Super10 1993-1995; should it count?

[donmcdazzle]

Can we also then include the inter dominion championship from the 80's?

 

[Cave Dweller]

Can we also then include the inter dominion championship from the 80's?

Don't be silly. The first time teams from NZ, SA and Australia competed in it was in the Super 10. Simple. The first time the best players competed in it from all the countries was in 98. Now lick my bung hole

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Don't be silly. The first time teams from NZ, SA and Australia competed in it was in the Super 10. Simple. The first time the best players competed in it from all the countries was in 98. Now lick my bung hole

+1

And stop being silly the rest of you.

 

[smartcooky]

Remind me in the Currie Cup when we had Stormers, Cheetahs, Bulls, Sharks and Lions in it. Remind me in the NPC when your franchises played in it?

You still don't get it do you....?

THERE ARE NO FULL RECORDS FOR SUPER 6 or 10!!!

The only information we have are the final logs, who played in the three finals, who won and what the score was. Even if you think it should count, you have no records to add....

Who played for which teams
Where the matches were played
When they were played
Tries scored and who by
Kicks made and who by
Match results and details
Who the officials were

None of this information is available. The Wellington Rugby Union was able to supply me with records of what THEIR players did; no one else could supply anything.

Also, you STILL haven't been able to justify why Super 6 and 10 should be added when there were full international teams from other countries involved. You want to draw the line at Super 6 because South Africa were not involved before then, but you appear quite happy to turn a blind eye to that fact that Samoa, Fiji and Tonga were involved, and aren't now. Their presence in Super 6 and 10 makes it a completely different competition from the one that replaced it. This also makes your argument inconsistent and self defeating.

I was around when the Super 6 and 10 were being played. Hardly anyone took it seriously, it was just treated like a bunch of pre-season matches warm-up matches. Some of theme were interspersed during the NPC season, and most NZ teams took the opportunity to rest key players and give the dirt-trackers a run. Admission was often free or a nominal charge, and even then, people didn't bother to go to games. The games were hardly ever televised in New Zealand or Australia (can't say for SA).

 

[nickdnz]

You still don't get it do you....?

THERE ARE NO FULL RECORDS FOR SUPER 6 or 10!!!

The only information we have are the final logs, who played in the three finals, who won and what the score was. Even if you think it should count, you have no records to add....

Who played for which teams
Where the matches were played
When they were played
Tries scored and who by
Kicks made and who by
Match results and details
Who the officials were

None of this information is available. The Wellington Rugby Union was able to supply me with records of what THEIR players did; no one else could supply anything.

Also, you STILL haven't been able to justify why Super 6 and 10 should be added when there were full international teams from other countries involved. You want to draw the line at Super 6 because South Africa were not involved before then, but you appear quite happy to turn a blind eye to that fact that Samoa, Fiji and Tonga were involved, and aren't now. Their presence in Super 6 and 10 makes it a completely different competition from the one that replaced it. This also makes your argument inconsistent and self defeating.

I was around when the Super 6 and 10 were being played. Hardly anyone took it seriously, it was just treated like a bunch of pre-season matches warm-up matches. Some of theme were interspersed during the NPC season, and most NZ teams took the opportunity to rest key players and give the dirt-trackers a run. Admission was often free or a nominal charge, and even then, people didn't bother to go to games. The games were hardly ever televised in New Zealand or Australia (can't say for SA).

Your missing the point though! It's not about if it was a credible competition. It's not about who was involved. It's not about what matches were played throughout the season or the results of said matches. It's about who won in the end, or more to the point, whom didn't win and that's why it's vital that it must be included!

 

[Cave Dweller]

You still don't get it do you....?


THERE ARE NO FULL RECORDS FOR SUPER 6 or 10!!!

The only information we have are the final logs, who played in the three finals, who won and what the score was. Even if you think it should count, you have no records to add....

Who played for which teams
Where the matches were played
When they were played
Tries scored and who by
Kicks made and who by
Match results and details
Who the officials were

None of this information is available. The Wellington Rugby Union was able to supply me with records of what THEIR players did; no one else could supply anything.

Also, you STILL haven't been able to justify why Super 6 and 10 should be added when there were full international teams from other countries involved. You want to draw the line at Super 6 because South Africa were not involved before then, but you appear quite happy to turn a blind eye to that fact that Samoa, Fiji and Tonga were involved, and aren't now. Their presence in Super 6 and 10 makes it a completely different competition from the one that replaced it. This also makes your argument inconsistent and self defeating.

I was around when the Super 6 and 10 were being played. Hardly anyone took it seriously, it was just treated like a bunch of pre-season matches warm-up matches. Some of theme were interspersed during the NPC season, and most NZ teams took the opportunity to rest key players and give the dirt-trackers a run. Admission was often free or a nominal charge, and even then, people didn't bother to go to games. The games were hardly ever televised in New Zealand or Australia (can't say for SA).

Who cares if Fiji, Samoa and Tonga were involved? Good on them which has actually assisted in the development in their rugby. Namibia played in our Currie Cup and the former SWA. It was still the CC. The concept of the Super 10 is still there. Teams from NZ, Aus and SA competed in it. It just changed its name and had a different sponsor as big money and players getting paid was introduced with the professional era. Which means players from those 3 countries actually can make a career out of rugby and can do it in Europe or anywhere they want. Because SA, NZ and Aus have the selection clause of local only a deal with all three unions with big money to help them keep the players in their irrespective countries was made. To make the deals easier was to establish SANZAR and have one contract than the problems with 3 different ones.

So the concept is actually the same just the amount of teams increased. From 10 to 12 to 14 to 15. Even the trophys differ from the Super 10 to Super Rugby right through

Some of theme were interspersed during the NPC season, and most NZ teams took the opportunity to rest key players and give the dirt-trackers a run.

Transvaal: Theo v Rensburg, Pieter Hendriks, Bernard Fourie, Japie Mulder, Chris Dirks, Hennie le Roux, Johan Roux, Deon Lötter, Ian MacDonald, François Pienaar, Hannes Strydom, Kobus Wiese, Johan le Roux, Uli Schmidt, Balie Swart

Auckland: Shane Howarth, Terry Wright, Eroni Clarke, Lee Stensness, Va'aiga Tuigamala, Grant Fox, Nu Nu'uali'itia, Michael Jones, Mark Carter, Brendan Jackson, Zinzan Brooke, Richard Fromont, Robin Brooke, Olo Brown, Sean Fitzpatrick, Craig Dowd

Referee: Freek Burger

Stop making excuses ffs

1992 NPC Final log

1. Auckland
2. Otago
3. North Harbour
4. Waikato

The Super 10 was well documented. Just remove the eye patches. And the Samoans were called Western Samoa

 

[smartcooky]

Your missing the point though! It's not about if it was a credible competition. It's not about who was involved. It's not about what matches were played throughout the season or the results of said matches. It's about who won in the end, or more to the point, whom didn't win and that's why it's vital that it must be included!

Yep, I agree nick. If in the three years it was run, it had been won by Auckland, Canterbury & Waikato, this thread would not have been started in the first place. IMO, some posters are trying to be history revisionists.

And the Samoans were called Western Samoa

Hardly surprising really, since the whole country (NOT just the rugby team) changed its name from "Western Samoa" to "Samoa" in July 1997 when their government amended their constitution. They did this to differentiate themselves more clearly from "American Samoa" which is a not a country, but a US Territory.

It is not the first time this has happened, e.g. Burma = Myanmar. It has happened quite a lot in your neck of the woods

Rhodesia = Zimbabwe
Tanganyika + Zanzibar = Tanzania
Democratic Republic of the Congo = Zaire
Southern Rhodesia = Zimbabwe
Northern Rhodesia = Zambia

If you are going gob on about History, go fvcking well learn some first!!!

 

[Cave Dweller]

Yep, I agree nick. If in the three years it was run, it had been won by Auckland, Canterbury & Waikato, this thread would not have been started in the first place. IMO, some posters are trying to be history revisionists.

But they did not win it. I don't support Queensland nor Transvaal but fair seems fair. Plus this thread would not have been needed if they won it as it would have been probably being included since everything starts casually from 96.

Hardly surprising really, since the whole country (NOT just the rugby team) changed its name from "Western Samoa" to "Samoa" in July 1997 when their government amended their constitution. They did this to differentiate themselves more clearly from "American Samoa" which is a not a country, but a US Territory. If you are going gob on about History, go fvcking well learn some first!!!

Who said anything about history? I said they were called Western Samoa at the time. Anyone could have googled that **** but who asked anything about the reason behind it why they change their name? And they did not change it to differentiate themselves from American Samoa because American Samoans protested that the change diminished its own identity.

 

[nickdnz]

But they did not win it. I don't support Queensland nor Transvaal but fair seems fair. Plus this thread would not have been needed if they won it as it would have been probably being included since everything starts casually from 96.

Who said anything about history? I said they were called Western Samoa at the time. Anyone could have googled that **** but who asked anything about the reason behind it why they change their name? And they did not change it to differentiate themselves from American Samoa because American Samoans protested that the change diminished its own identity.

Yes, the records include the Super 12 from 1996 as that's the date the competition became a professional competition with franchises, a fair representation of teams, a new sponsor and regular televisised matches. I was very young at the time, but even then I remember the hype surrounding the new Super 12, which was nonexistant in the previous tournements. Had nothing to do with whom won the tournement.

Your second point doesn't critique smartcookies at all. He said Western Samoa changed their name to Samoa to differentiate themsleves from American Samoa. He did not mention the response from American Samoa.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Yes, the records include the Super 12 from 1996 as that's the date the competition became a professional competition with franchises, a fair representation of teams, a new sponsor and regular televisised matches. I was very young at the time, but even then I remember the hype surrounding the new Super 12, which was nonexistant in the previous tournements. Had nothing to do with whom won the tournement.

Yes they did. So the previous international games before the professional era had no records because it was amateur? Super Rugby changed sponsors like 4 times and every country has its own. And no its not new sponsors but it was a new TV deal that was signed where a new one was signed in 2004 which also meant the Super 12 became the Super 14 just like the Super 10 became the Super 12. Money is not a reason and never was a reason for a competition suddenly to exclude winners. Not in any sport.

Your second point doesn't critique smartcookies at all. He said Western Samoa changed their name to Samoa to differentiate themsleves from American Samoa. He did not mention the response from American Samoa.

Critique? Who said anything about disputing that nor try and argue over it? I just said they were called Western Samoa back then just like the Stormers were the Western Stormers back in 1998. But its the same franchise like Samoa is the country and JUST like the concept is from the Super 10 till now. Teams from NZ, SA and Australia are competing against one another. Disprove that fact and you got a valid reason but no one can.