Where to for Super Rugby?

[Dctarget]

I love the Heineken Cup, such a cool concept. Having Toulouse play Munster or Exeter play Leinster is dream team stuff. Be cool to emulate that some how. Have a TT competition for 16 rounds + finals. Then have our crazy Super 18 but quickfire in pools.

 

[Joe King]

Look, this Saturday we have a top of the table clash between two Australian teams for the second time in this comp. Once we lose Super Rugby AU to a full TT, you won't get that again. Remember that.

 

[Joe King]

This is only its second season, and only its first on Stan/Nine. I'd love to see RA give it 5 years to gauge it's potential and go from there. It could be a real missed opportunity otherwise.

 

[Dan54]

It seems like we are in a somewhat precarious situation. A) we need NZ and probably private equity and B) NZ need us but are apparently completely oblivious to this fact, meaning they are entirely likely to make unreasonable demands and force us to choose between going it alone or going ahead weighed down by their bullshit. Kind of like financial ruin chicken.

.

I really don't think you understand on countries needing each other. I have always heard every person speaking from NZR whether it fromtop to bottom ,that strong rugby in Australia is very important and the partnership between the to countries is only way forward. I would be very interested to see when they have said anything else. NZR isn't as strong as it is by being run by idiots, and they know Aus/NZ is pretty important to them going forward. I admit I read and listen to a hell of a lot of rugby talk etc, and have never heard NZR say anything different.

 

[dru]

But a worse structure in my mind, is going back to the conference system, where you play some teams more than others.

Hey, I've an idea. Let's call that intra conference thing the domestic comp.

And the inter conference thing the TT.

No fan confusion over conference structures. AND then keep NZR/SAANZAR etc hands off our domestic development.

 

[Dan54]

Hey, I've an idea. Let's call that intra conference thing the domestic comp.

And the inter conference thing the TT.

No fan confusion over conference structures. AND then keep NZR/SAANZAR etc hands off our domestic development.

Haha dru, cut out all the problems huh, but you right, conferences were basically what we got now.
I have one question for those that are keen on staying as it is ,ie NZ comp and Aus comp followed by TT comp and using the reason of you always guaranteed of 2 Aus teams at top of comp. Do I understnad that if 2 PI teams are bought into the comp that one shouldn't be in Australia as many suggest? Because what if that team is top of the comp? See it a probelm if you want to keep small to guarantee a winner. Same applies to any asian teams etc, do they have to promise not to win too much?

 

[hoggy]

I really don't think you understand on countries needing each other. I have always heard every person speaking from NZR whether it fromtop to bottom ,that strong rugby in Australia is very important and the partnership between the to countries is only way forward. I would be very interested to see when they have said anything else. NZR isn't as strong as it is by being run by idiots, and they know Aus/NZ is pretty important to them going forward. I admit I read and listen to a hell of a lot of rugby talk etc, and have never heard NZR say anything different.

Aaahhh. NZR the forever friend, telling you with one hand I want you to be strong while the other arms around your shoulder reminding you that you'll always be too pathetic to do this by yourself.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I really don't think you understand on countries needing each other. I have always heard every person speaking from NZR whether it fromtop to bottom ,that strong rugby in Australia is very important and the partnership between the to countries is only way forward. I would be very interested to see when they have said anything else. NZR isn't as strong as it is by being run by idiots, and they know Aus/NZ is pretty important to them going forward. I admit I read and listen to a hell of a lot of rugby talk etc, and have never heard NZR say anything different.

The only person I have heard with a stronger vision for growth for rugby in Asia pacific is twiggy who is not tied by petty NZRU and RA internal national team myopic focus. But the reality is nzru and RA hold the power so unless something changes in mindset or another catalyst which breaks this stranglehold (e.g. private equity investment) rugby will continue to miss its full growth potential in the region.

NZRU with its EOI approach last year showed it had learnt nothing about creating a more collaborative and open approach but hopefully with the backlash might have finally pulled its head in and now moving forward in more positive and collaborative manner. That is more hope then belief as dan54 after this debacle there is lot of mistrust around nzru from oz rugby supporters and hence whilst TT in theory sounds great idea for many oz fans there is concern of oz interests being shafted by nzru calling the shots around TT design and operation. The latter is just the facts that don’t need debate ie distrust of nzru based on last years events.

 

[Derpus]

I really don't think you understand on countries needing each other. I have always heard every person speaking from NZR whether it fromtop to bottom ,that strong rugby in Australia is very important and the partnership between the to countries is only way forward. I would be very interested to see when they have said anything else. NZR isn't as strong as it is by being run by idiots, and they know Aus/NZ is pretty important to them going forward. I admit I read and listen to a hell of a lot of rugby talk etc, and have never heard NZR say anything different.

Well they've done something wrong, clearly. Because everyone in Aus thinks they handled the initial Covid situation terribly and showed their hand (hell, even some of those silver ferners thought so too).

Yeah, NZ rugby was historically well managed and has robust systems in place to produce an amazing AB team. I wouldn't be in a hurry to lay that accomplishment at the feet of your current administrators though.

 

[kiap]

NZ comp and Aus comp followed by TT comp and using the reason of you always guaranteed of 2 Aus teams at top of comp.

The Aus comp, for me, is about control. Want to add a team, tweak the schedule or law trials - no problem. If they want add Fiji, they can.

Do I understnad that if 2 PI teams are bought into the comp that one shouldn't be in Australia as many suggest? Because what if that team is top of the comp?

It's not a problem.

Don't forget Fiji Drua already won our national comp.

See it a probelm if you want to keep small to guarantee a winner.

No. Starting small-ish is for other reasons.

You don't want to dilute the local pro player base, making Aus teams drop too far in competitive level and depth. Adding a PI team such as Drua doesn't affect that.

More Aus teams also require more funding. Best to do that in increments.

But also there still needs to be TIME left in the season to fit the TT/Japan/etc comp which is vital.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

This is only its second season, and only its first on Stan/Nine. I'd love to see RA give it 5 years to gauge it's potential and go from there. It could be a real missed opportunity otherwise.

That's easy when you have a five team comp playing eight rounds.

 

[Rebel man]

I believe it's a better bet to drive interest into the game in the near future, than anything else. Every game in both comps is fresh and exciting. As I said, two grand finals, two shots at glory, etc. It makes the season more interesting and eventful. But maybe that's just me.

One year one champion keep it simple

 

[kiap]

One year one champion keep it simple

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I have an alternative idea as I do like the concept of cricket model of creating different products to garner fan interest but also accept TT needs to be main focus but with some insurance for oz interests.

So my view is why not have a two round trans Tasman competition and a one round very short domestic competition (nrc type length) as a) keeps TT as main product and focus b) gives short domestic competition to create a oz champion 6 nations style - don’t even need to do finals - and like 6 nations home games alternate each year c) gives us foot in the door as insurance to expand on if TT does not go as planned d) more product and content to gamer broadcaster and fan interest.

 

[Rebel man]

I have an alternative idea as I do like the concept of cricket model of creating different products to garner fan interest but also accept TT needs to be main focus but with some insurance for oz interests.

So my view is why not have a two round trans Tasman competition and a one round very short domestic competition (nrc type length) as a) keeps TT as main product and focus b) gives short domestic competition to create a oz champion 6 nations style - don’t even need to do finals - and like 6 nations home games alternate each year c) gives us foot in the door as insurance to expand on if TT does not go as planned d) more product and content to gamer broadcaster and fan interest.

Don’t mind that as then when all the test footy is on we could give blokes an opportunity to play super rugby in the local comp to get some exposure

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think ultimately the overall structure will come down to the ratings and the value derived from them by the broadcaster. You never know. May be they might decide that Super Rugby TT should be a two phased competition. Much like this season. Fiji in ours. Moana in NZ. Home and away. Crown a local winner. Then carry over to a TT. But I'm not sure that will be the case.

 

[Dan54]

Aaahhh. NZR the forever friend, telling you with one hand I want you to be strong while the other arms around your shoulder reminding you that you'll always be too pathetic to do this by yourself.

Ok by all means show me NZR doing this. I will be very interested to see who from NZR said that.

 

[Dan54]

The only person I have heard with a stronger vision for growth for rugby in Asia pacific is twiggy who is not tied by petty NZRU and RA internal national team myopic focus. But the reality is nzru and RA hold the power so unless something changes in mindset or another catalyst which breaks this stranglehold (e.g. private equity investment) rugby will continue to miss its full growth potential in the region.

NZRU with its EOI approach last year showed it had learnt nothing about creating a more collaborative and open approach but hopefully with the backlash might have finally pulled its head in and now moving forward in more positive and collaborative manner. That is more hope then belief as dan54 after this debacle there is lot of mistrust around nzru from oz rugby supporters and hence whilst TT in theory sounds great idea for many oz fans there is concern of oz interests being shafted by nzru calling the shots around TT design and operation. The latter is just the facts that don’t need debate ie distrust of nzru based on last years events.

Ok rugbynutter, so the coaches etc NZR sent to asian countries was not to help strengthen the game? I agree , more could be done, but not quite sure what. Mate I know Aus rugby supporters, on the internet, have not a lot of trust in NZR, but I think you will find a good number of kiwis don't really trust RA either.

 

[Dan54]

The Aus comp, for me, is about control. Want to add a team, tweak the schedule or law trials - no problem. If they want add Fiji, they can.


It's not a problem.

Don't forget Fiji Drua already won our national comp.


No. Starting small-ish is for other reasons.

You don't want to dilute the local pro player base, making Aus teams drop too far in competitive level and depth. Adding a PI team such as Drua doesn't affect that.

More Aus teams also require more funding. Best to do that in increments.

But also there still needs to be TIME left in the season to fit the TT/Japan/etc comp which is vital.

Yep so you want to replicate the success of the NRC?
but seriously I know that ,I was responding to the comments on here by posters who said it was great to have a comp where 2 Aus teams were always on top of comp.
ieLook, this Saturday we have a top of the table clash between two Australian teams for the second time in this comp. Once we lose Super Rugby AU to a full TT, you won't get that again. Remember that.)
And Drua as in NRC couldn't or wouldn't be allowed (I think) to play in Super. They need to be a lot stronger surely!

 

[Dan54]

I have an alternative idea as I do like the concept of cricket model of creating different products to garner fan interest but also accept TT needs to be main focus but with some insurance for oz interests.

So my view is why not have a two round trans Tasman competition and a one round very short domestic competition (nrc type length) as a) keeps TT as main product and focus b) gives short domestic competition to create a oz champion 6 nations style - don’t even need to do finals - and like 6 nations home games alternate each year c) gives us foot in the door as insurance to expand on if TT does not go as planned d) more product and content to gamer broadcaster and fan interest.

I actually really like this idea. Has a lot going for it. The one thing that worries me is what we got now I believe has almost run it's course, a 2 round comp between only 5 teams get's a little tired quickly. But if it popular in short term and seen as golden bullet, could be taken on and then have the same ol, same ol in another couple of years.
And what will happen then? All the experts on the internet will be rubbishing the Rugby boards for not having the latest great thing. Super rugby for all it's faults ran for about 14-15 years before it really lost it's appeal, what we got now won't last that long I don't think. The number of posters that have used the likes of NRL etc as a successful system, do you really think it would be as good with 5 or 6 teams playing each other constantly? If we going to have a comp, one that lasts should be set up.