It has been reported that there is open warfare between Australia and New Zealand rugby regarding the makeup of a Trans-Tasman Super Rugby competition.
Australia want multiple teams. The Kiwis want five New Zealand teams, one Pacifica team, and as few as two Australian teams.
Are the Kiwis right? Should Australia only be allowed to field two teams in a new look Super Rugby?
New Zealand are correct in some instances. Kiwi Super Rugby teams have dominated Australian teams in recent years. That is not in dispute.
Equally true, in the last ten years the Reds and Waratahs have won the Super Rugby Championship. And not too long ago it was the ACT Brumbies. When was the last time the Auckland Blues held the trophy aloft? If there is talk of Aussie teams getting the chop, why should Auckland be spared?
In the NRL, the QLD teams are struggling, and Southern teams are dominating. Does that mean QLD teams should be axed? Of course not.
I am siding with Rugby Australia on this one, but not completely.
Many pundits state Australia could field three strong teams. I would tend to agree. Reds, Waratahs, Brumbies may be a logical argument based on supporters, talent, historical titles and sustainability of club.
But what concessions do NZ make in all this? How does Melbourne get compensated if the Rebels are no more?
I believe an essential ingredient is being missed? NZ may be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Australia is a far larger market than NZ. With AFL, NRL, and A-League, Australia is a competitive sporting marketplace, but to cannibalise Australia of teams, is that really a sound strategy?
Give us poor Aussie bros a team to support and grow the revenue pie in the process.
NZR and RA next round of discussions should field an important innovation, dual NZ-AU teams, whereby powerhouse NZ teams are based in both NZ and Australia. Brand names and rivalries are paramount.
An eight-team Trans-Tasman Super Competition with some rebranding could be along the lines of this: Auckland Blues, Canterbury Crusaders, ACT Brumbies, North Sydney (current Waratahs), Randwick – Chiefs, Melbourne – Highlanders, Brisbane City (current Reds) and Queensland Country-Hurricanes.
At last there are more teams for Aussies to support. Sure they are predominantly Kiwi, but they are Kiwi teams with an Aussie base as well.
For the three dual-city clubs, home games would be split between New Zealand and Australia and awarded a higher quota of home games both as a reward for rebranding and ability to host home games to loyal fans back in New Zealand.
Has this been done before? Kind of. Brisbane Lions and Sydney Swans in the AFL. Both the Lions and Swans were monikers from heartland Melbourne.
This is a little different. So provided some local Aussie boys are amongst the Randwick Chiefs, or Queensland Country Hurricanes, fans will back them.
I realise some dual cities will be controversial. I’ve thrown in Randwick as you love them or you hate them.
What would be your ultimate eight Trans-Tasman teams?
Micko
Roar Rookie
And I would be the first to criticise them if they have been there for decades and insist on supporting Australia
Scotty P
Roar Rookie
I know many Aussies who have been in London for years. Not one of them supports England in sports. I think it’s silly to suggest that loyalties should change just because you call a new country home. Your formative years determine where your heart is, not where you are currently residing.
Jaeger
Roar Rookie
Some good questions you have there Franklin. 1. How long Cannes play in Qld Country?Look there is something being missed. If a NZ team travels to Oz, why not take advantage of that and turn into a home game for Nz team. In fact I missed a trick in the article. Ozzy teams could also be dual city. 2. Why would tahs fan support chiefs rebranded as Randwick. Key is including, local talent. Success will be another reason. Kiwi style of play also very attractive to watch.
Jaeger
Roar Rookie
Well they shouldn't be, they would lose market share to NZ dual city franchises.
Jaeger
Roar Rookie
Open to all and be specific. What works, what doesnt and why? 1. Blues, Crusaders and Brumbies remain unchanged. 2. Reds and Waratahs get rebadged. Opens the door then to SOO series. 3. Melbourne Highlanders, made up of a handful of current Rebels. Primarily based in NZ, with many games also in Melbourne. 4. Qld Country Hurricanes. Again comprising some of Rebels. Primarily based in NZ, with many games also in Melbourne 5. Randwick Chiefs. Deliberatetly included yo be polarising, but equally brand awareness. Primarily based in NZ, with many games also in Melbourne. Remaining Rebels and staff distributed amongst teams.
Jaeger
Roar Rookie
:laughing: good one Ron. Crusaders eould dominate.
Jaeger
Roar Rookie
In NRL, the Kangaroos don't need to play a whole season in the provincial State of Origin to be successful. Three games is more than enough. The rest is club footy. So if NRC happens, it would need to be supported with a SOO series. Concentrate best talent from clubs to provincial, then provincial to Wallabies.
Bye Bye NZ
Guest
Even Spain has a national league. What the EFF is Australian rugby's problem? Full of people blinded in NZ's headlights. We need to bid adieu to NZ, invite some of their players to play in our competition if good enough and only meet at test match level.
Ex force fan
Guest
Not according to a World Rugby”s website. :unhappy:
Ex force fan
Guest
How did going down to 4 help? Can you name even a single benefit from axing the WF that is independent of Dr Forrest? It was a dumb decision that is still divisive today - the cost of this decision is still playing out. It would be madness even to contemplate to repeat it!
Micko
Roar Rookie
If people have decided to move to the USA (or any country) of their own free will to live the rest of their lives, I would hope they would integrate and become one of the locals. this includes supporting local teams, plus the nation itself. But who wouldn't, you?
Micko
Roar Rookie
Paulo that is absolutely hilarious! :stoked: I'm a mad West Aussie Liverpool supporter who actually has never been to Liverpool! :silly: So what makes Liverpool exciting for people like me and others (with no direct connection) with fans all around the world? I don't even care at all about the Western Force for one, and super rugby at all to be honest. So what's the difference Paulo? Why is Liverpool capable of being a globally popular entity, yet the Crusaders will never have support from outside NZ? (apart from kiwis who leave NZ and indoctrinate their kids? :silly: )
Micko
Roar Rookie
It's not ideal, but understandable. But then to indoctrinate your kids to do the same (like Paulo has apparently done) is beyond the pale in my opinion. This exact issue is what caused soccer to stagnate in Australia over the decades!
Micko
Roar Rookie
Jacko. I'd be the first person to tell aussies who commit their lives to live in some foreign country to declare their allegiance to that country. So no, I don't consider myself a hypocrite at all.
Beni Iniesta
Guest
Good news!! I've spoken to the AFL, NRL and the FFA - and they're all on board with this idea. They all want to see Rugby Australia go full steam ahead with this proposal. They think you're onto a winner here!!
Micko
Roar Rookie
Yes, but that's the problem Paulo: "we should be entitled to that...". No you shouldn't. "...and not be punished any further". The same kiwi sense of entitlement and victim complex we keep hearing. Australians don't desire to move to NZ so the mutual arrangement doesn't really matter to aussies. If it's so great in NZ for an aussie with instant access to the dole and other things then why so few there? If it's so bad for kiwis in aus since we shut you out of access to welfare and other things, then why the migration surge since then?
Jacko
Guest
But Piru they went up from 3...then up from 4...so isnt repeating the same thing madness?
Andrew Nichols
Guest
Laughable. Utterly laughable. Acceot the NZ offer, grow your game and then make the case once you start winning regularly.
Ron Lucock
Guest
Why not each country have it's own five-team super competition and then at the end of round one (after five weeks) rank the teams and play the opposite ranked team in the other country on a home-and-away basis. This would allow all to gauge respective strengths mid-term. At the completion of the second round of five games, then have a play-off of the top four teams from each country, culminating in a final - where the trophy would then be handed to the Crusaders! This would take place over 15 weeks - an ideal time period. To make it more even, the Crusaders would be limited to a maximum of two points a game, until the finals.
piru
Roar Rookie
So down from 5 to 4 in 17, down from 4 to 3 in 2020? What next? Down to 2? 1? You can't shrink your way to success, EFF is correct in saying it's lazy thinking, and at best only helps in the short term Madness is repeating the same action and expecting a different result.