Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Tri Nations 2009-2011
All Blacks rest 9 senior players for 3N tour to SA
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shaggy" data-source="post: 430587" data-attributes="member: 43400"><p>As one of those who supposedly "spewed venom" by actually saying that it was wrong, I say, two wrongs do not make a right ... it may make sense to rest some players from purely a playing prospective, but in reality, it's a professional game, and the sponsors, holders of the TV rights, and the fans that bought tickets to the match, all expect full strength sides, regardless of whether it's RWC year or not.</p><p></p><p>Sponsors/TV rights = revenue = payment for the players ... unhappy sponsors/TV companies = less revenue = less money for the players</p><p></p><p>If the SANZAR partners had no intention of honouring their agreement to provide the best teams, they should have negotiated to provide weakened sides in RWC year with those providing the money, when they were negotiating the contracts, not simply renege on the deal.</p><p></p><p>I suspect John O'Neill won't care very much either, as Australia is likely to receive a full strength AB side for the match in Queensland, as it's the last hit out before the RWC, but I do hope pressure is exerted on SANZAR to investigate/sort this out for next time.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Like Darwin says, it's more to do with the travel factor - it would have been interesting to see what would have occurred if the games in South Africa had occurred first ... whether, both New Zealand and South Africa would have still sent weakened sides for the overseas legs of the Tri nations (I think they would have)</p><p></p><p>In a way, the Springboks, by not sending a side that could win (and the AB's defeat of the Wallabies) has played right into Graham Henry's hands, as it has opened the door to send a weakened side, and possibly win the Tri nations</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Already made comments on the whole injured/resting thing above ... Australia don't have the player depth to send anything less than their best, but i'm sure they'd complain if they received a less than full strength All Black side as well.</p><p></p><p>... As for your leave SANZAR/financially better off etc, yes, South African consumers generate the most revenue, but the All Blacks and Wallabies (along with the Springboks) contribute the quality product ... see if the revenue is as good without them ... also see if South Africa's new partners (whoever they are) are as accommodating to South Africa, as their SANZAR partners are</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shaggy, post: 430587, member: 43400"] As one of those who supposedly "spewed venom" by actually saying that it was wrong, I say, two wrongs do not make a right ... it may make sense to rest some players from purely a playing prospective, but in reality, it's a professional game, and the sponsors, holders of the TV rights, and the fans that bought tickets to the match, all expect full strength sides, regardless of whether it's RWC year or not. Sponsors/TV rights = revenue = payment for the players ... unhappy sponsors/TV companies = less revenue = less money for the players If the SANZAR partners had no intention of honouring their agreement to provide the best teams, they should have negotiated to provide weakened sides in RWC year with those providing the money, when they were negotiating the contracts, not simply renege on the deal. I suspect John O'Neill won't care very much either, as Australia is likely to receive a full strength AB side for the match in Queensland, as it's the last hit out before the RWC, but I do hope pressure is exerted on SANZAR to investigate/sort this out for next time. Like Darwin says, it's more to do with the travel factor - it would have been interesting to see what would have occurred if the games in South Africa had occurred first ... whether, both New Zealand and South Africa would have still sent weakened sides for the overseas legs of the Tri nations (I think they would have) In a way, the Springboks, by not sending a side that could win (and the AB's defeat of the Wallabies) has played right into Graham Henry's hands, as it has opened the door to send a weakened side, and possibly win the Tri nations Already made comments on the whole injured/resting thing above ... Australia don't have the player depth to send anything less than their best, but i'm sure they'd complain if they received a less than full strength All Black side as well. ... As for your leave SANZAR/financially better off etc, yes, South African consumers generate the most revenue, but the All Blacks and Wallabies (along with the Springboks) contribute the quality product ... see if the revenue is as good without them ... also see if South Africa's new partners (whoever they are) are as accommodating to South Africa, as their SANZAR partners are [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Tri Nations 2009-2011
All Blacks rest 9 senior players for 3N tour to SA
Top