Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
Four Conference system planned for 2016
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="smartcooky" data-source="post: 645299" data-attributes="member: 20605"><p>Heineken, I think you are missing the point.</p><p></p><p>The issue I have is not with particular teams, that is why I haven't indicated in the chart which teams are which. If you look at 1996, well that NZ team at the bottom is none other than the Crusaders, they finished 6th the following year, and since then, they have only missed the post season once (2001), and have appeared ten finals, seven of which they won. </p><p></p><p>No, my issue is with talent distribution. I think there simply is not enough top level talent to make five teams in South Africa or Australia. </p><p></p><p>In South Africa, I know that SARU is hoping to deter players from going to Europe by having a sixth team, but it is never going to work, because the lure of money is too great. All that will happen is another, well below par team like the Kings is going to join the competition and become five point thrash-bunnies for just about every team that plays them. This will be made even worse when the quota system ends up causing more South African players to look overseas because they cannot get into teams due to being displaced by inferior quota players (no racism on my part, just stating a fact; if the quota players were good enough to be selected ahead of the players they replace, they would already be in the team). </p><p></p><p>In Australia, the expansion to four and then five teams has caused them to have to import dubious quality overseas players to make up the numbers because they didn't have sufficient talent within the Australian system to fill the fourth and then the fifth team. </p><p></p><p>For ten years when the competition ran as Super 12, the distribution of teams that finished in the bottom three was roughly even (I have added a couple of vertical lines to the chart to make that clear) In that time, nine New Zealand teams have been there. In the eight years Since expansion to 14, and then 15 teams, New Zealand teams have been in the last 3 only twice. Those spots have for the most part, been filled with the expansion teams Cheetahs, Kings, Force & Rebels plus the Lions, who haven't finished better than 11th since 2001. </p><p></p><p>Super 12 was the best elite level club/franchise rugby competition in the world. IMO, expansion to Super 14 then 15 has diluted the talent pool, lessened the quality of the matches and compromised the integrity of the competition. Expansion to 18 teams, along with the incomprehensible mickey-mouse double conference system they are going to introduce, can only make this situation worse. Super 12 was a brilliant competition, it wasn't broken and it didn't need to be fixed.</p><p></p><p>I think the Heineken/European Rugby Cup is now the world's Premier elite level club/franchise competition. While I disagree with the underhand, dishonest, bullying tactics that McCafferty and his cohorts in PRL and LNR used as they went about changing that competition, I do believe that their idea to reduce the competition from 24 to 20 teams is the right one, and will put the Heineken Cup (under its new name of the Rugby Champions Cup) in a pre-eminent position for at least the next decade.</p><p></p><p> I think that if we are not very, very careful, we could end up with Super Rugby becoming little more than a feeder for Europe.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="smartcooky, post: 645299, member: 20605"] Heineken, I think you are missing the point. The issue I have is not with particular teams, that is why I haven't indicated in the chart which teams are which. If you look at 1996, well that NZ team at the bottom is none other than the Crusaders, they finished 6th the following year, and since then, they have only missed the post season once (2001), and have appeared ten finals, seven of which they won. No, my issue is with talent distribution. I think there simply is not enough top level talent to make five teams in South Africa or Australia. In South Africa, I know that SARU is hoping to deter players from going to Europe by having a sixth team, but it is never going to work, because the lure of money is too great. All that will happen is another, well below par team like the Kings is going to join the competition and become five point thrash-bunnies for just about every team that plays them. This will be made even worse when the quota system ends up causing more South African players to look overseas because they cannot get into teams due to being displaced by inferior quota players (no racism on my part, just stating a fact; if the quota players were good enough to be selected ahead of the players they replace, they would already be in the team). In Australia, the expansion to four and then five teams has caused them to have to import dubious quality overseas players to make up the numbers because they didn't have sufficient talent within the Australian system to fill the fourth and then the fifth team. For ten years when the competition ran as Super 12, the distribution of teams that finished in the bottom three was roughly even (I have added a couple of vertical lines to the chart to make that clear) In that time, nine New Zealand teams have been there. In the eight years Since expansion to 14, and then 15 teams, New Zealand teams have been in the last 3 only twice. Those spots have for the most part, been filled with the expansion teams Cheetahs, Kings, Force & Rebels plus the Lions, who haven't finished better than 11th since 2001. Super 12 was the best elite level club/franchise rugby competition in the world. IMO, expansion to Super 14 then 15 has diluted the talent pool, lessened the quality of the matches and compromised the integrity of the competition. Expansion to 18 teams, along with the incomprehensible mickey-mouse double conference system they are going to introduce, can only make this situation worse. Super 12 was a brilliant competition, it wasn't broken and it didn't need to be fixed. I think the Heineken/European Rugby Cup is now the world's Premier elite level club/franchise competition. While I disagree with the underhand, dishonest, bullying tactics that McCafferty and his cohorts in PRL and LNR used as they went about changing that competition, I do believe that their idea to reduce the competition from 24 to 20 teams is the right one, and will put the Heineken Cup (under its new name of the Rugby Champions Cup) in a pre-eminent position for at least the next decade. I think that if we are not very, very careful, we could end up with Super Rugby becoming little more than a feeder for Europe. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
Four Conference system planned for 2016
Top