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
Spectators lose interest in Super Rugby
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="Cruz_del_Sur" data-source="post: 807685" data-attributes="member: 55747"><p>That's a very hard sell because: </p><p></p><p>1) The Sharks actually played against NZ teams</p><p>2) in NZ, won one (vs Highlanders) and came very, very close to winning against the Chiefs (#1 in NZ conference, score was 22-24)</p><p>3) Tore the Hurricanes a new one when they played in RSA</p><p></p><p>So when you tell me that the Sharks are keeping out much better NZ teams, i have no idea what you are talking about. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think it's fair to put all RSAn teams in the same bag. </p><p>I can understand that argument against a team like the Stormers (sorry!), but absolutely not for a team like the Sharks. I'd say the Lions didn't have it easy either and have earned the #1 spot on their own merit. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Then maybe the ones who feel that way should grow a thicker skin. This was no conspiracy and given the way the tournament goes, when one conference is too strong (NZ this year) the conference that has fewer games against them will benefit (RSA 1). Next season tables might turn, it happens. Considering the schedule, the time zones, travelling times, # of teams, june's internationals, Tri Nations and other tournaments, you have to make some sort of sacrifice somewhere. </p><p>If, for example, you want to increase the number of games to make it more fair, expect players to pay for that when they have to play for their national teams. </p><p>I "think" we are on the same page here. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think many teams wanted the Jaguares before the tournament started.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cruz_del_Sur, post: 807685, member: 55747"] That's a very hard sell because: 1) The Sharks actually played against NZ teams 2) in NZ, won one (vs Highlanders) and came very, very close to winning against the Chiefs (#1 in NZ conference, score was 22-24) 3) Tore the Hurricanes a new one when they played in RSA So when you tell me that the Sharks are keeping out much better NZ teams, i have no idea what you are talking about. I don't think it's fair to put all RSAn teams in the same bag. I can understand that argument against a team like the Stormers (sorry!), but absolutely not for a team like the Sharks. I'd say the Lions didn't have it easy either and have earned the #1 spot on their own merit. Then maybe the ones who feel that way should grow a thicker skin. This was no conspiracy and given the way the tournament goes, when one conference is too strong (NZ this year) the conference that has fewer games against them will benefit (RSA 1). Next season tables might turn, it happens. Considering the schedule, the time zones, travelling times, # of teams, june's internationals, Tri Nations and other tournaments, you have to make some sort of sacrifice somewhere. If, for example, you want to increase the number of games to make it more fair, expect players to pay for that when they have to play for their national teams. I "think" we are on the same page here. Agreed. I don't think many teams wanted the Jaguares before the tournament started. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
Spectators lose interest in Super Rugby
Top