Waikato and the Chiefs
-
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.
-
@shark said in Waikato and the Chiefs:
. 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??
Me!
I don't care where the players hail from. That amature ship has long since sailed. I want the Chiefs winning titles, that's all that matter in terms of Super Rugby.
I am trying to think of a top professional competition that is 'regionalised' in terms of players
-
I feel the total opposite. I used to love NPC rugby. Years ago it was great seeing players come up through the ranks and graduate into their local Super rugby franchise. There was more of a natural progression for players and a hell of a lot more loyalty. Now they pluck from schools anywhere and I feel Super rugby and NPC have lost their 'soul'.
I find it increasingly hard to identify with the super teams plucked from any old where. I would rather see more regionally based picks where a player might take 2 or 3 years to become a regular starter, but knows he is being groomed as a successor to the incumbent. It was great to watch a guy play well in club rugby, then see how he shaped up in super rugby. Now a lot of super players don't play regularly in NPC, and rarely for clubs.
I think the spread of the unions between super franchises has been a significant challenge. The Crusaders are fortunate to have just two provinces, one extremely strong and another not too far behind. That supports a super squad and a development squad for the region, with local opportunities plentiful. The Highlanders have a much smaller population base between their two provinces. I always expected a formalised Association for them with either Hawkes Bay or Taranaki and perhaps a home match there thrown in. i.e. HB or Taranaki openly supplies players to Highlanders and Hurricanes, and gets a home match for each.
The Blues and Hurricanes work ok with 3 provinces now. But, the Chiefs are lumbered with 4 provincial squads to provide player pathways for. I think both Bay of Plenty and Counties Manukau have suffered from this with players like Joe Tupe and Sam Vaka not even picked up on the draft, and leaving. It is in the best interests of NZ rugby to have well balanced franchises. Currently the Highlanders and Chiefs are too much the polar extremes.
I believe that the best performances come from a settled and experienced team that builds up collective trust and confidence over years. That means keeping a squad together and supporting local development.
I wonder if a sixth franchise - Taranaki + Hawkes Bay is a viable solution in time, especially if NPC and club rugby become less relevant.
-
as a supporter of a smaller province, I like the way the contracting is now.
Back in the old days the likes of Sam Nock, probably both Goodhue brothers, Matich, would never have come back, the Pryors probably would never have come north in the first place, Ranger probably woulda still followed his same path as he has.
As it is, I understand a few provinces are after the signature of one of our young players, in the past a promise of a super contract to go with the NPC one would have been the offer to lure him away, now it rarely the case.
This assists the smaller provinces in retaining some of their own talent while attracting some outside talent.
I like Super rugby because it is NZ Rugby and sadly don't think I'll ever feel about a super team as i do Northland.
-
@nzzp said in Waikato and the Chiefs:
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.
Once again, I'm not suggesting a scenario whereby players flock to a Waikato or Canterbury. The other unions in these Super Rugby regions would have a proportionate representation, compulsorily. Including Counties. Then each franchise would also have plenty of opportunity to sign the balance of the squad from wherever, meaning there's no reason why a Goodhue couldn't remain in Northland and play for the Crusaders as one of their centrally contracted players. Compromise.
-
@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.
Good to have you back Shark, looks like your time away has seen your dislike of Rennie and the Chiefs continue, but some of the bollocks in this post needs to be addressed.
Lets look at Whetu Douglas first - every franchise has overlooked players that have gone on to decent careers, it happens all the time. The Canes overlooked Dagg, the Crusaders let BBBR get away, the Canes missed Aaron Smith etc. Furthermore, if Douglas was as good as you're making him out to be a franchise would have picked him up as a squad member yet he was only picked up as an injury replacement - this was clearly the level that he was rated at the start of the season.
Now, lets look at your "buying a couple of titles" quip - I assume there was no way you said this with a straight face. The first two Crusaders winning teams could equally be seen as "bought titles" and the franchise used that success and a system you're advocating now to suck up talent from all over the country.
Also, have you seen the 2011 Waikato NPC squad that would have been picked from for the 2012 Chiefs? That squad wasn't great in a Super rugby sense.
The Super competition is for NZs best players, not for all players in a franchise home base. How many of these players would you have picked over the players the Chiefs picked for 2012? (I've crossed out those unavailable and put in italics those in the squad - which incidentally easily meets your 6 Waikato contracted players from your follow up post).
Armstrong Jono, Flanker 31.12.87 Te Awamutu Sports 1.81 101 0
Bradley Alex, Loose forward 30.09.81 Morrinsville Sports 1.90 114 20
Barnes Malcolm, Halfback 15.08.84 Hamilton Old Boys 1.79 85 18
Christie Sam, First five-eighth 26.09.86 Fraser Tech 1.80 92 16
Cummings-Toone Marcel, Hooker 17.07.84 University 1.82 106 0
de Malmanche Aled, Hooker 11.09.84 Hamilton Old Boys 1.85 114 52
Donald Stephen, First five-eighth 03.12.83 University 1.86 101 50
Ellison Andre, Prop 08.07.79 Hamilton Old Boys 1.82 119 1
Graham Romana, Lock 29.05.86 Hautapu 2.02 114 28
George Nathan, First five 13.06.91 Te Awamutu Sports 1.75 75 0
Grice Rory, Number 8 02.04.90 Otorohanga 1.75 110 0
Halai Frank, Wing 6.03.88 Hamilton Marist 1.95 105 3
Hohneck Zak, Loose forward 08.03.90 Otorohanga 1.85 105 9
Holah Marty, Flanker 10.09.76 Hamilton Marist 1.84 99 71
Kahui Richard, Centre 09.06.85 Te Rapa 1.90 101 35
Kerr-Barlow Tawera, Halfback 15.08.90 Hautapu 1.87 89 17
Lam Jack, Number 8 18.11.87 Hamilton Marist 1.88 107 28
Leonard Brendon, Halfback 16.04.85 Morrinsville Sports 1.82 95 43
Lynn Toby, Lock 06.10.84 Te Rapa 1.97 114 66
May Ben, Prop 13.10.82 Te Awamutu Sports 1.94 118 15
Malo Jono, Halfback 23.01.90 Hamilton Marist 1.79 86 0
Messam Liam, Loose forward 25.03.84 Hautapu 1.88 107 82
Middleton Chris, Lock 11.03.87 Te Awamutu Sports 1.99 110 2
Mikkelson Tim, Wing 13.8.86 University 1.91 102 34
Murray Mark, Midfield back 22.04.87 Te Awamutu Sports 1.86 98 0
O'Donnell Declan, Midfield back 20.11.90 Melville 1.86 94 0
Olsen Josh, Lock 16.04.84 Hamilton Old Boys 2.01 111 4
Renata Trent, utility back 13.05.88 Hamilton Marist 1.80 90 33
Robertson Glen, Utility back 20.02.91 Fraser Tech 1.86 90 0
Shuster Rena, Midfield back 16.11.80 Hamilton Old Boys 1.85 95 0
Sivivatu Sitiveni, Wing 19.04.82 Frankton 1.85 99 28
Smith Toby, Prop 10.10.88 Hamilton Old Boys 1.90 113 23
Speight Henry, Wing 24.3.88 Hamilton Old Boys 1.86 96 24
Sweeney Paul, Flanker 19.12.88 Morrinsville Sports 1.86 99 0
Talakai Latu, Prop 26.12.89 Fraser Tech 1.85 124 7
Tauroa Ted, Prop 19.12.82 Otorohanga 1.86 126 5
Tokula Savenaca, Wing 15.06.85 Fraser Tech 1.92 97 29
Tyrell Josh, Flanker 16.10.90 Hamilton Marist 1.93 104 0
White Nathan, Prop 04.09.81 Te Awamutu Sports 1.88 117 66
Willison Jackson, Midfield back 05.09.88 Hautapu 1.82 92 34
Vant Leven Matt, Loose forward 23.10.87 Fraser Tech 1.94 105 10TBH, I think if you look at the Chiefs 2017 squad you'll find that the bulk are from the 4 home provinces that make up the franchise, it's just that Waikato is no longer the strongest province in the franchise.
-
@nepia Point missed? There are already 8 Waikato players in that squad. But how many were there a couple of years later? I'm sure you know as well as I do that there were more players from provinces -
from memory - such as Manawatu and Ta$man than Waikato in following years. I'm all about provincialism and tribalism throughout the NZ game, so for mine, that's wrong. -
@nepia And Douglas is a PERFECT example of the kind of player who under my structure could well have been picked up by the Chiefs in lieu of signing a guy like Tom Sanders, or Michael Veitch who does NOTHING for NZ rugby and therefore Douglas would still be with Waikato. Which is all kinds of right. I'm not sure how you can argue that with a straight face.
-
Quota system reminds me too much like modern diversity programs or the saffa rugby quotas. Not always best man getting the job.
-
I like the current structure - Auckland and Waikato need to do a better job of talent development/recruitment. It's do-able. Auckland 2 years ago came within a whisker of the title and Wellington have bounced back superbly this year.
It's not the current model's fault that Auckland overlook others and sign terrible players like Tyrone Elkington-MacDonald and Jono Hickey etc etc (I'm sure Waikato have similar examples).
@shark there's a lot of Crusaders that play for Canterbury/ Ta$man provinces that are from outside the region anyway, so how 'tribal' is that. In fact looking at the original squad from this year, over half of the 38 man Crusaders squad are from outside the Crusaders region.
-
Seriously Shark - where's the problem.
Looks like it's working to me - and I don't give a shit about Super Rugby
Meanwhile the sadly downgraded provincial rugby comp has Canterbury, Taranaki, Harbour and Ta$man as the semi-finalists.
Boo hoo that 4 of the franchise bases couldn't make it. I mean genuinely I am sooooo fucking sorry
-
@shark said in Waikato and the Chiefs:
@nepia Point missed? There are already 8 Waikato players in that squad. But how many were there a couple of years later? I'm sure you know as well as I do that there were more players from provinces -
from memory - such as Manawatu and Ta$man than Waikato in following years. I'm all about provincialism and tribalism throughout the NZ game, so for mine, that's wrong.Your points are all over the show. You're claiming the Waikato demise is due to the Chiefs selecting decisions since their rise in 2012 however their squad wasn't even that good in the years before that. There is no point the Chiefs picking Waikato players who are not in the top players in the country just because their franchise is based within that province. And those middle years had particularly poor Waikato teams. Hell, the Canes have a Wellington first policy and they're in the 2nd Division currently.
As for Douglas, you're focusing on one player who has missed out because it suits a narrative you're creating, in a team that is filled with loose forwards from within the franchise boundaries (it's just that they're from BoP, the Naki, and Counties), and only because he was an injury replacement in your team, I doubt you were bemoaning the fact he didn't make the Chiefs after the NPC last year.
Provincialism is not franchise rugby. Maybe you have a belief that they're associated because for so long Canterbury=Crusaders, but for the rest of us they're two different beasts.
-
@shark I don't think you are fully grasping the dynamics outside of Canterbury, which has one comparatively isolated city with an area such as the upper north island.
These days North Harbour, Auckland,Counties, Waikato, BOP almost blend into each other. A player in one of those unions can easily associate with, or play in, the unions either side of him.
Take someone like Beaver as an example. Lives in Counties, has a business in Counties, grew up and started playing for Counties, yet was considered a local when playing for years at Waikato.
As soon as a policy like the one you are advocating is brought in, players from CM and BOP will congregate back at Waikato or endlessly move around between the three unions to manage the quota system for the Chiefs.
We get that with the Crusaders and Canterbury being effectively the Saders A and B sides drives great parochialism and support, but that dynamic doesn't work in other environments.
The Canes followed your concept for years and it never made Wellington strong. -
@crucial said in Waikato and the Chiefs:
@shark I don't think you are fully grasping the dynamics outside of Canterbury, which has one comparatively isolated city with an area such as the upper north island.
These days North Harbour, Auckland,Counties, Waikato, BOP almost blend into each other. A player in one of those unions can easily associate with, or play in, the unions either side of him.
Take someone like Beaver as an example. Lives in Counties, has a business in Counties, grew up and started playing for Counties, yet was considered a local when playing for years at Waikato.
As soon as a policy like the one you are advocating is brought in, players from CM and BOP will congregate back at Waikato or endlessly move around between the three unions to manage the quota system for the Chiefs.
We get that with the Crusaders and Canterbury being effectively the Saders A and B sides drives great parochialism and support, but that dynamic doesn't work in a less inbred environment.Impossible to take anything you say seriously when your post is so heavily influenced by your idiotic and bigoted perception of Canterbury. Says a lot about posters such as yourself that a post about Waikato and the Chiefs comes back to Canterbury bashing.
