Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rugbynutter39]

I think you will find NZ really want Aus to have 5 teams RN, just competitive ones! A dream situation for them would be 5 NZ, 5 Aus and perhap 3 SA teams,and probably a Asian team!! Not saying anyone would suggest it, or I not even suggesting it, but would make easy draw with a lot less travel etc!!

Remember that is in a fantasy world, probably SA's would be 6 SA teams 3 NZ teams , 2 Aus teams, so everyone probably has ideal scenarios.

Probably is Dan if we just rely on super rugby as our only professional outlet below wallabies we will never be competitive. It is our problem and not nz.s problem and we need a governing board with the gumption to make the required Changes to fix it

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

Exactly what changes would they be? Professional players have to get paid. As we have seen, we lose a lot of good players to overseas clubs because they can earn more.


The money pot is not expanding, and frankly there is no prospect of it expanding. In fact, we might be lucky to maintain our present revenues.


Maybe I'm a bit slow, but the only way that I can see to expand our professional cohort is to drop the money we pay to our Test and Soup players, freeing up some money to pay more professional teams. A kind of sporting socialism.

The inevitable result would be that we would lose more and more good players, just for money, thus reducing the appeal of the game even more.


Gumption is not what is needed, unless you mean in the "Yes, Prime Minister" sense.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Exactly what changes would they be? Professional players have to get paid. As we have seen, we lose a lot of good players to overseas clubs because they can earn more.


The money pot is not expanding, and frankly there is no prospect of it expanding. In fact, we might be lucky to maintain our present revenues.


Maybe I'm a bit slow, but the only way that I can see to expand our professional cohort is to drop the money we pay to our Test and Soup players, freeing up some money to pay more professional teams. A kind of sporting socialism.

The inevitable result would be that we would lose more and more good players, just for money, thus reducing the appeal of the game even more.


Gumption is not what is needed, unless you mean in the "Yes, Prime Minister" sense.

We might have to go backwards to go forwards

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Exactly what changes would they be? Professional players have to get paid. As we have seen, we lose a lot of good players to overseas clubs because they can earn more.


The money pot is not expanding, and frankly there is no prospect of it expanding. In fact, we might be lucky to maintain our present revenues.


Maybe I'm a bit slow, but the only way that I can see to expand our professional cohort is to drop the money we pay to our Test and Soup players, freeing up some money to pay more professional teams. A kind of sporting socialism.

The inevitable result would be that we would lose more and more good players, just for money, thus reducing the appeal of the game even more.


Gumption is not what is needed, unless you mean in the "Yes, Prime Minister" sense.

Wamberal none of us are saying it is easy but we can't stay on the same trajectory or we will never have a chance to move foreward.

We start small, be innovative e.g. like what Omar suggested allowing 25% imports and accept early on may lose some to overseas but long term got to be the right move to have our own domestic professional competition. Would be much easier and better base to have Trans Tasman competition but if nz won't play ball we need to look after our own destiny as no_one else will!

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Rebels3]

If anyone on here knows how to, now would be a great time for a viral campaign to support Australians not wanting super rugby any more. From reading about, I genuinely believe the vast majority of us don't want it anymore, unless there is dramatic changes to the competition structure.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

By pure chance I clicked a link to this:
"WALLABIES coach Michael Cheika is confident Australia’s Super Rugby sides will perform better this season after completing an inspection tour of the five franchises."
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...n/news-story/4817419cc2951cf40c3e367dd16a79ac
I think we can agree he was wrong.
So does that not indicate a problem at the top? (The idea that he might have said it but not believed it is plausible but that has its own problems)

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^ TBF, what else can he say? "Well, yeah, I've inspected our Super Rugby squads & I reckon we're totally forked for the foreseeable" probably wouldn't go down too well

 

[Rebels3]

No, it's just purely media spin. Let's be honest he wouldn't say the opposite and was prob asked the question about performance at the start of the season. Our super teams have complete autonomy of their structures.

 

[Brumby Runner]

So really, why did he say anything. Just now looks a goose.

 

[mst]

If anyone on here knows how to, now would be a great time for a viral campaign to support Australians not wanting super rugby any more. From reading about, I genuinely believe the vast majority of us don't want it anymore, unless there is dramatic changes to the competition structure.

Be careful what you wish for because if it does go what will be left? Unless you have a good option to generate money fast, it the lynch pin to rugby having any income; including the Wallabies which is part of the TV deal.

You don't have to be a financial genius to see why it so important to keep. Just look over the ditch to the All Blacks and the Kiwi Super Rugby sides. All fantastic products and big earners except for one achilles heal they collectively have. They are absolutely dictated by a buyers market. NZ is too small a market to be self-sustaining so they need "buyers" and "friends". No buyers or friends and the empire collapses.

It's the same for all southern hemisphere rugby. It goes, the money goes, we go; the end.

When Aussie rugby folk wake up, cut the whinging and face the facts that in reality what we doing is tantamount to lining up at the Centrelink window and whinging that are dole check isn't enough and they should do something about it instead of getting a job that pays more and will buy you what you want.

Until we grow up and get pass the whinging, blaming everyone else and actually take some responsibility, (as I am pretty sure we got here willingly), stop the BS politics and build something that actually generates us revenue so we can be self-sustaining this quit rhetoric is just laughable. Nose to spite face.

 

[Ulrich]

Further news:

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRugby/super-rugby-chop-undecided-20170325

It's settled then. SA to lose at least 1 team, but probably 2.

Asked if it was true that two South African teams (with everyone’s favourites for the chop being the Kings and the Cheetahs) would miss out, Alexander said it would be “two or one”.

From SARU president Mark Alexander.

 

[Ulrich]

Amidst all the doom, I think the game is very much attractive.

 

[TOCC]

Amidst all the doom, I think the game is very much attractive.

There has been 32 games this season, that equates to 3,360minutes of Rugby, this clip represents less then 0.2% of Super Rugby played in 2017. Even in doom and gloom you can find a few highlights

 

[Ulrich]

There has been 32 games this season, that equates to 3,360minutes of Rugby, this clip represents less then 0.2% of Super Rugby played in 2017. Even in doom and gloom you can find a few highlights

We are talking about ~640 minutes of rugby (Round 5) and these are just the "good" tries.

There are so many tries scored in Super Rugby lately it's hard to keep up. The top two teams have scored 61 tries in 9 games between the two of them (Lions 5 and Hurricanes 4 games).

The Stormers have scored 21.

The Brumbies being the top Aussie side have scored 13. The Bulls and the Sharks have also scored 13 and the Cheetahs 14. That's perhaps the problem for Australia is that your teams are not scoring tries.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Further news:

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRugby/super-rugby-chop-undecided-20170325

It's settled then. SA to lose at least 1 team, but probably 2.

From SARU president Mark Alexander.

Do you think they'd can the Cheetahs altogether or re-merge them with the Lions a la the Golden Cats setup with a view to them re-entering the comp in their own right at some future date? And how likely is it that SARU will (it appears from over here) defy the Government & axe the Kings?

 

[Ulrich]

Do you think they'd can the Cheetahs altogether or re-merge them with the Lions a la the Golden Cats setup with a view to them re-entering the comp in their own right at some future date? And how likely is it that SARU will (it appears from over here) defy the Government & axe the Kings?

The Cats as they were never worked for anyone over here, least of all the players and management as they were never at home. Furthermore I can only imagine team cohesion being a problem. Imagine Ackerman inheriting the Cheetahs squad all of a sudden and what sort of imbalance and chaos it could bring to his current squad of players.

It sucks to be playing in Bloem and then in JHB. They are about 4 to 4.5 hours drive from another (I know it doesn't look that far on a map).

From what I can gather anything is possible at this point and SARU may go any way but they will go the financial route first and foremost which should favour the Kings.

The problem for us in SA is that the Cheetahs are the lifeblood of SA rugby even if it may not seem so for the foreign contingent. They breed the best players, the school in Bloemfontein, Grey College, has the most Springboks of any school - and I believe NZs highest contributing school was founded by the same man.

In recent times Jannie, Bismarck, F. Steyn, Goosen for example were unearthed from there.

Our currency is the weakest of the lot so to think these folks would find a spot in our other local teams is reckless, but not unlike SARU. The most likely then is that we will lose more players overseas. For us as supporters it becomes ever more clear that we should somehow try to convince Europe we should be part of their league.

 

[Brumby Runner]

That's perhaps the problem for Australia is that your teams are not scoring tries.

That's exactly the problem I think, Ulrich. It points to a few deficiencies in Aussie rugby imo.

First, there is a problem with sub-standard coaching putting in place unimaginative game plans and letting individual player skills deteriorate. Too much kicking the ball away without the skill levels to actually do it with a modicum of success.

Too risk averse. Too much forwards pick and drive when in a scoring position, close to the tryline. Too little imagination in backline structure and attack. Emphasis is on "give it to Kerevi (Kuridrani, Folau, etc)".

Our teams need to be given the freedom to play with some individual flair rather than to hard and fast structures which the figures and results show aren't working in any case. And as you've pointed out elsewhere, our big forward runners must learn to take the ball at speed in order to be competitive and maybe have a chance to dominate the defensive line.

And as much as anything else, the individual skills need to be worked on at training until they become second nature. Passing skills, catching skills, off-loading, kicking in all aspects. I believe it can all be done, but I'm not sure it will be without some fundamental changes in coaching philosophies.

 

[Rebels3]

That's exactly the problem I think, Ulrich. It points to a few deficiencies in Aussie rugby imo.

First, there is a problem with sub-standard coaching putting in place unimaginative game plans and letting individual player skills deteriorate. Too much kicking the ball away without the skill levels to actually do it with a modicum of success.

Too risk averse. Too much forwards pick and drive when in a scoring position, close to the tryline. Too little imagination in backline structure and attack. Emphasis is on "give it to Kerevi (Kuridrani, Folau, etc)".

Our teams need to be given the freedom to play with some individual flair rather than to hard and fast structures which the figures and results show aren't working in any case. And as you've pointed out elsewhere, our big forward runners must learn to take the ball at speed in order to be competitive and maybe have a chance to dominate the defensive line.

And as much as anything else, the individual skills need to be worked on at training until they become second nature. Passing skills, catching skills, off-loading, kicking in all aspects. I believe it can all be done, but I'm not sure it will be without some fundamental changes in coaching philosophies.

Hit the nail on the head here, esp with players running onto the ball. I'd love to see the average figures of gain line success or distance made after contact figures for Australian teams against the rest. I don't think they'd be pretty. There is a big problem with Australian structures and philosophies atm.

 

[Ulrich]

Brumbie Runner,

All you need is to ask NZ coaches by the way. Ackerman is known for speaking to each and every NZ coach last year when they played and they shared thoughts. There's something in that. I believe due to the nature of NZs rugby structure they share freely anyway and they love the game so much they're willing to share with anyone.

This year SA's teams have played a little more freely to varying extent. The Bulls started off well but they seem to have reverted again to 10-man rugby for some reason. The other sides have really tried to embrace all that is good.

The Sharks probably have the best balance as it is, improving slowly rather than going for broke, the Stormers are second in that they are going for broke but their defense sucks. Still they are improving at least. The Lions play their way which is, as I have mentioned before, to keep the ball alive and find space. When that does not work for them they are in trouble so they are not a "test-team".

Even the Kings have scored some magnificent tries.

 

[Rebels3]

For us as supporters it becomes ever more clear that we should somehow try to convince Europe we should be part of their league.

In all honesty for me a perfect overview of the world competitions would be.

Pro 10 (Scotland, Ireland, Wales)

Aviva (14 team ring fenced)

Top 14 (with a team from Rome and Treviso entering ProDiv2)

Currie Cup (would require some drastic work on the season of play)
---------------------------------------------------
All 4 competitions making up the Champions Cup/Challenge Cup
Perhaps finally a World Club Championship
---------------------------------------------------
Top League
Trans-Tasman (10 current teams + 1 PI team + Jaguares)
---------------------------------------------------
Rugby Championship (Aus, NZ, SAF, JAP, ARG)
6 Nations (with a playoff)
3 Test tours to countries with midweek games against AUS/NZ sides to help fill coffers
Lions tour of Argentina or America's

-South Africa would become the gateway between North and South
-Pro12 would get rid of the Italian teams
-Italian teams would compete in a competition with more traditional rivalry
-Aviva would solve the issue of teams collapsing once relegated or not wanting to be promoted
-Aus/NZ broadcasters get complete control over content
-PI presence
-Champions Cup becomes premier competition, Challenge Cup improves
-Japan in Rugby Championship (6 Nations style tournament)
-6 Nations not a closed shop (allows growth for more countries)