Where to for Super Rugby?

[Derpus]

Ok was having a chat with mate yesterday, a bit like me and watches a hell of a lot of rugby, Aussie a 25 year member of at the Reds etc, so one to get a bit of gauge on rugby things with and he said one very worrying thing. When discussing Aus games on weekend, he said he didn't see Brumbies/Rebels game until sunday, I said ok you out Sat night?
The worrying thing was he said no, I just struggle to watch the Aus games straight after watching the NZ games because the step down is too much, like watching club rugby after rep rugby. The only reason I mention it, because he a real mad rugby man and if he thinks that, do you then get Fox to not show games from NZ before to keep top attention to game? I repeat he a real rugby man so, although I have heard similar from less engaged watcher's at work, it something we need to be aware of. I don't usually watch the Backpage on Fox, but saw a bit of it last night and though they not rugby men that I know of, they were talking about the gulf in class between the comps and skills. To really keep the numbers up for viewing etc we don't want people to think they watching a lesser comp in my opinion.
Don't shoot me, only what I have heard said and it concerns me.

We'll never have a commensurate quality of competition. I don't know why people think we should or could. As people so often point out it's a distant fourth on the popularity scales (probably waaaay lower once you start factoring in demographics other than middle class dudes).

It's NZ's national pastime. Rugby is not as popular in any other country in the world as it is in NZ. Even in South Africa football is way more popular (just not among the wealthy white). It's at best second in the Northern powerhouses.

So why the fuck would anyone be as good at it as NZ? No one is - and this plays out in the stats. What's NZs winning percentage over the past 30 years? 90% plus? How many Super Rugby titles? If you seriously expect all your opposition to be of the same quality you are living in dreamland.

The Aus sides have been occasionally competitive without generally being as good as the NZ sides and i don't think there is anything that could be done short of having national sides playing NZ provincial sides to further tilt the scales away from NZ.

Edit: if anything Dan this is just further justification for going it alone and ignoring NZ. Who cares if NZ provincial sides are so great if we don't have to play them.

The more i think about it the more i realise NZ need us to help fund their comp more than we need them. It's just not as simple a fix as a TT and so is still less palatable. The more NZ bang on about how great they are the less i am inclined to support a TT comp.

 

[Up the Guts]

Ok was having a chat with mate yesterday, a bit like me and watches a hell of a lot of rugby, Aussie a 25 year member of at the Reds etc, so one to get a bit of gauge on rugby things with and he said one very worrying thing. When discussing Aus games on weekend, he said he didn't see Brumbies/Rebels game until sunday, I said ok you out Sat night?
The worrying thing was he said no, I just struggle to watch the Aus games straight after watching the NZ games because the step down is too much, like watching club rugby after rep rugby. The only reason I mention it, because he a real mad rugby man and if he thinks that, do you then get Fox to not show games from NZ before to keep top attention to game? I repeat he a real rugby man so, although I have heard similar from less engaged watcher's at work, it something we need to be aware of. I don't usually watch the Backpage on Fox, but saw a bit of it last night and though they not rugby men that I know of, they were talking about the gulf in class between the comps and skills. To really keep the numbers up for viewing etc we don't want people to think they watching a lesser comp in my opinion.
Don't shoot me, only what I have heard said and it concerns me.

Not surprised he didn't see the Brumbies and Rebels match since there wasn't one.

 

[Up the Guts]

Also, accepting the premise that the gulf between NZ and Aus sides is like pro vs club rugby (I don't actually accept it), the idea that a game has to be test match quality to make it viewable is folly. Wales have been a very skilled team over the last couple of years but are terrible to watch.

 

[hoggy]

Also, accepting the premise that the gulf between NZ and Aus sides is like pro vs club rugby (I don't actually accept it), the idea that a game has to be test match quality to make it viewable is folly. Wales have been a very skilled team over the last couple of years but are terrible to watch.

That's a huge part of the issue, you create this perception that the only games worth watching are Test matches, or Super rugby has to be sitting virtually at that level, you have nowhere to go.

"Australian rugby, can't watch that its shit" when you promote that argument, you literally then have half our fan base who support NZ over Aus.

The domestic game here can never get past first base, because half the supporters won't consider anything that is not explicitly linked to NZ

 

[Dan54]

Not surprised he didn't see the Brumbies and Rebels match since there wasn't one.

Ok Brumbies/Force , I am in no way trying ti downgrade our comp, and I don't and won't compare them, just things I have heard that worries me. I make it clear I watch everything regardless. Back page talked about it after showing Bridge's try, and that surprised me because why I don't usually watch it is because they seldom discuss rugby, and I was pissed when they did they were discussing the difference in skills, and although a lot on here don't watch the games from NZ, I still believe where the difference comes out most is not in teams in general, but here we have no real excitement machines that do the magic things like a George Bridge, DMac , we used to get it in the Quades, Kurtley etc etc. They will come again, that's why it would be great to buy in some for meantime.

 

[Dan54]

We'll never have a commensurate quality of competition. I don't know why people think we should or could. As people so often point out it's a distant fourth on the popularity scales (probably waaaay lower once you start factoring in demographics other than middle class dudes).

It's NZ's national pastime. Rugby is not as popular in any other country in the world as it is in NZ. Even in South Africa football is way more popular (just not among the wealthy white). It's at best second in the Northern powerhouses.

So why the fuck would anyone be as good at it as NZ? No one is - and this plays out in the stats. What's NZs winning percentage over the past 30 years? 90% plus? How many Super Rugby titles? If you seriously expect all your opposition to be of the same quality you are living ii dreamland

Edit: if anything Dan this is just further justification for going it alone and ignoring NZ. Who cares if NZ provincial sides are so great if we don't have to play them.

I got a Welsh mate who reckons he would be so bold as to argue about how popular it is in Wales, and I am surprised when you say it only supported by a few rich dudes in SA, I agree the majority of SA (basically the black/coloured population) are soccer people, but it is far from supported by a few rich dudes over there. I not trying to argue who's is better etc, just saying some of the problems we may have in selling the game here. The honest truth is rugby in Aus, NZ etc etc is basically paid for by the money that our respective test teams pull in, but we still have to have a domestic game that people here want to watch, or it becomes more of a drag to promote the game.
It is not an attack on rugby here , is not intended to be, just suggesting what we need to go forward, and I think personally if we can buy in some stars for super teams that will make people sit up and notice it is a good start. The other thing I would say is if our game isn't as popular over here, we need to stop whining about it and make it more popular, and stop making excuses!

 

[Up the Guts]

Ok Brumbies/Force , I am in no way trying ti downgrade our comp, and I don't and won't compare them, just things I have heard that worries me. I make it clear I watch everything regardless. Back page talked about it after showing Bridge's try, and that surprised me because why I don't usually watch it is because they seldom discuss rugby, and I was pissed when they did they were discussing the difference in skills, and although a lot on here don't watch the games from NZ, I still believe where the difference comes out most is not in teams in general, but here we have no real excitement machines that do the magic things like a George Bridge, DMac , we used to get it in the Quades, Kurtley etc etc. They will come again, that's why it would be great to buy in some for meantime.

George Bridge is a pretty boring winger to watch, he’s skilled and can finish a try but he rarely beats a man one on one. This is part of the problem Hoggy was referring to as well, we put NZ on a pedestal and say we can’t compete with them. I’d watch Wright, Koroibete, CFS, Daugunu and Kata highlights packages before I watched a George Bridge one.

And again, let’s accept there is this great big skills gulf between Australian and NZ sides for the sake of argument. How is a TT comp going to drive more viewing? Aren’t Australian teams just going to get pasted and viewers won’t bother at all.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Also, accepting the premise that the gulf between NZ and Aus sides is like pro vs club rugby (I don't actually accept it), the idea that a game has to be test match quality to make it viewable is folly. Wales have been a very skilled team over the last couple of years but are terrible to watch.

I simply dont buy the argument that Super Rugby has to be Near Test Standard to be viewable and entertaining.

Watch any of the last few years SS Grand finals from recent years. Mostly close games, very entertaining.
I am assuming even a diluted NRC should leave us at least at this level or above. I'm Happy with that.



Last 10 years results from Wicki - 2 blowouts in 10 years the rest look pretty close


2009- Sydney University 24–19 Randwick
2010 Sydney University 46–6 Randwick
2011 Eastwood 19–16 Sydney University
2012 Sydney University 15–14 Southern Districts
2013 Sydney University 51–6 Eastwood
2014 Eastwood 33–13 Southern Districts
2015 Eastwood 15–12 Manly
2016 Northern Suburbs 28–15 Sydney University
2017 Warringah 30–25 Northern Suburbs
2018 Sydney University 45–12 Warringah
2019 Sydney University 21–16 Warringah

 

[Derpus]

I got a Welsh mate who reckons he would be so bold as to argue about how popular it is in Wales, and I am surprised when you say it only supported by a few rich dudes in SA, I agree the majority of SA (basically the black/coloured population) are soccer people, but it is far from supported by a few rich dudes over there. I not trying to argue who's is better etc, just saying some of the problems we may have in selling the game here. The honest truth is rugby in Aus, NZ etc etc is basically paid for by the money that our respective test teams pull in, but we still have to have a domestic game that people here want to watch, or it becomes more of a drag to promote the game.
It is not an attack on rugby here , is not intended to be, just suggesting what we need to go forward, and I think personally if we can buy in some stars for super teams that will make people sit up and notice it is a good start. The other thing I would say is if our game isn't as popular over here, we need to stop whining about it and make it more popular, and stop making excuses!

Sure - this is obvious. Im not whining about the fact that it's not as popular. Im just struggling to understand what you are arguing for and why.

My (slowly developing) view is that folding into NZ hubris and cutting a few teams would be a terrible outcome for us. I'm actually coming round to the idea that not playing NZ at all would be quite good.

Your general argument that NZ teams are too good for Australian ones, in my view, better supports the case for going it alone rather than reducing the footprint.

 

[Dan54]

Sure - this is obvious. Im not whining about the fact that it's not as popular. Im just struggling to understand what you are arguing for and why.

My (slowly developing) view is that folding into NZ hubris and cutting a few teams would be a terrible outcome for us. I'm actually coming round to the idea that not playing NZ at all would be quite good.

Your general argument that NZ teams are too good for Australian ones, in my view, better supports the case for going it alone rather than reducing the footprint.

OK, fair enough, see I don't believe NZ teams are too good for Aus teams, and have said repeatedly, and I not even arguing just saying it concerns me, listen I believe that games need stars in them to attract viewers rightly or wrongly, they don't have to be on winning team, but people watch stars, we have seen it time and again, and as this a rugby site, and this a couple of things I heard this week, I wonder if anyone has ideas to attract viewers. Don't tell me we don't need them , or the money, for rugby to get back to where it was in the late 90s and through to a few years back, we need some stars in Aus rugby whether we like it or not, and Aus rugby getting better crowds etc is the only reason I even posting here. I refuse to follow the rubbish that Rugby in Aus is a minority sport so therefore we need to accept being 2nd best, I never have and never will.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Well a media partner that actually supports the code would be a good start. Build the stories up.

 

[Derpus]

OK, fair enough, see I don't believe NZ teams are too good for Aus teams, and have said repeatedly, and I not even arguing just saying it concerns me, listen I believe that games need stars in them to attract viewers rightly or wrongly, they don't have to be on winning team, but people watch stars, we have seen it time and again, and as this a rugby site, and this a couple of things I heard this week, I wonder if anyone has ideas to attract viewers. Don't tell me we don't need them , or the money, for rugby to get back to where it was in the late 90s and through to a few years back, we need some stars in Aus rugby whether we like it or not, and Aus rugby getting better crowds etc is the only reason I even posting here. I refuse to follow the rubbish that Rugby in Aus is a minority sport so therefore we need to accept being 2nd best, I never have and never will.

There are lots of ideas around how to attract viewers, for example:

• inter-city derbies that create tribalism (North v East v Western Sydney would bring plenty of rivalry);
• a better broadcaster with a deal to show some prime-time games on FTA;
• more local content (domestic only);
• PE investment, potentially to pull back some of our overseas talent;
• etc (im sure im forgetting plenty)

I can see that comp being moderately successful in ten years if it's combined with an upswing in Wallaby fortunes (carn Rennie), the upcoming Lions tour and potentially RWC.

Certainly be better than having only 3 teams with very little local content to either broadcast or go see, who will in all likelihood be just as successful as the existing Australian franchises (occasionally but not often).

 

[Dan54]

George Bridge is a pretty boring winger to watch, he’s skilled and can finish a try but he rarely beats a man one on one. This is part of the problem Hoggy was referring to as well, we put NZ on a pedestal and say we can’t compete with them. I’d watch Wright, Koroibete, CFS, Daugunu and Kata highlights packages before I watched a George Bridge one.

And again, let’s accept there is this great big skills gulf between Australian and NZ sides for the sake of argument. How is a TT comp going to drive more viewing? Aren’t Australian teams just going to get pasted and viewers won’t bother at all.

Yehha!! And that is what I expect EVERY Aus rugby fan to say!!! And if all went along with that I wouldn't have posted what I heard!
See we should all be saying such and such is better than that other fella, and just arguing over that, then we can point out what the differences are etc, not feel we are having to attack or defend the whole system!
I don't know how many times I keep saying I want what is best for rugby here and would prefer that Aus teams played in the best rugby comp in the world, nothing more or less. I believe we should aim for the top and never stop trying to get there, and don't make excuses.

 

[Adam84]

Now we just need NZRU to drop the bravado and sit down with RA to discuss the topic as peers rather then trying to dictate the terms of what professional rugby union in Australia should look like...

If NZRU cant do that, then we face a future where we have parallel run tournaments.

 

[hoggy]

Now we just need NZRU to drop the bravado and sit down with RA to discuss the topic as peers rather then trying to dictate the terms of what professional rugby union in Australia should look like.

If NZRU cant do that, then we face a future where we have parallel run tournaments.

And running parallel tournaments will in the long run be the best option for Australian rugby, giving some clear air to actually grow.

 

[dru]

And again, let’s accept there is this great big skills gulf between Australian and NZ sides for the sake of argument. How is a TT comp going to drive more viewing? Aren’t Australian teams just going to get pasted and viewers won’t bother at all.

In the first instance, while having a higher level of quality across a comp should make it better commercially, on it's own it is neither required or enough. You need a sufficient quality and a competitive comp - which means a reasonable spread of talent.

If Aus teams are consistently spanked, then it will be a failed comp. If you change admin to see a better spread of talent, over time this will succeed even if the overall talent/skill level is down.

Add to this that it needs to be saleable as a product here in Australia - this requires more local games, consistent TV time scheduling and of course content. All in all this sums up to requiring a lot more than three teams who spend most of their time touring and playing in time slots that don't allow a consistent broadcasting scheduling here in Australia.

If the TT offered by NZ does not facilitate those requirements it is a death knell for the game here. NZ are understandably focused on their own requirements. Nothing wrong with that. But we don't need to follow.

If the comp continues either with insufficient Australian content, or on an uncompetitive basis (the Kiwis are absolutely right on that) then it should be left alone.

Maybe with building success in a domestic comp quality will see through in time and TT proposals can be dusted off again.

 

[Dan54]

Now we just need NZRU to drop the bravado and sit down with RA to discuss the topic as peers rather then trying to dictate the terms of what professional rugby union in Australia should look like.

If NZRU cant do that, then we face a future where we have parallel run tournaments.

I think you will find there is a meeting this week, and I still don't know what NZ has said or not, only speculation in papers, and then of course that makes it facts on a forum. My understanding is that NZ would prefer a 8-10 comp, well that was in Aritipu report, I have heard Mark Robinson say they want a comp that is the best in the world, so it can be sold to someone or other, NZR wouldn't run it from my understanding. I have heard Hamish McLennan say he thought Australia could compete in a super comp with 4-5 teams (wasn't specified , just he was aked if he thought Aus had the depth) if they bought in a few players. Almost everything else I have seen has been in papers, not what I have heard anyone actually say. Let's face it RA has won regardless, up until this came up all the pages on these forums were filled with incompetence etc of RA, how it was just an Old Boys club and if you didn't come from a suburb in Sydney you couldn't get on.

 

[Dctarget]

Also parallel comps will force the Kiwis living in Aus to actually pick a team. At the moment they have a competition in their city featuring NZ teams. They’ll go to live rugby regardless if NZ is in it or not. Might actually see more official reds supporters at the games now.

 

[KevinO]

Also parallel comps will force the Kiwis living in Aus to actually pick a team. At the moment they have a competition in their city featuring NZ teams. They’ll go to live rugby regardless if NZ is in it or not. Might actually see more official reds supporters at the games now.

Can't agree with this more,

I find it funny/frustrating that a Kiwi would support another kiwi team over there local Aussie side even if it was bad for there side in the conference system. As much as the conference system had it flaws, it meant a Canes fan should never have supported another Kiwi side against Aussie opposition etc. But they would rock up and support which ever Kiwi team was playing no matter what the impact it had on the side they truly supported.

 

[Dan54]

Can't agree with this more,

I find it funny/frustrating that a Kiwi would support another kiwi team over there local Aussie side even if it was bad for there side in the conference system. As much as the conference system had it flaws, it meant a Canes fan should never have supported another Kiwi side against Aussie opposition etc. But they would rock up and support which ever Kiwi team was playing no matter what the impact it had on the side they truly supported.

And vice versa, I never saw a post on here where anyone didn't support any Aus team against a kiwi team. I not sure why you find it funny, almost every case in here an Aussie would support any Australian team against a kiwi team ( and I not saying one or two that I know who want just anyone to beat Tahs) . Some kiwis would always want Crusaders or Blues to lose to anyone. Same as someone from NSW who lives in Qld will still support Tahs and quite often anyone playing Reds!