• 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.
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Braveheart81 said:
The England tour in 2016 was very financially successful because they're the biggest drawcard that we can get in the midyear tests.

Likewise if you replaced the Rugby Championship with 2x 3 test series (one home and one away) and you still have the same three teams to play against at this time of year, the 3 test home series against the All Blacks is a financial windfall and the 3 test home series against Argentina is a financial disaster.

If we went down that route we'd only get one home series against the All Blacks every 3 years. South Africa would be good financially and then once every 3 years we'd have Argentina which would empty the coffers.

Likewise in the mid year series, we get a range from amazing every 12 years (Lions tour) to a shocker every 4 years (Lions tours to NZ or SA) and then a middling range where we host Wales or France.

I'd imagine hosting Ireland next year is the next best home series after England so that should be good both in terms of interest and financially.
Click to expand...

Yes you have the same three teams to play against, but you have much more opportunity to generate interest when you play a series.

You strike me as a rusted on rugby fan. Without looking it up, tell me who won TRC for the past 3 years (I have no idea by the way). Rightly or wrongly, it's not a concept which has captured public attenetion.

Then try asking non-rugby fans what they know about TRC - I'll bet that most won't have even heard of it.

You see, because of the travel across three continents TRC faces many of the same challenges as super rugby (although not to the same degree because it contains less teams). The Wallabies play a home game in Sydney in week 1, then a return match in NZ the following week. Then they don't play for a fortnight until they host SA, then the following week at home against Argentina. For the last two weeks of the tournament they are away in South Africa and Argentina. IMO, this isn't a successful model long term.

It's based on a 6N model, but in 6N all countries are within a 2 hour flight and esentially in the same time zone (one hour difference).

Long tours mean that you can maintain general interest in the Wallabies and therefore rugby for 4-5 weeks by having tests or state games every weekend for the duration of the tour and midweek games to spread the game to regional centres.

I wouldn't be so pessamistic about Argentina, they're on the improve and as things stand at the moment, it's the most likely chance we'd have for a series win.

Cricket Australia face the same issues with inbound tours. Rugby can make it work.
 
wamberal

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
Strewthcobber said:
On of the big issues with the current calendar, is how you get any attention from the media/general public in September up against NRL and AFL finals.

Presumably, it's why the Bled is on right now
Click to expand...


Everything we are and do is impacted by the two local powerhouse codes. Everything.
 
half

half

Dick Tooth (41)
Can anything be taken from the SS grand final, crowd, ratings and general age of those attending.

Being honest comparing super rugby quality of play to SS is a no contest, super rugby is of a much higher quality.

A match with almost no mainstream media, considered by most rugby folk in terms of quality in a lessor zone. Yet the passion, crowd size, and age of the crowd was beyond impressive. What most impressed me BTW was number of top end of town sponsors the SS has.

So should we take any lessons or does this show anything about the broader rugby community.

Its worth considering, that people want to see local, yes I know my old hobby horse but the SS just refuses to surrender into the night and with almost no funding from the ARU has grown considerably over the last two to three years.

For me personally it supports my belief that local V local is what people want to see quality is important as well so its a balancing act.
 
wamberal

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
Yes, we can learn that people will follow their heritage clubs, that people enjoy relaxed occasions where they can meet up with like minded friends in the sun, and that open rugby with a minimum of technicalities and no video replays is pretty popular, in a modest way.
 
wamberal

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
So, to sum up, the grass roots does not need the ARU.


That is another way of saying that if the strength of the game is not driven by grass roots players, supporters, etc etc, the game does not exist.


Well, well, well.
 
Rugbynutter39

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
TOCC said:
Thought Papworth was A bit of an idiot previously with his suggestions, but I feel this is fairly pragmatic recommendation/assessment:



https://rugbynews.net.au/brett-papworth-rugbys-heart-beats-strong/
Click to expand...



Well Papworth's views are completely aligned to my view and desired position which is long form national NRC style competition as per extract below from his article.

He is at least presenting a viable alternative. Ok Brett you got my support....and would love to see a national long form NRC style comp emerge. Keep Fiji with world rugby support as they don't deserve to be ditched.

______________

"I tend to favour a NRC style competition, because it gives you a broader base, and can include potentially more teams, and therefore provide a greater number of players an opportunity at a higher level. There is no reason why we can’t also have a state-based National Championship, which gives the Rebels, Force and Brumbies some continuity and purpose, while also giving the broadcaster some meaningful content."
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru
half

half

Dick Tooth (41)
TOCC said:
Thought Papworth was A bit of an idiot previously with his suggestions, but I feel this is fairly pragmatic recommendation/assessment:

https://rugbynews.net.au/brett-papworth-rugbys-heart-beats-strong/
Click to expand...

Rugbynutter39 said:
Well Papworth's views are completely aligned to my view and desired position which is long form national NRC style competition as per extract below from his article.

He is at least presenting a viable alternative. Ok Brett you got my support..and would love to see a national long form NRC style comp emerge. Keep Fiji with world rugby support as they don't deserve to be ditched.

______________

"I tend to favour a NRC style competition, because it gives you a broader base, and can include potentially more teams, and therefore provide a greater number of players an opportunity at a higher level. There is no reason why we can’t also have a state-based National Championship, which gives the Rebels, Force and Brumbies some continuity and purpose, while also giving the broadcaster some meaningful content."
Click to expand...

Totally agree, wonders aloud if he is being considered as Pulver's replacement, we could do a lot worse.
 
Rugbynutter39

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
half said:
Totally agree, wonders aloud if he is being considered as Pulver's replacement, we could do a lot worse.
Click to expand...



Yes Papworth would not have ever been my first choice but given how poorly the ARU performed I would actually be more open to Papworth at this point which shows how desparate I have become for change. Would certainly get change with Papworth but as to whether we would be all the right change to move us forward another matter. But given where at I actually would be ok if Papworth was appointed Head of ARU! (yes can't believe I am saying that....but he is actually at least prepared to challenge the status quo).

Whilst I like the concept of a national long form NRC style comp - logically whether could be commercially sustainable / viable (at least early days) not so sure so would maybe be best with this and involvement in another international comp (but with less teams), say a Super Rugby Mark 2 or TF's new international Asian comp. And if had the latter then this national NRC long form comp would probably be more semi professional. Will take a lot of thinking to work this through with people way more clever than me.
 
dru

dru

David Wilson (68)
Rugbynutter39 said:
Yes Papworth would not have ever been my first choice but given how poorly the ARU performed I would actually be more open to Papworth at this point which shows how desparate I have become for change. Would certainly get change with Papworth but as to whether we would be all the right change to move us forward another matter.
Click to expand...

x 1,000.

Bring it on Papworth, I'm on board.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
He had a heart attack last night.

Apparently he is recovering well and in good spirits.

In terms of the ARU though, what makes people think he'd do a good job as CEO?
 
Brumby Runner

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
Rugbynutter39 said:
Well Papworth's views are completely aligned to my view and desired position which is long form national NRC style competition as per extract below from his article.

He is at least presenting a viable alternative. Ok Brett you got my support..and would love to see a national long form NRC style comp emerge. Keep Fiji with world rugby support as they don't deserve to be ditched.

______________

"I tend to favour a NRC style competition, because it gives you a broader base, and can include potentially more teams, and therefore provide a greater number of players an opportunity at a higher level. There is no reason why we can’t also have a state-based National Championship, which gives the Rebels, Force and Brumbies some continuity and purpose, while also giving the broadcaster some meaningful content."
Click to expand...

RN, I can't really be arsed reading the whole interview/article. Perhaps you can enlighten me a little.

"I tend to favour a NRC style competition, because it gives you a broader base, .." - favour over what alternative and broader base than what? Is he talking about a third tier comp, and if so, where does that leave the SS?

"There is no reason why we can’t also have a state-based National Championship, which gives the Rebels, Force and Brumbies some continuity and purpose". To what purpose? Who would they be playing? Where do the Reds and Tahs fit into this grand scheme?
 
dru

dru

David Wilson (68)
Braveheart81 said:
He had a heart attack last night.

Apparently he is recovering well and in good spirits.

In terms of the ARU though, what makes people think he'd do a good job as CEO?
Click to expand...


Papworth had a heart attack?

Why a good CEO? It's more about getting away from the apologists and self preservation groupings. It's about wanting someone who is definitely NOT independent but a welded on emotional driver from inside. Shute Shield is the most successful comp in Aus right now, it's not a bad background.

How good I don't know, but a change really needs to be a change. I would certainly expect change.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I would think that the most likely direction from an ARU headed by Papworth (or anyone similar) would be retracting from everywhere outside of Sydney and Brisbane and focusing on the traditional rugby strongholds.

I am not sure if there's more of a traditional self-preservation grouping than the Shute Shield. They are the group that had most power prior to the game going professional and even more recently before the ARU board structure was changed to take some power away from NSW and Qld.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top