which Australian Superside will/should get dropped?

[Brigantine]

Easy decision. Drop the Reds - they have the worst record (per ELO). Also they're closest to Japan and so the best team logistically to move to the Top League.

When NZ eventually drops to 4 teams, they'll cut the Blues, for exactly the same reasons. Easy.

 

[mania]

When NZ eventually drops to 4 teams, they'll cut the Blues, for exactly the same reasons. Easy.

Dropping blues isn't going to fix aus rugby. NZ isn't the problem here. Blues still loads better than all the aus sides. That's embarrassing

 

[Brigantine]

Dropping blues isn't going to fix aus rugby. NZ isn't the problem here. Blues still loads better than all the aus sides. That's embarrassing

No, dropping the Blues won't help Aussie rugby, for sure. It will be Japanese and Argentinian and Californian rugby they'll be talking about when that idea gets floated. Won't be happening for a long time either - but does look like they're preparing the ground for a format with multiple conferences of 4 in the (very) long term.

 

[mania]

they're preparing the ground for a format with multiple conferences of 4 in the (very) long term.

That's probably a long way away. What should be done about aus rugby now?

 

[Brigantine]

That's probably a long way away. What should be done about aus rugby now?

Well, they need their own low-cost domestic competition, really. A ladder down from the ivory tower. If they need to lose a few SR teams to make the NRC sustainable, well that's where they're at. Maybe it means giving Melbourne a pass and going for more semi-pro markets in satellite and regional cities.

But that's just my own crazy uninformed opinion.

 

[mania]

this will never happen

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...stralasian-competition-will-rugby-super-again

no way will NZ part from SA. more conceivable to kick aus out first

 

[Brigantine]

this will never happen

TBH it does have a lot going for it, a Pacific-only competition. At least in the long term.

Well, South Africa is splitting their franchises across two competitions, and maybe that will work out. If it does, NZRU should think about doing the same.
There could be a ~9 team elite competition with South Africa (4), New Zealand (~3) and South America (2), and then below that separate competitions for GMT+1 (Pro 14) and GMT+9 (12 team Pacific comp).

Whether a Pacific comp happens, and whether NZ vs SA Super Rugby dies, they don't have to be the same question any more.

In 20 years' time, Japan, Argentina, USA will each have their own whole conference at a (~Aus) SR level, and the differences between all the current proposals won't really matter much.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I find it almost laughable, at a time when Australian rugby union has never been so uncompetitive and never has had such poor prospects for the short, medium and long term, that there is consistent chatter about remodelling the competition into a Trans-Tasman one (I appreciate this particular article includes Asia, which does at least make sense). As if this is such an obvious solution to the ills of SANZAAR rugby and that Super Rugby had a brain fart in trying to secure new markets. The Oz negotiating hand is not a good one. The article is off target as it ignores that the ARU are stating they don't have money for five teams. So where does the money come for an Oz only comp? And how does including the Pacific islands reduce travel costs or bring in TV revenue when compared to South Africa?

A record of 26-0 this year for Kiwi sides is hardly a recipe for renewed public interest for such a competition (look at the crowds for Bledisloe as an example). Neither is the prospect of year after year of Kiwi only semi-finals. The only way the gap is reducing any time soon is if the wealth gap between SR and Europe/Japan continues to grow and All Black quality players head north, draining the NZ player pool. But that's not a kind of equality that any rugby fan in the SH should be hoping for.

And Brigantine, the plan probably was to expand more fully into Japan an other continents, but you can see with the media and public backlash that Super Rugby is in retreat from those plans. They lack the courage of their convictions and don't appear to have communicated the matter well with fans.

They should have been like the Pro12 and at least try to explain that this was the only option to try and retain international players. They should also say they were determined to have a side in each major SH market (e.g. Melbourne and Perth) for the long term health of the sport. Instead they seem to constantly be on the backfoot and reactive.

The irony is that the travel issues are lessened when you have multiple clubs in new territories. But Japan (player base), Argentina (coaching issues) and North America (chaotic unions) all have major hurdles at the moment before expansion can sensibly be considered.

I read the Sunwolves will be using Singapore again next year, so again SR, instead of assisting the new market to become competitive, are giving it obstacles that no other side has, helping to ensure they have a reduced chance of success and the resulting fan interest that would generate.

I have literally no idea what Super Rugby will look like in five years time. I don't think anyone does, least of all the folk running it and the respective unions. That's not a good thing.

 

[smartcooky]

Every way I look at this; performance, market, last-on-first-off, it comes up the Rebels.

Their record is less than impressive

2011 - 15th of 15
2012 - 13th of 15
2013 - 12th of 15
2014 - 15th of 15
2015 - 10th of 15
2016 - 12th of 18
2017 - 18th of 18

When NZ eventually drops to 4 teams, they'll cut the Blues, for exactly the same reasons. Easy.

Just remember that the Blues should have been in the Top 8 on merit. The only reason they weren't is that the protected status of the conference winners put the Brumbies in instead.

None. Negotiate a different outcome.

Ain't gonna happen. The SANZAAR partners have decided its going to be a 15 team competition in 2018 and that the ARU will have four teams. Its a done deal.

 

[mania]

TBH it does have a lot going for it, a Pacific-only competition. At least in the long term.

no it makes zero sense to partner with aus at this stage. why would NZ want to partner with aus when aus is the weakest conference?
bottom line is no matter how the marketers spin it, it comes down to quality rugby. at this stage the word quality doesn't apply to any of the ARU super sides.
playing the pacific sides is a waste of time if we arent playing the SA sides

 

[TRF_heineken]

this will never happen

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...stralasian-competition-will-rugby-super-again

no way will NZ part from SA. more conceivable to kick aus out first

This article has been picked up in South Africa, and social media is buzzing. This type of arrogance is infuriating. Who is this moron representing the Aussie Players???

Australia are the ones in trouble, and devaluing the tournament at the moment. They are the ones that doesn't have the player's pool to sustain more than 4 (actually 3) teams. Of all the conferences, their conference in the past 2 seasons delivered the least amount of points and wins of all of them.

I think they should be very careful in what they are saying, as remarks like this could lead to the death of rugby union in Australia.

 

[mania]

I think they should be very careful in what they are saying, as remarks like this could lead to the death of rugby union in Australia.

what u mean their current attempt at career suicide isnt the death knell already?

 

[TRF_heineken]

what u mean their current attempt at career suicide isnt the death knell already?

Haha, I don't see the point in making enemies of someone that is supposed to be an ally, and want to have a tournament with them.

Not at any stage has SARU, SARPA or any franchise or person from South Africa said that they don't want Australia in Super Rugby...

I just think that this a very poor attempt at trying to put their problems on someone else.

 

[smartcooky]

This article has been picked up in South Africa, and social media is buzzing. This type of arrogance is infuriating. Who is this moron representing the Aussie Players???

Australia are the ones in trouble, and devaluing the tournament at the moment. They are the ones that doesn't have the player's pool to sustain more than 4 (actually 3) teams. Of all the conferences, their conference in the past 2 seasons delivered the least amount of points and wins of all of them.

I think they should be very careful in what they are saying, as remarks like this could lead to the death of rugby union in Australia.

I want Super Rugby to be a top quality tournament, but outside of the NZ and SA Conference derbies, the international SR matches between the SA and NZ teams, and the occasional match involving the Jaguares, this year's edition has been what you Saffas would call "kak". The Aussie conference has been absolutely abysmal.. and it has been heading that way for the last few years. To those who say that the number of Aussie teams has not affected their quality, I say BS. The records and stats don't lie.

You can see that as they increase the number of teams, their average win percentage goes down, and their best and worst years get worse.

Now, compare that with South Africa as they increase their number of teams

As they increase the number of teams, their average win percentage goes up, their best years remain stable, their worst years improve.

So why did Australia's win% plummet while the Saffa's remains the same or improved? IMO, its because of market and sheer playing numbers.

On the basis of what I am seeing here, I think we'd be better off cutting the ARU loose, and going with n NZ/SA competition..

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I want Super Rugby to be a top quality tournament, but outside of the NZ and SA Conference derbies, the international SR matches between the SA and NZ teams, and the occasional match involving the Jaguares, this year's edition has been what you Saffas would call "kak". The Aussie conference has been absolutely abysmal.. and it has been heading that way for the last few years. To those who say that the number of Aussie teams has not affected their quality, I say BS. The records and stats don't lie.

You can see that as they increase the number of teams, their average win percentage goes down, and their best and worst years get worse.

Now, compare that with South Africa as they increase their number of teams

As they increase the number of teams, their average win percentage goes up, their best years remain stable, their worst years improve.

So why did Australia's win% plummet while the Saffa's remains the same or improved? IMO, its because of market and sheer playing numbers.

On the basis of what I am seeing here, I think we'd be better off cutting the ARU loose, and going with n NZ/SA competition..

I don't think anyone is denying the Oz side have got worse since 2015. My argument is that the number of teams is not the primary factor and that cutting teams is not going to be a magic wand and may actually reduce the available talent pool further in the medium to long term. Particularly if they shut down Perth that seems to have become quite productive with youth talent.

The fact that SA win percentage has increased as "talent is diluted" over more teams shows that increasing the number of sides may not necessarily be the issue.

But yeah, the ARU needs to decide on who is getting cut ASAP as delays and uncertainty are likely contributing to Oz players heading to the NH.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I don't think anyone is denying the Oz side have got worse since 2015. My argument is that the number of teams is not the primary factor and that cutting teams is not going to be a magic wand and may actually reduce the available talent pool further in the medium to long term. Particularly if they shut down Perth that seems to have become quite productive with youth talent.

The fact that SA win percentage has increased as "talent is diluted" over more teams shows that increasing the number of sides may not necessarily be the issue.

But yeah, the ARU needs to decide on who is getting cut ASAP as delays and uncertainty are likely contributing to Oz players heading to the NH.

EDIT: I'd also note that the controversial article with an Oz perspective doesn't appear to contain a direct quote from the Oz player union so could easily just be the media talking mince.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't think anyone is denying the Oz side have got worse since 2015. My argument is that the number of teams is not the primary factor and that cutting teams is not going to be a magic wand and may actually reduce the available talent pool further in the medium to long term. Particularly if they shut down Perth that seems to have become quite productive with youth talent.

I disagree. In the lead up to the 2003 RWC, Australia had something like 148,000 registered adult male rugby players, just a slightly larger number than NZ had at the same time, (about 137,000). That was when the ARU still had only 3 teams in Super Rugby. As of 2016, they only have 55,000; a 73% decline. In the mean time, they have increased their number of professional teams by 67%. The maths simply do not add up, you cannot sustain an increasing output from a declining resource for very long.

If you look at the South African situation, even though they have been losing top-end talent to Europe (just like NZ has) their player numbers have steadily increased over the last 15 years

Going back to four teams may not be a magic bullet, but it will be a good start.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I disagree. In the lead up to the 2003 RWC, Australia had something like 148,000 registered adult male rugby players, just a slightly larger number than NZ had at the same time, (about 137,000). That was when the ARU still had only 3 teams in Super Rugby. As of 2016, they only have 55,000; a 73% decline. In the mean time, they have increased their number of professional teams by 67%. The maths simply do not add up, you cannot sustain an increasing output from a declining resource for very long.

If you look at the South African situation, even though they have been losing top-end talent to Europe (just like NZ has) their player numbers have steadily increased over the last 15 years

Going back to four teams may not be a magic bullet, but it will be a good start.

It's about sustainability. NZ and SA have shown that even with growth, they can keep the numbers up with regard to players coming through the ranks. While you can see the downward spiral in Australia. Why else would there also be a bigger attempt into trying to convert Rugby League players to union. They are on the short end of the stick and they know it, but nobody wants to be the bigger man and concede...

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Good grief. That is some level of decline in players. I think it'll shrink a whole lot more given the state of enthusiasm for Union in Oz seems to really be tailing off in the past two years (from my unscientific eyeball test of crowd sizes at international fixtures).

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Sounds like they are still gunning for the Force.

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/aru-and-western-force-start-arbitration/