Super10 1993-1995; should it count?

[Dizzy]

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

Well the way I look at it, the Super 10 wasn't a greatly established tournament like super 12. Each year there were different teams added and removed and it wasn't just RSA/AUS/NZ there were pacific island teams in there as well. Where as the Super 12 was pretty much a solid foundation and the franchises still stand, it's like they said, "Here we'll do this and from now on these are the teams that will be included and this is our new fresh start" pretty much,... this is the beginning.... Since then, we haven't had teams being removed, just added.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Well the way I look at it, the Super 10 wasn't a greatly established tournament like super 12. Each year there were different teams added and removed and it wasn't just RSA/AUS/NZ there were pacific island teams in there as well. Where as the Super 12 was pretty much a solid foundation and the franchises still stand, it's like they said, "Here we'll do this and from now on these are the teams that will be included and this is our new fresh start" pretty much,... this is the beginning.... Since then, we haven't had teams being removed, just added.

Super 10 had the top sides from each country. The Super 12 NZ started to "cheat" by playing your top 60 players vs our unsuspecting unions who had no chance due to the fact they were not beefed up by other regions. Fair play one would say as the Reds and Tahs were basically that same concept and SA was just slow to implement it. And no the Super 12 had teams removed as WP played one year and missed a year as the same concept that was used as with the Super 10. Only difference is that the top 4 Currie Cup teams qualified. Only with the franchising system in 1998 did it become a tournament with the same teams. So if the Super 10 should not count everything prior to 98 should not count

 

[donmcdazzle]

Super 10 had the top sides from each country. The Super 12 NZ started to "cheat" by playing your top 60 players vs our unsuspecting unions who had no chance due to the fact they were not beefed up by other regions. Fair play one would say as the Reds and Tahs were basically that same concept and SA was just slow to implement it. And no the Super 12 had teams removed as WP played one year and missed a year as the same concept that was used as with the Super 10. Only difference is that the top 4 Currie Cup teams qualified. Only with the franchising system in 1998 did it become a tournament with the same teams. So if the Super 10 should not count everything prior to 98 should not count

Top 75 players. 5 teams of 15 players.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Well the way I look at it, the Super 10 wasn't a greatly established tournament like super 12. Each year there were different teams added and removed and it wasn't just RSA/AUS/NZ there were pacific island teams in there as well. Where as the Super 12 was pretty much a solid foundation and the franchises still stand, it's like they said, "Here we'll do this and from now on these are the teams that will be included and this is our new fresh start" pretty much,... this is the beginning.... Since then, we haven't had teams being removed, just added.

as CD says below didn't RSA rotate their four teams? was it top four teams in currie cup?

what i was getting at before is i can't see who is hurt id you did include them

Super 10 had the top sides from each country. The Super 12 NZ started to "cheat" by playing your top 60 players vs our unsuspecting unions who had no chance due to the fact they were not beefed up by other regions. Fair play one would say as the Reds and Tahs were basically that same concept and SA was just slow to implement it. And no the Super 12 had teams removed as WP played one year and missed a year as the same concept that was used as with the Super 10. Only difference is that the top 4 Currie Cup teams qualified. Only with the franchising system in 1998 did it become a tournament with the same teams. So if the Super 10 should not count everything prior to 98 should not count

you're joking right? you can't honestly be saying RSA didn't know how things we're going to be structured poor old RSA

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Let me reiterate IN CASE YOU DIDN'T GET IT THE FIRST TIME!!

Super 6 & 10 -- AMATEUR RUGBY i.e. chalk/apples

Super 12/14/15 -- PROFESSIONAL RUGBY i.e. cheese/oranges

Its like comparing the Pilkington League with the Aviva Premiership.

Super 10 lasted for 5 weeks at the end of the season. Finish top of your pool after only four games and you're in the final.

There is no comparison.

Here's the final log from 1993 so you can see

[TABLE="class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"]Pool A[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Auckland[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Natal[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Western Samoa[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Queensland[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Otago[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]


[TABLE="class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"]Pool B[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Transvaal[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]New South Wales[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Northern Transvaal[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]North Harbour[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Waikato[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

 

[Cave Dweller]

Top 75 players. 5 teams of 15 players.

Super 15 started in ??
Super 12 started in ??
4x15=60 last time I checked

as CD says below didn't RSA rotate their four teams? was it top four teams in currie cup?what i was getting at before is i can't see who is hurt id you did include themyou're joking right? you can't honestly be saying RSA didn't know how things we're going to be structured poor old RSA

No I am not. Do you know SARU? Politics first, money second rugby third. Thats them. It took them 2 years and a 60 point mauling of the Currie Cup champions by the Blues before they realized that Currie Cup unions with a few quality players while the others is watching it on tv is not going to work. I mean hell the Kings saga should give a clear picture how they think. Add to that the stupid negotiating due to the fact they eyes lit up to the brief case of cash standing next to them and signing away the Currie Cup. So they did no they are just concerned with other things rather than rugby sadly

Let me reiterate IN CASE YOU DIDN'T GET IT THE FIRST TIME!!Super 6 & 10 -- AMATEUR RUGBY i.e. chalk/applesSuper 12/14/15 -- PROFESSIONAL RUGBY i.e. cheese/orangesIts like comparing the Pilkington League with the Aviva Premiership. Super 10 lasted for 5 weeks at the end of the season. Finish top of your pool after only four games and you're in the final. There is no comparison.Here's the final log from 1993 so you can see[TABLE="class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"]Pool A[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Auckland[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Natal[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Western Samoa[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Queensland[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Otago[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"]Pool B[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Transvaal[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]New South Wales[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Northern Transvaal[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]North Harbour[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Waikato[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

That is your opinion but it is not a fact. Nor will posting a log make it one. By that argument all WC prior to 99 should not be accounted for. Number of games played or if there were a semi final or not will not be a factor as the concept basically stayed the same. That is the top teams from NZ, Australia and SA competed against each other where the two top teams played in the final. We used different structures with our Currie cup and formats does that mean every time it changes previous results should not be considered? Nor should getting payed to play and pay for fun be a reason for not being included as it is irrelevant.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Super 15 started in ??
Super 12 started in ??
4x15=60 last time I checked

No I am not. Do you know SARU? Politics first, money second rugby third. Thats them. It took them 2 years and a 60 point mauling of the Currie Cup champions by the Blues before they realized that Currie Cup unions with a few quality players while the others is watching it on tv is not going to work. I mean hell the Kings saga should give a clear picture how they think. Add to that the stupid negotiating due to the fact they eyes lit up to the brief case of cash standing next to them and signing away the Currie Cup. So they did no they are just concerned with other things rather than rugby sadlyThat is your opinion but it is not a fact. Nor will posting a log make it one. By that argument all WC prior to 99 should not be accounted for. Number of games played or if there were a semi final or not will not be a factor as the concept basically stayed the same. That is the top teams from NZ, Australia and SA competed against each other where the two top teams played in the final. We used different structures with our Currie cup and formats does that mean every time it changes previous results should not be considered? Nor should getting payed to play and pay for fun be a reason for not being included as it is irrelevant.

Super12 had 5 teams from NZ so 75 players but that does not detract from the valid points you make regarding pro vs amateur and format changes not making the slightest change to the fact that the basic premise of the tournament and even naming concept renamed the same throughout.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Super12 had 5 teams from NZ so 75 players but that does not detract from the valid points you make regarding pro vs amateur and format changes not making the slightest change to the fact that the basic premise of the tournament and even naming concept renamed the same throughout.

Aah sorry it was my head was still stuck at the 10. The Reds should have 3 wins and the Golden lions/Gauteng 1. They do not have to credit it to the Lions but the history books still say they won it. You can not wipe record and history books.

 

[nickdnz]

Aah sorry it was my head was still stuck at the 10. The Reds should have 3 wins and the Golden lions/Gauteng 1. They do not have to credit it to the Lions but the history books still say they won it. You can not wipe record and history books.

Mate, if it makes you feel better you can believe the S10 and S6 competition counts. To most people however the format of the competition, the lack of teams and areas represented (before the franchises even started up), the fact it was not held in especially high esteem at the time, that it was before Super Rugby became a professional competition etc, is what makes people generally disregard the competition as the same one today. If you really want to believe that it should be seen in the same light as todays competition, it's entirely up to you.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Mate, if it makes you feel better you can believe the S10 and S6 competition counts. To most people however the format of the competition, the lack of teams and areas represented (before the franchises even started up), the fact it was not held in especially high esteem at the time, that it was before Super Rugby became a professional competition etc, is what makes people generally disregard the competition as the same one today. If you really want to believe that it should be seen in the same light as todays competition, it's entirely up to you.

Tx for letting people have their own opinions. You don't get it that much on the internet.

I think there has been a pretty robust discussion and I for one would like the S10 to be reflected as the valuable tournament I see it as being and I suppose it depends on what each individual finds interesting and where they place value/which factors weigh more heavily for each individual.

I just hate it when people call each other 'mate' though. Is it just me?

 

[Cave Dweller]

Mate, if it makes you feel better you can believe the S10 and S6 competition counts. To most people however the format of the competition, the lack of teams and areas represented (before the franchises even started up), the fact it was not held in especially high esteem at the time, that it was before Super Rugby became a professional competition etc, is what makes people generally disregard the competition as the same one today. If you really want to believe that it should be seen in the same light as todays competition, it's entirely up to you.

Thank you. Is it official now? Can we have it in writing please.

Tx for letting people have their own opinions. You don't get it that much on the internet.

I think there has been a pretty robust discussion and I for one would like the S10 to be reflected as the valuable tournament I see it as being and I suppose it depends on what each individual finds interesting and where they place value/which factors weigh more heavily for each individual.

I just hate it when people call each other 'mate' though. Is it just me?

Yeah to us it can be seen the same way as they saw Skinstads coconut remark.

 

[nickdnz]

Thank you. Is it official now? Can we have it in writing please.


Yeah to us it can be seen the same way as they saw Skinstads coconut remark.

1. Yes, it's official. You are allowed to believe what you want. What ever appeases your ego. I'm sure your not above taking a hollow victory.

2. I'm not sure of the racial and cultural implications of calling someone 'mate' in South Africa, but calling a Pacific Islander's tackle a 'coconut tackle' does have negative implications. The way I used 'mate' however could be seen as condescending, in fact I'd go as far as to say that was it's purpose. The whole topic seems very petty.

 

[Sker]

And in other news, I still have the most aesthetically pleasing willy of all of you. Even if it's not the biggest, it's the prettiest. So there.

 

[Cave Dweller]

1. Yes, it's official. You are allowed to believe what you want. What ever appeases your ego. I'm sure your not above taking a hollow victory.

2. I'm not sure of the racial and cultural implications of calling someone 'mate' in South Africa, but calling a Pacific Islander's tackle a 'coconut tackle' does have negative implications. The way I used 'mate' however could be seen as condescending, but it only comes off that way because I intentionally betrayed a feeling of patronizing superiority towards you specifically. Hope that clears it up.

haha we did not imply that you mean it that way so you don have to make excuses for anything lol

As for the Super 10 we will agree to disagree. Your a kiwi and obviously supporting a team that has less ***les than the Lions might be unacceptable over there especially if its a Saffer team. Other factor is the Reds will be elevated in the history on that list just below the Crusaders and they have a flyhalf with NZ tatoo's playing for them which makes it so much more unacceptable. I wonder if Auckland won that first final if you would have the same point as view as now. I know I would.

And in other news, I still have the most aesthetically pleasing willy of all of you. Even if it's not the biggest, it's the prettiest. So there.

Big doesn't necessarily mean better... Sunflowers aren't better than violets

 

[nickdnz]

haha we did not imply that you mean it that way so you don have to make excuses for anything lol

As for the Super 10 we will agree to disagree. Your a kiwi and obviously supporting a team that has less ***les than the Lions might be unacceptable over there especially if its a Saffer team. Other factor is the Reds will be elevated in the history on that list just below the Crusaders and they have a flyhalf with NZ tatoo's playing for them which makes it so much more unacceptable. I wonder if Auckland won that first final if you would have the same point as view as now. I know I would.

Not really an issue at all. I sleep peacefully knowing no matter what way I look at it, no matter what exceptions are made, New Zealand teams have still had more success in Super Rugby than any others. In fact the only thing that would change by including those results, is it would make South African teams go from second worst results, to worst.

Don't know what issue it is that Quade Cooper is playing for the Reds. Your really pulling at straws to get a reaction out of that.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Not really an issue at all. I sleep peacefully knowing no matter what way I look at it, no matter what exceptions are made, New Zealand teams have still had more success in Super Rugby than any others. In fact the only thing that would change by including those results, is it would make South African teams go from second worst results, to worst.

Don't know what issue it is that Quade Cooper is playing for the Reds. Your really pulling at straws to get a reaction out of that.

Which ones? We have a couple of **** teams in it and I am a WP supporter. If you think we go "Go Bulls" when they playing a overseas team you got another thing coming.

I do not care who or what it elevates. I just think it has to be fair and what counts for one must count for all. At the moment its not being done.Like the Super 12 evolved in the Super 15 so did the Super 10 evolved into the Super 12. It is simple.

Did I say Cooper? No I did not but you obviously bringing his name up so you know why is he getting some stick over there in NZ. Otherwise ask Graham Henry.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

A petty thread? Really? I just thought it was something worth considering; a kind of lost history.

Whether or not it would elevate two teams which I almost hate is beside the point.

I have no problem with 'mate' as a racial slur as in context it clearly isn't and would be spelt differently anyway even if phonetically similar. I do however think it is always used ironically and it just doesn't sound very pleasing.

It also sounds very cool to be condescending in every second post but I just can't understand why NZ posters typically insist that everyone see things their way. SA posters tend the same way but then get called on it but then it seems it's beyond others to consider that they might be guilty of the exact same 'crimes'.

 

[Cave Dweller]

^^ Especially if Mr. Rathbone say it with his newly found accent.

 

[smartcooky]

Do you know SARU? Politics first, money second rugby third.

I don't give a crap about SARU or its politics, and it has NOTHING to do with the issue here

Number of games played or if there were a semi final or not will not be a factor as the concept basically stayed the same. That is the top teams from NZ, Australia and SA competed against each other where the two top teams played in the final.

NO the concept was NOT the same, and it wasn't the top teams from Australia for a start. Australia didn't even have a domestic competition above the Shute Shield (the Sydney Club Competition) and the Hospital Cup (the Brisbane Club competition) before 1996. Sure, NSW used to play Queensland once or twice a year for little more than bragging rights, but A.C.T. (now the Brumbies) beat both NSW and Queensland in 1993, so I could reasonably argue that in fact A.C.T. was Australia's top team at that time, YET THEY WERE NOT INVOLVED IN SUPER 10 AT ALL!!!

Also, there were two test playing countries involved (Samoa 1993 & 1994, Tonga 1995), so it was teams from FIVE countries not three.

As far as the New Zealand teams were concerned, it wasn't the top NZ teams that participated either. The top two NZ teams were involved each year, but the other two were drawn by lottery.

- Canterbury finished 3rd in the NPC in 1994 but didn't participate until they won the lucky lottery in 1995.
- Waikato was 7th in the NPC in 1994, and 6th in 1995, yet they were participants in 1994
- Counties was 4th in the 1995 but were not involved.

The other thing to consider is that the whole competition was sponsored by SABC's Top Sport channel, and one of the conditions of that was if a South African team was involved in the final, then it was to be at the home ground of that South African team. In 1995, even though Queensland finished top qualifier, they still had to travel to Ellis Park to play Transvaal

To sum it up, the competitions were not the same. Super Rugby STARTED in 1996. What happened before that is not relevant.

 

[Gena_ZA]

I love rugby and do not care to argue about it until the Boks play the Poms, then it's war /evil grin