Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
There is a point of difference though for England and Wales vs Aust/NZ for what proposing. As they do it for same reason that big French clubs would otherwise poach their talent. Here we are talking open borders within TT to keep players close to home and benefit the competition both countries participate in...which is a point of difference as competition they participate in wins which would not be the case for England, Wales etc.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Whoops I deleted my post somehow. Anyway it not really different, they used to be able to play for anyone, but found it just didn't work, wasn't players getting poached as they could still play for Wales etc, just were not coming back in decent shape, as Wales and England etc RUs , had no ability to control how players were handled. Baiscally it doesn't seem to be a good sysrem,if a franchise hires a player, they then have control while that player is getting paid by them.
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
I think there is a world of difference between how a Super Rugby franchise handles players and how scumbag French clubs handle players.
But besides, you could set up rules governing player welfare and fitness requirements etc.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
True or you just don't do it so the problem never arises, that's what they found up north. Hell imagine trying to write up a contract to allow for all the hings you would need.
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
I'm a lawyer.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
5 x Aussie teams and 10 x Kiwi teams.
Top 2 Aussie teams and top 4 Kiwi into challenge series for the A Division trophy
Bottom 3 Aussie teams and bottom 6 Kiwi teams into a bowl competition
1:2 ratio maintained.
Assuming that people want a TT competition that is.
But you see the Kiwis won't want this, because they aren't really interested in having an evenly matched Super Rugby competition. Their primary focus is the All Blacks and they have decided that by dispersing their talent into 5 teams, that this provides the optimum vehicle for this.
This is the essential problem - Australia needs a competition which creates interest for people beyond the rusted on fanatics, and is watchable for the general sporting public PLUS a method of spreading teams across the continent. Meanwhile, NZ doesn't need any of that, rugby is already the most popular sport in the nation and it's already spread across the country. There just isn't a lot of common interest between the two.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
And they won’t it seems consider an open borders policy which is why around and around we go in denial we can work out a TT. We definitely need minimum 5 teams with ambitions to grow this to maintain relevance and defend on expanding footprints of other footy codes in oz.
To me the only answer is the franchise model (open borders policy) or more kiwi teams. Neither will happen because nzru does not give a toss if oz rugby shrinks to irrelevance (short sighted and stupid view imo) and RA not yet ready maturity or investment wise ready to go it alone.
Truth be known I am just frustrated by this impasse and I just don’t think nzru can look beyond their fears of loss of control of players playing for non kiwi teams and their beloved All Blacks. One day this thinking may seem them come unstuck as rugby may be the most popular sport in nz and kiwis be #1 rugby sport but I can tell you that very few would have predicted in the 80s cricket in the West Indies would lose popularity to other sports like basketball and the wear indies be an also ran test cricket and one day cricket nation
Teh Other Dave
Alan Cameron (40)
Top twenty NZ teams, 5 Australian teams, a PNG team, and batman
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
They won't go for an open borders policy for 2 reasons:
1) It would dilute the distribution of their playing talent beyond the 5 NZ franchises. This would have the same impact for them as increasing the number of NZ teams. People would have noticed that in all the Super Rugby expansions over the years, not once did NZ say that they wanted or deserved more than 5 teams - when the clear evidence was that if any nation should have expanded it was NZ. They have settled on their optimum number and that's it. They just want someone else to play against to give their players a break from constant domestic games. We always need to remember that Super Rugby for the kiwis is a method of producing the best possible All Black team, the competition itself isn't the end game. It's why they stuck with the SANZAR model because it gave them the right amount of games against other kiwi teams for high speed, high skill, high intensity rugby, then just the right amount of games against SA teams which play a more forward and kicking oriented game (and some games at altitude) and then just the right number of lower quality games against Aussie teams (a maximum of 2 out of 5 teams to provide a bit of a hit out and the rest an opposed training session under game conditions) for a bit of rest and recovery and to allow them to try new things and blood new players - done with little likelihood of dropping more that the odd game. So in effect the SANZAR model is the goldilocks of pro-rugby for NZRU. Full Kiwi Super Rugby for the whole season is way to hot, fully integrated 5 x 5 TT is way too cold and SANZAR in juuuuuust right.
2) They would also be of the view that by keeping all their potential ABs in NZ that they will be exposed to the best coaching and development, while allowing them to be part of the Australian Super Rugby coaching and development system would in all likelihood see the players regress. (I actually agree with them on this) Far better for NZ rugby to warehouse their next best in NZ system than to allow them to be exposed to the Australian system. I can't see any positives in this for the kiwis.
TheFairlightFlanker
Stan Wickham (3)
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
So we have 2 wins for oz sides and 18 for kiwi sides after round 4. My personal feeling is if nzru and RA want this TT so badly they lock themselves in a room and don’t come out till jointly contributed to trying to do things to make for more even and interesting contests before they destroy fan support for this clusterfux.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
In the 4 rounds of TT:
Waratahs concede an average of 56.25 points per match
Reds concede an average of 42 points per match
Rebels concede an average of 40.5 points per match
Brumbies concede an average of 29.75 points per match
Force concede and average of 29.25 points per match
The Aussie team with the 'best' points differential is the Brumbies with -49
In 8 rounds of NZ v NZ in SRA the worst differential was the Chiefs with -43
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
Differentials don't necessarily mean a lot QH. Chiefs might have had the worst in the SRAo comp, but finished second.
hoggy
Trevor Allan (34)
What is the point of locking yourselves behind closed doors if the result is a slightly better clusterfux.
If the last 20 years have shown us anything, surely it is until you get the basics of any competition structure right, all you are doing is kicking or passing the clustfux around, it is still there and will always prevent you from getting where you want to go.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Hoggy yes if last experience shown they have persisted with a clusterfux and not been agile or forthright enough to work hard to get it right. Was it because he sanzaar and too many stakeholders, or focus on all blacks / wallabies without focussing enough on pro super rugby competition. Point being relevant stakeholders need to work hard and be more agile to enact changes to get it right. As bigger (realistic) fear is they continue on with this clusterfux next year without much change / effort and doing further damage to erode fan interest in the game. It is critical they get this right and adopt a different mindset then nzru and RA of past shown.
My concern is parties like nzru (sure I may have a bias so kiwis can add or replace with RA here) are too inflexible to deliver the changes required. I am yes incredibly frustrated by these stakeholders as we finally have an opportunity to get it right but as usual more likely to be hijacked by self interest of key stakeholders. Welcome to the ongoing saga of Anz rugby where competing and different stakeholder agendas continue to damage and hold back the game from getting where it should be.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
From the outside looking in, NZR is exploring different funding opportunities that don't involve 'helping' Australia. I would prefer they changed selection policies and be more collaborative in getting Australian Super Rugby more competitive both on the field and in the viewership ratings.
I understand that RA is in the position largely to their own mismanagement etc but this is the situation we all find ourselves in.
A 'partnership' with Australia is hopefully in the best interest of rugby as a whole. I'm very wary of private ownership as being currently proposed.
But that's probably the lefty, socialist in me.
Dismal Pillock
Simon Poidevin (60)
- Status