Where to for Super Rugby?

[Omar Comin']

I always find it really intriguing that when it comes to rugby discussion in Australia its mainly linear and structured. Nation, state, region, suburb, school. We always seem to really want to stick with the same lego pieces we have had for the last 20 years and see what"new" thing we can build with them.

Is this because in the southern hemisphere everything is structured with teh cinsiosn though of the national team? Yet the successful leagues in Europe are a real mixed bag of players for all over the place. Maybe there is something in it? The french crowds turn out in huge numbers to watch mixed nation teams. In the UK there are stacks of Aussies, Argentines, Kiwis and and Saffa's playing.

This is why it's always frustrated me when people have argued that we don't have enough good players to have 5 teams (or potentially more). Instead of being in a competition with a bunch of foreign teams we could have 8 teams here with a reasonable % of players from overseas. If cohesion throughout the season is so important you could still farm the best Australian players into 3 or 4 teams and let the rest sign whoever they want.

 

[Omar Comin']

LOL, good luck with retaining players in the North Harbour Rays.

It is too many tiers.

I think the number of tiers is okay if the rep season is shorter. E.g. 16 ish weeks for a domestic comp with a couple of State of Origin games. 7 weeks is too long. In that case you may as well just have an 8 or 9 team Trans Tasman competition with a double round robin.

If we do have state of origin I'd have a strong preference for keeping it to 2 teams. Players without a significant connection to either NSW or QLD should maybe just be considered for QLD, with those from the ACT the only exception.

And I'd keep it to 2 games as well, decided on aggregate to avoid dead rubbers.

 

[Quick Hands]

LOL, good luck with retaining players in the North Harbour Rays.

It is too many tiers.

I'm not in favour of multiple tiers, I just don't think state teams should be playing in week to week competitions.

I think you'll find that the suggestion that you are opposing wasn't mine, but somebody else's.

NH Rays are long gone and have never formed part of any suggestion that I have put forward in the current discussion.

My suggestion, has always been that Super Rugby and NRC both go. They would be replaced by one professional domestic competition - let's call it the Wallaby Rugby Premiership. That competition can consist of 8, 9 or 10 teams depending on financials and logistics.

Sydney
Western Sydney
Brisbane
Qld Country or a 2nd team based in Qld
Perth
Canberra
Melbourne
Fiji/Suva

Can be added later or at the start
Samoa
Tonga

That's the competition.

I'm not against a NSW v Qld rep series at the end of the year, but it's irrelevant to the above.

I'm not against a champions league style playoff with NZ teams, but it's also irrelevant to the above.

But let's be clear, Australian Rugby IMO can only sustain one tier between the Wallabies and club rugby.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I always find it really intriguing that when it comes to rugby discussion in Australia its mainly linear and structured. Nation, state, region, suburb, school. We always seem to really want to stick with the same lego pieces we have had for the last 20 years and see what"new" thing we can build with them.

Is this because in the southern hemisphere everything is structured with teh cinsiosn though of the national team? Yet the successful leagues in Europe are a real mixed bag of players for all over the place. Maybe there is something in it? The french crowds turn out in huge numbers to watch mixed nation teams. In the UK there are stacks of Aussies, Argentines, Kiwis and and Saffa's playing

is it possible we may need to be a little bit more creative in our thinking? I suspect after all these years if we stopped and looked at our lego blocks we might find that they are either a mix of green and gold, all black or Red, light [bunny rug] blue or an even mix of dark blue, yellow and white. All manufactured back in the 80's.

Fair points, but I think it comes down a lot to how we see ourselves: as a set of states that agree to be part of the one country and within those states, the tribalism that comes with our local team. The teams in France are local, they're part of the fabric of the towns they come from. I watched the Kayo series on the history of rugby and that came across quite clearly. French provincial people love their clubs and feel part of them.

 

[Rebels3]

Good effort KOB. I'd consider Douglas in the second row in favour of either Staniforth or RHP, and Billy Meakes at 12 with a close call between Henry and Filipo on the wing. Paisami then to 13.

Douglas isn’t eligible for Wallabies as far as I can remember. He moved to Aus 4yrs ago and played local club rugby in Melb for a season, has moved around the states since but went back to Edinburgh at a point in time to play on a short term deal which would reset his residency period over again, there was also his season in Wellington.

Meakes is as NSW as they come so wouldn’t qualify for the best of the rest team.

 

[kiap]

But let's be clear, Australian Rugby IMO can only sustain one tier between the Wallabies and club rugby.

This part of your post, I agree with. Also the suggestion of one pro domestic comp.

I reserve the right to pick the bones out the rest.

The NH Rays quip was a deliberate (yet friendly) jibe. I'm fully aware this NRC license was transitioned to 'Sydney'.

Rugby has rebranded this thing 3 times in only 6 seasons (it's even 4 namings if you add in the CC Rays from ARC).

In other words, that team by any name - even Sydney - is largely invisible.

 

[kiap]

I just don't think state teams should be playing in week to week competitions.

You're free to hold to that view.

But leaving aside whether the Reds or Tahs are still (or ever were) state teams, I think it is misguided to be cutting their games played by half.

It just about cuts in half the hard-won name recognition and branding that Oz rugby has built up over the last 10 to 40 years.

How many news column-inches and television minutes have been pumped into the teams below, not only in Australia but though rugby fan outlets worldwide?

Compare that to a side like the Canberra Vikings - a fine team established decades ago, but one that's largely invisible.

The 5 teams above are your first entries in a pro domestic comp. From there you can add a few more as are viable (although not many). - e.g. Fiji, or other oz prospect, etc.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

You're free to hold to that view.

But leaving aside whether the Reds or Tahs are still (or ever were) state teams, I think it is misguided to be cutting their games played by half.

It just about cuts in half the hard-won name recognition and branding that Oz rugby has built up over the last 10 to 40 years.

How many news column-inches and television minutes have been pumped into the teams below, not only in Australia but though rugby fan outlets worldwide?

View attachment 11478

Compare that to a side like the Canberra Vikings - a fine team established decades ago, but one that's largely invisible.

The 5 teams above are your first entries in a pro domestic comp. From there you can add a few more as are viable (although not many). - e.g. Fiji, or other oz prospect, etc.

There's always the possibility that if there's to be a new NSW and Qld based team to enter what's to say the Reds or Tahs couldn't just become the Sydney Waratahs and Brisbane Reds. Considering well, until this season in the Tahs case. They really only ever play their competition games in both cities.

 

[kiap]

^ I wouldn't do so, WCR.

There's downside with minimal actual upside. You're right, they're the defacto city teams (and have largely been so since day dot, IMO).

But a potential Western Sydney team is in no way stopped by what a neighbouring entity might be called.

The ACT&SNSW based in Canberra has NSW in their name. The critical thing is getting their own separate funding and representation at the main table.

 

[Quick Hands]

You're free to hold to that view.

But leaving aside whether the Reds or Tahs are still (or ever were) state teams, I think it is misguided to be cutting their games played by half.

It just about cuts in half the hard-won name recognition and branding that Oz rugby has built up over the last 10 to 40 years.

How many news column-inches and television minutes have been pumped into the teams below, not only in Australia but though rugby fan outlets worldwide?

View attachment 11478

Compare that to a side like the Canberra Vikings - a fine team established decades ago, but one that's largely invisible.

The 5 teams above are your first entries in a pro domestic comp. From there you can add a few more as are viable (although not many). - e.g. Fiji, or other oz prospect, etc.

I'd actually argue that NSW and Qld have devalued their brand by participating in Super Rugby over the past 25 years. State selection in any sport is an honour over and above a week to week club type competition.

I'm not sure that the Vikings are as invisible as you suggest. Given time in a proper national club comp, they could become as hated nationwide as they are in Canberra.

I'm geared up for the restart of the NRL and the first game back is Parra v Broncos. As a Manly fan I can't work out who I hate more, but I'll be tuning in. This is what makes a competition - decades of love/hate. (in the nicest possible way of course)

 

[Quick Hands]

This part of your post, I agree with. Also the suggestion of one pro domestic comp.

I reserve the right to pick the bones out the rest.

The NH Rays quip was a deliberate (yet friendly) jibe. I'm fully aware this NRC license was transitioned to 'Sydney'.

Rugby has rebranded this thing 3 times in only 6 seasons (it's even 4 renamings if you add in the CC Rays from ARC).

In other words, that team by any name - even Sydney - is largely invisible.

I wouldn't actually be branding anything as the Rays.

 

[kiap]

Sydney NRC really has low recognition as a starting point.

And once you elevate state selection for a series of games, it's another tier.

 

[wamberal]

I wouldn't actually be branding anything as the Rays.

Geez, that hurts. That is a hallowed name in rugby history. Inaugural ARC Champions!!!

 

[COX'S ROUTE]

Well, the Aus Super Rugby format that has been said to be planned for this year is a 12 week competition featuring 6 teams playing home and away for 10 games plus two weeks of finals. Hence why the Sunwolves have been mentioned. In the future they could be replaced with Fiji while a combined Samoa/Tonga team could play out of NZ. This way they could look to have a largely national based competition but also use qualifying for the Super 8/10 as a reward for that for making it to the final.

Could also look to add Japan to the RC and play it as a single round robin event.

It wont be the Sunwolves. More likely a Barbarians team and may include some SW players and who ever else they can get.

 

[Quick Hands]

Geez, that hurts. That is a hallowed name in rugby history. Inaugural ARC Champions!!!

But barely known in the wider rugby community.

 

[Quick Hands]

Sydney NRC really has low recognition as a starting point.

If you really want brand recognition and tribalism in your competition then the national domestic competition would look something like below.

But like all possible permutations it brings with it positives and negatives. It depends what positives RA sees in any model and how they balance the negatives.

Randwick
Sydney Uni
Eastwood
Manly-Warringah
Uni of Qld
Brothers
Souths Brisbane
Tuggeranong Vikings
Combined Perth
Combined Melbourne

People would need to judge how this compares with

Sydney
Western Sydney
Brisbane
Qld Country or 2nd Qld team
Canberra
Melbourne
Perth
Fiji/Suva

I can predict one thing though with relative certainty; that even the bare mention of the first group of teams will have certain G&GR posters melting their keyboards.

And can we move beyond obtuse arguments about what constitutes a 'tier'

 

[Dan54]

If you really want brand recognition and tribalism in your competition then the national domestic competition would look something like below.

But like all possible permutations it brings with it positives and negatives. It depends what positives RA sees in any model and how they balance the negatives.

Randwick
Sydney Uni
Eastwood
Manly-Warringah
Uni of Qld
Brothers
Souths Brisbane
Tuggeranong Vikings
Combined Perth
Combined Melbourne

People would need to judge how this compares with

Sydney
Western Sydney
Brisbane
Qld Country or 2nd Qld team
Canberra
Melbourne
Perth
Fiji/Suva

I can predict one thing though with relative certainty; that even the bare mention of the first group of teams will have certain G&GR posters melting their keyboards.

And can we move beyond obtuse arguments about what constitutes a 'tier'

Good idea if you go that way and people could actually be part of a 'club' as such, be great if all clubs that were part had good clubrooms to male being a member a little special. Maybe one of the things lacking in Super at moment? If a game was played and you could then go back to club for a discussion would add a lot, mean you need arvo games probably but............
Ok just a thought.

And by the way QHs, I didn't need to get fired up as you didn't have Sunnybank as South Brissy club , though I suspect it would be Gold Coast uni!

 

[hoggy]

I'm not in favour of multiple tiers, I just don't think state teams should be playing in week to week competitions.

I think you'll find that the suggestion that you are opposing wasn't mine, but somebody else's.

NH Rays are long gone and have never formed part of any suggestion that I have put forward in the current discussion.

My suggestion, has always been that Super Rugby and NRC both go. They would be replaced by one professional domestic competition - let's call it the Wallaby Rugby Premiership. That competition can consist of 8, 9 or 10 teams depending on financials and logistics.

Sydney
Western Sydney
Brisbane
Qld Country or a 2nd team based in Qld
Perth
Canberra
Melbourne
Fiji/Suva

Can be added later or at the start
Samoa
Tonga

That's the competition.

I'm not against a NSW v Qld rep series at the end of the year, but it's irrelevant to the above.

I'm not against a champions league style playoff with NZ teams, but it's also irrelevant to the above.

But let's be clear, Australian Rugby IMO can only sustain one tier between the Wallabies and club rugby.

I would go further and argue that the only real solution long term moving forward, is along the lines of a club based domestic competition. And agree there can only be a single tier under the Wallabies. Sadly what i think will happen is a tinkering of Super rugby until 2025 and then a reliance on the 27 World cup to deposit money in the bank.

 

[Brumby Runner]

In a club based comp, where would our current Super coaches and staff end up? Would we just return to the very poor years of sub-standard coaching leading to diminishing skills in our national team as well?

Don't like, actually hate, the club based system - would be the worst outcome for rugby in this country for many reasons, and would surely see the Wallabies slipping even further down the world rankings. This at a very promising period of the game here otherwise.

 

[Omar Comin']

If you really want brand recognition and tribalism in your competition then the national domestic competition would look something like below.

But like all possible permutations it brings with it positives and negatives. It depends what positives RA sees in any model and how they balance the negatives.

Randwick
Sydney Uni
Eastwood
Manly-Warringah
Uni of Qld
Brothers
Souths Brisbane
Tuggeranong Vikings
Combined Perth
Combined Melbourne

I think this would work best if we're only going to have 3 or 4 professional teams in some kind of revised Super Rugby competition and this was a semi-pro national club competition that ran through the entire season (including the test season). I'd actually go with 12 teams so the double round robin had 22 games per team. You could have a 2nd division with promotion and relegation too.

But if the domestic competition is going to be the top level of professional rugby under the Wallabies (outside of a short state of origin or similar), then I think it'd be better to base the domestic competition around the 5 established professional brands. Even if you rebrand the Waratahs and Reds as Sydney and Brisbane (though I'm with kiap on this, I don't think it's necessary).

It's not a perfect measure but generally the popularity of sports teams seems to correlate reasonably well with social media followers. If you look on Facebook, the biggest shute shield and QLD premier club teams have around 5k or 6k followers. Compare that to the Super Rugby teams and the Force which have between 90k and 188k.