The End of Super Rugby

[nomis]

If the levelers (salary cap in this instance) worked, why are the original three franchises in Australia so much stronger than the other two. The force currently have a shot at winning the super 15, but they don't.

In your proposal the likes of Kyle Godwin and Luke Jones won't even get a shot at playing against South African and New Zealand teams unless they move to the Tahs, Reds or Brumbies which under your proposal I think they will do.



At what level would the salary cap be set anyway? Would it be at the level that waratahs can afford or will it be at the level that a new start up without the blockbuster final series can afford?

I don't think we've seen the true effects of how they intend to level out the playing field in AUS just yet. But I don't think there is anything TOO radical or controversial or unrealistic in what I'm saying. Levelling out playing fields is an issue all codes face. And even under the best systems, you will still have winners and losers. But the purpose of any system is to prevent a few of the teams having all the best players. Perhaps I should have said, every team within the AUS conference will have a chance of winning the AUS conference, just as much as any NRL team or AFL team has a chance of winning within their code - and probably more of a chance with less teams. Sure, there will be teams at an advantage in any given year, having played together for a while, etc. And sure, some teams will be in a rebuilding phase and may have their sights set on winning a couple of years down the track. But I really don't think teams will be at more of a disadvantage than they are now. It's only 3 extra teams.

 

[nomis]

I don't like the fact that the Currie Cup does not have their Springboks playing.

I don't like the fact that the Currie Cup is reduced to a second rate competition since the conference system came into being.

I think this is the heart of the conflict between what SA (and to a lesser extent NZ) want, and what AUS want.

We have different goals within our countries. Perhaps right now, we are at the happiest middle-ground we can be, apart from the 6th SA team issue.

The most important thing in my mind is that we get the structures right. If we don't, we'll be forever having to fight to change things.

Let's just get the structures right, even if it means a slight drop in revenue initially. Once you get the structures right, you begin to build a tradition and please the fans of all three countries, at least.

 

[gel]

I understand the point you are making, and it's a fair point to make. I just don't think it will have an impact as significant as you say. I think the depth and competitiveness within AUS will continue to grow - particularly as rugby gets better exposure within AUS.

But it is the international flavour that gives it the exposure. Without that it does not grow (it shrinks). Why else do you think the South Pacific Championship (the fore runner of super rugby) was created? It was specifically because of the growth of Rugby League into a national game.

We have too many domestic competitions here now. You guys may laugh, but soccer here is marketed as "The World Game" because they need to reinforce that it is international and that AFL and RL are not.

Remove that element, and the game here shrinks as there is simply no point of difference.

You may think I am being negative (always a possibility with me ), but I think I am just being conservative based on what I have seen and experienced here over many years.

I'm sorry, I think we just don't see eye to eye on this.

 

[Rassie]

sorry rassie im just not going to bother, its waaaay too much effort trying to follow you and your reasoning in a argument

NZ had 5 teams 1996 to 2006? Correct.
If you don't know how Super Rugby works by now then I don't know. Every country have its 2 main teams and then its two weaklings and wildcard. All three countries. Before 2007 SA had 1 NZ had 2 Aus had 1. That mean NZ could bank on 2 teams and not 1 to take some points from the rivals in the other countries.

In 2007 SA had two. Those two grabbed a win over the Crusaders and a draw against the Chiefs. The difference between top spot and 4th was 3 points.

 

[southsider]

NZ had 5 teams 1996 to 2006? Correct.
If you don't know how Super Rugby works by now then I don't know. Every country have its 2 main teams and then its two weaklings and wildcard. All three countries. Before 2007 SA had 1 NZ had 2 Aus had 1. That mean NZ could bank on 2 teams and not 1 to take some points from the rivals in the other countries.

In 2007 SA had two. Those two grabbed a win over the Crusaders and a draw against the Chiefs. The difference between top spot and 4th was 3 points.

so what? for 1 year south African sides came first and second, your other teams sucked.......

that just shows the uneven spread of talent across the teams for that year, doesn't demonstrate depth at all

 

[nomis]

But it is the international flavour that gives it the exposure. Without that it does not grow (it shrinks). Why else do you think the South Pacific Championship (the fore runner of super rugby) was created? It was specifically because of the growth of Rugby League into a national game.

We have too many domestic competitions here now.

I'm not sure this point carries as much weight as it once did. But I still think it's important to maintain the perception of a single Super Rugby tournament, with international finals.

It seems to me the move to the conference system with an increased amount of local derbies was successful in AUS particularly because there was a domestic void to fill. And perhaps this is why it hasn't been as enthusiastically received by some fans in SA and NZ - because they already have a domestic comp with traditional teams.

If the conferences continue to increase in teams it won't be long before they can't play cross conference games during the regular season anyway.

This is why I keep coming back to the idea of morphing the domestic comps and the conferences within each country as the best way fwd.

 

[Rassie]

We are going in circles here and I think we should move on.
To be honest I think there is something evry Saffer in here is holding back. We can't really talk about cause of fear as being branded with a stereotype profile.

FIrst of all I am certain that most SA rugby supporters enjoy Super Rugby and competing with NZ and AUstralia. And by the viewer totals we enjoy watching other teams play as well.
Deep down I think we all can agree that SA need NZ NZ need AUS AUS need SA SA need Aus and NZ need SA. It has kept the south ahead of the north at national level and it seperates the teams that can adapt from the those who are just making up the numbers.
Traveling or not SA teams have always take it on the chin and get on with business. Anyways it can be fixed with the spacing of the games and the removal of the conferences.

I ask for the AUstralian and Kiwi guys here to go back to 2006/2007. And then just think about the Kings vs Lions issues. A lot of SA hated the Kings not cause the Lions got ousted but because why they were there and the agenda behind it.

Please do not take this up as a excuse. And yes unfortunately we have to mix the P with sport and ignore the I am not touching that with a 6ft pole rule when they are mixed.

This issue have been coming on a long time and it have snowballed. We can argue till we are blue pink black red or whatever but the Kings have to get a place soon in the future.

The great city of PE and its team have been used to further some of the agenda's of others. The easy way to score points is to attack the Afrikaner culture in public and point to things happend in APartheid SA.

In 1994 SA decided to transform everything to make sure it makes up the demographics of the country. That involves sport teams as well.

They want around 70 percent of the teams filled with non white plaers and they want results fast. Now the problem arises as they want to apply the outlook of a sport to all the different sports.

Like xxx amount of non white cricket players are going through the ranks and a big chunk of that toal comes out the other end.

But in rugby xxxx amount goes in and at senior level there is 2 or 3 per 15 players and on occasion merit selection takes a back seat.

Yes SARU is being run by a bunch of knobs but they try to please another bunch of knobs who only work with numbers and logics.

As the years went on the pressure have been applied more and more to force transformation.

Quota players which was later scrapped. Laws that give the Sports minister sweeping powers to change any sports team fit and act as a selector.
The pressure have become so huge that they created a myth like the EP region and its development of non white players is that big. It was just to get the government of their back after they were called to parliament in 2007 and had to answer why at senior level players of color suddenly disappear from the rugby scene.

After it the noise about the SPears quiet down and the Lions and CHeetahs were playing.

6 Years later and the pressure was lifted a bit by letting the 7's and junior squads take one for the team and perform inconsistent by overlooking merit with some selections.

In 2012 some blokes saw the opportunuty to start their gravy train and score points with the goverment. They hired and made promises before anything was confirmed.

At SARU end they thought they can use the Kings for development and relax the unofficial quota numbers on the other unions if they can get the Kings in as well.That would keep everyone happy in the office and politics but Aus and NZ do not agree with adding another.

Its SA problem not NZ or Australia's problem is the message.
So we are losing playin due to goverment policies as well.Rathbone is a example and Jacque Fourie and others had careers at international level wasted by it.

So they want to show the goverment the myth they created and there are so xx players of color playing Super Rugby. Which off course can be selected in the national team.

The real thing they over look is why people never make it to senior level. Because the size differences. You can give free balls and rugby fields and whatever equipment to poor and disadvantage community but it will not make them grow into big strapping lads automatically. That is genes and nutrition = height

You can not let 60 percent of your people live in poverty not feeding them and expect them to fill the demographics in a rugby team.
Considering the average height is 1,66m for most of the non white population.

So huge amounts of numbers get trimmed into a small number and merit gets discarded just to keep politicians happy.

There should be no conferences nor any adding of teams but just Aus and NZ as well as the IRB telling us we are expelled from International competition till goverment interference is stopped as well as reverse racism by selecting players on skin color not merit. Greece got expelled by FIFA due to their no govt interference policy. IRB and others could do it as well.

SARU will force the issue or run off and play tournaments with weak opposition just to keep a low profile and avoid government attention. Most SA know and we can feel it as we are at a cross roads

Please read this
http://www.pmg.org.za/minutes/20070...op-rugby-previously-disadvantaged-communities

Mr Dikgacwi commented that the Under 19s and 21s had won the World Cup. Both sides had black players. Why were they not selected for further progression? It seemed as if only the white players were selected for the bigger teams.

Thinking like that is where goverment pressure come from.

Now consider
average height of males and females in various world countries.
Country Average male height Average female height
Australia 178.4 cm (5' 10.2")
New Zealand 177.0 cm (5' 9.7") 165.0 cm (5' 5")
South Africa 169.0 cm (5' 6.5") 159.0 cm (5' 2.5")


This data is drawn from players playing for the teams contesting the H-Cup and Super Rugby. That is 39 top teams in 9 countries.
Pos Cmp . -Max- -Min- -Ave- . -Max- -Min- -Ave-
=== === . ===== ===== ===== . ===== ===== =====
p 1 H/C . 196cm 173cm 185cm . 6' 5" 5' 8" 6' 1"
p 2 H/C . 190cm 173cm 181cm . 6' 3" 5' 8" 5'11"
p 4 H/C . 211cm 183cm 198cm . 6'11" 6' 0" 6' 6"
p 6 H/C . 202cm 175cm 190cm . 6' 8" 5' 9" 6' 3"
p 8 H/C . 202cm 183cm 192cm . 6' 8" 6' 0" 6' 4"
p 9 H/C . 188cm 170cm 178cm . 6' 2" 5' 7" 5'10"
p10 H/C . 196cm 171cm 181cm . 6' 5" 5' 7" 5'11"
p11 H/C . 198cm 171cm 184cm . 6' 6" 5' 7" 6' 0"
p12 H/C . 193cm 170cm 185cm . 6' 4" 5' 7" 6' 1"
p15 H/C . 192cm 165cm 183cm . 6' 4" 5' 5" 6' 0"

p 1 Sup . 195cm 178cm 186cm . 6' 5" 5'10" 6' 1"
p 2 Sup . 189cm 174cm 182cm . 6' 2" 5' 9" 6' 0"
p 4 Sup . 208cm 193cm 199cm . 6'10" 6' 4" 6' 6"
p 6 Sup . 198cm 177cm 188cm . 6' 6" 5'10" 6' 2"
p 8 Sup . 195cm 189cm 192cm . 6' 5" 6' 2" 6' 4"
p 9 Sup . 187cm 166cm 178cm . 6' 2" 5' 5" 5'10"
p10 Sup . 191cm 175cm 183cm . 6' 3" 5' 9" 6' 0"
p11 Sup . 195cm 173cm 184cm . 6' 5" 5' 8" 6' 1"
p12 Sup . 196cm 173cm 185cm . 6' 5" 5' 8" 6' 1"
p15 Sup . 194cm 177cm 184cm . 6' 4" 5'10" 6' 1"

As you can see the issue is extremely complicated and go deep.

Ideally I would like us to go back to the Super 14.

 

[The Red Baron]

 

[Sully]

I have absolutely no idea what the fuck you are rambling on about! fucking move on and stop posting this complete bullshit.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[The Red Baron]

How does height manage to work it's way into an argument over depth and internal politics? I'm not even sure what the reference point for the random height figures are. I can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to say Spoony, Cave Dweller, Rassie. Therefore I go back to my batman argument.