Where to for Super Rugby?

[kiap]

Tahs came 6th in 1998. Force or Rebels have never beaten that.

I'm sure 6th out of 12 sounds better than 7th out of 14.

If you really want to work those stats hard.

This is probably more relevant:

While I know it won't make a huge difference, I think it will provide the non-affected side (Force or Rebs) with that little bit more depth

The on-field gain will be small and fleeting after the rugby pathway in one of these states (i.e. WA) is thrown under the bus.

 

[Gnostic]

How does this scenario play out where the teams get more depth:



Lets say a team is cut and the 20 or so played who are contracted for 2018 are redistributed, thats around 5 players per team. What happens in 2018 when players who were previously starting decide to head to Europe, likewise in 2019. By 2020, the benefits in depth created by the 5th team are all but dissipated as those who were getting game time elsewhere decided to head to Europe.



We are then back to square one, however this time there are 20% less player contracts on offer offer in Australia.







What is player depth if it isn't the ability to promote a player who is experienced enough and developed enough to compete at the Super Rugby level? By cutting a team we don't solve this issue, the NRC is a small step, but its still not producing the output to that of the ITM or Currie Cup. We shouldn't pretend that cutting a team will automatically mean inexperienced players are suddenly experienced, it doesn't work that way.

Its been happening for a few years already, as players get sick of the politicking and bullshit in Australian Rugby and head OS for the dollars and some fun before they retire. Not just fringe and depth players but starting test players and an incumbent Wallaby Captain in Ben Mowen, then Peter Kimlin, now Will Skelton. Morahan........

 

[Moono75]

FFS I think most of what Barbarian writes and says is absolute shit, but HTF do you get this out of that from what he wrote? The constant victimhood must get wearing.

Walk in our shoes and you will understand (that'll shit some people off). The over riding argument for dropping the Force is a "bunker down" philosophy. We need to retract, conserve, concentrate our resources into a few teams over East, make them strong, re-establish our Super Rugby machismo, make a statement. For what reason is the discussion not turned to the Rebels? Private ownership....might sue us....too expensive.

If that is the basis for making this decision. Why doesn't the ARU offer to save SA the trouble of dropping 2 teams. We can drop the Force, Rebels and Brumbies.....then the Tahs and Reds will be f@arking awesome? Of course no one outside of Qld and NSW will give a shit about rugby anymore but at least they might have a chance of winning?? Isn't there a broader objective at stake?

You know this makes sense. I believe maintaining the 5 teams and growing interest in the game at grassroots, pathways into the State Super Rugby franchises will pay dividends. Make the product shine and the moths will be drawn to the light. If this means an exit from SANZAAR so be it.

 

[brokendown]

moono,you are trying to push shit uphill-either the ARU wants to develop rugby across the nation,or they find that concept far too hard-which i feel is the case

 

[Gnostic]

Walk in our shoes and you will understand (that'll shit some people off). The over riding argument for dropping the Force is a "bunker down" philosophy. We need to retract, conserve, concentrate our resources into a few teams over East, make them strong, re-establish our Super Rugby machismo, make a statement. For what reason is the discussion not turned to the Rebels? Private ownership..might sue us..too expensive.



If that is the basis for making this decision. Why doesn't the ARU offer to save SA the trouble of dropping 2 teams. We can drop the Force, Rebels and Brumbies...then the Tahs and Reds will be f@arking awesome? Of course no one outside of Qld and NSW will give a shit about rugby anymore but at least they might have a chance of winning?? Isn't there a broader objective at stake?



You know this makes sense. I believe maintaining the 5 teams and growing interest in the game at grassroots, pathways into the State Super Rugby franchises will pay dividends. Make the product shine and the moths will be drawn to the light. If this means an exit from SANZAAR so be it.

I actually think the whole concept of Super Rugby is dead in the water in Australia. The quality produced by Australian sides amounts to 30 minutes over a week from all sides. Given the Tahs played about 30 minutes of decent Rugby tonight I wonder if we can reasonably expect any more from any of the Australian sides.

As I've said earlier I am actually coming to the point of thinking it worthwhile to dump the whole concept and start again. If NZ don't want to do something fine, it will just create the imperative that Australian Rugby will have to be responsible for their own survival.

I am on the record, if you had bothered to look, that I do not believe that dropping an Australian side, no matter it is will have any material effect on the playing outcomes of the Australian sides. IMHO the outcomes have very little to do with playing "stocks" and everything to do with a lack of strategic planning regarding playing styles, lack of leadership from national coaching set-ups (including the current one where Chieka espouses an attacking game at the Tahs and the Wallabies one year for Larkham to "coach" mauling and kicking at the Brumbies and Wallabies from 2016. This is not recent but started with Macqueen and then Jones.

So do I think cutting a team will fix the problems, no. Will it make it worse, no. Will there be less players, yes. Will it make Australian Rugby more sustainable financially - I don't think so simply because Super Rugby as it stands has a steeply declining viewership because the quality of the Australian sides is so poor. That is all the sides.

Nothing I have said is "east coast centric". I do not need to walk in your shoes, there is nothing to see.

What do I think will happen? The ARU may well try and cut a side, but I fully expect a major rupture to occur if they try, from RUs and from players who will probably try to band together as a group (except for those special ones on the "inside" granted untouchable status and that will cause more angst again), and from my point of view I hope it causes the whole shitty edifice to collapse so we can truly rebuild and not put a patch on the rotten unsustainable structure.

In any event I expect significant numbers of players will head overseas regardless of the outcome of the meeting this weekend, and the depth issues will be exacerbated in 2018 if 5 teams are retained, and the coaching problems will not have changed, though I expect the names will, at least at the Brumbies which is assured and the Rebels if they survive the cut.

 

[Moono75]

moono,you are trying to push shit uphill-either the ARU wants to develop rugby across the nation,or they find that concept far too hard-which i feel is the case

F@rk....Brokendown, somone else on here who understands! If we can get the East Coasters to understand the concept of GROWING the game (and I dont mean more teams) we might be onto something.

To get your minds around the concept, a quote from JFK.
“We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win".

Don't always choose the weak option. If Australian Rugby is to grow and return to being a power, don't take the easy way out.

 

[Gnostic]

F@rk..Brokendown, somone else on here who understands! If we can get the East Coasters to understand the concept of GROWING the game (and I dont mean more teams) we might be onto something.



To get your minds around the concept, a quote from JFK.

“We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things,not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win".



Don't always choose the weak option. If Australian Rugby is to grow and return to being a power, don't take the easy way out.

I wonder if you can possibly leave out the "east coast" rubbish, or is that the only argument you have to give some sort of passion to your arguments?

Growth. Yes real growth, that would need a product that results in more people watching and playing. Even if the somewhat debatable survey results on sports participation are downgraded and we accept the ARUs "5 Rugby experiences" rubbish the game has not grown in numbers participating and at schools level we know it has contracted. As for viewer numbers and live attendances it has been a downward trend for a decade and appears to have bottomed out with only the rusted on hard core left.

That is not growth. If I plant a tree and after 10 years it hasn't really grown and produced fruit its long past time to rip the sucker up and plough the ground before trying again.

AGAIN THIS IS NOT SINGLING OUT THE FORCE!!!!!!! Not one Australian side has achieved any sustained growth in terms of viewership and attendances.

If you can't come up with something better than the "east Coasters" are against us then for you this isn't really about the Force being cut, but more likely a further confirmation of your belief that the east somehow has it in for WA and probably has had since Federation.

 

[brokendown]

WA has sustained growth in player numbers over the past decade-is that not growing the fucking game -or what?

 

[Moono75]

I wonder if you can possibly leave out the "east coast" rubbish, or is that the only argument you have to give some sort of passion to your arguments?

If you can't come up with something better than the "east Coasters" are against us then for you this isn't really about the Force being cut, but more likely a further confirmation of your belief that the east somehow has it in for WA and probably has had since Federation.

The argument is very valid. The justification for dropping the Force is that we are tying up players that would be better served playing and strengthening other teams who just happend to be based on the East coast. We are a drain on the resources of Australian Rugby and if we didn't have to waste money on a team over West how much better could things be for Australian Rugby.

Lets call a spade a spade. Enough of the bullshit. We back our team, we back our State. Can someone explain if an OZ team is to be dropped, then outside of the threat to be sued, why would the Force go before the Rebels?

 

[moa999]

Just got back from the Swans v Pies at the SCG and boy was it concerning for rugby.

Not that the ARU is building a 5-storey palace while junior Rugby has funding cut and forces conspire to cut a team.

Not the 35k crowd watching an exciting, fierce and tight game, and actually cheering and creating atmosphere.

No the worrying part was pre-game. I was up at The Imperial - a Sydney institution in the East on Oxford St, crowd was a mix maybe 60% in AFL scarves having a pre-game bevvy, rest after work crowd.

Three TVs in the main bar ground. One on AFL, one NRL and one the Super Rugby game . Probably a good 50 people in range of the Super Rugby TV. I watched the crowd for a few minutes. Literally only two people in that crowd even glanced at the TV in that time.

People not even caring about the score.

 

[Rebels3]

The argument is very valid. The justification for dropping the Force is that we are tying up players that would be better served playing and strengthening other teams who just happend to be based on the East coast. We are a drain on the resources of Australian Rugby and if we didn't have to waste money on a team over West how much better could things be for Australian Rugby.

Lets call a spade a spade. Enough of the bullshit. We back our team, we back our State. Can someone explain if an OZ team is to be dropped, then outside of the threat to be sued, why would the Force go before the Rebels?

Superior quality local comp
Better u20s results
Closer for centralization
Privately owned
5 more wins in 2016
4 more wins in 2015
1 more win in 2013
1 more win in 2012 (that's finishing ahead of the force 4 of our 6 years).

We can then add the other stupid stuff people add to the discussion;

Bigger economy- 2nd biggest in sanzaar
Bigger population- expected to be aus biggest in next 20 years.

I am very supportive of 5 aus teams, but if you are prepared to throw another team under a bus to justify, be prepared to ride the bus once it runs over you.

Let's stop pointing the finger at someone else to go and work together in our mission to stay and improve the many wrongs in aus rugby. Both which wa and Vic rugby aren't involved with. In fact both regions are the only two to have sustained growth (from a very low base tho) in the past 10 years

 

[BLR]

Superior quality local comp

Based on what exactly?

 

[Moono75]

Superior quality local comp
Better u20s results
Closer for centralization
Privately owned
5 more wins in 2016
4 more wins in 2015
1 more win in 2013
1 more win in 2012 (that's finishing ahead of the force 4 of our 6 years).

We can then add the other stupid stuff people add to the discussion;

Bigger economy- 2nd biggest in sanzaar
Bigger population- expected to be aus biggest in next 20 years.

I am very supportive of 5 aus teams, but if you are prepared to throw another team under a bus to justify, be prepared to ride the bus once it runs over you.

What about 2014. We had 5 more wins than the Rebels? Who has the bigger dick? There is no point quoting economic size when the dollars in Vic are entrenched in AFL, harder market to crack, less traction.

Not throwing anyone under the bus. Just wondering why the spotlight is on the Force when we have clear local talent coming into the team and providing oppotunities for other players to get a Super start. Matt Philip selected in team of the round.

Is the only reason the Rebels survive becuase the ARU is afraid of a lawsuit. The Force have the biggest single Super Rugby sponsorship and have an ownership buy in for fans that could raise $5 to $15 Million. Who is making the bigger argument for consideration?

Yes everyone wants 5 OZ teams but if the hard decision has to be made, make it based on the right reasons!

 

[Rebels3]

Based on what exactly?

Let's not turn this into a finger pointing exercise. I was mearly retaliating to someone's attempt at saying "don't drop us drop the rebels instead attempt", particularly when rebels supporters are some of the most sympathetic towards the shit storm that the force have been delt.

 

[Rebels3]

What about 2014. We had 5 more wins than the Rebels? Who has the bigger dick? There is no point quoting economic size when the dollars in Vic are entrenched in AFL, harder market to crack, less traction.

Not throwing anyone under the bus. Just wondering why the spotlight is on the Force when we have clear local talent coming into the team and providing oppotunities for other players to get a Super start. Matt Philip selected in team of the round.

Is the only reason the Rebels survive becuase the ARU is afraid of a lawsuit. The Force have the biggest single Super Rugby sponsorship and have an ownership buy in for fans that could raise $5 to $15 Million. Who is making the bigger argument for consideration?

Yes everyone wants 5 OZ teams but if the hard decision has to be made, make it based on the right reasons!

I completely agree with most of what you put. But why mention the rebels at all? It just comes across as someone trying to divert a shit situation onto someone else.

In fact what you said about giving players an opportunity and developing players could be applied to the rebels just like the force. For every DHP there is a hodge, for every Coleman there is a McMahon. Home grown player numbers look to be on target to be similar levels in 4 years time, surprise surprise that the age dif in the clubs

 

[Moono75]

I make no excuses for backing the interests of the Force and WA Rugby in 100%. You lose it, once its gone you are done for good and Australian Rugby will die. I make no apologies for backing our position in.

 

[BLR]

Let's not turn this into a finger pointing exercise. I was mearly retaliating to someone's attempt at saying "don't drop us drop the rebels instead attempt", particularly when rebels supporters are some of the most sympathetic towards the shit storm that the force have been delt.

Not at all, the other points were correct, I am wondering where the other comment came from, I am not a huge fan of the assumptions that seem to be made about rugby over here.

 

[Rebels3]

Not at all, the other points were correct, I am wondering where the other comment came from, I am not a huge fan of the assumptions that seem to be made about rugby over here.

But your argument is made up of assumptions itself. I am a supporter of wa rugby, I just don't think it's fair that someone's argument for survival is based on pointing the finger at someone else, that's something our politicians do. You have more than enough positive points to build a campaign behind than looking at someone else's misfortune. Keep to those points and you'll have everyone behind you

 

[Rebels3]

I make no excuses for backing the interests of the Force and WA Rugby in 100%. You lose it, once its gone you are done for good and Australian Rugby will die. I make no apologies for backing our position in.

Replace what you said with rebels and VIC rugby.

I'm glad there is passion out west, but Vic rugby is as important as wa rugby. We don't have a right to have a team as much as you don't have a right to have a team as much as we do. Good times ahead for both, hopefully, well fingers crossed anyway.

 

[BLR]

But your argument is made up of assumptions itself. I am a supporter of wa rugby, I just don't think it's fair that someone's argument for survival is based on pointing the finger at someone else, that's something our politicians do. You have more than enough positive points to build a campaign behind than looking at someone else's misfortune. Keep to those points and you'll have everyone behind you

Okay, firstly, I didn't say anything of the sort, I am just wondering what local rugby has to do with anything, you said VIC rugby is better than WA rugby on a local rugby, so I want to know where you got this information from.

Secondly, you have to understand about many Force fans, we have had it tough, being told essentially to go it alone early on, certain situations like this: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2006-05-05/rugby-wa-fined-over-kanaar-dealings/1746730?pfm=sm where an arbitrary ruling that I still don't understand was made when we are just trying to build a team. Any media that comes out from the East 9 times out of 10 is not in a positive light. Then the Rebels are created, and told they had so much more looser contracting rules and they get money thrown at them like the Force never had. In the media all that flows over here from the East is how great the Rebels are going to be in the coming season etc. & how the Force are rubbish.....truth or not but when you deal with this for over a decade & a newcomer comes in and seems to get a much better deal while you still seemingly get ignored...And then when we finally take stock and realise the East coast simply seems not to care about us (you can say the opposite but thats how it seems from this side) we aim to build our own pathways which starts to come to fruition. But, while we are setting ourselves up we need a bit of cash, which instead of a handout like every other bloody team has gotten we have to sell our rights to the ARU while the Rebels get another cash injection despite the fact they are supposed to have private owners. Then when we arrange a fan ownership scheme to solve the money issue once and for all coincidently just before the release of our shares a leak comes out we will be cut, a huge scuttling attempt of our bid of becoming self sufficient. How the hell do you want us to react when all that seems to come over from the other side is bad news and disdain?