S18 on its way

[waiopehu oldboy]

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!!

it's about giving everyone at least some of what they want: NZRU want a shorter season, ARU want derbies, SARU want 6 teams & less travel. I'm therefore expecting NZRU & SARU to "compromise" on the derbies in order to get ARU's support for the new structure as a whole. Tew's not going to say that up front & in public, though, as NZ fans seem to prefer less derbies & more SA games. This way Tew can say " we tried to do it but had to compromise". Again.

 

[p.Tah]

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.

Half a troll Dan. IMO the only SA team that provides test match intensity in 2014 is the Sharks. The quality of the SA teams will decrease when they get 6 teams. Australia usually has 2 teams towards the bottom of the table. I believe SA will have 3-4 teams down there in 2016. NZ's best prep for test match intensity are your local derbies.

 

[Dan54]

Funnily enough Tah, it's the coaches etc who say they want SA, playing the local derbies is probably the most intense game, but I genuinely think players have to play against these real hardnose Saffa teams to develop, they play a different type of physical game to us in forwards, I also think it good for our players to come up against Aussie styles too, although less physical than Saffas generally, still a type of rugby that you have to counter in test rugby.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Funnily enough Tah, it's the coaches etc who say they want SA, playing the local derbies is probably the most intense game, but I genuinely think players have to play against these real hardnose Saffa teams to develop, they play a different type of physical game to us in forwards, I also think it good for our players to come up against Aussie styles too, although less physical than Saffas generally, still a type of rugby that you have to counter in test rugby.

Did you watch the Tahs/Reds game on the weekend? If NZ teams want hardnosed and physical they'll get it when they face the Tahs this season.

 

[Dan54]

I agree, WCR, it was first game I have seen between a couple of Aussie teams where I thought there was some real physicality in it,(mind you drop the big Saffa from the Tahs??) but I still think it a lot different to Saffa or Kiwi teams, surely you don't think all 3 countries tend to play the same style of rugby??
As I tried to indicate it not a poke at Aussie rugby, just your players don't tend to play as hardnose, one of reasons I think Aus teams don't do well in wetweather style rugby. Mate of mine put it after the Baok/AB test in SA last year, when he said we(he aussie) just can't play that type of rugby, it too brutal!!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I agree, WCR, it was first game I have seen between a couple of Aussie teams where I thought there was some real physicality in it,(mind you drop the big Saffa from the Tahs??) but I still think it a lot different to Saffa or Kiwi teams, surely you don't think all 3 countries tend to play the same style of rugby??
As I tried to indicate it not a poke at Aussie rugby, just your players don't tend to play as hardnose, one of reasons I think Aus teams don't do well in wetweather style rugby. Mate of mine put it after the Baok/AB test in SA last year, when he said we(he aussie) just can't play that type of rugby, it too brutal!!

Of course all three don't play the same style. The SA brand is fairly obvious. Though, I don't think it's as brutal as many like to make it out to be.

 

[Westie]

Did you watch the Tahs/Reds game on the weekend? If NZ teams want hardnosed and physical they'll get it when they face the Tahs this season.

Ha ha ha. Noticed you're smiling as you said that. Tahs hardnosed. Flower rugby.

 

[p.Tah]

Apparently the rugby powerhouse, Spain wants to be part of super rugby. Surely a wind up.

Behehind the paywall.

Rumours of a European country seeking admission in 2016 have been circulating for some time, with Italy initially nominated and then discounted.

The mystery nation was identified as Spain when Pulver raised it as an expansion option in a meeting with Super Rugby franchise CEOs on Tuesday.

Spain is listed at 22 on the International Rugby Board’s world rankings, lower than Japan (13). The Wallabies have played only one Test against Spain, winning 92-10 in 2001.

It is understood South Africa is most inclined to consider Spain’s admission while New Zealand is open-minded on the subject. Australia is strongly pushing for a move into Asia, not just because of time zone preferences but because the timing is right, with Japan having been confirmed as the host nation for the 2019 Rugby World Cup.

Peters confirmed yesterday that all three foundation members must agree unanimously on the expansion model and South Africa’s position won’t be known until its President’s Council meets later this month. He declined to confirm whether Spain was an expansion option.

The ARU would need to buck the strong recommendation of its five franchises if it were to approve any measures to even investigate Spain’s admission.

RUPA boss Greg Harris ridiculed the campaign to push Super Rugby into new markets.

“Where next?” Harris asked. “Greenland? Iceland?

I think Harris nailed it

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...for-super-rugby/story-e6frg7o6-1226846451990#

 

[Joe King]

SANZAR chief executive Greg Peters and the CEOs of the Australian and New Zealand unions, Bill Pulver and Steve Tew, all have spoken of Super Rugby morphing into the world’s pre-eminent rugby competition, indicating that any enlargement of the competition in 2016 would simply be the intermediate stage in making Super Rugby global. And that points to a long-term strategy to expand into Europe when the 2021 broadcast deal is done.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...for-super-rugby/story-e6frg7o6-1226846451990#

I just really wish they would give us a more concrete vision for Super Rugby.

Do they really know where it's going? Do they really have a common vision? Every new deal always seems like a compromise rather than the ideal. First there's the move towards conferences, then there seems to be resistance towards them. There sometimes seems to be a desire for expansion and sometimes not. Surly, if they are going to keep expanding, there can't be anything BUT conferences with limited cross-conference games until the finals. And yet there seems to be a lot of resistance to this end point from different SANZAR partners. And yet, where else could it be heading?

I'm tired of speculating and getting my hopes up at the potential, but never really knowing. I wish they would just say clearly where they would all like it to end up so I know what I have to look forward to. Maybe there's some big reason why they can't do that. And yet, at the same time it seems like they're letting little clues out of the bag just to keep us holding on to some vague vision.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

Medium term push should be for two 10-12 team conferences.
NZ, Aus plus two from Asia (singapore and Japan/Hong Kong)
South Africa 6, plus eventually two from Argentina and perhaps 2 from Europe.
Spain fits in with the South African timezone. they could have spanish players as well as other european nations and south africans and argentineans.
more games in the south african/european timezone means more money from europe.
i fully agree that there should be moveability around super rugby for players. allow each team to have up to say 3 players from any super rugby participating nation.

the NZ/AUS/Asia conference would have all their games in nearly the same timezone.
the South African conference the same, bar the games played in argentina.

I think the whole competition will collapse if they try and keep it all one conference. the players won't put up with the travel and you'll get decisions like ben mowen's much more frequently. in south africa, players knowing they can still get selected will defect to europe earlier and more often.

south africa doesn't like conferences cause it's too much like the curry cup for them, well find away to introduce more teams to their conference.
radical, but you could put the Force into the south african conference as well.

the players dont mind travelling for games, but they hate the amount of travel. if they travel to south africa for finals that's great, but none of them want to be on the road for three weeks twice a year (not including national tours).

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

in finals. the conferences cross over so you get SA/Arg/Eur teams playing NZ/AUS/Asia

you could even structure it as the winner of each conference wins the 'conference a la premiership soccer.
then you move into heineken cup style finals for the top teams
the bottom teams get another cup style tournament so everyone is playing additional finals games.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...for-super-rugby/story-e6frg7o6-1226846451990#

I just really wish they would give us a more concrete vision for Super Rugby.

Do they really know where it's going? Do they really have a common vision? Every new deal always seems like a compromise rather than the ideal. First there's the move towards conferences, then there seems to be resistance towards them. There sometimes seems to be a desire for expansion and sometimes not. Surly, if they are going to keep expanding, there can't be anything BUT conferences with limited cross-conference games until the finals. And yet there seems to be a lot of resistance to this end point from different SANZAR partners. And yet, where else could it be heading?

I'm tired of speculating and getting my hopes up at the potential, but never really knowing. I wish they would just say clearly where they would all like it to end up so I know what I have to look forward to. Maybe there's some big reason why they can't do that. And yet, at the same time it seems like they're letting little clues out of the bag just to keep us holding on to some vague vision.

I really wish I could find an article I read prior to the Rebels being included. It gave what at the time I thought was a speculative vision for Super Rugby. If these murmurs are true. It may have not been too far from the mark.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Apparently the rugby powerhouse, Spain wants to be part of super rugby. Surely a wind up.

Behehind the paywall.



I think Harris nailed it

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...for-super-rugby/story-e6frg7o6-1226846451990#

While I don't think they should be looking to expand too rapidly into new markets I tend to disagree with the belief it will necessarily dilute the competition. They would only occur if we kept sourcing talent from the three main talent pools. Like I've said previously, there's a world of talent out there.

 

[Joe King]

I really wish I could find an article I read prior to the Rebels being included. It gave what at the time I thought was a speculative vision for Super Rugby. If these murmurs are true. It may have not been too far from the mark.

Yeah, I've seen you mention this before somewhere. I'd love to read it! In your opinion, do you think all SANZAR partners are wanting to head in such a direction?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yeah, I've seen you mention this before somewhere. I'd love to read it! In your opinion, do you think all SANZAR partners are wanting to head in such a direction?

Who knows? This is SANZAR after all. Would be interesting to see if it does begin to move that way as it had from memory 6 conferences with 7 or 8 teams per conference.

Like I said. I always thought it was a bit fanciful but there does appear to be some interest. Though, again from memory Europe wasn't in the considerations.

 

[p.Tah]

I think Iain Payten makes some very valid points here in how to make Super 18 work:

1. Put the Force in the SA Conference and put Japan in the Australian conference to reduce travel
2. Aust and NZ games in NZ start earlier for better viewing times in Aust and NZ (genius )
3. Add the city name to the team name (e.g. Durban Sharks)
4. Combne the 2 SA conferences into one ladder and offer only one gauranteed final. The '4th' finalist is a wildcard from any of the conferences
5. Super Rugby can have two sets of finals. One local, and one international. Instead of the current conference winner being decided by points, a national champion is crowned with a playoff between first and second in the conference.

Don't just go off my summary. Read the full article. I think it's worth it.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...competition-work/story-fni2fxyf-1226914644211

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

Said it previously - force in the SA conference not a horrible idea if the other team is Asian.

 

[oztimmay]

Said it previously - force in the SA conference not a horrible idea if the other team is Asian.

Question I have SAH is how will that improve Australian Rugby as a whole? Understand the logistical benefit, but I'm thinking about improving the game in our backyard first.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

How does it hurt it that much ? Force players are still australian (mostly!) and they are still playing super rugby against South Africa and Argentina regularly as well as either all the kiwi or Aus sides.
It's not ideal but it's
Not as though they are dropping down to a lower league. Provided a chance for a third Aussie team in the finals as well.

Perth gets the benefit of watching all the kiwi and Aus games plus the SA conference games are suddenly more attractive.

 

[kiap]

Put the Force in the SA Conference

Nah. It would be easier to make a S17 work.