Super10 1993-1995; should it count?

[Sker]

I find the Welsh guys are more fun than the pom ones. You can really get into it with them.

 

[Cave Dweller]

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



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.

I know about Top Sport I have already mention that.

The Reds won the Super Six in 1992. Which gives them a place in the 1993 tournament as one of the top sides correct? Before the professional era the Waratahs and the Reds played annually in the State of the Union. ACT beat the Tahs in 94 to stake their clain in Super 12. They can not go back in time by getting beaten in 94 to qualify as the top geam in a 94 tournament. Again how can Canterbury qualify for a 94 tournament which they qualified for later in 94? Same with Chiefs.

To make it clear to you? 93 Teams and their respective positions will qualify for 94. In 94 for 95. Not 94 for 94 unless you have a Delorian that can go 88mph with a 100 Gikawatt Flux capacitor

 

[Sker]

I have a 100 gigawatt flux capacitor in my pants, all 2 inches of it baby.

 

[admartian]

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'.

Well that's just because we want you to be as smart as us, silly!

It's a charitable exercise more than anything.

 

[smartcooky]

I know about Top Sport I have already mention that.

The Reds won the Super Six in 1992. Which gives them a place in the 1993 tournament as one of the top sides correct?

Wrong! The Reds would have been in Super 10 even if they had lost all their matches 1992 because that was the arrangement that Top Sport had.

Before the professional era the Waratahs and the Reds played annually in the State of the Union. ACT beat the Tahs in 94 to stake their claim in Super 12. They can not go back in time by getting beaten in 94 to qualify as the top geam in a 94 tournament. Again how can Canterbury qualify for a 94 tournament which they qualified for later in 94? Same with Chiefs.

The SANZAR agreement did not take into account previous playing competition finishing positions at all in any way shape or form. Australia was invited to enter three teams. South Africa four teams, New Zealand five teams

The Australian selection of NSW, Queensland and ACT was made by virtue of the fact that rugby at that time was only played at any level above grass roots in two states, NSW and Queensland (the Australian Capital Territory is geographically part of NSW).

The NZRU decided NOT to have a qualifying system involving NPC teams. Instead, they decided to have regional based teams that would geographically included provincial teams at all levels in a catchment area for each region, so that no player playing professional rugby on New Zealand could be excluded from playing Super 12 by virtue of their team not being one of the top five in new Zealand.

What SARU did I don't recall, and I don't really care enough to bother finding out

To make it clear to you? 93 Teams and their respective positions will qualify for 94. In 94 for 95. Not 94 for 94 unless you have a Delorian that can go 88mph with a 100 Gikawatt Flux capacitor

As I said, it did not work that way, despite what you read in Wikipedia.

PS: I'll just add this.

You can believe whatever you like. I still think that the overriding factor in deciding against Super 6 and Super 10 being part of the deal was that there were international test teams playing against Provincial and State teams. Right there, the credibility of those two competitions falls over

I can't make you believe what you don't want to; but what I will say is that the point is somewhat moot because player and match records no longer exist for teams in the SPC, CANZ, Super 6 or Super 10. There is no record (as far as I can find) of who played for the teams involved and what the scores were in the matches, who scored the tries, who kicked the goals, who refereed the matches etc. You will struggle to find information about any of these matches other than the somewhat dubious reports you read on Wikipedia. Some time ago, I approached the NZRU, the Provincial Unions involved and the Rugby Museum of New Zealand for information regarding the Super 6 and Super 10 for a research project I was doing for "NZ Rugby World". None of them were able to supply me any information other than what you see in Wikipedia (some of which is just plain wrong). We have the logs and the results of the finals, and we can have a fair guess at which players might have been involved. TVNZ no longer have any video in their archives apart from a few random Video clips that were used in the 6pm news.

So, even if those responsible for record and stats keeping for Super 12/14/15 wanted to include Super 6/10 as part of the history, there is insufficient information. There are players who played all three competitions, so since there is not record of their feats in Super 6/10, their playing records will be incomplete. The whole thing would be a complete and utter dogs breakfast.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i dont want to get in a whole shouting and making things bold kind of argument SC but i have to say i dont agree with how you're viewing things,

the NPC format has changed loads of times and gone form amature to professional and we still consider it a continuous lilne of champions so i'm not sure the amature v professional thing really carries much water and the numbers and the format of super rugby have both changed so dont see how format or team selection plays a role in drawing a line between then and now

as i said before, i just cant see why you wouldn't want not include a little more history in the comp (without making **** up of course!)

 

[smartcooky]

i dont want to get in a whole shouting and making things bold kind of argument SC but i have to say i dont agree with how you're viewing things,

the NPC format has changed loads of times and gone form amature to professional and we still consider it a continuous (1)lilne of champions so i'm not sure the amature v professional thing really carries much water and the numbers and the format of super rugby have both changed so dont see how format or team selection plays a role in drawing a line between then and now

as i said before, i just cant see why you wouldn't want not include a little more history in the comp (2) (without making **** up of course!)

(1) Remind me again which years NPC had Samoa, Tonga, Fiji or any other FULL TEST PLAYING INTERNATIONAL teams competing in it.

(2) For NPC, the NZRU has a FULL record of each match played, right back to the first ever NPC match in 1976. For Super 6/10 there is NO reliable history. We don't know scores, tries scored, goals kicked, injuries sustained, who played for which teams, who were the officials etc etc. All we have is the finalists and the tables. You cannot add history if there isn't any history to to add.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i never said full international teams played in the NPC...so i'm not sure why you're asking me that:huh:....I just said the NPC spanned the two "ages of rugby" without question so i don't see why that would influence how super rugby is viewed

also...what difference does it make it it was amature back then as long as everyone was and at least "officially" they were

and i don't think anyone could honestly believe these games were played behind closed doors with no record of scores/players etc, just because its not on wikipedia or on the super rugby website (i haven't actually looked) doesn't mean its not out there

 

[nickdnz]

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'.

Still not sure how 'mate' relates to the Coconut slur. I genuinelly don't know a way in which it can possibly seen as offensive.

I'm sure everyone on the forum insists that people at least consider their point. With that being said, pretty reasonable suggestions were given to why the competition is looked at differently but each valid reason was dismissed. So my point was that if someone you wish to consider a competitions results a valid part of that competition, it's entirely up to you.
Because 'mate' is thrown around a lot in New Zealand and Australia, a whole lot of it depends on tone.



In this instance it was condescending and probably uncalled for. Sorry to CD. I hardly think I'm sarcastic in every second post, it's probably used out of frustration more than smugness.

Annnnyyyway.
As pretty much always, I agree with smartcookie.
Other than the fact that were were SOME teams froms Australia, New Zealand and South Africa that played in the competition, and the Super (insert number) ***le, the format of the competition seems far too different to claim that it's the same competition.
In New Zealand the initial competition had Waikato, Auckland, Otago and North Harbour. None of these teams are the Blues, Hurricanes, Chiefs, Crusaders or Highlanders. What's more is that the Hurricanes and Crusaders regions are not even represented at all. You have less than half the North Island and South Island being represented at all. For New Zealanders, the competition started with the beginning of New Zealand franchises in 1996. The draws were too random to whom would participate. The organizing bodies and sponsorship behind Super 12 did not take part in it's previous tornement. And as smartcookie has pointed out, little information is avalible on the competition and even less that is credible.
I personally think it's intesting trivia, developing a concept that began with the SPC, however is too disimular to include as the same tournement, and that was the way it was understood at the time. It's like remaking a movie without the same plot, genre and conventions and maintaining it's the same film because a couple of the character names and movie ***le is similar.

Or Another way of looking at it is Super Rugby is like saying Manhunter is a part of the Hannibal Lecter Series.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Of course mate wasn't used as a derogatory term. I referred to it in my post about it within it's context and just don't like the word (sound) or how people use it ironically and Cave dweller just brought it up because in an SA context it is a racial slur aimed at black women. It's absurd I know and just as absurd as the whole coconut incident seems to us who are ignorant of any other implied meanings other than the actual nut or ones head.

 

[TRF_heineken]

If there was a TRF nomination for most redundant thread on TRF, This would be right up there...

CALM THE FU** DOWN ALL OF YOU!!

let the stats be part of history, and leave everything else be... Rugby was Semi-Pro IMO until 1998, so why bother??

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

If there was a TRF nomination for most redundant thread on TRF, This would be right up there...

CALM THE FU** DOWN ALL OF YOU!!

let the stats be part of history, and leave everything else be... Rugby was Semi-Pro IMO until 1998, so why bother??

DON'T TELL ME TO CALM DOWN, YOU BLOODY AGENT

DON'T COME HERE WITH YOUR WHITE TENDENCIES. BLOODY COLONIALIST!

Say what you want about Malema but he had a few pearlers.

 

[TRF_heineken]

DON'T TELL ME TO CALM DOWN, YOU BLOODY AGENT

DON'T COME HERE WITH YOUR WHITE TENDENCIES. BLOODY COLONIALIST!

Say what you want about Malema but he had a few pearlers.

His latest one was also very amusing!

a month after he was expelled from the ANC he said: "I am the ANC - I will rule the ANC"...

 

[smartcooky]

i never said full international teams played in the NPC...so i'm not sure why you're asking me that:huh:....I just said the NPC spanned the two "ages of rugby" without question so i don't see why that would influence how super rugby is viewed

also...what difference does it make it it was amature back then as long as everyone was and at least "officially" they were

and i don't think anyone could honestly believe these games were played behind closed doors with no record of scores/players etc, just because its not on wikipedia or on the super rugby website (i haven't actually looked) doesn't mean its not out there

Jabby

Sure it wasn't played behind closed doors, but the records are long gone. As I posted earlier, I have tried to hunt down records of these earlier comps for a research project. Not just internet searches; I wrote to the NZRU, the the Provincial Unions involved and the NZ Rugby Museum. Even the NZ Rugby Almanac, the absolute definitive history of NZ rugby has no detail. It makes only a passing mention of any of these early competititons

You have to understand that at the time, the Super 6 and Super 10 weren't taken seriously by the rugby public. It was a curiosity, treated rather like bunch of pre-season matches. It was a limited format run on a shoestring budget. They weren't generally even on TV. It was simply a forerunner of Super Rugby. Super Six was itself preceded by the CANZ series in 1992 involving Canada, two teams from Argentina (Tucuman and Rosario) and a couple from NZ New Zealand), and that itself was preceded by the South Pacific Championship which ran from 1986 to 1991 and involved Auckland, Canterbury, Wellington Queensland, NSW and Fiji. All we know now about it is that Auckland won it four times, Canterbury once, and in one year (1987) it was shared between Auckland and Canterbury.

So, if youi are going to extend the history of Super Rugby back to include Super 10 and Super 6, you must take the next logical step and include CANZ and the SPC. Of course, the South Africans will tell you that they don't count because there were no South African teams involved!!!

.

 

[Sker]

Nothing counts if South Africa wasn't involved. We're just awesome that way.

 

[admartian]

Nothing counts if South Africa wasn't involved. We're just awesome that way.

So the car doesn't count?


Science wins again!



:lol:

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Jabby

Sure it wasn't played behind closed doors, but the records are long gone. As I posted earlier, I have tried to hunt down records of these earlier comps for a research project. Not just internet searches; I wrote to the NZRU, the the Provincial Unions involved and the NZ Rugby Museum. Even the NZ Rugby Almanac, the absolute definitive history of NZ rugby has no detail. It makes only a passing mention of any of these early competititons

You have to understand that at the time, the Super 6 and Super 10 weren't taken seriously by the rugby public. It was a curiosity, treated rather like bunch of pre-season matches. It was a limited format run on a shoestring budget. They weren't generally even on TV. It was simply a forerunner of Super Rugby. Super Six was itself preceded by the CANZ series in 1992 involving Canada, two teams from Argentina (Tucuman and Rosario) and a couple from NZ New Zealand), and that itself was preceded by the South Pacific Championship which ran from 1986 to 1991 and involved Auckland, Canterbury, Wellington Queensland, NSW and Fiji. All we know now about it is that Auckland won it four times, Canterbury once, and in one year (1987) it was shared between Auckland and Canterbury.

So, if youi are going to extend the history of Super Rugby back to include Super 10 and Super 6, you must take the next logical step and include CANZ and the SPC. Of course, the South Africans will tell you that they don't count because there were no South African teams involved!!!

.

agreed! glad we got that sorted

 

[smartcooky]

agreed! glad we got that sorted

I await the extensive records you have on these four competititons so that I can make a submission to SANZAR

 

[Cave Dweller]

(1) Remind me again which years NPC had Samoa, Tonga, Fiji or any other FULL TEST PLAYING INTERNATIONAL teams competing in it.

(2) For NPC, the NZRU has a FULL record of each match played, right back to the first ever NPC match in 1976. For Super 6/10 there is NO reliable history. We don't know scores, tries scored, goals kicked, injuries sustained, who played for which teams, who were the officials etc etc. All we have is the finalists and the tables. You cannot add history if there isn't any history to to add.

Remind me in the Currie Cup when we had Stormers, Cheetahs, Bulls, Sharks and Lions in it. Remind me in the NPC when your franchises played in it?

 

[Cave Dweller]

So the car doesn't count?


Science wins again!



:lol:

We had cars you mug. Ford Cortinas