Crunch Time for the Australian Conference, weekend from hell has arrived.

[saulan]

And there it goes, four games played, 0 points earned by any of the Australian teams. To be fair, I don't really expect SA conference will fare a hell of a lot better. Unfortunately the Bulls seem to be useless this year and the only team shaping up on that conference side is the Stormers, who look able to beat a New Zealand side. It's a shame because conference 1 has three teams that look like they would be up for the New Zealand team challenge, but only two of them will get to play against New Zealand teams and that's only in the playoffs.

 

[Larksea]

yip, sweep complete as predicted. its created a vast gap between the NZ and AU conferences. NZ's bottom placed highlanders have more points than AU's top placed Brumbies. All NZ teams have a positive F/A

Combined F/A
NZ = +347
AU = -330

that should mean that the combined SA conferences are -17

 

[Larksea]

you know maybe a 6th NZ team is a good idea. part of the problem is that the NZ sides have been so strong. If a 6th team can dilute the quads a bit it may level the field a little.

I think one thing the ARU needs to do is target league more. I think the Aussie franchises need to target the U20 league teams and youth game. have programs for transitioning league players to rugby. Heck the NRL shouldn't complain they target NZ's schoolboy rugby competition heavily.

But producing strong players starts with having good development and coaches. That is arguably why the NZ game is so strong. Aussie need to catch up in that area first.

 

[Bruno_ARG]

I think the Blues (the weakest NZ side) are not strong enough to justify having a 6th NZ team. I think way to go is: NZ 5 teams + AU 4 teams (w/o Force) + SA 4 teams (w/o Kings and Cheetahs) + Jaguares + Sunwolves. The Jags could be part of the SA conference and the Sunwolves could be inluded into AU's conference. It would make sense taking into account both level and geography. Also, considering the huge difference between NZ and SA/AU, it doesn't make much sense that these three have the same amount of franchises. Does it?

 

[Larksea]

I don't agree with that at all.

I would actually say that on paper the 5 NZ squads are all very similar in terms of strength. The only weakness the Blues have on paper is that they don't currently have a genuine top class class first five; West threatens to but has struggled with consistency. where other franchises have more than one... I look at the hurricanes and if Barrett is going to stay in NZ long term then Otere Black is likely going to have to move. Hes too good to be a bench player, looks like he's easily good enough to be the #1 first five for a super rugby franchise.

The difference in actual performance between the franchises is more to do with preparation/coaching/team culture/injuries.

one of the main reasons the NZ sides are so strong is depth, key players getting injured isn't affecting NZ teams as much and our benches are generally just as strong as our run on sides to the point where bench & Start roles are rotated and its not unusual to see All Blacks on the bench on a regular basis.

I look at a key position like first five, list out the first fives we have in the NZ game and tell me we don't have enough talent for a 6th team? I think we have 8-9 great first fives and a number of guys who make great backups.

Barrett
Cruden
Sopoaga
McKenzie
Mounga
Hunt
West
Donald
Black
Francis
Banks
Parker
Fletcher Smith
thats just off the top of my head I'm sure there are more...

tell me there isn't enough talent there for 6 teams? to think that even 6 years or so we had 2-3 really good first fives and the rest were journeymen. i think now we have 8-9 really good...

And its the same for other positions, Heck I look at the chiefs loose forwards they have like 3 great players for every loose forward position.

I think the issues preventing a 6th team in NZ are not to do with player stocks, we have plenty of that. Its more around is there enough money for one and vacant fan base big and eager enough to support another franchise. The two main areas are really Taranaki or Hawkes Bay, are there big enough fan bases there to support a super rugby franchise?

I think long term it would help NZ rugby, I feel like we are losing players overseas from that level of players who are good enough to play super rugby but get squeezed out or have to sit in wider training squads.

 

[smartcooky]

Sorry but, the Cheetahs earned their spot. And if we start naming players from the Cheetahs region playing for other franchises, the list would be too long to mention. Grey Bloem is one of the schools who at a consistent basis provides Springbok players.

If we look at attendance, then Bloem and PE is nearly in the same boat, although, there has been a lot more bums in seat in Bloem this year after their Currie Cup Success.

If we look at sponsors, then the Cheetahs are also in a better position, in that they have a big sponsorship agreement with Toyota, who also has a deal with the Japanese Rugby Union, and some japanese players have even run out for the Cheetahs. That is at at least 2 votes that will be against the vote to remove the Cheetahs.

Everything we can say about the Kings, we can say about the Cheetahs. But the simple fact is both these areas are struggling, but the Cheetahs have managed to play better rugby and be more competitive than the Kings. On a financial standpoint, the Cheetahs have been fulfilling their obligations, whereas the Kings haven't.

I think part of your problem stems from a long way back where SA tried to make their Super 12 teams = Currie Cup Provinces. I know there is a lot of provincial rivalry in SA, but its no worse than it was here and we knew we had to get over it. We bit the bullet and made five regions, with the Provincial Unions in each region's catchment, at all levels of the game, contributing to each region. Good marketing got us over the rivalries, which still exist at NPC level, but evaporate at Super Rugby level in the same way that they do at international level.