The End of Super Rugby
- Thread starter FrankLind
- Start date
- Status
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I think this could be fantastic for Oz rugby.
A home and away series with all the Kiwi s15 sides: if that cant improve us nothing will.
And maybe its the thin end of the wedge into the NPC ...I doubt it but you just never know
A home and away series with all the Kiwi s15 sides: if that cant improve us nothing will.
And maybe its the thin end of the wedge into the NPC ...I doubt it but you just never know
Hardtackle
Charlie Fox (21)
Couldn't care less if the SA teams left. Much prefer Aussie derbies and games vs the Kiwis. Rarely do I watch SA derbies and Kiwi Saffa games. Even the finals. I watch every Australian derby and Kiwi Aussie game. I watch some NZ debies because as they are on live.
Would prefer to see Pacific Islander team/s and a Japanese team/s. That'd give me more teams to support when playing Kiwis. Right now the only thing I hope to see when Kiwis and Saffas play is carnage and pain.
It would make the grand final a bit fairer too as that trip to and from Africa must be hell mid preparation. Big advantage to the Chiefs this weekend. The Brumby supporters have a ready made excuse if the unthinkable happens and they lose Saturday night. We'll all be praying for a Chief Choke.
Would prefer to see Pacific Islander team/s and a Japanese team/s. That'd give me more teams to support when playing Kiwis. Right now the only thing I hope to see when Kiwis and Saffas play is carnage and pain.
It would make the grand final a bit fairer too as that trip to and from Africa must be hell mid preparation. Big advantage to the Chiefs this weekend. The Brumby supporters have a ready made excuse if the unthinkable happens and they lose Saturday night. We'll all be praying for a Chief Choke.
KevinO
Geoff Shaw (53)
Langthorne
Phil Hardcastle (33)
I think losing Super rugby would be a shame, but given that we are talking about 2016, there is a good chance something could be sorted out.
There are loads of issues to be considered with or without the 6th SA team - competiton length, international calendar, existing domestic competitions (or lackthereof).
The current conference system suits Australia very well, but if the money was right I can see SA having 6 teams, the conference system being scrapped, and everyone playing everyone else once, followed by the finals. If we keep the top 6 finals format that would make a regular season of 15 rounds, followed by 3 weeks of finals.
Maybe that would mean the ARU feels the need to implement some kind of extra internal competition, but I don't think it is needed - just make sure the club comps around the country are as strong as possible.
On the topic of jetlag/timezones/West-East travel, I don't think many of the players use it as an excuse, and there are a lot of examples of teams bucking the so-called trend.
Of course, if it all goes tits up I'd be very happy to watch a trans Tasman Super 10 that goes for 18 weeks, and maybe don't even bother with a finals series if the comp duration is a concern - whoever has the most points on the table at the end is the winner. This format is the fairest as everyone plays everyone else home and away once.
There are loads of issues to be considered with or without the 6th SA team - competiton length, international calendar, existing domestic competitions (or lackthereof).
The current conference system suits Australia very well, but if the money was right I can see SA having 6 teams, the conference system being scrapped, and everyone playing everyone else once, followed by the finals. If we keep the top 6 finals format that would make a regular season of 15 rounds, followed by 3 weeks of finals.
Maybe that would mean the ARU feels the need to implement some kind of extra internal competition, but I don't think it is needed - just make sure the club comps around the country are as strong as possible.
On the topic of jetlag/timezones/West-East travel, I don't think many of the players use it as an excuse, and there are a lot of examples of teams bucking the so-called trend.
Of course, if it all goes tits up I'd be very happy to watch a trans Tasman Super 10 that goes for 18 weeks, and maybe don't even bother with a finals series if the comp duration is a concern - whoever has the most points on the table at the end is the winner. This format is the fairest as everyone plays everyone else home and away once.
Richo
John Thornett (49)
Interesting thought. I could get behind a football-style system. It would make every game intensely meaningful and place a huge emphasis on bonus points.
But I do love finals rugby.
JSRF10
Dick Tooth (41)
The big problem with a soccer style league is that there will be a lot of clubs out of the running early on for finals spots, the longer the season goes on the more meaningless games there are as relegation isn't a factor. Conference systems and playoffs help keep these games to an absolute minimum.
KevinO
Geoff Shaw (53)
I just can't see SA teams joining the Heineken Cup, European rugby is expanding and the challenge cup has already broadened that they have there own target audiences in place and SA would just complicate things.
Trans Tasman Super 10 sounds good, but really would need finals still. 21 Weeks would not be to bad. Best part would be able to have a Anzac day (Weekend) rivalry every season.
Going to a 16 team competition and playing everyone once would be ok, but I like the fact that you play everyone in your conference home and away.
Sidbarret
Fred Wood (13)
The last round of negotiations got extremely ugly between the partners, I hope this time around things can be different. (want to include a snide comment about a recently departed CEO, but in the spirit of consensus seeking I am going to restrain myself).
So I have an idea Lets use the substantial brain-power of the this board to come up with a working solution that we can sell at a small fee to SANZAR and all the unpleasantness can be avoided. For this purpose I propose a three step process for discussion between different southern tribes that make up the G&GR community.
1- What product do we, as consumers, want. Ignore the revenue and the cost (lets call this the price). How long do we want the season to be? Who do we want playing? How do we want to determine the ultimate winner?, etc.
2- Unfortunately you can only ignore cost for so long. Lets talk about the financials, specifically what can be done to maximise revenue? How can we ensure we give our star players pay for play that competes with the northern club sides? etc.
3- Finally, after considering the competing points above, lets try and find a structure that best balances the competing interests in point 1 and 2 above.
So I have an idea Lets use the substantial brain-power of the this board to come up with a working solution that we can sell at a small fee to SANZAR and all the unpleasantness can be avoided. For this purpose I propose a three step process for discussion between different southern tribes that make up the G&GR community.
1- What product do we, as consumers, want. Ignore the revenue and the cost (lets call this the price). How long do we want the season to be? Who do we want playing? How do we want to determine the ultimate winner?, etc.
2- Unfortunately you can only ignore cost for so long. Lets talk about the financials, specifically what can be done to maximise revenue? How can we ensure we give our star players pay for play that competes with the northern club sides? etc.
3- Finally, after considering the competing points above, lets try and find a structure that best balances the competing interests in point 1 and 2 above.
Sidbarret
Fred Wood (13)
I'll start with point number one.
I want super rugby to be super. I want Super rugby to be something else than simply a domestic competition. This infers two things. One, the super rugby must be superior to something else and two that there must be something foreign and exotic about the match ups.
In other words the super rugby season must leave room for the currie cup in the rugby calender, which limits the number of weeks available to conclude the competition. It also means that I want to see my team, the stormers, going up against foreign teams.
Furthermore, it should be about the strongest teams coming up against eachother. After a couple of months of super rugby it often a question of who has the best third string flyhalf or reserve hooker or whatever. I understand that depth is a legitimate difference between two franchises, but as a spectacle I rather watch McCaw v Burger than Deon Fourie v Matt Todd.
I also want the Springboks to be as good as they can be. Over the last two seasons, a new Springbok side has gone into the international season with only one week to prepare. I feel I am being short-changed on the international scene as the springboks are not as well prepared as they should or could be.
And finally, I am as much tragic as anyone else, but even I get rugby-ed out after a while.
So basically I want a shorter super season against foreign opposition.
So how do we decide a winner? Well I love the occasion of final, but every game leading up to finals and even during the finals must be all that it can be. It is fine balance between keeping teams interested (larger final series) and ensuring the best performing sides over the course of the season make the final (smaller finals series).
Personally I preferred the cut throat couple of weeks under the old format where you would have 6-8 teams battling it out to sneak into the play-offs. This year the finalists were decided before the final round started (again an argument for a shorter season). Generally I am not a fan of the conference structure, but I do enjoy the build-up to the finals where people speculate on the legitimacy of each finalists (or teams that just missed out), it adds a little something to proceedings and is probably the only value of the prelim finals.
I want super rugby to be super. I want Super rugby to be something else than simply a domestic competition. This infers two things. One, the super rugby must be superior to something else and two that there must be something foreign and exotic about the match ups.
In other words the super rugby season must leave room for the currie cup in the rugby calender, which limits the number of weeks available to conclude the competition. It also means that I want to see my team, the stormers, going up against foreign teams.
Furthermore, it should be about the strongest teams coming up against eachother. After a couple of months of super rugby it often a question of who has the best third string flyhalf or reserve hooker or whatever. I understand that depth is a legitimate difference between two franchises, but as a spectacle I rather watch McCaw v Burger than Deon Fourie v Matt Todd.
I also want the Springboks to be as good as they can be. Over the last two seasons, a new Springbok side has gone into the international season with only one week to prepare. I feel I am being short-changed on the international scene as the springboks are not as well prepared as they should or could be.
And finally, I am as much tragic as anyone else, but even I get rugby-ed out after a while.
So basically I want a shorter super season against foreign opposition.
So how do we decide a winner? Well I love the occasion of final, but every game leading up to finals and even during the finals must be all that it can be. It is fine balance between keeping teams interested (larger final series) and ensuring the best performing sides over the course of the season make the final (smaller finals series).
Personally I preferred the cut throat couple of weeks under the old format where you would have 6-8 teams battling it out to sneak into the play-offs. This year the finalists were decided before the final round started (again an argument for a shorter season). Generally I am not a fan of the conference structure, but I do enjoy the build-up to the finals where people speculate on the legitimacy of each finalists (or teams that just missed out), it adds a little something to proceedings and is probably the only value of the prelim finals.
southsider
Arch Winning (36)
from all this I only really see SA being benefited, why should aus and nz agree to this? whats in it for them?
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
South suffer - read it again. Effectively what he's saying is a return to a super 12 type scenario:
Less local derbies
Shorter season
Time allocated to inbound Tests and domestic competition
Kiwis would agree to this.
In fact the union who benefits most from a longer Super season is Australia because our domestic competition is shit. I'd go as far as saying fucking shit.
-----------------------
I hate autocorrect ...
Less local derbies
Shorter season
Time allocated to inbound Tests and domestic competition
Kiwis would agree to this.
In fact the union who benefits most from a longer Super season is Australia because our domestic competition is shit. I'd go as far as saying fucking shit.
-----------------------
I hate autocorrect ...
southsider
Arch Winning (36)
who wants less local derbies? we may want shorter seasons but not less local derbies
theres already time allocated for inbound tests and domestic competitions too? The ITM cup hasn't even started yet (dunno about currie cup)
and SA having more than 5 teams is stupid as it adds to the season you are trying to shorten and again it will be nothing more than another cannon fodder team
southsider
Arch Winning (36)
fair enough then, personally I want less, have a strong dislike for south African games
Sidbarret
Fred Wood (13)
Please read all three of my posts.
The one you quoted is a wish list, which yes, will have maximum benefit South Africa. An Australian wish list would look completely different, which is fine.
The point of the whole exercise is that all the parties say (honestly) what they want and where that differs finding compromises that serve the needs of each partner the best.
southsider
Arch Winning (36)
isn't a compromise the format we currently have? I see it as the fairest and most even for all parties?
Sidbarret
Fred Wood (13)
Should I take your comment to mean that the current super rugby format is perfect?
I apologise for my sarcasm, but I am sick of people looking at the final product and then blaming the other partners because it does serve their purpose.
I want to know what do Australians want from super rugby?
There is no point in calling something a compromise if we don't record what each party is wants, what are they willing to compromise and what are deal-breakers.
southsider
Arch Winning (36)
no you should take my comment to mean what it says, the current format is, in my opinion the best COMPROMISE we have, the very word compromise means no parties would see it as perfect.....but then again its never going to be perfect, especially when every country would have a different view of what perfect is
im sorry I cant speak on the behalf of the aru or the Australian public but I asure you the current format or any format would be some form of a compromise
- Status