The talking points: Super Rugby Round 13

Love the post Carlos. Maybe poor Leo watched Silence of the Lambs prior to the match and is now confined to that muzzle from the movie. I hope poor Leo doesn't mistake penguin meat for shark meat while he does his penance in Patagonia. :)

Hi Brett, nice article and some good points. I remember saying in an article here on the Roar that Australia should have a rule that anyone who qualifies and is playing in the SR competition, no matter which team or country, should be considered as eligible for the WB. Just because it doesn't suit NZ is of no consequence. The NZRU has far more control over players and clubs than in Australia and perhaps more importantly the brand AB is sufficient to keep many young players in the NZ sides. Even so, there is a drain of NZ players leaving each year. Its just they can afford to lose 3-4 quality players a year whereas poor old Aussie is stuffed if it continues much longer. I think its a mite unfair for other people to say that M.Cheika has no clue to bringing in new talent, especially remembering the Australian talent pool is relatively small. In 2013 and 2014 at the Tahs, he brought in Michael Ala’alatoa, Will Skelton, David Howitz, Jed Holloway, Sam Talakai and Tolo Latu for starters. He even brought in players from the Sydney suburban comp (subbies or the old 2nd grade) such as Loma Kaveinga and Joel Brooks and 1 or 2 blokes from the NRL to trial. After 1 or 2 years training with the Tahs, some just didn't make the grade and returned as better players to Shute Shield, others (sadly two were up and coming young props) left for other SR franchises; some stayed and are now SR starters. I'm sure this input of new talent and departures after a couple of years happens in every club. It must be so aggravating to see a fair young player, who never lived up to his promise while at the club, really thrive and improve elsewhere after you have spent so much time and money in his development. Maybe they were late bloomers, perhaps there was friction with other players or staff, maybe the new club is perfectly suited to that player, perhaps its for family or partner reasons or it could be a combination of all 4. Again that happens in life everywhere. You train staff, they are just plodders and leave only to be superstars at their new organisation. It would be quite funny if in the future, Alan Ala’alatoa gets a game for Australia and his brother Mike also debuts for the AB in the match. I would see that as more a middle finger to WR/IRB for their ridiculous qualification rules. WRT Mike Ala’alatoa, he was in the Tahs' squad for 2014 and 2015 and could only crack 1 match as a reserve in all that time. The Tahs' front row wasn't too shabby in that period if I remember. At age 24, he left the Tahs on the promise of more game time elsewhere. To crow that M.Ala'alatoa was unwanted at the Tahs, without any clue to what actually happened or his reasons for leaving, is just cheap talk. Perhaps M.Cheika should have simply fallen on his knees and contritely begged to be instructed in the "NZ way". Is that all we need to become all conquering heroes of the rugby world? Easy as; Bro! Oops, something is amiss as while typing this, the USA 7's team has just flogged the Universe's Greatest Evers (hereby referred to as UGE). Maybe M.Cheika should turn his boat and grovel to the Yanks instead, they seem to know how to pick them even better. :)

I don't know what the answer is ClarkeG, But from an Aussie point of view something is not and has not worked for a long time.

So super rugby is a perfect fit in NZ – if only the punters thought so.

Transfer fees should be mandatory and would go a long way to help local clubs

It's too easy and sensible, Carlos, and Harry Jones and his bros-in-arms will likely urge an appeal on another appeal in order to earn his pound in meat in order to feed his family and maintain the lifestyle that he has become accustomed too.

Not so, Die hard, as Michael Ala'alatoa is another discarded and unwanted Oz talent. To get ahead, he found his way into NZ's ITM Cup of his own volition and the rugby world is now his oyster and following NZ tutelage. Let's just hope that the Kiwis and the ABs allow him to return home. Cheika should take the initiative and select him in the WBs but he may not as he even didn't recognise MA's talent when MA was plying his trade from right under his own nose. It might just be that Cheika is not so adept in spotting and nurturing talent unless such talent is spotted and developed by someone else.

Thanks Brett... good read, and it's good to have a plan eh? Thought it was interesting that there was talk from Marinos about dropping an Aussie team... what about dropping a SA team?? :)

I like the idea of a Pacific team based in Hawaii although I don't have any issues of it being based in NZ or Oz with games played in Apia, Nuku'alofa and Suva,

Did the ABs coaches miss a visit and meeting with Julian Savea and the Canes coaches then?

Maybe, but its a catch 22, to much expansion, yet we only have 5 teams. So go back to 4 teams okay, but how do you then get market share. So NZ hasn't expanded super rugby teams, guess what it doesn't need to. It has market domination. eg: One of the biggest obstacle to the growth in NSW is lack of a 2nd team to help grow the code against guess what, the other 11/12 competing sporting code professional teams. Yes 3/4 teams gets you competitive but it won't give you growth, which unlike NZ is the one thing aus rugby needs Chicken & Egg

Agreed NZ viewers prefer home games why wouldn't they no different to 99% of competition structures world wide. But Super rugby pay the bills is a perfect fit for the size of there economy and is a perfect fit for the brand called All Blacks. So they tolerate it. Now look at rugby in AUS 2016, struggling on all fronts, we can go into all the reasons why,?? but ultimately because unlike NZ Super rugby is not a perfect fit.

If you and I, non lawyers, can agree to this straightforward description of the process, why can't it be implemented? It reminds me of a line in the movie Shakespeare in Love, it may have come from Shakespeare directly but I don't know. In it one of the characters says: "First, lets kill all the lawyers!"

@Hog: Over expansion too quickly. NZ has not added any super rugby teams since 1996 - the five teams have just become stronger. Australia spread themselves too thinly, too rapidly, going from supporting one strong team out of three to five struggling teams. Same could be said for South Africa and the kings. Even introducing a fifth team stretched the Africans.

PeterK, I like your system and it makes more sense than the current one, Teams still alternate who they play each year in each conference, but it avoids missing out on playing the strongest conference, whoever that may be in a given year, and avoids the scenario where the best team in a weak conference can gain extra points from playing 2 teams twice in their own conference AND miss out on playing any teams in the strongest conference, Case in point is the Stormers and Bulls this year for an easy ride to the playoffs, I would like to see the playoffs be on merit of points, rather than topping your conference to gain a spot, Is that what you had in mind too? I think with future expansion you could also look at a sort of Bowl/Plate type scenario like the sevens to keep interest in the other teams for playoff games, If there were 24 teams in the comp in the future, I would love to see teams 9-16 and 17-24 battle it out in their own playoff series for some minor glory,

Super rugby talking points?

Peter – I have made my point and have no further comment on this matter. It would be pointless.

The old formats were not conference systems but round robin. They were fairer with less distortions and that rather than their simplicity IMO is why they were revered.

You too mate and fully understand. It would have to add value, no doubt about it. I like that idea for the record. Hey, if it's not talked about, it definitely won't happen!