No4918
John Hipwell (52)
I don't see how you have come to this conclusion. Also, the statements made by Peters in the article I linked came after this one and are a lot more specific.
S18 on its way
- Thread starter PaarlBok
- Start date
- Status
I don't see how you have come to this conclusion. Also, the statements made by Peters in the article I linked came after this one and are a lot more specific.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Please please no tasman conference!!! I can't see it happening, I know generally the feeling among NZ coaches is a straight round robin, as it a fairer tournament, I agree!!
Was listening to to talkback radio in NZ yesterday, and the thought of a conference involving playing Aus teams twice seemed to drive most people spare, a mighty snore fest comes to mind. Can't really see a round robin with an Argo team working though, as the Argo team would be playing outside their country at least 50% of the time, with so much travel,it would ruin any chance of them doing any good!!
So much as I hate to say it the ideaWaiopehu Old Boy has mentioned is the one we may get stuck with.
Was listening to to talkback radio in NZ yesterday, and the thought of a conference involving playing Aus teams twice seemed to drive most people spare, a mighty snore fest comes to mind. Can't really see a round robin with an Argo team working though, as the Argo team would be playing outside their country at least 50% of the time, with so much travel,it would ruin any chance of them doing any good!!
So much as I hate to say it the ideaWaiopehu Old Boy has mentioned is the one we may get stuck with.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Last updated 05:03 23/02/2014
Share
MARK TAYLOR/Fairfax NZSPEAKING OUT: Chiefs coach Dave Rennie.
The backlash to Super Rugby expansion has begun, led by the coach of the defending two-time champion Chiefs.
After absorbing the limited detail released by Sanzar on Thursday night, coaches, players and fans yesterday reacted almost entirely negatively to the proposed 2016 expansion to include a team from Argentina and a sixth South African franchise.
But the most commanding voice among the chorus of criticism belonged to Dave Rennie.
In his first comments on the proposal, the Chiefs coach was forcefully opposed to the changes, citing fears for player welfare and major concerns that the integrity of the competition will be severely compromised.
Former All Blacks captain Taine Randell, ex-NZRU boss David Moffett and national players' association boss Rob Nichol were others to speak out yesterday.
Rennie clearly felt blindsided by the announcement, and that Kiwi Super Rugby coaches had been ignored.
"While we've been consulted I'm not sure we're being listened to," Rennie said.
He revealed that the Kiwi coaches' suggestion of a 14-game round-robin competition between the existing 15 teams - a format that would shorten the season by two weeks and increase the window before the NPC - appeared to have been shelved.
"The New Zealand coaches wanted a legitimate competition where everyone plays everyone," Rennie said.
"All the other scenarios include more teams, more travel and more time away from home."
Rennie felt Sanzar's proposal was compromised by politics.
"Another South African side may generate more money but is it in the best interests of our players and the competition?" he asked. "I'm not sure how the public will take to their proposed format. Some of the punters would find that hard to follow."
Rennie was also concerned about the competitiveness of an Argentinian team, feeling they could quickly join the Western Force and Melbourne Rebels as examples of overseas franchises that need propping up by South African and New Zealand players.
"I'm not sure where they're going to get their players from. Most of them play in Europe on big money," he said.
"The worry is if there's not the quality in Argentina maybe they'll start grabbing from New Zealand which further thins our pool."
In his column in the Sunday News, Randell described Sanzar's plans as "defying logic".
He felt South Africa's Super Rugby record did not justify an additional team and was bemused that the Pacific Island nations continued to be snubbed.
Moffett said Sanzar had bowed to political pressure and threats of a walkout to Europe from South Africa who seem destined to get a sixth franchise despite their teams finishing last 13 times in 18 years of Super Rugby.
The former boss of the National Rugby League, as well as Welsh and NZ rugby, labelled the expansion to a 17-team competition as "insanity".
Moffett said that in promoting "quantity over quality", Sanzar risked turning fans off.
"It's absolute insanity. People will get fed up. The quality of rugby will just go down further," said Moffett, now based in Europe and currently seeking chairmanship of the Wales RFU.
"The extra South African team is purely political. There certainly aren't enough quality players in South Africa for six professional teams, especially with the policy of allowing players to be picked for the Springboks from overseas.
"It is not Sanzar's role to develop the game outside their own territories.
"The next thing you'll find is Canada, the United States and Japan will be included.
"They can talk about conferences as much as they like. The average person in New Zealand won't get up to watch Argentinians playing South Africans. They're just not interested."
Nichol was concerned about several areas, including Argentina's competitiveness.
Sanzar has been silent since Thursday night. It's understood its favoured option is for the competition to be split into eastern and western conferences with two cross-over games.
NZRU boss Steve Tew would only comment that it was easier to criticise than find a solution. The NZRU will vote on the expansion proposal at a board meeting in Wellington this Thursday.
- © Fairfax NZ News
Share
MARK TAYLOR/Fairfax NZSPEAKING OUT: Chiefs coach Dave Rennie.
The backlash to Super Rugby expansion has begun, led by the coach of the defending two-time champion Chiefs.
After absorbing the limited detail released by Sanzar on Thursday night, coaches, players and fans yesterday reacted almost entirely negatively to the proposed 2016 expansion to include a team from Argentina and a sixth South African franchise.
But the most commanding voice among the chorus of criticism belonged to Dave Rennie.
In his first comments on the proposal, the Chiefs coach was forcefully opposed to the changes, citing fears for player welfare and major concerns that the integrity of the competition will be severely compromised.
Former All Blacks captain Taine Randell, ex-NZRU boss David Moffett and national players' association boss Rob Nichol were others to speak out yesterday.
Rennie clearly felt blindsided by the announcement, and that Kiwi Super Rugby coaches had been ignored.
"While we've been consulted I'm not sure we're being listened to," Rennie said.
He revealed that the Kiwi coaches' suggestion of a 14-game round-robin competition between the existing 15 teams - a format that would shorten the season by two weeks and increase the window before the NPC - appeared to have been shelved.
"The New Zealand coaches wanted a legitimate competition where everyone plays everyone," Rennie said.
"All the other scenarios include more teams, more travel and more time away from home."
Rennie felt Sanzar's proposal was compromised by politics.
"Another South African side may generate more money but is it in the best interests of our players and the competition?" he asked. "I'm not sure how the public will take to their proposed format. Some of the punters would find that hard to follow."
Rennie was also concerned about the competitiveness of an Argentinian team, feeling they could quickly join the Western Force and Melbourne Rebels as examples of overseas franchises that need propping up by South African and New Zealand players.
"I'm not sure where they're going to get their players from. Most of them play in Europe on big money," he said.
"The worry is if there's not the quality in Argentina maybe they'll start grabbing from New Zealand which further thins our pool."
In his column in the Sunday News, Randell described Sanzar's plans as "defying logic".
He felt South Africa's Super Rugby record did not justify an additional team and was bemused that the Pacific Island nations continued to be snubbed.
Moffett said Sanzar had bowed to political pressure and threats of a walkout to Europe from South Africa who seem destined to get a sixth franchise despite their teams finishing last 13 times in 18 years of Super Rugby.
The former boss of the National Rugby League, as well as Welsh and NZ rugby, labelled the expansion to a 17-team competition as "insanity".
Moffett said that in promoting "quantity over quality", Sanzar risked turning fans off.
"It's absolute insanity. People will get fed up. The quality of rugby will just go down further," said Moffett, now based in Europe and currently seeking chairmanship of the Wales RFU.
"The extra South African team is purely political. There certainly aren't enough quality players in South Africa for six professional teams, especially with the policy of allowing players to be picked for the Springboks from overseas.
"It is not Sanzar's role to develop the game outside their own territories.
"The next thing you'll find is Canada, the United States and Japan will be included.
"They can talk about conferences as much as they like. The average person in New Zealand won't get up to watch Argentinians playing South Africans. They're just not interested."
Nichol was concerned about several areas, including Argentina's competitiveness.
Sanzar has been silent since Thursday night. It's understood its favoured option is for the competition to be split into eastern and western conferences with two cross-over games.
NZRU boss Steve Tew would only comment that it was easier to criticise than find a solution. The NZRU will vote on the expansion proposal at a board meeting in Wellington this Thursday.
- © Fairfax NZ News
Please please no tasman conference!!! I can't see it happening, I know generally the feeling among NZ coaches is a straight round robin, as it a fairer tournament, I agree!!
Was listening to to talkback radio in NZ yesterday, and the thought of a conference involving playing Aus teams twice seemed to drive most people spare, a mighty snore fest comes to mind. Can't really see a round robin with an Argo team working though, as the Argo team would be playing outside their country at least 50% of the time, with so much travel,it would ruin any chance of them doing any good!!
So much as I hate to say it the ideaWaiopehu Old Boy has mentioned is the one we may get stuck with.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
Could this SANZAR decision be the beginning of the end of Super Rugby? I sincerely hope not, but it is looking more and more likely given the responses so far.
NZ rugby doesn't want a two conference set up where they only or predominantly play Aussie teams. SA won't play if they don't get a sixth team, and they will surely be uncompetitive if they do. The inclusion of Argentina seems to hold more complications than benefits for the competition.
I think if SANZAR continues down this path, it will inevitably lead to the demise of the competition. But I don't have any clues to what the answer ought to be. Any breakup will have fairly dire consequences for Aust rugby.
Maybe, in the near future, we will be back to internationals only between the three countries.
NZ rugby doesn't want a two conference set up where they only or predominantly play Aussie teams. SA won't play if they don't get a sixth team, and they will surely be uncompetitive if they do. The inclusion of Argentina seems to hold more complications than benefits for the competition.
I think if SANZAR continues down this path, it will inevitably lead to the demise of the competition. But I don't have any clues to what the answer ought to be. Any breakup will have fairly dire consequences for Aust rugby.
Maybe, in the near future, we will be back to internationals only between the three countries.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
More games like last night's dreadful display will lead to a quicker death than anything SANZAR can dream up.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
I agree - it was a shocker. But no worse imo than the Chiefs/Crusaders game on Friday.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Please please no tasman conference!!! I can't see it happening, I know generally the feeling among NZ coaches is a straight round robin, as it a fairer tournament, I agree!!
Was listening to to talkback radio in NZ yesterday, and the thought of a conference involving playing Aus teams twice seemed to drive most people spare, a mighty snore fest comes to mind. Can't really see a round robin with an Argo team working though, as the Argo team would be playing outside their country at least 50% of the time, with so much travel,it would ruin any chance of them doing any good!!
So much as I hate to say it the ideaWaiopehu Old Boy has mentioned is the one we may get stuck with.
Not sure how my reply to No4918 ended up with your post at the end - I'm blaming Vodafone, my wifi & my iPad - but anyhow...
A full round-robin won't happen cos even if the transport & accommodation cost blowout could somehow be managed, the players would never wear it: the Cape Town v Campbeltown thing is a great sound bite but try being the guy living it week in week out - say goodbye to anyone with half a brain and/or kids and/or a wife/gf with whom to have them.
My hope is that ARU dig their heels in & say no to the Tasman conf; my fear is that once again they'll be made an offer they can't afford to refuse.
BTW how you feeling after what happened in Durban last night? Pretty much how I'm feeling after what happened at AMI on Friday is my guess. Damn sure even the cat's been mocking me!
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Funnily enough Waiopehu, apparently the players like the travel, or the ones that aren't interantionals anyway, that is according to Rob Nichols and Blackadder on radio yesterday. Must admit heard Folau saying how much he enjoyed seeing SA etc with rugby, where as with League it had been pretty limited travel/siteseeing.
Basically a bit pissed about Durban game last night, only because Canes played like I thought thay might, but hoped they wouldn't. The biggest worry for Canes is they just didn't throw themselves at loose ball enough, take how Chiefs and Highlanders played, even Blues and Saders, and compare that to Canes ,who just weren't real hungry, much like both teams in Reds/Brumbies, who I commented looked like they were still playing preseason, and din't want to get hurt.
Basically a bit pissed about Durban game last night, only because Canes played like I thought thay might, but hoped they wouldn't. The biggest worry for Canes is they just didn't throw themselves at loose ball enough, take how Chiefs and Highlanders played, even Blues and Saders, and compare that to Canes ,who just weren't real hungry, much like both teams in Reds/Brumbies, who I commented looked like they were still playing preseason, and din't want to get hurt.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Yes, but ATM kiwi sides have 2 x games in SA, maybe 1 in WA on the way over or back & I can see where that would have its attractions. Throw in an extra 2 games in SA or 1 in SA 1 in Argentina should their team not be SA-based & that's a whole different scenario & "player welfare" will surely become an issue.
Our sethfricken friends have been on about the travel issue for years & on thinking about it it's probably why they in particular will be pushing for just 2 cross-conf matches per team per regular season: from their perspective that's what the NZ & Aus teams have been doing for the last few years whereas theirs spend twice as long (& twice as much?) on the road.
Sounds like your lot were pretty dire, but early days & they like my mob can only get better. Or so we have to hope!
There are definitely plenty of downsides to the expansion proposals but I agree with the sentiment that rugby in Australia will do better in the long term if the game continues to grow and expand around the world.
T
Tip
Guest
Why not have 4 separate competitions.
1. S.A.
2. Aus & NZ
3. Pacific Comp (Japan x 2, Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, Tonga, Fiji, Samoa)
4. America's (Canada x 2, America x 2, Argentina x 2)
Introduce a Heineken Cup format competition to make up for a lack of SA vs Australasian games. (Assuming SA. still want to play the best teams in the world - their loss if they don't)
Japan is a hugely untapped rugby market, and will only grow with the World Cup there in 2019. We should start investing in Japan as it can only benefit Australia & NZ rugby in the long term.
1. S.A.
2. Aus & NZ
3. Pacific Comp (Japan x 2, Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, Tonga, Fiji, Samoa)
4. America's (Canada x 2, America x 2, Argentina x 2)
Introduce a Heineken Cup format competition to make up for a lack of SA vs Australasian games. (Assuming SA. still want to play the best teams in the world - their loss if they don't)
Japan is a hugely untapped rugby market, and will only grow with the World Cup there in 2019. We should start investing in Japan as it can only benefit Australia & NZ rugby in the long term.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
The problem is the 6 of the 8/9 strongest sides (6 of the 10 Aus and NZ teams) would be stuck to fight it out for 4 or 8 finals spots, whilst teams that would be lucky to run last will get a spot.
For once I find myself almost agreeing with Greg Growden...Almost. I don't agree with cutting back the teams to 12 - 14. How would you work that one out? Based on performance you would think that at least 1 or 2 SA teams would go? would you take away one team from each country?
http://www.espnscrum.com/super-rugby-2014/rugby/story/215963.html
I'm now going off to punch myself in the face for almost agreeing with GG.
http://www.espnscrum.com/super-rugby-2014/rugby/story/215963.html
I'm now going off to punch myself in the face for almost agreeing with GG.
RugbyFuture
Lord Logo
Surely they could seed the conferences at the end of the season to prevent saffas always getting a spot
Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk
Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
The only trouble with GG's piece is he says all the fans want more derbies, which I think is wrong, perhaps more Australian fans do, but NZ and SA get derbies already in Currie and ITM cups, I surely agree if the comp dropped a few teams, but it really probably need everyone playing each other to have a level playing field, and to revitalise the interest of NZ and SA fans, who are all starting to find their dometic comps more appealing.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Steve Tew's been quoted as saying S17 will take a week less than S15, for "his" teams anyway. So I'm thinking they'll play every other NZ side home & away, every Aus side home OR away, & 2 x SA/Arg away.
Also he's a tad pissed with the likes of Dave Rennie bagging the new format before it's even been ratified: NZRU scheduled to do this late March, anyone know when ARU & SARU are set to do so?
Also he's a tad pissed with the likes of Dave Rennie bagging the new format before it's even been ratified: NZRU scheduled to do this late March, anyone know when ARU & SARU are set to do so?
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Waiopehu, no he says the Derbies are gone, and Saffas have been guaranteed they will not have to be on road for longer than 5 weeks, so not sure how it will work, he hints that maybe not everyone will play each other, but I may have read that wrong. Says it is not exactly what everyone wants ,but best compromise they could come up with; ie Oz wanted more games, Saffas wanted less, and think NZ just didn't want to get stuck playing OZ teams, all NZ coaches agree,players need to play SA teams to develop their game(would assume Saffas feel the same). I have no doubt whatever happens we could of all done better, but there still a few details to finalise.
Was actually reading in a paper i re SA having another team and all the rubbish about them not being copetetive because they came last, they beat Rebels and Force, drew with Brumbies and would strongly suspect they would not of been last if they played in Aussie conf!!
Was actually reading in a paper i re SA having another team and all the rubbish about them not being copetetive because they came last, they beat Rebels and Force, drew with Brumbies and would strongly suspect they would not of been last if they played in Aussie conf!!
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Nice try p.Tah,I guess you having a little troll, but anyone with even a modicum of nous realises that the reason for wanting to play Saffa teams is it more intense rugby, much closer to international rugby,and a different style, so a good learning curve. It's not and never has been seen as knocking Aussie teams.
- Status