SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) 2023 General Chat

[Jimmy_Crouch]

You will notice that MP (Moana Pasifika) (Moana Pasifika) never get a decent crowd either.

And they won't while the NZRU allow their best players be pilfered.

What has the NZRU done to help them?

 

[Dan54]

And they won't while the NZRU allow there best players be pilfered.

What has the NZRU done to help them?

Apart from set them up, supply almost all the players, help them out with ground costs ? Who are the players that NZR has allowed to be pilfered? And don't say Aumua because he was not going to join MP (Moana Pasifika) originally as he had no real desire to play for Samoa etc.
NZ and Aus teams etc get players taken away too you know, and Drua have lost 9 players to Europe or wherever.

And they don't get a crowd because they not sen as competitive, here or Aus?

 

[Adam84]

@Adam84 but still interested to know why you think that there are poor crowds at most Aussie games here in NZ. I know what I hear down at clubrooms and sidelines most weeks' that is Aussie teasms haven't been copetitive since extra teams came in!
Games I have been too here in NZ were Canes/Force and Chiefs/Reds so I keep saying nothing is guaranteed.
I will say I think it comes from the fact that the Force and Rebels have struggled , and people haven't really looked how generally the Brumbies, Reds have been good, and even Tahs are still not too bad. The bottom line is many can't understand that the teams are struggling to actually really develop players.
You will notice that MP (Moana Pasifika) (Moana Pasifika) never get a decent crowd either.

Anyway all I said was that Robinson never at any stage in that interview suggested culling Aussie teams. only gave the reason he is hearing why fans aren't turning up to games, and anyone that listens will have to agree, because that is what he says, also says the comission will look at everything INCLUDING NZ players being able to play in Aus etc, that I think 80% of posters here have called for!

Mark Robinson absolutely suggested Australia should cull teams when he brought up the issue unprovoked and said “the overarching question will be whether 5 teams(Australian) is the right amount of teams”

and when the interviewer directly asked Robinson to elaborate further, he replied with “they(Australia) are stronger when they have less then that”

And let’s not forget he has previously released the Aratipu Report also stating Australian should cull teams.

 

[Dan54]

You should consider being a writer, just make anything sound as you want.

 

[Adam84]

You should consider being a writer, just make anything sound as you want.

I can’t take the credit Dan, directly quoting Mark Robinson generates some pretty nonsensical material.

 

[Dan54]

I can’t take the credit Dan, directly quoting Mark Robinson generates some pretty nonsensical material.

Great attempt mate , but you ruined it all be saying he suggested something, now you saying quoted But all good mate has been a good discussion, I only answered because a couple of others put my name to it, and I had already seen your post and had a smile.

 

[Marce]

So I'm not insane:

 

[qwerty51]

The NRL isn't a better watch, it's a better commercialised comp for sure.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Also NRL can tailor the game to suit their fan-base whereas RA or any other National Union has to work within parameters set by WR (World Rugby). It's a while ago now but I recall a U.K.-based journo referring to NRL as "the third Rugby code" on account of how far removed from the UK Super League version of the game it had become.

 

[Doritos Day]

I'd say league is more consistent. Turn on the NRL and you're likely to get a solid 6/10 game whereas rugby has bigger variance with better highs but the dud matches are more frequent and really suck.

 

[liquor box]

I have probably seen about 3 minutes of League in the last 15 years. He described it as follows- “It [NRL] is a better game to watch on TV than rugby is, because it’s not stop-start”.

Has something changed? Every game has about 600? tackles where a player is called held and then the contest for the ball stops until the play the ball is complete. Surely this is stop / start?

 

[Doritos Day]

That's taking it a bit literally. Playing the ball is still a live activity in the match. As opposed to players walking to a lineout or waiting to pack the scrum which is dead time.

 

[dru]

That's taking it a bit literally. Playing the ball is still a live activity in the match. As opposed to players walking to a lineout or waiting to pack the scrum which is dead time.

As in actually correct? What ever the stop/start in rugby in NRL it is every single phase - by the laws of the game.

 

[Doritos Day]

As in actually correct? What ever the stop/start in rugby in NHL it is every single phase - by the laws of the game.

In the conversational sense (my experience!) when someone talks about a sport or match being stop-start it's with reference to periods where nothing can happen. Not the natural flow of the game. Rucks are a part of the passage of play in league, just because they aren't contested doesn't mean play is 'stopped'.

For another example an AFL match isn't stop-start because there are lots of marks or shots at goal; it is with constant boundary throw-ins and ball-ups.

 

[dru]

In the conversational sense (my experience!) when someone talks about a sport or match being stop-start it's with reference to periods where nothing can happen. Not the natural flow of the game. Rucks are a part of the passage of play in league, just because they aren't contested doesn't mean play is 'stopped'.

For another example an AFL match isn't stop-start because there are lots of marks or shots at goal; it is with constant boundary throw-ins and ball-ups.

? um, OK, that is not my experience.

 

[Ignoto]

That's taking it a bit literally. Playing the ball is still a live activity in the match. As opposed to players walking to a lineout or waiting to pack the scrum which is dead time.

The moment a second set of hands is on a ball runner the competition for the ball is over. Just because the tackled player is flopping around like a salmon doesn't mean the ball is still live as it's unplayable.

 

[PhilClinton]

I'd say league is more consistent. Turn on the NRL and you're likely to get a solid 6/10 game whereas rugby has bigger variance with better highs but the dud matches are more frequent and really suck.

As an Australian, the pinnacle of both games - State of Origin for League and Wallabies tests for rugby I think have the same excitement level for me.

The difference for me is the product being produced on the week in week out basis differs so much. I agree the average NRL game is going to be 6-7/10, the squads are more balanced and you generally have a couple of genuine superstars in each team who can break a game open.

Rugby has unfortunately been tainted by too many dud games at Super Rugby level, for various reasons.

That is all subjective of course, I know lots of this discussion thread revolves around NZ v Aus and what each other is doing the harm the game.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

 

[Slim 293]

I have probably seen about 3 minutes of League in the last 15 years. He described it as follows- “It [NRL] is a better game to watch on TV than rugby is, because it’s not stop-start”.

Has something changed? Every game has about 600? tackles where a player is called held and then the contest for the ball stops until the play the ball is complete. Surely this is stop / start?

I actually watched a bit of Origin last night, and was pretty amused when they put up a graphic showing play had gone almost 5 mins without a "stoppage."

 

[Doritos Day]

In the conversational sense (my experience!) when someone talks about a sport or match being stop-start it's with reference to periods where nothing can happen. Not the natural flow of the game. Rucks are a part of the passage of play in league, just because they aren't contested doesn't mean play is 'stopped'.