Where to for Super Rugby?

[Forcefield]

for sure, but don't have the Sydney Waratahs or the Brisbane Reds, don't fuck with the history of those clubs

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Yes but there would still be a heap of politicking going on with regards to who’s in and who isn’t. In principle it would be a great idea though, using Sydney as an example the 6 or so clubs who don’t make it would end up in a semi pro comp with the top half dozen clubs from Kentwell (1st division subbies), and so on down the chain. The winner of that comp would then playoff against the winners of other similar comps for the right to challenge the worst performing club in the top tier maybe every two years. In theory it would be great, not sure how practical though.

So the top 4/5 clubs from Sydney and Brisbane are going to be pretty close and could form the basis of a competitive and even National comp.

I really dont know how competitive and what standard we are looking at with ACT/Melbourne and Perth. Think these might be in for a flogging, and if other country clubs wanted entry, they too would be way under standard.

I think for these other areas they will need to be representative sides, drawing from all the talent in the comp, with perhaps some possibility of imports from other Syd/Bris clubs not involved. This could even up the national club comp to something special

 

[sendit]

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.

are we allowed to use that line for justification of the Force being cut

 

[The Honey Badger]

If you’re not having state based sides then I don’t think a city vs country split generates much of a rivalry. Certainly in Sydney, West vs North vs East would have much more entrenched support. I would love to see a Randwick-Easts conglomerate get thrashed by Norths, Gordon, Northern Beaches side, Sydney vs some ethereal country side, don’t care that much.

I disagree. I think you will find a country side getting plenty of support out of many regional centres. And given its a new comp, give it time, the intrastate rivalry will be epic.

AND, I am not against QH Northern Bears side, based somewhers between North Sydney/Chatswood/Manly & Warriwood. Making a 3rd NSW side

 

[sendit]

alright well if we do go down the domestic route id go one of two options

1) State based competition with current 5 plus Drua and maybe the Samoan team too - look to add SA/NT/TAS when applicable

2) Go more regional - 3x NSW based (any country team needs to have a solid home base eg Newcastle, Wollongong etc and not just be a generic country team that hops around all season), 2-3 QLD, 2 Melb, 1 Perth....still look to add islander teams as well

 

[Forcefield]

I wonder what would happen if you took the Super Rugby Au and merged with GRR. You could say to Aussie players that they are Wallaby eligible if they play for any team. It might improve the quality of say Hong Kong having a few marquee players while offsetting the inevitable player drain that will come with our current crisis. That's 10 odd teams. Home and away makes 18 games. Two byes plus 2 weeks of finals makes 22 week and would fit nicely alongside internationals.

 

[Quick Hands]

If you’re not having state based sides then I don’t think a city vs country split generates much of a rivalry. Certainly in Sydney, West vs North vs East would have much more entrenched support. I would love to see a Randwick-Easts conglomerate get thrashed by Norths, Gordon, Northern Beaches side, Sydney vs some ethereal country side, don’t care that much.

A NSW Country side is like an old heritage listed house, everyone thinks it's wonderful and should be preserved but nobody wants to buy it.

 

[Dan54]

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.

True and we had 3 teams in super rugby we had a Wallaby team right at the top, a great comp where everyone was engaged, great crowds, so why didn't we keep doing it and keep what we had?

 

[Dan54]

Actually I just had a quick look , when we look at what Fox or whoever will pay for an Aus comp, apparently a lot of it is on content, I know someone has mentioned how much A league has signed up for and hopefully we at rugby would get and hopefully as much. Well A league plays 27 rounds plus finals it seems, so realistically to compete for that money in a domestic comp we would probably need 9-10 teams playing over 3 rounds and finals. I not suggesting we could do it, but kind of shows what rugby is up against to get good money. Also blows my argument that short sharp comp would be good, but I still think different comps would be good somehow.

 

[Derpus]

True and we had 3 teams in super rugby we had a Wallaby team right at the top, a great comp where everyone was engaged, great crowds, so why didn't we keep doing it and keep what we had?

Because there are 7 states and territories in Australia - not 3.

 

[Forcefield]

True and we had 3 teams in super rugby we had a Wallaby team right at the top, a great comp where everyone was engaged, great crowds, so why didn't we keep doing it and keep what we had?

That's a fair point. Personally, I don't think the good times would have continued regardless of expansion, but we'll never know. I guess what I am saying is that tradition is all well and good, but it is a luxury we can't necessarily afford. We can match NZ 5 and 5 in a TT comp and we'd struggle to have a domestic comp with only 5 teams. Something has to give.

 

[Dan54]

Because there are 7 states and territories in Australia - not 3.

Mate I was only answering to the comment, not saying anything right or wrong : If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.

 

[The Honey Badger]

True and we had 3 teams in super rugby we had a Wallaby team right at the top, a great comp where everyone was engaged, great crowds, so why didn't we keep doing it and keep what we had?

Because we were greedy and thought More was better, and expansion was clearly the way forward back then.

Now we are addicted and we want ALL 5 to stay

 

[The Honey Badger]

A NSW Country side is like an old heritage listed house, everyone thinks it's wonderful and should be preserved but nobody wants to buy it.

My house is C1880's and I like it

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

So the top 4/5 clubs from Sydney and Brisbane are going to be pretty close and could form the basis of a competitive and even National comp.

I really dont know how competitive and what standard we are looking at with ACT/Melbourne and Perth. Think these might be in for a flogging, and if other country clubs wanted entry, they too would be way under standard.

I think for these other areas they will need to be representative sides, drawing from all the talent in the comp, with perhaps some possibility of imports from other Syd/Bris clubs not involved. This could even up the national club comp to something special

That's essentially what they'll need to be.

 

[The Honey Badger]

alright well if we do go down the domestic route id go one of two options

1) State based competition with current 5 plus Drua and maybe the Samoan team too - look to add SA/NT/TAS when applicable

2) Go more regional - 3x NSW based (any country team needs to have a solid home base eg Newcastle, Wollongong etc and not just be a generic country team that hops around all season), 2-3 QLD, 2 Melb, 1 Perth..still look to add islander teams as well

Option 1 = create 1 more provincial side has merit. They were in the throws of putting together a Barbarians side for this years Super AU to make a 6 team comp, but was canned. Its a shame because I think it had merit. Add the Drua and the Sunwolves and we are at 8. That would be the minimum needed for a meaningful Provincial based comp.

Option 2 = is probably the better long term for Aus Rugby. More team = more spots for up and coming talent. Its just going to need time and some good promotion to get traction with the Union fan base. Would love some FTA and maybe midweek games when we are not competing with other codes

 

[hoggy]

Why not just start with an 8 team domestic competition the 5 current franchises, add 1 NSW/1 QLD/Drua 8 teams.

If cash-flow is an issue then just start with 6 in 2021 8 in 2022.

The most important things is to get out of this stupid mentality of only games against NZ are legitimate.

Pitch that to Twiggy, go out for more PE, just grow a set of balls Australia, and tell the Kiwi's to fuck off.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Why not just start with an 8 team domestic competition the 5 current franchises, add 1 NSW/1 QLD/Drua 8 teams.

If cash-flow is an issue then just start with 6 in 2021 8 in 2022.

The most important things is to get out of this stupid mentality of only games against NZ are legitimate.

Pitch that to Twiggy, go out for more PE, just grow a set of balls Australia, and tell the Kiwi's to fuck off.

So, essentially the NRC. Which would be fine by me.

 

[Dan54]

Ok was having a chat with mate yesterday, a bit like me and watches a hell of a lot of rugby, Aussie a 25 year member of at the Reds etc, so one to get a bit of gauge on rugby things with and he said one very worrying thing. When discussing Aus games on weekend, he said he didn't see Brumbies/Rebels game until sunday, I said ok you out Sat night?
The worrying thing was he said no, I just struggle to watch the Aus games straight after watching the NZ games because the step down is too much, like watching club rugby after rep rugby. The only reason I mention it, because he a real mad rugby man and if he thinks that, do you then get Fox to not show games from NZ before to keep top attention to game? I repeat he a real rugby man so, although I have heard similar from less engaged watcher's at work, it something we need to be aware of. I don't usually watch the Backpage on Fox, but saw a bit of it last night and though they not rugby men that I know of, they were talking about the gulf in class between the comps and skills. To really keep the numbers up for viewing etc we don't want people to think they watching a lesser comp in my opinion.
Don't shoot me, only what I have heard said and it concerns me.

 

[KOB1987]

Ok was having a chat with mate yesterday, a bit like me and watches a hell of a lot of rugby, Aussie a 25 year member of at the Reds etc, so one to get a bit of gauge on rugby things with and he said one very worrying thing. When discussing Aus games on weekend, he said he didn't see Brumbies/Rebels game until sunday, I said ok you out Sat night?
The worrying thing was he said no, I just struggle to watch the Aus games straight after watching the NZ games because the step down is too much, like watching club rugby after rep rugby. The only reason I mention it, because he a real mad rugby man and if he thinks that, do you then get Fox to not show games from NZ before to keep top attention to game? I repeat he a real rugby man so, although I have heard similar from less engaged watcher's at work, it something we need to be aware of. I don't usually watch the Backpage on Fox, but saw a bit of it last night and though they not rugby men that I know of, they were talking about the gulf in class between the comps and skills. To really keep the numbers up for viewing etc we don't want people to think they watching a lesser comp in my opinion.
Don't shoot me, only what I have heard said and it concerns me.

I honestly think the big difference is the crowds. It just makes it seem more exciting and more engaging when watching on TV. Just as an example, I haven't looked at the comprehensive stats but there were 60 tackles missed in the NZ game v 42 in the Aus one straight after. The tolerance level is understandably low after the past few years, it's a perception thing though, people see a dropped ball in the Aus derby and they instantly throw their hands in the air and complain about the crap quality. It's something that will take time to rectify, but it can be fixed.