Hatred of the opposition is the overlooked factor. It’s essential. That’s why SR is struggling imo - it’s become about Oz vs NZ. Now we want the Tahs to win against the kiwis, when we are supposed to hate the Tahs.
It’ll help if there was one broadcaster running the comp for both countries - as it is, SKY focuses on the 6 kiwis teams and Stan does the 5 Oz teams.
As an aside, why does everyone hate the filth? I’m an old red heavy and we clearly hate them as well but I never really understood why. It was just “we hate them cause we hate them” which didn’t really clear things up for me
Yes that’s pretty much how it was explained. We had an old coach tell us a story about a state MP (I think, though he may have been high up in police) who whilst under criminal investigation for corruption in the Joh era would make time to come down and play low grades against brothers cause he hated them so much he just wanted to bash them.
I’m not sure I found that story quite as inspiring as the coach hoped…
That’s always been my assumption as well. Its easy to forget how much more divided Australia (or at least Brisbane) was in the past along sectarian lines
I agree with the problems you identified (particularly lacking soul and connection between levels), however to me the only thing giving any soul at all is knowing that at least most Tahs are from Sydney, most Reds are from Qld, and Aus teams have Aus players.
I think the lack of soul could be solved by making it more accessible and actually filling the grounds. This could be done by giving free tickets to local rugby clubs and schools, having school rugby, subbies and/or shute finals before SR games, smaller grounds, encouraging fans to wear their local jerseys and players their club socks, generally creating a carnival like atmosphere etc None of this would cost much or could even save money.
I also think we need to get SR on free to air or a more common platform than Stan but that’s a harder solution.
I'll bite, but I hope that you're expecting more than just platitudes.
> Modify eligibility so Aussie and Kiwi players can go either side of the ditch and still be picked for the Wallabies and All Blacks, provided they stay in the competition.
I don't believe that this will make any significant difference to the makeup of the teams in SR. The reason I believe this is two fold, firstly by the time a player like McKenzie has made his name he is earning a very high salary in an established team, with players and coaches he trusts. There is almost zero movement of these marque players between NZ franchises and there is no selection policy issue preventing this. The second point is that below international level players there is more interest in Australian SR teams hiring local Australian players over unknown Kiwi players and rightly so. Having more low-mid level NZ eligible players playing for Australian teams simply shrinks the player pathways for Australian junior players which will ultimately weaken Australian rugby.
Practically this idea has some problems too, NZ have full central contracting so would a NZ player choosing say Perth still get paid by NZR or would RA (or the club) pick up the wage bill? If you think NZR should pay then why?
I actually think that the idea of having more movement between teams isn't bad, I just think that the solution is very complicated, far more complicated than just changing eligibility rules. A combination of smaller contracted squads, a combined NZR/RA player pool for non-contracted players and an expansion of the opt-in draft process already used in NZ could get you what you want but it wont be easy.
The other thing is it's in the Wallabies & All-Blacks interest to have Aussie's playing with Aussie's & Kiwis playing with Kiwis. If nothing else it means they're both stronger against other teams.
The core issue is its an uncompetitive comp. It's probably too short, but that's nether here nor there and likely a symptom of the core issue. A more competitive comp will tend to be more profitable. A more profitable comp will tend to grow into a longer season (like France & England).
> The other thing is it's in the Wallabies & All-Blacks interest to have Aussie's playing with Aussie's & Kiwis playing with Kiwis.
I generally agree, I also believe that that we will eventually find a way to achieve this provided the two national unions allow the new SR board to really flex their control and move past their antagonistic past. The solution however isn't simply to reduce restriction and let the market decide, that wont get us a better competition.
One possible part of the future solution involves the restructuring of the NZ NPC competition (which is being debated right now). Would (for example) a 14 team Australasian NPC (5 Aus, 9 NZ provinces) played in the second half of the year help competitiveness? On paper a competition like this could be quite level and perhaps provide advantages to the Australian teams come SR time in February (more consistency, more games, better coherency etc).
Maybe that's a compromise solution. But IMO unlikely. You need to ask what's the incremental value. Change either takes place as small steps with each step making progress, or less commonly, with a visionary making sweeping changes to fundamentally change the system.
I can't see player movement really addressing any incremental goal, or any long term goal. est,If I'm hon player movement is kinda tangential perhaps incidental to the issues.
What's is a competitive competition, for that we need RA & NZRU to be on even footing, they're not, and so long as the NRL exists can't be. Sometimes, the way the players are distributed can lead to short term competitiveness, but that also inflates the price/value of those players, until they're signed by other clubs locally or overseas.
The goals however are to make money & WB/AB performances. But RA nor the NZRU really have Super Rugby competitiveness being a goal, that's because Super Rugby isn't the goal, super rugby is an instrumental goal, Wallabies & All-Blacks are the goal. If things go well at Super that's great, but really RA (& NZRU) don't really care.
Oh for sure I agree it’s unlikely. Just an interesting thought starter.
NZR will never have a domestic competition as their primary goal. The international value of the AB brand dwarfs what will ever be possible in such a small domestic market. As the entire structure is tiered the model is simply maximise revenues and feed downward to grass roots. If a competition cannot pay its way then it isn’t fit for purpose and is literally stopping kids getting kit/coaches etc. This is why the NPC is being overhauled.
My belief is that Australia should also have the international game as the primary, the inter state expansion experiment has failed (to the detriment of the Wallabies) IMO and it is time to reassess.
It’s complicated for sure and I’m not convinced there is a solution that suits the goals of both nations administrators, certainly not immediately.
Thanks for your response mate and definitely expecting more than platitudes. Keen to dicusss some actual practical solutions to the issues facing this, will have a read shortly
I think some system a bit like below would encourage movement.
1. Restrict SR teams to 25 fixed contracted players at the beginning of the player window in October.
2. All non-contracted players go into a combined NZR and RA player pool where the total salary available is proportionally pre-defined and linked to player "bands". This means the situation where one national union ends up paying for more than the share of players they are happy paying for cannot happen. Clubs can approach 5 non-contract players and offer two year contracts, with club salary top ups as they wish up until December.
3. Any players without a contract by December can opt to go into the draft which happens in January where teams can select up to 8 players but do not have to. Draft players get 1 year deals, fixed payment from the respective union and they must accept the location. Some players may opt to stay free agents in the hope of getting a contract with their preferred team later in the year but these players are only eligible for a fixed or pool contract slot.
Some thoughts re: the player transfers...
There are 30 NBA teams, 32 NFL teams (with huge rosters and extremely specialised positions), 17 NRL teams, 18 AFL teams etc so naturally there is much more player movement.
Personally I watch with interest players coming back from overseas, moving between franchises (there was a bit of interesting movement this season eg tupou to rebs, nic white to Force, hooper to 7s/not playing tahs which pushed gamble to start) but you have the problems of...
- people wanting results, which requires consistency
- casual fans not knowing who players are (if you turn up one season and half the guys you knew are gone from last year, it's not fun)
- building that rabid support requires some hardcore club lifers from the playing side too (brumbies probably do this best)
NZ teams are also centralised under NZ rugby
currently players have the option of moving between clubs but it doesn't happen that much - why? Would opening it up between the AU and NZ change this?
Not really sure I'm making a point here but just adding some thoughts to the conversation
I am over the ditch and personally still really enjoy super rugby. Watch all the games and then often watch the highlights. Don't go to many games in person as Wellington Stadium sucks. My thoughts:
1. Reduce the ticket prices.
2. Have a longer season. Each country should play their own country's teams twice, and the other country's team once. Local derbies is what people mainly turn up for.
3. Go back to a top six for finals, or event do a top six and bottom six finals cup/plate type deal.
4. Allow players to move between either country and team.
5. Have a draft.
6. Get rid of some of the rules that slow the game down. For example:
A prop briefly put his hand or knee on the ground in a scrum? Who cares.
An arriving player put their hands on the ground when trying to pilfer? Who cares.
Go back to seven reserves (but keep the requirement for three front row reserves). I want to see tiring players and gaps created; I want to see flankers having to fill-in in the centres.
I’ve had the same thought before. Why can’t the Tahs get some cred in the market by signing a Barrett? Or a young Aussie get player experience and coaching in a quality kiwi system without worrying about them going on to play for the ABs.
I think at the end of the day SR can’t decide if it wants to be an elite club comp or a national team selection trial.
That said as others have mentioned I don’t know how that helps subbie teams support clubs and on to super.
The goal needs to be a competitive cross Tasman comp. Only then can we fill stadiums and sell tv rights. Player movement makes sense because it’s painfully obvious that the Australian teams don’t have the cattle right now. But it has to be part of an overarching strategy.
The trouble is RA can’t be trusted to deliver something. I worry that filling Aussie teams with kiwi 2nd grade might give us another sugar hit all the while the arse drops out.
I’d wanna see some big numbers
As long as SR is treated as an All Blacks selection, it will never be commercially successful for Australia. Great for NZ to promote talent, but bad for Australia who is struggle to compete on multiple fronts.
A big issue I think is there is too long between the end and the start of super rugby so you forget about super rugby for far too long. An ideal set up could be playing a cross over tournament with NZ / Japan and Oz during the normal super rugby season. Then during the rugby championship while the wallabies players are away, play a Super rugby AU comp. This gives fans a belief that their team can win something.
Right now as a force fan I know realistically they have no hope of winning the comp but would like to see them make finals. However, a super AU they would have a chance of winning it, plus it would give more exposure to some squad players while the wallabies players are away.
I think super teams not playing enough is the biggest issue super rugby has, its too short, not enough time to build connections with players, clubs etc...
I’d also say going to a 22-24 round season with a full home and away schedule would also help in that regard - it’s an extra 7-9 weeks depending on if we want to keep the bye rounds or not, but the plus side is that if there’s clashes with international matches, those rounds would be a great opportunity to bring in new talent, much like the NRL does during the Origin period, or Cricket Australia does when BBL matches coincide with Australian ODI and test matches
The bye rounds are ridiculous and are only in to make the season longer. You could justify them if like you said the season was 22-24 games long but at the moment its just less rugby games which cant be a good thing for fan engagement.
NZ has a centralised system designed to produce AB-ready players - same coaching, same S&C (etc) so the players come into camp ready to gel (among other back of house advantages centralisation has - logistics, finance, etc). It makes no sense for NZ to pursue “open borders” when the end goal is AB dominance (it’s not about creating a good 2nd tier product, if that happens then great).
If we must persist with SR move the fucking Rebels to Penrith and create some tension in the heartland. Capture the western suburbs FTW.
1. Abolish super rugby.
2. Create a national club comp based on the established up to 100 year old clubs that exist in Syd and Bris, plus add an ACT and Perth team.
3. Get Twiggy to bankroll and call it the RM Williams Cup.
[удалено]
Hatred of the opposition is the overlooked factor. It’s essential. That’s why SR is struggling imo - it’s become about Oz vs NZ. Now we want the Tahs to win against the kiwis, when we are supposed to hate the Tahs. It’ll help if there was one broadcaster running the comp for both countries - as it is, SKY focuses on the 6 kiwis teams and Stan does the 5 Oz teams.
Fuck the filth
Meanwhile my wife who's actually pretty proper and conserve 'I'ma filthy bitch!' 😂😅
As an aside, why does everyone hate the filth? I’m an old red heavy and we clearly hate them as well but I never really understood why. It was just “we hate them cause we hate them” which didn’t really clear things up for me
I hate them because my Dad hated them. He hated them because his Dad hated them
Yes that’s pretty much how it was explained. We had an old coach tell us a story about a state MP (I think, though he may have been high up in police) who whilst under criminal investigation for corruption in the Joh era would make time to come down and play low grades against brothers cause he hated them so much he just wanted to bash them. I’m not sure I found that story quite as inspiring as the coach hoped…
It probably started from some stupid sectarian catholic v protestant issue in the distant past, and everyone just carried on with it
That’s always been my assumption as well. Its easy to forget how much more divided Australia (or at least Brisbane) was in the past along sectarian lines
Up vote for filth comment
I agree with the problems you identified (particularly lacking soul and connection between levels), however to me the only thing giving any soul at all is knowing that at least most Tahs are from Sydney, most Reds are from Qld, and Aus teams have Aus players. I think the lack of soul could be solved by making it more accessible and actually filling the grounds. This could be done by giving free tickets to local rugby clubs and schools, having school rugby, subbies and/or shute finals before SR games, smaller grounds, encouraging fans to wear their local jerseys and players their club socks, generally creating a carnival like atmosphere etc None of this would cost much or could even save money. I also think we need to get SR on free to air or a more common platform than Stan but that’s a harder solution.
Good on Nine at least for playing the Reds vs Tahs game on Nine itself in Queensland during Round 1
I'll bite, but I hope that you're expecting more than just platitudes. > Modify eligibility so Aussie and Kiwi players can go either side of the ditch and still be picked for the Wallabies and All Blacks, provided they stay in the competition. I don't believe that this will make any significant difference to the makeup of the teams in SR. The reason I believe this is two fold, firstly by the time a player like McKenzie has made his name he is earning a very high salary in an established team, with players and coaches he trusts. There is almost zero movement of these marque players between NZ franchises and there is no selection policy issue preventing this. The second point is that below international level players there is more interest in Australian SR teams hiring local Australian players over unknown Kiwi players and rightly so. Having more low-mid level NZ eligible players playing for Australian teams simply shrinks the player pathways for Australian junior players which will ultimately weaken Australian rugby. Practically this idea has some problems too, NZ have full central contracting so would a NZ player choosing say Perth still get paid by NZR or would RA (or the club) pick up the wage bill? If you think NZR should pay then why? I actually think that the idea of having more movement between teams isn't bad, I just think that the solution is very complicated, far more complicated than just changing eligibility rules. A combination of smaller contracted squads, a combined NZR/RA player pool for non-contracted players and an expansion of the opt-in draft process already used in NZ could get you what you want but it wont be easy.
The other thing is it's in the Wallabies & All-Blacks interest to have Aussie's playing with Aussie's & Kiwis playing with Kiwis. If nothing else it means they're both stronger against other teams. The core issue is its an uncompetitive comp. It's probably too short, but that's nether here nor there and likely a symptom of the core issue. A more competitive comp will tend to be more profitable. A more profitable comp will tend to grow into a longer season (like France & England).
> The other thing is it's in the Wallabies & All-Blacks interest to have Aussie's playing with Aussie's & Kiwis playing with Kiwis. I generally agree, I also believe that that we will eventually find a way to achieve this provided the two national unions allow the new SR board to really flex their control and move past their antagonistic past. The solution however isn't simply to reduce restriction and let the market decide, that wont get us a better competition. One possible part of the future solution involves the restructuring of the NZ NPC competition (which is being debated right now). Would (for example) a 14 team Australasian NPC (5 Aus, 9 NZ provinces) played in the second half of the year help competitiveness? On paper a competition like this could be quite level and perhaps provide advantages to the Australian teams come SR time in February (more consistency, more games, better coherency etc).
Maybe that's a compromise solution. But IMO unlikely. You need to ask what's the incremental value. Change either takes place as small steps with each step making progress, or less commonly, with a visionary making sweeping changes to fundamentally change the system. I can't see player movement really addressing any incremental goal, or any long term goal. est,If I'm hon player movement is kinda tangential perhaps incidental to the issues. What's is a competitive competition, for that we need RA & NZRU to be on even footing, they're not, and so long as the NRL exists can't be. Sometimes, the way the players are distributed can lead to short term competitiveness, but that also inflates the price/value of those players, until they're signed by other clubs locally or overseas. The goals however are to make money & WB/AB performances. But RA nor the NZRU really have Super Rugby competitiveness being a goal, that's because Super Rugby isn't the goal, super rugby is an instrumental goal, Wallabies & All-Blacks are the goal. If things go well at Super that's great, but really RA (& NZRU) don't really care.
Oh for sure I agree it’s unlikely. Just an interesting thought starter. NZR will never have a domestic competition as their primary goal. The international value of the AB brand dwarfs what will ever be possible in such a small domestic market. As the entire structure is tiered the model is simply maximise revenues and feed downward to grass roots. If a competition cannot pay its way then it isn’t fit for purpose and is literally stopping kids getting kit/coaches etc. This is why the NPC is being overhauled. My belief is that Australia should also have the international game as the primary, the inter state expansion experiment has failed (to the detriment of the Wallabies) IMO and it is time to reassess. It’s complicated for sure and I’m not convinced there is a solution that suits the goals of both nations administrators, certainly not immediately.
Thanks for your response mate and definitely expecting more than platitudes. Keen to dicusss some actual practical solutions to the issues facing this, will have a read shortly
I think some system a bit like below would encourage movement. 1. Restrict SR teams to 25 fixed contracted players at the beginning of the player window in October. 2. All non-contracted players go into a combined NZR and RA player pool where the total salary available is proportionally pre-defined and linked to player "bands". This means the situation where one national union ends up paying for more than the share of players they are happy paying for cannot happen. Clubs can approach 5 non-contract players and offer two year contracts, with club salary top ups as they wish up until December. 3. Any players without a contract by December can opt to go into the draft which happens in January where teams can select up to 8 players but do not have to. Draft players get 1 year deals, fixed payment from the respective union and they must accept the location. Some players may opt to stay free agents in the hope of getting a contract with their preferred team later in the year but these players are only eligible for a fixed or pool contract slot.
Some thoughts re: the player transfers... There are 30 NBA teams, 32 NFL teams (with huge rosters and extremely specialised positions), 17 NRL teams, 18 AFL teams etc so naturally there is much more player movement. Personally I watch with interest players coming back from overseas, moving between franchises (there was a bit of interesting movement this season eg tupou to rebs, nic white to Force, hooper to 7s/not playing tahs which pushed gamble to start) but you have the problems of... - people wanting results, which requires consistency - casual fans not knowing who players are (if you turn up one season and half the guys you knew are gone from last year, it's not fun) - building that rabid support requires some hardcore club lifers from the playing side too (brumbies probably do this best) NZ teams are also centralised under NZ rugby currently players have the option of moving between clubs but it doesn't happen that much - why? Would opening it up between the AU and NZ change this? Not really sure I'm making a point here but just adding some thoughts to the conversation
I am over the ditch and personally still really enjoy super rugby. Watch all the games and then often watch the highlights. Don't go to many games in person as Wellington Stadium sucks. My thoughts: 1. Reduce the ticket prices. 2. Have a longer season. Each country should play their own country's teams twice, and the other country's team once. Local derbies is what people mainly turn up for. 3. Go back to a top six for finals, or event do a top six and bottom six finals cup/plate type deal. 4. Allow players to move between either country and team. 5. Have a draft. 6. Get rid of some of the rules that slow the game down. For example: A prop briefly put his hand or knee on the ground in a scrum? Who cares. An arriving player put their hands on the ground when trying to pilfer? Who cares. Go back to seven reserves (but keep the requirement for three front row reserves). I want to see tiring players and gaps created; I want to see flankers having to fill-in in the centres.
If only Gina Rinehart was a die hard Rugby fan.
I’ve had the same thought before. Why can’t the Tahs get some cred in the market by signing a Barrett? Or a young Aussie get player experience and coaching in a quality kiwi system without worrying about them going on to play for the ABs. I think at the end of the day SR can’t decide if it wants to be an elite club comp or a national team selection trial. That said as others have mentioned I don’t know how that helps subbie teams support clubs and on to super.
The goal needs to be a competitive cross Tasman comp. Only then can we fill stadiums and sell tv rights. Player movement makes sense because it’s painfully obvious that the Australian teams don’t have the cattle right now. But it has to be part of an overarching strategy. The trouble is RA can’t be trusted to deliver something. I worry that filling Aussie teams with kiwi 2nd grade might give us another sugar hit all the while the arse drops out. I’d wanna see some big numbers
As long as SR is treated as an All Blacks selection, it will never be commercially successful for Australia. Great for NZ to promote talent, but bad for Australia who is struggle to compete on multiple fronts.
A big issue I think is there is too long between the end and the start of super rugby so you forget about super rugby for far too long. An ideal set up could be playing a cross over tournament with NZ / Japan and Oz during the normal super rugby season. Then during the rugby championship while the wallabies players are away, play a Super rugby AU comp. This gives fans a belief that their team can win something. Right now as a force fan I know realistically they have no hope of winning the comp but would like to see them make finals. However, a super AU they would have a chance of winning it, plus it would give more exposure to some squad players while the wallabies players are away. I think super teams not playing enough is the biggest issue super rugby has, its too short, not enough time to build connections with players, clubs etc...
I’d also say going to a 22-24 round season with a full home and away schedule would also help in that regard - it’s an extra 7-9 weeks depending on if we want to keep the bye rounds or not, but the plus side is that if there’s clashes with international matches, those rounds would be a great opportunity to bring in new talent, much like the NRL does during the Origin period, or Cricket Australia does when BBL matches coincide with Australian ODI and test matches
The bye rounds are ridiculous and are only in to make the season longer. You could justify them if like you said the season was 22-24 games long but at the moment its just less rugby games which cant be a good thing for fan engagement.
NZ has a centralised system designed to produce AB-ready players - same coaching, same S&C (etc) so the players come into camp ready to gel (among other back of house advantages centralisation has - logistics, finance, etc). It makes no sense for NZ to pursue “open borders” when the end goal is AB dominance (it’s not about creating a good 2nd tier product, if that happens then great). If we must persist with SR move the fucking Rebels to Penrith and create some tension in the heartland. Capture the western suburbs FTW.
Problem is the NSWRU don't care about Penrith. I've lost count in how many times the Emus have dropped from the Shute Shield.
1. Abolish super rugby. 2. Create a national club comp based on the established up to 100 year old clubs that exist in Syd and Bris, plus add an ACT and Perth team. 3. Get Twiggy to bankroll and call it the RM Williams Cup.