Super10 1993-1995; should it count?

[TRF_stormer2010]

Am I the only one who finds it strange that SANZAR don't include the results of the S10 series as part of the franchise while they do lump S12/14&15 together? Is there a particular reason? I know many teams did not compete regularly but at the same time many others didn't join until much later, particularly the Rebels with 2012 only being their 2nd season.

BTW the finals results were:

1993 Transvaal (Lions) beat Auckland (Blues) in Jo'Burg
1994 Queensland (Reds) beat Natal (Sharks) in Durban
1995 Queensland (Reds) beat Transvaal (Lions) in Jo'Burg

Interestingly Western Samoa (2 seasons), Tonga(1 season) and Eastern Province (Southern Kings)(1 season) all formed part of the competition at some stage. The latter two never having won a match.

If it were counted it would mean that the Reds would lead the Brumbies in ***les 3 to 2 as Aus' most successful franchise (winning two finals away in SA) and the Lions would have the honor of claiming the first ***le

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

The above added would make it;

Super 10
1993 Lions
1994 Reds
1995 Reds

Super 12

1996 Blues
1997 Blues
1998 Crusaders
1999 Crusaders
2000 Crusaders
2001 Brumbies
2002 Crusaders
2003 Blues
2004 Brumbies
2005 Crusaders

​

Super 14

2006 Crusaders
2007 Bulls
2008 Crusaders
2009 Bulls
2010 Bulls​

Super Rugby

2011 Reds​

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

That is logical but IMO you just through away a whole lot of history that adds to the tournament.

 

[Amobokoboko]

It does make the Lions SA's second successful team ( after the Bulls).
They should add it. History is history.

 

[smartcooky]

Am I the only one who finds it strange that SANZAR don't include the results of the S10 series as part of the franchise while they do lump S12/14&15 together? Is there a particular reason? I know many teams did not compete regularly but at the same time many others didn't join until much later, particularly the Rebels with 2012 only being their 2nd season.

BTW the finals results were:

1993 Transvaal (Lions) beat Auckland (Blues) in Jo'Burg
1994 Queensland (Reds) beat Natal (Sharks) in Durban
1995 Queensland (Reds) beat Transvaal (Lions) in Jo'Burg

Interestingly Western Samoa (2 seasons), Tonga(1 season) and Eastern Province (Southern Kings)(1 season) all formed part of the competition at some stage. The latter two never having won a match.

If it were counted it would mean that the Reds would lead the Brumbies in ***les 3 to 2 as Aus' most successful franchise (winning two finals away in SA) and the Lions would have the honor of claiming the first ***le

No. You are comparing Apple and Oranges.

It was not a professional competition, and despite what you say, the teams weren't the same. The New Zealand Teams especially, were not Franchises, they were the NPC Provincial teams

- the Blues were split into two teams; Auckland and North Harbour
- in 1993 and 1994 there was no Canterbury team and no team from Western Province
- in 1995 there was no Waikato team and no team from Northern Transvaal
- there was no Brumbies team involved at all.

It was also a two pool split with each team only playing four matches in their own pool to get into the final, so no semis

If you are going to include Super 10, then why not go a step back and include the South Pacific Championship that ran from 1986 to 1991 and its successor the Super Six in 1992?

 

[Cave Dweller]

It does make the Lions SA's second successful team ( after the Bulls).
They should add it. History is history.

Transvaal was a province and not a beefed up franchise. SA started only to use the franchise system in 1999. There is no Lions, Stormers, Sharks or Bulls franchise in the Currie Cup

 

[nickdnz]

No. You are comparing Apple and Oranges.

It was not a professional competition, and despite what you say, the teams weren't the same. The New Zealand Teams especially, were not Franchises, they were the NPC Provincial teams

- the Blues were split into two teams; Auckland and North Harbour
- in 1993 and 1994 there was no Canterbury team and no team from Western Province
- in 1995 there was no Waikato team and no team from Northern Transvaal
- there was no Brumbies team involved at all.

It was also a two pool split with each team only playing four matches in their own pool to get into the final, so no semis

If you are going to include Super 10, then why not go a step back and include the South Pacific Championship that ran from 1986 to 1991 and its successor the Super Six in 1992?

Yep, nail on the head.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Just one question though

The New Zealand Teams especially, were not Franchises, they were the NPC Provincial teams

So according to that logic the following should happen.

Super 12
1996 Blues <--- Not be taken into account
1997 Blues <--- Not be taken into account
1998 Crusaders <--- Not be taken into account

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Just one question though
So according to that logic the following should happen.

Super 12
1996 Blues <--- Not be taken into account
1997 Blues <--- Not be taken into account
1998 Crusaders <--- Not be taken into account

They were still franchises then, they just had their home base in their team name.

Auckland ≠ Auckland Blues = Blues

 

[admartian]

Just one question though
So according to that logic the following should happen.

Super 12
1996 Blues <--- Not be taken into account
1997 Blues <--- Not be taken into account
1998 Crusaders <--- Not be taken into account

No - because they're NZ teams.

If you don't like it you can complain here: [email protected]

:lol:

 

[nickdnz]

Just one question though
So according to that logic the following should happen.

Super 12
1996 Blues <--- Not be taken into account
1997 Blues <--- Not be taken into account
1998 Crusaders <--- Not be taken into account

Keeping in mind the Auckland Blues still had Counties Manukau and Thames Valley combined to make the franchise. Crusaders also had Tasman.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Keeping in mind the Auckland Blues still had Counties Manukau and Thames Valley combined to make the franchise. Crusaders also had Tasman.

So it only applies to NZ teams? What about when SA teams were not using the franchise system?
Natal Shark
Northern Transvaal
Western Province
Free State
Transvaal and Gauteng Lions.
Same thing

Just one correction. SA teams started using the franchise system from 1998. So everything pre 1998 should be scrapped then.

 

[Dizzy]

The one and ONLY answer which should've been brought up already is that it's not apart of the SANZAR Era and it wasn't apart of the Professional Era.

 

[Cave Dweller]

No - because they're NZ teams.

If you don't like it you can complain here: [email protected]

:lol:

How about

He who gives the money makes the rules….

Kind of like America 1990 – 2010

After all the Aus leg of S15 is sponsored by Investec, head office corner Grayston and Rivonia Road, Sandton Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA whose founder and CEO is a Jewish dude from the East Rand…

Thanks for playing Australia…

It's time SARU did to SANZAR what India did to the ICC

 

[Cave Dweller]

The one and ONLY answer which should've been brought up already is that it's not apart of the SANZAR Era and it wasn't apart of the Professional Era.

But that is what Wikipedia says. Which makes it more questionable. 3 WC was pre professional eras and is taken into account. Only difference is playing for fun turned into playing for money.

 

[admartian]

How about

He who gives the money makes the rules….

Kind of like America 1990 – 2010

After all the Aus leg of S15 is sponsored by Investec, head office corner Grayston and Rivonia Road, Sandton Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA whose founder and CEO is a Jewish dude from the East Rand…

Thanks for playing Australia…

It's time SARU did to SANZAR what India did to the ICC

But then you most likely will end up having the problem Major League Baseball has where only 2-4 teams are real competitors, and the rest are carried on sheer hard luck and a bit of talent.

What you need is an NFL system (or something akin to this which is more appropriate to us) where the big market teams help carry the lesser paid teams. It's why they're the most well run organisation, why parity exists, and why it's so exciting (regardless of what you think of the sport itself).

Look at cricket now too, it's boring as hell and you don't have as frequent matches with different teams as India calls most of the shots. It's stupid and which is why the game will die unless it is more democratic.

If you want rugby to die and become a token sport (instead of it being one of the more promising developing international sports) then by all means have South Africa control everything...

As much as I think having the conference system lets in a 'weaker' Aussie teams into the finals at the behest of the more 'deserving Super Rugby teams; it is good in the LONG RUN for the game.

 

[Cave Dweller]

But then you end having the problem Baseball (MLB) has where only 2-4 teams are real competitors, and the rest are carried on sheer hard luck and a bit of talent.

What you need is an NFL system, where the big market teams help carry the lesser paid teams. It's why they're the most well run organisation, why parity exists, and why it's so exciting (regardless of what you think of the sport itself.

Look at cricket now too, it's boring as hell and you don't have as frequent matches with different teams as India calls most of the shots. It's stupid and which is why the game will die unless it is more democratic.

If you want rugby to die and become a token sport (instead of it being one of the more promising developing international sports) then by all means have South Africa control everything...

As much as I think having the conference system lets in a 'weaker' Aussie teams into the finals at the behest of the more 'deserving Super Rugby teams; it is good in the LONG RUN for the game.

MLB and Rugby is a huge difference. After all the cheating, substance abuse and bribery you end up with what they have now. Just because you signed a new contract does not mean the history should be disgarded

As much as I think having the conference system lets in a 'weaker' Aussie teams into the finals at the behest of the more 'deserving Super Rugby teams

I got to hand it to the convicts. They ****ed us over again at the negotiating table lol.

 

[Dizzy]

But that is what Wikipedia says. Which makes it more questionable. 3 WC was pre professional eras and is taken into account. Only difference is playing for fun turned into playing for money.

Well the IRB was already in swing and decided on a World Cup so that's why the '87, '91 and '95 World Cups are included. SANZAR was founded in '96 and that's when the Super 12 began.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

saying there were before sanzar doesn't really explain why they shouldn't be included...they were still comps made up of RSA/Aus/NZ teams and generally accepted as the fore runner of the current super comps
saying this team or that team wern't in it doesn't really explain why they shouldn't be included...several teams have been included since SANZAR was created
saying that it wasn't professional doesn't really explain why they shouldn't be included...everyone was on the same page at the time

It just sounds like we dont want to give non NZ teams ***les

 

[Cave Dweller]

Well the IRB was already in swing and decided on a World Cup so that's why the '87, '91 and '95 World Cups are included. SANZAR was founded in '96 and that's when the Super 12 began.

Has nothing to do with SANZAR. Just that News Limited was the new guys with the money and needed a body to keep things their way and official accounts to pump the money into so it looks legal. Only difference between Super 10 and Super 12 was that Top Sport sponsored the Super 10 and News Limited bought the Super 12. If you go look who are the three Broadcasters and which one of them has a pie in which franchises you will see that Supersport owns a stake in every franchise in SA except the Kings that is.....