Where to for Super Rugby?

[Pfitzy]

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/co...o-for-super-rugby.17402/page-769#post-1136949

And that has some good concepts, but you're still trying to create an artificial product, which Sydney Club Rugby clearly doesn't want.

It wants a seat at the table for its major stakeholders, and therefore any invented comp simply won't be able to work through acts of sabotage.

 

[Pfitzy]

On the question of co-operation between NZ, SA and Australia, I think it's in the interest of all three to maintain the highest level of co-operation on and off the field.

https://wwos.nine.com.au/rugby/wall...ne-rugby/541f6a7e-df50-4bfe-bd8f-5b9a00ad029e

EXCLUSIVE: Wallabies, All Blacks stars want South Africa out

 

[Dan54]

Th problem is that despite the Super Rugby alarm bells ringing for at least 5 years, nobody at RA/ARU seems to have done any planning for an alternative competition in that time. They've essentially been content to sit there and rake in the Foxtel $$$$ year on year because that was the easiest option. Now apparently Foxtel is the enemy.

The resumption of Super Rugby is looking less and less likely as we move forward, if for no other reason that it's financially unsustainable in its current form or even anything like its current form.

I notice also that someone posted a few days ago that NZRU didn't want to continue the arrangement of pooling broadcast money and then dividing it because they provide more teams, more games and their rights deal is worth more.

On the question of co-operation between NZ, SA and Australia, I think it's in the interest of all three to maintain the highest level of co-operation on and off the field. I am totally supportive of that. Regular tests (test series if I had my way) between the three is to everyone's benefit.

However, I'd differentiate between that and supporting the institution of SANZAAR. Do we really need another layer of rugby bureaucracy just to maintain friendly relations? Is it really that hard to organise dates for tests that the full-time officials can't just meet and map it out over a period of 12 years? (Fits with BIL and RWC)

If as is increasingly likely, do we need to have SANZAAR bureaucracy to organise a short champions league at the end of each domestic season? Again, they dates can be established years in advance, it's hosted on a rotation basis and the host nation does the organising.

I think you will find the pooling of SAANZAAR stopped a few years back as SA wanted to keep what they were getting form their broadcaster as it tied in with Currie Cup etc. So everyone just went their own way on TV deals etc. I actually think regardless what many say on population NZRU gets the most from TV deals now, and I think that ties in with NZ domestic stuff having a following overseas.
I do agree that everything points to Super not being the same again, just read what every Rugby board is saying, though I think there will be an attempt to have some kind of connection even via a finals series? To be real honest, that's not the real interest for me, but it is what it is. And as we on to about page 774 in here and noone here seems to have answers it shows what a tricky situation it is.

 

[qwerty51]

And that has some good concepts, but you're still trying to create an artificial product, which Sydney Club Rugby clearly doesn't want.

It wants a seat at the table for its major stakeholders, and therefore any invented comp simply won't be able to work through acts of sabotage.

Sorry when did they have any say in anything? This isn't the NRC. It would be the pro rugby comp in the southern hemisphere (any maybe Currie Cup with whatever SA decide to do.. but fuck 'em).

The goal would be to have SA, Arg and Jap players plying their trade in this comp eventually.

 

[Dan54]

https://wwos.nine.com.au/rugby/wall...ne-rugby/541f6a7e-df50-4bfe-bd8f-5b9a00ad029e

EXCLUSIVE: Wallabies, All Blacks stars want South Africa out

Geez that what I call BS headline, I don't think they want them out (and I heard Sam Cane say that he would always prefer having SA in), it's just they not sure how it can be played with travel costs etc as everyone saying!

 

[qwerty51]

Geez that what I call BS headline, I don't think they want them out (and I heard Sam Cane say that he would always prefer having SA in), it's just they not sure how it can be played with travel costs etc as everyone saying!

That's the same as wanting them out - you're just being technical.

It's akin to me saying I want to make $1mil next year but because I don't take a $1mil paying job I actually don't want it.

 

[Froggy]

Well not according to the article Dan, although if you have information repudiating the article that's different.
The two essential elements to what the captains are reported to have agreed on is that including SA, Japan and Argentina is unworkable, and that a Trans Tasman comp of some form is the solution. If that's the case they want SA out, regardless of the reason.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

LOL, what an idiot.

It will literally take him HOURS to make a cake like that.

 

[Quick Hands]

https://wwos.nine.com.au/rugby/wall...ne-rugby/541f6a7e-df50-4bfe-bd8f-5b9a00ad029e

EXCLUSIVE: Wallabies, All Blacks stars want South Africa out

Which as I said, doesn't mean that we should continue with Super Rugby in it's existing form. In fact the article confirms that the players have also reached this view.

Co-operation does not mean the existing pan-continental Super Rugby model. In my my co-operation means ongoing regular tests - preferably in the form of 3 test series rather than the existing fly-in fly-out TRC model which builds little public interest.

The other area of co-operation that I see is possibly some form of champions league at the end of each country's domestic league.

Just as co-operation doesn't equal SANZAAR, nor does co-operation equal Super Rugby.

EDIT: Where I don't think the players' solution would work is the 5 Aus and 5 NZ Trans-Tasman model. I can't see how that would improve interest or engagement from an Australian perspective.

Where I see any Trans-Tasman games is in the Champions League type format

4 team series = 2 x NZ, 1 x SA and 1 x Aus
6 team seies = 3 x NZ, 2 x SA and 1 x Aus

i.e only the winner of our domestic comp would be in it. This broadly accords with Super Rugby performance over the recent years.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Which as I said, doesn't mean that we should continue with Super Rugby in it's existing form. In fact the article confirms that the players have also reached this view.

Co-operation does not mean the existing pan-continental Super Rugby model. In my my co-operation means ongoing regular tests - preferably in the form of 3 test series rather than the existing fly-in fly-out TRC model which builds little public interest.

The other area of co-operation that I see is possibly some form of champions league at the end of each country's domestic league.

Just as co-operation doesn't equal SANZAAR, nor does co-operation equal Super Rugby.

EDIT: Where I don't think the players' solution would work is the 5 Aus and 5 NZ Trans-Tasman model. I can't see how that would improve interest or engagement from an Australian perspective.

Where I see any Trans-Tasman games is in the Champions League type format

4 team series = 2 x NZ, 1 x SA and 1 x Aus
6 team seies = 3 x NZ, 2 x SA and 1 x Aus

i.e only the winner of our domestic comp would be in it. This broadly accords with Super Rugby performance over the recent years.

The TT games are both our derbies and those featuring teams against one another are the highest rating games. Significantly so. I actually think given the right format and promotion it has a lot of opportunity to garner greater I retest. Especially if they go for a double round robin format.

 

[Slim 293]

I don't think all 10 TT teams playing each other home and away is viable, and each team playing each other once doesn't really amount to much of a competition...........

And the Aus/Kiwi matches are some of the most watched/attended games here so I don't think a model where all of those teams don't play each other works............

I still maintain the best format is where the Australian teams play each other home and away, and play each NZ team once (and vice versa for the Kiwis), followed by separate Australian and NZ finals, and then the winner or the top teams from each country (I prefer the former) play each other for a TT crown.

That way you tick off all the boxes -

- domestic competition in each country
- all teams play each other
- both countries get their own domestic champion
- TT bragging rights at the end
- roughly 15 weeks of regular season competition followed by finals

After that, if we want to involve SA we get the top teams touring here or there, or whatever.

 

[Slim 293]

Also, how many times have we not had a prime time match in recent years? Especially on Friday nights...........

A TT model should fix that, but the organisers need to be smarter about the scheduling to fit in matches for both Aus/NZ markets......... eg. when the Force host Kiwi teams on the weekend they should be played in the afternoon, so they're nor airing at 11:30pm across the ditch.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I don't think all 10 TT teams playing each other home and away is viable, and each team playing each other once doesn't really amount to much of a competition.....

And the Aus/Kiwi matches are some of the most watched/attended games here so I don't think a model where all of those teams don't play each other works....

I still maintain the best format is where the Australian teams play each other home and away, and play each NZ team once (and vice versa for the Kiwis), followed by separate Australian and NZ finals, and then the winner or the top teams from each country (I prefer the former) play each other for a TT crown.

That way you tick off all the boxes -

- domestic competition in each country
- all teams play each other
- both countries get their own domestic champion
- TT bragging rights at the end
- roughly 15 weeks of regular season competition followed by finals

After that, if we want to involve SA we get the top teams touring here or there, or whatever.

I tend to disagree. I think and home and away format for a TT competition is absolutely viable. We have to forego this whole idea that less is more. Super Rugby featuring the Aus and NZ teams average ratings would provide more domestic value for the game if run over a longer format. If they went with a 11 team format that's an opportunity to leverage a competition with a higher average rating than anything else on Fox outside the Big 3 (NRL, AFL and Cricket) across a longer time frame.

 

[Quick Hands]

The TT games are both our derbies and those featuring teams against one another are the highest rating games. Significantly so. I actually think given the right format and promotion it has a lot of opportunity to garner greater I retest. Especially if they go for a double round robin format.

People will only follow losing teams for so long. 5 Aus and 5 NZ teams in the same competition isn't balanced and would result in NZ teams dominating. They have significantly more depth in both playing and coaching and are also starting from a much higher base.

 

[Quick Hands]

I tend to disagree. I think and home and away format for a TT competition is absolutely viable. We have to forego this whole idea that less is more. Super Rugby featuring the Aus and NZ teams average ratings would provide more domestic value for the game if run over a longer format. If they went with a 11 team format that's an opportunity to leverage a competition with a higher average rating than anything else on Fox outside the Big 3 (NRL, AFL and Cricket) across a longer time frame.

Where you idea falls down in terms of TV is that when 2 Aussie teams play each other for example I don't think that is going to rate that highly for the NZ broadcaster. Even an NZ team v a low ranked Aussie team.

Let's be honest, if the 5 x 5 model was in place now the most likely outcome would be that the top 4 would be all NZ teams.

 

[Dan54]

Well not according to the article Dan, although if you have information repudiating the article that's different.
The two essential elements to what the captains are reported to have agreed on is that including SA, Japan and Argentina is unworkable, and that a Trans Tasman comp of some form is the solution. If that's the case they want SA out, regardless of the reason.

Well hearing Sam Cane say he preferred keeping SA in there if feasible, just a week or so before the hook up? He said preference would always to have SA but it had to work. All I saying that Cane wasn't saying they want SA out as headline says, they may agree it unworkable, but I will take my info from what I personally heard Cane say rather than a sensational headline that makes it sounds they don't want them there. Geez that a real internet type headline if ever I seen it!

 

[Quick Hands]

Well hearing Sam Cane say he preferred keeping SA in there if feasible, just a week or so before the hook up? He said preference would always to have SA but it had to work. All I saying that Cane wasn't saying they want SA out as headline says, they may agree it unworkable, but I will take my info from what I personally heard Cane say rather than a sensational headline that makes it sounds they don't want them there. Geez that a real internet type headline if ever I seen it!

I tend to think that there will be SA involvement and it would be in a champions league type competition at the end of domestic competitions. I think a CL format involving NZ, SA and Aus works better than a TT arrangement.

NZ would and should have the most teams in any CL to my way of thinking and Australia the least.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Where you idea falls down in terms of TV is that when 2 Aussie teams play each other for example I don't think that is going to rate that highly for the NZ broadcaster. Even an NZ team v a low ranked Aussie team.

Let's be honest, if the 5 x 5 model was in place now the most likely outcome would be that the top 4 would be all NZ teams.

The Brumbies, Reds and even Rebels were proving competitive this season. Particularly the Brumbies. And with recent youth results we should begin to close the gap further.

 

[Slim 293]

Let's be honest, if the 5 x 5 model was in place now the most likely outcome would be that the top 4 would be all NZ teams.

Ahem.........

1 Sharks 7 6 0 1 213 153 60 0 24
2 Brumbies 6 5 0 1 208 115 93 3 23
3 Crusaders 6 5 0 1 189 105 84 3 23

 

[Quick Hands]

Ahem...

Yep, and the 5 wins were against Reds, Waratahs, Rebels, Sunwolves and Chiefs.

Lost to Highlanders.

Hadn't yet played Crusaders, Hurricanes or Blues.

Perfect illustration as to what I'm talking about.