The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
You're accusing me of trolling, yet your national union has threatened to leave Super Rugby since the last 1990's, and used this childish threat to extract concessions from NZ and Australia every time new TV rights were negotiated.DraadkarD wrote:I know Ali is trolling and he just hates us, but Super Rugby is the by far the best "club" competition globally and it will really be sad if we leave.
I won't watch Trans Tasman Rugby, the New Zealand games are on too early.Ali's Choice wrote:Trans Tasman Rugby will still attract European viewers, and the test matches will still draw big global audiences. Moreover, you act as if NZ and Australia aren't wealthy countries and big sports markets in their own right. The NRL, a tiny, niche sport played in only two Australian states, just signed a new $2 billion AUD TV rights deal in the middle of a global pandemic. There is massive amounts of TV money floating around this part of the world if the product is right. And the product was never going to be right if it involved South African timezones.Catman wrote:Ali's dream of time zone friendly fixtures works both ways though. There will certainly be almost no interest in televising ANZAC rugby in Europe, and absolutely none in SA if there are no saffa teams participating. Revenue from dwindling TV and live audiences will decline, and more ANZAC players will logically opt for Europe. This will further erode the quality of ANZACSR (TM) and (in Australia at least), rugby will drift even further down the ratings relative to AFL and NRL.
Eventually the lack of depth and quality of the ANZACSR will force even NZ to make overseas players eligible for the AB's/.
I honestly think that in ten years, neither NZ nor Australia will be serious contenders for top 3 spots in world rugby. Neither will win another world cup for at least a generation.
Personally I am saddened by the split and the loss of the special rivalry with NZ especially. But times change and rugby needs to change with it. For better or worse.
Your point about timezones is an excellent one, and the number one reason why Super rugby must be dismantled without delay. A comp involving NZ, Australia and South Africa makes no sense for viewers.mdaclarke wrote:I won't watch Trans Tasman Rugby, the New Zealand games are on too early.
South African games are at start times between 2pm and 5pm on a Saturday. Much better for European Audiences.
Boks have won once in NZ in the last decade, so not much doubt of a home victory.handyman wrote:That's just the Kiwi crowd catching a game where they will definitely emerge as the winners.naki wrote:Wilson's Toffee wrote:NZ will fall over their feet to host Springbok games
Springbok tests in NZ are not as much of a draw, often being farmed out to smaller venues like Albany or the temporary Christchurch shithole "stadium". They sell out, as All Blacks tests always do in NZ, but not on the scale of Bledisloe tests which - despite being a non-contest for decades now - are usually held at Eden Park which is by far the country's biggest venue yet hasn't housed the Boks in nearly a decade.
I like watching the South African v New Zealand club games.Ali's Choice wrote:Your point about timezones is an excellent one, and the number one reason why Super rugby must be dismantled without delay. A comp involving NZ, Australia and South Africa makes no sense for viewers.mdaclarke wrote:I won't watch Trans Tasman Rugby, the New Zealand games are on too early.
South African games are at start times between 2pm and 5pm on a Saturday. Much better for European Audiences.
Because it worked. Because we knew you fokors knew you were dead in the water without us.Ali's Choice wrote:You're accusing me of trolling, yet your national union has threatened to leave Super Rugby since the last 1990's, and used this childish threat to extract concessions from NZ and Australia every time new TV rights were negotiated.DraadkarD wrote:I know Ali is trolling and he just hates us, but Super Rugby is the by far the best "club" competition globally and it will really be sad if we leave.
Well yes, exactly. That was the period where SA transitioned to consideration of overseas players for eligibility. Fortunately this bore fruit as we finally embraced it just in time to win RWC'19. This policy- now entrenched- will be far more successful going forward if ALL our premier players are competing in the same comp and time zones. Training and management will be that much more efficient. The elimination of debilitating trips around the globe every few weeks can only benefit the well being and performance of players and coaching staff. Bigger TV audiences, more money .... the list goes on.mr bungle wrote:NZ's demise has been predicted for many seasons now. I prefer to deal in facts. For 3 whole years from Sep 2016 to Sep 2019 the Springboks were ranked outside the top 3 test sides. Dipping as low as 8th and averaging 6th place.Catman wrote: I honestly think that in ten years, neither NZ nor Australia will be serious contenders for top 3 spots in world rugby. Neither will win another world cup for at least a generation.
I don't think South Africa will slip in the the rankings. Not so sure about New Zealand. I do worry about Australia thoughCatman wrote:Well yes, exactly. That was the period where SA transitioned to consideration of overseas players for eligibility. Fortunately this bore fruit as we finally embraced it just in time to win RWC'19. This policy- now entrenched- will be far more successful going forward if ALL our premier players are competing in the same comp and time zones. Training and management will be that much more efficient. The elimination of debilitating trips around the globe every few weeks can only benefit the well being and performance of players and coaching staff. Bigger TV audiences, more money .... the list goes on.mr bungle wrote:NZ's demise has been predicted for many seasons now. I prefer to deal in facts. For 3 whole years from Sep 2016 to Sep 2019 the Springboks were ranked outside the top 3 test sides. Dipping as low as 8th and averaging 6th place.Catman wrote: I honestly think that in ten years, neither NZ nor Australia will be serious contenders for top 3 spots in world rugby. Neither will win another world cup for at least a generation.
On the other hand, NZ teams will have to rely on their ANZAC brothers in OZ to produce enough quality of playing competition to sustain NZ teams' clear superiority in elite rugby over the past decade. Given Ali's very excellent points about NRL money, and the parlous state of ARU finances right now; this is simply a pipe dream. ARU killed WA rugby so will basically be going back to the boys school based NSW and QL club system to produce talent. Regular drubbings by all 5 NZ teams will quickly cause any revived interest in Australia to wane. NZ will be forced to send their own playing stock to shore up Australian teams. It will be like in old primary school days, where occasionally at half time, someone was asked to switch jerseys to even up the competition.
Of course the next logical step, after next years Lions tour, will be for the Boks to join the 6N. This will leave the ANZACs free to play 6 or 7 of their hallowed Bledisloe tests every year. What will happen when Austalia lose these 6-1 every year. How long do you think Aus crowds will keep paying to see that? The SA/NZ rivalry will continue (and I think grow even stronger ) with fewer encounters . A return to proper 4 test tours every 2 or 3 years will be fantastic. However , Australia will be left with playing Italy, Scotland, Japan and Fiji most of the time, with an occassional one -off November test against England, Boks or Ireland.
There is no question SA and NZ rugby, with their deep history, culture and tradition, will survive the coming changes. I cant say the same for Australia though. I think both Sa and NZ will gradually slip in the rankings over the next few years, perhaps 4 or 5 places, but of the two, for reasons noted above, SA will be far more likely to regain their top 3 status and win another RWC in my lifetime.
2027 would be about right...
Yeah but quotas/travel/NH poaching kids/racismmr bungle wrote:NZ's demise has been predicted for many seasons now. I prefer to deal in facts. For 3 whole years from Sep 2016 to Sep 2019 the Springboks were ranked outside the top 3 test sides. Dipping as low as 8th and averaging 6th place.Catman wrote: I honestly think that in ten years, neither NZ nor Australia will be serious contenders for top 3 spots in world rugby. Neither will win another world cup for at least a generation.
Why do you care so much?Ali's Choice wrote:The SARU forced SANZAAR to allow their referees to officiate their own teams, and it descended into an absolute farce. 'Hometown' South African referees routinely delivered 16-2 penalty counts in favour of their local teams. Will the NH nations also let South Africans referee their own teams?
Why do I care why the competition I have followed since its inception became a farce due to crooked referees and 16-1 penalty counts? Is that a serious question?Catman wrote:Why do you care so much?Ali's Choice wrote:The SARU forced SANZAAR to allow their referees to officiate their own teams, and it descended into an absolute farce. 'Hometown' South African referees routinely delivered 16-2 penalty counts in favour of their local teams. Will the NH nations also let South Africans referee their own teams?
TL:DR but you're overselling the RWC win again. You lost to NZ and beat some average teams and a reasonable side who'd shot their bolt the week before. Try and aim for true consistency of excellence. You guys haven't had it for over 50 years.Catman wrote:Well yes, exactly. That was the period where SA transitioned to consideration of overseas players for eligibility. Fortunately this bore fruit as we finally embraced it just in time to win RWC'19. This policy- now entrenched- will be far more successful going forward if ALL our premier players are competing in the same comp and time zones. Training and management will be that much more efficient. The elimination of debilitating trips around the globe every few weeks can only benefit the well being and performance of players and coaching staff. Bigger TV audiences, more money .... the list goes on.mr bungle wrote:NZ's demise has been predicted for many seasons now. I prefer to deal in facts. For 3 whole years from Sep 2016 to Sep 2019 the Springboks were ranked outside the top 3 test sides. Dipping as low as 8th and averaging 6th place.Catman wrote: I honestly think that in ten years, neither NZ nor Australia will be serious contenders for top 3 spots in world rugby. Neither will win another world cup for at least a generation.
On the other hand, NZ teams will have to rely on their ANZAC brothers in OZ to produce enough quality of playing competition to sustain NZ teams' clear superiority in elite rugby over the past decade. Given Ali's very excellent points about NRL money, and the parlous state of ARU finances right now; this is simply a pipe dream. ARU killed WA rugby so will basically be going back to the boys school based NSW and QL club system to produce talent. Regular drubbings by all 5 NZ teams will quickly cause any revived interest in Australia to wane. NZ will be forced to send their own playing stock to shore up Australian teams. It will be like in old primary school days, where occasionally at half time, someone was asked to switch jerseys to even up the competition.
Of course the next logical step, after next years Lions tour, will be for the Boks to join the 6N. This will leave the ANZACs free to play 6 or 7 of their hallowed Bledisloe tests every year. What will happen when Austalia lose these 6-1 every year. How long do you think Aus crowds will keep paying to see that? The SA/NZ rivalry will continue (and I think grow even stronger ) with fewer encounters . A return to proper 4 test tours every 2 or 3 years will be fantastic. However , Australia will be left with playing Italy, Scotland, Japan and Fiji most of the time, with an occassional one -off November test against England, Boks or Ireland.
There is no question SA and NZ rugby, with their deep history, culture and tradition, will survive the coming changes. I cant say the same for Australia though. I think both Sa and NZ will gradually slip in the rankings over the next few years, perhaps 4 or 5 places, but of the two, for reasons noted above, SA will be far more likely to regain their top 3 status and win another RWC in my lifetime.
2027 would be about right...
I agree. SA France England. As rugby becomes more methodical and brutal, it becomes more a numbers game. Also where the money is, in the case of France and England.Catman wrote: I honestly think that in ten years, neither NZ nor Australia will be serious contenders for top 3 spots in world rugby. Neither will win another world cup for at least a generation.
I thought all Saffer refs were all crooked and corrupt? Since the 1970s apparently....HD television and an increase in armchair rugby fan knowledge has only highlighted that in recent years.Ali's Choice wrote:Why do I care why the competition I have followed since its inception became a farce due to crooked referees and 16-1 penalty counts? Is that a serious question?Catman wrote:Why do you care so much?Ali's Choice wrote:The SARU forced SANZAAR to allow their referees to officiate their own teams, and it descended into an absolute farce. 'Hometown' South African referees routinely delivered 16-2 penalty counts in favour of their local teams. Will the NH nations also let South Africans referee their own teams?
handyman wrote:Can NZ and Aus survive without South Africa's tv money?
By playing only Aus, will NZ be battle-hardened to play big and menacing teams like SA, England, France and Ireland?
Have you got proof of this?Ali's Choice wrote:The SARU forced SANZAAR to allow their referees to officiate their own teams, and it descended into an absolute farce. 'Hometown' South African referees routinely delivered 16-2 penalty counts in favour of their local teams. Will the NH nations also let South Africans referee their own teams?
1980-1930= at least 50 years. Or 30 odd if you count 1948*. 7 tests a year doesn't even get you one annual game at each of the major rugby stadiums (in both countries btw numnuts), which, accordingly, will be full of punters shelling out $200 for a decent seat.Catman wrote: What will happen when Austalia lose these 6-1 every year. How long do you think Aus crowds will keep paying to see that?.
After the whole Israel Folau saga, let's not compare money matters...Ellafan wrote:Catman wrote: What will happen when Austalia lose these 6-1 every year. How long do you think Aus crowds will keep paying to see that?.
Equally ignorant are the jaapie posters who continue to push the false notion that RSA TV money somehow funded the other SANZAR nations. That is complete tosh - the domestic rugby (includes SR) broadcast payments went entirely to the domestic Union; the payments for the tests were divided up pro rata.
From WikipediaHowever, NZRU chief executive Steve Tew indicated that a competition that did not include South African teams was a commercial non-starter because of large broadcast revenues from that country and because the NZRU considered Super Rugby matches in South Africa to be critical for national team development.
This can maybe still work. Champions Cup. Very short and sharp only. Not full season.Jensrsa wrote:What I'd like to see is that the SANZAAR unions get their domestic competitions up to standard again and that a Heineken Cup style competition be created internationally
Are you talking University of Canterbury?Ali's Choice wrote:At university in the late 1990's I would routinely watch every match every round, including all the ones played in SA.assfly wrote:To think that I used to get up at 4am to watch some matches. They were like test matches.Ali's Choice wrote:Super 12 for me
1997 was my first year. I flatted throughout.Yourmother wrote:Are you talking University of Canterbury?Ali's Choice wrote:At university in the late 1990's I would routinely watch every match every round, including all the ones played in SA.assfly wrote:To think that I used to get up at 4am to watch some matches. They were like test matches.Ali's Choice wrote:Super 12 for me
I graduated 97. Elec eng. Stayed in uni hall first year. You?
eh? What are you on about ? They have never played 6 tests a year against each other. Ever. Bledisloe wasnt even played every year until 1978 acc to Wiki.Ellafan wrote:1980-1930= at least 50 years. Or 30 odd if you count 1948*. 7 tests a year doesn't even get you one annual game at each of the major rugby stadiums (in both countries btw numnuts), which, accordingly, will be full of punters shelling out $200 for a decent seat.Catman wrote: What will happen when Austalia lose these 6-1 every year. How long do you think Aus crowds will keep paying to see that?.
Your post displays a quite manifest ignorance of the history of the rugby code in Australia.
Equally ignorant are the jaapie posters who continue to push the false notion that RSA TV money somehow funded the other SANZAR nations. That is complete tosh - the domestic rugby (includes SR) broadcast payments went entirely to the domestic Union; the payments for the tests were divided up pro rata.
handyman wrote:How long will NZ teams and supporters be happy to play poor Aussie teams?
Ali's Choice wrote:1997 was my first year. I flatted throughout.Yourmother wrote:Are you talking University of Canterbury?Ali's Choice wrote:At university in the late 1990's I would routinely watch every match every round, including all the ones played in SA.assfly wrote:To think that I used to get up at 4am to watch some matches. They were like test matches.Ali's Choice wrote:Super 12 for me
I graduated 97. Elec eng. Stayed in uni hall first year. You?
Chilli wrote:Have you got proof of this?Ali's Choice wrote:The SARU forced SANZAAR to allow their referees to officiate their own teams, and it descended into an absolute farce. 'Hometown' South African referees routinely delivered 16-2 penalty counts in favour of their local teams. Will the NH nations also let South Africans referee their own teams?
Ah. A conference system. That'll play.mdaclarke wrote:Read the following on another forum:
"
Play home and away in group (10 matches including all the derbies)
Play home or away v rest (12 matches)
Add in play offs for group winners and runners up, plus 2 wild cards from the best records."
Would be amazing if true.
But at least every club plays every other club, Super Rugby properly went to pot when the fixture list didn't have that.Ellafan wrote:Ah. A conference system. That'll play.mdaclarke wrote:Read the following on another forum:
"
Play home and away in group (10 matches including all the derbies)
Play home or away v rest (12 matches)
Add in play offs for group winners and runners up, plus 2 wild cards from the best records."
Would be amazing if true.
@ Catman - you have doubly missed the point. If Australia and NZ played 6 times a year, each major rugby stadium in Australia would host only one test ... at more than two year intervals once you take into account RWC and Lions tour years. 6 Australian stadiums (Brisvegas, Sydney, Parramatta*, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth), 4 or 5 NZ (Auckland, Wellington, (Hamilton), Christchurch, Dunedin). Secondly, that means the Bledisloe will continue to be a great occasion, and not one measured merely by the final score.
[*I won't go to Parramatta, I'll leave that to Greivous. I am more likely to fly to Brisvegas or Melbourne for the weekend.]
You spelled shite wrong!mdaclarke wrote:Read the following on another forum:
"SA super rugby teams leaving in 2023 to join the Pro14.
The league would then have 18 teams.
3 groups of 6
1 x Irish & Scottish
1 x Welsh & Italian
1 x SA
Play home and away in group (10 matches including all the derbies)
Play home or away v rest (12 matches)
Add in play offs for group winners and runners up, plus 2 wild cards from the best records."
Would be amazing if true.
"Its not about winning Timmy, its about taking part. You will always be a winner to mommy"Ellafan wrote:Ah. A conference system. That'll play.mdaclarke wrote:Read the following on another forum:
"
Play home and away in group (10 matches including all the derbies)
Play home or away v rest (12 matches)
Add in play offs for group winners and runners up, plus 2 wild cards from the best records."
Would be amazing if true.
@ Catman - you have doubly missed the point. If Australia and NZ played 6 times a year, each major rugby stadium in Australia would host only one test ... at more than two year intervals once you take into account RWC and Lions tour years. 6 Australian stadiums (Brisvegas, Sydney, Parramatta*, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth), 4 or 5 NZ (Auckland, Wellington, (Hamilton), Christchurch, Dunedin). Secondly, that means the Bledisloe will continue to be a great occasion, and not one measured merely by the final score.
[*I won't go to Parramatta, I'll leave that to Greivous. I am more likely to fly to Brisvegas or Melbourne for the weekend.]
Thank you for demonstrating that to you lot winning is everything, and may I say you walked into that so predictably. The fact you don't understand that is more your problem than mine. It does however explain why you saffers want bent refs on the end of gold watches to ensure victory.Catman wrote:"Its not about winning Timmy, its about taking part. You will always be a winner to mommy"Ellafan wrote:Ah. A conference system. That'll play.mdaclarke wrote:Read the following on another forum:
"
Play home and away in group (10 matches including all the derbies)
Play home or away v rest (12 matches)
Add in play offs for group winners and runners up, plus 2 wild cards from the best records."
Would be amazing if true.
@ Catman - you have doubly missed the point. If Australia and NZ played 6 times a year, each major rugby stadium in Australia would host only one test ... at more than two year intervals once you take into account RWC and Lions tour years. 6 Australian stadiums (Brisvegas, Sydney, Parramatta*, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth), 4 or 5 NZ (Auckland, Wellington, (Hamilton), Christchurch, Dunedin). Secondly, that means the Bledisloe will continue to be a great occasion, and not one measured merely by the final score.
[*I won't go to Parramatta, I'll leave that to Greivous. I am more likely to fly to Brisvegas or Melbourne for the weekend.]
Those apartheid loving Saffers were as crooked as those nasty Germans in Escape To Victory.Ellafan wrote:Thank you for demonstrating that to you lot winning is everything, and may I say you walked into that so predictably. The fact you don't understand that is more your problem than mine. It does however explain why you saffers want bent refs on the end of gold watches to ensure victory.Catman wrote:"Its not about winning Timmy, its about taking part. You will always be a winner to mommy"Ellafan wrote:Ah. A conference system. That'll play.mdaclarke wrote:Read the following on another forum:
"
Play home and away in group (10 matches including all the derbies)
Play home or away v rest (12 matches)
Add in play offs for group winners and runners up, plus 2 wild cards from the best records."
Would be amazing if true.
@ Catman - you have doubly missed the point. If Australia and NZ played 6 times a year, each major rugby stadium in Australia would host only one test ... at more than two year intervals once you take into account RWC and Lions tour years. 6 Australian stadiums (Brisvegas, Sydney, Parramatta*, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth), 4 or 5 NZ (Auckland, Wellington, (Hamilton), Christchurch, Dunedin). Secondly, that means the Bledisloe will continue to be a great occasion, and not one measured merely by the final score.
[*I won't go to Parramatta, I'll leave that to Greivous. I am more likely to fly to Brisvegas or Melbourne for the weekend.]
Back in the 70s/80s, I read that this proclivity to cheating refs and 20-1 penalty counts was an outgrowth of the racist apartheid theories that underpinned your society. I must say I found it hard, back then, to see you lot as having been so brainwashed. Yet here you are.
https://rugby365.com/countries/south-af ... -sas-call/STATE OF THE GAME: The future of SANZAAR remains uncertain, even though ‘good faith’ negotiations are ongoing.
Jurie Roux, Chief Executive of South African Rugby, told a media briefing that they are looking at “each and every option available”.
Roux was addressing the South African media in an Internet-based briefing in which he gave a detailed account of the many developments in the game during the COVID-19-enforced lockdown.
One of the key issues was ongoing reports that South Africa was going to abandon their Southern Hemisphere partners in SANZAAR and take up options in the north – including an expanded Six Nations and the Pro14.
Roux was very calculated in his responses, but certainly did not shut the door on a SANZAAR split.
“I’m always amazed to read about things and then have to answer questions from my executive committee and general counsel,” Roux said, adding: “I will [also] have Rassie [Erasmus, SA Rugby’s Director of Rugby] asking me if we’re playing in the north.”
He admitted one of the options is a venture involving the Six Nations teams, but only if the Springboks are unable to play a Rugby Championship or travel somewhere else or have anybody come to SA.
“It won’t be a bad solution for us in terms of getting some game time and some commercial value,” Roux said.
“It would be interesting to play Japan again and, obviously, England.
“I reckon England desperately want to play us again, so it won’t be a bad solution but we are yet to have conversations about that.”
Roux also confirmed that they are busy with their “negotiations” about the future of SANZAAR.
“We are doing that in good faith as we always do,” the SA Rugby boss said, adding: “I expect a lot of questions about statements by the media and former players in the media in New Zealand and Australia.
“I am not too fazed about that,” he said of suggestions that New Zealand and Australia may even dump South Africa from the SANZAAR alliance.
“The only people I am interested in is the people sitting around the negotiation table with us and they have a completely different view from what the former and some current players have.”
He said the are several narratives that will have an influence on their decision.
“The biggest influence for next year would be if New Zealand and Australia do not open their borders to foreign travellers until April, May or June.
“That will have a fundamental impact on Super Rugby for that year.
“We are looking at all the different options.
“The previous options [for 2020] are obviously not workable anymore, given the circumstance around COVID-19 and travel.
“We are also looking at different Rugby Championship options.
“Those options will also be influenced by where the global calendar is.”
The prospect of more South African teams joining the Pro14 in Europe is also still on the table and they are “continuing” with negotiations – which has been ongoing for the last 18 months.
He said the expansion – more SA teams in Europe – has always been on the cards.
“What that would look like in a post-COVID-19 world I can’t tell you at the moment,” Roux said.
He added that every decision will be based on rugby (with a weight of about 40 percent) and commercial value (60 percent).
“We are looking at each and every option available.”
Asked about the reports that linked the Boks to an eight-team competition involving the current Six Nations countries – England, Ireland, Scotland, France, Wales and Italy – plus Japan, Roux was again guarded in his response.
“The very politically-correct answer is that we are committed to SANZAAR and we are negotiating in good faith,” Roux said.
“But the reality is that the current format of competition that we have is too tight commercially for everybody involved.
“The committee that looks after the structure of those competitions is hard at work. Once the rugby decision is made on what competition works best, we will look at the commercial side.”
He said there are currently three options on the table, without expanding what those options are.
“It is all about the commercial [value] at the moment and those commercial values are determined by logistical challenges.
“We have to come to an agreement that is a good rugby outcome with good commercial value that can function in a post-COVID-19 world.”
4. Moving the franchises to play in the Pro 18 but the Springboks staying in the RC?mdaclarke wrote:I would guess
Option 1 = Status Quo
Option 2 = Leave Super Rugby and Rugby Championship, move all teams to Pro 14 and join 6(7) nations
Option 3 = Keep existing teams in Super Rugby, stay in Rugby Championship, add 2 teams to the Pro 16 (Griquas, Pumas?) and join 6(7) nations
