Where to for Super Rugby?

[Adam84]

I never knew who Chambers was before he came to Reds (I don't follow league at all) and wondered who the hell Reds had bought, he really had not much idea, but to be fair he may of needed a couple of years before trying to play 13 in Rugby. He just continually got caught out in defence, and looked somewhat confused when anyone changed attack with inside passes etc.
I think any leaguie really needs a few years before judging the too harshly, well I have to give them time I have decided.

I really liked Chambers, i think his 2010 season was better then his 2011 season, he was certainly caught out a few times positionally but he was a good strong prospect in attack, and his tackling was first rate, i've got no doubt had he remained in rugby he would have racked up plenty of caps with the Wallabies.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

According to sport24.co.za, at Friday's SARU Concil meeting Roux told the franchises that at least one of them (most likely the Kings who are once again insolvent) is going to be axed & another (most likely the Cheetahs) only retained if a comp can be found for them to play in. The remaining four will join a Pro16 that could start as early as January 2021.

Edit: they're also looking at giving all 14 Unions a chance of qualifying for the main Currie Cup rather than the current eight-team closed shop format.

 

[Joe King]

Steve Hansen's advice to Australia:
“You can understand why they want all their teams because they want to grow the game in Australia and that’s the right thing for them to do, but I believe that at international level, they’ve suffered because they’ve had all those teams in Super Rugby.”
“I think if they just went down to three at Super Rugby and kept the same competitions they’ve just had, they’d be a lot stronger, they’d win more, and come international season, be in better shape mentally and be a lot more competitive.
“One of the things I think is a strength in New Zealand Rugby is we’ve gone from Mitre 10 to a higher level and not everyone can go there so if you want to get there you’ve got to improve – if you want to stay there, you’ve got to keep improving and there’s nothing like that happening in Australia.”
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/stev...llabies-and-rugby-australia-more-competitive/

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ David Moffet expressed similar thoughts about two weeks ago:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...ffett-tells-aussies-cut-two-super-rugby-teams

FWIW I think Australia's best number is four, but can understand why RA would want five or even six to give it a truly national feel.

 

[Wilson]

^ David Moffet expressed similar thoughts about two weeks ago:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...ffett-tells-aussies-cut-two-super-rugby-teams

FWIW I think Australia's best number is four, but can understand why RA would want five or even six to give it a truly national feel.

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.

 

[Brumbieman]

Steve Hansen's advice to Australia:
“You can understand why they want all their teams because they want to grow the game in Australia and that’s the right thing for them to do, but I believe that at international level, they’ve suffered because they’ve had all those teams in Super Rugby.”
“I think if they just went down to three at Super Rugby and kept the same competitions they’ve just had, they’d be a lot stronger, they’d win more, and come international season, be in better shape mentally and be a lot more competitive.
“One of the things I think is a strength in New Zealand Rugby is we’ve gone from Mitre 10 to a higher level and not everyone can go there so if you want to get there you’ve got to improve – if you want to stay there, you’ve got to keep improving and there’s nothing like that happening in Australia.”
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/stev...llabies-and-rugby-australia-more-competitive/

I reckon Steve Hanson go GFH

 

[mst]

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.

IMHO, I am starting to wonder if the COVID was a blessing in some respects for Aussie rugby? For years we had the constant story of not having enough talent coming though etc and always needing to cut. But then all of sudden this year we have had no choice but to use lots of newbies and it appears to me that the standard is actually higher than in the past and continuing to improve.

I think Aussie rugby has had a philosophical and physiological problem where we were scared to deal with the new or unknown. If you go back and look at the Aussie Super Rugby teams most of the squad you could name year after year and of those name most were known. Conversely the Kiwi squads would change regularly and at the start of each season there would be names that you had never heard of starting.

McKellar and Thorn are the shining lights for being willing to take risk with players and they are reaping the rewards. Consider the Brumbies at the start of the season had no real identified 10; yet now are on their second (and used a third) and all are showing real potential. Contrast that against the Rebels, and it also explains why Penney has inherited a squad with limited depth since the old names moved on.

The Rugby Gods are sending us clear signs. Five, Domestic, then take take over the annoying little island down south.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I'm in total agreement that COVID has forced everyone involved in the game here to think hard about how we structure the code in the future. In times of turmoil you can end up making key changes for the better and I honestly think this is one of those times.

 

[Joe King]

One of the downsides to the (good) idea to expand the number of Aussie teams in (old) Super Rugby is the way it exposed our lack of depth (that, coupled with players heading overseas). As a result, we began losing more often to o/s teams, particularly NZ. It became increasingly difficult for Aussie teams to develop a winning habit. Whether we recognise it or not, this has a psychological effect on players (and fans). We needed a circuit breaker. This is what Super Rugby AU has provided. Every game means that a group of players somewhere in Australia experience a win and grow in confidence. Every week there’s a good news story in the paper. And every week means that fans somewhere in Australia get to celebrate the joy of victory. This is why I’m hoping we can get another year in before any TT comp. For the first time, RA is having to (and able to) think about what would be most pleasing for ‘Australian’ fans. This is an opportunity to good to miss. And McLennan is exactly the right person to have in place for this.

 

[KOB1987]

I reckon Steve Hanson go GFH

Yes it’s the narrative to create an All Blacks development league. Fuck that.

 

[dru]

Yes it’s the narrative to create an All Blacks development league. Fuck that.

It seems that condensing the talent into fewer teams would result in higher performance and possibly better quality. Certainly better experience - talent for WB selection. Don't think Hansen is saying anything strange there.

Our issue is different. For the game to survive here there are certain requirements - the broadcast schedule, regularity of time slots, regularity of home games, enough teams to collect and develop talent. In short more teams and an intelligently managed competition that allows development commercially here in Australia.

Increase in talent level and quality must first come out of that.

I too, am bothered by putting our 5 up in a TT immediately. I'd prefer that we dealt with that through a Champions league. I'd reconsider if NZR heads down the path of increasing their team number to 8. But I doubt that will happen and it would be really unlikely simply to suit Australia.

 

[Joe King]

If we do have a TT comp and there are concerns about depth in the Australian teams, and any sort of draft is out of the question, why can't a new team (or two) be established in the Australian market (e.g. Newcastle, Adelaide, etc) made up of plenty of NZ players?

Kind of like a 6th NZ team, under NZ management, but with an Australian name, able to engage new Australian fans.

NZR would be able to monitor and control their players so that they can still be part of their system and eligible for the AB's. At the same time, it would thin NZ depth out a bit, make for a more even comp, as well as grow rugby in Australia.

 

[Dan54]

I reckon Steve Hanson go GFH

Do you always say that to people who have a different opinion to yourself BM? It's just his opinion, and he looking at it as a Test coach, which is why he would of been asked his opinion. I would put $s on it that Dave Rennie would have the same opinion if he was able to express it, he actually did earlier in year if I recall. As I said they Test coaches (same as Eddie Jones etc) so they probably ONLY looking at it from that perspective. Where as we all look at it as fans who just want rugby, and then we can rip into test coaches later if the results of them aren't what we expect.

 

[Dan54]

Yes it’s the narrative to create an All Blacks development league. Fuck that.

So explain why Eddie Jones, Dave Moffett etc say the same thing KOB, as I say they all looking at different things. How the hell having less teams in Aus would help develop AB teams is beyond me, exactly the opposite actually.

 

[KOB1987]

So explain why Eddie Jones, Dave Moffett etc say the same thing KOB, as I say they all looking at different things. How the hell having less teams in Aus would help develop AB teams is beyond me, exactly the opposite actually.

Dave Moffetts comments are irrelevant, however I don’t agree with either he or Eddie regardless, but they are singing from a different song sheet to the kiwis

 

[dru]

So explain why Eddie Jones, Dave Moffett etc say the same thing KOB, as I say they all looking at different things. How the hell having less teams in Aus would help develop AB teams is beyond me, exactly the opposite actually.

Different metrics, Dan. As I said above, condensing down the number of teams very likely would increase the quality and in turn the performance or at least experience of WBs selected out of it. But this presumes that the rugby back here in Australia remains commercially sustainable. Which it palpably does not.

In NZ a 5 team comp is not sustainable so they need more teams. Calling this an All Blacks development league is absolutely on the button as it intentionally syphens off the best Australian talent for a comp to suit NZ. (And presumably expect us to fund it.) Works for NZ and for limited aspects only for Aus - those limited aspects being repeatedly voiced as they build the straw man of "reduction in force".

Anyway, the clock count down continues.

 

[Adam84]

Spot on Dru

 

[Dan54]

Different metrics, Dan. As I said above, condensing down the number of teams very likely would increase the quality and in turn the performance or at least experience of WBs selected out of it. But this presumes that the rugby back here in Australia remains commercially sustainable. Which it palpably does not.

In NZ a 5 team comp is not sustainable so they need more teams. Calling this an All Blacks development league is absolutely on the button as it intentionally syphens off the best Australian talent for a comp to suit NZ. (And presumably expect us to fund it.) Works for NZ and for limited aspects only for Aus - those limited aspects being repeatedly voiced as they build the straw man of "reduction in force".

Anyway, the clock count down continues.

I agree with most of it mate, but if I coached the ABs I would want the Aus teams to be weaker as it gives my players less high tensity matches surely, that was only question I has in asking how Aus having less teams would help ABs. And how is a 5 team comp in NZ unsustainable (I agree) and yet a 5 team comp in Aus is?
Think Andy Marinos actually had a few good points when he said he felt Super lost his way, said that Super was always set up by the 3 countries as an elite comp to set up players for international comps, not as a domestic comp, while not agreeing with all his thoughts it is what I always thought it was too. Then they allowed to get diluted by letting countries add teams that should of been in a domestic comp.

 

[dru]

I agree with most of it mate, but if I coached the ABs I would want the Aus teams to be weaker as it gives my players less high tensity matches surely, that was only question I has in asking how Aus having less teams would help ABs. And how is a 5 team comp in NZ unsustainable (I agree) and yet a 5 team comp in Aus is?
Think Andy Marinos actually had a few good points when he said he felt Super lost his way, said that Super was always set up by the 3 countries as an elite comp to set up players for international comps, not as a domestic comp, while not agreeing with all his thoughts it is what I always thought it was too. Then they allowed to get diluted by letting countries add teams that should of been in a domestic comp.

What you describe in retrospect not allowing additional teams into Super would simply have seen the same trend, just steeper. Here in Australia. It may have kept the quality up but eventually at great cost.

You are right of course - 5 Teams in Australia, on it's own, is no more sustainable here than it is in NZ. But in a building phase it is fine in the interim. With Covid it is a great time to reset the whole professional game here. And far far superior to two or three teams in a. AB Development comp.

Neither do I think a TT option with NZ and Aus with 5 each is sustainable. It will die more slowly but is not likely to prove tenable. If they spread NZ to 8 teams as mooted an 8+5 could work.

A champions league at the end of a domestic comp can work. I'd prefer the the Aus teams to be representative, but that's just me and has not met with support here at G&GR.

The reality right now is that any TT based on what NZ are looking for is not tenable for Australia. IMO. Australia needs to sort it's shit out through a largely domestic based comp or at the minimim, an evenly based comp (roughly) that could involve :
a) more active NZ support - increasing teams or spreading talent to Aus
b) other teams eg Japan, PI, Argentina etc

But it needs time to settle as a commercial product here in Aus. It is a much more competitive sporting environment here. It is also a much larger commercial pie, and only a few percentage points in fan support taken from (or shared with) AFL/NRL/Cricket could make a huge difference.

Thence reconsider the TT. If NZ don't want us at that stage we still have a successful comp. The options are both a win.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

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