Where to for Super Rugby?

[Adam84]

Pretty sure we are just being trolled.

I can’t even fathom doing the reverse, going to the silver fern and arguing the reverse.

 

[Adam84]

Actually no I don't , I never met a faultless CEO of anything, but if you like to imagine things , not for me to tell you different. I was just saying it wasn't me getting at Hamish I was defending him signing up for what he thought was best for Aus rugby

no you’re trying to sell a narrative they Super Rugby TT is best for Australian rugby. And what we are telling you as Australian rugby fans, is that we don’t think it is best.

You’ve also made claims previously that there’s more going then what we see, so why does that not apply now?

 

[Dan54]

no you’re trying to sell a narrative they Super Rugby TT is best for Australian rugby. And what we are telling you as Australian rugby fans, is that we don’t think it is best.

You’ve also made claims previously that there’s more going then what we see, so why does that not apply now?

No I saying it must be best for RA, because your your board has signed up for it!! Not ME but your board, so do Hamish, Leapfrog know more or less about what is good for game in Aus? Or do you think they would sign up for what they believe with all the facts it is bad for the game?
If you do what do you think of them as a board, if they are hurting Australian rugby?


Anyway time for me to go and get some stuff sorted before bed .

 

[Adam84]

No I saying it must be best for RA, because your your board has signed up for it!! Not ME but your board, so do Hamish, Leapfrog know more or less about what is good for game in Aus? Or do you think they would sign up for what they believe with all the facts it is bad for the game?
If you do what do you think of them as a board, if they are hurting Australian rugby?


Anyway time for me to go and get some stuff sorted before bed .

Haha Dan you’ve literally said it multiple times.

I feel the current situation is nkthing more then a best crappy compromise that RA and NZRU were willing to negotiate too. And like you’ve said previously, I’m sure there’s more going on then we are privy.

I wouldn’t put it past, that there’s more to this then RA simply believing Super Rugby is the best for Australia and this is a compromise to satisfy some short terms motives

2027 RWC vote, TRC negotiations and potentially a revenue sharing all part of that of the terms we won’t see.

 

[Quick Hands]

It depends on what you want to 'work long term'.

If you are looking at on-field rugby success, Super Rugby has been proven to work with Australia winning 1 RWC, a number of Super Rugby titles and maintaining 2nd or 3rd in the world rankings.

If you are looking for the domestic 'footprint' then Super Rugby doesn't work in Australia. It's not designed to do that. Who blames the spanner for not cutting wood?


Define 'successful'

Although our 1999 RWC victory was largely built on the foundations of the amateur era - all of the players and coaching staff were developed in the systems of the time. The introduction of Super Rugby in 1996 would certainly have added polish to the players, but it wouldn't be entirely accurate to put that success down to Super Rugby. In fact the demise of Australian rugby broadly mirrors the Super Rugby era - not because of Super Rugby itself, but because the systems below were either neglected or bypassed by the administration.

My view, for what it's worth, is that had ARU/RA continued and strengthened the amateur era systems and professionalised what was already there in terms of player and coach development then I think that we would have a vibrant national club competition similar to English Premier Rugby or French Top 14. (possibly not with the same quantum of money, but Super Rugby doesn't have the same quantum of money as those competitions either) Had that occurred we wouldn't need to use Super Rugby to spread the game and it could be a short elite representative competition linking to test rugby (which is what it was originally designed to be).

 

[hoggy]

Haha Dan you’ve literally said it multiple times.

I feel the current situation is nkthing more then a best crappy compromise that RA and NZRU were willing to negotiate too. And like you’ve said previously, I’m sure there’s more going on then we are privy.

I wouldn’t it past, that there’s more to this then RA simply believing Super Rugby is the best for Australia and this is a compromise to satisfy some short terms motives

2027 RWC vote, TRC negotiations and potentially a revenue sharing all part of that of the terms we won’t see.

But isn't that the sad thing about all of this, of course lets sign up for another crappy Super Rugby format. Do you reckon Marinos isn't already lining up a RWC consultancy role, let the gravy train continue. All with the promise of riches to Aus rugby with the Lions and the RWC.

Yet somehow we all supposed to believe that will flow down to the ever needy grassroots, of course we'll get our domestic competition as long as everyone is paid first.

 

[dru]

Just an interesting note, the Warriors confirming Redcliffe (Brisbane) as there 2022 base with games in NZ if possible. Should make Super Pacific with an 18th February start intersting.

There is a lot of planning at season end for WA and Qld. AFL in Perth, NRL in Qld. Rugby internationals between the two. But as we go past year end, NSW and Vic may well open up much earlier than the likes of Qld and WA.

Could be something of a double shuffle at some point.

 

[half]

Although our 1999 RWC victory was largely built on the foundations of the amateur era - all of the players and coaching staff were developed in the systems of the time. The introduction of Super Rugby in 1996 would certainly have added polish to the players, but it wouldn't be entirely accurate to put that success down to Super Rugby. In fact the demise of Australian rugby broadly mirrors the Super Rugby era - not because of Super Rugby itself, but because the systems below were either neglected or bypassed by the administration.

My view, for what it's worth, is that had ARU/RA continued and strengthened the amateur era systems and professionalised what was already there in terms of player and coach development then I think that we would have a vibrant national club competition similar to English Premier Rugby or French Top 14. (possibly not with the same quantum of money, but Super Rugby doesn't have the same quantum of money as those competitions either) Had that occurred we wouldn't need to use Super Rugby to spread the game and it could be a short elite representative competition linking to test rugby (which is what it was originally designed to be).

Quick,

This has always been my argument, and why my beloved Woodies and there treatment along with other Shute teams is so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so misunderstood.

Many over the years have a go at me because I class rugby as a challenger code to the more dominate codes of cricket, AFL & NRL. Saying as a challenging code we need to look at what the other challenger codes do.

With the various regional competitions like the Shute competition, club rugby was king, and each team like the Woodies had a number of junior teams supplying a constant stream of hopefuls.

Schools like Epping Boys also supported the local club rugby team.

Super Rugby not only robbed the Shute teams of there best but openly attacked club rugby folk [half included] annoyed that we still wanted our local traditional competitions.

I can still recall the joy in the faces of the locals at TGM on club days when former test player would come down and present prizes.

Super Rugby did not develop youth academies, they just kept raiding like a thief players from club rugby.

Club rugby was far more the the Shute Shield, there were a number of club rugby competitions an all had youth development in place.

But not developing youth academies, nor having a feel for locals, club ruby started to falter, and so did their junior competitions, especially Saturday morning competitions, unbelievably and sadly moved to Sunday for the benefit of the private schools.

My idea of RA developing a competition and then inviting private teams to enter, has another aspect in that as part of the entry criteria set up by RA, all teams coming in need to have a base of a certain numbers of juniors and must operate a youth academy for the development of the rep sides taken from their local park teams.

Quick, the incredible damage done by Super Rugby to youth development and to the various club rugby competitions is huge, mostly ignored but never talked about as it has not suited the flag waving Super Rugby folk.

Essentially after Matthew Ridge went to Manly even NZ got scared and rugby sold its soul to a US media company, and while the first say 3 to 5 years were good a pause, take control, we should have used the various club rugby competitions to create a national competition.

Quick, you have opened up a lot of old wounds..

 

[dru]

Quick,

This has always been my argument, and why my beloved Woodies and there treatment along with other Shute teams is so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so misunderstood.

Many over the years have a go at me because I class rugby as a challenger code to the more dominate codes of cricket, AFL & NRL. Saying as a challenging code we need to look at what the other challenger codes do.

With the various regional competitions like the Shute competition, club rugby was king, and each team like the Woodies had a number of junior teams supplying a constant stream of hopefuls.

Schools like Epping Boys also supported the local club rugby team.

Super Rugby not only robbed the Shute teams of there best but openly attacked club rugby folk [half included] annoyed that we still wanted our local traditional competitions.

I can still recall the joy in the faces of the locals at TGM on club days when former test player would come down and present prizes.

Super Rugby did not develop youth academies, they just kept raiding like a thief players from club rugby.

Club rugby was far more the the Shute Shield, there were a number of club rugby competitions an all had youth development in place.

But not developing youth academies, nor having a feel for locals, club ruby started to falter, and so did their junior competitions, especially Saturday morning competitions, unbelievably and sadly moved to Sunday for the benefit of the private schools.

My idea of RA developing a competition and then inviting private teams to enter, has another aspect in that as part of the entry criteria set up by RA, all teams coming in need to have a base of a certain numbers of juniors and must operate a youth academy for the development of the rep sides taken from their local park teams.

Quick, the incredible damage done by Super Rugby to youth development and to the various club rugby competitions is huge, mostly ignored but never talked about as it has not suited the flag waving Super Rugby folk.

Essentially after Matthew Ridge went to Manly even NZ got scared and rugby sold its soul to a US media company, and while the first say 3 to 5 years were good a pause, take control, we should have used the various club rugby competitions to create a national competition.

Quick, you have opened up a lot of old wounds..

Super Rugby is not club rugby. Though I'll grant you an important part of it. But it is not club rugby. Super Rugby had a privileged position reading into the Wallabies for a long time. Even to the retrograde of Qld rugby.

It is (surely) time to go forward. It starts with letting go of old tropes.

 

[half]

Super Rugby is not club rugby. Though I'll grant you an important part of it. But it is not club rugby. Super Rugby had a privileged position reading into the Wallabies for a long time. Even to the retrograde of Qld rugby.

It is (surely) time to go forward. It starts with letting go of old tropes.

So so so true mate.

I have been arguing this before 2000.

The undeliverable naive foolish or whatever words can be used to describe of how we trusted a company like News to develop the future of rugby was insane. Yet akin to Trump voters in the US today rugby folk could not see the bleeding obvious.

 

[Dan54]

Anyway half you a bang on, with a slight twist Super rugby wasn't what hurt club rugby, it was professionalism. As soon as rugby went professional club rugby as fellas like you and I knew it was changed forever, and not for the better in my opinion, but there was no going back.
I always remember going into dressing room at training the night it was announced, I was managing senior 1st team in Levin, one of the players (WOB knows him Tosa)said how much you going to pay us/ It was real lighthearted comment, but I was confident when I said I knew the club would let the players have full tv rights.(which obviously there was no tv coverage but a mate who videoed every game) .
I was never happy when game went pro, but understood it was going to happen, and preferred how it went when it was so close to a complete rebel type thing, that would have split the game apart.
The problems we all have now is everyone has to have comps etc that are aimed at tv market, and as with almost all sports we see crowd numbers slide because a huge number of so called fans now get their sports fix through a tv box.
Talking to a hell of a lot of rugby fans etc just in life in general, a lot of think we have to much rugby on tv, dru made a comment earlier in this thread that he wouldn't watch kiwi teams unless they playing Reds, that I believe in Aus would be not unusual, and vive versa in NZ, super rugby games from Aus are only watched by real tragics like me (even WOB has mentioned he doesn't watch them). And here in NZ like in Aus when the season is in full swing a lot of fans won't even watch all games with Aus (or NZ etc)teams as we getting an awful lot. Really good mates from club in Brisbane (real rugby men, ran the club etc) would say even at height of super rugby they would miss say Force/Brumbies (for instant) because there was just to much on and they stuck with watching Reds or big games. Same fellas would then be discussing/messaging NPC games from NZ later in year, just because there was not other rugby on so they got right into that. Even NRL, if you heard fellas talking at work, noone watched all games, most seemed to watch 1 or 2 games each weekend. So I wonder if we get stuffed because everyone wants 'content' on tv, and not quality?

 

[Bullrush]

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.

Exactly. And you can expect the same kind of results from the Wallabies.

The Socceroos will never be World Cup contenders in any serious sense and both these codes are pretty happy when they get a few players through to the actual big leagues.

 

[Bullrush]

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'.

Who is being facetious now?

Popularity can only built on if the product is good. A Super Rugby Au might pull back some old rugby fans who had lost interest because of all the losing but the rugby actually has to be good.

Part of the NRL and AFL appeal is that it is the best league and aussie rules you can watch. There isn't anything better, week in, week out. A domestic rugby comp is going to be, at best, 3rd rate rugby.

Some here seem to think that you will then take these players out of this 3rd rate rate rugby and come up with team that will be competitive on Test level

 

[Bullrush]

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.

Fuck me - it's not about playing NZ. It's about playing the better competition.

A domestic comp may develop a handful of quality players - like soccer and basketball do here - and those 3-5 players will fuck off overseas at the first possible chance. And then the Wallabies can be like your Japan who are ranked 10 in the world and is stacked with players who learn and develop their rugby somewhere else.

 

[hoggy]

So so so true mate.

I have been arguing this before 2000.

The undeliverable naive foolish or whatever words can be used to describe of how we trusted a company like News to develop the future of rugby was insane. Yet akin to Trump voters in the US today rugby folk could not see the bleeding obvious.

An old interview came up in my facebook post with Jon O'Neill yesterday, I can't beleive how ridiculous it sounds now. Like building empires, look what they ended up with. The whole thing was built on a house of nothing, yet they've still got the same mentallity.

 

[Bullrush]

Pretty sure we are just being trolled.

Be interesting to see how smug kiwis are feeling when Aus rugby is gone and their players are all being sucked down the player drain with only the NPC or Japan (lol - height of competitiveness that) to play in.

Trolled?! I'm pretty sure Dan and I are both dvocating what we think will make for better quality of rugby in Australia. You can disagree but fuck off with your 'trolling'. You guys act like Aussie rugby fans are the only ones who live here and enjoy good rugby. Plenty of kiwis live here and pay for our Stan subscriptions and go to games, buy our kids the fucken paraphernalia etc. Yeah - we'd like to see good rugby here too.

Australian rugby going alone will see its best players all go overseas as well. The NPC and Japan will be more competition than your domestic comp but unlike the Wallabies, if Australia decides it doesn't want to play Tests against us, we will find other countries who do. We may not get as many Tests as we do now but to act as if Tier 1 nations don't want to play us?!

 

[KOB1987]

Super Rugby / TT, at least in the short-medium term, needs to be an aspirational thing for players sourced from a pro domestic comp. We need more than 5 professional teams for the code to survive and grow here.

 

[Adam84]

This rhetoric that Super Rugby was popular 20 years ago so we should just go back to that structure and number of teams is wilfully naive, it ignores 101 other trends which have occurred which have shaped market demand in that time, and incorrectly assumes that changing one variable will return to past glory. It wont, and it irks me people continue to look at past glories as an example of what could exist today, you need to understand the market as it exists today, not what existed 20 years ago.

Myspace was popular back in the early 2000’s as well, another example of a product which failed to effectively innovate and understand market trends.

 

[Bullrush]

An old interview came up in my facebook post with Jon O'Neill yesterday, I can't beleive how ridiculous it sounds now. Like building empires, look what they ended up with. The whole thing was built on a house of nothing, yet they've still gt the same mentallity.

To me, SANZAR tried to grow way too quickly. Super 12 went for 10 years and was a great comp. Expanded to to 14 and that was fairly good too.

But after only 5 years it expands again to Super 15. Only 5 years later and it expands another 3 teams to 18 across 5 countries. The competition gets convoluted and complicated with a massive break in the middle for Tests etc. It was ugly.

We should have stayed at 14 for at least another 5 years and allowed the competition to settle. Given the Force a chance to continue building and improving before throwing in another Aussie teams for them to compete for talent with.

You then build the competition (and the Rebels) for another 10 years before thinking expansion again.

It was all too much, too fast.

 

[Bullrush]

This rhetoric that Super Rugby was popular 20 years ago so we should just go back to that structure and number of teams is wilfully naive, it ignores 101 other trends which have occurred which have shaped market demand in that time, and incorrectly assumes that changing one variable will return to past glory. It wont, and it irks me people continue to look at past glories as an example of what could exist today, you need to understand the market as it exists today, not what existed 20 years ago.

Myspace was popular back in the early 2000’s as well, another example of a product which failed to effectively innovate and understand market trends.

The only trend that matters in sport can be followed in the win/loss column. That hasn't changed.