Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rugbynutter39]

That's been the narrative/party line that the NZRU have been running with since the report first leaked so nothing new really.


I find it interesting and a little ironic that every sporting comp around the world has an array of teams of varying depth and strengths which make up the rich tapestry of their respective games. You could make similar arguments that the EPL or Pro14 etc.. should be cut to 8-9 teams because none of the other have a chance of winning anyway. I mean you'd dump the Southern Kings right away and Aston Villa.. pff.. dump them.



It's a shame this years full Super Rugby comp didn't get to playout to really see where the various countries were at. Besides my Tah's who had some lag due to rebuilding/youth I actually though the other 3 teams had a chance to beat anyone on their day.

The more i hear the same continued msg out of nz that only way to deal with our lack of current depth to match nz is to have less teams the more I believe this shows it is time to move away from this master servant relationship as there are other options to address this issue but NZ are just too short sighted, arrogant and full of own self interest to see this.

I agree MR Kafer time to go alone and work with other parties in the region who can be more aligned with a model that helps grow the game in oz and the wider region. We just need to accept nz won’t play ball to design a trans tasman competition that will help grow the game here against other codes like afl and nrl who have expanded their footprint to grow their game (as opposed to nz offer to shrink our way to greatness). Happy to look at champions league and Bledisloe but personally can’t see trans tasman competition in our interests given I can’t see NZ offering something that would be in our best interests for the long term growth of our game.

 

[KevinO]

Also Sydney with the Stadium situation. Perth has to feel miffed that they wont get a Bled though.

Bled was meant to be in Melbourne this year, was first time I have been really looking forward to a Wallabies game in Melbourne not involving Ireland or Lions for a long time

 

[hoggy]

I do understand where NZ come from in regards to a TT competition, but who always seems to be making the sacrifices, does Australian rugby have to accommodate another change to suit a model that aligns with NZ.

We don't have the talent for 5 teams to be competitive, so what happens after 2/3 seasons of our teams making up the numbers, if theirs a players drain North it will equally affect each country, the standard may go down but they will still be that notch above us.

Why can't we have domestic leagues in each country, try for 6 teams each. at the conclusion of that a champions league with all 12 teams and 4 teams added if possible Jap/Islands/GRR.

That would give you 16 teams 4 equal groups. semi/finals, Final. This would also allow reasonable spread of games among teams. (each pool 1 kiwi/1 Aus/1 Jap,Islands/1 TBA)

Those 4 teams could be invitation, brought together just for the champions league (ie: why not pretty much the Samoan national team)

The point is this would give you a domestic comp and then a champions league to sell as well, we still get to play the Kiwis, you get crossover games, and it allows Australian to focus on growing a domestic product.

Some teams may not be really competitive, but your playing what 1 or twice a year, and not every f----g second weekend.

Okay it means adding 1 team each in NZ/Aus, but is that really so unattainable.

 

[KevinO]

Australia having 2 teams just increases the NZ playing pool strength, every week there sides would be playing against sides packed with Wallabies at a high standard. Then they get to pick the strongest team from there 5 sides and pretty much smash the side they have been playing all year.

 

[qwerty51]

I don't think that argument has much merit tbh. It's never helped Italy or Australia.

 

[Dctarget]

I don't think that argument has much merit tbh. It's never helped Italy or Australia.

I think that's his point

 

[dru]

Australia having 2 teams just increases the NZ playing pool strength, every week there sides would be playing against sides packed with Wallabies at a high standard. Then they get to pick the strongest team from there 5 sides and pretty much smash the side they have been playing all year.

Shrinking (Australian) rugby for (Kiwi) greatness.

We don't owe them that much. Far from it.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I don't think that argument has much merit tbh. It's never helped Italy or Australia.

Under super Rugby Au I get to watch 2 local derbies each week which I am enjoying - under nz’s supposed proposal for only 2 to 3 oz teams in ten team Comp i would be seeing very few - if any - local derbies week to week. This just looks like another crap super rugby model that just caters for nz rugby supporters

 

[Rebels3]

I honestly believe having 2 teams would create the reverse issue. Apart from the crusaders I don’t think any kiwi teams would be able to compete against Aus only having 2 teams and you’d end up with the Highlanders for example going a season without a win and the Tahs and Reds consistently in the top 2/3 sides. Until playing resources are shared there will always be an imbalance.

You add AAT, Sio, Slipper, Fainga'a, Banks, Kurindrani, White, Hodge, Philip, To'omua, Naisarani, DHP, Uelese, Koroibete to the Tahs and Reds sides and you’d be having a laugh at the imbalance in strength or a need for a 3rd team.

 

[molman]

I also still feel like there is value in having a local grand-final of some sort for the Australian teams. I look at the ShuteShield grand-final’s at North Sydney Oval and just see what excitement that created. We hardly ever get to generate that excitement around our game at Super Rugby level under the old model and likely under the TT proposed model. 2011 in QLD and 2014 in NSW in recent years and then a team or two in a Semi's here and there, often in another country if your not lucky enough to secure the home game... I've said it before but I just feel like Super Rugby fizzles out with no real significance for many Australian supporters/fans and it's a really poor product to try and pull new viewers/supporters into.

 

[Braveheart81]

Also Sydney with the Stadium situation.

The ANZ Stadium refurbishment got cancelled so sounds like Sydney will get the Bledisloe that was scheduled for Melbourne.

 

[molman]

I honestly believe having 2 teams would create the reverse issue. Apart from the crusaders I don’t think any kiwi teams would be able to compete against Aus only having 2 teams and you’d end up with the Highlanders for example going a season without a win and the Tahs and Reds consistently in the top 2/3 sides. Until playing resources are shared there will always be an imbalance.

You add AAT, Sio, Slipper, Fainga'a, Banks, Kurindrani, White, Hodge, Philip, To'omua, Naisarani, DHP, Uelese, Koroibete to the Tahs and Reds sides and you’d be having a laugh at the imbalance in strength or a need for a 3rd team.

You make a big assumption that we'd even keep all that talent. So much talent would leak out of our system. If we're getting 2/8ths or 3/8ths of the broadcasting dollars in some TT comp... is that going to be enough to secure all the talent that we're suddenly going to fold into the 2-3 teams... will these teams make up the difference in revenue lost in sponsorship, game day / membership etc... we also suddenly loose coaching depth... who stays and goes?... we've already got a bunch of coaching talent going to MRL, Pro14, Top14 and other systems due to the lack of opportunity here.

Meanwhile NZRU get an avenue to keep marketing their comp and brands in the Australian market... maintain what is, if we're honest a AB's production system (which they make no bones about)... not sure it's the kind of partnership I'd be looking to enter. Not sure it's much of a win-win, enough upside for Rugby AU.

 

[Up the Guts]

I honestly believe having 2 teams would create the reverse issue. Apart from the crusaders I don’t think any kiwi teams would be able to compete against Aus only having 2 teams and you’d end up with the Highlanders for example going a season without a win and the Tahs and Reds consistently in the top 2/3 sides. Until playing resources are shared there will always be an imbalance.

You add AAT, Sio, Slipper, Fainga'a, Banks, Kurindrani, White, Hodge, Philip, To'omua, Naisarani, DHP, Uelese, Koroibete to the Tahs and Reds sides and you’d be having a laugh at the imbalance in strength or a need for a 3rd team.

I agree, the Rebels beat the Highlanders in Dunedin this year and they are probably Australia’s 3rd best side. Meanwhile the Chiefs look to have become even worse than the Highlanders.

I looked over the past Super tables back to about 2007 earlier in the week and it was only really 2016-2018 where all 5 NZ sides were relatively good (even then the Blues weren’t that high up the ladder). I don’t think 5 Kiwi sides compete with 2 Australian sides.

 

[Dan54]

I agree, the Rebels beat the Highlanders in Dunedin this year and they are probably Australia’s 3rd best side. Meanwhile the Chiefs look to have become even worse than the Highlanders.

I looked over the past Super tables back to about 2007 earlier in the week and it was only really 2016-2018 where all 5 NZ sides were relatively good (even then the Blues weren’t that high up the ladder). I don’t think 5 Kiwi sides compete with 2 Australian sides.

F*** me, don't decide any comps by one result, you remember Japan beat Boks in WC in 2015, did that make them get into QFs or anything? And I not in anyway agreeing only 2 Aus sides isn't the go or agree with it, just use better arguments than that.

 

[dru]

F*** me, don't decide any comps by one result, you remember Japan beat Boks in WC in 2015, did that make them get into QFs or anything? And I not in anyway agreeing only 2 Aus sides isn't the go or agree with it, just use better arguments than that.

The Brave Blossoms defeating Springboks way more than justified them being in that comp. Off that one game.

A transnational comp needs to be decided on the basis of the Nations involved - not just one of them. What is being put forward in not in Australia's interest, and there is absolutely no reason we should walk into something that doesn't work for us.

Australia needs a national footprint in a professional comp with roughly level playing field. If NZ are not prepared to offer this then they run alone.

 

[Dan54]

The Brave Blossoms defeating Springboks way more than justified them being in that comp. Off that one game.

A transnational comp needs to be decided on the basis of the Nations involved - not just one of them. What is being put forward in not in Australia's interest, and there is absolutely no reason we should walk into something that doesn't work for us.

Australia needs a national footprint in a professional comp with roughly level playing field. If NZ are not prepared to offer this then they run alone.

Yep and Aus will no doubt run their' alone, I wasn't arguing one way or other, and agree it should be on basis of all countries, just saying don't use one upset result to decide anything.

Bottom line? Foxtel and Sky etc will decide the comp, if they think enough people want to watch 4 or 5 Aus or NZ teams that is what they will pay for, and if noone pays there will be nothing!

 

[Up the Guts]

F*** me, don't decide any comps by one result, you remember Japan beat Boks in WC in 2015, did that make them get into QFs or anything? And I not in anyway agreeing only 2 Aus sides isn't the go or agree with it, just use better arguments than that.

It’s an example of the comparative quality of Australian and NZ provincial sides not an argument. Another example is that the winless Chiefs look completely insipid and would be bulldozed by an overpowered Australian side.

Maybe 2 or 3 years ago the majority of the 5 NZ sides would have been competitive against condensed Australian sides but not anymore. Our schoolboys and u20s beat NZ last year and the ABs have come back to the field.

 

[dru]

Yep and Aus will no doubt run their' alone, I wasn't arguing one way or other, and agree it should be on basis of all countries, just saying don't use one upset result to decide anything.

Bottom line? Foxtel and Sky etc will decide the comp, if they think enough people want to watch 4 or 5 Aus or NZ teams that is what they will pay for, and if noone pays there will be nothing!

Actually Dan, where we are headed is a little different. The two major models being put forward are not workable for one partner or the other:

a) shrink Aus to Kiwi greatness
b) Playing field leveler by NZ boosting Aus teams for Aus greatness (and lessor overall quality to NZ)

If the players are honest some form of middle ground will be found. I personally don't see what it can be, at which pint we end up with an untenable TT, and NZ shrinks into NZ, perhaps with PI, and Aus commits to domestic with all the hazards involved.

I think that final scenario is better for Australia than NZ, hence to me logically Aus can afford to play harder - if they have the balls for it.

Foxtel does not make the decision though will definitely have an opinion which will effect what they are prepared to do. But Foxtel is certainly indicative of broadcast value - which is something that both sides of the ditch need to hold front and center.

So far we just have continued posturing (both sides but mostly NZ) and the clock is ticking down.

 

[Dan54]

It’s an example of the comparative quality of Australian and NZ provincial sides not an argument. Another example is that the winless Chiefs look completely insipid and would be bulldozed by an overpowered Australian side.

Maybe 2 or 3 years ago the majority of the 5 NZ sides would have been competitive against condensed Australian sides but not anymore. Our schoolboys and u20s beat NZ last year and the ABs have come back to the field.

I not arguing that Aus teams are competitive FFS have a look at all my posts, I just saying don't use one result to prove points!! I not saying and haven't ever said I believed a 2-3 teams from Aus is best, though I will say I doubt whether Aus rugby can afford to fund 5 teams even with Twiggy paying for one, I think RA can afford maybe 3 with Twiggy paying for one.

 

[Dan54]

Actually Dan, where we are headed is a little different. The two major models being put forward are not workable for one partner or the other:

a) shrink Aus to Kiwi greatness
b) Playing field leveler by NZ boosting Aus teams for Aus greatness (and lessor overall quality to NZ)

If the players are honest some form of middle ground will be found. I personally don't see what it can be, at which pint we end up with an untenable TT, and NZ shrinks into NZ, perhaps with PI, and Aus commits to domestic with all the hazards involved.

I think that final scenario is better for Australia than NZ, hence to me logically Aus can afford to play harder - if they have the balls for it.

Foxtel does not make the decision though will definitely have an opinion which will effect what they are prepared to do. But Foxtel is certainly indicative of broadcast value - which is something that both sides of the ditch need to hold front and center.

So far we just have continued posturing (both sides but mostly NZ) and the clock is ticking down.

Unfortunately Foxtel seem to be the ONLY option for Aus rugby at this stage, noone else seems to be wanting it. And you right shrinking to greatness is not answer, but you can only afford a certain number of players! And that includes the ridiculous idea of diluting NZ talent!