Where to for Super Rugby?

[kiap]

I would note, however, that he laid the foundations for the predicament in which we currently find ourselves. (The top down policy of development - which is akin to the discredited trickle down economics)

True enough, and I don't want to be seeing him involved again either. The game needed to see the back of ol' JON.

Yet his comment about 2009 was worth mentioning. Yes, rugby's stock has deteriorated since. Had that decision been taken last decade instead of next, it would've been made from a stronger position. Change still needs to happen.

The Saffers can be kept as an option via a champs league, etc., if the Kiwis need that, but the old supe is on its last legs.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

TBF, neither does isolating a few paragraphs and blinkering out most of the rest.

Only around 20% was on club rugby, a fair chunk more was aimed at the top end of the game including soup. It's not necessary to like O'Neill (and I don't) to know that he's right.

"We need to create a new competition, not just tweak the old one," he says. "Something exciting and innovative."​

​

… <snip> … billionaire mining magnate Andrew Twiggy Forrest … <snip> … is now planning a breakaway competition to rival Super Rugby. It could bring together teams from Australia, Fiji, Hong Kong and Singapore.​

​

"The leadership of rugby Australia should engage directly with Twiggy Forrest," says O'Neill. "Two sub-optimal competitions … is not what rugby needs right now."​

​

… <snip> … O'Neill says Australia should walk away from Super Ruby, or remodel it so it only includes teams from a favourable time zone for Australian TV audiences. Which means kicking out South Africa.​

​

Sources close to Rugby Australia suggest that wouldn't be sustainable financially, because South Africa provides most of the broadcast revenue in the existing deal.​

​

O'Neill disagrees. "It's entirely viable," he says. "We went within a smidgen of doing it in 2009 … but New Zealand blinked."​

​

The revamped competition he is proposing should also have a free-to-air presence. And if New Zealand don't agree to sever ties with South Africa, then Australia should go it alone, he says. "The reality, is to compete with the AFL, NRL and A-League, we need prime-time content."​

​

"And if New Zealand say we are not interested, then Twiggy becomes imperative".​

Thing is, it's moving towards a stage where many decisions will be out of RA's hands. They're not far off being farrrrrked.

Well JON looking like a hero stating the bleedingly obvious but one wonders if he would be saying the same if he was head of Rugby Australia as some how while what he says is obviously in the best interests of Australian rugby, I am not sure if that aligns with the greater self interests of Rugby Australia!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Well JON looking like a hero stating the bleedingly obvious but one wonders if he would be saying the same if he was head of Rugby Australia as some how while what he says is obviously in the best interests of Australian rugby, I am not sure if that aligns with the greater self interests of Rugby Australia!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So nz blinked in 2009 and led us down this path - so does RA cane toad to nz demands or grow some balls to do what is best for oz rugby interests or do we have to rely on an unsupported (by RA) twiggy ball...

 

[half]

JON in his wisdom said the Wallabies failures are hurting Australian rugby in his Fairfax article. Many others nay most others agree. My guess there is a general consensus agreement with his statement. Castle is also on record highlighting the need for Wallaby success.

Rating for the second test match in capital cities and fox were 501K down from 634K for the first test.

Many reasons are being put forward however the key to me is player quality and squad depth. NZ seems to have better players and more of them.

Super Rugby has never been a vehicle for growing the player base.

The Nobody Really Cares Competition equally has or is not set up to grow and develop juniors, it has become a selection vehicle to trial for higher honours be they Super Rugby or National Team.

I don’t think anyone would argue that a broader base of players and more quality players would not be beneficial to the Wallabies.

Herein lies the dilemma, and we are sorta at an impasse a quandary or predicament of our own making. By having a competition of two then three then four then five and back to four hidden away on subscription TV we don’t have either the reach or visibility to grow the player base especially with quality players.

This is further complicated by other codes increasing both their presence and team numbers.

JON in his article indicated the current model for Super Rugby is wrong and that we should go with NZ. Alas JON said, NZ are reluctant to leave the dollars attached to the SA rating.

My contention is to ever be competitive with NZ, we need more teams with more players and more exposure. This involves risk and capital something rugby is not good at, never has been, and certainty does not have the capital for.

The status-que for want of a better name, want the protection of the existing revenue provided by SA & European ratings. Yet they also see the need for an improved Wallaby team as essential.

I say hhhmmmm maybe to strong a word say. I think you can’t have both, Super Rugby will not grow either the player base or junior quality and the Wallabies cannot improve without more players which means more teams and a new competition Tis a Catch 22 me thinks.

 

[dru]

JON in his article indicated the current model for Super Rugby is wrong and that we should go with NZ. Alas JON said, NZ are reluctant to leave the dollars attached to the SA rating.

My contention is to ever be competitive with NZ, we need more teams with more players and more exposure. This involves risk and capital something rugby is not good at, never has been, and certainty does not have the capital for.

While I agree with the general thrust I have a problem. You boot out South Africa, increase the number of Aus teams - and end up with an even more lop-sided Trans Tasman "super" competition which will continue to harm pro rugby in Australia. NZ need to be prepared to see a levelling of the field through making permissible a spreading of the talent. As this is not something they will do, as an option it is a dead end.

Far from kicking out South Africa, Australia should pull out and go domestic. Open perhaps to other Pacific nations (who will be working through similar issues) but the thrust must be the re-emergence of a rugby competition that is much more competitive in the professional sporting environment of Australia. We have a very small slice of it, but the Australian sporting pie is much larger than SA and NZ.

If we want a "Super Comp" then look to a "Champion's style league over much shorter duration at the season end - and Australia could cope being cut back to (say) two teams on the basis of rep teams pulled out of the general competition.

NZ will emphatically say no to this. Fine, let them run their trans Atlantic comp. Things will change in time as people get more realistic with the practicalities.

Staying in Super Rugby as it stands makes no sense to me at all. RA really need to be cap in hand with the Twig.

 

[RugbyReg]

JON in his wisdom said the Wallabies failures are hurting Australian rugby in his Fairfax article. Many others nay most others agree. My guess there is a general consensus agreement with his statement. Castle is also on record highlighting the need for Wallaby success.

Rating for the second test match in capital cities and fox were 501K down from 634K for the first test.

Many reasons are being put forward however the key to me is player quality and squad depth. NZ seems to have better players and more of them.

Super Rugby has never been a vehicle for growing the player base.

The Nobody Really Cares Competition equally has or is not set up to grow and develop juniors, it has become a selection vehicle to trial for higher honours be they Super Rugby or National Team.

I don’t think anyone would argue that a broader base of players and more quality players would not be beneficial to the Wallabies.

Herein lies the dilemma, and we are sorta at an impasse a quandary or predicament of our own making. By having a competition of two then three then four then five and back to four hidden away on subscription TV we don’t have either the reach or visibility to grow the player base especially with quality players.

This is further complicated by other codes increasing both their presence and team numbers.

JON in his article indicated the current model for Super Rugby is wrong and that we should go with NZ. Alas JON said, NZ are reluctant to leave the dollars attached to the SA rating.

My contention is to ever be competitive with NZ, we need more teams with more players and more exposure. This involves risk and capital something rugby is not good at, never has been, and certainty does not have the capital for.

The status-que for want of a better name, want the protection of the existing revenue provided by SA & European ratings. Yet they also see the need for an improved Wallaby team as essential.

I say hhhmmmm maybe to strong a word say. I think you can’t have both, Super Rugby will not grow either the player base or junior quality and the Wallabies cannot improve without more players which means more teams and a new competition Tis a Catch 22 me thinks.

I'm coming around to Ben Darwin's theory. I think we need to cut one more team. Three teams max. If we want Wallaby success, we are more likely to get it with less teams than spreading talent too thin. Makes RA more financially sound too.

 

[Bandar]

I'm coming around to Ben Darwin's theory. I think we need to cut one more team. Three teams max. If we want Wallaby success, we are more likely to get it with less teams than spreading talent too thin. Makes RA more financially sound too.

And extremely limited opportunities for professional players - the NRL would love it, more Angus Crightons for them

 

[wamberal]

I'm coming around to Ben Darwin's theory. I think we need to cut one more team. Three teams max. If we want Wallaby success, we are more likely to get it with less teams than spreading talent too thin. Makes RA more financially sound too.

Maybe. Although I would like to see a lot more active cooperation between the first and second tiers. We need to get a whole lot smarter in the way we optimise our relatively thin player resources.

 

[dru]

I'm coming around to Ben Darwin's theory. I think we need to cut one more team. Three teams max. If we want Wallaby success, we are more likely to get it with less teams than spreading talent too thin. Makes RA more financially sound too.

It's not an illogical position if you are chasing higher quality from the Aus teams in the Super comp. Ramifications are potentially:

Fewer games.
Fewer games in prime time broadcast slots in Aus.
Fewer opportunities for young talent.
Fewer broadcast $potential due to smaller content.
No indication of any positive improvement in connection with the grass roots.
After the loss of WA we lose yet another grass roots state in totem.
Greater push to for talent to leave.

 

[eastman]

Trans- tasman competition- with reduced restrictions on players' nationalities. It doesn't matter that for the first 5 years the majority of players will come from New Zealand- a better product and greater likelihood of success for Australian franchises will build support

 

[eastman]

Terrible sentence structures and grammar - I know^

 

[RugbyReg]

It's not an illogical position if you are chasing higher quality from the Aus teams in the Super comp. Ramifications are potentially:

Fewer games. - Perhaps Super 12 gave each team 12 games. 6 home games. I think supporters would like to see 6 competitive games than 8 lopsided ones
Fewer games in prime time broadcast slots in Aus. - only by a couple
Fewer opportunities for young talent. - I think for the Wallabies we are trying to get the best talent coming through the system. If someone isn't good enough, or doesn't have the drive to become good enough, then go and enjoy weekends in Penrith and Newcastle. At the moment our teams are full of the likes of Pacific ex-pats (Isi, Marika, Filipo) who would be the ones to miss out really. Then there's guys who really aren't cut for the top level (English, Muirhead, Korzyck). Talented sure, but really getting a chance because we need to fill spots. And then we are still bringing in overseas talent such as Parling, the Smiths (eligibility dependant), Hawera. we seem to be plugging gaps with people for the sake of it.
Fewer broadcast $potential due to smaller content - quality over quantity? Like back when it all started?
No indication of any positive improvement in connection with the grass roots. - I reckon if you had Wallabies back winning cups and trophies the interest from kids would be huge. RA would have to continue to work with clubs and states on opportunities at other levels.
After the loss of WA we lose yet another grass roots state in totem - yep, would be some flack. Probably quickly forgetten when the Wobbs win the Bledisloe.
Greater push to for talent to leave - we're losing talent already.

 

[dru]

Well done Reg. Clearly I don't agree but I really like you voicing your thoughts. (You're still one of the better rugby commentators around!)

Personally I agree with this: Probably quickly forgotten when the Wobbs win the Bledisloe.

At least I agree with the sentiment. I don't however think further shrinkage (which admittedly is perfectly consistent with the Clyne spreadsheet) is going to do anything whatsoever to achieve it.

For me there is a gap between school and pro. Our problems are about the system - in this instance both quality and quantity.

I can live without NZ. I wont continue supporting Super if there is another shrink.

 

[RugbyReg]

Well done Reg. Clearly I don't agree but I really like you voicing your thoughts. (You're still one of the better rugby commentators around!)

Personally I agree with this: Probably quickly forgotten when the Wobbs win the Bledisloe.

At least I agree with the sentiment. I don't however think further shrinkage (which admittedly is perfectly consistent with the Clyne spreadsheet) is going to do anything whatsoever to achieve it.

For me there is a gap between school and pro. Our problems are about the system - in this instance both quality and quantity.

I can live without NZ. I wont continue supporting Super if there is another shrink.

thanks mate. Appreciate it and completely acknowledge it's not a popular perspective. I don't see it as shrinking to greatness so much as righting the ship. I think we expanded to failure.

Lots more levels to it than just cutting a team. As you suggest a strong academy program would be key as well. Lots more and it needs a holistic perspective, with considerations of implications further afield.

 

[dru]

thanks mate. Appreciate it and completely acknowledge it's not a popular perspective. I don't see it as shrinking to greatness so much as righting the ship. I think we expanded to failure.

Lots more levels to it than just cutting a team. As you suggest a strong academy program would be key as well. Lots more and it needs a holistic perspective, with considerations of implications further afield.

Agreed.

Isnt a strong academy position improved by MORE academies? I dont see here why quality is improved with fewer franchises able to maintain academies. Give them somewhere to go. Not overseas.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Fewer games. - Perhaps Super 12 gave each team 12 games. 6 home games. I think supporters would like to see 6 competitive games than 8 lopsided ones
Fewer games in prime time broadcast slots in Aus. - only by a couple
Fewer opportunities for young talent. - I think for the Wallabies we are trying to get the best talent coming through the system. If someone isn't good enough, or doesn't have the drive to become good enough, then go and enjoy weekends in Penrith and Newcastle. At the moment our teams are full of the likes of Pacific ex-pats (Isi, Marika, Filipo) who would be the ones to miss out really. Then there's guys who really aren't cut for the top level (English, Muirhead, Korzyck). Talented sure, but really getting a chance because we need to fill spots. And then we are still bringing in overseas talent such as Parling, the Smiths (eligibility dependant), Hawera. we seem to be plugging gaps with people for the sake of it.
Fewer broadcast $potential due to smaller content - quality over quantity? Like back when it all started?
No indication of any positive improvement in connection with the grass roots. - I reckon if you had Wallabies back winning cups and trophies the interest from kids would be huge. RA would have to continue to work with clubs and states on opportunities at other levels.
After the loss of WA we lose yet another grass roots state in totem - yep, would be some flack. Probably quickly forgetten when the Wobbs win the Bledisloe.
Greater push to for talent to leave - we're losing talent already.

We could look to cut the Rebels adrift and let them look toward WSR as their new destination. Stipulate that they can source talent from overseas based Australian players and local ranks. Bring players back as was one of the stated intents of the WSR to start. From there we can focus on concentrating the talent as above.

We could play each respective competition and then have a short form domestic cup comp as a pseudo trial or a Super/WSR game.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

And extremely limited opportunities for professional players - the NRL would love it, more Angus Crightons for them

You could argue that it would free up more resources to actively compete for the top line talent coming through the ranks.

 

[kiap]

lose yet another grass roots state in totem - yep, would be some flack. Probably quickly forgetten when the Wobbs win the Bledisloe.

The best odds would be RA investing in a time machine, then dialing it back to 1992 where a decade of wins await.

 

[diomac]

Cutting 5 to 4 and than to 3 is a bad idea and just sends the signal that there is no future for players in Union so they should play League. That would be a path to total irrelevance and I fail to see how it can possibly lead to better outcomes for the Wallabies as it would just drive more talent overseas or to league.

We fix this by getting Union played in the public school system and rebirthing how we approach and support grass roots. We can only win this my attracting the imagination of under 8's who then put pressure on their parents.

We need kids to want the Wallabies jersey and to play the game. Scrap the 60 cap rule, select the best players regardless of the comp they are in.

 

[RugbyReg]

Cutting 5 to 4 and than to 3 is a bad idea and just sends the signal that there is no future for players in Union so they should play League. That would be a path to total irrelevance and I fail to see how it can possibly lead to better outcomes for the Wallabies as it would just drive more talent overseas or to league.

We fix this by getting Union played in the public school system and rebirthing how we approach and support grass roots. We can only win this my attracting the imagination of under 8's who then put pressure on their parents.

We need kids to want the Wallabies jersey and to play the game. Scrap the 60 cap rule, select the best players regardless of the comp they are in.

How do it attract the imagination of 8 year olds in your plan?