Structural unfairness destroying Super Rugby

The Rebels team that have already beaten 3 NZ sides this season? Yeah right...

I like that logic kiwidave

You didn't write "in the finals" dopplerman, you wrote "anywhere near finals territory". Your words, and they were wrong. Now you are getting all teary because someone points out the obvious. "Needless to say you don’t see many aust supporters complaining about the current format" We don't complain about any format, just get on with the rugby. The current format does help our TV ratings, but that's not to do with winning or losing. "most defend it with the same ignorance and divergence of facts that you display" So far the only person who has displayed "ignorance" and "divergence of facts" is you. You don't appear to grasp the most basic facts about the comp, and your latest post consists of abuse and no facts or reasoning to speak of. Time to get over the fact that your team didn't win last year.

Hog, I can see how my comments could be seen to rubbish the NRC, but that isn't what I meant. I think it is vital that the ARU persist with the NRC, even if we are yet to see its final form. I agree wholeheartedly with your final point: Each of the other codes have national domestic comps with teams that harness regional and capital city interest. That carries a lot of attraction for FTA TV - Australian are interested in seeing Brisbane beat up Perth or Sydney, even if its at Lacrosse. ARU doesn't have the funds to run the NRC on any more than a shoe-string basis at present, so they should just persist with that, but eventually we want to see it or its successor running the length of the season and on FTA TV. Until some source of funding turns up, ARU should just continue to run the comp on whatever basis they can, build up experience and see how the teams pan out, i.e. where the dedicated tribal support is.

Mike getting in the top four is not a final it just makes you a loser if you don't win its nothing to celebrate (unless of course your a wallaby fan) ..........prior to the current format you have to to go back to 2004 to find an aust side that actually won ......Its little wonder and Needless to say you don't see many aust supporters complaining about the current format for the same reasons ............................most defend it with the same ignorance and divergence of facts that you display ... At the moment its a poor option to a travel problem no more ..the Africans are the real losers here as they travel the furthest and consequently rather poorly ...

Stats do lie or at the very least can be used to prove any point you like. For example according to your stats one would expect that NZ with 5 teams have more opportunity to win the comp and that could explain the wins. It's not fair as Australia had less opportunity to win. After all we have the same number of RWC wins. Or you could make even more ridiculous statements like the Huricanes and Highlanders have never won, they don't deserve be there. Take it further, only the Bulls have won from South Africa so the rest of the Saffa teams should be punted too. We are left with Crusaders, Blues, Chiefs, Bulls, Brumbies, Tahs and Reds. No other team has won so they don't deserve to be in the comp but Saders should have at least 3 or 4 teams because they have 7 wins. Sounds like a good comp.

Well said Hume, it was a simple logical point that's all...it's not the fact that they're lowest, it's the playing them twice that provides the anomaly, where others don't...but love the swift change of subject below. The upshot is the ABs benefit hugely by getting on average a higher standard of opposition across the board. So there are payoffs for having a tougher conference. It shows in the relative national sides.

The Reds themselves had to overcome the Queensland flooding. I doubt the Reds or any other side could have did what the Crusaders did to make the final, but the Reds got the job done in all the important games it faced that season. Sometimes with lucks, other times with pure grit, and they were worthy winners.

Tah's were the best side in 2014 and the Red's in 2011 by virtue of getting the job done when it counted. Would have been interesting to see a Crusader side that didn't have to go through what it did in 2011 with the earthquake. They traveled some ridiculous miles that season. The Red's did benefit by having a weaker conference, but I would say the Tah's not so much in 2014. In 2011 the Rebels, Brumbies and Force only notched 12 wins between them and 6 of those were playing each other. In the other 36 games they won just 6 of them which showed the weakness of the conference. Take the three worst sides from the other conferences and NZ side won 19 and SA sides 18. Thats 13 of 36 by NZ sides against oppsition and 12 from 36 by SA sides against opposition.

15 years in the old format and the results are clear. Of the 60 finalists in those 15 years, 29 of them where NZ teams, 17 South African sides and 14 Australian sides. New Zealand teams accounted for more than twice the number of finalist than Australian teams. Of the 15 finals, 10 of them were won by NZ teams, 3 by SA teams and 2 by Aus teams. The losing finalists, 6 of the NZ teams, 5 Aus teams and 4 SA teams. So the 30 grand finalists, 16 were from NZ and 7 from SA and Aus. Again over double the amount of NZ teams to Aus teams. On 4 occasions two NZ teams have squared off for top honors, 2 occasions SA teams have and 0 for Australia. Stats do not lie. Australia struggled. 48.3% of finalist came from NZ, 28.3% South Africa and a paltry 23.4% Australia.

Mike we agree to an extent, but I still maintain that until we have a domestic comp similar to the other codes, then rugby will just stagnate as it had done for 10 years. What I meant by broaden its appeal, is exactly what soccer have done a genuine domestic competition with a level of fta. Super rugby does not appeal to local broadcasters as it is less than 30% local. 5 teams simply does not generate enough local interest, and it simply restricts the ability to grow. As you point out AFL/soccer/nrl all generate growth through domestic penetration. Rugby supporter base is private school & expat kiwis and it is stuck on pay TV, but fta are not interested as it simply does not have enough broad local appeal to rate. They simply are not interested in NZ & SA teams, no matter the quality. I don't know the answer, except look at the other codes. They have domestic leagues all with FTA, we have a domestic league that is only 30% local and cannot generate FTA interest. Is the answer not there. I

well summarised the reds were better on the day even if it was a battle for attrition in many respects for the crusaders.....though that was some time ago somehow I doubt the crusader fans are too upset about that loss with seven other titles to celebrate

Hog, I would have thought we were in agreement over this. My proposition above is simple: Super Rugby cannot be seen by over 70% of Australian households, therefore its ability to influence the popularity of rugby in Australia is minimal. As to whether it is capable of being accepted by FTA, I don't know. I am not aware of it having been tried and not rating. I am aware that Channel 10 and possibly another put up their hands for the rights to Australian derbies and this was knocked back by the Pay TV interests. If it is ever to be shown on FTA in Australia, then the Pay TV and FTA interests will have to sort out their conflicting priorities and find a way to adjust them. But that doesn't change the basic truth of my proposition: If more than 70% of Australian households can never see a game of pro-rugby, then pro-rugby's influence on the popularity of rugby in Australia will remain minimal. "Aussie rugby has to broaden its base or appeal" That will never succeed. Soccer has had very broad base and appeal in Australia for decades, and all it did was mean talented youngsters played junior soccer and then moved to league and AFL comps in their teens. Soccer is going ahead now because it has a very well-organised national comp on weekly TV, not because of any increase in broad appeal which it already had in spades. Also look at AFL outside of Victoria: its success is driven by the creation of pro-teams in the relevant cities, not by any increase in lower level appeal, which was always present to some degree, and the increase of which grew off the pro-teams. "Super rugby appeals to the fan base that has always existed." Of course, because they are the only ones that ever see it. So they are the only ones it can appeal to. If you want rugby's popularity to grow in Australia, then Australians have to see national pro-comp games weekly on FTA. That may be difficult to achieve. It may even be impossible, but if so then it simply means that growing the popularity of rugby is also impossible.

Dopplerman justifies the comments about moaning sore losers, in spades: "in the old format aust sides struggled to get anywhere near finals territory" Right, even though there was an Australian side in the top 4 teams every year in the first ten years, bar one, and Australia had less teams competing. But why let the facts get in the way of a good fairy tale? "this discussion comes up when an average aust side gets to the top of its conference off the back of some dubious and often soft wins, gaining a whole lotta advantages (come play offs ) in the process …" Yep, classic statement of a sore loser. Let's see: last year the Waratahs finished 7 points clear of the next team before the finals series. That is by far the largest margin since 2008. The next three teams in order were Kiwi, South African and Australian. That is why they got "whole lotta advantages" (i.e. the same advantage that the team coming first always gets, no more and no less). The answer is simple: Get your team to win more matches, then you will have less to complain about.

"re Aussie draw, it seems easy because Reds has fallen flat in 14 and 15 – coinciding with the new coach. When they lift, it will be much more difficult to win points in the Oz conference" Very good point, RobC. This is not normal playing standard for Reds and they will bounce back. That's just the way it goes.

"they (Tahs) are the defending Champions and are stacked full of Wallabies" And you complain below about not getting civil responses? The point about defending Champions is just circular reasoning. And as for "stacked full of Wallabies", as has been pointed out many times, most of the Tahs players have greatly improved as test prospects or have been capped in the first place under Cheika. Its not because Australia puts all its Wallabies into the Tahs, or even most of them. And why is there said to be a link between test players and S15 success anyway? The Crusaders have many All Blacks in their squad and they are currently running 9th on the table. Highlanders have b*gger all ABs and are running 6th. "I personally would like to see us revert back to 4 teams we simply just don’t have the cattle to maintain 5 teams," Or, you could look at it positively, and appreciate how having 5 teams will help us to get the cattle in the long term. We are also taking the first baby steps to getting our own national comp, which is the thing that really matters. We will not get sufficient cattle for even 4 teams by relying on the state club system. That is the main reason that both NZ and SA have been generally superior to us over the last 10-15 years - their excellent 3rd tier comps provide the best grounding to produce pro-rugby players. "Someone above raised the Reds 2011 at first I wanted to knock them out but it got me thinking, yes we did have those games against “those” teams so maybe it was unfair." In a 15 team comp, someone will always be able to find a few examples as to why every winner each year had it easy in some way. The fact is that Reds won the 2011 comp because no other team could beat them when it counted. So those other teams can go cry. "The poorest New Zealand team beat our conference leaders." You can pick any single game you like to prove a point, and it has even less meaning when the comp is not over. Last year Chiefs managed to lose to Force, Brumbies went down to Rebels (who finished last in the comp) and there were probably a few other upsets as well.

I remember the London game, it was an absolute beauty. At the time I hoped it would convince the powers that be that the winners of Super Rugby could take on the winner of Heinekin Cup. I think there is a big missed opportunuty in not seeing games like the Tahs V Toulon to find the best of the worlds clubs/franchises.

But Mike, just putting Super rugby on fta in Australia will not work , they have tried that, and it didn't rate . The structural issues with Super rugby are the problem. Aussie rugby has to broaden its base or appeal, Super rugby appeals to the fan base that has always existed. But a comp that is only 30% local, does not appeal to local broadcasters, yes Super rugby is great to watch, but it will never grow the game here.

I have, Hume and I did before I wrote my post.

"Well you are amongst a minority that admit that." I can't think of many Australians who do, and virtually none on the Roar, so I don't know where you get that idea. We know perfectly well that ABs were a better side than Wallabies in 2011. ABs were justly in the final and we weren't. There are plenty who point out that ABs only just managed to beat France in the final, but that is a different matter. That sort of comment is natural when a team only wins by 1 point. Similar comments have been made about Tahs in 2014 - and that's also fair. Tahs were the best team over the course of the competition by a considerable margin and deserved to be in the final. But they still had to beat a team that barely got into second place, and the margin was wafer thin. If they had lost, Crus fans would crowing and fair enough too, but they didn't. In the same way, ABs performance in the preceding games in 2011 was way ahead of France or anyone else. ABs deserved to be in the finals, but if they had gone down to France (which, with a wafer thin margin, could easily have happened) then that would have been too bad. But they didn't.