• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Super Rugby General Chat

Strewthcobber

Steve Williams (59)
Well it was a home game for Crusaders. But regardless, I think in a general year there may only be say 1-3 changes anyway, that doen't stop the whole idea working really well. If it is too easy to win it loses it's lustre I reckon.
I think the real problem is it might just be crusaders -> other kiwi team > crusaders > other kiwi team without anyone else getting a look in
 
Last edited:

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
I think the real problem is it might just be crusaders -> other kiwi team > crusaders > other kiwi team without anyone else getting a look in
The opposite is one of reasons I like it mate, as seen with Ranfurly shield, and especially Moascar cup, one win over team at home and whole thing is wide open. Moascar cup moves around country here, with it certainly not being just held by the top private schools. The beauty is one good game on the day, and supporters love it, especially for a game with not a lot else on it.
But just an idea that I think has merit anyway. It opens up the chance of teams that have that one good game in them etc.
 

PhilClinton

Geoff Shaw (53)
I know I’ve mentioned this before, but outside the top 4, the rest of the finalists this year will have either an equal or losing record and in some cases a terrible for and against.

Quite sad really.

Edit: actually the Reds should have a winning one
 

Wilson

Michael Lynagh (62)
I know it protects the end of the season having too many irrelevant games but it also adds a who cares to 5-8 in the standings.

I'd like to see a top 6.

Week 1:
Top 2 get a first week of finals bye.
3 v 6, 4 v 5.

Week 2:
1 v (4,5 winner) game, 2 v (3,6 winner)

Week 3:
Final
I understand the desire to drop back to a top 6 but I think most of these formats ignore that the top 8 is actually a reward for the top placed sides. If 1st and 2nd have a bye that's one less finals game they each host, which is a huge loss in money for most sides. It's also less high value content for the broadcasters

I don't think reducing the number of teams in the final is unworkable though, and if the Rebels drop out it will likely have to happen, but they'll need to find a lot more content to make up for it, at least 3 more rounds but probably up to a full home and away round robin. Fitting that into the calendar does get a bit tricky though.
 

The Ghost of Raelene

Steve Williams (59)
Totally get the money making aspect but I also think the product is lower because of the current setup which has flow on to viewers etc...

I reckon some teams and coaches would love a week off though from a performance point of view. Reward for a top season.
 

PhilClinton

Geoff Shaw (53)
I understand the desire to drop back to a top 6 but I think most of these formats ignore that the top 8 is actually a reward for the top placed sides. If 1st and 2nd have a bye that's one less finals game they each host, which is a huge loss in money for most sides. It's also less high value content for the broadcasters

Is 1st v 8th really 'high value content'?

I'll happily eat my words if we get some upsets, but I think with the gulf between those sides we're liking going to see a flogging in that game.

A 1st v 4th and 2nd v 3rd in majors would even be a better result in my opinion. Have 5th - 8th play in knockouts. Loser of the majors plays the winner of the minors and then we get semi finals.

Solves the content issue and minimises the chances of a team with a losing record making it through to the grand final.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
I think if they want to continue with a top 8 they need to go with the AFL/NRL model...

Qualifying final:

1 v 4
2 v 3

Elimination final:

5 v 8
6 v 7

Winners of qualifying final get a week off and host a prelim.

Losers of the QF get a second chance, hosting the winners of the EF in a semi final.
 

Wilson

Michael Lynagh (62)
Is 1st v 8th really 'high value content'?

I'll happily eat my words if we get some upsets, but I think with the gulf between those sides we're liking going to see a flogging in that game.
Hosting finals is worth a lot to those teams that get to, even quarter finals. It's variable depending on the stadium setup, but it's a lot more lucrative than just about any regular season game.

From a broadcast perspective as well it's high value in the sense that it'll rate better than most regular season games and generally qualifies as the sort of "must see" live tv they really want out of sports content. Yes, semis and closer fought finals are more valuable, but even a 1v8 quarter final is a big step up from a regular season game.
 

PhilClinton

Geoff Shaw (53)
Yep agree @Slim 293 and I think the teams would prefer that. Gives a better reward for the top of the table.

Imagine being 1st, copping a couple of contentious cards during the game and losing to the 8th team who have won 2 games all year and its all over red rover. In heavily officiated games that is a very real scenario.
 

The Ghost of Raelene

Steve Williams (59)
This is the season 1 v 8 is scary as it can be. Fijian Drua are the side in 8 I would rather not play.

I get all sides of the convo but I just hate the fact a losing record and a BAD losing record can get you in the finals. It's not finishing at 50/50 its 3 games back of that getting in with a differential of -100+
 

Wilson

Michael Lynagh (62)
I think if they want to continue with a top 8 they need to go with the AFL/NRL model...

Qualifying final:

1 v 4
2 v 3

Elimination final:

5 v 8
6 v 7

Winners of qualifying final get a week off and host a prelim.

Losers of the QF get a second chance, hosting the winners of the EF in a semi final.
There's a top 6 version of this that might be the way to go if we're dropping to 11 teams next year:

First round:
1v6, 2v5, 3v4

Bottom two losers drop out with the highest ranked loser getting a 2nd chance. So assuming the top teams win in the first round, for the semis you get still get a top 4:
1v4, 2v3

This maximizes the content available from a top 6 finals by not having all the teams play and gives the top 2 multiple hosting opportunities but also offers the top teams a bit of protection against upsets in that first round.
 

Dismal Pillock

David Codey (61)
"All Blacks star Beauden Barrett isn't eligible to play for the Blues during the Super Rugby Pacific playoffs, and it’s also understood he won’t be considered for their final round-robin game against the Chiefs in Auckland on Saturday night"

giphy.gif
 

Ignoto

Greg Davis (50)
"All Blacks star Beauden Barrett isn't eligible to play for the Blues during the Super Rugby Pacific playoffs, and it’s also understood he won’t be considered for their final round-robin game against the Chiefs in Auckland on Saturday night"


How is this surprising?

I could have sworn I remember a conversation Reg and Gagger had about injury cover for the Reds leading up to the 2011 finals and that was with someone (was it Braid?) who actually had played games for the Reds that season.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
How is this surprising?

I could have sworn I remember a conversation Reg and Gagger had about injury cover for the Reds leading up to the 2011 finals and that was with someone (was it Braid?) who actually had played games for the Reds that season.

In the past if you weren't contracted in the original squad you had to play a minimum of four regular season matches to play in the finals...

"The eligibility rules state that any players holding overseas contracts at the beginning of the 2024 SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) season would have to be eligible to play in the country of that team on or prior to April 1 2024.

 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
How is this surprising?

I could have sworn I remember a conversation Reg and Gagger had about injury cover for the Reds leading up to the 2011 finals and that was with someone (was it Braid?) who actually had played games for the Reds that season.

Caleb Ralph played for the Reds in 2011. Might be him? I know it was for injuries. Can’t remember discussion around availability for finals but he was only used once off the bench.
 
Top