All Blacks depth due to strong NPC

Yeah there isn't much supporting your claim. Those hard men couldn't beat second string European club sides, and when they step up to Super 14 level have won a total of 2 titles in 14 years. Three of the top Super 14 sides this year were kiwi and 3 of the bottom five were South African. As for your talk about the draft - there is no draft in the NPC. Trench rugby? the Ranfurly Shield was won by Southland 9-3 this year, and the 2008 NPC final was won 7-6 by Canterbury. One great thing about the NPC is that there are so many different style of games - they are not all the same high or low scoring affairs.

On the issue of the Draft system, not sure what you're meaning there (are you assuming the NPC has a draft, or is that just an off the cuff complaint about drafts in general). The fact is that the salary cap is actually quite a useful tool for increasing the competition of league. I'd argue that the NBA, NFL and NRL are all very successful leauge because of the salary cap. I'd go so far as to suggest that the NBA and NFL are easily the equal of the EPL, La Liga or Seria A. The NPC salary cap is also fairly unrestrictive as most teams don't come close to meeting it, so it's not exactly a hindrance to the competition in anyway. At the end of the day, the 14 team NPC is throwing up plenty of great young talent, the NZ Super 14 sides continue to fill the majority of the top spots and the AB's are number 1 in the world, so it can't all be bad. It'll be interesting to see what your opinion is of the Currie Cup in 3 years time (once the SARU realise that their players are playing too many matches and pull the Boks out of the CC leaving the 'flimsy' second tier of South African rugby to try and entertain the crowd with 'hardened' rugby play in the same 'trench rugby' style as the Boks use to 'entertain' rugby followers.

I just don't know Brad, somehow the performance of the 'hardened' Currie Cup men when they move to the Super14 suggests that it isn't quite the competition you think it is. The Cheetahs seem to do we in the Currie Cup only to be cannon fodder in the Super14. And how you could suggest that the Boks B side (minus Smith, Matfield, Du Preez etc) is a fearful hardened unit is beyond me as they continue to get pummelled (including two recent losses to NH club teams devoit of the international players). Sure, when the Springboks are back (for the Blue Bulls, Western Province and Sharks particularly) the quality of competition goes up. The same could be said of the NPC when Canterbury, Wellington and Waikato get their big names back too. But the fact is that the Currie Cup is going to see as much of the Boks and the NPC does of the AB's. PDV has recently stated as much. I think the top couple of NPC sides (Wellington and Canterbury) and the top couple of Currie Cup teams (Blue Bulls and Sharks, despite Free State winning the semi) would be fairly evenly matched. Free State and Province would probably be favourites over Southland and maybe Hawkes Bay (but both of these teams are a lot stronger than you think, given the huge number of Super contracts for next seasons - both with 11). But I guess everyone has rose tinted glasses to a certain degree, including myself

the NPC is weak. if you take the top 5 currie cup teams vs the top 5 NPC teams the currie cup would be 5 up. Agreed from 6 - 14 the NPC teams would then stretch it 9 - 5 but its the top of the table clashes that SA has that harden the men for finals and test rugby. The all Blacks can win the running game but will alwasy lose the finals because the NPC is weak and watered down. By all menas 14 teams are great fir the fan but the draft system and salary cap is one of the most dumb things in Sport. The most succesful sporting leagues going are the English Premier league, Spanish la Liga and the Serie A. These leagues are dominated by 2 -3 teams per league MAX. The salry cap thing is so ameteur and the All Blacks will never win a world cup because they will never encounter trench rugby untill they hit a test match. Actually if the All Blacks want to win the next World cup they would do well to get the guys from overseas back. These guys play week in and week out against quality opposition not your Flimsy salary capped rural team in a weak domestic comp that does not even have all blacks playing in it!

I agree revenue sharing for international games should by a NZRU top priority and they should spend some money on promoting the idea, the unfairness of the present system and drumming up support. A lot or our problems would be alleviated. If the revenue sharing issue is thwarted (short term) more tests could be a second option. Certainly the NPC would benefit in many ways from a truncated Super comp which could be further modified to enhance a 14NPC. We must remember that international comps will be severely affected by peak oil and the spike in oil prices which will probably happen in the next 5 years - because of commercial concerns it is hardly mentioned in the media but it is going to happen. The Super15 will expose NZ players to less international competition and has been approved only because; Tew allowed it to happen and cannot see past the quick fix options of O’Neill. Melbourne could end up being a pain in the arse for NZ; if that happens Tew should be kicked out. O’Neill can only give Aust long term benefits with a NPC; probably an inter-state club comp of some kind. I think a truncated and modified Super will still support player wages but the pull of the NH has been cooled somewhat by their own player and economic issues.

The thing is though, the income for Super Rugby is huge but then the expenses for Super Rugby are huge too. Infact, most of the Super franchises in NZ lose money (Crusaders last seasons, Highlanders every season) or post marginal profits. There are also MASSIVE travel costs for Super rugby and very little fan coverage for when teams are in South Africa (or vica versa for them). So, without Super rugby there'd be an influx of money into the NPC. The travel and accomation costs would be instantly slashed and the sponsorship would move towards more localised companies sponsoring the NZ provinces. If the AB's are the best team in the world then the level of competition in NZ should remain high if we stop playing Super rugby. Is it any coincedence that NZ super sides have been the most successful over the years? Doesn't that suggest that to an extent the NZ sides have brought up the strength and player quality of Australian and South African players over the years. Of course not in every case, but on average certainly. So if we concentrated on the NPC I think we'd maintain our own playing standards, especially with more youngsters being able to play numerous games alongside the AB's (because the AB's never play NPC now). It would probably see a drastic fall in the quality of Australian rugby though, which is why O'Neill wouldn't let us do it with all kinds of talk of globalisation and expansion of the Super concept to the Asian doorstep awaiting the rugby explosion. The question would then come back to whether the players who no longer have Super money to rely on are earning enough to keep them in NZ. There would certainly be a lowering on the average wage, as the money would be spread thinner. But now that the NPC playing stocks have reached a level period the overpaying of journeymen has stopped to an extent. No doubt some kind of truncated Super comp would be needed to introduce extra income to the coffers and to prop up NPC wages, but the biggest sticking point has always been about getting the most out of the AB's. When Italy bring in an estimated $7M from the sold out match at San Siro and a woeful England sell out Twickenham to prop up the RFU books, yet the AB's get NOTHING for holding up their end of the bargain then questions should be asked. Goodness knows what it would take to get revenue sharing going on, but if the AB's could get half the gate when they tour north (giving half the gate for whatever the NH sides draw down here) then we wouldn't need to see Tokyo Bledisloe matches or 14 test matches a year.

I agree, the popularity of the All Blacks and the strength of rugby in New Zealand are directly related. However I would go one furthur and say the popularity of the All Blacks is crucial to the growth of world rugby. Milan and Tokyo a prime examples of this.

The NPC is the key to a successfull and sustainable AB side. Its nice to have huge amounts of money for a SUPER Comp. Some of it can help the NPC but much of it mainly helps Murdoch's advertising revenue. I would rather a truncated SUPER and a 14 NPC. The SUPER Comp takes the guts out of everything; crowd enthusiasm and player fitness. Its a canker on our game. The NPC crowds would significantly increase with a truncated SUPER. You cant buy passion and the battle for 'the home' yards. NZ is lucky to have that in place. What we don't have in place are the officials who appreciate that. Profit and profit only is their mantra and the lack of intelligence to see the fallacy behind the short tenure, puffed up salary and quick fix O'Neill. NZ's top officials should resign. If Melbourne start swiping NZ players and weakening our domestic teams then kick them straight out. NZ officials will not get the support of the Australian owned NZ media for promoting NZ interests. They need to realise that and do it; ignore the media and do what is best for NZ.

One thing that has always intruiged me about the idea of Super rugby is that it differs significantly from a domestic only competition in that you can have all Aussie, or all South African or all NZ sides losing. When Aussie rugby expands into Melbourne there is no way that the other sides won't be weakened in some way. If the spread of talent goes so far as to cause a general weakening of all Aussie sides then you could end up with 4 of the 5 Aussie teams being bottom of the table (as a hypothetical example). But, if you have a domestic only competition then you have local teams losing, but you alway have (in this example) an Aussie teams in 1st and 2nd place. I guess this is where SANZAR have tried to have their cake and eat it too, so the top team from each conference will get automatic qualification for the finals. So a NZ teams could go unbeaten against all Aussie and Saffa teams (theoretically being within the top 5 teams in the competition) only for them to miss out. Realistically, when the NZRU says that Super rugby is needed for the AB's to remain competitive I think many misinterpret what they mean. Many believe that they are saying Super rugby is needed to bring up NZ playing levels up to decent standard, but the truth would be more about Super rugby bringing in more money than the NPC could hope to and therefore keeping players who could earn more in the NH in NZ. If there was no demand for SH talent from NH clubs then I imagine the SH wouldn't need the Super14 and we'd see a more vibrant Currie Cup, NPC and Australian Domestic competition. You only pay your players a percentage of what you earn from them. NZ's players are worth more globally than at home. Of course the French government's recent decision to put the clamps on the joke that is tax free image rights for players should hopefully slow their ridiculous self defeating gravy train. So should the limit on 50% foreign players. Now if the RFU would for once do something for the good of the game in general (not just themselves) and lobby Premier Rugby to do the same and reduce the number of foreigners the the SH game could maybe move back towards the traditions that make Rugby so popular and stop this current trend of Americanising/Franchising the sport.

It does look less and less likely that the NPC will be reduced to 10 teams from the current 14. This is really good, and important for the game for a number reasons. The main justification for cutting the number of teams is money - but the trend seems to be towards better and better financial management from the unions. Costs have been cut broadly and there isn't as much of a false economy around player wages anymore. I'm not sure the NPC is the only reason the All Blacks are so successful, but I was intrigued to see a poster on the timesonline.co.uk website the other day. It compared England's 75% winning record over the six years from 1998-2003 and the 29% record from 04-09. The press over there harp on about how magnificent this 98-03 English team was for achieving that, but the All Blacks winning record is 75% over 106 years! I think Australia could really do with a decent domestic competition because they certainly don't have the depth to drop poorly performing players and bring in new guys the way the All Blacks do. I don't know how much this Melbourne team will help, but as the Western Force hasn't transformed Australian rugby overnight I don't hold high hopes.

I'm quite intruiged by the consistent comments that suggest the NPC as a competition isn't good enough at producing Test quality players. Yet, there are some players who have been selected for the AB's this year off the back of NPC performances and they've done pretty darn well. Delany, Guildford and Smith have all played well at NPC level this year and none of them have any great amount of Super experience (Delany has been relegated to cameo roles and bench cover for most of his career). Yet some media outlets still suggest that concentrating the talent pool is a better prospect and that the talent unearthered by unions like Tasman, Counties, Manawatu and Northland would have happened anyway. Some (usually big city team supporters) suggest that player like Aaron Cruden, Kurt Baker, Andre Taylor, Rene Ranger and Jared Payne would have gained more from being in the Academy systems of the big unions like Canterbury, Wellington, Waikato, Otago and Auckland. But in those systems you just join a long cue of stockpiled talent waiting for the 3-4 guys ahead of you to leave or get injured. Surely game time is the best form of experience and that a larger playing pool means more investment is being made in talent. So while Australia stuggles to find any kind of depth of talent and South Africa's B teams get's beat up (no doubt thanks to such a heavy concentration of talent in the big 6 provinces) the All Blacks continue to find great young talent to replace the aging and foreign departing older guys. More than ever the NZRU must realise that alone the AB's will sustain the overseas marketability of Rugby's strongest brand. But back at home all NZ rugby fans need a competition that excites and relates in order to retain the special place that rugby has in NZ's historical fabric.

i look forward to the barbarians match on saturday, as a chance for the up and comers to shine. there is some real talent in there with Zac Guildford and Ben Smith. Tamati Ellison Liam Messam and Tanerau Latimer should all sparkle in a Barbarians game. Should be a treat.