Where to for Super Rugby?

[dru]

It is worth noting that Australian expanded from two professional teams to five in 25 years while NZ just added one.

I'm no expert on NZ Super origins, but didn't they start with the top teams from the domestic comp? Then swap to regional rep teams to be able to compete with the Australian Unions?

That amalgamation still sees emotional discourse from Kiwi rugby fans.

[South Africa started with and stayed with the top teams from the domestic comp. Which ultimately led to a two tier Curry Cup where even the top tier is devalued. The term "franchise" is a big deal in Africa.]

In terms of a lack of interest to increase the number of franchises, I understand the main argument to be the costs and what NZ can afford. In which case they will struggle either needing to reconsider that cost model or dealing with a 5 team comp.

They seem to work solidly from a perspective that Australia needs NZ more than they need us. I humbly disagree though either a compromise is reached, or time will tell who is right.

 

[Dan54]

I'm no expert on NZ Super origins, but didn't they start with the top teams from the domestic comp? Then swap to regional rep teams to be able to compete with the Australian Unions?

That amalgamation still sees emotional discourse from Kiwi rugby fans.

.

Na mate, NZ always had the same system, made a couple of tweeks (Northland went to Blues and the Naki sold out to Chiefs) when they bought shares, but is basically always been the same. Also a change in being able to lock in 20 odd players from own area, but nothing changed really.

 

[Dan54]

It is worth noting that Australian expanded from two professional teams to five in 25 years while NZ just added one.

No NZ added no teams.

 

[KOB1987]

It’s not like for like though. NZ has always had a good geographical spread of its players across the country, whereas Australia has them concentrated in NSW and Qld.

 

[Dan54]

It’s not like for like though. NZ has always had a good geographical spread of its players across the country, whereas Australia has them concentrated in NSW and Qld.

No nowhere near the same, as you say KOB, quite different . Aus started with basically Qld and NSW and bits, and actually did well with expansion with Brumbies etc anyway, so it was by no means as bad as some think. I wasn't here at the beginning, but I definitely think RA probably has gained at least as much as anyone from Super rugby.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

No NZ added no teams.

Just spent the afternoon re-equating myself with some history. Thanks straightening me out Dru, Dan54 and KOB1987

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Yeah, I'd much rather we (slightly) over extended ourselves with 5, while we have them already existing and worked on strengthening that level below to back fill the super level playing numbers. The NRC had been doing good work in this space, even if it wasn't there yet, and I still feel we need something at that semi-pro to pro level to do it.

The cost of cutting now is huge, as it would be to grow again ~7 years down the line when we have a big injection of cash with world cup + lions tour.

Yep to hard to get the footprint back - even with twiggy backing look at the challenge force faced this season - prefer we find means to plug depth gap to support 5 teams via allowed marquees/ Argentina players etc whilst putting in place initiatives to improve grass roots etc

 

[dru]

Na mate, NZ always had the same system, made a couple of tweeks (Northland went to Blues and the Naki sold out to Chiefs) when they bought shares, but is basically always been the same. Also a change in being able to lock in 20 odd players from own area, but nothing changed really.

Dan, from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Rugby

Super 6 was the start with three provincial Kiwi teams - Auckland, Canterbury, Wellington.

Then expanded with Super 10 with Waikato, Auckland, Otago and North Harbour.

Thence Super 12 with five from NZ.

 

[Dan54]

Dan, from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Rugby

Super 6 was the start with three provincial Kiwi teams - Auckland, Canterbury, Wellington.

Then expanded with Super 10 with Waikato, Auckland, Otago and North Harbour.

Thence Super 12 with five from NZ.

Yep Super 6 and 10 were completely different to Super 12, was basically a preseason tournament allowing teams to build and have trials going into reps seasons in the amateur era . Very few ABs actually played in them. I seem to remember the Northern Transvaal team stopping in Levin to play the Mighty Nua, first time I ever saw the one and only Christian Cullen play rep rugby as a 16yo, played centre and scored a lovely try. Proper Super rugby didn't start until the formation of SANZAAR iwhen game went pro in 96.

 

[fatprop]

The rugby ruckus podcast has a fantastic interview with Ben Darwin on the best model for aus and his analysis on cohesion from less teams and the number of players we will need to fill 5 teams and how that will affect the wobs

 

[Braveheart81]

The latest Rugby Ruckus podcast with Ben Darwin is worth listening to in relation to how the number of teams and the overall cohesion affects the quality of the national team.

It certainly paints a pretty clear picture that trying to run an 8 or 10 team domestic comp would be a disaster for the Wallabies.

His take is certainly that the Wallabies would be stronger if we went to less teams.

Probably the biggest change for the Wallabies over the last couple of decades is we have become less cohesive with more teams added whilst Ireland, Wales and Scotland have improved substantially by shrinking their domestic footprint to substantially less teams playing in the highest level comp they have.

 

[kiap]

Very few ABs actually played in them.

Was Zinzan Brooke an AB in 1993?

He must have been a bit shit because he started on the pine...

Transvaal: Theo van Rensburg, Pieter Hendriks, Bernard Fourie, Japie Mulder, Chris Dirks, Hennie le Roux, Johann Roux, Deon Lötter, Francois Pienaar (captain), Ian Macdonald, Kobus Wiese, Hannes Strydom, Johan le Roux, Uli Schmidt, Balie Swart

Auckland: Shane Howarth, Terry Wright, Eroni Clarke, Lee Stensness, Va’aiga Tuigamala, Grant Fox, Nu’uali’itia, Michael Jones, Brendan Jackson (replaced by Zinzan Brooke), Mark Carter, Robin Brooke, Richard Fromont, Olo Brown, Sean Fitzpatrick (captain), Craig Dowd

 

[kiap]

Probably the biggest change for the Wallabies over the last couple of decades is we have become less cohesive with more teams added whilst Ireland, Wales and Scotland have improved substantially by shrinking their domestic footprint.

How many teams do Ireland have, Braveheart?

 

[kiap]

The rugby ruckus podcast has a fantastic interview with Ben Darwin on the best model for aus and his analysis on cohesion from less teams and the number of players we will need to fill 5 teams and how that will affect the wobs

My biggest takeaway was Benny's idea that local players play for their local super team, so rep rugby. No OS imports either.

Bub-bye Brumbies!

 

[Braveheart81]

How many teams do Ireland have, Braveheart?

4. Leinster, Munster, Ulster and Connacht. They have had a very stable structure for a long time now.

Prior to professionalism they were dispersed throughout a large club competition.

Wales saw the biggest shift. They went from having 9 teams when the Celtic League started up to having 4 teams now. The national team has improved substantially with that.

 

[Derpus]

Not convinced.

The last two world cup finalists had what, 6 and 12? NZ have 5. Or is that those other nations just have more talent than we do?

In fact the last winners were the most dispersed with a lot of their players playing in Europe. Does cohesion need to be built at club level?

Edit: the Pumas performances also diminished dramatically once they coalesced into the Jaguares.

 

[fatprop]

My biggest takeaway was Benny's idea that local players play for their local super team, so rep rugby. No OS imports either.

Bub-bye Brumbies!

first the Rebs & Force

 

[kiap]

4. Leinster, Munster, Ulster and Connacht. They have had a very stable structure for a long time now.

Prior to professionalism they were dispersed throughout a large club competition.

Wales saw the biggest shift. They went from having 9 teams when the Celtic League started up to having 4 teams now. The national team has improved substantially with that.

So Ireland and Wales have 8 teams between them. Combined, aren't they around the same population as New South Wales?

Good thing NSW is overperforming already with just the one team.

Just having a bit of fun --- I don't think Aus can have 8-10 pro teams either.

TBH, I wouldn't be too bothered if WA dropped out of Australian Rugby - so long as we could get the same deal that Wales has and have our own test team.

East Coast can have their 4 teams, just like Ireland. Win-Win.

 

[Wilson]

The latest Rugby Ruckus podcast with Ben Darwin is worth listening to in relation to how the number of teams and the overall cohesion affects the quality of the national team.

It certainly paints a pretty clear picture that trying to run an 8 or 10 team domestic comp would be a disaster for the Wallabies.

His take is certainly that the Wallabies would be stronger if we went to less teams.

I thought it was a fantastic podcast, but I wish they had gone deeper into other ways to improve the cohesion of the wallabies without cutting teams. Darwin concedes that while less teams is the best model for the wallabies there is no chance of any cut happening anymore. He briefly mentions the NRC positively a couple of times and talks about how 5 teams works for NZ in part because their teams all have relatively high cohesion.

It's that best path forward under a 5 team model that I think we need to focus on at this stage - are we best of with an NRC one level lower ensuring it's 1-2 teams feeding into super sides to maximize their cohesion? Does a State of the Union or similar 2 team series above super rugby help improve cohesion for the wallabies? How long/involved does it need to be to deliver here? Do we need to set hard participation targets in every region and value that growth as highly as (or higher than) wallaby success if we want to see success with this model?

 

[Wilson]

Not convinced.

The last two world cup finalists had what, 6 and 12? NZ have 5. Or is that those other nations just have more talent than we do?

In fact the last winners were the most dispersed with a lot of their players playing in Europe. Does cohesion need to be built at club level?

Edit: the Pumas performances also diminished dramatically once they coalesced into the Jaguares.

No, and he makes the point that there are other paths to it. It's worth listening to the podcast as he goes into all of these examples you've mentioned - e.g. South Africa had an amazing amount of consistency in the selections over the 2 years before the world cup, Jaguares improved significantly over their 4 years and the pumas were undone by relying on a foreign based fly half at the world cup.