• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Argentina Super Rugby Team 2016 - Los Jaguares

Sorry Rats, from where do you get this information? The name will be confirmed after the WC.
 
Yeah that's my concern.

Also, what if rivalries rise between guys after they get to know each other too much? What if they hate each other?

I mean, they would have to see their ugly faces every day for like nine months.
 
That will be a very strong team... could go deep into the play-offs.

IMO, they should ditch the Japanese team if they can't front up soon, and plan for a second Argentine team based out west in the Hinterland, say, Mendoza. That's Argentine heartland rugby country (and home of my favourite red - Trapische Iscay Malbec-Merlot!!)
 
The team that toured Southafric ain the 80's was Sudamerica XV (Pumas disguized to avoid the boicot) and they defeated the Springboks 21 - 12 in Bloemfontein. All the points made by the great Hugo Porta.
90de178e26a49fc04aad0e1df2c48078.jpg


In 1965 Los Yaguaretes toured Southafrica, and that year was born the nickname PUMAS.
s_imhoff_576x324.jpg
rugby-championship-2074962w620.jpg


In the picture Juan Imhoff, father and son.
 
Really looking forward to Argentina joining SR. I expect the Jaguars will be competitive off the bat since the key players have had experience playing in SA as art of the national outfit and a few having been based in Stelenbosch with the Pampas XV when they played in the Vodacom cup. It'd be great if Argentina could field 2 sides as soon as possible. It'd just make the tournament setup more sensible.

smartcooky said:
That will be a very strong team... could go deep into the play-offs.

IMO, they should ditch the Japanese team if they can't front up soon, and plan for a second Argentine team based out west in the Hinterland, say, Mendoza. That's Argentine heartland rugby country (and home of my favourite red - Trapische Iscay Malbec-Merlot!!)
Click to expand...

I agree. The current format is just plain weird. If Argentina could field 2 teams it'd make more sense to have 'Eastern' (SA, Argentina) and 'Western' (NZ, Aus and Japan) conferences for Super rugby. If SANZAR was *really* serious about SR expansion and trying to get in a position to compete financially with Euro tournaments I'd be all for a type of setup resembling:

East conference 1:
Argentina 1
Argentina 2
USA 1
USA 2
Canada 1
Canada 2

East Conference 2:
the 6 SA sides; Kings getting a free (political) pass

West conference 1:
5 Aus sides and Japan 1

West conference 2:
5 NZ sides and Japan 2?

Top 2 from each conference goes on to the play-offs. Yes, that'll give free rides to the 'Americas' teams but that'd keep those markets involved.

Getting into those huge 1st world markets (USA, Japan and Canada) can only benefit us (financially) and though there'll be teething issues, lopsided draws etc its not as if we aren't seeing those right now in any case!

Either that or a return to an old-school Super 12 round robin league style format maybe with a 2nd tier and promo/relegation but still a chance for the top team of the 2nd tier to enter the finals as it'd make the 2nd tier stay relevant in the bigger scheme of things: top 7 of the top tier and top team of tier 2 to progress to QFs.
 
Wouldn't it be high time to include an Islanders team then? I know, the debate is old, but before you give the US or Canada 2 teams, I'd rather give them 1.
 
Car said:
Wouldn't it be high time to include an Islanders team then? I know, the debate is old, but before you give the US or Canada 2 teams, I'd rather give them 1.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. The Pacific Islands are well renowned for their stadiums, ability to pay player wages, the integrity of their governing bodies, and present a great opportunity to expand the game's presence to the 14 people on the collective Islands not already playing the game. What with the profits the All Blacks and Samoa made with their last visit - it must be far more enticing to send a bunch of teams over there, rather than that feel-good PR visit to Soldier Stadium.
 
It makes more sense to have two teams then in two rich countries where nobody cares about the sport and where the level is poor, right?
 
Car said:
It makes more sense to have two teams then in two rich countries where nobody cares about the sport and where the level is poor, right?
Click to expand...

Well if the aim is develop the game then probably yes.
 
Car said:
It makes more sense to have two teams then in two rich countries where nobody cares about the sport and where the level is poor, right?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I enjoy the righteous indignation - so explain to me how a PI team would work.

Let's start with who pays the players? Which Pacific Island Union can afford to run a team? Samoa refuses to pay their international players a reasonable rate when they tour, they just faced players threatening striking, and they have been dodging corruption (and potentially embezzlement from donations) charges by a total lack of transparency. Their Prime Minister is also head of SRU, and is a corrupt fool. Personally think the IRB should make charges against SRU.

Tonga has an even less funded union - and has also faced criticism for underpaying their internationals - which resulted in captain Nili Latu being dropped from the team for years (much like Samoa with Schwalger).

Last year Fiji Rugby Union had their annual $2.2m of IRB funding suspended - after the union's finances were not up to scratch - and the union is constantly interfered with by the military dictatorship.

So which union do you propose runs it?

Okay, let's look at infrastructure. In order for Apia Stadium to meet the minimum requirements they had to cut seating down to 8,000. Which wasn't a problem; as the costs of tickets outpriced the Samoan fans anyway. The tickets were largely bought by traveling NZ fans - probably not able to be relied upon for a whole SR season). SRU lost $2m to host the ABs (who made nothing from the trip) - wonder what they lose with 8 home games and 8 away games. Suva has 4,000 seats and a embankment - but again would have to outprice the locals.

One suggestion was hosting the team in Auckland - seeing as it has such a large PI population. Of course that means the NZRU footing the bill, while also hurting the Blues.

Of course the unions would also have to be cut into the TV deal, but seeing as they already have SR games - and there is only a total audience of 1m - means SANZAR would get less money with no potential to get more.

Which brings me to my final point. There is no room for those nations to further develop the game. They are a small nation with a small total income, which are already passionate about rugby. On merit, yeah they have some fantastic talent. But it's professional sports run by buisnesses. If I want to expand - I'd want to expand into a big market with great potential. Not a small market which has reached its potential.
 
What about the missing players? I guess the SR franchise should have around 38 or 39 players, am I right? At present time, we have only 29 players and SR stars on February.
 
So excited to see this team in action, next year is gonna be great!
 
Now I have a team to identify myself with
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

E
Super Rugby Atlantic
Replies
11
Views
3K
GalBrEusCat
GalBrEusCat
TRF_Cymro
Super Rugby: Team of the Season
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
Marszxc
M
FlankerLady7
Super Rugby Trial Games
Replies
0
Views
1K
FlankerLady7
FlankerLady7
M
Los Pampas XV should be fast-tracked into Super Rugby. 2012 could happen.
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
lucky number 7
lucky number 7
TRF_Ezequiel
Pierre Spies named Bulls Super Rugby captain
Replies
5
Views
2K
TRF_heineken
TRF_heineken

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Top