Where to for Super Rugby?

[oztimmay]

So I made a mention of this on the match thread, but the new Rebels strip looks suspiciously like a hybrid Force strip - what are the chances that Twiggy gobbles up the Rebels to bring us back to 4 teams?

None. If anything, it will be a re-location to Melbourne. Much like a Rebels/Brumbies "merger".

 

[kiap]

Super Rugby helped us win the first professional world cup, and gave us our most successful province.

I liken Australia's Super Rugby experience to the British Antarctic Expedition.

A wonderful heroic achievement. Reaching the pole second. Taking a second cup.

A tragic final journey, culling pack animals and team members along the way -- bust through or bust -- before ending in oblivion.

 

[Dan54]

Yes, because 20 years of super rugby really improved Aussie rugby

Well I certainly don't think it has hurt it, you telling me that Aus rugby would be stronger by just playing each other. Not sure of your age, but I old enough to remember how poor the Wallabies were in 60s & 70s etc, before Qld and NSW started to play NZ teams regularly!

 

[kiap]

Qld and NSW started to play NZ teams regularly

Yeah, it was 1 away, 2 home or vice versa …

 

[kiap]

Don't get me wrong, I want to see oz v nz franchises averaging more than 3 TT games each per year.

Unlike old dan tucker, am not looking to a cut in revenue by reducing to 1 annual Trans-Tasman test.

The thing is, playing oz-nz games and having an Australian controlled comp is not mutually exclusive.

The crucial factor is control. Not universal control, which is impossible, but deciding control over a base level of that tier. From there, extra content is added on top.

 

[hoggy]

Well I certainly don't think it has hurt it, you telling me that Aus rugby would be stronger by just playing each other. Not sure of your age, but I old enough to remember how poor the Wallabies were in 70s etc, before Qld and NSW started to play NZ teams regularly!

Inadvertently yes, the drawbacks of Super rugby have prevented the game from taking a greater hold domestically in Australia.

The game expends all its energies trying to conquer the world, yet ignores the kids in the next suburb.

When the game went professional, its biggest challenge here was to grow its footprint outside its traditional areas. Yet it chose a top down success model that removed itself from ever being able to foster that change.

Incompetence & self interest from those running the code hasn't helped, "Rome was burning but the feasts didn't stop"

Playing each other isn't some step back in time, Champions league/Wallabies Test matches means heading into the future we'll be playing pretty much similar amount of games against overseas components.

But for the game to grow in Australia it has to step out of the shadows, it has to walk on its own two feet, it can't forever be constantly bench-marking itself against NZ. It has to be comfortable in its own clothes.

Unfortunately, we should have done this years ago when finances were more favorable to say the least, but imo until the game here is underpinned by greater genuine domestic content then it just consigns itself to continuing niche status, which in-turn just ensures it can never really take advantage of its international appeal.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Inadvertently yes, the drawbacks of Super rugby have prevented the game from taking a greater hold domestically in Australia.

The game expends all its energies trying to conquer the world, yet ignores the kids in the next suburb.

When the game went professional, its biggest challenge here was to grow its footprint outside its traditional areas. Yet it chose a top down success model that removed itself from ever being able to foster that change.

Incompetence & self interest from those running the code hasn't helped, "Rome was burning but the feasts didn't stop"

Playing each other isn't some step back in time, Champions league/Wallabies Test matches means heading into the future we'll be playing pretty much similar amount of games against overseas components.

But for the game to grow in Australia it has to step out of the shadows it has to walk on its own two feet, it can't forever be constantly bench-marking itself against NZ. It has to be comfortable in its own clothes.

Unfortunately, we should have done this years ago when finances were more favorable to say the least, but imo until the game here is underpinned by greater genuine domestic content then it just consigns itself to continuing niche status, which in-turn just ensures it can never really take advantage of its international appeal.

We compare ourselves to nz super rugby teams which have a closed borders selection policy. I think this is a flawed approach given the playing field is not level and having less oz based teams (and local content) in our only pro competition is not the answer which has given a leg up for nrl and afl with their expansion over the last decade and provision of more local content fans are hungry for.

So we either have a trans tasman competition with open borders policy or we have our own domestic competition. In my opinion this is not negotiable for the long term viability of rugby in this country and indeed the region, with a view we may have to go 2 steps back to long term go 3 steps forward. I don’t care if nz super rugby teams playing amongst themselves have a higher standard as like most people I am more interested in watching Australian based teams and if means have less such content to watch in a closed borders trans Tasman competition with nz I am not interested.

I am not alone and reflect the same position of most of the fans that have deserted super rugby over the last 5 years Where it will only be the remaining small band of rusted on rugby and expat nz supporters constantly banging on about nz super rugby teams on here who will support or care. Whilst the rest of the majority of sports fans will continue to flock to afl and Nrl who have leveraged super rugby’s flawed lack of local content focus to provide ‘increasing’ local content through expansion.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

I liken Australia's Super Rugby experience to the British Antarctic Expedition.

A wonderful heroic achievement. Reaching the pole second. Taking a second cup.

A tragic final journey, culling pack animals and team members along the way -- bust through or bust -- before ending in oblivion.

So you're saying that the 1991 and 1999 test teams were also-rans?

Would be nice if a few people currently acting to further entrench the old boys' mentaility decided to emulate Captain Oates.

 

[wamberal]

Inadvertently yes, the drawbacks of Super rugby have prevented the game from taking a greater hold domestically in Australia.

The game expends all its energies trying to conquer the world, yet ignores the kids in the next suburb.

The kids in the next suburb have always been the responsibility of the district clubs. Once upon a time, when all schools had sporting programmes, sometimes one of the sports offered was ours. That depended on whether or not one or more of the teaching staff was a rugby person.

When the game went professional, its biggest challenge here was to grow its footprint outside its traditional areas. Yet it chose a top down success model that removed itself from ever being able to foster that change.

By definition, when the game went professional, it had to change fast. It might be worth remembering that rugby league in Australia was voracious and profligate in throwing money around because of the Super League wars. We had a choice, go professional (which was, by implication, a top down enterprise) or stay amateur. What would you have done?

Incompetence & self interest from those running the code hasn't helped

I get sick and tired of this sort of rubbish. Those running the code were the best we could get, many of them were former players, some were just club level, some were distinguished Wallabies. It is easy to snipe at them, with the benefit of hindsight. You are an expert at that.

Unfortunately, we should have done this years ago when finances were more favorable to say the least, but imo until the game here is underpinned by greater genuine domestic content then it just consigns itself to continuing niche status, which in-turn just ensures it can never really take advantage of its international appeal.

Round and round you go with this mantra which makes no logical sense. Finances were more favourable in the past because the top of the game was popular and profitable. The Waratahs used to have big attendances. Funnily enough, so did the Shute Shield Final, which was, and still is, a grass roots competition. I went to Grand Finals at the SFS when the crowd was 30,000 or so, during the nineties (when the grass roots were being ignored by the fat cats at the top!)

It is the game of rugby that is less popular in Australia. Top down, or bottom up, it is the game that is less appealing.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Inadvertently yes, the drawbacks of Super rugby have prevented the game from taking a greater hold domestically in Australia.

The game expends all its energies trying to conquer the world, yet ignores the kids in the next suburb.

When the game went professional, its biggest challenge here was to grow its footprint outside its traditional areas. Yet it chose a top down success model that removed itself from ever being able to foster that change.

Incompetence & self interest from those running the code hasn't helped, "Rome was burning but the feasts didn't stop"

Playing each other isn't some step back in time, Champions league/Wallabies Test matches means heading into the future we'll be playing pretty much similar amount of games against overseas components.

But for the game to grow in Australia it has to step out of the shadows, it has to walk on its own two feet, it can't forever be constantly bench-marking itself against NZ. It has to be comfortable in its own clothes.

Unfortunately, we should have done this years ago when finances were more favorable to say the least, but imo until the game here is underpinned by greater genuine domestic content then it just consigns itself to continuing niche status, which in-turn just ensures it can never really take advantage of its international appeal.

What amazes me is sports broadcasters and marketers like Foxtel should understand this and why they have not used their powers in broadcast deals to agitate for this sort of change or is it because super rugby’s stupidly suits them because it helps better returns on their investment in afl and nrl content. Assume more the latter which is why partnership with foxtel flawed as opposed to an Optus sports or amazon who if interested would be more interested in competing for sports fans for rugby content against afl and nrl. Reiterates that long term goal is would be better to have broadcast partner that is not in bed with and more invested in nrl and afl. Another commercial flaw of super rugby in this country and hence could see why castle went to the open market to try and no doubt move away from Foxtel. Foxtel could continue to our Achilles heal imo for that reason as our key broadcast partner.

 

[kiap]

So you're saying that the 1991 and 1999 test teams were also-rans?

Would be nice if a few people currently acting to further entrench the old boys' mentaility decided to emulate Captain Oates.

Yep. I may be some time …

The Wallabies of 91/99 weren't also-rans, but got to "Bill" on the outbound journey, before having to pay the "bill" by continuing that journey.

(Really, 91 wasn't fuelled by soup and 99 was only partly so).

But the Wobs are certainly also-rans now, and Super Rugby was a contributing factor to the oz rugby trainwreck.

 

[Ignoto]

All I can say is, wherever Super Rugby is heading, Phil Kearns cannot be part of it. Fox can try and low ball the organisation for the 'poor quality' of teams we have, but they've got a duty to provide us the watchers with something entertaining.

Hearing Phil Kearns moan about his future son-in-law getting toweled up by Tupou and how Berry shouldn't penalise Bell was the absolute icing on the cake that is his shit career as a commentator.

 

[Dan54]

Bollocks you reckon Wallabies would of won either the 91 WC by having 2 states Qld and NSW play each other, or 99 WC by not being in Super rugby, so once again the players had just played each other, I calling Bull**** , the main reason rugby improved from the 80s on in Aus was that Canterbury, Auckland etc came over and gave the players below test level some international competition, not just continual Qld/NSW matches. And I not saying that just from my opinion, but from speaking to people who were running the game back in the 70s when it was really struggling to survive! I saw teams like the Woeful Wallabies playing in NZ when the idea began to form that Aus needed help to survive and improve, and of course in long run NZ got benefit out of it with a next door neighbour who was very competitive and still is. For those that suggest Aus should just have a semipro NRC type comp, I am sure NRL thanks you for your assistance, because take my word for it , it will save them money too as they will get top rugby players for a lot cheaoer!! Wake up fellas, I not suggesting super rugby isn't going to change and mightily, but to suggest Aus should shrink to just playing only itself is to live in a world without reality, same as suggesting that a TT with Aus saying to NZ you have to let ABs play in our teams, won't happen boys, don't weaken other teams or start a wage war between NZ and Aus teams for players, if Aus needs more to be competitive follow France ann Japan's model and shop around world! I still thin we better off with 4 or maybe 3 Aus team , but 4 with a few from wherever you can buy players from would be best!

 

[kiap]

Bollocks you reckon Wallabies would of won either the 91 WC by having 2 states Qld and NSW play each other, or 99 WC by not being in Super rugby, so once again the players had just played each other, I calling Bull****

Lol. 2 states playing. Who's even saying that?

Nice long rant tho. It's like a bird's nest soup.

Full of twigs and shit.

 

[hoggy]

I think the NRL give there blessings everyday for Super Rugby

 

[Dan54]

Lol. 2 states playing. Who's even saying that?

Nice long rant tho. It's like a bird's nest soup.

Full of twigs and shit.

Well tell me who was playing pre NZ teams coming to play? I wasn't suggesting that was answer, I saying that what was happening before Aus rugby teams playing NZ teams and when the question what has Super rugby done for Aus rugby? Tell me all about the Brumbies etc pre super days!

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Bollocks you reckon Wallabies would of won either the 91 WC by having 2 states Qld and NSW play each other, or 99 WC by not being in Super rugby, so once again the players had just played each other, I calling Bull**** , the main reason rugby improved from the 80s on in Aus was that Canterbury, Auckland etc came over and gave the players below test level some international competition, not just continual Qld/NSW matches. And I not saying that just from my opinion, but from speaking to people who were running the game back in the 70s when it was really struggling to survive! I saw teams like the Woeful Wallabies playing in NZ when the idea began to form that Aus needed help to survive and improve, and of course in long run NZ got benefit out of it with a next door neighbour who was very competitive and still is. For those that suggest Aus should just have a semipro NRC type comp, I am sure NRL thanks you for your assistance, because take my word for it , it will save them money too as they will get top rugby players for a lot cheaoer!! Wake up fellas, I not suggesting super rugby isn't going to change and mightily, but to suggest Aus should shrink to just playing only itself is to live in a world without reality, same as suggesting that a TT with Aus saying to NZ you have to let ABs play in our teams, won't happen boys, don't weaken other teams or start a wage war between NZ and Aus teams for players, if Aus needs more to be competitive follow France ann Japan's model and shop around world! I still thin we better off with 4 or maybe 3 Aus team , but 4 with a few from wherever you can buy players from would be best!

Which is why Dan54 we should not have a trans tasman competition with nz if nz don’t want to play ball - champions league style follow on competition would be better. As dan54 super rugby model of early days had its place but world moved on and afl and nrl have filled the gap left by lack of local content focus of super rugby expansion failed model.

Your view is biased by being an expat nz and hard core rugby man who thinks competing in a trans tasman competition with nz with only 4 local based oz team involved will create a viable future pro rugby for oz. stats and history tells you it won’t and this may benefit nz and protecting their all blacks brand but will do nothing to move rugby forward in Australia. We need a better solution then only ever having 4 oz local teams to follow in a crowded oz sports market where nrl and afl offer way more regular and easily accessible local content.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

To go off on a tangent to what Wamberal was saying, Super Rugby was so good at filling the SFS, Ballymore, and Bruce Stadium. Eight or nine years ago I could only get tickets up in the gods to watch the Reds at Lang Park when I was visiting Brisbane. The advantage union had over loig and aerial ping pong was that it was an international game (and soccer was a basket case for a long time. Still kind of is.). The Wallabies were a team that Australia got behind, and it was us against the world.

I 100% agree that Super Rugby had major structural issues. But I don't think 'lack of local content' was the overwhelming one. When crowds and TV viewership really started to tank was in the last 7-8 seasons, not long after the conference system was introduced and local derbies were doubled.

The biggest structural problems were that the conferences were hard to follow, rewarded the least mediocre teams in mediocre pools, and gave us too many meaningless games. Add that to sustained mediocre performances from our teams which further ingrained the inclination of the punters to no longer give a fuck.

Streamlining the structure of Super Rugby (round robin, trans-tasman, fewer games with higher stakes?) would be great, but with everything else going on, including COVID, competition from other codes, people having less leisure time and chosing it to not watch sport, and changing demographics, it feels like the horse has well and truly bolted.

And back to the top paragraph, I think going to a domestic only comp full time solves a lesser problem and removes a major advantage.

 

[Dan54]

I think the NRL give there blessings everyday for Super Rugby

Maybe, but by geez they will thank them even more if Aus had a so called semi pro comp and the likes of all the young fellas playing in the Reds suddenly get told well you can get paid part time playing rugby, or maybe you can play fulltime in league! All I suggesting is that Aus rugby to turn back in on itself is a big mistake, we need international competition to survive reasonably, and all thsoe who say you grassroots struggle because of top level, as Wamberal has pointed out, when was grassroots rugby thriving with kids wanting to play eyc, when the wallabies won World Cups etc! I hear it from people in NZ too, oh hell there needs to be more money for club rugby, ABs get too much spent, but they are what pay for all the levels below , and same here we need TV money to have a game.

 

[hoggy]

To go off on a tangent to what Wamberal was saying, Super Rugby was so good at filling the SFS, Ballymore, and Bruce Stadium. Eight or nine years ago I could only get tickets up in the gods to watch the Reds at Lang Park when I was visiting Brisbane. The advantage union had over loig and aerial ping pong was that it was an international game (and soccer was a basket case for a long time. Still kind of is.). The Wallabies were a team that Australia got behind, and it was us against the world.

I 100% agree that Super Rugby had major structural issues. But I don't think 'lack of local content' was the overwhelming one. When crowds and TV viewership really started to tank was in the last 7-8 seasons, not long after the conference system was introduced and local derbies were doubled.

The biggest structural problems were that the conferences were hard to follow, rewarded the least mediocre teams in mediocre pools, and gave us too many meaningless games. Add that to sustained mediocre performances from our teams which further ingrained the inclination of the punters to no longer give a fuck.

Streamlining the structure of Super Rugby (round robin, trans-tasman, fewer games with higher stakes?) would be great, but with everything else going on, including COVID, competition from other codes, people having less leisure time and chosing it to not watch sport, and changing demographics, it feels like the horse has well and truly bolted.

And back to the top paragraph, I think going to a domestic only comp full time solves a lesser problem and removes a major advantage.

Then what do you think the answer is then if Domestic does not solve the issue's and Super rugby is Structurally too flawed to fix.