Where to for Super Rugby?

[Adam84]

Exactly mate, I know schools offer scholarships to these kids, and even Taniela is a good case, he gets a scholarship to NZ school when he was probably too young, and was still only about 17-18 when he was bought to Aus with promises of Super rugby and Wallaby carrot. So what do we do? Stop the scholarship system? I not sure what it is, I sure it hppens in kids here and in Aus where kids are even seperated from families to go to schools that offer offer scholarships in other side of country. But you right was it Kerevi talked of arriving in Aus to play with very little english ability. I was at a Southport/Nudgee college game in Brisbane a couple of years back when there was a moment taken to all wave something to show family support for a boy that was in spinal unit from rugby injury, it was for his Mum that the school had flown out from overseas to be by his side. I remember thinking then how hard it must be for these kids at times. I know they trying to get a better education etc ,, but when that happens and you in another country away from family .

Tupou chose Australia in the end for a variety of reasons, one was because he had family in Brisbane, his brother Criff.
Kerevi moved to Australia at 4 years old for reasons besides rugby.

But yes, I think schools & unions offering sporting scholarships which remove minors from less developed countries needs to be assessed and managed, FIFA has article 19 which addresses this issue, inevitably I think rugby will need the same.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Anyway fellas back to what thread is about, I have just been listening to Ian Kirkpatrick (ex All Black great for you Aus boys) and he was talking about how a group of ex ABs are trying to get changes made to game etc. He was talking how Super rugby has lost a lot of appeal to the point where Earle Kirton (Ex AB coach) says he doesn't watch it anymore. Anyway the discussion was really the comp structure was not the problem, but the game that is being played is where it going wrong.
Now we all talk how bloody good Super 12 etc was, and thinking on it why was it so bloody good? Because we had a beautiful game where players like Cullen, Spencer, Eroni Clarke etc in NZ and Larkham, Horan, Latham etc all were able to play with a bit of freedom and show there skills. Now the game is getting to the point where gain line is everything, lets put a bash boy in midfield and let him bend the line and keep grinding them down. By the way they are not all Kirkie's words, it was what I took from it and perhaps threw in my own thoughts a bit. But one thing Kirkie did say with the way game is played we going away from a game for everyone to a game for big fellas only and not enough seperation between forwards and backs roles almost. Most time is spent on defence. And honestly, if we were still watching the games we watched at turn of century, do you think we would be wondering what Super needs to do to be successful?

CGW had Fitzy, Olo & Robin Brooke on the other night & one of them said much the same thing i.e. it's become a game where you only want the ball in certain areas of the field 'cos outside of those areas it's easier to defend & counter off errors than to constructively try making the gain-line.

 

[Rebels3]

The game has definitely changed but there isn’t a sport in the world where that isn’t the case. If people actually went back and watched the average old game (not just the classics) the skill level is worse, the game is even more stop start than now and the interpretations are just a mess. A team from ‘97 would be destroyed if they played a modern team. It’s just the way of the world. The “it was better in my day” is heard on a regular basis in basketball, cricket, rugby league, afl, etc. in some circumstances perhaps it was but in others it wasn’t.

I think unlike other sports because of the old boys network rugby allows more credence to the views of the past than other sports do and struggles to accept the modern day more because it doesn’t celebrate progression like the others.

 

[kiap]

But you right was it Kerevi talked of arriving in Aus to play with very little english ability.

So, how illiterate was he aged 4?

 

[Dan54]

The game has definitely changed but there isn’t a sport in the world where that isn’t the case. If people actually went back and watched the average old game (not just the classics) the skill level is worse, the game is even more stop start than now and the interpretations are just a mess. A team from ‘97 would be destroyed if they played a modern team. It’s just the way of the world. The “it was better in my day” is heard on a regular basis in basketball, cricket, rugby league, afl, etc. in some circumstances perhaps it was but in others it wasn’t.

I think unlike other sports because of the old boys network rugby allows more credence to the views of the past than other sports do and struggles to accept the modern day more because it doesn’t celebrate progression like the others.

Maybe rebel, I know what you mean up to a point, and you maybe right, though I think the Larkhams, Horans would still be good today. And to be fair the game in those days were enjoyed by more people actually watching a whole game , not a limited part of it on a TV screen, think the laws have been changed towards the TV product, and I know professionalism is main reason. That's not the point of what they saying, they saying what is perhaps stuffing the game a bit that it is now about running over people rather than passing etc to create space. Personally I don't think the game is as attractive now as it was in early days of professional, and seems the drop off with crowd numbers many others don't either. There were slug fests still back then I agree, but mainly because defence wasn't everything and forwards did what forwards were meant to, win the ball at set piece AND breakdown it left more space for players (mostly backs) to exhibit skills. I also add that othet thing they were saying is the game is getting less attractive as a game for young ones to come into. I watched a 1st XV against a club colt team just on Thursday, and the size of club team just made it too onesided. I could see by end of game the skills from both teams were put away and the bulk was used.

 

[Dan54]

So, how illiterate was he aged 4?

Have no idea what age he was, just heard him talk about it on tv, perhaps you should ask him? He was talking about growing up away from family. (I think it was Kerevi anyway it was about 4 years ago, may of been a cousin who stayed with them). Wish I could remember whole interview, it wasn't a woe is me one or anything. mind you if he staying with family who spoke Fijian may of been why he was saying it. I do know even in NZ Otere black and Sam Nock talk of having a bit of trouble talking etc as both were brought up in household and a community where English was virtually a second language.

 

[kiap]

Have no idea

So you're clueless - and are weaving in all sorts of random thought-triggers that are irrelevant to the topic.

It's just spamming the thread to tick the page count to 1000.

 

[drewprint]

CGW had Fitzy, Olo & Robin Brooke on the other night & one of them said much the same thing i.e. it's become a game where you only want the ball in certain areas of the field 'cos outside of those areas it's easier to defend & counter off errors than to constructively try making the gain-line.

Good discussion. I’m going to lob a highly controversial point in here - do we need to dramatically rethink the jackal? I’ve been thinking of this a bit through SRAu: I’ve been watching someone like Richard Hardwick get away with ruck murder by not holding his body weight, grabbing the body not the ball, holding on for grim life, and getting the penalty. Not a slight on him at all - it’s excellent play that is well within the rules. The penalty that is being blown is for ‘player not releasing’, but in many cases nowadays that just isn’t accurate; the jackal either hasn’t grabbed the ball at all but the body instead, or is pinning the ball to the tacked player to milk the penalty. Sometimes I wonder whether that play shouldn’t be rewarded and a push towards actually, genuinely trying to steal the ball is emphasised?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ can't speak for SRAu as I mostly only see highlights but in SRAo they're getting very strict re: the jackler's first contact being with the ball. Any hint of them touching the ground first & scooping is almost always a penalty. The scenario you're describing is a penalty more often than not but to be fair to the refs the ones they're not pinging are the ones they probably can't see clearly enough what's going on, very often it's only in replay you can see that the guy who'd been tackled was prevented from releasing the ball.

 

[Derpus]

Good discussion. I’m going to lob a highly controversial point in here - do we need to dramatically rethink the jackal? I’ve been thinking of this a bit through SRAu: I’ve been watching someone like Richard Hardwick get away with ruck murder by not holding his body weight, grabbing the body not the ball, holding on for grim life, and getting the penalty. Not a slight on him at all - it’s excellent play that is well within the rules. The penalty that is being blown is for ‘player not releasing’, but in many cases nowadays that just isn’t accurate; the jackal either hasn’t grabbed the ball at all but the body instead, or is pinning the ball to the tacked player to milk the penalty. Sometimes I wonder whether that play shouldn’t be rewarded and a push towards actually, genuinely trying to steal the ball is emphasised?

Now that Pocock has retired you have my permission.

 

[Derpus]

Anyway fellas back to what thread is about, I have just been listening to Ian Kirkpatrick (ex All Black great for you Aus boys) and he was talking about how a group of ex ABs are trying to get changes made to game etc. He was talking how Super rugby has lost a lot of appeal to the point where Earle Kirton (Ex AB coach) says he doesn't watch it anymore. Anyway the discussion was really the comp structure was not the problem, but the game that is being played is where it going wrong.
Now we all talk how bloody good Super 12 etc was, and thinking on it why was it so bloody good? Because we had a beautiful game where players like Cullen, Spencer, Eroni Clarke etc in NZ and Larkham, Horan, Latham etc all were able to play with a bit of freedom and show there skills. Now the game is getting to the point where gain line is everything, lets put a bash boy in midfield and let him bend the line and keep grinding them down. By the way they are not all Kirkie's words, it was what I took from it and perhaps threw in my own thoughts a bit. But one thing Kirkie did say with the way game is played we going away from a game for everyone to a game for big fellas only and not enough seperation between forwards and backs roles almost. Most time is spent on defence. And honestly, if we were still watching the games we watched at turn of century, do you think we would be wondering what Super needs to do to be successful?

They can start by doing away with the god damn maul. Teams might actually try a set play for once.

2nd on the agenda - scrum penalties and resets.

 

[Adam84]

I like mauls, however they need to be turned into a contest again, the fact teams use them as a means for legal obstruction is a bit of a joke, and that’s no dig at those teams, they are playing within the rules. However rugby is about teams being able to contest for the ball during all aspects of play, and the maul doesn’t support that.

As for scrums, I think they need to shorten the time between scrum called and the engage, remove the time given for props to catch their breath and set in the best position. I think part of the problem is the set-up allows front-rows to get in this positions where they’re set extremely low and balanced precariously, which then causes it to collapse.

 

[Dan54]

I like mauls, however they need to be turned into a contest again, the fact teams use them as a means for legal obstruction is a bit of a joke, and that’s no dig at those teams, they are playing within the rules. However rugby is about teams being able to contest for the ball during all aspects of play, and the maul doesn’t support that.

.[/quote
Bang on Adam, while I agree with Derpus on not liking them, that is exactly what the touble is, I still think you should be able to bring them down, jusr not being able to get at ball carrier doen't seem right to me

 

[Dan54]

So you're clueless - and are weaving in all sorts of random thought-triggers that are irrelevant to the topic.

It's just spamming the thread to tick the page count to 1000.

Well you replying, and so helping

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Can’t help but feel we would be better to continue with separate super rugby au and ao competitions and then for second half have trans Tasman. We add Fiji and kiwis add the Auckland based islander team so 6 team domestic Comp and 12 team trans Tasman and over time both add two teams (say western Sydney and second qld team or Singapore team) and then have 8 team domestic Comp and 16 trans Tasman. As we (RA) can exert better control to ensure 8 teams on par in domestic competition but can’t influence nz to ensure even trans Tasman Comp (eg open borders policy) for integrity of competition.

I feel may be too late but I really would rather the above so always have domestic champion and not beholden to competitive issues with trans Tasman nz teams in short term whilst rebuild as not remotely in our interests to shrink the footprint so can be on par with nz sides who have greater depth without evening up in other ways. As if can’t do latter ie reducing over reliance on trans Tasman then we increase risks our fans turning off and moving back to a code in crisis.

 

[Dan54]

yep RN I really believe that finding the balance between keeping the interests of supporters and so TV for finances, developing Wallabies which is also required for finances , so to help fund lower levels seems to be the big question.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

yep RN I really believe that finding the balance between keeping the interests of supporters and so TV for finances, developing Wallabies which is also required for finances , so to help fund lower levels seems to be the big question.

Yeh I think Trans Tasman does make sense but I feel we could get best of both worlds for better fan support. I equally think just going it alone or all in with NZ in Trans Tamsman sounds far too risky as opposed to middle ground which gives us best of both worlds to explore (and time to explore) what is best optimal structure by having both. Ie before we just dump our own domestic competitions lets trial how the trans tasman works to see how far we should commit. In some ways good risk averse strategy for broadcasters as well I feel.

Should also add I do think we need to actually both (NZ and OZ) have these second half tie up as do see as per what Paul Cully pointed out that a 5 or 6 team pro competition would be at risk of getting tired as too few teams where any imbalance could lose fan interest over time (point he made was in NZ where it is Crusaders and Blues and then the rest...)where Rebels and now even Force somewhat closer to the pace although risks if that changed with smaller team competition)

 

[hoggy]

If each country can commit to a 6 team domestic competition(even if that takes a year or two), then the long term options of a champions league style competition after each countries domestic content will surely be more lucrative $dollar wise.

A TT competition is a short term sugar fix, where will the growth come from.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

If each country can commit to a 6 team domestic competition(even if that takes a year or two), then the long term options of a champions league style competition after each countries domestic content will surely be more lucrative $dollar wise.

A TT competition is a short term sugar fix, where will the growth come from.

For me shows the benefits of TT that follows our domestic season - as I am just really enjoying close contest and quality of rugby of Super Rugby Au and don't sit there wondering whether better or not then rugby in NZ Ao comp (which don't watch) but equally look forward to TT second half of season competition for something different and attraction of playing quality NZ teams but knowing don't just depend on latter for my rugby enjoyment as have domestic comp to enjoy. If we also don't go all in I feel we can play a little more hard ball with NZ to ensure our interests and interests of a better TT competition that supports growth and wider rugby footprint across Asia Pacific can be supported

I will also add the success of Super Rugby Au and giving us aussie fans to enjoy what we see as quality games of rugby for us (not by NZ competition standards) is also supporting the argument that one option may be for RA to go it alone then do a TT competition, which was option RA flagged. Hence RA definitely has the ammo now to not keel over to kiwi demands around what they want for TT competition as know they can walk away. Not saying this is preferred position but equally the position last year where NZ calling the shots and offering EOI to say 3 oz teams is not something RA knows it has to accept given relative success of Super Rugby Au.

 

[Dan54]

For me shows the benefits of TT that follows our domestic season - as I am just really enjoying close contest and quality of rugby of Super Rugby Au and don't sit there wondering whether better or not then rugby in NZ Ao comp (which don't watch) but equally look forward to TT second half of season competition for something different and attraction of playing quality NZ teams but knowing don't just depend on latter for my rugby enjoyment as have domestic comp to enjoy. If we also don't go all in I feel we can play a little more hard ball with NZ to ensure our interests and interests of a better TT competition that supports growth and wider rugby footprint across Asia Pacific can be supported

I will also add the success of Super Rugby Au and giving us aussie fans to enjoy what we see as quality games of rugby for us (not by NZ competition standards) is also supporting the argument that one option may be for RA to go it alone then do a TT competition, which was option RA flagged. Hence RA definitely has the ammo now to not keel over to kiwi demands around what they want for TT competition as know they can walk away. Not saying this is preferred position but equally the position last year where NZ calling the shots and offering EOI to say 3 oz teams is not something RA knows it has to accept given relative success of Super Rugby Au.

Hell you going to be pissed when TT starts with your hatred of watching NZ teams RN

Personally ,if I had dream comp (but it won't happen) I would have about a 8-10 team comp in NZ , Aus could have whatever suits them ( a streamlined NRC?), and then have a champion's league at end where a couple of teams from different comps can qualify. I wouldn't worry about a TT or anything, could have a North/ South game etc after. That would suit what I personally would need for rugby, and actually when you think of it if NZ are actually going to help 2 PI teams into our comp, we only one team away from it here, another team in SI or something (Tasman?) could make it happen. That kind of a fantasy thing I know, and will not happen I don't think either Rugby boards that know what is required want that, and even Brad Thorn is saying how badly he wants TT to happen etc.
In reality for a comp to work it needs to be a full 10-12 team, everyone playing everyone and (RN you can just watch the Aus derbies) , and I think this is how it will end up. I think TV money will decide that.
No matter what happens I will be watching whatever the comp is, I watch almost all games from both comps now (as well as NH rugby whenever I get chance) so perhaps my opinion won't count.
Sent a message to mate who was at Reds game Sat (I saw him on tv in crowd), he was saying he enjoying the comp, but even he (a Reds full memeber of very long standing) didn't know if he would be interested without more teams in next year or so.