Where to for Super Rugby?

[dru]

Yes. Rugby as a sport is the equal of its rivals. Super rugby at present is not.

Nail. Head. Hammer.

 

[wamberal]

Yes. Rugby as a sport is the equal of its rivals. Super rugby at present is not.

It bloody well is not, not in Australia anyway. It has always been a minority sport, although for brief periods it looked as though we were breaking through.



Super Rugby is the pinnacle of the game here in Australia, except for Test matches. So if it is "not the equal of its rivals", that speaks volumes.


A game between the Waratahs and the Reds, for example, should always be a blockbuster, if our game is "the equal of its rivals". But it ain't.

 

[TOCC]

Ironically Waratahs vs Reds, or QLD vs NSW is an example of how Super Rugby as a product has ruined something which was previously successful.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[jimmydubs]

It bloody well is not, not in Australia anyway. It has always been a minority sport, although for brief periods it looked as though we were breaking through.



Super Rugby is the pinnacle of the game here in Australia, except for Test matches. So if it is "not the equal of its rivals", that speaks volumes.


A game between the Waratahs and the Reds, for example, should always be a blockbuster, if our game is "the equal of its rivals". But it ain't.

With all due respect then why do you follow rugby if it is not the greatest sport going?

But you do, yet constantly state it isn't the equal of its rivals.

Or perhaps you are one of those who view rugby as too complex for the great unwashed who dont understand it?

Maybe it's the internet thing but I so do not understand your view points. At all. And that is when you're not being a self-declared troll.

 

[amirite]

I can see why rugby isn't the number 1 game in the world. I see it as a perfect blend of everything that makes sport fantastic - tactics, physicality, finesse, athleticism. But is it the sport that has the most of any of these traits individually? No.

I'd argue tactics (complex = barrier to entry) and physicality are probably seen as a negative by the masses nowadays (see the drop in popularity of American Football). Those that want physicality are increasingly turning to UFC.

That being said, all is not lost. Sport has and always will go in ebbs and flows.

 

[Strewthcobber]

It's interesting that you mention NFL

Was watching this, this morning (you should too, it's awesome)

Promo for AFC championship. As they say in the clip, David v Goliath, it's the oldest story in the book.

Ignore that rugby in this country has no resources to so such a thing, but I don't think we could even put together such a narrative. Who is Goliath is Aus rugby? Who is David?

Sport at its best (and life) - it's all about conflict, context and narrative.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

The narrative part is the hard bit, easy to say quickly, but pretty complex.


The BBL does not seem to need much of a narrative, I mean who really cares about the Sydney Sixers, or the Hobart Hurricanes, when it all boils down.


On the other hand, narrative is important in our game, and we have not been very good at enriching, or building, it in terms of the identity of the teams, their histories, national characteristics, traditional rivalries, etc etc.

 

[TOCC]

One i my big gripes is the cash grab of proportionately letting more teams into the finals, in 2018 more then half the teams in the competition will make the finals, thats as good as handing out participation awards, 8 of the 15 teams will make the finals in 2018 with 7 teams missing out, which takes the probability of making the finals to an all time high for Super Rugby.

1996-2005: 33%
2006-2010: 28%
2011-2015: 40%
2016-2017: 44%
2018-2020: 53%

For comparison sake:
NRL: 50%
AFL: 44%

 

[Braveheart81]

I think 6 out of 15 is a better percentage of teams in the finals (40%) but I prefer the 8 team finals format to 6 teams.

I don't think teams one and two get an advantage by getting a rest during the first week of the playoffs.

From the revenue perspective, the 8 team finals series gives the biggest advantage to teams one and two who get to host up to 3 and 2 finals compared to 2 and 1 under a 6 team system.

 

[Rebels3]

One i my big gripes is the cash grab of proportionately letting more teams into the finals, in 2018 more then half the teams in the competition will make the finals, thats as good as handing out participation awards, 8 of the 15 teams will make the finals in 2018 with 7 teams missing out, which takes the probability of making the finals to an all time high for Super Rugby.

1996-2005: 33%
2006-2010: 28%
2011-2015: 40%
2016-2017: 44%
2018-2020: 53%

For comparison sake:
NRL: 50%
AFL: 44%

Perceived success is key tho to engaging with fans. Traditionally we have had very low % of teams make finals, 33% generally and unlike other sports that don't have high finals participation we don't have multiple competitions to keep fans engaged if they are performing terribly in one. Champions League, FA Cup, Champions Cup. Personally i think 7 would be the right number but thats a very odd number in the world of sport

 

[wamberal]

I cannot help thinking that the kind of success that matters is the week by week success.


The Tahs won the comp recently. How much "success" did that generate in the following seasons?

 

[half]

What happens if Australian Super Rugby has another year like or similar to last year.

Will rugby in its current format survive if the year repeats?????

 

[dru]

What happens if Australian Super Rugby has another year like or similar to last year.

Will rugby in its current format survive if the year repeats?????

Hard to imagine any other response from Tew other than "well you blokes had a spreadsheet showing three teams works - get on with it."

 

[wamberal]

When will the next broadcasting deal be negotiated? That will be the watershed moment.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Hard to imagine any other response from Tew other than "well you blokes had a spreadsheet showing three teams works - get on with it."

Remembering, of course, that no one can actually make Rugby Australia do it, they'd have to voluntarily reduce from four teams to three just as they volunteered to reduce from five to four at the SANZAAR board meeting in Dublin last March.

 

[dru]

Remembering, of course, that no one can actually make Rugby Australia do it, they'd have to voluntarily reduce from four teams to three just as they volunteered to reduce from five to four at the SANZAAR board meeting in Dublin last March.

Or voluntarily move to a system that suits the nation with more teams in suitable time zones. Of course it wont suit NZ, apparently, as the quality per team in Aus would go down further. Let you philanthropic Kiwis find others for your Super comp. Sooner or later, I suspect, you're going to have to make a real decision, not a simple decision that effects everyone EXCEPT NZ.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^ Steve Tew & NZR are not your enemy. He & they know that if the game dies in Australia it hurts the game globally which is bad for NZ rugby. Just as they know that SA fucking off to Europe, while not bad for global rugby, could very well be bad for NZ rugby if alternate revenue streams haven't been found prior to that occurring.

It's worth remembering that NZR's preferred outcom going into the Dublin meeting was a 3 x 6 comp. Obviously ARU's offer to cull a team if SARU did likewise forced a rethink. Happy to be corrected but I don't recall Tew or anyone else from NZR saying Australia should only have four teams (although there was plenty of media opinion to that effect) prior to Dublin.

Ultimately it's up to RA to do whatever they fell is in the best interests of Australian rugby. Neither SANZAAR nor NZR nor anyone else, World Rugby possibly excepted under truly extraordinary circumstances, can make them do otherwise.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Further to the above, I could understand the antipathy towards Tew & NZR if they'd somehow prevented ARU from culling a team, thereby driving them into insolvency. But they didn't. ARU volunteered to cull a team & NZR clearly had a fall-back plan for that eventuality - who knows, maybe that was one of the scenarios contained in the November 2016 strategic review that SANZAAR discussed in Dublin - which ARU and/ or SARU could've vetoed. But they didn't, SARU, having already agreed in principle to culling one team very quickly offered up two. I fail to see how any of this makes Tew or NZR the bad guys.

Without belabouring the point, ARU (& SARU) put a gun to their own heads & pulled the trigger of their own volition.

 

[Dan54]

I like you can't for the life of me understand why the likes of Dru etc etc think NZRU forced ARU to cut a team, anyone who actually watched what happened would understand that Aus had to cut one or go broke, and as WOB pointed out Tew and crew have got every reason for Aus rugby to stay strong. I know the easy thing to do is blame the problems of Aus rugby on NZR, or the alternative is say, but we have all these other sports so it's harder for us. The unfortunate problem seems to be the ARU for whatever reason never really cashed in on their WC wins to keep pushing the game, and hence now seems to always struggle to pay the bills. I also think it not just the ARU who are the problem , but it also seems to come right down through a quite large percentage of the grassroots rugby people, where the negativity that is hurting what I think is the greatest sport around!

 

[Sully]

Anyone can see that any money saved by cutting the force had quickly been spent. In fact, I'd go as far as to say we are actually in a worse position now than before and grassroots got zip, zero, nada.