Razor blacks

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[Kiwiwomble]

sure...signing up 36 year old outside backs who haven't had a long run of good form a 2-3 years is a great idea

I find it so baffling, you look up recently produced highlights videos of BB....and the vast majority of the clips he has 22 on his back and more than half will be from 2016 or earlier

 

[40/20]

sure...signing up 36 year old outside backs who haven't had a long run of good form a 2-3 years is a great idea

I find it so baffling, you look up recently produced highlights videos of BB....and the vast majority of the clips he has 22 on his back and more than half will be from 2016 or earlier

Yea its an odd one isnt it. Assuming Robertson is supportive of the idea (as we discussed earlier in the thread) he must see some value somewhere. But if he's the international coaching guru we all hope he is, I guess we'll just have to trust in his guru-ness.

TBH I'm more concerned at what this means for the Blues. If Perofeta and/or Sullivan are the future of the team, how will they ever make the step up if Beaudy continues to loom in their futures, and what does that mean from a retention perspective.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Yea its an odd one isnt it. Assuming Robertson is supportive of the idea (as we discussed earlier in the thread) he must see some value somewhere. But if he's the international coaching guru we all hope he is, I guess we'll just have to trust in his guru-ness.

TBH I'm more concerned at what this means for the Blues. If Perofeta and/or Sullivan are the future of the team, how will they ever make the step up if Beaudy continues to loom in their futures, and what does that mean from a retention perspective.

the strongest defence of the idea ive seen is "just because he's been given a contract doesnt mean hes starting"....he would have to be one of the highest paid AB this year and doubt he took a pay cut...so not playing our highest paid player (maybe)...seems like bad business

 

[40/20]

the strongest defence of the idea ive seen is "just because he's been given a contract doesnt mean hes starting"....he would have to be one of the highest paid AB this year and doubt he took a pay cut...so not playing our highest paid player (maybe)...seems like bad business

Yea good point. Just adds another level of weirdness to the whole thing doesn't it. Maybe there's exit clauses in the contract, something that allows Beaudy to head back offshore, and NZR to save some money, if Robertson decides to go in another direction.

 

[40/20]

Robertson adds more Sader flavour to his coaching/management team...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/301030745/crusaders-assistant-tamati-ellison-joins-razors-all-blacks-staff

I didn't realise there was such a big group involved either... 20 + Smithy in his broader performance coach role. And I don't see a scrum coach replacement for Feek on the list, nor a kicking coach like they've had in the past too. So could be some names missing or roles still to be filled. Bloody hell. Be interested to know how that compares to the Wallabies or say, England.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Robertson adds more Sader flavour to his coaching/management team...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/301030745/crusaders-assistant-tamati-ellison-joins-razors-all-blacks-staff

I didn't realise there was such a big group involved either... 20 + Smithy in his broader performance coach role. And I don't see a scrum coach replacement for Feek on the list, nor a kicking coach like they've had in the past too. So could be some names missing or roles still to be filled. Bloody hell. Be interested to know how that compares to the Wallabies or say, England.

I was always a fan of tamaiti Ellison as a player. Seemed smart and an awesome pass.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[40/20]

I know this has probably been discussed lots already in the past, but given Robertson's most recent comments… what's everyone's view on whether AB selection should be opened up to offshore based players?

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Tough to say with a new coach.

I think foster let the other selectors, eg Jason Ryan influence selections a lot but im not sure how much or to what extent razor will.

For example Josh lord was picked, without much super rugby experience, under foster both before and after Ryan. So it's hard to say whether Ryan likes him or if that was just a foster selection.

It also depends on to what extent razor will take the opportunity to build a new squad for the World Cup rather than play experienced players who probably will be too old by the World Cup. As indicated earlier in this thread, I think he is likely to do the former at leas to some extent, which would count against tuipolotu.

It also depends on the balance if the team, so it's pretty hard to guess unless you guess the whole team. They'll want enough lineout threats, enough hard workers, enough enforcers in defence, and enough hard yard makers.

Both whitelock and retallick were tall and good lineout players. Haven't checked everyone, but of those Checked The only players as tall or taller going around at the moment are paripari Parkinson, Fabian holland, Sam Darry (at 2.07 is taller than both of them). Lord is close though

If you take a look at the crusaders during razors tenure, they always have at least one strong lineout option in the loose forwards. So that might mean it's less important to just choose locks who are your best lineout forwards.

There are a lot of players who I wouldn't be surprised if they were picked.
Those mentioned above, plus
Gallagher
Strange
Dunshea
Ah kuoi
Walker leaware
Selby rickitt
Delany
Suafoa
Sangster

If I had to put money on it, I'd say vaai starts alongside scooter. At least one of Darry and lord would then also be in the squad, I predict Darry ahead of lord if only one makes it. Then Gallagher, probably ahead of lord if Darry makes it. ah kuoi, suafoa, would be there or thereabouts depending on the make up of the back 5 of the scrum, including what positions suafoa and ah kuoi themselves might be considered for. Ah kuoi and suafoa are the same weight and height but very different strengths - ah kuoi has a big engine, suafoa is good at making the hard yards. Both are your lock - blindside hybrid type player.

Personally I like the idea of walker-leaware as a bench option. doesn't have the fitness or lineout prowess to start, but he gets a lot of turnovers and has a strong carry and tackle.

Turns out Darry is shorter than Wikipedia and google suggests. I thought being super tall would be worthy of developing as an all black, now I'm much less convinced he'll be there.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I know this has probably been discussed lots already in the past, but given Robertson's most recent comments… what's everyone's view on whether AB selection should be opened up to offshore based players?

Hmm, I dont really know honestly. I think it made more sense when super rugby was better than other comps and when New Zealand's style was vastly different to styles elsewhere in the world.

But it's complex.

I Think super rugby would be less popular if it didn't have the best players. That means NZ rugby loses more money.

So far we haven't had too many significant defections affecting the all blacks. mounga is the biggest one we've ever had though. I don't know, we could have the mounga rule (like the giteau rule).

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I know this has probably been discussed lots already in the past, but given Robertson's most recent comments… what's everyone's view on whether AB selection should be opened up to offshore based players?

....i think if we're going to stick to 5 super teams then yeah it should

five teams and normally at least 3-4 of those 5 try and play the same style....being whatever the AB's are trying to do...its not generating innovation or depth

I think we should stick to only NZ based teams if we'd taken the opportunity to regig things completely, merge the NPC and Super, have 7-8 teams playing a single longer season so teams and players have time to try things out and ease in new depth....but currently two small smash and grab seasons just doesnt do it

 

[Umaga's Witness]

....i think if we're going to stick to 5 super teams then yeah it should

five teams and normally at least 3-4 of those 5 try and play the same style....being whatever the AB's are trying to do...its not generating innovation or depth

I think we should stick to only NZ based teams if we'd taken the opportunity to regig things completely, merge the NPC and Super, have 7-8 teams playing a single longer season so teams and players have time to try things out and ease in new depth....but currently two small smash and grab seasons just doesnt do it

I guess problem is all blacks are playing probably the right amount of rugby, so if you were to merge competitions you could only do so by having the all blacks not involved for a lot of it. but maybe that's ok.

One thing that I think still differentiates New Zealand rugby from most other countries is the extent of offloads.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Oh, btw I read that beauden has been having discussion with Scotty Hansen and dmac about tactics and stuff. So it sounds like he is still in the frame

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I guess problem is all blacks are playing probably the right amount of rugby, so if you were to merge competitions you could only do so by having the all blacks not involved for a lot of it. but maybe that's ok.

One thing that I think still differentiates New Zealand rugby from most other countries is the extent of offloads.

i dont, i think the mix of AB's games to "club" games is out of whack. I would loose a couple of AB games, with rest periods for AB there have been years where AB's like Aaron smith played more AB games that club games, and get more club games, i would also normalise bigger squads to allow for a longer comp

 

[Umaga's Witness]

i dont, i think the mix of AB's games to "club" games is out of whack. I would loose a couple of AB games, with rest periods for AB there have been years where AB's like Aaron smith played more AB games that club games, and get more club games, i would also normalise bigger squads to allow for a longer comp

It's hard to see then dropping ab games given how much more money they make though.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

It's hard to see then dropping ab games given how much more money they make though.

i just feel its non sustainable, i already know people back home that are "another game against Aussie?....i'll see them next year"

i think we should be trying to get people more into the club game to generate our money, currently we;re locked onto the idea of trickle down economics which is any other facet of the world is laughed at as not working

i still firmly believe the International game should be the showcase...the dessert, not the main course, we cant expect them to keep bring in the big crowds forever if there isn;t a robust comp beneath to keep replenishing the stock

we have a test case of that idea right on our doorstep in aussie

 

[40/20]

i just feel its non sustainable, i already know people back home that are "another game against Aussie?....i'll see them next year"

i think we should be trying to get people more into the club game to generate our money, currently we;re locked onto the idea of trickle down economics which is any other facet of the world is laughed at as not working

i still firmly believe the International game should be the showcase...the dessert, not the main course, we cant expect them to keep bring in the big crowds forever if there isn;t a robust comp beneath to keep replenishing the stock

we have a test case of that idea right on our doorstep in aussie

I actually think the trickle down economy is just a function of the size of our overall economy and I dunno if we'll ever get past it.

If a bottom up model is one where the domestic game generates the bulk of NZRs revenue, then revenue sources are (by and large) limited to the domestic scene but we lack the scale of the likes of England, France and Japan. Over 40% of NZR's revenue comes from sponsorship/licensing but all their major partners are Europe and Japan based and the exposure those corporates are paying for comes from NZR teams (ABs and to a lesser extent the Ferns and 7s) that play in their home and emerging markets.

If the # of AB games is reduced the value of those global sponsorships drops and the shortfall needs to be made up somewhere else. If that's the domestic game i.e. bottom up, we run back into the domestic constraints.

Even if test players played the whole NPC, it'll never make enough. Crowd sizes will improve but matchday income is only a fraction of NZR's revenue, and the associated sponsor and TV income will always be limited by the size of our local economy.

SR could do it maybe…? but only via expansion (again) into markets that global sponsors see value in. And we know how that's gone so far. Or another option is NZR/RA partnering on a fully integrated trans-tasman comp with the eventual aim of rivalling the NRL and getting some of the 1b pa TV money the NRL/AFL currently split. But that's blue sky stuff…

TBH, I think we're stuck with the top down model.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I actually think the trickle down economy is just a function of the size of our overall economy and I dunno if we'll ever get past it.

If a bottom up model is one where the domestic game generates the bulk of NZRs revenue, then revenue sources are (by and large) limited to the domestic scene but we lack the scale of the likes of England, France and Japan. Over 40% of NZR's revenue comes from sponsorship/licensing but all their major partners are Europe and Japan based and the exposure those corporates are paying for comes from NZR teams (ABs and to a lesser extent the Ferns and 7s) that play in their home and emerging markets.

If the # of AB games is reduced the value of those global sponsorships drops and the shortfall needs to be made up somewhere else. If that's the domestic game i.e. bottom up, we run back into the domestic constraints.

Even if test players played the whole NPC, it'll never make enough. Crowd sizes will improve but matchday income is only a fraction of NZR's revenue, and the associated sponsor and TV income will always be limited by the size of our local economy.

SR could do it maybe…? but only via expansion (again) into markets that global sponsors see value in. And we know how that's gone so far. Or another option is NZR/RA partnering on a fully integrated trans-tasman comp with the eventual aim of rivalling the NRL and getting some of the 1b pa TV money the NRL/AFL currently split. But that's blue sky stuff…

TBH, I think we're stuck with the top down model.

not aiming for the domestic game to make up most of NZR income....but make it the majority of the clubs/unions income, NZR/ABs operates on the money it brings in for its product and the unions/clubs operates on the money they bring in...you know..each level as close to financially sustainable as possible

not sure i agree 100% on the economies of scale, the average Prem game was 12k in attendance....not crazy in size and yet most have managed to afford squads large enough to play twice as many games

personally i think the over all aim should be to make the domestic comp attractive enough (ABs playing, competitive games etc) so that can be sold to the international market

 

[40/20]

not aiming for the domestic game to make up most of NZR income....but make it the majority of the clubs/unions income, NZR/ABs operates on the money it brings in for its product and the unions/clubs operates on the money they bring in...you know..each level as close to financially sustainable as possible

not sure i agree 100% on the economies of scale, the average Prem game was 12k in attendance....not crazy in size and yet most have managed to afford squads large enough to play twice as many games

Ah yep fair enough. I do agree that sort of self funding model would be ideal. But again, I dunno if it'll ever be achievable in NZ and I do think the economic limitations are real.

And I dont think Prem's a good example of a sustainable business model to be honest. After a number of clubs went into administration, there was a government enquiry on the comp's finances and the findings was pretty damning. All clubs that started the '22-'23 season made losses, with 8 of them technically insolvent i.e. being propped up by their private owners. All of this amongst an English economy with a GDP that's 10x ours.

I don't know how things are in France and Japan, other than many of those clubs also have the benefit of either private or corporate ownership/support, and operate in economies that are 10-20x the size of our own.

personally i think the over all aim should be to make the domestic comp attractive enough (ABs playing, competitive games etc) so that can be sold to the international market

Agree, with the challenge being how that value is created without compromising other revenue sources, which is where the AB availability conflicts come back in. More ABs playing domestic footy means less AB games, which means less revenue from that side of the model. And if the increase in domestic revenue is intended to sustain the domestic game, that "top-end" is left short.

I agree with the vision; I just cant see a way there without hurting ourselves. But maybe the governance overhaul at NZR will bring in some fresh eyes and new ideas.