Super 18 in 2010 seems to be SANZAR main focus

[Steve-o]

Oh ok, I get it. I like the current system though, since all the teams are more or less on an even playing field. I mean, imagine giving the Crusaders even more of an advantage. No thanks. A home semi is enough.

 

[sanzar]

Actually the week off is often thought of to be a semi curse... In the NRL almost every year they discuss whether or not the teams benefit from it, because quite often the team who has had the rest loses the final.

 

[Steve-o]

So you want teams to try not to come 1st?

 

[sanzar]

You're looking at it the wrong way. The fact that it's controversial as to whether it's an advantage doesn't encourage teams to throw games. Afterall, why give up the possibility of home finals or even missing the finals? It just wouldn't happen. My point is that in practice a week off isn't necessarily an advantage, so the Crusaders won't become "even more unbeatable".

 

[Prestwick]

Knockout stages are really weird. In the HEC, you can have a kind of home advantage of holding the Semi-final in your country but you can't have it at your home stadium which is a bit retarded in my opinion.

Then again, if you're a team like Leicester or the Ospreys, you can get enough fans to more or less make it home advantage anyway...

 

[Fushitsusha]

<div class='quotemain'>
Interesting timing here, but it seems from next year it will be a 6 team finals series:

http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/fi...1049064991.html
[/b]

Grumbles Growden isn't the best source....the fact that he NEVER names a source and has shown to be wrong in the past (The Giteau debacle for example) I take that with a pinch of salt...the article itself revamps together a bunch of stories and has a vague opening saying that they are thinking about it, without no actual evidence shown....
[/b][/quote]

A lot of his writing is built on speculation and gossip.

He's quite a hack really.

 

[Steve-o]

You're looking at it the wrong way. The fact that it's controversial as to whether it's an advantage doesn't encourage teams to throw games. Afterall, why give up the possibility of home finals or even missing the finals? It just wouldn't happen. My point is that in practice a week off isn't necessarily an advantage, so the Crusaders won't become "even more unbeatable".
[/b]

Yeah I was playing devils advocate and being sarcastic.
I don't really care what they end up doing. If it doesn't affect the quality of play, then there's no big fuss

 

[Wally]

Australian Rugby Union chief executive and SANZAR board member John O'Neill said yesterday that there was probably too little time for a revamped Super 14 including extra rounds, more local derbies and new teams to be put in place by next year. However, SANZAR had taken notice of the groundswell of support from coaches that the finals series should be expanded from four teams as of 2009.[/b]

It seems more than likely that we will have a revamped finals series from next year. Believe me when I say this is a good thing for the competition. Expanded Super rugby from 2010 at the earliest.

 

[deadlypea]

Judging the performances of some of the weaker teams in this years super14 you would think they would want to reduce the amount of teams taking part not expand it! It should really be a super series otherwise it's going to detoriate into a Heineken Cup style contest with 24 teams and only 6 that have a chance in hell of winning.

Maybe common sense will prevail come 2010 and the South African and Argy teams (to be created) can be included in a european based contest with tours of the NH and the SH to spice up excitement. Being in the euro time line I think it makes a lot more economic sense for the argies and saffa teams to do so, it's also where all the money is and could be a pretty slick product. The impetus for waking up at 06:30 in the morning to watch a game in Hamilton or wherever just isn't there so by and large a 1/3rd of all super14 matches just aren't worth much to GMT and similar timelined punters.

 

[BLR]

Judging the performances of some of the weaker teams in this years super14 you would think they would want to reduce the amount of teams taking part not expand it! It should really be a super series otherwise it's going to detoriate into a Heineken Cup style contest with 24 teams and only 6 that have a chance in hell of winning. [/b]

Like the Highlanders defeating the Crusaders?

 

[deadlypea]

Lets be honest now, that game really didn't matter to the saders, they have made 5 positional changes this week which proves that fact, they could have lost their last 2 games and still had a home semi and they nearly did! I think they were just going through the motions, it's no co-incidence that the weakest Aus team nearly beat them and the weakest Kiwi team did.

 

[BLR]

Lets be honest now, that game really didn't matter to the saders, they have made 5 positional changes this week which proves that fact, they could have lost their last 2 games and still had a home semi and they nearly did! I think they were just going through the motions, it's no co-incidence that the weakest Aus team nearly beat them and the weakest Kiwi team did.
[/b]

Yeah....no...my family is from Otago and from as long as I can remember, back before Deans took over Otago and Canterbury were pretty even matched and the rivalry was immense, like Queensland v NSW almost....the rivalry is still there despite the fluctuations in the forms of the teams....which can also be seen in QLD v NSW...so your wrong, simple as that.

 

[gho]

It would be ridiculous to add sides from all different places of the world. I read an article somewhere saying that part of the reason NH rugby is so attractive is that the players dont have to spend so long away from home, and dont have to spend hours on a plane.

To really fix Rugby in the Southern Hemisphere we need:

Competition 1 (14 sides) - trans-tasman competition with 6 teams from New Zealand and 7 initially from Australia (add Melbourne, Adelaide and either West Sydney/Gold Coast/Newcastle), 1 from the Pacific Islands that would possibly expand in the future to include a team in South East Asia (Singapore for example) if the game expand sufficiently there.

Competition 2 (12 sides) - trans-atlantic competition with the 8 currie cup sides, 1 side from Namibia and 3 from Argentina. Possibly expanding in Argentina if it takes off.

 

[ChiefsFan]

It would be ridiculous to add sides from all different places of the world. I read an article somewhere saying that part of the reason NH rugby is so attractive is that the players dont have to spend so long away from home, and dont have to spend hours on a plane.

To really fix Rugby in the Southern Hemisphere we need:

Competition 1 (14 sides) - trans-tasman competition with 6 teams from New Zealand and 7 initially from Australia (add Melbourne, Adelaide and either West Sydney/Gold Coast/Newcastle), 1 from the Pacific Islands that would possibly expand in the future to include a team in South East Asia (Singapore for example) if the game expand sufficiently there.

Competition 2 (12 sides) - trans-atlantic competition with the 8 currie cup sides, 1 side from Namibia and 3 from Argentina. Possibly expanding in Argentina if it takes off. [/b]

Hahaha, sorry, It just looks like you want more teams from Oz than NZ, I just assumed it was a typo.

 

[bates]

I think it's a crappy idea, after one season you'll see that the top 10 will consist of SANZAS teams, the new countries will loose interest, the old countries will lose interest ( due to time difference), clubs will nagg due to the high transport cost of more flights, players will nagg due to the plethora of games.

Countries will nagg cause their first choice line up will be completely crashed owing to exhausted players and 1 year later we're back with a super 14.

Money makes the worl go round, but please have some common sense before acting and making this kind of plans.

 

[gho]

<div class='quotemain'> It would be ridiculous to add sides from all different places of the world. I read an article somewhere saying that part of the reason NH rugby is so attractive is that the players dont have to spend so long away from home, and dont have to spend hours on a plane.

To really fix Rugby in the Southern Hemisphere we need:

Competition 1 (14 sides) - trans-tasman competition with 6 teams from New Zealand and 7 initially from Australia (add Melbourne, Adelaide and either West Sydney/Gold Coast/Newcastle), 1 from the Pacific Islands that would possibly expand in the future to include a team in South East Asia (Singapore for example) if the game expand sufficiently there.

Competition 2 (12 sides) - trans-atlantic competition with the 8 currie cup sides, 1 side from Namibia and 3 from Argentina. Possibly expanding in Argentina if it takes off. [/b]

Hahaha, sorry, It just looks like you want more teams from Oz than NZ, I just assumed it was a typo.
[/b][/quote]
Only because they have 5-6 times more people there than NZ and plenty of room to expand. In NZ union has reached saturation, while in Australia we have a lot of work to do.

 

[BLR]

Only because they have 5-6 times more people there than NZ and plenty of room to expand. In NZ union has reached saturation, while in Australia we have a lot of work to do.[/b]

Rugby Union is the 5th sport in Australia with no real infrastructure, in NZ it is number 1 and they have a long history of rugby with very strong teams.

 

[gho]

<div class='quotemain'>
Only because they have 5-6 times more people there than NZ and plenty of room to expand. In NZ union has reached saturation, while in Australia we have a lot of work to do.[/b]

Rugby Union is the 5th sport in Australia with no real infrastructure, in NZ it is number 1 and they have a long history of rugby with very strong teams.
[/b][/quote]
But look at the success of the Western Force, the support of RU in Australia and Perth increased dramatically overnight and are still greatly expanding. With the way Rugby League is going, RU should be able to benefit massively from there discontent fans. Imagine if a new RU team in Newcastle managed to sign one of the Knights big players, there would be an groundswell of support for the team. Many people in this country (myself included) prefer watching union compared to league (esp. with the new laws), but follow the NRL more closely than the Super 14 because of its Australian focus and national rivalries. I mean how many Australians could point on a map where these South Africans teams play?

 

[ChiefsFan]

But why would would you give a stronger country less teams? If they were to add another few teams to the World Cup they're not going to say "right, which country has the largest population?", they are going to look at strength of the team.

 

[gho]

But why would would you give a stronger country less teams? If they were to add another few teams to the World Cup they're not going to say "right, which country has the largest population?", they are going to look at strength of the team.
[/b]

How many teams can NZ support so that the competition can still have the economic might to keep players from moving to the increasingly lucrative Northern Hemisphere leagues? Im no expert on NZ economics, so i guessed 6, 5 in the existing locations with another one more in Auckland. Some of these teams will be surviving on cities of 150,000 rugby mad people.

When i said we add 3 more teams to Australia, i suggested to add them to cities with 1million+ people in new areas (Melbourne pop. 3.8million, Adelaide pop. 1.2mill) and cities of 600k+ in Rugby areas (GC, Newcastle and second Sydney) if RU gurus cant find a potential economic market to keep these teams alive with this population they wouldnt be doing there job properly.

If we do as you say and give more teams to the stronger areas of the game, you will possibly create a situation like the NRL has now, 9 teams in Sydney (10 in NSW) and 6 in other states. The NRL has been struggling to keep players from moving to the ESL, despite the ESL having a much smaller fan base compared to the NRL and now is struggling to keep players from crossing codes.