Where to for Super Rugby?

[sendit]

But it just doesn't make sense to abandon it just because you have some doubts about the length of time that data is gathered.

What assurance do you have that a TT will do any better, what data are you basing that on.

Okay lets accept that the AU had a noneymoon period, But at least there was a small fire of enthusiasm and growth, why would you reject that and not at least give it 3/4 years to show some genuine results.

When at least taking into account this is by far the overwhelmingly prefered option of Australian sporting public. You reject that to sign upto a competition that has equally if not more queston marks hanging over it.

its not just the length of time.......

I don't have any assurances, but if we gave Super AU a crack in its fullest why not give TT in its fullest a try? Your wanting to hit & stick to a product with mild success at the expense of a competition that no one ever gave a proper chance to reach its potential.

You can't claim its the overwhelming preferred option by the Australian public, again there's been way to many outside factors at play for you to make that call.

Call me selfish but i just can't do another 3-4 years of Super AU, it'll bore me to tears.

 

[Dan54]

I'm not sure but I think it may be because the All Black brand is built globally on basically being perhaps the most dominant sports team in all team sports. If they assist Australia in being more competitive on the field, are they putting the cash cow at risk?

I don't know if that's it but I'm not sure that private ownership of our team - which they are looking at right now - is good for us either.

Where did you get told they was going to be private ownership of the team?? Really love to know that. They are not looking at selling the ABs team . They have a marketing dept that get's money from selling all things like Advertising, jerseys etc etc, that is what they are trying to buy 12% of. It is not even part of NZR they buying!

 

[Tomikin]

Like I said in one of my previous posts, those ratings are useless, there’s too many outside factors. I’m surprised so many people are rushing to use that them as an example, I get it’s all we have to use atm but surely you recognise the flaw in using them in a argument?

Nah I care if the Brumbies are playing the Highlanders. What I don’t care about is the Brumbies playing the reds for the 3rd time in 9 rounds. I don’t get this sense of nationalism to the point where you can’t enjoy a game of rugby because one of the teams happens to come from one country over.

Your an.outlier.. I watch all games of the Brumbies.. But TT was fucked.. getting arsed each week sucked.

And the 3 Reds games where the best of the season.

I don't think your right with your assumptions Australian love a winner... Even if it's just our comp... You can see that when the Reds got thumped first round of TT and what should have been the biggest game of the season wasn't.

I know it get boring with 5 / 6 teams over time but ATM I think getting our arses handed to us week in week out will be worse..

 

[Tomikin]

its not just the length of time...

I don't have any assurances, but if we gave Super AU a crack in its fullest why not give TT in its fullest a try? Your wanting to hit & stick to a product with mild success at the expense of a competition that no one ever gave a proper chance to reach its potential.

You can't claim its the overwhelming preferred option by the Australian public, again there's been way to many outside factors at play for you to make that call.

Call me selfish but i just can't do another 3-4 years of Super AU, it'll bore me to tears.

So you prefer to have a Aussie champ ever 10 years or at least say not in the next 5. Have maybe one semi a year, which we lose.

Unless NZ can help even out the playing field, a full TT will fuck rugby.. Like it was going too in super 18!

 

[Bullrush]

Where did you get told they was going to be private ownership of the team?? Really love to know that. They are not looking at selling the ABs team . They have a marketing dept that get's money from selling all things like Advertising, jerseys etc etc, that is what they are trying to buy 12% of. It is not even part of NZR they buying!

Ummm - so you think selling the advertising, merchandise, name etc of the All Blacks is not selling the All Blacks?

OK

 

[Bullrush]

What's the point in being the 'most dominant team in any sport' if there are only 3-4 other teams?

Fuckn stupid.

Well, to be fair, there have ALWAYS only been a small number of teams.

 

[sendit]

I don't think your right with your assumptions Australian love a winner. Even if it's just our comp. You can see that when the Reds got thumped first round of TT and what should have been the biggest game of the season wasn't.

I didnt make that assumption

Although i think its true, with some obvious outliers. Newcastle Knights are notorious for being shit/having a good supporter base.

 

[sendit]

So you prefer to have a Aussie champ ever 10 years or at least say not in the next 5. Have maybe one semi a year, which we lose.

Unless NZ can help even out the playing field, a full TT will fuck rugby.. Like it was going too in super 18!

I did preface this by saying i believe we should/will have a TT with free player movement

Even if we didn't, yes i would be far more content with that. Although i think you're doing the Reds, and to a lesser degree the Brumbies an injustice by saying they cant win a TT in the next 5 years

 

[hoggy]

I did preface this by saying i believe we should/will have a TT with free player movement

Even if we didn't, yes i would be far more content with that. Although i think you're doing the Reds, and to a lesser degree the Brumbies an injustice by saying they cant win a TT in the next 5 years

So what happens if the Reds or Brumbies can't win a TT in the next 5 years, at the most in Super rugby it was 5/6 years between titles.
And what happens if NZ don't agree to free player movement to protect there All Black brand.

The thing is your still happy to sign up to a TT knowing the probable outcome, which is nothing will change.

What I get frustrated with is we're not advocating going full domestic, we're not advocating hide in the cupboard for the rest of our lives, all we're saying is shouldn't we not base our game around a domestic option first. And then on top of that play whoever NZ\SA Japan.
I just don't get this we must play NZ every fucking weekend or our rugby means nothing, we've had 20 years of Super rugby., and look where we are.

 

[Adam84]

This discussion it's't dissimilar to what Netball went through 5 years ago.

Netball had a 10 team Trans-Tasman tournament between 2008-2016 with 5 teams each from New Zealand and Australia. In 2017 Australia went its own way with a new 8 team tournament, and it has gone from strength to strength since then.

 

[Derpus]

This discussion it's't dissimilar to what Netball went through 5 years ago.

Netball had a 10 team Trans-Tasman tournament between 2008-2016 with 5 teams each from New Zealand and Australia. In 2017 Australia went its own way with a new 8 team tournament, and it has gone from strength to strength since then.

Every single strong sporting competition the world over is domestic.

Hell, even the Champions League is predicated on strong domestic leagues. Look what happened when they tried to create a Footballing version of Super Rugby in Europe. Mass revolt.

 

[sendit]

I just don't get this we must play NZ every fucking weekend or our rugby means nothing, we've had 20 years of Super rugby., and look where we are.

Like ive said i see Super AU as a joke, like why bother it's a fucking laugh. It's a drain of resources

And if it's done like it was this year, all the bloody time and energy goes into making AU happen, marketing etc to the point where TT is the afterthought.

I'd like to ask you a question, do you genuinely believe that TT wouldn't have ballpark the same viewer numbers if it was played first and the same effort of marketing Super AU was made to TT?

We don't need to play NZ every week for it to mean something, but i want variety, i want to see us play the best, i don't want to have to worry about more than one competition

NZ wasn't the problem with Super Rugby, it was SA involvement, you know that as well as i do

 

[Joe King]

If we're going for the best of the worst options, I think I would prefer a 6 team single round Super Rugby AU followed by another Super Rugby TT, than a full-season TT.

A full season TT is not going to suddenly make the Australian teams any more competitive than Super Rugby TT.

I guess the real difference is that Super Rugby TT rips the bandaid off quick while a full season Trans-Tasman would pull it off slower. Either way, it's going to hurt. It’s just a matter of whether you want the pain to be over quick, or to let it linger for a whole season.

At least this would keep the Super Rugby AU structure in place, and there could be a more positive (and relaxed) start to the year, however small.

 

[sendit]

This discussion it's't dissimilar to what Netball went through 5 years ago.

Netball had a 10 team Trans-Tasman tournament between 2008-2016 with 5 teams each from New Zealand and Australia. In 2017 Australia went its own way with a new 8 team tournament, and it has gone from strength to strength since then.

Australia had the talent to fill the teams and were the dominant nation in the partnership with NZ

8 teams is a hell of a lot more than what we have now

Pro Netball has been rapidly rising in popularity regardless of the type of competition, the reason they changed was that they got a better TV deal by going domestic only

 

[Joe King]

Like ive said i see Super AU as a joke, like why bother it's a fucking laugh. It's a drain of resources

And if it's done like it was this year, all the bloody time and energy goes into making AU happen, marketing etc to the point where TT is the afterthought.

I'd like to ask you a question, do you genuinely believe that TT wouldn't have ballpark the same viewer numbers if it was played first and the same effort of marketing Super AU was made to TT?

We don't need to play NZ every week for it to mean something, but i want variety, i want to see us play the best, i don't want to have to worry about more than one competition

NZ wasn't the problem with Super Rugby, it was SA involvement, you know that as well as i do

Every home and away comp plays the same teams twice, and again if they make the semis and final. I don't mind having less teams if the competition is shorter in length, which it was for Super Rugby AU.

I wouldn't want to play Super Rugby AU over three rounds, otherwise I might start to feel like you do. But I enjoyed every game of Super Rugby AU. It was short and sharp and exciting all the way through for me.

I can't speak for everyone, but I can't see my self getting sick of it. It felt like its potential was only just beginning.

 

[sendit]

Look at the end of the day i guess at least some people are enjoying it. Unfortunately it looks like i just wont be one of them

 

[Adam84]

Pro Netball has been rapidly rising in popularity regardless of the type of competition, the reason they changed was that they got a better TV deal by going domestic only

correlation vs causation.. how has pro netball been rising in popularity in Australia if not for the professional competition?

 

[sendit]

correlation vs causation.. how has pro netball been rising in popularity in Australia if not for the professional competition?

Don't start this shit, ANZ Championship was semi-pro it did exceedingly well, the next logical step was a full pro comp

 

[Joe King]

Hang on a sec, does Australia really need NZ at Super Rugby level for the Wallabies to succeed?

Honest question.

We don't need our schools to play NZ’s schools in order for the Australian schoolboys to win.

We don't need to set up a Super Rugby u20s comp in order for the Junior Wallabies to beat the Junior All Blacks.

So why does Australia need to play NZ at Super Rugby level in order to beat them at Test level?

Apart from a few bright spots, haven't the Wallabies historically always faired pretty much the same against the AB’s both pre and post Super Rugby’s induction?

I think most would agree that if Australia had only 3 Super Rugby teams, they would be competitive against NZ’s 5 whether they played against them regularly or not. That's just a reflection of where Australia’s depth and development of players is at.

I mean, why doesn’t Japan see the need to revert to five teams and relentlessly pursue trying to increase depth and development in a competition with NZ?

Sure, it’s vital for RA to introduce new systems and strategies to develop the depth and skills of rugby players in Australia, but is playing Super Rugby against the NZ teams really a necessary ingredient to achieve this?

Honest question.

 

[Derpus]

I think most would agree that if Australia had only 3 Super Rugby teams, they would be competitive against NZ’s 5 whether they played against them regularly or not. That's just a reflection of where Australia’s depth and development of players is at.
.

I do not agree with this.