Waikato and the Chiefs
-
The Chiefs and Waikato separated as an entity a long time back (maybe even back when I was living there) and quite frankly it's a good thing that the bulk of a franchises talent isn't all concentrated in one NPC team. That was the problem with the previous incarnations with the NPC when Super Rugby started, the franchise could just hog the talent. Now we have a much better spread, and Southland and the Magpies aside, any team can beat any team regardless of the division. It's really just two conferences in the same competition.
-
@duluth said in Waikato and the Chiefs:
The Chiefs angle is interesting
Taranaki have long had ambitions of being a SR base. If they end this season as Ranfurly Shield holders and 1st division winners they have a strong hand to ask for more games
They too have a Test match venue, they have better crowds and produce more players
I expect infighting
That would be a fair call too. It would be a bit of fun if Super Bases were loaded out based on NPC performance
-
I'm all for going back to a system where a franchise has to select a minimum of x amount of players from within franchise boundaries. This used to be something like 24 players but could be as few as 12 potentially. There has to be a happy medium to be found between the central contracting free-for-all and the old 24 player system. Before anyone says anything, this wouldn't benefit Canterbury greatly.
-
@shark said in Waikato and the Chiefs:
I'm all for going back to a system where a franchise has to select a minimum of x amount of players from within franchise boundaries. This used to be something like 24 players but could be as few as 12 potentially. There has to be a happy medium to be found between the central contracting free-for-all and the old 24 player system. Before anyone says anything, this wouldn't benefit Canterbury greatly.
What is wrong with it in reality? Why protect the franchise bases? Some provinces are struggling to be as successful as in the past, that just means others are more successful now - but if you remember back to the 80s then Waikato spent time in the old 2nd division.
If unions are to be tied in then it should be all top tier unions in the region rather than just the home franchise which has happened in the past, that way a union like Hawkes Bay (for example) wouldn't see it's players go to other franchises so often.
-
@shark said in Waikato and the Chiefs:
I'm all for going back to a system where a franchise has to select a minimum of x amount of players from within franchise boundaries. This used to be something like 24 players but could be as few as 12 potentially. There has to be a happy medium to be found between the central contracting free-for-all and the old 24 player system. Before anyone says anything, this wouldn't benefit Canterbury greatly.
And players then just shift province, like they used to. And so the outer provinces get stripped.
-
Seems to me like @shark is applying the slightly unique way the Crusaders work to the other franchises.
As others have pointed out the Saders/Canterbury are pretty much the only setup that still operate in the old way. In big part that is due to geography and population.
Using the Chiefs as an example they have Waikato, BOP and CM as ITM Cup unions. In the bad old days BOP and CM would be weakened to feed the system of Waikato forming the base of the Chiefs (eg Beaver). Now with franchises being able to recruit from anywhere the talent is spread back. geographically it isn't much of a problem to have your family home in Pukekohe or Tauranga and play your Super Rugby in Hamilton. Even though many players will share a flat for training/ playing they are still able to nip home on days off.
With the Saders, players know that if they want to play there they pretty much need to live in ChCh therefore strengthening only one province. The nearest other high level province is impractical to be driving to and from (although I imagine Ta$man players try to live in two places) -
Relegation ain't what it used to be.
Nowadays you only need a couple of slip ups and you finish 7th and only 3 places out of the semis. Conceivably you could only be one game out of the play-offs and down you go.
Back in the day I think the smallest Div 1 ever got was 9. (3 divs of 9). But generally it was 10.
Is finishing 7th really that bad a slip up?
-
-
@booboo said in Waikato and the Chiefs:
P.S. i like that non Super base provinces are right up there. Takes me back to when Counties and Manawatu were leading the comp.
Overall it is much, much better than when players concentrated around the super hubs.
Talent wise it means that more players get a chance to show their abilities rather than only those identified by franchise selectors. This provides another avenue away for those not identified at college/U20s level.Edit: Liam Squire is probably a good example. Highest youth level was locally in Manawatu (PNBHS). Moved to (at that time) unheralded Ta$man for an opportunity. Looks unlikely that he would have been picked up early on by a Waikato/Wellington/Canterbury etc as he was on no ones radar.
-
There are a lot of crusty old fuckwits on the Waikato board, (I feel sorry for Monkley and Holah), and as long as they are there, nothing will change. Waikato have been on a slippery downward slope for a while now, and they still persist with town vs country antics even though there has been a bit of a shake up in terms of club pecking order. Otorohanga and Melville have been making great strides, while traditionally strong Fraser Tech and University were bottom 2 in the prems this year.
But as I said, old dogs fail to see it's a brave new world. As another poster said, perhaps being relegated will be the kick in the arse they need to take a long hard look at the union and where it is, and where it wants to be in future. Bleeding talent is a huge worry, and the team have lost a LOT of experience. Why are they leaving? Where are they going? What is being offered? That is where they should start the assessment.
-
@hooroo said in Waikato and the Chiefs:
@duluth said in Waikato and the Chiefs:
The Chiefs angle is interesting
Taranaki have long had ambitions of being a SR base. If they end this season as Ranfurly Shield holders and 1st division winners they have a strong hand to ask for more games
They too have a Test match venue, they have better crowds and produce more players
I expect infighting
That would be a fair call too. It would be a bit of fun if Super Bases were loaded out based on NPC performance
Works for me
-
@booboo said in Waikato and the Chiefs:
Relegation ain't what it used to be.
Nowadays you only need a couple of slip ups and you finish 7th and only 3 places out of the semis. Conceivably you could only be one game out of the play-offs and down you go.
Back in the day I think the smallest Div 1 ever got was 9. (3 divs of 9). But generally it was 10.
Is finishing 7th really that bad a slip up?
In Waikatos case finishing 7th was rather flattering... in reality they were in the bottom 3 or 4 teams of the combined competitions.
-
The way I'd structure it would be for a minimum of x amount of players to be selected from within franchise boundaries. NOT just from the host union, which appears to be how some have taken it. This would strengthen parochialism and in the case of the Chiefs in particular it would see a lot more Waikato, BOP and Counties players selected than has been the case in recent years. There were well publicised stats about the Chiefs in the last few seasons around the amount of players they had signed from unions outside their catchment VS the amount of players from the host unions. Who really wants that?? Since buying a couple of titles, what have the Chiefs achieved, and what's the damage been to Waikato? Meanwhile, look at the example of Whetu Douglas. Largely ignored by the Chiefs while they signed loose forwards from other parts of the country and even overseas, he's then lost to Waikato and in the meantime embarrasses both the Chiefs and Waikato administrations by performing outstandingly in a handful of games after being drafted in for the Crusaders. That's the kind of player who could still be around and strengthening both sides while maintaining more of a local flavour to the Chiefs.
-
@shark said in Waikato and the Chiefs:
The way I'd structure it would be for a minimum of x amount of players to be selected from within franchise boundaries. NOT just from the host union, which appears to be how some have taken it. This would strengthen parochialism and in the case of the Chiefs in particular it would see a lot more Waikato, BOP and Counties players selected than has been the case in recent years. There were well publicised stats about the Chiefs in the last few seasons around the amount of players they had signed from unions outside their catchment VS the amount of players from the host unions. Who really wants that?? Since buying a couple of titles, what have the Chiefs achieved, and what's the damage been to Waikato? Meanwhile, look at the example of Whetu Douglas. Largely ignored by the Chiefs while they signed loose forwards from other parts of the country and even overseas, he's then lost to Waikato and in the meantime embarrasses both the Chiefs and Waikato administrations by performing outstandingly in a handful of games after being drafted in for the Crusaders. That's the kind of player who could still be around and strengthening both sides while maintaining more of a local flavour to the Chiefs.
I totally get where you are coming from with that but you also have to remember that part of the franchise structure is for NZR to ensure as much as possible that the best players are playing at the highest levels and getting the required playing time. There is a need to spread talent around, not only to create stronger franchise teams but to help the situations where one franchise happens to hold all the cards in one position. One team having three top tighthead props is not good for the ABs if one of them is a continual reserve and the other a dirty dirty.
Without wanting to divert the topic, your story about the Chiefs 'buying titles' is well off the mark as well. The irony is that it was because the host unions couldn't supply the type of player the coach wanted they recruited the unwanted unknowns from elsewhere and honed them. -
Central contracting didn't prevent the Chiefs from having three AB half-backs for 2-3 years. There will always be circumstances in which that kind of thing happens. I'm suggesting a system where x amount of players have to come from within the franchise's boundaries. This could be spread depending in the size of the union ie at the Chiefs it might be six Waikato contracted players and four from each of Taranaki, Counties and BOP. This leaves 19 spots to pick up talent from around the rest of the country, which could include the second or third tighthead scenario you mentioned. This is a good compromise.
-
I'm fully in favour of splitting up the Mitre 10 cup and the Super Rugby. Franchises may get first dibs on players from inside their boundaries, but the old days of signing for a Super and the host ITM cup team sucked. Created imbalanced competition, and no reward for some of the provinces that regularly developed talent (Counties is a particular example).
We've got back to teh original concept when Super kicked off. Leon MacDonald played for the 3rd division Marlborough team for 2-3 years after Super kicked off, and then that was kind of the end of it. The current situation is much healthier, with 14 teams to play for.
-
@shark said in Waikato and the Chiefs:
Central contracting didn't prevent the Chiefs from having three AB half-backs for 2-3 years. There will always be circumstances in which that kind of thing happens. I'm suggesting a system where x amount of players have to come from within the franchise's boundaries. This could be spread depending in the size of the union ie at the Chiefs it might be six Waikato contracted players and four from each of Taranaki, Counties and BOP. This leaves 19 spots to pick up talent from around the rest of the country, which could include the second or third tighthead scenario you mentioned. This is a good compromise.
Would you like that scenario if it also filtered down to ITM Cup level? e.g. Canterbury can only select Canterbury club players that actually play club rugby, then the Saders can only select from there and from Ta$man?
I get what you are aiming at but it is simply a recipe for franchise players to congregate at certain base unions and the 'leftovers' would either need to shift towns or get left out. Imagine a Highlanders side of 80%Otago and Southland players?
Edit: you are counting Pulu and Weber? stretching the point somewhat.
