great appeal, and do wonders for rugby in Australia.

But would reducing to 3 Super Rugby teams really achieve this? It might make them a little better, but not by enough to dominate, and may not even be enough to win 50% of the time against the AB's.

Having said that, reducing from 4 to 3 may not make things much worse than they are now. So there is also merit to the argument that we don't have a lot to lose by trying it.

 

[dru]

I think this is the key counter-point.

There is merit in the argument, that a winning Wallabies team would have great appeal, and do wonders for rugby in Australia.

But would reducing to 3 Super Rugby teams really achieve this? It might make them a little better, but not by enough to dominate, and may not even be enough to win 50% of the time against the AB's.

Having said that, reducing from 4 to 3 may not make things much worse than they are now. So there is also merit to the argument that we don't have a lot to lose by trying it.[/quote]

Really? Plenty has been said here on what we have to lose.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Premiership clubs doing it tough

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/aug/28/premiership-clubs-finances-sustainability

Cumulative losses for 2017-18 are expected to be £35m for the 12 clubs, an average of almost £3m each. Northampton were the first to announce their results last Friday: having posted a profit in the first 16 years of the century, they recorded a deficit for the second year in a row, hitting the league average of £2.9m

You look at competitions around the world and it does seem like the key is finding a way for someone else to pay for your football team (private equity, pokies/clubs etc). Making a loss is hardly unique for Super Rugby teams - but sending the governing body broke doing it might just about be.

 

[Omar Comin']

Having said that, reducing from 4 to 3 may not make things much worse than they are now. So there is also merit to the argument that we don't have a lot to lose by trying it.

What you have to lose is alienating the thousands of supporters of the team that gets cut.

But one option would be for Super Rugby to get really concentrated (e.g. 2 Oz, 2 SA, 3 NZ, 1 Arg), and the rest of the Australian and NZ teams join World Series Rugby.

WSR would not be as high level as Super Rugby, but it might not matter as much if Super Rugby was just this really elite, short competition, while WSR was longer (overlapping with part of the test season) and still contained very good professional players.

But I don't know, the whole thing's a mess.

 

[Joe King]

I'm dreaming a bit here, but what if we weren't so dependant on the Wallabies and the revenue they provide? Or, what if we were in soccer's position, and had already lost the battle of keeping our best players within Australia?

What would the top level competition look like in Australia?

In designing it, the only question you would need to ask is, what would be most appealing to the fans and future fans?

I know the fear is that if we went down the path of designing a competition like that, that we would open the flood-gates to players heading overseas, and wreck rugby in Australia to a point from which it would never recover.

But on the bright side, we would still have our favourite domestic competition to enjoy. And the Shute Shield and other various competitions makes me think that people can still really enjoy rugby and a rugby competition without the best players in it.

And why couldn't we do like soccer and pick Wallabies from overseas in a World Cup year?

And if we went down this path, NZ would also struggle to hold onto their best players too, making them less competitive anyway.

That's it! That's how we finally beat the AB's! We destroy ourselves just to watch them suffer! Brilliant!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I'm dreaming a bit here, but what if we weren't so dependant on the Wallabies and the revenue they provide? Or, what if we were in soccer's position, and had already lost the battle of keeping our best players within Australia?

What would the top level competition look like in Australia?

In designing it, the only question you would need to ask is, what would be most appealing to the fans and future fans?

I know the fear is that if we went down the path of designing a competition like that, that we would open the flood-gates to players heading overseas, and wreck rugby in Australia to a point from which it would never recover.

But on the bright side, we would still have our favourite domestic competition to enjoy. And the Shute Shield and other various competitions makes me think that people can still really enjoy rugby and a rugby competition without the best players in it.

And why couldn't we do like soccer and pick Wallabies from overseas in a World Cup year?

And if we went down this path, NZ would also struggle to hold onto their best players too, making them less competitive anyway.

That's it! That's how we finally beat the AB's! We destroy ourselves just to watch them suffer! Brilliant!

The NRC but hopefully better resourced and promoted.

 

[Joe King]

https://www.supersport.com/rugby/su...ims_to_finalise_Super_Rugby_plans_in_November

I'm just going to leave this here in regards to the insanity that is Super Rugby at present.

Here's my prediction of what WILL actually happen:

The conference system will go, and Super Rugby will adopt a simple round robin format with 3-4 weeks of finals. This will finish before the July Inbounds.

The amount of teams will be reduced from 15 to 14.

The Rebels will be cut, but this time RA will follow the example of the SARU and work with Twiggy for the Rebels to join the Force in WSR.

The whole thing will be sold as "going back to the original and the best format for Super Rugby".

Alongside this, RA will promote some form of the NRC (that includes the Force and the Rebels) as our domestic competition, to be played from July-October.


So it will be the same formula, different packaging. RA won't jump ship just yet. They will go another round.

What do others predict? Put your bets down.

 

[Rebels3]

15 to 14 solves nothing. All that would do is start the trend of people complaining how kiwi teams travel less (5 teams compared to 3 and 4) and 13 rounds means half the teams get 1 less home game than the others. SAF will continue to threaten to head North and infact might even jump ship. Who knows what it will look like

 

[Brumby Runner]

I think this is the key counter-point.

There is merit in the argument, that a winning Wallabies team would have great appeal, and do wonders for rugby in Australia.

But would reducing to 3 Super Rugby teams really achieve this? It might make them a little better, but not by enough to dominate, and may not even be enough to win 50% of the time against the AB's.

Having said that, reducing from 4 to 3 may not make things much worse than they are now. So there is also merit to the argument that we don't have a lot to lose by trying it.

If we reduce from 4 to 3, we will still have essentially the same 30 - 40 players vying for selection in the Wallabies. If anything, maybe fewer than we have now as some will undoubtedly elect to go overseas, while a larger number than otherwise of up and coming players will seek opportunities elsewhere. I can see no scenario anywhere that will lead to better players or an improvement by the Wallabies if a further reduction takes place.

On the contrary, we have a huge amount to lose if we reduce again. At least some of the top line players will opt to look elsewhere when they can't jag a spot with the remaining teams, like TPN in the last reduction to success. Many more next level players will opt to go elsewhere when they are replaced in the squads of the remaining teams by those relocating from the cut side, just like a wave of Rebels' players are leaving this year to accommodate the large number of Force players now integrated into the Rebels' side. And that hasn't even addressed the loss of fan support that will accompany the lost team. Want to revisit the anger and revulsion of the WA fans with the cut of the Force from Super Rugby?

There is not one redeeming feature to be had from cutting another side.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Here's my prediction of what WILL actually happen:

The conference system will go, and Super Rugby will adopt a simple round robin format with 3-4 weeks of finals. This will finish before the July Inbounds.

The amount of teams will be reduced from 15 to 14.

The Rebels will be cut, but this time RA will follow the example of the SARU and work with Twiggy for the Rebels to join the Force in WSR.

The whole thing will be sold as "going back to the original and the best format for Super Rugby".

Alongside this, RA will promote some form of the NRC (that includes the Force and the Rebels) as our domestic competition, to be played from July-October.


So it will be the same formula, different packaging. RA won't jump ship just yet. They will go another round.

What do others predict? Put your bets down.

Taking about half of the current Wallabies with them? Where would that allow the Wallabies to improve? RA and Cheika seem to say the right words but actions speak louder than words. Would anyone playing WRC really be picked for the Wallabies? And if WRC is a lower level competition how would form of those players be assessed?

 

[Omar Comin']

The NRC but hopefully better resourced and promoted.

I think it would be a little different. I'm not sure if QLD and NSW Country would be viable in a fully professional competition. I think the teams would need to be based in and named for major population centres / specific regions. And Sydney would need 2-4 teams. Would be an interesting choice between elevating the Reds and Waratahs back to rep teams, or if you keep them as club teams that have cross-city or state rivals. In Sydney I suggest up to 4 based on the strength of rugby in the northern beaches of late. You could have a Northern Beaches team with a North Shore/Northern Sydney rival, while the Waratahs (or a new entity) focus on the East, inner suburbs and southern Sydney. Plus Western Sydney based in Parramatta but with a catchment of 2+ million people.

At the same time NZ run their Mitre10 Cup. You could have a few weekends during the season for a Trans Tasman Champions League or even an FA Cup style knockout tournament involving all the teams from both countries (giving teams a chance at a double). And at the end a Trans Tasman origin series. NSW, QLD, North Island, South Island over 3 weeks.