New Zealand dominance

[TRF_heineken]

Sorry to butt in on this "all South African" thread" while y'all are doing so well refuting the OP's comments, but how has this discussion about the Super Rugby format and the number of South African teams therein got anything to do with the OP's thread ***le, "New Zealand Dominance"?

FWIW IMO, as Conference systems go, they had the competition format right when it was S15. They just should have left it at that and added the sixth SA team to the SA conference, added the Sunwolves to the Australian conference and the Jaguares to the NZ conference... top two in each conference to the QF, joined by the two wild-cards (best third placed teams). all seeded in order from 1 to 8

We aren't refuting the comments made by the OP. I think we're all just sick and tired of this topic and fingers solely being pointed to SARU and the SA teams. But with that said, the SA teams have shown some improvement, and as they tour, we will see how good they really are. The Lions are the only top SA team that has already done their tour in NZ and got away wins.

As has been discussed in the other threads, We as SA fans, don't want this conference system, we've never liked the conference system, ever since its inception. And now for some posters to throw all the blame towards SA is pointless. SANZAAR now consists of the 4 WC Semi-finalist teams, and in conjunction with the Japanese Rugby Union, it is damn near impossible for one Union to overrule all of the other unions and to get the better deal.

I was one of the naysayers regarding the Kings' inclusion, but I have to say I have been rather surprized at their performances. With SARU stepping in at the Kings, there is definitely more positive things coming through this young franchise than negative. And with time it will get better, they just need to get rid of Cheeky Watson, and I can almost guarantee they will become another powerhouse.

One thing that has benefited all teams, and not just the SA teams are the tours. The most matches a team will play on tour is 3, whereas in the past, an SA team had 2 games in AUS and 2 in NZ, sometimes 1 more. All the interviews I've seen with coaches and players are in unison, that the less time away from home, the better.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Sorry to butt in on this "all South African" thread" while y'all are doing so well refuting the OP's comments, but how has this discussion about the Super Rugby format and the number of South African teams therein got anything to do with the OP's thread ***le, "New Zealand Dominance"?

FWIW IMO, as Conference systems go, they had the competition format right when it was S15. They just should have left it at that and added the sixth SA team to the SA conference, added the Sunwolves to the Australian conference and the Jaguares to the NZ conference... top two in each conference to the QF, joined by the two wild-cards (best third placed teams). all seeded in order from 1 to 8

@smartcooky, are you seriously suggesting we need to take this WUM seriously and actually grace his clumsy comments with reasoned answers? Have you actually read his comments? No mention of the Aus teams doing way poorer than SA teams for one; as the log stands the top Aus side would be 4th in SA. His tone is clearly intended to rile people up and his comments are half-considered and the actual issues he 'covers' have been much more thouroughly addressed in other threads in any case and no-one on here has tried to say that NZ sides aren't looking a class apart and that the format as is isn't ideal from a competitiveness POV.

 

[nzlizard]

I reckon the NZRU could drop the Blues and just have 4 NZ teams, they offer nothing to NZ rugby. :lol:

 

[delport500]

@TRF_stormer2010, let's look at the log again after round 10, or no wait damn, the Bulls and Stormers still wouldn't have played any New Zealand team.

I don't know what you feel you can be proud of regarding South African rugby but enjoy yourself.

Things are only going to get worse. More players are gonna leave.
At least Australia have won more finals since the start of the competition than South Africa.
New Zealand - In their own league. Best opponents for them are the other NZ teams.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

@TRF_stormer2010, let's look at the log again after round 10, or no wait damn, the Bulls and Stormers still wouldn't have played any New Zealand team.

I don't know what you feel you can be proud of regarding South African rugby but enjoy yourself.

Things are only going to get worse. More players are gonna leave.
At least Australia have won more finals since the start of the competition than South Africa.
New Zealand - In their own league. Best opponents for them are the other NZ teams.

What's your actual point though? Why respond to me in particular? Have I said anything you disagree with? Have I disagreed with anything you have said in essence? Have I said all is rosy in SA? Can you actually make or follow an argument/discussion?

 

[TRF_heineken]

@TRF_stormer2010, let's look at the log again after round 10, or no wait damn, the Bulls and Stormers still wouldn't have played any New Zealand team.

I don't know what you feel you can be proud of regarding South African rugby but enjoy yourself.

Things are only going to get worse. More players are gonna leave.
At least Australia have won more finals since the start of the competition than South Africa.
New Zealand - In their own league. Best opponents for them are the other NZ teams.

Why have the SA flag on your profile if you are so anti-SA??

It's clear you are one of those cape crusaders living in Gauteng and just trashing SA and the Springboks.

How about you keep the argument constructive instead of just driveling on.

 

[saulan]

@TRF_stormer2010, let's look at the log again after round 10, or no wait damn, the Bulls and Stormers still wouldn't have played any New Zealand team.

And they won't, because of the format, which isn't the fault of the teams or the players. SAANZAR decided on this format and us Stormers fans would have loved for us to have played the NZ teams. SAANZAR chose the option that would be most profitable to them. I don't know what point you are trying to make stating this?

I don't know what you feel you can be proud of regarding South African rugby but enjoy yourself.

This is just an antagonistic comment. If you are here to discuss rugby issues then you are more than welcome to and we will gladly engage with you, but if you are just looking to antagonise or to annoy us, please move on. That isn't what this community is about.

 

[delport500]

@TRF_heineken, I Have the flag because I live there. I'm definitely not a Cape Crusader. Far from it.
I'm just someone who is sick and tired because South African rugby was destroyed years ago. I can no longer support something that's corrupt and made up of players
who are not there on merit. Enough is enough. Rugby is in my culture and in my blood. I Just decided to move on.
I didn't want to offend anyone, so sorry if i have done so.

 

[SomeOke]

@TRF_heineken, I Have the flag because I live there. I'm definitely not a Cape Crusader. Far from it.
I'm just someone who is sick and tired because South African rugby was destroyed years ago. I can no longer support something that's corrupt and made up of players
who are not there on merit. Enough is enough. Rugby is in my culture and in my blood. I Just decided to move on.
I didn't want to offend anyone, so sorry if i have done so.

Everyone is aware NZ is the best rugby nation in the world at the moment both internationally and in super rugby. You aren't a unique snowflake for making that observation, but turning your back on your fellow South Africans who play for this country, because you disagree with a few morons in power makes you a douche.

 

[delport500]

Accepting something that isn't right makes you a douche. Whatever is done next you'll also except,and next and next.

 

[unrated]

The guys who only support a team in times of success is not a true fan . Up until now i would say with the exception of Paige at the world cup all the players were picked on merit, this was one thing HM got right. So how can you say you can no longer support a team made up of players who are not there on merit? Yes we fear that transformation is going to impact us negatively but it hasn't really happened yet. How was South African rugby destroyed years ago?. At this moment in time we are producing some of the best players in the world. Our board might be corrupt but our player generation is still very strong.

 

[delport500]

Yes we fear that transformation is going to impact us negatively but it hasn't really happened yet. How was South African rugby destroyed years ago?. At this moment in time we are producing some of the best players in the world. Our board might be corrupt but our player generation is still very strong.

So it hasn't really impact us negatively? Do you really,really think the only reason our best players are leaving the country are just for financial reasons?
When did we last win a Super Rugby Final?
A few years ago we actually stood a good chance when playing the All Blacks. Now, our chances are slim to ZERO.

 

[die_mole]

So it hasn't really impact us negatively? Do you really,really think the only reason our best players are leaving the country are just for financial reasons?
When did we last win a Super Rugby Final?
A few years ago we actually stood a good chance when playing the All Blacks. Now, our chances are slim to ZERO.

and it has to be the inclusion of black players in the squad... no possibility that the all blacks have gotten better?

- - - Updated - - -

The guys who only support a team in times of success is not a true fan . Up until now i would say with the exception of Paige at the world cup all the players were picked on merit, this was one thing HM got right. So how can you say you can no longer support a team made up of players who are not there on merit? Yes we fear that transformation is going to impact us negatively but it hasn't really happened yet. How was South African rugby destroyed years ago?. At this moment in time we are producing some of the best players in the world. Our board might be corrupt but our player generation is still very strong.

I'm pretty sure he thinks South Africa rugby died the day democracy was created in South Africa.

 

[Rhyer]

Why have the SA flag on your profile if you are so anti-SA??

It's clear you are one of those cape crusaders living in Gauteng and just trashing SA and the Springboks.

How about you keep the argument constructive instead of just driveling on.

Ironic, considering your astute and cohesive reply is fraught with personal attacks.

 

[JH1315]

The current format is pretty bad, and NZ teams are obviously the best, but I hate how people are always do keen to have a dig at south african teams.
Yes it's understandable that people think South Africa shouldn't have 6 teams and I tend to agree, but Australia is actually performing a fair bit worse than SA this year, and did worse overall last year despite the two Aussie teams in the semis. But yet no one really talks **** about Australia, it's always about South Africa, doesn't make sense to me.

 

[nickdnz]

The current format is pretty bad, and NZ teams are obviously the best, but I hate how people are always do keen to have a dig at south african teams.
Yes it's understandable that people think South Africa shouldn't have 6 teams and I tend to agree, but Australia is actually performing a fair bit worse than SA this year, and did worse overall last year despite the two Aussie teams in the semis. But yet no one really talks **** about Australia, it's always about South Africa, doesn't make sense to me.

I think part of the reason is that South Africa insisted on having an additional team, which impacted the format, when everyone knew it was a terrible idea.

Really I don't care how many teams South Africa have - however I very much care about how dreadful the format has become. It's a mess and one which gives South African teams a much easier ride. Australian sides are struggling - but they are playing kiwi sides at home..

 

[smartcooky]

Any competition format that does not have every team playing every other teams has reduced credibility IMO. The Aviva Premiership, the Pro12 and the Top14 (despite the fact that I don't much like the style of play all that much) have far more integrity and credibility as competitions than what we are currently being served up in Super Rugby. In those competitions, everyone plays everyone else... twice.

SR lost its shine for me after Super 14 became Super 15. SANZAAR needs to get their heads together and take some hard decisions and come to some difficult compromises

► ONE Round Robin with every team playing every other team.
► Full quarter finals with no protected home games, if the top four are from one country, then so be it.
► Move the Currie Cup the Vodacom Cup, the ITM Cup, Heartland Championship and the Australian NRC back to accommodate the expansion

Only then will we see Super Rugby restored to its claimed position of being the best domestic rugby competition in the world.

 

[saulan]

A few things on this:

Any competition format that does not have every team playing every other teams has reduced credibility IMO. The Aviva Premiership, the Pro12 and the Top14 (despite the fact that I don't much like the style of play all that much) have far more integrity and credibility as competitions than what we are currently being served up in Super Rugby. In those competitions, everyone plays everyone else... twice.

SR lost its shine for me after Super 14 became Super 15. SANZAAR needs to get their heads together and take some hard decisions and come to some difficult compromises

The competitions you highlighted there are the domestic leagues. A more appropriate comparison would be between the Champions Cup and Super Rugby, especially now that we feature teams from four continents. It's just that our Champions Cup teams are consistently the same due to the way rugby is structured in the SH. The Champions Cup performs well with not every team playing against each other, but it is a lot shorter than Super Rugby and I don't think financially SAANZAR would go for it. Additionally, I don't necessarily think that not playing every opponent is what makes this format rubbish. The format is rubbish because it doesn't make any sense. Two Africa groups with one only playing NZ teams and one only playing Aus teams? Doesn't seem fair or make sense. For competitions with integrity where everyone doesn't play everyone, just take a look at some of America's sporting leagues.

► ONE Round Robin with every team playing every other team.
► Full quarter finals with no protected home games, if the top four are from one country, then so be it.
► Move the Currie Cup the Vodacom Cup, the ITM Cup, Heartland Championship and the Australian NRC back to accommodate the expansion

Only then will we see Super Rugby restored to its claimed position of being the best domestic rugby competition in the world.

I think we have passed this point now, we can't go back. Because of money. That is not going to generate as much money as the current tournament and having Australia Rugby so cash strapped at the moment further compounds the problem. They need to come up with some kinda groupings which are fair and make sense. Perhaps based on performance in this year's Super Rugby and having teams at least play two teams from each group.

In terms of those the tournaments. Does the ITM Cup and Heartland Championship overlap with Super Rugby? The Vodacom Cup has been removed and has been replaced with a weird Currie Cup Qualifying tournament which 14 teams participate in. But it runs in tandem with Super Rugby so that the other unions and leftover players from the big unions have something to do. The Currie Cup itself I don't think clashes with SR.

 

[smartcooky]

The competitions you highlighted there are the domestic leagues. A more appropriate comparison would be between the Champions Cup and Super Rugby, especially now that we feature teams from four continents. It's just that our Champions Cup teams are consistently the same due to the way rugby is structured in the SH. The Champions Cup performs well with not every team playing against each other, but it is a lot shorter than Super Rugby and I don't think financially SAANZAR would go for it.

Yes, but you have to qualify for the European Champion's Cup, so theoretically, you get the best of each league. The European Champion's Cup also has second division... the European Challenge Cup.

Additionally, I don't necessarily think that not playing every opponent is what makes this format rubbish. The format is rubbish because it doesn't make any sense. Two Africa groups with one only playing NZ teams and one only playing Aus teams? Doesn't seem fair or make sense. For competitions with integrity where everyone doesn't play everyone, just take a look at some of America's sporting leagues.

In the US sporting leagues, that is simply down to practicality

NBA - 30 teams
NHL - 30 teams
MLB - 30 teams
NFL - 32 teams

I think we have passed this point now, we can't go back. Because of money.

I sadly, and reluctantly, I agree

In terms of those the tournaments. Does the ITM Cup and Heartland Championship overlap with Super Rugby?.

The ITM Cup runs concurrently with The Rugby Championship (August to October) which is a good thing, because it means that all NZ Super Rugby players are involved, and fringe All Blacks can keep playing, keeping themselves match fit if the call-up comes due to injury.

 

[Car]

SR lost its shine for me after Super 14 became Super 15.

I've read that a couple of times now, but I still don't get why. Care to explain?

Yes, but you have to qualify for the European Champion's Cup, so theoretically, you get the best of each league. The European Champion's Cup also has second division... the European Challenge Cup.

In theory. In practise, a lot depends on how easy it is to qualify. Just compare the Pro12 teams in the Heineken Cup to the Champions Cup and the difference it made that they changed how many qualified. Sure, you get the best of each league, but not necessarily the best teams from Europe.