S18 on its way

[Melbourne Terrace]

This will be a utter farce, only the idiots at Sanzar could think of something as bad as this. Meanwhile Europe sores on ahead with the Champions Cup....

 

[TOCC]

Meanwhile Europe sores on ahead with the Champions Cup..

Eww...
I hope they don't let them fester..

 

[Omar Comin']

I find it hard to envisage that either team will be successful from the start.

I'm all for furthering rugby in Japan and Argentina but things might be very difficult for their Super sides.

The Argentinian team will basically be the Pumas. From 2016 they are only going to select locally based players for the national side - so with only 1 Super Rugby team that will essentially be it. I'd fancy the Pumas to beat most super rugby teams.

And the Japanese national team would be borderline competitive on their own when at full strength. But they'll be propped up by a few imports that should make them at least a handful for the top teams and a genuine chance of beating the lower ones.

I bet both teams are better than the Kings.

 

[TOCC]

I actually like the inclusion of Japan, i think including Japan in the Super Rugby tournament is critical to the continued development of Japan as a competitive test nation. The timing of the expansion can't be ignored when you factor in the 2019 RWC to be held in Japan, the expansion into Japan is an investment in the global health of the code.

Whilst i fear the standard of the Super Rugby tournament will be compromised in the short term with Argentina and Japan both taking time to adapt to the professionalism and the intensity of the season, i think it will pay long term dividends through broadcast revenue and sponsorship generated from Japan.

 

[MrTabua]

The Argentinian team will basically be the Pumas. From 2016 they are only going to select locally based players for the national side - so with only 1 Super Rugby team that will essentially be it. I'd fancy the Pumas to beat most super rugby teams.

I bet both teams are better than the Kings.

That's interesting stuff re how the Argentine Union will select their national team from 2016.

I hope they get all their best players back to Buenos Aires from France and the rest of the European leagues.

If they do they will be great. Positive news! Slightly doubtful maybe.

 

[Melbourne Terrace]

The Argentinian team will basically be the Pumas. From 2016 they are only going to select locally based players for the national side - so with only 1 Super Rugby team that will essentially be it. I'd fancy the Pumas to beat most super rugby teams.

And the Japanese national team would be borderline competitive on their own when at full strength. But they'll be propped up by a few imports that should make them at least a handful for the top teams and a genuine chance of beating the lower ones.

I bet both teams are better than the Kings.

They'll probably focus on up and comers because they aren't going to get their top players back, the players are in a position of power in this case and aren't going to give up their good wages to play in Super Rugby and have to endlessly travel. Watch the UAR fold when they realise how much they need these players no matter where they play come RC time


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bardon]

That's interesting stuff re how the Argentine Union will select their national team from 2016.

I hope they get all their best players back to Buenos Aires from France and the rest of the European leagues.

If they do they will be great. Positive news! Slightly doubtful maybe.

I'd imagine there will be a split. Those players who really want to represent the Pumas will turn their back on the money in Europe. On the other hand quality players who will be available for every game and who can extend their club careers by having proper off seasons are very attractive to big French and English clubs, whose only priority is the success of the club.

 

[Omar Comin']

They'll probably focus on up and comers because they aren't going to get their top players back, the players are in a position of power in this case and aren't going to give up their good wages to play in Super Rugby and have to endlessly travel. Watch the UAR fold when they realise how much they need these players no matter where they play come RC time

There were plenty of young locally based players that got game time in the RC this year and did well.

And not all, but I'd guess a decent number of European based players will return. There will be plenty that a) want to play for Argentina and b) want to live in Argentina. They're a very patriotic people.

I think a lot would be willing to go home and play for less money. Many come from well off families to begin with, and it's much cheaper to live in Argentina too.

 

[rimmerdee]

http://www.waratahs.com.au/Waratahs...331/Japan-and-Argentina-join-Super-Rugby.aspx

 

[Tom Ando]

Just posted on G&GR facebook http://www.futureofsuperrugby.com/

 

[p.Tah]

Just posted on G&GR facebook http://www.futureofsuperrugby.com/

It's made more complex because I have no idea what that guy is saying. Anyone speak kiwi?

 

[TOCC]

How does the new S18 draw compare to how the NFL is structured, for me it seems equally as complex. I'm not sure the complexity of the draw will disenchant new fans, as long as people can still see the the table then it will keep them happy.

 

[LeinsterRebel]

I've just watched the futureofsuperrugby video.

I think they are straw manning it a bit in order to pitch a Pacific Islands team.
Their new format could have worked with the Japanese team in the AU conference and the Arg team in the NZ conference. The RWC is going to Japan, rugby is investing hugely in the country. A Super Rugby team is the natural next step.

I have big concerns over the SANZAR proposal. Less games for us in Australia and a very confusing structure which makes a mockery of the league concept. If all of this is being pushed from a hardline approach from the South Africans, perhaps (this is a bold move by the way) they should call their bluff. A Super XI with Australia, New Zealand and a Japanese side where everyone plays eachother home and away?

I understand there are short term financial consequences, but a more coherent structure and logical grouping of teams could be beneficial?

 

[boyo]

From rugbyskier:-

"One grammatical error that is now appearing frequently in television ads is using 'less' instead of 'fewer'. There is an ad for vitamins that states the benefits of taking it are "less sick days", it's "fewer sick days" you ponytail morons!"

 

[LeinsterRebel]

From rugbyskier:-

"One grammatical error that is now appearing frequently in television ads is using 'less' instead of 'fewer'. There is an ad for vitamins that states the benefits of taking it are "less sick days", it's "fewer sick days" you ponytail morons!"

Is it necessary to be so pedantic and a making mockery of grammar misdemeanours in an informal environment?

I concede that my use of “less” may have been technically inaccurate, however your example quoted is also incorrect. “Less” is used when referring to something indeterminable or what can’t be counted.

"…less sick days” is acceptable.

 

[Quick Hands]

They'll probably focus on up and comers because they aren't going to get their top players back, the players are in a position of power in this case and aren't going to give up their good wages to play in Super Rugby and have to endlessly travel. Watch the UAR fold when they realise how much they need these players no matter where they play come RC time


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm with you MT. When faced with a choice of being competitive at international level or only picking local players, I'll bet the UAR pick the best available players no matter where they play.

 

[Quick Hands]

I've just watched the futureofsuperrugby video.

I think they are straw manning it a bit in order to pitch a Pacific Islands team.
Their new format could have worked with the Japanese team in the AU conference and the Arg team in the NZ conference. The RWC is going to Japan, rugby is investing hugely in the country. A Super Rugby team is the natural next step.

I have big concerns over the SANZAR proposal. Less games for us in Australia and a very confusing structure which makes a mockery of the league concept. If all of this is being pushed from a hardline approach from the South Africans, perhaps (this is a bold move by the way) they should call their bluff. A Super XI with Australia, New Zealand and a Japanese side where everyone plays eachother home and away?

I understand there are short term financial consequences, but a more coherent structure and logical grouping of teams could be beneficial?

Only trouble with your logic is that NZ have repeatedly said that they won't be involved in super rugby without South Africa.

 

[TOCC]

Its an evolving issue..

With things continuing the way they are it will eventually get to the point where South Africa will be demanding their 24th team just to satisfy every fraction of rugby union within the country. There will at some point in the future be a critical moment where the demands of South Africa outweigh the financial benefits.

The Japanese market could potentially prove very lucrative for the ARU/NZRU, Japan will likely demand to be included in the Australian/New Zealand conference at the next broadcast rights agreements and its possible the value added by Japan could offset the value of South Africa.

I dont think South Africa will ever leave the Super Rugby model, but i do believe it will continue to evolve with a greater focus on the conference systems and on those teams within the relative timezones.

 

[LeinsterRebel]

Only trouble with your logic is that NZ have repeatedly said that they won't be involved in super rugby without South Africa.

Ah I didn't know that.

As facts change so should opinions though. In my (outsider's) view it appears that the appeasement of South Africa has gone too far against what benefits the tournament.

The S18 structure, to me anyway, is not desirable.

 

[Quick Hands]

Ah I didn't know that.

As facts change so should opinions though. In my (outsider's) view it appears that the appeasement of South Africa has gone too far against what benefits the tournament.

The S18 structure, to me anyway, is not desirable.

I agree, but here's what NZ think:

Tew explained the rationale behind adding an Argentinian franchise and allowing South Africa to have a sixth team out of Port Elizabeth.
"You go to the cornerstones of this. New Zealand Rugby has decided on balance that South Africa is important to us because of two reasons... firstly [broadcaster] SuperSport's Money is a significant portion of Sanzar's broadcast income.
"If we took the cost of South Africa out and netted it against the income we would be seriously worse off so from a financial point they are important.
"But equally important anyone we talk to in coaching and high performance believe our young athletes need to play South African teams before they start playing test matches. So we think they are vitally important from a rugby perspective too."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/9775977/Steve-Tew-hits-back-at-Super-Rugby-criticism
He's made these same points a number of times in the past couple of years. So, as long as NZ takes this view, we have to go along with it. It could be argued that we need super rugby more than either NZ or SAF, although the arrangement suits all three for different reasons.