Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rebels3]

As much as 'growing the game' is nice, and developing talent and providing opportunities is important, both teams have been consistently shithouse for the entirety of their history (except one or two years for the Force where they vaguely threatened to pinch a finals spot but ended up falling short).

The thought of them lifting the trophy at any time in the next 20 years is sheer fantasy. At least when the Tahs failed you knew they had the depth and talent, and just had to put it all together. The Rebs and Force have neither.

I don't mind the 'Champions Cup' format, but I worry it makes a confusing season even harder to follow. How many comps will that make in a year? I'm following the Australian (Super) Cup, the Champions Cup, the Rugby Championship, the NRC, the Shute Shield and a litany of one-off Cook Cup style games.. whereas NRL/AFL have one comp and that's it.

Unless given the chance, the Force and Rebels will never get the opportunity to create depth and talent. 10 and 6 years respectively is nothing in sport. Kids that were young enough to be influenced and inspired from their inclusion are probably only between the age of 18-20 (Force) and 14-16 (Rebels).

Sorry but confused? Billions of people that support football in Europe, Asia, etc. understand the concept. The same concept used in rugby circles in Europe atm, I thought we were by stereotype the smartest of all code supporters. If anything the more competitions the more chance we have of engaging with fans who lose interest once their teams have no chance a third of the way through a certain comp. For example English football fans have (Euros, Champions League, Europa League, League Cup, World Cup, World Club Challenge, the league, FA Cup, Community Shield, ...... to contend with, all while also understanding whats happening in multiple leagues around the world.

 

[Twoilms]

^^^^^
A Champions Cup model is the only viable long-term model. Three time-zone friendly comps with a concurrent champions cup competition.

Plus you could have a World Club Champions match which would be Europe v Southern Hemisphere. That would be amazing.

Edit: Saracens v Hurricanes anyone?

 

[KiwiM]

The Lions were shit for a long time. Hurricanes were mostly shit until recently.

Bit of a defeatist attitude really. Particularly given how the Force are probably the second best Australian team this year, all things considered.

That's a stretch. Between 03 and 09 the Canes made the semi finals 5 times. Before 03 whilst they may not have always been successful they had exciting superstar players (e.g. Umaga, Cullen, Lomu etc).

Do you mean the Highlanders?

I guess if you look at the NZ Conference there has typically only been one side at a time that has really struggled. In the 90s that was the Chiefs, in the 2000s it was the Highlanders and more recently it has been the Blues.

I think the issue is in the Aussie Conference in the space of 5 years you almost doubled from 3 teams to 5. You didn't give 4 teams a go for long enough - which has ended up hurting all the Aussie teams. It would be interesting where the Force would be now if Australia had stayed at 4 teams.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

KiwiM, that's actually a fair point. We didn't have our act together in WA or at the ARU level for some of that time either and some opportunities were wasted. I have no doubt that the Force would be further along in terms of development if there were still four teams. That said, I never had an issue with the Rebels joining the comp.

 

[joeyjohnz]

The thing I keep coming back to is this - will the Rebels and Force EVER be competitive? I'm not sure.

Considering the Waratah's took over 20 years to win a piece of silverware, don't you think it's fair you give the rest that chance?

 

[Moono75]

I just can't get passionate about keeping five teams, if the current format (broadly) is one we are continuing.

The thing I keep coming back to is this - will the Rebels and Force EVER be competitive? I'm not sure.

As much as 'growing the game' is nice, and developing talent and providing opportunities is important, both teams have been consistently shithouse for the entirety of their history (except one or two years for the Force where they vaguely threatened to pinch a finals spot but ended up falling short).

The thought of them lifting the trophy at any time in the next 20 years is sheer fantasy. At least when the Tahs failed you knew they had the depth and talent, and just had to put it all together. The Rebs and Force have neither.
.

Everything you say above just reinforces what is wrong about Rugby in Australia and the East Coast centric view of the world. Perhaps if we had been afforded the right resources and treated equitably from the outset the Force and Rebels might be more successful. We have come to the conclusion in the West that we can't rely on ARU because it's not a governing body representing the best interests of the game in Australia.

As you say above we only just missed the finals in 2014, despite having more wins than 2 NZ teams that made it. Maybe thats one of the problems with the whole competition awarding bonus points. Wins should count for more.

I also find the very prevalent "millennial" attitude being trotted out amazing and discouraging. Not everything in life comes to you straight away, at the snap of your fingers. It's not about instant satisfaction. Somethings you need to invest time and resources into. Has our focus become so narrow and attention so short that we can't see the long term strategic goal?

Where would the AFL be if they never decided to expand out of being a Victorian based league (VFL) and allow the Eagles into the competition, then the Swans (Sydney), Bears/Lions (Brisbane), Crows (Adelaide), etc etc etc. Everyone of those teams struggled but have eventually enjoyed their share of success. Tell me how the AFL is doing financially and if they regret the decision to broaden their horizens?

Can you not see that the very nature of having Super teams in WA and Victoria provides a tangible incentive for junior players to stick with the game as they try and emulate their heroes. Does growing your player base, widening the pool of players not eventually deliver enough quality to the top that teams, results, investment in the game from sponsors, rights holders improves. It takes time and will involve an inevitable dip in all teams performances, suck it up and take the pain!

The conveyor belt of players being produced from WA is only now starting to pay dividends. The hard yards have been done. Why would you pull back now when the rewards are so close. I see the summit ahead.......too many others see a precipice!

Everyone points to the bad start by OZ teams in the competition. Maybe some of that can also be attributed to shit coaches with shit ideas on how to play and a governing body that has neglected it's duty to the WHOLE of Australian Rugby by being bereft of talent, ideas and an all too insular focus on the two golden child's (NSW & QLD) who have been misbehaving brats for years.

 

[Bullrush]

Considering the Waratah's took over 20 years to win a piece of silverware, don't you think it's fair you give the rest that chance?

Not asking the Rebels to win, just be competitive. I think the feeling right now is 'No'. We don't have 20yrs to spare them.

 

[Bullrush]

Who are the 'heroes' of rugby in the Rebels that any one wants to emulate? And why can't they want to emulate players in the ACT or Waratahs or - heaven forbid - WALLABIES?!

Choosing heroes from the Rebels is pretty slim pickings.

 

[barbarian]

OK I'll try and attack this one point by point.

Everything you say above just reinforces what is wrong about Rugby in Australia and the East Coast centric view of the world. Perhaps if we had been afforded the right resources and treated equitably from the outset the Force and Rebels might be more successful. We have come to the conclusion in the West that we can't rely on ARU because it's not a governing body representing the best interests of the game in Australia.

This is too easy an answer and is thrown around far too much from those out West. 'We fail because the ARU failed us'. In what way? That they didn't pour millions of dollars into rugby in WA? Because it was money they just didn't have.

You were shafted by the top-up system? Maybe. But when you guys had bucketloads of Firepower 'money' you were still failing.

I'm sorry to say it but the Western Force have been a cosistent failure over the last decade. One year they almost made the finals, sure, but that's just not enough. And I say exactly the same about the Rebels.

It's not the fault of the comp, it's the fault of the Force. They just weren't good enough.

I don't mean to suggest that they are the reason we are in the situation we are in, but they have to take their share of blame. If they chalked up more wins in the last decade it would make the decision of the ARU to keep 5 teams much, much easier.

I also find the very prevalent "millennial" attitude being trotted out amazing and discouraging. Not everything in life comes to you straight away, at the snap of your fingers. It's not about instant satisfaction. Somethings you need to invest time and resources into. Has our focus become so narrow and attention so short that we can't see the long term strategic goal?

Where would the AFL be if they never decided to expand out of being a Victorian based league (VFL) and allow the Eagles into the competition, then the Swans (Sydney), Bears/Lions (Brisbane), Crows (Adelaide), etc etc etc. Everyone of those teams struggled but have eventually enjoyed their share of success. Tell me how the AFL is doing financially and if they regret the decision to broaden their horizens?

Put away this 'millennial' rubbish please, it's got nothing to do with that.

Under your logic we should actually push for more Super teams. Let's have one in Adelaide, in Darwin, in Hobart. Because expansion must be a good thing, no?

But the reality is this - expansion doesn't always work. Just ask the NRL, the A-League, the NBL.

After a while you ask yourself if it's worth it. Is it? Is a couple of Wallabies, good grassroots development and 'incentive' enough to sustain a whole team who have a record of consistent failure?

FWIW I actually think the Force should stay. I think the Rebels should go.

But this notion that there is no logic in cutting the Force is ridiculous. It may well happen, and yes it will be sad but the argument is far more complex than what some on here make it out to be.

It takes time and will involve an inevitable dip in all teams performances, suck it up and take the pain!

How much time? How much pain? Because we're ten years in with no end in sight. And we've had a lot of pain.

The Force look better this year but are still destined for a finish in the bottom 8 teams...... again.
.

 

[barbarian]

Considering the Waratah's took over 20 years to win a piece of silverware, don't you think it's fair you give the rest that chance?

This line has been thrown around a bit but I have no time for it.

The Waratahs had a huge local talent base at their disposal, and made deep finals runs on multiple occasions in the 2000s.

The frustration for Waratahs fans was always that their results didn't match the talent they had in their squad.

Same goes for the Hurricanes, the Blues, the Lions, the Bulls in their periods of underperformance.

If anything the Force are punching ABOVE their weight. They have very little local talent, and a squad with no depth at all. There is no conceivable end in sight as they consistently rely on talent developed elsewhere.
.

 

[Omar Comin']

If anything the Force are punching ABOVE their weight. They have very little local talent, and a squad with no depth at all. There is no conceivable end in sight as they consistently rely on talent developed elsewhere.

I believe they regularly have more starting local players than the Brumbies.

But why does this even matter? Who cares how many players are locally produced? How many players in the Manchester United match day squad are from Manchester? How many players from the Chicago Bulls are from Chicago? How many players in the Sydney Roosters are from the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney?

The local identity of a team is formed by the fans first and foremost, it's their team. Players and coaches etc come and go, the fans stay. The vast majority of sports fans of any professional club team or franchise don't know or care where the players in their team were born or went to school, it's just not an issue. I've made this point a hundred times, rugby has a global player market, if we need to tap into it to make all of our teams more competitive, then we should do so. The worst thing you can do is cut teams and lose the fans that support them and the juniors that grow up wanting to play for them.

 

[barbarian]

But if they keep propping up the arse end of the table there won't be any fans Omar. Or sponsors. Or TV viewers.

It's certainly not enough to keep them financially viable.
.

 

[Omar Comin']

But if they keep propping up the arse end of the table there won't be any fans Omar. Or sponsors. Or TV viewers.

It's certainly not enough to keep them financially viable.
.

The only way you are guaranteed to lose thousands of fans forever is to cut the team they support. There are ways to make teams more competitive, and when they are competitive the fans who've given up come back. They certainly won't come back if there's nothing for them to return to.

I would actually argue the level of fan support for the Force and Rebels is pretty remarkable given their results over the last several years. Imagine the average crowds the Waratahs would get if they'd had the same results and style of play as the Force over the last 10 years! I bet they'd be worse.

 

[D-Box]

LinkedIn Post doing the circles in WA this morning.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eastern-states-myopia-holds-axe-over-western-force-brendan-fitzgerald

While it starts off bagging the east coast media it then goes on to provide some numbers to support the Force's retention beyond just the dollars

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk

 

[barbarian]

The only way you are guaranteed to lose thousands of fans forever is to cut the team they support. There are ways to make teams more competitive, and when they are competitive the fans who've given up come back. They certainly won't come back if there's nothing for them to return to.

I would actually argue the level of fan support for the Force and Rebels is pretty remarkable given their results over the last several years. Imagine the average crowds the Waratahs would get if they'd had the same results and style of play as the Force over the last 10 years! I bet they'd be worse.

Potentially.

I see your arguments, they are fair enough. I'm just not sure the Force will ever be competitive. Same with the Rebels.
.

 

[Joe King]

The main argument behind cutting one Australian team is to make the other 4 more competitive.

If Australia were to retain 5 teams in Super Rugby, they would need to make them all more competitive. And quickly.

Allowing more overseas players in them is one idea.

My questions are:

1. Would it be enough?
2. What is stopping the ARU from doing this already?

 

[KiwiM]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/91339312/super-rugby-future-should-be-clear-by-monday

 

[barbarian]

LinkedIn Post doing the circles in WA this morning.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eastern-states-myopia-holds-axe-over-western-force-brendan-fitzgerald

While it starts off bagging the east coast media it then goes on to provide some numbers to support the Force's retention beyond just the dollars

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk

That's a good article, and I agree with most of his points. I do have an issue with this one, though:

The Force has been locked into a Catch 22, where they struggle to entice quality players and then are condemned for being perennial cellar dwellers due to lack of talent on the field.

It's true, but I'm not sure the struggle to entice quality players will ever end. The tyranny of distance will mean that most players in NSW and QLD would rather toil for a squad spot close to home rather than go out west and potentially make the Force 23.

There is no answer to this problem, other than the empty cry for more ARU support. I'm not sure the gap will ever be closed.
.

 

[Omar Comin']

Potentially.

I see your arguments, they are fair enough. I'm just not sure the Force will ever be competitive. Same with the Rebels.

Well it's undeniable that grassroots development in Perth is starting to pay off with several WA developed players now in the Force squad, and with Perth Spirit winning the NRC last year with predominantly locally developed players. Melbourne is a little further behind but showing some signs of doing the same.

But why cut one of our teams in a big and important Australian market like Perth or Melbourne if the primary problem is just a lack of local player depth? The Rebels boss has said a couple of times recently that he'd like to be able to sign more international players, why not let him? I think of it this way, we have the commercial market size and population for at least 5 teams but not enough player depth. NZ has enough depth for more than 5 teams, and Argentina has enough depth for more than 1 team, but both are restricted commercially. Then there's the pacific islands. There are win/wins to be found here!

 

[KOB1987]

I think there is a healthy debate going on for both sides of the argument, I'd like to see all 5 sides retained and a white knight benefactor donate a billion dollars to the grassroots development of the game. I can live if we cut a team but it's not my preference.

Amongst all this I have one question I'd like answered:

how the fuck is cutting the Kings, Cheetahs and one Aussie team going to make the Sunwolves more competitive?