Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team
-
I'd like to see Stewart Island get a Super Rugby team TBH.
-
-
Could a sixth NZ team be competitive ?
There are still a number of good players who aren''t contracted yet (Tuilamo, Rarasea, Fa'aso'o, Sherwin Stowers, Lautani, Parete, Tupe, Nansen, Little, Vaega, Price, Jonah Lowe, Aumua, Garden-Bashop, Faingaanuku, Strange, Alainu'uese, just to name a few). -
@cgrant said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
Could a sixth NZ team be competitive ?
There are still a number of good players who aren''t contracted yet (Tuilamo, Rarasea, Fa'aso'o, Sherwin Stowers, Lautani, Parete, Tupe, Nansen, Little, Vaega, Price, Jonah Lowe, Aumua, Garden-Bashop, Faingaanuku, Strange, Alainu'uese, just to name a few).Good players but in reality probably only Melbourne Rebels good.
What we wouldn't want to do is weaken the depth of the existing squads.
Usually when the squads are announced we go through the process of 'who missed out?' and if you ignore the players already contracted for overseas gigs the list isn't that great. Most of these players are involved in A Super franchise WTG/Seconds/training squad anyway as an apprenticeship of sorts.I think we have the balance of teams to players about right.
-
In some positions we absolutely have the depth. However think of a position like hooker. We struggle to find 15 SR quality hookers now.. finding another 3 would be impossible.
Halfback is another problem. We have ~5 Test standard halfbacks, then a gap, then another 5 or so SR quality halfbacks, then a bigger gap followed by crap.
-
I think you need only look at the finals history of the comp to see who has the template for success.
SA powers that be want more teams just because, Aussie want more because they don't want to miss out, NZ sees sense in that 5 is the best number for us.
-
We don't have the depth for a 6th team, not even close. I'm amazed at how strong all 5 of our teams are at the moment, I'm not convinced it will always be that way.
Part of the reason we are so strong at the moment is because of how diluted the other teams are now. I'd far prefer we don't dilute our talent any further just because other countries have.
-
@Crucial said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
I think the country is fairly well covered. Realistically I could only think of having a base in Taupo or Napier.
One day Tauranga might build something and then they will come.
Would make more sense to have a Northland/North Harbour and Auckland/Counties split just based on population. South Island has roughly a million people and two teams, could split Auckland the same way.
Agree we don't have the playing depth to sustain it though.
-
@Kirwan said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
@Crucial said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
I think the country is fairly well covered. Realistically I could only think of having a base in Taupo or Napier.
One day Tauranga might build something and then they will come.Would make more sense to have a Northland/North Harbour and Auckland/Counties split just based on population. South Island has roughly a million people and two teams, could split Auckland the same way.
Agree we don't have the playing depth to sustain it though.
Northland/North Harbour, geographically and player numbers that makes sense, but most of the other aspects required, er, no....
Could do a HB/Man merger, reckon that'll work? @Nepia
-
@taniwharugby said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
@Kirwan said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
@Crucial said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
I think the country is fairly well covered. Realistically I could only think of having a base in Taupo or Napier.
One day Tauranga might build something and then they will come.Would make more sense to have a Northland/North Harbour and Auckland/Counties split just based on population. South Island has roughly a million people and two teams, could split Auckland the same way.
Agree we don't have the playing depth to sustain it though.
Northland/North Harbour, geographically and player numbers that makes sense, but most of the other aspects required, er, no....
Could do a HB/Man merger, reckon that'll work? @Nepia
Geographically, player numbers, population numbers to support a franchise and has a stadium. Would have to be like the Highlanders a few years ago and import quality players, but that's true no matter where a sixth team would end up.
-
@taniwharugby said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
@Kirwan said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
@Crucial said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
I think the country is fairly well covered. Realistically I could only think of having a base in Taupo or Napier.
One day Tauranga might build something and then they will come.Would make more sense to have a Northland/North Harbour and Auckland/Counties split just based on population. South Island has roughly a million people and two teams, could split Auckland the same way.
Agree we don't have the playing depth to sustain it though.
Northland/North Harbour, geographically and player numbers that makes sense, but most of the other aspects required, er, no....
Could do a HB/Man merger, reckon that'll work? @Nepia
Good idea. They could be named after something halfway between PN and Napier like.....um......The Dannevirkers
-
@Kirwan said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
@Crucial said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
I think the country is fairly well covered. Realistically I could only think of having a base in Taupo or Napier.
One day Tauranga might build something and then they will come.Would make more sense to have a Northland/North Harbour and Auckland/Counties split just based on population. South Island has roughly a million people and two teams, could split Auckland the same way.
Agree we don't have the playing depth to sustain it though.
IIRC, there are about 1.8M people in the greater Auckland area + Northland.
-
In the long run - the impact of a sixth team would be sort of equivalent to drawing, say, five players of varying standard from each of the existing franchises.
In the old days of Super12, when we had more teams than the Aussies and Jaapies, we still won most of the tournaments. If the competition is to further expand the number of teams then I think a sixth NZ team is probably logical and I think we could sustain it - albeit that it would obviously weaken all of our teams a bit.
I'd probably rather go back to a competition with fewer and better teams.
If we had to have a new team, I'd be somewhat inclined to base it around several of Taranaki/Hawkes Bay/Manawatu/BoP. I think Taranaki proposed having a Super team a few years back?
-
the other thing to consider is that we probably have some players going overseas because they don't see a super starting gig open to them. obviously not great players if they can't crack the other 5 teams, but in terms of depth to fill a 6th they still count. a 6th team may well get guys who instead go on to play in the aussie teams eg thomson, woodward, matthewson too.
i don't think it is a good idea mind. -
@taniwharugby Yeah, we'll call them the Vikings - Northland will be supportive of that right?
-
I disagree that we don't have the depth for a strong 6th franchise. A new team wouldn't start from scratch, as has been mentioned, what would happen is that 5 or 6 players would be drawn from each of the current teams.
I think that it's a no-brainer that a new team would be based in the Auckland region.
-
I think there are easily the players. So many NZ super teams have second string and occasionally front line All blacks on their reserves bench. some obvious examples include the Saders front row, Hurricanes Wings, Chiefs halves (although Pulu was out this year), and in years gone by the chiefs had Cane/Latimer etc. Given the standings of the NZ teams this year, I think there is plenty of room for it.
