I would enjoy that too Joe, and from a NZ point we could have a North/South game, which is something we treasure over here. Only trouble is it would open unions to criticism of only using super rugby to feed test teams?Because it’s a WC year, I would much rather SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) 23 be a single round with finals.
This would allow room for 3x Possible v Probable games to select the Wallabies. Alternatively, 3 extra trial games for Wallabies, and 3 games for Australia A.
Wallabies only have about 5 games left before the WC and we’ve had such a disrupted team this year. Players need more games together and we need more time to confirm the team.
We could potentially have a strong team if best players are available, but not enough cohesion built could be what let’s us down in the WC.
That’s already the case Dan, not just the criticism but the act of doing so, anyone who argues otherwise is delusional.I would enjoy that too Joe, and from a NZ point we could have a North/South game, which is something we treasure over here. Only trouble is it would open unions to criticism of only using super rugby to feed test teams?
Any chat in Aus media wrt Rugby Australia & NZR reaching agreement on what SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) (Super Rugby Pacific) looks like post-2023? There's a GPaul story in the Hurld but it's a GPaul story therefore I'll believe it when I see it reported elsewhere.
The news comes as New Zealand and Australia bury the hatchet on Super Rugby and agree a long-term deal to keep a 12-team competition intact until 2030.
The deal will be announced in Sydney on Friday, the Herald understands, with Australia to retain five teams through until after the 2029 women’s World Cup.
It is a big breakthrough after months of negotiations, during which Rugby Australia chairman Hamish McLennan repeatedly threatened to walk away from the 25-year-old partnership.
A report in the New Zealand Herald suggested the final terms of the agreement, which starts in 2024, would see “temporary financial arrangements” in place in 2024 and potentially 2025. A final revenue split would be agreed for 2026 and beyond, which would dovetail with RA’s next broadcast deal. Nine, publisher of this masthead, has a two-year option to extend at the end of 2023.
Yep Adam, I realise that, just saying it would make it more so. Basically most comps are geared towards the step up to the comp above, NRC was to develop players for Super etc? Not arguing with it, but just think it would add fuel to fire.That’s already the case Dan, not just the criticism but the act of doing so, anyone who argues otherwise is delusional.
Was there ever any doubt this was gonna happen, their pretty much broke. The domestic bandwagon left town years ago. They've kicked the can down the road till 2030 with Lions & World Cup, Super rugby will be tossed around like a mdiget in a nightclub and come 2030 the same fundamental issues will still exists as have done since day one.I don’t support it unless there’s a clear demonstration that they’re trying to improve the equality of the competition with equal funding distributions to teams and a model which sees greater flexibility In player distributions/contracting.
Otherwise we’re going to see the same one-sided boring results that has disengaged Australian fans from the sport.
They also need to improve the marketing and branding of the tournament, it's pathetic they can't even coordinate the naming of teams on the same days between NZ and Aus, and lack of a single website for the comp that features news, highlights, stats, team lists and profiles.
I would suggest if write up is correct NZR will be helping Aus teams until 2015, when RA will be planning to get more out of 9/Stan deal through Lions etc? Then I guess should have enough coin to stand on own feet? Just guessing, but what it reads to me. From what I have read it will mean another $5 mill a year? I guessing it up to Aus teams to up the equality of comp, but believe there are probably 3 teams up to speed or thereabouts already, and Force and Rebels will need some improvement on past couple of years.I don’t support it unless there’s a clear demonstration that they’re trying to improve the equality of the competition with equal funding distributions to teams and a model which sees greater flexibility In player distributions/contracting.
Otherwise we’re going to see the same one-sided boring results that has disengaged Australian fans from the sport.
They also need to improve the marketing and branding of the tournament, it's pathetic they can't even coordinate the naming of teams on the same days between NZ and Aus, and lack of a single website for the comp that features news, highlights, stats, team lists and profiles.
of course they should have a set time to name the teams weekly followed with a marketing campaign across social media every time it’s done. Its just basic professionalism that has been lacking from this tournament for years. It flows through to value add propositions like fantasy league competitions, news reports and sports betting.not sure if naming of teams need to be on same day, just should all be 2 days prior to matches?
The standard of kiwi journalism that we have come to all expect really..I certainly hope it's true that an independant board part is true.
The Paul Cully piece is here, https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...l-is-done--is-the-world-club-competition-next once again I hope it reasonably accurate.
If comments from Dominic McKay is true I like the sound of him, and maybe a few should take note, about talks behind the scenes and not saying too much because it can cause expectations! You know engage mouth when there is something sorted! We need more like that in rugby and most sports perhaps? All in all Paul Cully's write up looks interesting if somewhat amusing where he suggest that all 5 NZ teams could book a spot in suggested comp, I think if he used a little brain he might realise that there are 5 Aussie teams that might have something to say about that!
Talk about idiotic comment, why did you Aussie's let that idiot return to NZ?? I know he still a SMH journo, couldn't you have just kept him there so we don't read him so often?
I agree mate, I still trying to work out if he was that bad when he went to Aus? It pretty rubbish everywhere from what I see, just seem to report rumours etc and don't worry about facts. I sure there some good ones in world somewhere, just I think we remember crap ones more.The standard of kiwi journalism that we have come to all expect really..
Well as I don't and never have taken any notice of NRL, I will take your word for how it works. Why I like the 2 days before match , it means you tend to get more accurate teams, as quite often they look at players on last few days pf training to assess fitness.of course they should have a set time to name the teams weekly followed with a marketing campaign across social media every time it’s done. Its just basic professionalism that has been lacking from this tournament for years. It flows through to value add propositions like fantasy league competitions, news reports and sports betting.
Take note of NRLs team naming criteria, it’s carefully timed and structured to maximise all of those. Whereas super rugby has for decades been haphazard and inconsistent.