Where to for Super Rugby?

[Dan54]

The problem was not increasing the number of teams but doing so in a competition with nz who had 5 teams and not making any other changes to make this successful.

Agree mate, but NZ had no call for more teams, and we already had a very successful comp, so why change it anyway?

I will compare to what Hamish said last year, RA didn't want to shrink to greatness, unfotunately they thought that diluting to greatness was the answer for super?
And I not just blaming RA, NZR should of stood up to them and said no, get a decent comp below and BUILD your depth in teams, don't try and pull the required players out of a hat!

And I will add again, even Marinos has been saying this year the problem with Super was it was designed as an elite comp and then some used it as a domestic comp, and that is RA's own CEO saying why he thought it went off tracks a bit.

 

[Adam84]

Or alternately stop pretending it anyone's fault but RA if they the only case of dropping money

I think it is more the cost of making unforced changes, as Adam points out super started diving when teams were added and comp diluted, didn't we go from super 12 to 14 about 2005-6. He is correct, it certainly not the same comp as was in 1996-2003-5 .Then we got to the situation where even more were added and we had the ridiculous points system to make sure everyone got a top 3 qualifier, which really damaged the entegrity of the comp. The comp maybe came a different beast for different countries. It was set up as an elite comp and was very successful, but then became RA's domestic comp so they didn't have to build the level below, then just teams added like Sunwolves who really weren't what you call an elite team , but could compete with lower rated teams. When we look at Rugby's decline in Aus it correlates with the decision to increase the number of teams from 3-5, Adam has pointed that out with his figure.
So as Adam points out it was a successful comp when NZ had 5 teams, Aus had 3, SA had 4. Now we have posters saying Aus needs 5 teams (I not disagreeing, hard to go back), haven't got enough players so can NZ develop players and give them to us, etc etc. Yet we seem to have adminstrators who say we have a product that can work, add Drua, a Pasifika team with mainly NZ based players and all will be good.
But we got what we got so I will be behind it 100% and continue to watch it as I have all versions.

correlation and causation aren’t the same which is the mistake you’ve made here.

you’re wilfully ignoring 101 other critical variables if you make the argument that the addition of teams from 2005 was the causation for the decline of super rugby.

this if the problem with organisations trying to recapture past glory, they ignore the fact that the world has moved on and the competition has innovated and evolved.

 

[Bandar]

I understand entirely what you're saying Dan, however in Australia when the elite level of your two major competitors have so many teams in competition for the junior talent (16 NRL & 18 AFL) we can't only have 3 teams.

I know you'll say national competition below - however at the top level with only 3 teams we can't compete.

 

[hoggy]

Agree mate, but NZ had no call for more teams, and we already had a very successful comp, so why change it anyway?

I will compare to what Hamish said last year, RA didn't want to shrink to greatness, unfotunately they thought that diluting to greatness was the answer for super?
And I not just blaming RA, NZR should of stood up to them and said no, get a decent comp below and BUILD your depth in teams, don't try and pull the required players out of a hat!

And I will add again, even Marinos has been saying this year the problem with Super was it was designed as an elite comp and then some used it as a domestic comp, and that is RA's own CEO saying why he thought it went off tracks a bit.

But the whole philosiphy of Super Rugby was "expand or Die", remember by now we were supposed to have conferences in each continent. At every broadcast deal any added value was only ever through (incredibly badly done) expansion. Each union happily accepted those cheques, with what now seems little appreciation of how it was supposed to work.

To turn around now and say we had some sort of rugby eutopia in the early days, when if I recall NZ may not have wanted more teams, but it always wanted more money.

And Marinos ffs, this is the guy who ran Super rugby from 15-19. A competition that in future years universities will have study courses on how not to run a sporting competition, yet he then scrored the job of running the RA.

 

[Bullrush]

No it is more then that - what you have seen is afl in particular expand their footprint and in particular at grass roots level.

Exactly - not at Super Rugby level.

 

[Bullrush]

I understand entirely what you're saying Dan, however in Australia when the elite level of your two major competitors have so many teams in competition for the junior talent (16 NRL & 18 AFL) we can't only have 3 teams.

I know you'll say national competition below - however at the top level with only 3 teams we can't compete.

And yet you have in the past.

The last 10yrs has shown you struggle to compete with 2 extra teams in the comp.

But given that you do have these extra teams, have we seen a greater influx of junior talent in the last 10yrs?

 

[Derpus]

Agree mate, but NZ had no call for more teams, and we already had a very successful comp, so why change it anyway?

I will compare to what Hamish said last year, RA didn't want to shrink to greatness, unfotunately they thought that diluting to greatness was the answer for super?
And I not just blaming RA, NZR should of stood up to them and said no, get a decent comp below and BUILD your depth in teams, don't try and pull the required players out of a hat!

And I will add again, even Marinos has been saying this year the problem with Super was it was designed as an elite comp and then some used it as a domestic comp, and that is RA's own CEO saying why he thought it went off tracks a bit.

So the answer is to create a domestic comp right? and then maybe consider an 'elite' comp once we've built the foundations.

Only you don't want that because it leaves you with no one to play. You'd rather we limp along acting as your punching bag.

 

[Bullrush]

So the answer is to create a domestic comp right? and then maybe consider an 'elite' comp once we've built the foundations.

Only you don't want that because it leaves you with no one to play. You'd rather we limp along acting as your punching bag.

You do know that you’ve been in the ‘elite comp’ for over 20 yrs right? Aussie teams have won it a number of times in case you missed it.

 

[Dan54]

So the answer is to create a domestic comp right? and then maybe consider an 'elite' comp once we've built the foundations.

Only you don't want that because it leaves you with no one to play. You'd rather we limp along acting as your punching bag.

Where have I said that? I am saying YOUR CEO (you know Leapfrog Marinos) said just 3 months ago that the trouble wa Super was designed as an elite comp, which it was,and Aus were quite competent of playing in an elite comp, but insisted they expand without a domestic comp below. Rugby has been in existence in Oz for what 100 years before super rugby and it was super rugby that stopped them having a domestic comp like NZ and SA?? Really?
So explain to me how that works? 100 years or whatever rugby, they were unable to to get domestic stuff together, so it's everyone else's shit.
I want Aus to have a domestic comp AND have posted as such on here multiple times, when they actually had one I supported it and went to a lot of games. Why is it so hard to understand that a domestic comp should be run below super comp, you know how super is run below Test rugby.
It has nothing to do with who I want us to play (I have said I would be more than happy with NPC rugby) , the main reason I want Aus to have super rugby teams is because my absolute belief that the game will fade even more in Aus without Super aand international rugby, as there will be bugger all tv money to keep the game alive!

 

[Derpus]

Yes, but, we only have five teams who are no longer anything close to elite. And extremely finite resources.

We can't just magic up another layer. It has to be built from somewhere. Most sensible solution is to build on the five pro teams that we have and only then look at a Super Rugby competition with NZ.

The 'money' from Super Rugby is fools gold. We keep chasing it and it keeps shrinking. Look at Adam's post about the respective revenue's of NRL and AFL. I think you are basically just dead wrong that rugby can only survive with Super Rugby. Its a failed competition.

Champions League style comp makes the most sense IMO.

 

[Bullrush]

Yes, but, we only have five teams who are no longer anything close to elite. And extremely finite resources.

We can't just magic up another layer. It has to be built from somewhere. Most sensible solution is to build on the five pro teams that we have and only then look at a Super Rugby competition with NZ.

The 'money' from Super Rugby is fools gold. We keep chasing it and it keeps shrinking. Look at Adam's post about the respective revenue's of NRL and AFL. I think you are basically just dead wrong that rugby can only survive with Super Rugby. Its a failed competition.

Champions League style comp makes the most sense IMO.

Why would anyone want to watch a 'Champions League' between NZ Super Rugby Champions and Australian teams who are clearly a class below? The best Australian team is not even close to the worst NZ team. The gap is not going to close simply by playing yourselves more.

 

[Derpus]

Why would anyone want to watch a 'Champions League' between NZ Super Rugby Champions and Australian teams who are clearly a class below? The best Australian team is not even close to the worst NZ team. The gap is not going to close simply by playing yourselves more.

No one would. Just like no wants to watch TT.

But you blokes get to play someone else which apparently your players demand.

'closing the gap' is another fiction. We only need to close the gap if we want to stay in Super Rugby.

Maybe we need to close the gap at test level, but not at Super Rugby. But this would be better achieved through a healthy domestic comp.

 

[dru]

Why would anyone want to watch a 'Champions League' between NZ Super Rugby Champions and Australian teams who are clearly a class below? The best Australian team is not even close to the worst NZ team. The gap is not going to close simply by playing yourselves more.

I reckon we can arrange something, Bull. But to be honest you are happy to take the underperforming Aus teams in an unbalanced comp. What is the difference?

I would look to a representational system that was SOO-like. That could be with either 2 or 3 teams. I'd also pull the coaching for these teams from the WBs. It could be useful on a number of levels.

But honestly, if you don't want the Aussie teams, then just shut the fuck up and kindly fuck off into the sunset. (That is for NZR not you personally so much.) In so many ways we are better off without NZ.

 

[hoggy]

Why would anyone want to watch a 'Champions League' between NZ Super Rugby Champions and Australian teams who are clearly a class below? The best Australian team is not even close to the worst NZ team. The gap is not going to close simply by playing yourselves more.

So why would anyone want to watch Super Rugby then.

 

[Derpus]

@ Bullrush and Dan,

I get the desire to have Super Rugby. It has been great and there have been some great years. But it's fucked now. There is just no point clinging on to something that doesn't work for anyone involved.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Agree mate, but NZ had no call for more teams, and we already had a very successful comp, so why change it anyway?

I will compare to what Hamish said last year, RA didn't want to shrink to greatness, unfotunately they thought that diluting to greatness was the answer for super?
And I not just blaming RA, NZR should of stood up to them and said no, get a decent comp below and BUILD your depth in teams, don't try and pull the required players out of a hat!

And I will add again, even Marinos has been saying this year the problem with Super was it was designed as an elite comp and then some used it as a domestic comp, and that is RA's own CEO saying why he thought it went off tracks a bit.

Lot of variables that go into what makes a successful competition. I think the footprint is important - no in fact vital and indeed the ambition needs to have even more teams for growth. The latter yes could be via our own domestic competition or through other means (eg team from Asia, allowing kiwi imports who could still play for all blacks, kiwi team based out of Australia - given large ex pat community, etc etc.)

 

[Dan54]

To everyone, please answer the question, if rugby was going in Aus for best part of a 100 f***en years before super rugby, and there was no domestic comp, how the hell did super stop you having a domestic comp??

 

[Bullrush]

You guys are writing as if NZ wanted Australia to have 5 teams.

Australia has the 5 teams that you guys wanted despite everyone knowing that at least 3 but likely 4-5 will not be competitive. When that reality is pointed out you all cry and moan about losing a franchise. Super Rugby is the 'elite' comp so I don't know why you keep pushing for teams and players who aren't, to be included.

You guys basically don't want an elite competition.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

@ Bullrush and Dan,

I get the desire to have Super Rugby. It has been great and there have been some great years. But it's fucked now. There is just no point clinging on to something that doesn't work for anyone involved.

Unless you have real desire and motivation to fix it - yeh not sure on that so hence not sure TT has legs unless this changes

 

[Dan54]

@ Bullrush and Dan,

I get the desire to have Super Rugby. It has been great and there have been some great years. But it's fucked now. There is just no point clinging on to something that doesn't work for anyone involved.

Well if this is the case Derpus, why have RA signed up for Super?? Really asking an honest question, if it so bad, and it's f***ed as you say, are you telling me that Hamish McLennan and co (plus Stan/9)are incompetent for signing ut to it? Or do you think just maybe they have done some work to see what is best for Aus rugby. You (or anyone in here) can't have it both ways.