Roar Rookie
Joined May 2021
11.1k
Views
4
Published
90
Comments
Published
Comments
Franklin Roosevelt once said “virtues are lost in self interest as rivers are lost to the sea”. For the last two decades Australian rugby’s…
Rugby is back in the headlines, but very little of the coverage has said anything about actual rugby. Strap yourself in as we speculate…
As we're all aware rugby in Australia has faced its fair share of challenges over the last decade, but we have an opportunity to…
Australian rugby made some real strides during the COVID period. The Reds and Brumbies have been strong, the Force and Wallabies improved, and the…
hey Geoff, your right correlation isn’t causation and there are many other factors that contribute to success, but at the end of the day we were stronger when we had less teams. We have relatively less resources than we did in say the 2000’s and we only had 3 then 4 teams in the 2000’s. Its because our resources have depleted that i believe we should withhold from exspansion and return to 4 teams
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
Thanks EFF, you’ve certainly opened my eyes to a few new ideas. disagreement and discussion is what we are here for 🙂
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
I think if the probability it will be worth it is higher than not then I would pull the trigger. As a random pundit I reckon the probability is higher
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
I hear what your saying, maybe my point is a bit simplistic but couldn’t the remaining 4 clubs continue the same developmental pathways. eg the force could have a scout in Melbourne who signs promising juniors to Perth?
I suppose you might be less likely to have promising juniors in Melbourne without a super team though
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
but Ferret, the more professional rugby positions we create the less money we available have per player, and the more players we will lose to league or overseas rugby. If retaining talent is the goal surely consolidation will help with this
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
I think the rebels have certainly been better but excluding superAU their strongest ever finish is 9th (2018), I really just don’t think the expansion has been successful in Melbourne
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
Hey zero_Cool only highlighting this here because a few people have said it now, reds win was with 4 teams not 5, tahs was with 5 teams though 🙂
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
I suppose we don’t have any assurance, I think it would mean we get considerably stronger but it could be the case that we improve slightly and then it doesn’t justify the sacrifice.
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
Hey Ken, that is a left field idea but its interesting, I’m kind of intrigued to see how Aussie rep teams would fair against NZ!
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
hey ex force fan, this is a really fair point I hadn’t even thought about it before, let alone considered it in the article. I love what Twiggy is doing in WA and the idea of a member-owned franchise is super appealing. food for thought 🙂
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
hey Andy,
I think it’s more than saving face. In terms of super rugby, I think the competition will shrink in terms of fan engagement and revenue if it remains as competitive as it currently is. So stronger means performances of teams improve and the competition grows. I’m basically arguing that we are not engaging well with the victorian market anyway so cut the rebels and grow the game by making the comp better.
cheers for reading
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
Passion is what rugby is all about! i was abrupt with my response which was also uncalled for, sorry mate, and cheers 🙂
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
But Piru our teams are so bad, by the path we are on I’m referring to exspansion we can’t afford. which has been going on far longer than 1 year (rebels entered the comp in 2012). If we don’t improve we risk losing ground in established areas like NSW and QLD and if we lose ground there we won’t be able to expand to victoria.
If you think of the force when we had 4 teams the force had players like drew Mitchell, Giteau, Pocock, Sharpe and James O’Connor all playing for them, wouldn’t it be better for the force and Australian rugby to concentrate talent like this again?
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
Cheers bro 🙂
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
Actually we tried it and it did work, through the 90’s and 200’s and into 2011. We won multiple premierships, were consistently in the finals, had larger crowds, and the wallabies were stronger
We cannot continue down the path we are on, that in my view would be the effing stupid idea
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
Cheers for reading reds harry 🙂
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
Reds and Tahs have definitely paid the price for poor coaching (and many other) decisions!
I guess the fascination with beating the kiwi’s is because it looks like we will be competing with them next year and into the future. If we went alone and just had a super rugby AU comp in the future then i don’t think cutting the rebels is a good call. But since it seems as though future rugby will be a predominantly trans Tasman affair i don’t think you can look past making our teams competitive against NZ.
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
Works a treat for them! but to be fair EPL is a much bigger t=comp than super rugby i don’t know if the comparison holds when discussing the rebels
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
Yea Rob I kind of agree, particularly with the game not having a professional tier that kids/fans are connected to. My solution is kind of the opposite though i think improving the quality of the comp is the way to engage the fans. As for stopping juniors from going to other codes I also think more money and more success would help with that. I do recognize how disruptive it would be for victorian rugby though
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
Fair point, I couldn’t find their financials and actually emailed them to ask for some but they didn’t reply.
Cheers for reading Ankle-tapped Waterboy 🙂
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
hey Walter, I got told by a family friend who alleges to be in the know that most of the TV revenue comes from Wallabies tests (i have no real data to back this up!) if you increase super rugby viewership and sponsorship it may well be possible to recover that money.
I feel between the 16 nrl clubs and the 5 super rugby teams there are many opportunities for juniors in Australia. The rebels have had Stacy Li, George Worth and Frank lomani as regular backline staters this year all of whom are foreigners. If there were Australian players of quality the rebels would not have had to look overseas to fill their starting 15.
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
i share your pessimism for how RA would actually spend the money but in terms of “If financing is the issue address that issue” you cant address the issue without improving ticket sales, sponsorship, TV ratings. The rebels are a money pit who don’t improve ratings, ticket sales or the broader competition. take that money and spend it on grassroots, until we can afford to expand to another market
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
hey Jeznez, if I’m honest i think currently the primary role of RA is to survive.
I basically feel a trans Tasman comp can grow our base and viewership if it is of high enough quality, I see it as a trade-off between increased exposure to the Melbourne market and competition quality. given that having 5 teams reduces competition quality i feel it is worth considering re working the model.
i think your point about superAU v TT is fair and maybe it is the case that we pursue a domestic comp in the future but given alot of media articles are suggesting the 2022 super comp will involve teams from Australia, NZ, fiji and a the pacific I think the main question is how many teams do we field in this 2022 comp
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
Hey Rob9,
your right we did win in 2014 with 5 teams however we havn’t been too close since then. I really like the idea of the ‘champions league’ structure and i havnet thought about it a lot before. I do think we would require at least some of our teams pushing deep into the finals of that comp and winning premierships which i suspect wouldn’t happen if we kept 5 teams, by that’s just my opinion.
cheers for reading 🙂
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive
hey in brief. Rugby went pro in 96 so when we had 3 teams it was actually professional. I know we would lose players if we cut a team (as there are fewer professional contracts available) but we would only be losing fringe players. We would actually have more money per player contract so I don’t think we would end up loosing too much talent
Consolidate to survive: Five teams must become four if Super Rugby is to survive