Where to for Super Rugby?

[Bullrush]

Centralise contracting.
NSW, Qld, ACT can only have Australian players.
Force and Rebels can have players from anywhere.
NZR to allow ABs to be picked from Force and Rebels.

Shoot me down gently. Something's got to give for any type of TT to work.

Just make all Super Rugby players available for either Wallabies or ABs so long as they meet eligibility requirements.

 

[Jimmyjam]

Centralise contracting.
NSW, Qld, ACT can only have Australian players.
Force and Rebels can have players from anywhere.
NZR to allow ABs to be picked from Force and Rebels.

Shoot me down gently. Something's got to give for any type of TT to work.

NSW and Qld to only have Aust players...

ACT develop arguably far less local talent than either the Force or the Rebels. They simply cherry pick NSW or Qld players at a younger age. I'd give them o/s spots first and stop the poaching of young talent. At least Force and Rebels are starting to show green shoots in the development of local players. ACT is a black hole on the junior front with them needing to backfill every year from elsewhere.

I agree with centralized contracting to spread the playing strength where it's needed. No point having 5 players warehoused at one franchise where there is a starting spot available somewhere else..

 

[Bullrush]

Here's the plan Stan:

RA should stick with Super Rugby AU first and foremost as a non-negotiable. That implies NZ stick with Super Rugby Ao. Both with 6 teams each. That's 13 weeks with finals, a bye, and an Anzac Bledisloe. You'll get a packed house for each domestic final and the Anzac Bledisloe.

Then offer (a) a Super Bowl game between the winners of Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby Ao. Boom! Another packed house.

That sounds boring AF. The Blues would have been playing the 6th placed Brumbies this year. Not a hell of a lot of 'Super' in that SuperBowl.

People are comparing Super Rugby to the NRL and the AFL for justifying a fully domestic competition.

There are a couple of considerable differences. The NRL and the AFL are he pinnacle of those codes competitions. Apart from a 3 game State of Origin and a couple of Tests against opponents who have always been underdogs - the best players in the world largely play in the NRL and AFL.

What happens when the Reds or the Brumbies are winning Super Rugby Au but the Wallabies rank only 7th (or worse) in the world? Do you maintain support domestically against the NRL & AFL when spectators know they are watching (and paying for) second rate rugby at best?

 

[Bullrush]

No, not really. Each side requires different things. Those things if answered fully for both can't exist in the same comp. Australia is not in a position that it can compromise. NZ may well be the same.

Which means a full TT is not an option - if you need those "different things" catered for.

Of course they can.

Australia needs players/teams/coaches who will win more games - NZ can help with that.
NZ needs access to the Australian market.

Both can be accomplished

Short of platitudes, NZR has consistently worked to ignore Australia seemingly on the presumption that Australia will get on board because they have no alternative. A broader competition that levelled the field and gave Australian fans the chance to get behind a competitive team would indeed go a long way toward gaining interest.

But on it's own it doesn't solve the (Australian) issue. We need back to grass roots, with domestic professional opportunity over a sustained period to allow the game to rebuild here.

I doubt that RA are going to give us what I think we need. Gratefully, RA does not seem to be getting ready to acquiesce to NZR either. Something interesting may come yet.

NZ may have ignored Australia because Australia's problem is purely of their own making. NZ has done NOTHING to put Australian Rugby in the position it finds itself in apart from getting better at playing the game.

I would add that the competition from other codes is not responsible for rugby's demise. If you wants fans coming through the turnstiles and watching games - win more.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

They don't have a choice. They haven't the $$$ or the ability to generate the corporate sponsorship outside the AB's. Hence the reason for their top down approach as this is how they generate their income by playing at a sold out Twickenham keeping the global AB brand going. If they go it alone, even with private equity they would slowly wither on the vine and they know it.

The Wallabies are a different Beast. The corporate dollars are more so within Australia, so a pumping AU local comp will attract more sponsors over time and having some sort of champions league involving NZ and/or Japan

The only way a full TT competition would work IMO is to allow the AB's and Wallabies to be picked from any of the teams involved. This way allowing a cross pollination of Talent, but the Kiwi's would never go for this.

Yep that old chestnut...but NZRU with their top down approach and mindset of amateur era won't go for it....

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Well I just saw this, we also had acknowledgement from Hamish that RA is pretty well split too on where to go, so if RA doesn't know what they want at this stage you have to wonder when they will!!
From same article:
“The RA board is divided on the best competition structure and we need some time to think it through,” McLennan said. “[RA chief executive] Andy has some innovative ideas on a new, suitable competition.”
F*** me!! How are they going to agree with anyone if even they can't agree the dozy pricks!! Can someone send them a link to this thread, or maybe they been reading it and why they all sitting there unable to make up their minds!!

You seen how much divergent views on here - easy for NZRU as they just have their one model that supports their top down approach and basically our way or the highway collaboration approach. I feel for RA as this is not an easy path to navigate and why I like foot in both camps approach. As I bet there is a model RA agree on but they know NZRU won't so back to square one and divided views. Interested to hear what Marinos innovative new competition is...maybe Joes blueprint lol......

 

[Derpus]

Of course they can.

Australia needs players/teams/coaches who will win more games - NZ can help with that.
NZ needs access to the Australian market.

Both can be accomplished

I find the odds of NZ helping with this to be extremely low.

And that's not a slight on NZ. I think if the tables were reversed we would be equally reticent to share.

Self interest drives everything.

 

[hoggy]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...trans-tasman-competition-20210622-p583bp.html

Well its pretty bloody clear the RA now realize a domestic component is the only way forward.

 

[hoggy]

And its great to see the RA push what is clearly the only sensible option moving forward, two separate competitions of 6 teams. With further champion leagues/TT options to follow.

 

[dru]

NZ may have ignored Australia because Australia's problem is purely of their own making.

Can only agree here. I was responding to an earlier comment that NZ will assist. So far NZ "assistance" has been 100% about NZ. Can't blame them for that but it's silly to suggest otherwise.

 

[Bullrush]

And its great to see the RA push what is clearly the only sensible option moving forward, two separate competitions of 6 teams. With further champion leagues/TT options to follow.

Except the 'champions league' has realistically already been played in the NZ comp...

 

[Derpus]

Except the 'champions league' has realistically already been played in the NZ comp.

So you want to play us, but only on the condition we can't enjoy ourselves?

 

[Bullrush]

So you want to play us, but only on the condition we can't enjoy ourselves?

My suggestion is actually that NZ has to assist in lifting Australian rugby (I understand how unlikely this is so yeah) by opening up AB eligibility to any player/coach who is in Super Rugby regardless of whether they are in NZ or Aus.

The misconception is that Australian public want to watch local derbies.

I think Australians want to see their teams win. Particularly against NZ teams.

 

[Derpus]

My suggestion is actually that NZ has to assist in lifting Australian rugby (I understand how unlikely this is so yeah) by opening up AB eligibility to any player/coach who is in Super Rugby regardless of whether they are in NZ or Aus.

The misconception is that Australian public want to watch local derbies.

I think Australians want to see their teams win. Particularly against NZ teams.

I get it. I generally agree. I think something dramatic like opening up selection, sharing resources etc. is what we likely need.

But fuck me, can you see anything like that happening? we are just going to cobble something shit together.

 

[Dan54]

You seen how much divergent views on here - easy for NZRU as they just have their one model that supports their top down approach and basically our way or the highway collaboration approach. I feel for RA as this is not an easy path to navigate and why I like foot in both camps approach. As I bet there is a model RA agree on but they know NZRU won't so back to square one and divided views. Interested to hear what Marinos innovative new competition is.maybe Joes blueprint lol..

Alternatively you could also say thet NZR have a model that works, from top down.
And anyone who says that Australia aren't working on a top down approach are idiots, why do you think they have employed a NZ coach for wallabies and not one whi has come up through Aus system? Perhaps because they need the Wallabies to be successful so the money the generate than goes down through the lower tiers. FFS!!!!!
We would all love if the lower tiers actually stood on their own feet, but I can absolutely bet that if Wallabies didn't play internationall rugby, there would be no Super or NRC etc!!

 

[Bullrush]

Alternatively you could also say thet NZR have a model that works, from top down.
And anyone who says that Australia aren't working on a top down approach are idiots, why do you think they have employed a NZ coch for wallabies and not one whi has come up through Aus system? Perhaps because they need the Wallabies to be successful so the money the generate than goes down thorugh the lower tiers. FFS!!!!!
We would all love if the lower tiers actually stood on their own feet, but I can absolutely bet thet if Wallabies didn't play internationall rugby, there would be no Super or NRC etc!!

Exactly. And it's no different in NZ. The ABs basically make all the money for the rest of NZ rugby

 

[Bullrush]

I get it. I generally agree. I think something dramatic like opening up selection, sharing resources etc. is what we likely need.

But fuck me, can you see anything like that happening? we are just going to cobble something shit together.

Yeah - I agree.

It seems to me that NZ rugby would rather look at private ownership of the ABs instead working with Australia to lift the standard of competition.

I love how dominant NZ rugby has been over the last 10yrs or so but I would also love to see the passion and the contest of the old Super Rugby and Bledisloe games that has been missing of late.

 

[Dan54]

Yeah - I agree.

It seems to me that NZ rugby would rather look at private ownership of the ABs instead working with Australia to lift the standard of competition.

I love how dominant NZ rugby has been over the last 10yrs or so but I would also love to see the passion and the contest of the old Super Rugby and Bledisloe games that has been missing of late.

How is opening up selection etc going to help Bledisloe or Wallabies, unless you think that by doing it wekaens the ABs, which answers question anyway.
It's not actually private ownership of ABs, anymore than RA is opening up private ownership of Wallabies in seeking PE money.

 

[Bandar]

How is opening up selection etc going to help Bledisloe or Wallabies, unless you think that by doing it wekaens the ABs, which answers question anyway.

I makes the competition that is on for the majority of the year open and fair (some Aussie players may go to NZ). If it's even and attracts better support in Australia then more kids will be wanting to play. For the past 20 years to see it you have needed pay TV now it's on free TV but the Aussie teams are shit so people turn off.

I don't see how it's that hard to understand the basic concept.

People are not interested in watching their team getting smashed every week for multiple seasons.

If people don't watch then where do the new players come from?

 

[Oldschool]

Alternatively you could also say thet NZR have a model that works, from top down.
And anyone who says that Australia aren't working on a top down approach are idiots, why do you think they have employed a NZ coach for wallabies and not one whi has come up through Aus system? Perhaps because they need the Wallabies to be successful so the money the generate than goes down through the lower tiers. FFS!!!!!
We would all love if the lower tiers actually stood on their own feet, but I can absolutely bet that if Wallabies didn't play internationall rugby, there would be no Super or NRC etc!!

And this is why Aussie rugby is fucked at the mo. They are trying to copy NZ instead of floating their own boat. As COVID has shown it's basically 6 different countries and 2 of them Rugby strongholds compared to the others.
The NZ Kremlin approach doesn't and won't work here. The Home Nations don't have a top down approach and a dollar for doughnuts if a Worldcup was held now France would probably win it. So the Top down approach is Myopic kiwi dribble, there are other workable alternatives.