Questions from a noob

[Dai Perk]

Hey everyone,
I am very new to Rugby, but it has quickly displaced American football as my favorite sport.
On the "Eggchasers" podcast, they talk about "Super Rugby style" being different than Premiership style. I have watched 10 or 15 matches of both leagues, but as a newcomer, I can't discern what the fundamental style difference is.
Can someone please explain the big difference(s)?
Cheers!

 

[BPM]

To keep it super simple, the main differences between the SH and NH is that the former is quicker, with less kicking and more 'ball-in-hand' rugby, while the latter tends to involve more emphasis on the set pieces and kicking. Skill levels are typically higher in the SH so you'll see more offloads etc.

Clearly those are sweeping generalisations, but I would expect these to be fairly agreeable to most posters.

What may be making it trickier for you to see a difference is that we've had a hot summer in Europe without much rain. That means that the pitches are a bit harder and more conducive to faster, running rugby than they will be in a couple of months' time.

 

[Dai Perk]

Wow, thanks so much for the thoughtful reply, that is very useful!

So, when they talk about the Premiership bringing in more Kiwi coaches who want to implement a more SH style, they're talking about more phase play (I hope I'm using that correctly), much like we saw from Bristol against Gloucester in Rd. 3? Starting phase play deeper in one's own territory?

It's funny, because when I think of SH players, naturally I think about people like Beauden Barrett, who I think of as spontaneously kicking the ball a LOT... but as I said, I'm a total noob.

Thanks again, BPM!

 

[BPM]

When you say 'phase play' it's not incorrect because the players are going through a number of phases. However, what you're talking about with Bristol is more what I would describe as 'running from deep'. That is definitely more of a SH style which isn't a huge coincidence given the coaching style of Pat Lam. I would have said Exeter are the side I'd associate with 'phase play', which is more of a forwards oriented, relentless 'keep ball' exercise where they grind the opposition down with lots of short phases, earning a penalty, kicking the ball down the pitch, rinse and repeat until they either have the field position to launch their backs or get their driving maul going.

Kiwi coaches are widely regarded as the best. This is rightly so in a lot of cases, but then it doesn't always translate. For example, Tom Coventry was fairly highly rated in NZ, came North to London Irish and it just didn't happen. The overall feeling being that it's not a like for like, so you can't assume success as a coach in the SH automatically means you'll be successful in the NH.

 

[Dai Perk]

Very interesting! Yeah, the Eggchaser guys seemed to imply that Tom Coventry maybe expected too much too soon, because it takes time for such a big philosophical switch to take hold properly...

In the UK, is the Pro14 considered sort of 'one tier down' from the Premiership, or are they roughly comparable? My feeling is the Premiership is called that for good reason, yes?

 

[BPM]

That's a statement that would spark a big debate.

If you judge a competition by the success of the teams in it, the Pro14 sides have recently been far more successful in Europe, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

In reality, it's a lot harder to judge the quality of the Pro14 because the various unions control the amount of games the top international players feature in. For example, the IRFU controls the four Irish provinces but the RFU doesn't have the same control over the Premiership clubs (which are privately owned).

To put it another way, if you go to watch Leinster you'd be very lucky to see Johnny Sexton and Tadhg Furlong, but if you go to watch Saracens you will have a very good chance of seeing Owen Farrell and Mako Vunipola.

This set up benefits the national teams of Ireland, Scotland and Wales as their top players are typically 'fresher' but at the same time, you could argue that this cheapens the Pro14 product on a week-to-week basis.

Premiership clubs typically play their best sides as often as they can, so in theory, this should mean lots of good games.

The other aspect is that the Premiership is very competitive. While Saracens and Exeter are clearly the dominant sides at the moment, it's a league where every club has a chance of beating whoever they're playing. There's not much to choose between the different sides, so it's hard to predict. That makes it a very good league IMO. The fact that a team is relegated every season also means that every game matters.

Previously the likes of Zebre were Pro12/14 whipping boys. They've got a lot better but there's a much more obvious difference in quality of teams in the league.

 

[Dai Perk]

Again, very enlightening, BPM, thanks so much!

Very interesting stuff. I'm reminded a bit of the NBA, where, a few years ago, they changed the scheduling so that teams had a lot more back-to-back games, and a lot of three-games-in-three-nights scenarios. Forward thinking coaches, like Greg Popovich, said, "Well, three games in three nights is too much wear and tear on my best players, who I will need for the playoffs." So he started just leaving players behind when his team would travel, occasionally. Very smart for him, but fans who bought tickets because the Spurs were coming to town did so because they wanted to see Tim Duncan, and when they find he's not even with the team, they're very angry, with good reason. Obviously, not a parallel, but I understand the balance between "I want my guys rested," and "Are fans going to buy tickets if these certain guys aren't playing?"

I'm consuming as much Rugby as I can get my hands on, so I've been watching Premiership matches and the Pro14 matches. I can see what you mean about the Premiership games being a little closer, competition-wise, but as I've said, my sample size is still comparatively small. I do love the fact that, even though Saracens and Exeter appear dominant, I can easily see a situation where a team like Gloucester surprises someone in the playoffs and ends up winning it.

Thanks again for all this feedback - as an American, it is very hard to find anyone to talk rugby with!

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Very interesting! Yeah, the Eggchaser guys seemed to imply that Tom Coventry maybe expected too much too soon, because it takes time for such a big philosophical switch to take hold properly...

In the UK, is the Pro14 considered sort of 'one tier down' from the Premiership, or are they roughly comparable? My feeling is the Premiership is called that for good reason, yes?

All of what BPM said is true but I'd like to add to it. Considering you're listening to eggchasers my advice would be to ignore almost anything they say about the pro 14, they don't watch it and basically everything they say about it is insulting and has no substance, this aspect of the podcast is also worse when Pro 14 sides are experiencing success over the Premiership sides. (According to that podcast when Pro 14 sides are doing well its because they rest their players, when they're doing badly its because they're not playing enough rugby)

A huge difference between the pro 14 and, the top 14 (France) and Premiership is that the unions who run the pro 14 sides - Italy, Ireland, Wales, Scotland and, less so, South Africa - all know that due to the smaller populations of their countries they need successful national sides to sustain rugby at club level whereas England and France don't. As a result the Pro 14 has become a semi-developmental league with teams regularly using 45+ players in a season. This doesn't mean that if you watch the pro 14 you're going to see academy sides week after week though, apart from the first couple of rounds each season and during international windows its rare that you'd see games without current internationals but instead you see a mix of up and coming fringe players and the clubs' superstars whoever they may be. Fans of the pro 14 genuinely love it, you get to see young products of your club playing in the first XV a lot sooner than you would if you followed an English or French club while still seeing high quality rugby most of the time as well as it helping the international sides. Understandably fans of other leagues aren't so enthusiastic about it because they usually see the stars of the pro 14 playing against their teams in Europe and if they switch over to the pro 14 they will see a team sheet with a handful or more names that they don't recognise.

The primary criticism that comes with this is that the pro 14 is less marketable because of it, this is true but it'd be a waste of time and resources for the pro 14 to try to compete with France's and England's television deals purely because of the population difference between the countries, attendance falls off a bit when a purely second string side is named but for the sake of maybe 8,000 more filled seats in a season it seems a bit pointless if it risks the success of the national side.

On the flip side it is often argued that the extra game time players in the English and French leagues play disadvantages their national sides, it might but there's no hard evidence to say so, from 2004 to 2011 France were the strongest team in Europe with the league set up being exactly what it is today, same with England in 2016 and 2017 by some distance. In years where these two haven't been the best its been due to other factors in my opinion, France's national union have serious problems with internal politics and ever since they won the world cup England have simply struggled to produce players that are world class, walk into any team in the world type players, and when they've had them they've often been extremely injury prone. Both have also had some truly horrendous coaches too.

So, I've gone off on a mad tangent here so TL;DR: Don't listen to eggchasers when they talk about the pro 14, they haven't the foggiest and any difficulty a national side has isn't any fault of their league, at best simply the leagues simply supplement core issues.

 

[Dai Perk]

Wow, what a great reply!

I sensed some real bias while listening to those guys, but it was hard to see it as clearly as you spell it out here...

The population disparities are a real part of the draw to the international matches for me, it's really remarkable the way some of the smaller countries are able to compete at that level. I'm sure this is old news to you, but there's a great documentary on Netflix called "Pacific Warriors," all about the Tongan national team and their surprising success.

The Pro14 system, as you describe it, is really interesting - I don't think there's really any parallel in any American sports. I can see how one could be even more invested when one gets to see the best players and the up-and-coming players mixed in and out, I feel like, as a fan, that would really build upon the depth of feeling and support for "the home squad."

And please - there is truly no such thing as TL;DR for me when it comes to rugby ... as I said, I have no one else to talk to about it, so this is truly fantastic!

Thanks again,

Dave

 

[BPM]

I'd agree with The Alpha Bro. Especially re. The Eggchasers ...

 

[Dai Perk]

They are funny, though ... if a little light on facts and figures.

 

[AmericanRugbyFan]

Again, very enlightening, BPM, thanks so much!

Very interesting stuff. I'm reminded a bit of the NBA, where, a few years ago, they changed the scheduling so that teams had a lot more back-to-back games, and a lot of three-games-in-three-nights scenarios. Forward thinking coaches, like Greg Popovich, said, "Well, three games in three nights is too much wear and tear on my best players, who I will need for the playoffs." So he started just leaving players behind when his team would travel, occasionally. Very smart for him, but fans who bought tickets because the Spurs were coming to town did so because they wanted to see Tim Duncan, and when they find he's not even with the team, they're very angry, with good reason. Obviously, not a parallel, but I understand the balance between "I want my guys rested," and "Are fans going to buy tickets if these certain guys aren't playing?"

I'm consuming as much Rugby as I can get my hands on, so I've been watching Premiership matches and the Pro14 matches. I can see what you mean about the Premiership games being a little closer, competition-wise, but as I've said, my sample size is still comparatively small. I do love the fact that, even though Saracens and Exeter appear dominant, I can easily see a situation where a team like Gloucester surprises someone in the playoffs and ends up winning it.

Thanks again for all this feedback - as an American, it is very hard to find anyone to talk rugby with!

I am an American, new to rugby as well. Where are you? I am in South Carolina.

 

[Dai Perk]

I'm up in Massachusetts. Are you and your family all right after the hurricane?

 

[AmericanRugbyFan]

I'm up in Massachusetts. Are you and your family all right after the hurricane?

Yes thanks for asking. My wife evacuated, but I am a physician and stayed at the hospital in case other physicians could not make it in. Charleston didn't see much action.