• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Where to for Super Rugby?

half

John Solomon (38)
Anyway half you a bang on, with a slight twist Super rugby wasn't what hurt club rugby, it was professionalism. As soon as rugby went professional club rugby as fellas like you and I knew it was changed forever, and not for the better in my opinion, but there was no going back.
I always remember going into dressing room at training the night it was announced, I was managing senior 1st team in Levin, one of the players (WOB knows him Tosa)said how much you going to pay us/ It was real lighthearted comment, but I was confident when I said I knew the club would let the players have full tv rights.(which obviously there was no tv coverage but a mate who videoed every game) .
I was never happy when game went pro, but understood it was going to happen, and preferred how it went when it was so close to a complete rebel type thing, that would have split the game apart.
The problems we all have now is everyone has to have comps etc that are aimed at tv market, and as with almost all sports we see crowd numbers slide because a huge number of so called fans now get their sports fix through a tv box.
Talking to a hell of a lot of rugby fans etc just in life in general, a lot of think we have to much rugby on tv, dru made a comment earlier in this thread that he wouldn't watch kiwi teams unless they playing Reds, that I believe in Aus would be not unusual, and vive versa in NZ, super rugby games from Aus are only watched by real tragics like me (even WOB has mentioned he doesn't watch them). And here in NZ like in Aus when the season is in full swing a lot of fans won't even watch all games with Aus (or NZ etc)teams as we getting an awful lot. Really good mates from club in Brisbane (real rugby men, ran the club etc) would say even at height of super rugby they would miss say Force/Brumbies (for instant) because there was just to much on and they stuck with watching Reds or big games. Same fellas would then be discussing/messaging NPC games from NZ later in year, just because there was not other rugby on so they got right into that. Even NRL, if you heard fellas talking at work, noone watched all games, most seemed to watch 1 or 2 games each weekend. So I wonder if we get stuffed because everyone wants 'content' on tv, and not quality?
Dan

What I said and have repeatedly said, is the decision to effectively let a media company design our competition to be shown & hidden away on pay TV, and to turn our state teams into club teams, was insane.

The SR structure, did not suit player development. What SR via News did was keep the best we had in rugby.

Rugby having stabilised the ship, and stopped the bleeding to league should have developed a national competition and developed this thu the already established traditional club structures that existed. Would have taken between 5 to 7 years to do,

Instead we allowed a US media company to design and develop the Tri Nations & SR.

It always was and is ending in tears.
 
Last edited:

Adam84

Tony Shaw (54)
The only trend that matters in sport can be followed in the win/loss column. That hasn't changed.
Disagree, thats only suitable if measuring a single team like the All Blacks, but we're talking about a competition here.

And when analysing the success of a professional competition a more holistic view needs to be taken, and the metrics of crowd attendance, tv ratings, sponsorship value and fan engagement are key trends which matter.
 

Bullrush

John Thornett (49)
Disagree, thats only suitable if measuring a single team like the All Blacks, but we're talking about a competition here.

And when analysing the success of a professional competition a more holistic view needs to be taken, and the metrics of crowd attendance, tv ratings, sponsorship value and fan engagement are key trends which matter.
Right.

The same things as 20yrs ago.
 

hoggy

Cyril Towers (30)
To me, SANZAR tried to grow way too quickly. Super 12 went for 10 years and was a great comp. Expanded to to 14 and that was fairly good too.

But after only 5 years it expands again to Super 15. Only 5 years later and it expands another 3 teams to 18 across 5 countries. The competition gets convoluted and complicated with a massive break in the middle for Tests etc. It was ugly.

We should have stayed at 14 for at least another 5 years and allowed the competition to settle. Given the Force a chance to continue building and improving before throwing in another Aussie teams for them to compete for talent with.

You then build the competition (and the Rebels) for another 10 years before thinking expansion again.

It was all too much, too fast.

Of course it grew to quickly, but that was the only way the money tree ever grew. Super rugby never increased in value in its own markets, it was only ever through expansion. Super 12 may have been a great comp, but don't you remember "expand or die"

Where was everyone then, all jumping on the bandwagon, global expansion. Of course we shoud have stayed at 14, but don't you remember we needed the money to make sure the Wallabies, SA and All Blacks maintained there competitive advantage.

Its always been to much to fast, especially for Australia, its living a lifestyle on a c/c. Its always ultimately gong to fail.
 

Adam84

Tony Shaw (54)
Right.

The same things as 20yrs ago.

thats the point..

metrics which mattered 20 years ago and have been on a downward trend since.. :rolleyes:

now consider 96 other variables like the influence of technology, changing viewing habits, effect of rule changes, increased competition and we might actually start to understand why Super Rugby isn't the product it once was. Blaming it solely on 'expansion of teams' is a simplistic take on a complex issue though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

Bullrush

John Thornett (49)
thats the point..

metrics which mattered 20 years ago and have been on a downward trend since.. :rolleyes:

now consider 96 other variables like the influence of technology, changing viewing habits, effect of rule changes, increased competition and we might actually start to understand why Super Rugby isn't the product it once was. Blaming it solely on 'expansion of teams' is a simplistic take on a complex issue though.
Oh - cos I thought that there were "101 other trends which have occurred" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 

Adam84

Tony Shaw (54)
Oh - cos I thought that there were "101 other trends which have occurred" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Right, is that how we're going to talk to each other then?

You do realise variables create an effect, and the impact of these effects over time presents a trend?

Influence of technology, viewing habits, growth of competition from other sports/codes are all trends which have influenced the the popularity of Super Rugby with fans.. i.e. variables to consider.....
 

kiap

Andrew Slack (58)
Super 12 went for 10 years and was a great comp. Expanded to to 14 and that was fairly good …
Without quoting your whole post, I agree with it about 60%.

The first few years of Super 12 were great. However, it was never going to be possible to "bottle" that recipe and keep it working for 25 years (or even 15 years).

The inherent flaws -- and we know what they are -- were always underlying.

Competitions need sustainable foundations to survive. Super Rugby didn't have that - and still doesn't.

Indeed that was a big reason it kept on being changed. The parties weren't happy with it.

Super Pacific will have another overhaul in two years … if it even makes it beyond 2023.
 

Adam84

Tony Shaw (54)
Without quoting your whole post, I agree with it about 60%.

The first few years of Super 12 were great. However, it was never going to be possible to "bottle" that recipe and keep it working for 25 years (or even 15 years).

The inherent flaws -- and we know what they are -- were always underlying.

Competitions need sustainable foundations to survive. Super Rugby didn't have that - and still doesn't.

Indeed that was a big reason it kept on being changed. The parties weren't happy with it.

Super Pacific will have another overhaul in two years … if it even makes it beyond 2023.

Exactly, the flaws of the competition existed in 2003 it was just in a time and place which was more accomodating.
Competition and entertainment has only become more cutthroat since.
 

Bullrush

John Thornett (49)
The inherent flaws -- and we know what they are -- were always underlying.

Competitions need sustainable foundations to survive. Super Rugby didn't have that - and still doesn't.
Only in Australia is there a lack of a foundation.

Getting a domestic comp, investing in club rugby, getting into more schools etc. These are not things that haven't happened because of Super Rugby.

Found an interesting article from 2016. It seems some in NZ thought that even NZ would have to consider cutting a team for the better of SR:

 

Adam84

Tony Shaw (54)
Only in Australia is there a lack of a foundation.

Getting a domestic comp, investing in club rugby, getting into more schools etc. These are not things that haven't happened because of Super Rugby.

Found an interesting article from 2016. It seems some in NZ thought that even NZ would have to consider cutting a team for the better of SR:


'Foundations' for a professional sporting competition exist beyond the scope of player depth below it, A-League can attest to this.
It's obviously a key factor, but it still needs to be presented in a package which engages fans.
 

kiap

Andrew Slack (58)
Only in Australia is there a lack of a foundation.
Nope

Only? … doesn't explain why NZR kicked out South Africa, who'd been exploring a move north anyway …

Only in a fantasy world is the 1996 Super 12 model viable today.

The next move should be to kick out Australia. A number of NZ teams + an NZR-owned Pasifika team might …perhaps… be a sustainable foundation.

Even though SR was actually started by NSWRU, I'd support Australia being out. Run our own comp, then arrange separate trans-national pro games.
 

Dan54

Michael Lynagh (62)
Nope

Only? … doesn't explain why NZR kicked out South Africa, who'd been exploring a move north anyway …

Only in a fantasy world is the 1996 Super 12 model viable today.

The next move should be to kick out Australia. A number of NZ teams + an NZR-owned Pasifika team might …perhaps… be a sustainable foundation.

Even though SR was actually started by NSWRU, I'd support Australia being out. Run our own comp, then arrange separate trans-national pro games.
When did NZ kick SA out? I thought they proposed a whole new comp, so none was kicked out.
But if they did it brings in biggest question, if NZ kicked SA out and supposedly upset Aussie by wanting to cut teams, why didn't SA and RA just carry on with the comp without NZ? I mean if NZR are the bad boys etc etc. :D :D :D
 

kiap

Andrew Slack (58)

Adam84

Tony Shaw (54)
could also very well be this thread :p
C375B54E-2298-406D-B1B4-6167589574C2.jpeg
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
To me, SANZAR tried to grow way too quickly. Super 12 went for 10 years and was a great comp. Expanded to to 14 and that was fairly good too.

But after only 5 years it expands again to Super 15. Only 5 years later and it expands another 3 teams to 18 across 5 countries. The competition gets convoluted and complicated with a massive break in the middle for Tests etc. It was ugly.

We should have stayed at 14 for at least another 5 years and allowed the competition to settle. Given the Force a chance to continue building and improving before throwing in another Aussie teams for them to compete for talent with.

You then build the competition (and the Rebels) for another 10 years before thinking expansion again.

It was all too much, too fast.
No it was more then just expanding too fast - the cross border model with SA teams in non time zone friendly became less relevant in face of expanded nrl and afl footprint that appealed to more regional rivalries. And yeh we need a domestic competition behind this which nrc hoped could have morphed into and now don’t even have that. So we really have gone back to a bigger problem of only having super rugby as only pro pathway.

I worry that leaving too long nrc Mark 3 to restart could cause major blocker to helping us develop and create a domestic competition option.
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
Obviously these comps were all regionally based, Australia is obviously way too big for a national comp, especially when it’s amateur. But it culminated in a representative season, and the top players would play for their clubs - in fact it wasn’t unheard of for players to turn out for the Wallabies on the Saturday and their club on the Sunday. And they weren’t all the premier clubs, they were places like Orange, Armidale and Quirindi. Super Rugby killed this because the players couldn’t play for their club anymore and there was nothing for the amateur players to aspire too, and the fans lost interest because there were fuck all home games and incompatible game times. Also, there aren’t enough spots for professional players locally, hence the exodus overseas. You may say that it was professionalism that killed all this, and in a sense you’d be right, but it’s not hard to be creative and come up with an adaptation of our previous amateur model that fits into the pro mould, complete with tribalism.

All that said, I think that the current format could be a precursor to a representative type format, but with the respective domestic comps preceding it. I feel that with the current Covid environment, trying to get a domestic comp going by February has too many unknowns, I mean even the premier of WA is saying that when the rest of the country opens up he’s keeping his borders closed WTF. Sticking with the current 5 teams for a year or 2 more makes sense, but I hope there is something going on in the background that’s a bit more long sighted to save the code and ultimately grow it. I do sense this is the case.
Yeh I have come up with same conclusion that makes sense to keep same teams for next 2 years but also hope something going on in the background....
 

hoggy

Cyril Towers (30)
Yeh I have come up with same conclusion that makes sense to keep same teams for next 2 years but also hope something going on in the background..
Sorry, but I don't share your faith in the goings on in the background. Rugby in Australia is well & truly broke. It was clear in the last negotiations this was the opportunity to make the change, did the RA really have any choice, when bankrupty was a genuine option.

The thing is why do we think the optons will be any different come 2024, where will the money come from. Unless Super rugby Pacific is an unbridled success, the same restaints will be on the RA when they next put pen to paper.

Like where is the growth coming from or value added in this competition, even if succesful what growth will come from the Drua or Moana.
Look they have to come up with some form of NRC, the odd Test every second weekend just doesn't cut it for half the year, but the more I think about it the bigger the bloody mess the game is in.

20 years of ignoring your own domestic market has left the game here with a bloody Test team and sweet fuck all else.
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
Sorry, but I don't share your faith in the goings on in the background. Rugby in Australia is well & truly broke. It was clear in the last negotiations this was the opportunity to make the change, did the RA really have any choice, when bankrupty was a genuine option.

The thing is why do we think the optons will be any different come 2024, where will the money come from. Unless Super rugby Pacific is an unbridled success, the same restaints will be on the RA when they next put pen to paper.

Like where is the growth coming from or value added in this competition, even if succesful what growth will come from the Drua or Moana.
Look they have to come up with some form of NRC, the odd Test every second weekend just doesn't cut it for half the year, but the more I think about it the bigger the bloody mess the game is in.

20 years of ignoring your own domestic market has left the game here with a bloody Test team and sweet fuck all else.
I think it is a major gap and concern not having an nrc...could have had pre or post season super rugby au comp to compensate.

I am very concerned just relying on TT and agree my hope RA has plans in background is more blind hope then any conviction this is the case.
 

Adam84

Tony Shaw (54)
Sorry, but I don't share your faith in the goings on in the background. Rugby in Australia is well & truly broke. It was clear in the last negotiations this was the opportunity to make the change, did the RA really have any choice, when bankrupty was a genuine option.

The thing is why do we think the optons will be any different come 2024, where will the money come from. Unless Super rugby Pacific is an unbridled success, the same restaints will be on the RA when they next put pen to paper.

Like where is the growth coming from or value added in this competition, even if succesful what growth will come from the Drua or Moana.
Look they have to come up with some form of NRC, the odd Test every second weekend just doesn't cut it for half the year, but the more I think about it the bigger the bloody mess the game is in.

20 years of ignoring your own domestic market has left the game here with a bloody Test team and sweet fuck all else.

yeah the complete lack of money and carrying significant debt are the elephant in the room… RA are fucked financially
 
Top