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
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
Further dilution of Super Rugby
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="nickdnz" data-source="post: 613719" data-attributes="member: 38640"><p>Well if funds are provided to the unions in a similar way that they currently are to Super Rugby I see no reason why this would be the case. What it would allow is for more starting spots to be offered to players who would otherwise be riding the bench in Super Rugby.</p><p></p><p>Take Wellington for example. Would Sean Treeby stay at Wellington with Conrad Smith there - or would he transfer to a team like Otago where he can get more game time?</p><p></p><p>In the current system you have five teams play top rugby - of which I would argue around 110 players get meaningful game time (generously speaking). The remaining players may get 80 minutes if they're lucky a season. After Super Rugby they play in the ITM Cup, which involves no All Blacks and a few teirs lower in terms of management, coaching and opposition.</p><p></p><p>It seems to me that making the domestic competition a priority and giving them resources (with NZRU supervision) would eventually increase the competitiveness to be at Super Rugby level among all unions (it's the disparity of wealth in the unions which creates the gap). In the current set up its hardly as if the division of talent is fairly spread either (although as a Chiefs fan it may be easy to overlook <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="nickdnz, post: 613719, member: 38640"] Well if funds are provided to the unions in a similar way that they currently are to Super Rugby I see no reason why this would be the case. What it would allow is for more starting spots to be offered to players who would otherwise be riding the bench in Super Rugby. Take Wellington for example. Would Sean Treeby stay at Wellington with Conrad Smith there - or would he transfer to a team like Otago where he can get more game time? In the current system you have five teams play top rugby - of which I would argue around 110 players get meaningful game time (generously speaking). The remaining players may get 80 minutes if they're lucky a season. After Super Rugby they play in the ITM Cup, which involves no All Blacks and a few teirs lower in terms of management, coaching and opposition. It seems to me that making the domestic competition a priority and giving them resources (with NZRU supervision) would eventually increase the competitiveness to be at Super Rugby level among all unions (it's the disparity of wealth in the unions which creates the gap). In the current set up its hardly as if the division of talent is fairly spread either (although as a Chiefs fan it may be easy to overlook :p). [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
Further dilution of Super Rugby
Top