NZ Super rugby draft



  •  
     
    What a great idea..
     
    I  am all aboard this train.... Toot toot!!!



  • This would be awesome and it would make all the teams more even than they already are. 
     
    You could also introduce a trade period where squads can bolster their areas of weakness by trading players with other squads.



  • But the biggest benefit of all could, no should, be the rules in place around the draft. To become draft eligible, students must have completed five years of secondary school to an agreed academic standard.
    New Zealand will be churning out not just better footy players but, you guessed it, better people.

    What a crock!!! Some people jsut aren't suited to school and are great people.



  • I don't like it. It forces young people to move away from their families whose support they often need. It also takes away the local element from teams.



  • In fact there sin't much in that peice that wooes me at all

    It would be transparent - rugby has such a shocking everything-is-a-secret culture. The first thing professional players are taught is how not to trust the media. It permeates everything they do from that point forward. This would promote engagement with the media and therefore the public.

    Who cares? I don't need to know the dealings of how players end up where. I certainly don't need to media to be looked after so the players have to expose themselves more to it.

    It would ensure a constant regeneration of talent in the five franchises, which would in turn guarantee that the European leagues and Japanese league remains clogged up with New Zealand's cast-offs. Win-win.

    So status quo

    With the best of national 1st XV rugby televised and the Auckland competition having its own YouTube channel (see the luminaries pick their secondary school dream team of 2015 in this video), there'd be no shortage of footage to keep the entertainment wheels spinning.

    Status quo

    It would also send an intimidating message to the rest of the rugby playing world: it is telling them in stark terms just what a production line of talent New Zealand has available to them.

    Status quo.
     
     
    Not seeing a real benefit?



  • A mock draft would look something like this if all teams finished as they currently stand on the Super Rugby table.
     
    The player lineup would obviously be from school leavers so if we take the players who left school last year the draft would look something like this.
     
    1st Pick: Blues - Josh McKay (Christchurch Boys High School)
    2nd Pick: Highlanders - Alex Fidow (Scots College)
    3rd Pick: Hurricanes - Peter Umaga Jensen (Scots College)
    4th Pick: Crusaders - Jordie Barrett (Francis Douglas Memorial College)
    5th Pick: Chiefs - Isaia Walker-Leawere (Gisbourne Boys High School)
    6th Pick: Blues - TJ Va'a (Scots College)
    7th Pick: Highlanders - Thomas Umaga Jensen (Scots College)
    8th Pick: Hurricanes - Marino Makaele Tuu (Hastings Boys High School)
    etc
    etc



  • The writer seems to have a chip on his shoulder. Why do you and I need to be party to someone's work negotiations just because they are sports players?



  • If there is anything we can learn from US sports it is the use of open drafts to identify players based on skills and abilities rather than what school they went to and how much exposure they have.
    Womens sevens have unearthed some great rugby talent that has come from other codes but men's rugby sticks with a system of who you know rather than how good you are.



  • Well, I think that better people make better choices.
     
    I don't see how taking away choice is a step towards developing better people.
     
    Given that Super budgets are pretty even, I don't see any financial reason why a draft is required to help 'even' things out.
     
    Franchises need to make better choices about staff, support, and signings - all within their control.



  • The levels of money on offer in NZ would make the draft less of a big deal too? whereas in US sport you can go from a schoolboy to earning 8 figures..



  • Bollocks, we don't need to be telling young kids where they have to play when they leave school, geez it will make it more appealing to chase money overseas if you are made to play where you don't want. I know people can say that American football etc and AFL here in Aus do it, but where else do these players get to play anyway?? It works ok now so lets not fix it!!!



  • So after winning two back to back RWCs, being number one for however many years and having NZ teams dominate Super Rugby almost every year, the NZRU should completely restructure the way they distribute NZ's upcoming talent and all because the Chiefs had the foresight to sign McKenzie back in 2013 and when his contract ran out, the Blues failed to poach him. Makes sense.
     
    The current system doesn't really seem to be hurting the Chiefs, Highlanders, Hurricanes or Crusaders (even after losing THREE AB first fives), so maybe instead of trying to fix what ain't broke, what the Blues need are better talent identification and development programs. I mean shit, they had Marty McKenzie in their fucking squad in 2013, yet they dropped him and now he's better than any 10 they've got.



  • Against. The young school talent already gets spread around (mostly) without forcing players to go to a franchise that picks them in a draft.

    What a crock!!! Some people jsut aren't suited to school and are great people.

    Agreed with all your points on your other post and liked it, but I actually think this is a good idea (but still irrelevant because the idea sucks). The schooling system is set up now so that those who aren't academically inclined can still do a range of subjects (credits I guess) which will allow them to complete a longer time at school. I'd also suggest that trades training etc at tertiary institutions be included as part of the 5 years of schooling. What we don't want is youngster banking on their rugby abilities to carry them through life and not putting effort in elsewhere.
     
    Cleaver is whiny about the Chiefs isn't he?  :yes:



  • Who will be deemed eligible to enter the draft? There are many players that come to prominence after a few years developing their skills and techniques in good old fashioned club rugby. Picking on potential rather than proven performance against allcomers does not cut it with me.
     
    Super rugby teams are limited to the number of contracted players they can have on their books so there are only a limited number of positions available each year. No point in filling one of those precious spots if the player is not capable of fronting up against any opposition. There have been instances of players being brought in to cover injured players getting starts or positions on the bench ahead of originally contracted players (presumably not good enough originally or simply picked on potential rather than proven performance). If a player is considered good enough to get a contract in the first place then he should be made to front up ahead of any one brought in as a replacement. If you get paid a mans wages then damn well front up and earn them like a man.



  • Against. The young school talent already gets spread around (mostly) without forcing players to go to a franchise that picks them in a draft.
     
    Agreed with all your points on your other post and liked it, but I actually think this is a good idea (but still irrelevant because the idea sucks). The schooling system is set up now so that those who aren't academically inclined can still do a range of subjects (credits I guess) which will allow them to complete a longer time at school. I'd also suggest that trades training etc at tertiary institutions be included as part of the 5 years of schooling. What we don't want is youngster banking on their rugby abilities to carry them through life and not putting effort in elsewhere.
     
    Cleaver is whiny about the Chiefs isn't he?  :yes:

    I like it that kids leave school at 15/16 and get building/mechanic/sparky/plumbing apprenticeships becasue they are suited to it.  It also helps the industries they go into as you need that type of labour along with your experienced labour.
     
    I see it int he horse racing industry. Some guys that are what some people would call "dumb as dirt" but they are extremely hard workers and have a natural horsemanship etc that you can't learn at school.
     
    School in some respects is highly over rated in terms of time = excellence



  • I like it that kids leave school at 15/16 and get building/mechanic/sparky/plumbing apprenticeships becasue they are suited to it.  It also helps the industries they go into as you need that type of labour along with your experienced labour.
     
    I see it int he horse racing industry. Some guys that are what some people would call "dumb as dirt" but they are extremely hard workers and have a natural horsemanship etc that you can't learn at school.
     
    School in some respects is highly over rated in terms of time = excellence

    I specifically mentioned those areas in my post - because I'm not 100% certain but don't most of them need some sort of formal training now (doesn't the old apprenticeship model not really apply in the sense we think about it now - my cousin had to go to EIT for a year before he could start his apprenticeship and he had to be over 18)?
     
    I don't have an issue if a 16 year old is out working full time, but how many rugby players are going to be going into the horse racing industry and professional rugby aside from Reagan King? 😉
     
    I think that aspects of schooling are sometimes underrated - discipline to work/turn up,socialisation, etc that type stuff that you can also get from employment - but then again, I work in education.



  • It would be transparent - rugby has such a shocking everything-is-a-secret culture. The first thing professional players are taught is how not to trust the media. It permeates everything they do from that point forward. This would promote engagement with the media and therefore the public.

    Not strange that players are taught not to trust the media. Many (sports) media are of tabloid level in NZ and the number of clicks an article gets online seems to be more important than quality journalism. I'd avoid them like the plague if I were a pro rugby player unless it was my turn to front them on behalf of my team.
     
    If a draft system would force a player to play for the team that picks him, then this may result in a player playing for a team he doesn't want to be a part of, in a part of NZ he doesn't want to be in etc. That doesn't seem to be beneficial to the team and player. Why try to fix something that isn't broken?



  • I see more cons than pros for a draft here.

    So after winning two back to back RWCs, being number one for however many years and having NZ teams dominate Super Rugby almost every year, the NZRU should completely restructure the way they distribute NZ's upcoming talent and all because the Chiefs had the foresight to sign McKenzie back in 2013 and when his contract ran out, the Blues failed to poach him. Makes sense.
     
    The current system doesn't really seem to be hurting the Chiefs, Highlanders, Hurricanes or Crusaders (even after losing THREE AB first fives), so maybe instead of trying to fix what ain't broke, what the Blues need are better talent identification and development programs. I mean shit, they had Marty McKenzie in their fucking squad in 2013, yet they dropped him and now he's better than any 10 they've got.

    Not mad at all we let him go TBH, I've always found him flaky. He's about on par with West IMO.



  • Not mad at all we let him go TBH, I've always found him flaky. He's about on par with West IMO.

    Exactly. The guy is an average player at best and wouldn't make an ounce of difference to our side and has now played for 3 different franchises and still hasn't played 10 Super Rugby games but hey, as people outside of Auckland love to say, yet another 'talent' slips through the ranks at the Blues. You'll probably get people telling us we should have kept Simon Hickey next.



  • I see more cons than pros for a draft here.
     
    Not mad at all we let him go TBH, I've always found him flaky. He's about on par with West IMO.

    I'll disagree with you there. He looked a bit clueless at times once Cruden got injured last season but I thought he was easily the best out of him, his little bro and Horrell. Damian will probably be better by now but I'd still pick him at 10 ahead of West any day.



  • I'll disagree with you there. He looked a bit clueless at times once Cruden got injured last season but I thought he was easily the best out of him, his little bro and Horrell. Damian will probably be better by now but I'd still pick him at 10 ahead of West any day.

    He started off well, but then regressed each game from there. I think the last game he started was in a loss against the Canes, and I remember him being quite bad in that one.



  • I don't like it. It forces young people to move away from their families whose support they often need. It also takes away the local element from teams.

    Agree. Its a truly stupid, idiotic idea. One of the reasons I like the Canes is following a young Canes region players progression through the grades. The only starting outside back last weekend was Aso (I think) Even Barrett was from the Canes region back then
     
    Forwards. Front row all three. (One prop was born in SA though). Locks both outsider. back row All three Wellington. So 12/15  :good: And one lock started off his NZ rugby career in Wellington



  • I specifically mentioned those areas in my post - because I'm not 100% certain but don't most of them need some sort of formal training now (doesn't the old apprenticeship model not really apply in the sense we think about it now - my cousin had to go to EIT for a year before he could start his apprenticeship and he had to be over 18)?
     
    I don't have an issue if a 16 year old is out working full time, but how many rugby players are going to be going into the horse racing industry and professional rugby aside from Reagan King? 😉
     
    I think that aspects of schooling are sometimes underrated - discipline to work/turn up,socialisation, etc that type stuff that you can also get from employment - but then again, I work in education.

    I think thats the key point, some young fulla who blows at school leaving to be a sparky or plumber is a great call.
     
    But anyone who is being talked up as a future Super player at 16 isn't likely to do that. Because the way 16 year olds think why would he? He'll be earning Dan Carter money in a few years. The more talent these guys show re rugby the more they need to straight jacketed into keeping their options open in case, amazingly, they don't get $100k to pose in their undies in between offers from Toulon & the Roosters.



  • He started off well, but then regressed each game from there. I think the last game he started was in a loss against the Canes, and I remember him being quite bad in that one.

    I think I might've missed that game, so I won't argue that one, but I do think it's worth remembering that the way Rennie played hot potato with his back up 10s ended up hurting all three from settling or getting into any kind of form.



  • Plus side of a draft is that it creates a bit of interest/excitement around draft day. I think that's probably outweighed by the cons.
     
    The draft wouldn't make too much sense out of high school because that's not really where the Super teams recruit the people who are going to play from. They recruit from ITM Cup - so a bunch of young ITM Cup players putting themselves into the Super draft could work. But I think it could have long run negative consequences in terms of further weakening provincial allegiances.



  • All uncontracted Mitre10 Cup players are effectively in a draft, anyway ie they are available for selection for whomsoever wants them. The only difference between this situation and a regulated draft scheme is that each team can go after anyone they want rather than signing (drafting) one player then waiting in line until all other teams have had their pick before a second player can be signed (drafted).



  • All uncontracted Mitre10 Cup players are effectively in a draft, anyway ie they are available for selection for whomsoever wants them. The only difference between this situation and a regulated draft scheme is that each team can go after anyone they want rather than signing (drafting) one player then waiting in line until all other teams have had their pick before a second player can be signed (drafted).

    Though there's still a tendency for Canterbury players to go to the Crusaders, Wellington players to the Canes etc. Chiefs and Highlanders are probably a bit more United Nations - but to the extent that players from their regions are playing Super rugby, I suspect they're primarily playing for those franchises.



  • in theory, you want kids to aspire to play for their regions franchise team to create that 'passion' we get accused of not having.



  • I suspect most players do want to play for the team their provincial side is aligned with but it is not unusual for the super side to overlook them (eg Tasman players turning out in decent numbers for the Chiefs and the Highlanders) so if the player wants to be a professional player then he must accept whatever offer comes their way rather than living in hope that their preferred super team might belatedly come knocking on their door. It is always better to take a concrete offer rather than wait for something that might or might not come along later. Former Wellington based club players aspiring to play Mitre10 Cup know only too well that scenario.


Log in to reply