dru
David Wilson (68)
Yep, Completely mind boggling expectation. Don't even know where to start. The game is the game. Wnat to ennjoy a different game? Go for it.
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Yep, Completely mind boggling expectation. Don't even know where to start. The game is the game. Wnat to ennjoy a different game? Go for it.
half
Dick Tooth (41)
Interesting and correct comment. Both codes share a number of things in common, i.e. both international. However both codes have fans in revolt against their management and boards. One thing for sure we should be mindful of is an old business saying. * Good media gets crowds and ratings. * Poor media gets smaller crowds and ratings. * A toxic media is code destroying. Both codes have had toxic media for a while, we seem stuck with the board we have, FFA have FIFA coming over to try and sort things out. Maybe its time even if not supportive we held off on the constant negativity. If we assume a toxic media is code destroying.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
I've always thought it was the other way around Half - codes/sports/teams that can't generate enough money or interest result in toxic media because there's always a stakeholder not receiving what they think they deserve willing to slag off the current leadership.
If there's plenty of money going round then the media won't have as many loud voices or leaks to broadcast.
Of course, generating the money is the trick, especially when interest is down.
If there's plenty of money going round then the media won't have as many loud voices or leaks to broadcast.
Of course, generating the money is the trick, especially when interest is down.
half
Dick Tooth (41)
Strew
Agree, lack of revenue can and often does lead to a toxic media, but then again sports like hockey and say basketball don’t appear to have massively negative media.
I am kinda rumbling in my own thoughts here, but the degree of negativity we have levelled at our management, [and I hold my hand up as one] and the degree of negativity towards our teams and say the game itself is not conducive nor helpful in getting new people to rugby.
So while our management IMO is inept, and the Super Rugby competition again IMO hurting us. Maybe we could try to look for some positives.
The AFL will start AFLX very soon and have the women’s AFL now in season. So just as we are about to start our season rugby’s management need to counter these new players in the market. Netball again will be grabbing media. The new FIFA A-League tournament as well I guess aimed at the young.
So just maybe posters like me could be a little more supportive. If we keep falling this year like last there may be nothing soon to fight over.
Agree, lack of revenue can and often does lead to a toxic media, but then again sports like hockey and say basketball don’t appear to have massively negative media.
I am kinda rumbling in my own thoughts here, but the degree of negativity we have levelled at our management, [and I hold my hand up as one] and the degree of negativity towards our teams and say the game itself is not conducive nor helpful in getting new people to rugby.
So while our management IMO is inept, and the Super Rugby competition again IMO hurting us. Maybe we could try to look for some positives.
The AFL will start AFLX very soon and have the women’s AFL now in season. So just as we are about to start our season rugby’s management need to counter these new players in the market. Netball again will be grabbing media. The new FIFA A-League tournament as well I guess aimed at the young.
So just maybe posters like me could be a little more supportive. If we keep falling this year like last there may be nothing soon to fight over.
half
Dick Tooth (41)
Almost upon us just a couple days away from the new season.
So many questions, it’s difficult to imagine the Reds having a worst season, and with a stronger Rebels side. Can the trend lines start to head north again?
Where to Super Rugby is interesting, hopefully Castle is an improvement on Pulver. Its interesting the degree of increased competition Super Rugby has today, or more to the point was not there when it kicked off.
By my recollection, the competition started slowly with the A-league, then over the past few years competition for sport media exploded and much in fairness to the growth in the A-League which today is equally suffering under a much expanded sports environment.
The biggest is obviously the Big Bash, added to this is the rise of UCL fighting, Netball, Rugby, AFL women’s, AFLX, Basketball revival, W-League, A-League, FFA Cup, E-Sports game, League expansion into PI nations.
Rugby has responded with women’s rugby and the National Rugby Competition.
We cut a team as everyone else expands, we have nothing like a national domestic competition and Twiggy-Ball is also internationally based.
For me personally, I wonder aloud not so much about holding ground or even a slight growth this year. I wonder even if we have growth is it rugby folk returning, or will it be new people.
Castle has a lot to consider and just maybe and hopefully she starts to develop the plan “B” so we can move away from Super Rugby. What hit me like a double decker bus on Pitt street in the above is the massive increase in sport as an industry and secondly the degree of competition faced by Super Rugby that did not exist at its start.
So many questions, it’s difficult to imagine the Reds having a worst season, and with a stronger Rebels side. Can the trend lines start to head north again?
Where to Super Rugby is interesting, hopefully Castle is an improvement on Pulver. Its interesting the degree of increased competition Super Rugby has today, or more to the point was not there when it kicked off.
By my recollection, the competition started slowly with the A-league, then over the past few years competition for sport media exploded and much in fairness to the growth in the A-League which today is equally suffering under a much expanded sports environment.
The biggest is obviously the Big Bash, added to this is the rise of UCL fighting, Netball, Rugby, AFL women’s, AFLX, Basketball revival, W-League, A-League, FFA Cup, E-Sports game, League expansion into PI nations.
Rugby has responded with women’s rugby and the National Rugby Competition.
We cut a team as everyone else expands, we have nothing like a national domestic competition and Twiggy-Ball is also internationally based.
For me personally, I wonder aloud not so much about holding ground or even a slight growth this year. I wonder even if we have growth is it rugby folk returning, or will it be new people.
Castle has a lot to consider and just maybe and hopefully she starts to develop the plan “B” so we can move away from Super Rugby. What hit me like a double decker bus on Pitt street in the above is the massive increase in sport as an industry and secondly the degree of competition faced by Super Rugby that did not exist at its start.
Joe King
Dave Cowper (27)
For me, the solution was so simple, and such a lost opportunity: have three conferences of 6 teams each, no inter-conference games until the finals between the top two teams of each conference. Even if they played 3 rounds within each conference before the finals, it would have been better. Would not have been perfect, but it would have re-ignighted the domestic landscape in Aus, without losing too much money. It would have solved the problem of player depth and lopsided score lines, and made the inter-conference games much more highly anticipated come finals time.
I'm still trying to work out the reason they didn't go with it. I don't buy the arguments that it was because SA and NZ have their own domestic comps already. The local derbies in Super Rugby receive better ratings in general, statistically speaking, than inter-conference games (even if some fans/players don't like them as much). So it's hard to buy this argument from a financial point of view. Yes, many NZ fans might like playing SA teams for historical reasons, but local derbies still rate better, generally speaking.
Would I be right in thinking that the main reason is because Super Rugby is still treated as development comp for test players (particularly All Blacks, from a NZRU point of view)? Hence NZRU's desire to keep playing SA teams at altitude, and not a great like for NZ teams bashing each other up too much?
Genuinely interested in people's opinions here. Not having ago at the NZRU either. Wouldn't expect them to do anything else if it wasn't in their best interests. Just trying to understand.
I'm still trying to work out the reason they didn't go with it. I don't buy the arguments that it was because SA and NZ have their own domestic comps already. The local derbies in Super Rugby receive better ratings in general, statistically speaking, than inter-conference games (even if some fans/players don't like them as much). So it's hard to buy this argument from a financial point of view. Yes, many NZ fans might like playing SA teams for historical reasons, but local derbies still rate better, generally speaking.
Would I be right in thinking that the main reason is because Super Rugby is still treated as development comp for test players (particularly All Blacks, from a NZRU point of view)? Hence NZRU's desire to keep playing SA teams at altitude, and not a great like for NZ teams bashing each other up too much?
Genuinely interested in people's opinions here. Not having ago at the NZRU either. Wouldn't expect them to do anything else if it wasn't in their best interests. Just trying to understand.
Jamie
Billy Sheehan (19)
I can only speak for myself but I like this new format, ideally it would have been like the old days every team plays each other once. I also quite enjoy watching the Saffa and Kiwi teams. Sunwolves are ok to watch, probably more so for their supporters but hopefully they will improve over time, I have zero interest in Argentinian rugby. Just me
Joe King
Dave Cowper (27)
Yep, there are fans that prefer this model, for sure. I'm just trying to work out from an organisational point of view, why they didn't go with closed conferences until the finals to eliminate the depth issue and lop-sided score-lines, and especially since the local derbies receive the better ratings overall. Would have also saved a heap on travel costs. Don't know why the AR didn't push for this instead of cutting a team. So unless I'm missing something, there must have been a fairly significant reason for it. I'm sure there is a good reason for it. But I just hope it wasn't because Super Rugby's main purpose is seen to be developing better test players.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Outrageous........ those South African teams should be playing in Singapore, or Colombo.
Jamie
Billy Sheehan (19)
True all valid questions but in the end we will never know unfortunately, the fact remains though that without playing NZ and SA regularly OZ will struggle. I understand the closed conference concept and it's benefits but just to have one team or a couple go through to the finals and only then play OS sides will be very detrimental.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
on average Australian Derbies outrate the other games but that's mostly a NSW and Qld thing.
Games for those two against kiwi teams have generally outrated Force and Rebels games as an example (and of course there's various reasons for that including shithouse scheduling)
Plus NZ and Australia want games in the SA timezone to maximise the sweet sweet northern hemisphere $$$$$
half
Dick Tooth (41)
Looking at our competition
AFLX it’s fair to say so far it looks a disaster with it being laughed at by nearly all except the AFL’s PR department the Herald Sun.
Offsiders columnist Richard Hinds, wrote an article on it and it part it read.
“”””It turns out AFLX is not an exciting new format of a beloved sport ''that will take the world by storm''. Nor is it the AFL's version of T20 — or even, for that matter, of French cricket.
AFLX is the first attempted use of Victoria's new voluntary euthanasia laws.””””
On soccer, FFA have released a pressor today saying they expanding to 12 teams and they are in discussion with the clubs with the view of giving clubs almost control over running of the A-League and FIFA are coming.
AFLX it’s fair to say so far it looks a disaster with it being laughed at by nearly all except the AFL’s PR department the Herald Sun.
Offsiders columnist Richard Hinds, wrote an article on it and it part it read.
“”””It turns out AFLX is not an exciting new format of a beloved sport ''that will take the world by storm''. Nor is it the AFL's version of T20 — or even, for that matter, of French cricket.
AFLX is the first attempted use of Victoria's new voluntary euthanasia laws.””””
On soccer, FFA have released a pressor today saying they expanding to 12 teams and they are in discussion with the clubs with the view of giving clubs almost control over running of the A-League and FIFA are coming.
T
TOCC
Guest
AFL have the budget and marketing influence to make AFLX work, I wouldn’t write it off just yet...
Shiggins
Simon Poidevin (60)
It shows what a farce the competition is first week of Super Rugby and there is no rugby to watch for Aussies at a decent time.
James Pettifer
Jim Clark (26)
I think it may have been pointing out that instead of the season starting with a bang, it starts with a whimper on a different continent The AFL these days start round 1 with Richmond v Carlton at the MCG and make it a huge event and a tradition. They are good at this sort of crap - making a normal game into a big tradition like the ANZAC day clash.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Honest Slim. SHiggins IS predictable in response on many things and the tone can be grinding. But in a single line he raised a completely valid criticism. Why does Super Rugby start weirdly with a single conference kick off and from SA with impracticable timings for viewing in the rest of the comp?
Slim, it was actually your post that needs thought. Intentionally off topic building a strawman. Suggest you pick you battles better. I know the "ignore" button feature doesn't really work in the current set up but perhaps try ignoring just by ignoring?
@Shiggins Mate, I don't know the answer, but I wonder if the Saffers have requested an extra bye for the extra travel they have in this setup? And perhaps they have been told "fine, but it cuts into YOUR preseason, not the rest of us." Try chilling, read the front page preview on the Saffers ;-) put it on record, and fast forward, while picking up on the various trials.
The season proper starts next week.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
South Africa is playing Wales in the USA outside of the test window in early June when NZ and Australia conf only play a round of Super Rugby to catch up
SA games are always in a bad time zone for us. The season has to start somewhere and sometime, and where and when that is depends on a lot of factors in each stakeholder country. We've seen these "half rounds" before in these circumstances. What actual difference does it make? I'm also struggling to see a point to Shiggins' concern.
- Status