Where to for Super Rugby?

[Braveheart81]

Scrums are easily fixed actually. Coming from an ex-tighthead. Remove the hit and replace it with a 'fold in'. Much of the shenanigans at scrum time occur invand around the hit. Remove that and many of those will disappear as with the need to reset collapsed scrums as there would be a increase in overall stability as well.

You can still use the scrum as a weapon and establish dominance at the set piece. It would also make it a lot easier for refs to identify any wrong doing and punish it.

I don't think we are getting nearly as many resets (or penalties) due to the scrum collapsing immediately after it commences since it changed to crouch-bind-set.

The majority of scrum penalties from my viewing are coming from a dominant scrum using it to generate a penalty the majority of the time they have the feed.

The number of scrum penalties where the scrums are fairly even seems to have substantially reduced both from the call to use it and allowing it to be played if it is available and the scrum has gone down.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I don't think we are getting nearly as many resets (or penalties) due to the scrum collapsing immediately after it commences since it changed to crouch-bind-set.

The majority of scrum penalties from my viewing are coming from a dominant scrum using it to generate a penalty the majority of the time they have the feed.

The number of scrum penalties where the scrums are fairly even seems to have substantially reduced both from the call to use it and allowing it to be played if it is available and the scrum has gone down.

The hit allows for certain shenanigans to occur which are most often exploited by the dominant scrum. You're bang on the money there.

I'm all for teams to drive home their dominance at scrum time by driving the opposition off the ball but what I find unnecessary is the need to play the games that many props do. I always found it was more than enough to physically dominate my opponent with the need to bore in and such.

 

[chibimatty]

What's the reason why we have a "hit" anyway? I thought scrums are meant to pack down together and be straight and steady until the ball gets put in? Or am I re-hashing an old discussion? I'd better check back the previous posts in the thread.

 

[Omar Comin']

I don't think an Australian only competition as the core way we pay our players is viable whatsoever. It would destroy the professional game in the country because we don't have the funds to finance it and you can't start from scratch and wait for it to grow because we compete in an international market in terms of player costs.

Do you believe the ARU will be able to keep the bulk of our best players based domestically in the long term? The only way this can happen is if the salary gap between European club rugby and here either reverses or at least stops growing. How will this happen?

 

[Braveheart81]

Do you believe the ARU will be able to keep the bulk of our best players based domestically in the long term? The only way this can happen is if the salary gap between European club rugby and here either reverses or at least stops growing. How will this happen?

No, I don't think so.

I think the best longer term proposition for Australian Rugby is a Trans-Tasman comp.

I don't think deciding that we will revert to semi-professionalism in the short term (which is what it will be if we tried to have an Australian only comp as the main way of paying players) because we can't keep our best players here in the longer term is the way to go.

There is no doubt rugby is struggling here but I don't think going backwards massively is the way to get it back on the right track. There is no widespread rugby culture in Australia that is just lying dormant and can be left to hibernate for a number of years until the right competition is in place and then fans and participation will increase dramatically.

 

[Twoilms]

Do you believe the ARU will be able to keep the bulk of our best players based domestically in the long term? The only way this can happen is if the salary gap between European club rugby and here either reverses or at least stops growing. How will this happen?

The defeatist in me says this is unstoppable. Europeans have been ruining things with money for centuries.

 

[Omar Comin']

No, I don't think so.

I think the best longer term proposition for Australian Rugby is a Trans-Tasman comp.

I don't think deciding that we will revert to semi-professionalism in the short term (which is what it will be if we tried to have an Australian only comp as the main way of paying players) because we can't keep our best players here in the longer term is the way to go.

You already know we agree on the first point but how do we possibly get a Trans-Tasman competition by sticking with Super Rugby as is? If it's not NZ's preference it's impossible unless we force their hand in some way. By going along with a plan to reduce our number of teams to 4 that only gives us less ability to do that.

And I think you're wrong that we'd have to revert to semi-professionalism. The bulk of the ARU's revenue is earned through the Wallabies, who would continue to exist and play the same number of games. In fact they might be more successful if we're not restricting which players are eligible for selection and thus bring in greater revenue. The amount currently spent on Super Rugby and central contracts for Wallabies players would easily sustain a decent level professional competition with 6-8 Australian teams (assuming a couple of teams in our local competition would be based outside of Australia). No, it might not be be as strong or lucrative as the Top 14, but it would be better than semi-professional, and it would likely be very entertaining rugby.

Keep in mind that the number of decent paying positions for Australian players overseas is not infinite. Especially for super rugby level players who aren't test quality. And their earning potential in super rugby is limited by the shortness of the competition. A predominantly local competition wouldn't have to shut down for the test rugby season.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

No, I don't think so.

I think the best longer term proposition for Australian Rugby is a Trans-Tasman comp.

I don't think deciding that we will revert to semi-professionalism in the short term (which is what it will be if we tried to have an Australian only comp as the main way of paying players) because we can't keep our best players here in the longer term is the way to go.

There is no doubt rugby is struggling here but I don't think going backwards massively is the way to get it back on the right track. There is no widespread rugby culture in Australia that is just lying dormant and can be left to hibernate for a number of years until the right competition is in place and then fans and participation will increase dramatically.

I think most agree a trans tasman competition is the wholly grail most are seeking whether that be as part of or outside super rugby. To get that would require nz to sign up so we hence need a plan b if they don't. I am not convinced stumbling along with super rugby as our only professional level below the wallabies for the next ten years is our best plan b.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

You already know we agree on the first point but how do we possibly get a Trans-Tasman competition by sticking with Super Rugby as is? If it's not NZ's preference it's impossible unless we force their hand in some way. By going along with a plan to reduce our number of teams to 4 that only gives us less ability to do that.

And I think you're wrong that we'd have to revert to semi-professionalism. The bulk of the ARU's revenue is earned through the Wallabies, who would continue to exist and play the same number of games. In fact they might be more successful if we're not restricting which players are eligible for selection and thus bring in greater revenue. The amount currently spent on Super Rugby and central contracts for Wallabies players would easily sustain a decent level professional competition with 6-8 Australian teams (assuming a couple of teams in our local competition would be based outside of Australia). No, it might not be be as strong or lucrative as the Top 14, but it would be better than semi-professional, and it would likely be very entertaining rugby.

Keep in mind that the number of decent paying positions for Australian players overseas is not infinite. Especially for super rugby level players who aren't test quality. And their earning potential in super rugby is limited by the shortness of the competition. A predominantly local competition wouldn't have to shut down for the test rugby season.

I think most agree a trans tasman competition is the wholly grail most are seeking whether that be as part of or outside super rugby. To get that would require nz to sign up so we hence need a plan b if they don't. I am not convinced stumbling along with super rugby as our only professional level below the wallabies for the next ten years is our best plan b.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

I think a Trans Tasman comp prior to 2020 is massively unlikely but I think we are slowly heading down that path of it becoming more acceptable as the long term plan to NZ. I think plan B is staying in Super Rugby for the next few years.

The upheaval of leaving Super Rugby, launching multiple new teams in the space of an offseason and then expecting that competition to be financially viable with no significant reserves to be able to give it time to grow would be financial suicide.

If Australia does have to lose a team (hopefully that won't happen but it does seem likely), I don't think it is a viable option to withdraw from Super Rugby instead, launch a new comp and add 3 teams all before next season.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I think a Trans Tasman comp prior to 2020 is massively unlikely but I think we are slowly heading down that path of it becoming more acceptable as the long term plan to NZ. I think plan B is staying in Super Rugby for the next few years.

The upheaval of leaving Super Rugby, launching multiple new teams in the space of an offseason and then expecting that competition to be financially viable with no significant reserves to be able to give it time to grow would be financial suicide.

If Australia does have to lose a team (hopefully that won't happen but it does seem likely), I don't think it is a viable option to withdraw from Super Rugby instead, launch a new comp and add 3 teams all before next season.

I think you are right that Trans Tasman comp from 2020 more practical with current broadcasting agreement. I probably am not advocating necessarily we completely leave super rugby but maybe try extended form semi pro comp to supplement that along lines suggested here. It would of course depend on Fox sports buying into this new long form competition. It would then lessen the blow and fallout from reduction to 4 super rugby teams.

I enjoy reading all the different ideas and discussion on this as we need to change and have plan b.s etc but also agree the challenge is all different options have pro.s and cons, but clearly we need some clever people to work out a better path forward.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[moa999]

I think the best longer term proposition for Australian Rugby is a Trans-Tasman comp.

But the Kiwis won't support it.
I suspect they'd almost prefer to play the SA teams - despite SA playing silly games with Currie vs Super Rugby TV deals.

And going alone will be no good for our player development, and I suspect we'd leak even more to Europe.

For all its issues - a three nation (plus some) weekly tournament should work - it's just marketed and scheduled poorly -- the international component should be seen as an advantage over NRL/AFL.

I think we need to look at scheduling first - the SA games are a complete turn-off for Aussie audiences.
SA v Aus East Coast should be earlier - say 11am/12pm kickoff so you still hit Aus TV at 8pm/9pm
SA v Kiwi games can be 8pm so 7am NZ with SA v SA filling the between times.

Equally all AU/NZ v SA games should be at night so morning telecast.

As well as getting rid of the stupid mid-season breaks, and teams being on the road for weeks at a time.

And the ARU needs to bite the bullet and give up some tv revenue for at least two Aus games/wk on FTA - our deal is more than NZ and SA I believe so we can give up some $s for long-term gains.

 

[wamberal]

How much are we likely to get from FTA?


No chance that Fox Sports would give up a couple of games, BTW. It would have to be a whole new deal.

 

[Rebels3]

I don't think a trans-tasman is as far off as many believe, the 75-80% within NZ that is adamant that they need to keep playing SAF on a domestic basis is now 65-70%. Interest there now is between the domestic derbies and the ITM as good as it is, has been proven to be unviable as an option by itself for years.

Mehrtens talking the other day was adamant that it will happen, its the only thing going forward that makes sense.

As for the impact in Australia, maybe i am a bit delusional but i genuinely believe a trans-tasman competition would see the game return to no.2 winter sport on the East Coast, and would have a drastically improved reception in both Perth and Melb. It might mean the SAF dollars disappear, but it would definitely improve the dollar offered by a provider here and definitely improve crowds. As for the European dollars, well im confident they'd invest more into a NZ/AUS competition more than what would be a stand alone South African one.

 

[Braveheart81]

But the Kiwis won't support it.
I suspect they'd almost prefer to play the SA teams - despite SA playing silly games with Currie vs Super Rugby TV deals.

And going alone will be no good for our player development, and I suspect we'd leak even more to Europe.

For all its issues - a three nation (plus some) weekly tournament should work - it's just marketed and scheduled poorly -- the international component should be seen as an advantage over NRL/AFL.

I think we need to look at scheduling first - the SA games are a complete turn-off for Aussie audiences.
SA v Aus East Coast should be earlier - say 11am/12pm kickoff so you still hit Aus TV at 8pm/9pm
SA v Kiwi games can be 8pm so 7am NZ

As well as getting rid of the stupid mid-season breaks, and teams being on the road for weeks at a time.

And the ARU needs to bite the bullet and give up some tv revenue for at least two Aus games/wk on FTA - our deal is more than NZ and SA I believe so we can give up some $s for long-term gains.

They have been particularly keen to play South African teams in the past but if the competition continues to struggle they will be more amenable to change.

I don't think you are going to get South African teams playing all their games at a time where few are going to turn up. 11am or midday kickoff isn't practical.

The midseason break is ending due to the agreement that the June internationals will move to July.

Foxsports aren't going to pay most of the money to give up the prime time fixtures. That is where the bulk of the value lies. You also need to consider whether a FTA network would even pay for those games to be shown in prime time. It seems highly unlikely they would rate well enough for that.

The only FTA option is Channel 10 and they are going down the tubes at a rate of knots.

 

[moa999]

I don't think you are going to get South African teams playing all their games at a time where few are going to turn up. 11am or midday kickoff isn't practical.
.

Not all their games. Be max of 1/2 a year, particularly if you went to a 3 conference system (Japan with Oz, Argentina with NZ).

They could have a Super Saturday
12pm SA v Oz
3pm SA v SA
5pm SA v SA
8pm SA v NZ

SA crowds barely show anyways

 

[Omar Comin']

If Australia does have to lose a team (hopefully that won't happen but it does seem likely), I don't think it is a viable option to withdraw from Super Rugby instead, launch a new comp and add 3 teams all before next season.

Wouldn't have to be by next season. SANZAAR and the broadcasters have a contract that ends in 2020. Any change to Super Rugby (involving all parties) before then requires unanimous support.

 

[Braveheart81]

Wouldn't have to be by next season. SANZAAR and the broadcasters have a contract that ends in 2020. Any change before then requires unanimous support.

The changes they are talking about right now do seem to be for next season though.

It requires a lot of parties to agree to it, including all the broadcasters.

I don't think we will be waiting until after 2020 before any changes take place.

If South Africa agrees to drop two teams I don't think the ARU are going to stand in the way of a reduction to 15 teams by vetoing everything.

 

[Twoilms]

They have been particularly keen to play South African teams in the past but if the competition continues to struggle they will be more amenable to change.

I don't think you are going to get South African teams playing all their games at a time where few are going to turn up. 11am or midday kickoff isn't practical.

The midseason break is ending due to the agreement that the June internationals will move to July.

Foxsports aren't going to pay most of the money to give up the prime time fixtures. That is where the bulk of the value lies. You also need to consider whether a FTA network would even pay for those games to be shown in prime time. It seems highly unlikely they would rate well enough for that.

The only FTA option is Channel 10 and they are going down the tubes at a rate of knots.

Also, South Africa are no longer the opposition they once were. South Africa no longer rate in the top 3 and their super teams are only marginally better than ours (not including the excellent Lions). In recent years they haven't had any more success in terms of competition wins either. So why are they so keen to play them? historical reasons?

 

[Braveheart81]

Also, South Africa are no longer the opposition they once were. South Africa no longer rate in the top 3 and their super teams are only marginally better than ours (not including the excellent Lions). In recent years they haven't had any more success in terms of competition wins either. So why are they so keen to play them? historical reasons?

That is a substantial part of the reason I think New Zealand's attraction to playing South African teams regularly will dwindle.

It will no longer be seen as being imperative for the success of New Zealand rugby.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

History tells me NZ do not want rugby to fail here and that they see the risk.
Merhtens tells me that NZ recognise the problem we have and that our larger market in a handy time zone is good for them.
They've saved us before and I reckon they might do it again.