Where to for Super Rugby?

[Dan54]

I don't even why it's domestic OR super and not domestic AND super,like NZ and SA etc.

Some other poster put here last weeks or so , RA?Wallabies etc are not the problem with Australian rugby, it's you!

 

[Bullrush]

Lot of variables that go into what makes a successful competition. I think the footprint is important - no in fact vital and indeed the ambition needs to have even more teams for growth. The latter yes could be via our own domestic competition or through other means (eg team from Asia, allowing kiwi imports who could still play for all blacks, kiwi team based out of Australia - given large ex pat community, etc etc.)

Again, people talk about the NRL and the AFL here.

The NRL is basically only played in 2 states. The AFL expands something like 1 team every 15yrs from a quick glance.

When I look back at Australian Super Rugby, the Western Force could probably have been sustained. The player depth was still OK, even if it a little stretched. But adding the Rebels just 5yrs later was just not do-able.

Instead of recognising this mistake and doing like the NRL did in condensing the teams, Australia has shifted the focus of what Super Rugby should be about - promoting and showcasing the elite talents of the game - to being a developmental competition where it's more about getting a 'footprint'.

Kiwis like me miss the days of great Australian teams which made for strong Wallaby sides - I'd like our Super Rugby back.

 

[Derpus]

Well if this is the case Derpus, why have RA signed up for Super?? Really asking an honest question, if it so bad, and it's f***ed as you say, are you telling me that Hamish McLennan and co (plus Stan/9)are incompetent for signing ut to it? Or do you think just maybe they have done some work to see what is best for Aus rugby. You (or anyone in here) can't have it both ways.

Because they make bad decisions. How many bad decisions have RA made over the years? hundreds. Why are you assuming they have suddenly started making good ones.

 

[dru]

You guys are writing as if NZ wanted Australia to have 5 teams.

Australia has the 5 teams that you guys wanted despite everyone knowing that at least 3 but likely 4-5 will not competitive. When that reality is pointed out you all cry and moan about losing a franchise. Super Rugby is the 'elite' comp so I don't know why you keep pushing for teams and players who aren't, to be included.

You guys basically don't want an elite competition.

No Bullrush. We're acting on the basis that NZ has done everything they can to force Australia to re-write our Rugby for a comp that suits NewZealand. The answer is 'no". If it doesn't suit go solo.

 

[Derpus]

I don't even why it's domestic OR super and not domestic AND super,like NZ and SA etc.

Because we have limited resources.

 

[Derpus]

Again, people talk about the NRL and the AFL here.

The NRL is basically only played in 2 states. The AFL expands something like 1 team every 15yrs from a quick glance.

When I look back at Australian Super Rugby, the Western Force could probably have been sustained. The player depth was still OK, even if it a little stretched. But adding the Rebels just 5yrs later was just not do-able.

Instead of recognising this mistake and doing like the NRL did in condensing the teams, Australia has shifted the focus of what Super Rugby should be about - promoting and showcasing the elite talents of the game - to being a developmental competition where it's more about getting a 'footprint'.

Kiwis like me miss the days of great Australian teams which made for strong Wallaby sides - I'd like our Super Rugby back.

So let us go away for 20 years, build a domestic comp that can actually sustain a Super Rugby side?

As you say, strong Super Rugby sides can sustain a strong Wallabies. But NZ don't just have strong Super Rugby sides, they have the NPC.

Yes, ideally, we would have both. But RA over the years have fucked it up continuously and we realistically now only have the resources for one form of the game.

 

[Dan54]

Because they make bad decisions. How many bad decisions have RA made over the years? hundreds. Why are you assuming they have suddenly started making good ones.

Well to be honest Derpus I thought I had read in here multple times that Hamish was the saviour of Rugby in Australia, so you saying now he not.

 

[Bullrush]

No Bullrush. We're acting on the basis that NZ has done everything they can to force Australia to re-write our Rugby for a comp that suits NewZealand. The answer is 'no". If it doesn't suit go solo.

How does 5 teams 'suit NZ'?

Wasn't that Australia's request? You've basically sabotaged the competition from the start by forcing 5 teams on us.

 

[Dan54]

Because we have limited resources.

Mate with a will you have all the recourses to start building, and you won't get more by getting offside with your TV partners, who are the best thing to come to RA for years!

 

[dru]

How does 5 teams 'suit NZ'?

Wasn't that Australia's request? You've basically sabotaged the competition from the start by forcing 5 teams on us.

I don't know how many times that the requirements of the domestic game here can be explained sufficiently for you to follow. It really is not obstruce and has been discussed in tedious detail. NZ did everything they could to force a reduction in team numbers for Australia. Again I say, if Australia with 5 teams does not suit, then go away.

The competition was sabotaged by deliberate NZ actions to sideline RA, fortunately Australian rugby stood firm. Lock in 5 Aus teams. Then discuss what can happen to level the playing field. But if that second step is a refusal the thing will die.

 

[Bullrush]

So let us go away for 20 years, build a domestic comp that can actually sustain a Super Rugby side?

As you say, strong Super Rugby sides can sustain a strong Wallabies. But NZ don't just have strong Super Rugby sides, they have the NPC.

Yes, ideally, we would have both. But RA over the years have fucked it up continuously and we realistically now only have the resources for one form of the game.

OK - so I can understand and get my head around this point.

If you are saying that participating in Super Rugby AND developing a domestic competition is simply not possible due to resources, I get that. From that point of view, I would argue that you go the other way and build back what worked with good Super Rugby. That's how you got to the Force. I think the Rebels were a step too far too early.

Yeah - I don't think just playing domestically will get Australia quality rugby back. Also, if you're gonna do that then fellas here need to be more realistic about Wallaby expectations and have Top 10 aspirations rather than Top 3 or even Top 5.

 

[Dan54]

No Bullrush. We're acting on the basis that NZ has done everything they can to force Australia to re-write our Rugby for a comp that suits NewZealand. The answer is 'no". If it doesn't suit go solo.

So how dru? You wanted extra teams in super, now we got half the posters saying you haven't got enough players, tell us how this comp has been rewritten to suit NZ. We are starting early apparently RA's insistence, and I understand why, we having an 8 team finals etc, so tell me which how NZ forced RA to rewrite the comp. As you say if it doesn't suit they would go solo and they haven't explain why?

The thing is it's got me noone will tell me why RA has signed up for the comp if it all NZ's way.

 

[Bullrush]

I don't know how many times that the requirements of the domestic game here can be explained sufficiently for you to follow. It really is not obstruce and has been discussed in tedious detail. NZ did everything they could to force a reduction in team numbers for Australia. Again I say, if Australia with 5 teams does not suit, then go away.

The competition was sabotaged by deliberate NZ actions to sideline RA, fortunately Australian rugby stood firm. Lock in 5 Aus teams. Then discuss what can happen to level the playing field. But if that second step is a refusal the thing will die.

The onus to 'level the playing field' rests solely with Australia.

You can't demand your 5 teams and then blame the other side for having an un-even playing field. LOL Again, NZ & SA have done the hard yards of building a domestic comp - you guys want us to do that work for you.

 

[Dan54]

So let us go away for 20 years, build a domestic comp that can actually sustain a Super Rugby side?

That's got wheels, just not sure how you going to fund it? But as you are saying perhaps the problem really is an incompetent administration at RA that is all Aussie's problem.
to quote you:
'Because they make bad decisions. How many bad decisions have RA made over the years? hundreds. Why are you assuming they have suddenly started making good ones.'

 

[Bullrush]

That's got wheels, just not sure how you going to fund it? But as you are saying perhaps the problem really is an incompetent administration at RA that is all Aussie's problem.
to quote you:
'Because they make bad decisions. How many bad decisions have RA made over the years? hundreds. Why are you assuming they have suddenly started making good ones.'

From what I've read, it seems some think that a Super Rugby Au will be just as popular and lucrative as the NRL and AFL are.

I think it will be more the NBL and maybe A-League at best.

 

[Derpus]

OK - so I can understand and get my head around this point.

If you are saying that participating in Super Rugby AND developing a domestic competition is simply not possible due to resources, I get that. From that point of view, I would argue that you go the other way and build back what worked with good Super Rugby. That's how you got to the Force. I think the Rebels were a step too far too early.

Yeah - I don't think just playing domestically will get Australia quality rugby back. Also, if you're gonna do that then fellas here need to be more realistic about Wallaby expectations and have Top 10 aspirations rather than Top 3 or even Top 5.

What's the justification for this, though? Not playing NZ doesn't seem to be an issue for anyone else.

South Africa have actually gotten better since they stopped. Doesn't seem to be a problem for England or France. Japan are probably making the most strides in World Rugby and they don't.

Its perfectly possible that if we built a popular domestic comp it could develop quality players.

 

[Derpus]

From what I've read, it seems some think that a Super Rugby Au will be just as popular and lucrative as the NRL and AFL are.

I think it will be more the NBL and maybe A-League at best.

Just being facetious now. Obviously it won't be as popular as NRL and AFL. But from a very limited sample size we can tentatively conclude it will be more popular than TT. And popularity is what you build on.

Not some mythical 'you have to play though because we are NZ and we the bestest'.

 

[dru]

The onus to 'level the playing field' rests solely with Australia.

You can't demand your 5 teams and then blame the other side for having an un-even playing field. LOL Again, NZ & SA have done the hard yards of building a domestic comp - you guys want us to do that work for you.

Again you misdirect. What is required for a level playing field is a controlling structure that is by the competition - not by NZ. I'm completely satisfied ion 5 Aus teams don't suit NZ so they go elsewhere. If NZ wants Aus involvement then a comp needs to reflect those requirements.

As I have said, I'd be happy with NZ and Aus domestic comps in parallel, followed by a TT. I'm happy if that TT requires the Aus teams to go semi representational in order to condense talent.

I'm not at all happy with 5 + 5 (+2) and nothing to balance the qualitative levels between the teams. I won't be watching NZ teams in Super Pacific other than when they play my team. When the success rate of making the finals reflects what we all know will happen - I won't be watching the Finals either. Or will for as long as the Reds remain in it, not further.

I don't want you to fix anything. I certainly don't want NZR ever again going direct to Aus teams creating mayhem. I don't want NZR leaking comp details to NZ media as a method of pressuring RA. I don't want a comp structure dictated by RA rather than by the comp itself.

If that means NZ proceed without us, thank christ for that.

 

[dru]

From what I've read, it seems some think that a Super Rugby Au will be just as popular and lucrative as the NRL and AFL are.

I think it will be more the NBL and maybe A-League at best.

So half a dozen steps ahead of this mess called Pacific Rugby.

 

[hoggy]

From what I've read, it seems some think that a Super Rugby Au will be just as popular and lucrative as the NRL and AFL are.

I think it will be more the NBL and maybe A-League.

None of us on here have said anything here about rugby matching the NRL or AFL, but don't you remember all the talk of Super rugby taking over the world though, a bloody lot of that coming from NZ.

Your right though it will be more like the NBL and A-league, but that is where rugby is in the Australian landscape, and sadly nothing will change until it all collapses just as Super Rugby did, as those at the top here are all still pulling in wages that the game here has never been able to generate or sustain.