Secret Super rugby review: Axe a team from Australia and South Africa



  • Secret Super rugby review: Axe a team from Australia and South Africa
     
    A secret review of the much maligned Super Rugby competition has recommended Australia and South Africa axe one team each.
    The Sydney Morning Herald has revealed the recommendation for a new 16-team Super Rugby model was presented to the Australian Rugby Union board last week.
    The news outlet claimed other proposed models were also being looked at including the possibility of South Africa losing two teams. Another version actually advocates expanding the tournament even further.
    The revelation comes as the Sanzaar joint venture plans out its next 10 years around a competition that is lucrative yet deeply unpopular among fans over its current 18-team format.
    Consultancy group Accenture is driving the review but is still at least two months away from settling on a preferred structure.
    The Herald reported that Accenture has just completed a lengthy consultation process with 28 stakeholders, including the 18 current teams, the national unions from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina and Japan, plus the host broadcaster from each country.
    The news outlet claimed the ARU board spent considerable time at its meeting discussing the prospect of Australia surrendering one of its Super Rugby licences in time for the 2018 season. A 16-team competition could be played under a more workable four conference format.
    The Herald nominated the Perth-based Western Force as the most likely victims but said any move to axe them would "represent a major strategic retreat by the ARU from its commitment to a national footprint".
    But it noted the ARU will need to consider the dire action as an "immediate solution to rugby's intractable financial problems".
    "Less than a year after the new SANZAAR broadcast deal delivered the ARU a record $A285 million cash injection over five years, the celebrations have come to an abrupt end," said the paper.
    "The ARU has informed the five Super Rugby franchises they can expect a $A500,000 funding shortfall from head office next year, while the ARU searches for a new sponsor for Super Rugby and gets to grips with the true financial picture at the Western Force and the Brumbies."
    The Herald pointed out that the ARU did not secure a naming rights sponsor for the June Test series against England, or this year's Rugby Championship. And also that the Force were bailed out by $A800,000 of additional funding from head office, the Canberra-based Brumbies also have significant financial issues and the Waratahs reported a small $A100,000 profit last year.
    In addition in Melbourne the Rebels are being propped up by private owners while the Reds are embarking on a re-building phase with a new coach and chief executive after posting a loss of more than $A1 million last year.



  • Didn't see that coming at all .



  • I see Moffitt has come out and said we should drop a kiwi team too..yeah..nah



  • Do we really need a separate topic for this? Again? It's cluttering the forum.



  • I guess I could see the ARU dropping the Force but the SARU are never going to go back down to 5 teams, too much politics involved.
     
    Not an encouraging sign if this is the best idea these consultants can come up with.



  • Man I hope this comes to pass. Very few of the Force players are truly super rugby standard and the 6-7 out of their whole squad who are would be welcomeadditions at other teams in Australia. I think if the other franchises can become better by absorbing those players, then they will win more games andhopefully revenues will go up.Will cross my fingers this comes to pass. This will do good things for Aussie Rugby.I am less fussed about SA having so many teams. But yeah the Kings weren't much chop last season.



  • The Force have the worst travel schedule out of just about anyone. Give them the arse.
     
    Then watch the rugby public in WA absolutely cut sick about it.



  • How many of the Force and Rebel players are actually local products of their rugby systems?   Maybe the teams that get cut could play in another second tier comp or join other comps.  Could two SA teams play in Europe?  Could the Force play in Japan?



  • How many of the Force and Rebel players are actually local products of their rugby systems?   Maybe the teams that get cut could play in another second tier comp or join other comps.  Could two SA teams play in Europe?  Could the Force play in Japan?

    With different seasons it is unlikely. South Africa also has the Currie Cup. The Japanese season is short and a bit weird. You don't want test rugby players playing there.



  • How many of the Force and Rebel players are actually local products of their rugby systems?

    It's a low percentage, but some are quite good



  • It's a low percentage, but some are quite goodWhat is the Rebels player Jordie Reid's background, was he a local product? I have a man crush on him and wish he was in the AB wider training group and don't know why he isn't in theAustralian squad as a back up player.



  • What is the Rebels player Jordie Reid's background, was he a local product? I have a man crush on him and wish he was in the AB wider training group and don't know why he isn't in the
    Australian squad as a back up player.

    Sydney boy - similar to George Smith in terms of pathways via Manly rugby club etc. He's a hard-nosed unit, that's for sure.



  • Thanks for that NTA.Australia seem to have the best depth in the number 7 shirt in the world and always seem to have as far back as I can remember. I think I have chattedwith a few aussie fans before about it and they told me that in high school rugby it is a very coveted playing position. While in NZ everyone aspiresto be a number 10 or a number 8.I do hope that Australian rugby finds a spring in its step. I think all of the Wallabies are very humble blokes and they are a good advertisement fortheir country.



  • Thanks for that NTA.Australia seem to have the best depth in the number 7 shirt in the world and always seem to have as far back as I can remember. I think I have chatted
    with a few aussie fans before about it and they told me that in high school rugby it is a very coveted playing position. While in NZ everyone aspires
    to be a number 10 or a number 8.
    I do hope that Australian rugby finds a spring in its step. I think all of the Wallabies are very humble blokes and they are a good advertisement for
    their country.

    Nah, I think that is rubbish and clouded by your man crush on that dreadlocked Rebel, we've always had as much depth at 7 as the Wallabies, just that our number 1 was so far ahead of the pack and they tend to give all of theirs a test jumper at some time or another. Considering we tend to convert 6s to 8 these days I highly doubt 8 is our favoured position.



  • I hope they reduce the team numbers and return to the old system of each team playing each other once, then quarters/semis/finals. I know the travel sucks, but has to be better than the current clusterfuck competition that drags forever and stops and starts for the international window.
     
    The conferences are a joke. It is fucking ridiculous to watch NZ teams playing NZ teams over and over, and the winner of the Aussie conference getting a spot when this year that conference was just dire. Ditto for the Chiefs playing a woeful Stormers in South Africa and the home team getting spanked - they hadn't even played ONE NZ side all year.



  • Nah, I think that is rubbish and clouded by your man crush on that dreadlocked Rebel, we've always had as much depth at 7 as the Wallabies, just that our number 1 was so far ahead of the pack and they tend to give all of theirs a test jumper at some time or another. Considering we tend to convert 6s to 8 these days I highly doubt 8 is our favoured position.I think you are completely underselling Reid. He is a quality number 7. McMahon is also "isn't bad". That gives Australia 4 International quality number 7s.Hooper, Pocock, Reid, McMahon not to mention Gill isn't bad either and by memory it was gill who had the most turnovers out of Australia's number 7slast year.Who does New Zealand have - Cane? I would have Hooper and Pocock ahead of him anyday. Behind Cane we have Savea who is very good I guess, but then whoMatt Todd...Major LOL. I distinctly remember a super match towards the end where a wellington player ran straight over the top of him and Todd looked like chump.



  • I think you are completely underselling Reid. He is a quality number 7. McMahon is also "isn't bad". That gives Australia 4 International quality number 7s.
    Hoopah, Pocock, Reid, McMahon not to mention Gill isn't bad either and by memory it was gill who had the most turnovers out of Australia's number 7s
    last year.Who does New Zealand have - Cane? I would have Hoopah and Pocock ahead of him anyday. Behind Cane we have Savea who is very good I guess, but then who
    Matt Todd...Major LOL. I distinctly remember a super match towards the end where a wellington player ran straight over the top of him and Todd looked like chump.

    You're out of your fucking mind.



  • You're out of your fucking mind.Computer says no.



  • Cane won't even be the starting AB number 7 two years from now. His decision making as evidenced in silly penalties he takes in super rugby alone indicatehe is not a disciplined player.



  • Hurricane you're talking massive quantities or rubbish



  • Well whatever. At least I don't rate players just because they wear a black jersey. Cane is destined to be a journeyman player at best. Pocock in his primewas being discussed as being on par with an ageing McCaw. Both Hoopah and Pocock are distinctly better players than Cane is. Cane just happens to beon the winning team so somehow that makes him better.Anyway I am majorly outnumbered and have an unpopular opinion and you guys aren't even debating me you are just firing pot shots so yeah...I don'tthink on retrospect it is a wise thing to come on to a web site for NZ fans and tell them a player in the AB team isn't number one in the world in his position.



  • That old chestnut is not going to cut it. You've made the call, back it up. So far it's an opinion on the future, and fuck all else.
    In what ways are pooper both better than cane? How are their backups all better than savea and todd?



  • That old chestnut is not going to cut it. You've made the call, back it up. So far it's an opinion on the future, and fuck all else.In what ways are pooper both better than cane? How are their backups all better than savea and todd?You won't like the source as it is green and gold - but the stats analysis is clear - Cane lagged behind the others in most dimensions from a statspoint of view (turnovers, penalties conceeded etc) in the Super Rugby Comp this yearhttp://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/by-the-numbers-wallaby-openside/



  • I hardly think it is that ridiculous to think that Pocock/Hooper are better than Cane. There are a lot of people who seem to think that every single All Black is better than every single Wallaby. I just don't think that is the case. If that is the case then there would almost be no way I could see us losing on Saturday. A lot of people on here don't like Pocock's "style" because he is always looking for the turnover and is a weak tackler. Okay. How much better would those turnovers look if he was turning the ball over and giving it to Barrett? Would Cane look anywhere near as good as a Wallaby?



  • That's so shit. All kiwi defenders of an overseas player always fall back on the "nz supporters never see others as being any good"line.
    Pocock is huge over the ball, but it's his only trick. He's slow, a passive tackler, and has little ball skill.
    Hooper is quick, and a breakdown menace. But isn't physical, and tends to go missing out wide for large periods of the game. I'm still waiting to see what his real strength is.
    Both are penalty magnets.
    What puts them ahead of Cane again?



  • those stats say cane gives away more penalties than hooper or pocock.
     
    cane is a great tackler, and has a great motor. he's quite a different player to either of those guys.
     
    i've said it before and i'll say it again - if pocock was playing in our pack, he would be regarded as incredible, because our other players would make up for his deficiencies. he would get more turnovers, and we would simply slaughter teams on the counter-attack with that turnover ball - and he'd get the credit for that.



  • That's so shit. All kiwi defenders of an overseas player always fall back on the "nz supporters never see others as being any good"line.
    Pocock is huge over the ball, but it's his only trick. He's slow, a passive tackler, and has little ball skill.
    Hoopah is quick, and a breakdown menace. But isn't physical, and tends to go missing out wide for large periods of the game. I'm still waiting to see what his real strength is.
    Both are penalty magnets.
    What puts them ahead of Cane again?

    Well, Hurricane posted evidence that Cane gives away more penalties than both of them. If you want to provide stats to the contrary, go ahead.
     
    I would also add that Pocock is very intelligent and good in the rolling maul.


  • Banned

    those stats say cane gives away more penalties than Hoopah or pocock.
    cane is a great tackler, and has a great motor. he's quite a different player to either of those guys.
    i've said it before and i'll say it again - if pocock was playing in our pack, he would be regarded as incredible, because our other players would make up for his deficiencies. he would get more turnovers, and we would simply slaughter teams on the counter-attack with that turnover ball - and he'd get the credit for that.

    Nah, he'd be expected to actually have a running game and to do something other than nick pill. I reckon there are plenty of players that could get plenty more steals if that's all they were assigned to do.
    Pococks finest moments have been pretty much those games when his team is getting pumped and he stems the tide with his steals. I would hope we would never need a player like that for the abs.



  • Nah, he'd be expected to actually have a running game and to do something other than nick pill. I reckon there are plenty of players that could get plenty more steals if that's all they were assigned to do.
    Pococks finest moments have been pretty much those games when his team is getting pumped and he stems the tide with his steals. I would hope we would never need a player like that for the abs.

    nah i reckon we'd be glad to have him. there is no other player who is as strong over the ball as him. partially that's because he is a midget, which negatively impacts other parts of his game, but nobody else can do what he does, as well as he does. if our guys could, then surely they would turn it on when we were under the pump?
     
    he's also a very reliable defender in general - does not miss many tackles, and as mentioned by hydro, effective in the maul. it all depends on the skills you decide to prioritise in a position. owen franks is a shit ball runner, but so what.
     
    the problem the aussies have is balance. if they had a read, kaino, coles etc to cover the ball-running, and a retallick, whitelock, read combo for the lineout, and beauden barrett using the ball he won, he'd be an opposition's nightmare. you seem to want him to do everything by himself before you'll rate him. 
     
    the best game i've seen pocock play was knocking the saffas out in 2011. he won that game pretty much by himself.



  • Well whatever. At least I don't rate players just because they wear a black jersey. Cane is destined to be a journeyman player at best. Pocock in his prime
    was being discussed as being on par with an ageing McCaw. Both Hoopah and Pocock are distinctly better players than Cane is. Cane just happens to be
    on the winning team so somehow that makes him better.
    Anyway I am majorly outnumbered and have an unpopular opinion and you guys aren't even debating me you are just firing pot shots so yeah...I don't
    think on retrospect it is a wise thing to come on to a web site for NZ fans and tell them a player in the AB team isn't number one in the world in his position.

    If you don't like being called out for talking shit, maybe the Stuff comments section is more your style?
     
    And no, linking a G&G article that cherry picks a few stats (as if they tell the full story anyway) is not proof Cane is a journeyman or whatever other crap you want to spout.
     
    Personally, I actually like Pocock (not a fan of Hoopah though) but I think if he were a NZ player, he'd probably be in the same weird position Todd's been in for the last few years. He's a very good player but doesn't have the game we expect from our opensides these days. Out and out fetchers just aren't as valued here as they are in Aus, especially when that comes at the cost of ball running skills. And yeah, you can point to Franks but he's a fucking prop, when he's not in scrums, his job is to hit rucks and he does it well.



  • Don't think anyone is disputing that pocock is a good player but to say he is the best 7 going round or that Aust have the most depth at 7 is debatable. It all depends on what areas you place the most importance on. If it is turnovers you probably say pocock, if it is ball running you probably say Savea, if you value a tackling machine with huge motor you probably say Cane.
    If you look at Mccaw who is the greatest player to ever wear a 7 jersey, or rugby jersey for that matter, one of his biggest assets was his motor and the fact he would make 5 dominant tackles in a row. To me the most similar to him is Cane. That quality is more important to an AB 7 than stealing the ball at the ruck. So i don't agree that pocock would be the AB 7 if he were a kiwi.
    Pocock is good at what he does. But that one trick (or two if you want to count the maul) is easy to neutralise by targetting him in the cleanout, the ABs have done it in pretty much every game he has played against them. Sure he has pinched a few balls but it hasn't been game changing and they have suffered in other areas.
    Also that 2011 Qtr vs the Boks he was assisted by a ref who refused to blow a penalty against him even though he was rarely supporting his own bodyweight. Funnily enough the 7 from the other side Brussow was also a turnover specialist. IMO he caused more problems for the ABs at the breakdown than Pocock ever has.
    On the depth issue i would say its pretty even. Pocock+hoopah is pretty even with Cane + Savea then the next tier Gill, Reid, McMahon, Hodgson etc is pretty even with Todd, Gibson, Christie, Taufua, Pryor etc. A lot of those guys would be selected for most test sides in the world.


  • Banned

    nah i reckon we'd be glad to have him. there is no other player who is as strong over the ball as him. partially that's because he is a midget, which negatively impacts other parts of his game, but nobody else can do what he does, as well as he does. if our guys could, then surely they would turn it on when we were under the pump?
    he's also a very reliable defender in general - does not miss many tackles, and as mentioned by hydro, effective in the maul. it all depends on the skills you decide to prioritise in a position. owen franks is a shit ball runner, but so what.
    the problem the aussies have is balance. if they had a read, kaino, coles etc to cover the ball-running, and a retallick, whitelock, read combo for the lineout, and beauden barrett using the ball he won, he'd be an opposition's nightmare. you seem to want him to do everything by himself before you'll rate him.
    the best game i've seen pocock play was knocking the saffas out in 2011. he won that game pretty much by himself.

    How on earth can you compare a prop with a loose forward? What a bizarre comment.
    It's not about doing everything, it's about having better all-round rugby skills. For instance, I could never rate a flyhalf who could kick goals from everywhere, but was a poor tackler and runner. The rest of the team shouldn't have to compensate for his deficiencies.
    As to steals, it is not part of NZ rugby to have one guy assigned to do only that. I've mentioned before talking to a top rugby analyst in Aus who felt that this overemphasis on stealing pill was not helping Aus rugby. I just can't see a guy like Pocock with absolutely no running game and no ability to act as a link as being a first choice 7 in NZ rugby.



  • That's so shit. All kiwi defenders of an overseas player always fall back on the "nz supporters never see others as being any good"line.Pocock is huge over the ball, but it's his only trick. He's slow, a passive tackler, and has little ball skill.Hoopah is quick, and a breakdown menace. But isn't physical, and tends to go missing out wide for large periods of the game. I'm still waiting to see what his real strength is.Both are penalty magnets.What puts them ahead of Cane again?His real strength, you mentioned it, he is an opportunist, but can't normally wrestle it back when the chips are down hence flies around the field but is often inneffective and in danger of being a flat track bully.



  • This is kind of academic, if Pocock played with Read and Kaino it might be easy to do a comparison.



  • Cane won't even be the starting AB number 7 two years from now. His decision making as evidenced in silly penalties he takes in super rugby alone indicate
    he is not a disciplined player.

    Same arguments were made about Nonu - who seemed to reduce his silly penalties when playing in black. He might not be starting 7 in two years - but you can say that for any of the 1-15 currently wearing black (well maybe not Whitelock and Retalick).
     
    I noticed on the green and gold site they left off number of rucks hit by the two Kiwi Flankers - wonder why?



  • Are those stats from super rugby or test rugby? Little bit pointless if only super rugby...



  • I noticed on the green and gold site they left off number of rucks hit by the two Kiwi Flankers - wonder why?

    Prppably dont have the data for it. There is a guy from the forum who does the ruck stats himself for aussie teams+wallabies.



  • Do we really need a separate topic for this? Again? It's cluttering the forum.

    I think so.
    I've avoided the "Fix Super Rugby" topic recently so am glad this is posted like this.



  • Who does New Zealand have - Cane? I would have Hoopah and Pocock ahead of him anyday.

    You're down on Sammy.
    So last Saturday's match where he outplayed the combined might of Poopah was an aberration?



  • You're out of your fucking mind.

    Some people put it so much more eloquently...


Log in to reply