• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.
WorkingClassRugger

WorkingClassRugger

Michael Lynagh (62)
kiap said:
Yeah, any trans-continental part needs to be shorter, sharper IMO.

Obviously exact details would need to be hammered out.


Positives there for sure - domestic control over the national pro matches.

Personally I'm not sure about switching the NRC because 8-9 teams seems too many for mine to be feeding those same teams into transnational match-ups. But there are ways around that (as people have already proposed earlier in the thread).
Click to expand...


I'd keep it at the current 7 plus Fiji. Fourteen week regular season plus two weeks of finals. Short break before Super Rugby and then a 10-11 (conferences would Aus/Jap, NZ/Arg and SA) Super Rugby reg. season with top 2 from each conference going through to the finals which would run for 3 weeks.

The NRC would benefit from being properly 'powered' why the best talent all available and playing. Which should boost interest.
 
U

Upthenuts

Dave Cowper (27)
heres a great idea, as the blues have to play hardest draw in super rugby they get to have a whole season of home games, also beacuse the crusaders are so good this year, next year all their games are away, every other team can be fit into this continum, that means more home games for aussie teams too and call it super, super rugby, or SSR
 
refugee

refugee

Sydney Middleton (9)
How many of these names would have got a run in any super side prior to the two new franchises???? Not many .

Keep 5 teams .Less is not more!!

i
Micheal said:
The more I think about this the stupider it gets, as a very minimum the players below could find homes at other franchises:

From the Rebels:

+ Timani
+ McMahon
+ Fainga'a
+ Hodge
+ Koroibete
+ Naivalu
+ Lomax
+ Maddocks
+ Tuipolotu

From the Force:

+ Coleman
+ DHP
+ RHP
+ McCalman
+ Naisarani
+ Phillip
+ Hardwick
+ Meakes
+ Peni
+ Rona
+ Lance
+ Louwrens
+ Ruru

So what happens if the Force are cut? 13 of Australia's most promising up and comers are left contractless a couple weeks out from the season, after the other franchises have already filled their rosters and max'd out their salary cap?

Where the fuck does Coleman, a regular Wallaby, go?

What about Naisarani, possibly the form 8 of the Australian conference in his debut year?

Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
 
WorkingClassRugger

WorkingClassRugger

Michael Lynagh (62)
Braveheart81 said:
This specific proposal was about shortening Super Rugby and making the majority of it domestic only.

Personally for 2018 I'd keep 18 teams, reorganise into 3x6, play home and away within conference (10 games), and 3 games each against other conferences.

For Australian teams that means 1 or 2 games in SA, 2 or 1 games in NZ/Arg, 1 game in Japan.

For NZ teams, 1 game in Arg, 1 or 2 games in SA, 2 or 1 games in Aus/Japan.

For SA teams, 1 or 2 games in Aus/Japan, 2 or 1 games in NZ/Arg.

16 regular season matches which is one more than we have currently so every team is guaranteed 8 home games.

3 conference winners host a final, next 5 teams make up the playoffs. 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 etc.

If you wanted to have more international games, cut it down to 8 conference games and 4 games against each other conference.
Click to expand...


The 18 team Super Rugby format you just floated is and should have the format SANZAAR chose from day one of this clusterf@#k.
 
RugbyReg

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
refugee said:
How many of these names would have got a run in any super side prior to the two new franchises???? Not many .

Keep 5 teams .Less is not more!!

i
Click to expand...


I reckon:

From the Rebels:

+ Timani
+ McMahon
+ Fainga'a
+ Hodge
+ Koroibete
+ Naivalu
+ Lomax
+ Maddocks
+ Tuipolotu

From the Force:

+ Coleman
+ DHP
+ RHP
+ McCalman
+ Naisarani
+ Phillip
+ Hardwick
+ Meakes
+ Peni
+ Rona
+ Lance
+ Louwrens
+ Ruru

as certainties
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
WorkingClassRugger said:
The 18 team Super Rugby format you just floated is and should have the format SANZAAR chose from day one of this clusterf@#k.
Click to expand...


Yes. If only NZ had said to South Africa that they couldn't have two conferences so they can get two home finals.

No idea why NZ allowed that and now complain that all five of their teams can't make the finals even though they agreed on the format where they knew that was the situation.
 
refugee

refugee

Sydney Middleton (9)
RugbyReg said:
I reckon:

From the Rebels:

+ Timani
+ McMahon
+ Fainga'a
+ Hodge
+ Koroibete
+ Naivalu
+ Lomax
+ Maddocks
+ Tuipolotu

From the Force:

+ Coleman
+ DHP
+ RHP
+ McCalman
+ Naisarani
+ Phillip
+ Hardwick
+ Meakes
+ Peni
+ Rona
+ Lance
+ Louwrens
+ Ruru

as certainties
Click to expand...

where??
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

George Smith (75)
Braveheart81 said:
Yes. If only NZ had said to South Africa that they couldn't have two conferences so they can get two home finals.

No idea why NZ allowed that and now complain that all five of their teams can't make the finals even though they agreed on the format where they knew that was the situation.
Click to expand...

It's what happens when three national RU's with differing priorities try to find common ground. Everyone wanted Japan & Argentina in the comp but no one was that keen on actually having to go there. So when SARU possibly said they'd take that particular bullet IF they then got two home qualifiers, NZRU (AND, clearly, ARU) may have said, "Yeah, OK, we can live with that". The extra (potential or actual) dosh generated by having another Euro time zone-friendly QF may also have been a factor, of course.

Also, when has NZRU said anything about not being able to have all five teams in the finals? NZ Hurld, other Fairfax & News media outlets etc etc,yes, but actual NZ Rugby, not that I've seen.
 
U

Upthenuts

Dave Cowper (27)
Braveheart81 said:
Yes. If only NZ had said to South Africa that they couldn't have two conferences so they can get two home finals.

No idea why NZ allowed that and now complain that all five of their teams can't make the finals even though they agreed on the format where they knew that was the situation.
Click to expand...

The NZRFU hates the blues, ever since the first year when auckland rightfully pointed out that northharbour sucks and should be part of the chiefs
 
refugee

refugee

Sydney Middleton (9)
'Not my fault' syndrome. Clubs changed their mind so now we cant do what everyone wants us to do.--

Only want to save money! -- well get rid of all the clubs - that will save a bundle--jeez
 
James Pettifer

James Pettifer

Jim Clark (26)
FiveStarStu

FiveStarStu

Bill McLean (32)
James Pettifer said:
Come on Stu, you aren't looking at it from his perspective. He doesn't realise that anyone in WA or Victoria care about rugby. It makes much more sense if you put the ARU blinkers on.
Click to expand...


This goes further than a NSW bias. This is Clyne literally thinking 'nah my opinion on the competition's sustainability is so right that it dissolves contracts'.

What a spud.
 
lou75

lou75

Ron Walden (29)
And Clyne says: "One thing he did rule out was the notion the ARU had plotted to buy back the Rebels licence from owner Andrew Cox, who has repeatedly said he won’t be ‘engaging’ with the ARU.
“We can't allow some things to stand out there,” he said.
“I mean one there's been speculation that we're bandying extraordinary amounts of money around to buy a Super Rugby franchise.
“That's just utter nonsense. If we had that sort of money we wouldn't be in this situation. We're in this to save money.”
Sorry Clyne, that story did not just appear - it had legs - and you may well rue the day you have denied this story if it comes time to reveal the documentation, in court say.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top