Where to for Super Rugby?

[hifflepiff]

For those interested in shares I believe RA need to look at this like a portfolio. The problem with a full TT comp is its a poor diversification strategy as is high potential for none of your investments can get a return and lose value, but equally all your investments can get a large return if it turns out positive.

Most portfolios will have some stable investments that aren't as volatile. Hence why keeping SRAU is the way forward, with another comp against other teams to supplement it (most likely NZ teams). This years format is what i believe will be roughly what remains with Fiji joining SRAU and Pacifica joining SRAo and pehaps a tweak to TT where the top 3 from each comp plays each other home and away and then the bottom 3 in another comp home and away.

SRAU will be our stable investment with a guaranteed return and any TT comp on top will be the volatile investment to provide the cream on top. If it flops you still have the moderate return of the other investments to bank on

Excellent analogy. TT's great, but its unreliable. We could conceivably go years or even a whole decade before seeing another Australian TT champion, which just isn't sustainable in a competitive sporting market like Australia. If we can win it that's amazing, but it can't be our bread and butter.

Professional Rugby in Aus needs a certain number of big events per year they can rely on and plan around in order to grab the sporting publics attention. A domestic grand final provides that.

 

[eastman]

Excellent analogy. TT's great, but its unreliable. We could conceivably go years or even a whole decade before seeing another Australian TT champion, which just isn't sustainable in a competitive sporting market like Australia. If we can win it that's amazing, but it can't be our bread and butter.

Professional Rugby in Aus needs a certain number of big events per year they can rely on and plan around in order to grab the sporting publics attention. A domestic grand final provides that.

Or we just open up the competition to make sure the best players can represent any franchise in the competition?

No Parramatta Eels fan is concerned that Dylan Brown is a kiwi representative, and I doubt any Waratahs fan would be too fussed if there outside centre Billy Proctor is a wannabee All- Black.

 

[Dan54]

Probably because nzru have made it clear they will never accept open borders policy which I begrundingly accepted would be nzru’s position. Hamish had in early days indicated open to open borders policy, but suspect meetings with nzru counterparts have slammed shut that idea.

You got to admit , you are pretty good at finding anything that doesn't agree with your idea of how things work is NZR's fault.

 

[hifflepiff]

Or we just open up the competition to make sure the best players can represent any franchise in the competition?

No Parramatta Eels fan is concerned that Dylan Brown is a kiwi representative, and I doubt any Waratahs fan would be too fussed if there outside centre Billy Proctor is a wannabee All- Black.

(a) Why would second-rate Kiwi's help us beat teams full of first-rate Kiwi's?

(b) Why would NZ send their developing players over here when they're so protective of their development pathways

(c) Why would any NZer actually in contention for the AB's want to play in Aus when that would frequently mean 1. playing for a worse team and 2. getting less air time in NZ, both of which would decrease their chance of getting selected for the AB's.

(d) Even if we could get top level Kiwi's over (Which as I've argued above, I doubt), why would we want them when 1. They're unlikely to have us start beating the Kiwi teams regularly by themselves (unless they can get 15-20 of their All Black mates to come over with them on the cheap) and 2. We would have to pay out the asshole to have them come over for 2-3 years max vs. Using that money to ensure we can retain our best young players who would otherwise go to League (and might actually stick around).

(e) That doesn't address any of the points Rebels3 made above

 

[Dan54]

I am in my 20s and haven’t missed a game this year. Rebels maybe shit but you have to be loyal. You aren’t going to get people interested in a 5 team comp where 3 sides make the finals. Most blokes I know view that as a joke.

Sport isn’t always full of happy endings you got to front up and take a loss and move forward

Amen!!

And it will just make it even more satisfying when an Aus side does win. We have been making good progress at age group level. But you have to wait for these boys to become men and he experienced members of our sides

Which will happen in next couple of weeks,if not this week. I can see Reds giving Chiefs a bloody hard time, and wouldnot be surprised at all if Blues fold to Brumbies! Certainly can't see my Canes beating either of them and certainly not both!

 

[Rugbynutter39]

You got to admit , you are pretty good at finding anything that doesn't agree with your idea of how things work is NZR's fault.

No I actually have to had to respect that if RA were in the same position as NZRU they probably would not be open to this either (noting they did actually knock back Twiggy's request that any oz player playing for GRR side to be wallaby eligible). Besides I can find other things to criticse NZRU for. lol .

 

[Teh Other Dave]

(a) Why would second-rate Kiwi's help us beat teams full of first-rate Kiwi's?

(b) Why would NZ send their developing players over here when they're so protective of their development pathways

(c) Why would any NZer actually in contention for the AB's want to play in Aus when that would frequently mean 1. playing for a worse team and 2. getting less air time in NZ, both of which would decrease their chance of getting selected for the AB's.

(d) Even if we could get top level Kiwi's over (Which as I've argued above, I doubt), why would we want them when 1. They're unlikely to have us start beating the Kiwi teams regularly by themselves (unless they can get 15-20 of their All Black mates to come over with them on the cheap) and 2. We would have to pay out the asshole to have them come over for 2-3 years max vs. Using that money to ensure we can retain our best young players who would otherwise go to League (and might actually stick around).

(e) That doesn't address any of the points Rebels3 made above

I don't necessarily agree with Eastman's point (I'd sooner have locally raised talent in the squads) but you're just dismissing it out of hand. This has been done before.

The whole origin of the ACT Brumbies was Qld and NSW players who couldn't get a professional gig plus a handful of locals, one of whom was an incumbent test player. At least five of those locals ended up winning the 99 world cup, and they're now our 'destination club'.

Kiwi players have come here before to have a crack at Super Rugby, guys like Daniel Braid and Mike Harris are examples. Fairly sure the Reds didn't break the bank to get them.

And of course the Force are currently crawling with test quality players in the twilight of their careers. They're not beating Kiwis yet, but have seen significant improvement.

 

[KOB1987]

Yeah, I think we are more likely to to go outside NZ with these foreigners, but the occasional one will be specced. More Mike Harris and less Jack Whetton please! Players from countries that don't have a strong economy or a pro comp will be targets - ARG, SAF, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, etc, plus the odd player on his way out like Kearney, etc.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

One thing I find interesting about these discussions is the apparent age difference between those on either side of the debate. Now obviously this is speculative, and generalised, but when talking about domestic v TT (both here and irl), those that advocate for a solely TT comp seem to be a fair bit older than those that want a domestic comp/domestic + TT. Perhaps the old blokes have more positive memories of TT Rugby compared to those of us that are younger?

What I can tell you is that as someone in their mid-20’s, the association people in my age group have with Union (and Super Rugby in particular) tends to be overwhelmingly negative.

Even amongst those that are Union fans, most don’t have many good memories of Super Rugby. The one that comes up all the time Is the 2015 Tahs win. 2011 might as well be ancient history. One, maybe two, positive memories of our main professional competition in the past decade is pretty fucking terrible.The primary emotions associated with the competition seem to be failure, disappointment and eventually apathy. It’s no wonder nobody below the age of 45 is interested.

Interestingly, the only time I’ve seen people get around Union was during Super AU. I actually had non-rugby fans wanting to go to a game of their own accord, which I can genuinely say I’ve never seen before in my adult life. That’s completely dropped off again two weeks into TT.

Now this is all obviously pretty anecdotal, but what I'll finish by pointing out that it’s near impossible to get non-Rugby people (i.e. a large part of the Australian population now days) interested in the sport when our premier professional competition involves Aus teams getting blown out week after week. It’s just an objectively shit way to spend your Friday/Saturday night.

The stats show the younger age groups are most disengaged with rugby....super rugby.....so nothing new there and yes that bias for type of competitions people prefer no doubt plays out depending in many cases the age bracket.

 

[Dan54]

No I actually have to had to respect that if RA were in the same position as NZRU they probably would not be open to this either (noting they did actually knock back Twiggy's request that any oz player playing for GRR side to be wallaby eligible). Besides I can find other things to criticse NZRU for. lol .

 

[Dan54]

I don't necessarily agree with Eastman's point (I'd sooner have locally raised talent in the squads) but you're just dismissing it out of hand. This has been done before.

The whole origin of the ACT Brumbies was Qld and NSW players who couldn't get a professional gig plus a handful of locals, one of whom was an incumbent test player. At least five of those locals ended up winning the 99 world cup, and they're now our 'destination club'.

Kiwi players have come here before to have a crack at Super Rugby, guys like Daniel Braid and Mike Harris are examples. Fairly sure the Reds didn't break the bank to get them.

And of course the Force are currently crawling with test quality players in the twilight of their careers. They're not beating Kiwis yet, but have seen significant improvement.

As did Adam Thomson, had done his time as an AB and like Danial Braid was a bllody good buy for Reds, both added a lot in the way of experience etc to pass on as well as being good. Mike Harris is another good case , was never going to be AB, but came here and added to teams. They are type players well worth chasing.

 

[Dan54]

Just read an interesting write up on Roar. And not just because it agrees with me. But goes along with my theory it will not work having seperate comps followed by champions or TT comp because Aus teams will be so far off pace like is happening.

 

[sendit]

(a) Why would second-rate Kiwi's help us beat teams full of first-rate Kiwi's?

(b) Why would NZ send their developing players over here when they're so protective of their development pathways

(c) Why would any NZer actually in contention for the AB's want to play in Aus when that would frequently mean 1. playing for a worse team and 2. getting less air time in NZ, both of which would decrease their chance of getting selected for the AB's.

(d) Even if we could get top level Kiwi's over (Which as I've argued above, I doubt), why would we want them when 1. They're unlikely to have us start beating the Kiwi teams regularly by themselves (unless they can get 15-20 of their All Black mates to come over with them on the cheap) and 2. We would have to pay out the asshole to have them come over for 2-3 years max vs. Using that money to ensure we can retain our best young players who would otherwise go to League (and might actually stick around).

(e) That doesn't address any of the points Rebels3 made above

I totally get peoples arguments for wanting Super Au to be the focus even though I don’t agree with it myself

But these points are just fucking dumb, like do you actually believe these? Or are you just throwing them out there and hoping nobody challenges you on them because the majority of people want super AU?

 

[hifflepiff]

I totally get peoples arguments for wanting Super Au to be the focus even though I don’t agree with it myself

But these points are just fucking dumb, like do you actually believe these? Or are you just throwing them out there and hoping nobody challenges you on them because the majority of people want super AU?

If you have logical counter points as to why I'm wrong, by all means, please provide them.

To be clear I'm not against having Kiwi players over here (so long as they're recruited in a smart way and aren't blocking up and coming Aus players in key positions).

I can even see the reasoning for an effectively implemented open boarders policy in some capacity, even if I think its unlikely to happen.

But the idea being advocated; that an open borders policy means we're going to see a bunch of AB-level players come over to allow us to start regularly winning championships, and thereby make a Trans Tasman competiton viable, is ridiculous (for the reasons outlined above).

But hey, I'm always open to being convinced otherwise.

 

[sendit]

If you have counter points, by all means please provide them.

To be clear I'm not against having more Kiwis over here, I'm not even against the idea of an open boarders policy in principle. but the idea that an open boarders policy means we're going to suddenly start competing with the Kiwi teams, and thereby make a Trans Tasman competiton viable, is ridiculous (for the reasons outlined above).

But hey I'm always open to being convinced otherwise.

Let's go then, if we must. Although i still feel like this is A grade trolling if you say you can't answer these yourself

A) Who's saying they need to be 2nd rate kiwis? Even if they are, who cares? Any improvement on our current squads is a step closer to beating kiwi teams. Also you don't need superstar signings to better a team, a hard honest squad member can be just as valuable comparatively $ wise as a superstar player is

B) Because they're screwed if they don't, Super AO is even less sustainable in its current model than Super AU is. Their options are either go internally and make NPC fulltime pro which is a huge ask and risky af, or have a competitive Trans Tasman tournament. A competitive Trans Tasman includes leveling the playing field. Also just about every pro sport comp outside of Aus/NZ have thriving loan systems in place that betters both parties

C) For a whole host of reasons, using your logic no NRL origin player would play for anyone outside of Roosters, Storm or Panthers because they're the good teams. And the "getting less airtime" argument, like seriously come on, old mate AB coach "yea sorry mate, was going to pick ya but couldn't be bothered to switch on the tv and watch the tahs v reds, sorry about that mate" seriously......

D) Most teams aren't far off the pace, couple of different players in a team changes the whole complexion of a game. Price wise you have absolutely no data to back up your claims and there's equally nothing stopping young aussie players playing for 2-3 years then buggering off to Europe/League its the same risk

The whole basis of your argument is that professional footballers don't switch teams without a large financial incentive which just isn't true

You're also assuming that a open borders policy wouldn't also be coupled by a workable salary cap that will organically shift players from team to team evening out the competition

 

[eastman]

Let's go then, if we must. Although i still feel like this is A grade trolling if you say you can't answer these yourself

Sendit basically did all the hard work for me (cheers bra) but at the end of the day anything making the Trans-Tasman more competitive has to be the prioritized.

Including some second string NZers (who lets be honest are pretty much equal to our top players) to our teams in addition to our 'good' players can only strengthen our franchises. Its' then the imperative of the Australian clubs to make sure that 'good' local players aren't being overlooked through smart recruitment.

To ensure that Super Rugby is viable in the long-term, the focus has to be on the competition itself, not as a development tool for Wallabies/ All Blacks.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Just read an interesting write up on Roar. And not just because it agrees with me. But goes along with my theory it will not work having seperate comps followed by champions or TT comp because Aus teams will be so far off pace like is happening.

You mean the one below that said no to agreeing to home and away TT series. I have attached it below in case you did not finish reading this one. PS Dan pls let us have some joy of seeing oz teams win at least short term by letting us keep at LEAST a short form domestic comp b4 TT before we kill of any remaining u45 rugby fans.

https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/05/23/how-to-fix-australian-rugbys-trans-tasman-problem/

 

[hifflepiff]

A) Who's saying they need to be 2nd rate kiwis? Even if they are, who cares? Any improvement on our current squads is a step closer to beating kiwi teams. Also you don't need superstar signings to better a team, a hard honest squad member can be just as valuable comparatively $ wise as a superstar player is

The person I was replying to was stating that we should get NZ squad players over here ala Proctor. My argument being that we've had those players come over many times in the past e.g. Ellison, Thomson and it hasn't made much of a difference. Plus we have plenty of hard, honest squad players in Aus already. They’re not the reason we’re losing.

Now If we expanded the number of Australian teams, then sure, we should be looking to get Kiwis over here in larger numbers to fill in the gaps, but otherwise, I don't see how this doesn't just end up with a bunch of Wharenui Hawera's. I.e. Kiwis not good enough to make their current teams who just end up taking up space in Australian sides (and by extension hurting the Wallabies).

As to why we would be unlikely to get current top level Kiwi's, at least in the short term (when we need them), please refer to my responses below.

B) Because they're screwed if they don't, Super AO is even less sustainable in its current model than Super AU is. Their options are either go internally and make NPC fulltime pro which is a huge ask and risky af, or have a competitive Trans Tasman tournament. A competitive Trans Tasman includes leveling the playing field. Also just about every pro sport comp outside of Aus/NZ have thriving loan systems in place that betters both parties

TT has been uncompetitive for years and NZ have shown precisely zero interest in an open borders policy. Maybe they’ll suddenly change tack but I doubt it. I also don’t really think it would matter if they did change tack because we wouldn’t see any benefit from a change for a number of years (refer to my last point).

C) For a whole host of reasons, using your logic no NRL origin player would play for anyone outside of Roosters, Storm or Panthers because they're the good teams. And the "getting less airtime" argument, like seriously come on, old mate AB coach "yea sorry mate, was going to pick ya but couldn't be bothered to switch on the tv and watch the tahs v reds, sorry about that mate" seriously..

My argument wasn't that no Kiwi's would come over, it was that due to the reasons I outlined, you would have to pay a considerable amount extra to get them to come to Aus. This is on top of the already hefty price we’d be paying to get them to leave their existing clubs. For these reasons, I think you would have to play considerably more for an AB-Level Kiwi player than you would even for a current Wallaby. That extra money on 1 Kiwi player would also mean we lose a bunch of other players who we now can’t afford to keep, making Aus squads as a whole weaker. That in my opinion would be a waste of money when we should be looking at our long-term development systems. This is obviously a subjective opinion, but I would prefer to get 3 top level young players we could develop long-term vs 1 top-tier Kiwi player who is unlikely to stick around.

And again, my argument wasn’t that no Kiwi’s would come over. I think a few Kiwis here or there could be useful. The argument I take issue with is the idea that an “Open-Borders Policy” would be the silver bullet to suddenly make Trans-Tasman workable or preferable to Super AU + TT. I see that as a ridiculous position.

D) Most teams aren't far off the pace, couple of different players in a team changes the whole complexion of a game. Price wise you have absolutely no data to back up your claims and there's equally nothing stopping young aussie players playing for 2-3 years then buggering off to Europe/League its the same risk

“Most teams aren’t that far off the pace”. Really? Maybe we’ve been watching different competitions but I’ve seen a lot of blowouts. I don’t think a couple Kiwi’s are going to make that much of a difference to our teams prospects of winning a Trans Tasman competition in the near future (Which is what we need to be competitive in the Aus market. Not just teams sometimes winning against Kiwis but winning championships at least 50% of the time v the Kiwis).

And “there’s nothing stopping aussie players buggering off”.

1. I think its undeniable that homegrown players are far more likely to stick around long term than a Kiwi mercenary due to non-economic factors
2. Creating an effective domestic talent development system is far more beneficial for long term success compared to bringing in a bunch of overseas imports. The opportunity for playing time is already incredibly tight in the Australian teams, to the extent that top quality young players go to league because they have more of a prospect of getting a start there (e.g. Angus Creighton). Filling our teams with Kiwis would make this even worse.

You're also assuming that a open borders policy wouldn't also be coupled by a workable salary cap that will organically shift players from team to team evening out the competition

This isn't a bad point, it's possible that over a number of years it would even out the number of top-level Kiwi's in the teams out:
But my counterpoints would be:
(1) Australian teams need success now. Not in 5 years, now. 5 more years of floggings and the sport will be on deaths door, if it isnt already.
(2) As far as I can tell this transfer of players would be completely one way. The Kiwi’s have enough talent production that any players they lose can easily be replaced, so I don’t see any reason why they’d look to get more than a handful of Australian players. So in this scenario we end up flooded with NZ players while the Australian professional talent pool shrinks even smaller than it already is.

But who knows. Like I said, I'm open to an open borders policy in some capacity (If it can be implemented), but it has to be partnered with Super AU+TT. It would actually be a great way to supplement exapnsion teams in the AU comp while they get on their feet. But simply using it as a way to prop up a solely TT comp would just be moving deckchairs while the Titanic sinks.

Anyway, I appreciate you offering serious responses to my points, rather than just insults (ignoring your first line).

 

[Joe King]

Just read an interesting write up on Roar. And not just because it agrees with me. But goes along with my theory it will not work having seperate comps followed by champions or TT comp because Aus teams will be so far off pace like is happening.

Is this the article you are referring to:

https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/05/23/the-rest-of-the-rugby-world-has-left-australia-behind/

It's an excellent article, but I don't think he's saying that the reason the Oz Super Rugby teams are struggling is because their skills have significantly declined due to an insular domestic comp. And nor is he saying that the solution is a full season TT.

He's saying that the reason the Oz Super Rugby teams are struggling is because the refs in Super Rugby AU didn't follow World Rugby’s new breakdown directives, whereas NZ and the rest of the world did.

And so the solution, it seems to me, is to do exactly what NZ did in Super Rugby Aotearoa, and enforce the directives, right?

 

[Joe King]

Hamish seems is leading the fight. Like what he is saying per what quoted in this article.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-from-trans-tasman-rugby-20210523-p57uf1.html

Seems to be saying he'd like to keep the current format, but increase the depth of the AU teams by recruiting up to 3 foreign players per team, implement a central contracting system like NZ, and using PE to retain more of our players instead of them going o/s. That could work.