2014 Super Rugby: Blues vs Waratahs (Round 11)

[smartcooky]

No more than the Highlander's performances last year makes a mockery of Nonu, Smith etc. being All Blacks.

Team have bad seasons, team perform beyond their means, ebbs and flows.

That's not to say that SA deserves another franchise, but how often do they justify it by saying that SA currently have the players to perform well with six franchises?

It is perfectly fine to have stand out players in a poor team selected for All Blacks duty. In fact I'd argue that a player selected from a poor team really has earned his spot on his own merits. Often a player can look great in a good team, but they aren't so flash at the next level (I'm thinking players like Isaac Ross)

However, that is way from different having an extra weak team, which would weaken existing South African teams in a competition that already has too many teams. Additional weak teams bring nothing to the table in terms of the integrity of the competition.

If I had my way, I'd go back to Super 12; that was when the competition was at its peak.

Instead of that original format (NZL x 5, SAF x 4 AUS x 3) I'd ditch the franchises and go to four teams from each country. For NZ, the top four ITM Cup teams qualify for the following year's Super 12, and they draft in extra players from the teams that missed the cut, from a player draft list given to them by the All Black selectors.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

It is perfectly fine to have stand out players in a poor team selected for All Blacks duty. In fact I'd argue that a player selected from a poor team really has earned his spot on his own merits. Often a player can look great in a good team, but they aren't so flash at the next level (I'm thinking players like Isaac Ross)

However, that is way from different having an extra weak team, which would weaken existing South African teams in a competition that already has too many teams. Additional weak teams bring nothing to the table in terms of the integrity of the competition.

If I had my way, I'd go back to Super 12; that was when the competition was at its peak.

Instead of that original format (NZL x 5, SAF x 4 AUS x 3) I'd ditch the franchises and go to four teams from each country. For NZ, the top four ITM Cup teams qualify for the following year's Super 12, and they draft in extra players from the teams that missed the cut, from a player draft list given to them by the All Black selectors.

Though I'd rather not turn this thread into another one discussing the format of Super Rugby, I can't say I really agree with your idea without a fair bit more information.

How big would the draft list be, for example? It would either be so small that it doesn't allow for mid tier players to tackle higher levels of rugby, or so large that it makes a mockery of selecting the four top ITM Cup teams in the first place. How would this be an improvement over simply having four NZ franchises?

 

[nzlizard]

The top 4 ITM cup teams sounds good in theory, but would not be financially viably.

Say if for some reason you had Auckland and Counties both in the top 4, having 2 super teams so close loses most of the pulling power for one of the teams therefore cutting profits, having this format would reduce tv takings, sponsorship and just about all forms of income.

The current format is there to take advantage of the geographical locations and maximize potential profits, we would never afford to be able to pay the players and generate profit for international players under any other model IMO.

 

[easy2288]

i was watching the replay of this match and just noticed the so called knock on by the Referee Chris Pollock. It happens when Adam Ashley-Cooper pass to Kurtley Beale and the ball hits Beale knee. Chris define this as knock on.

The same happened last night for the semis of the Heineken Cup game between Saracens and Clemont. Chris Ashton made a pass to Owen Farrell and the ball hit his knee.The ball roll forward and Owen Farrell ran and touch down. The referee Nigel Owens said is not considered knock on and awarded the try.

Is about time IRU get back to meeting room and decide what is a knock on ...before the next World cup

 

[Shaggy]

It is perfectly fine to have stand out players in a poor team selected for All Blacks duty. In fact I'd argue that a player selected from a poor team really has earned his spot on his own merits. Often a player can look great in a good team, but they aren't so flash at the next level (I'm thinking players like Isaac Ross)

However, that is way from different having an extra weak team, which would weaken existing South African teams in a competition that already has too many teams. Additional weak teams bring nothing to the table in terms of the integrity of the competition.

If I had my way, I'd go back to Super 12; that was when the competition was at its peak.

Instead of that original format (NZL x 5, SAF x 4 AUS x 3) I'd ditch the franchises and go to four teams from each country. For NZ, the top four ITM Cup teams qualify for the following year's Super 12, and they draft in extra players from the teams that missed the cut, from a player draft list given to them by the All Black selectors.

I know it's off topic, but in order to "sell" this team number reduction to the SANZAR body members, you would probably have to offer a viable alternative (particularly for the Currie Cup sides that miss out). If the ARU can gets it's new domestic competition working successfully, you could probably run a top 4 from each country competition, and a next best 4 competition from each country, at the same time.

This would have the advantage of keeping all of the Currie cup sides engaged, keeping more players employed/more opportunities, and I don't think the difference in quality/standard between the two comps would be that great (based on the closeness of the ITM cup) ... should be able to attract the revenue for both comps through TV rights etc, easily enough too