Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team
-
Imagine a sixth NZ Super Rugby team. Where could it be based ? And with which players ? (please don't name players who are already contracted by other NZ teams).
-
I'd like to see Stewart Island get a Super Rugby team TBH.
-
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.
-
TBH the Aussie and SA teams are almost all so weak these days that creating more NZ teams would probably be the easiest way to balance things out again. The NZRU would never want to pay for it though.
-
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.
-
@MajorRage said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
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.
Well, there's easily enough players to fill the team. I'm sure that helped inform SAs decision to expand - "we've got so many players!". But without a doubt the quality of our teams would suffer. But given how crap/diluted the other teams are, it would just put us back with the pack rather then out in front like we are now.
So, do we want to be back in the pack producing a lower quality product or out ahead? I prefer the latter. Other countries can dilute themselves to their hearts content but I think having 5 strong NZ teams feeds into the ABs beautifully.
-
@Tim I think going back a 3 or 4 years , Auckland had the highest player numbers, NH was about 4th or 5th and Northland was 8th or 9th...so population is there, just issues with their ability
-
@No-Quarter said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
@MajorRage said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
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.
Well, there's easily enough players to fill the team. I'm sure that helped inform SAs decision to expand - "we've got so many players!". But without a doubt the quality of our teams would suffer. But given how crap/diluted the other teams are, it would just put us back with the pack rather then out in front like we are now.
So, do we want to be back in the pack producing a lower quality product or out ahead? I prefer the latter. Other countries can dilute themselves to their hearts content but I think having 5 strong NZ teams feeds into the ABs beautifully.
I agree with this 100%!
I also think player depth would not be the most important consideration, but financial sustainability. IMO our country is too small for 6 Super teams from that perspective, unless we really want our teams to be completely owned by some (non-NZ) multinationals or rich-listers who see having a SR team as a nice hobby and may not even care about the rugby.
I don't think NZ is big enough to generate enough income for 6 franchises and I also doubt we have enough spectators to fill another stadium (the existing teams don't even attract very big crowds during the round robin, which makes a 2nd Auckland team a bit of a laugh) and also broadcasting deals won't be able to finance it as Sky seems to be the only realistic bidder on the market at this stage (what happened to Colliseum?).
-
Size / crowd / funding size - fair points.
But lets cut to the chase and look at the results. NZ has 5 teams and always have had. For the first few years, we had to most teams and hence diversification of our top players. This has steadily been diluted as other countries have added more teams to mix. The stats don't like though - NZ has won 14 times, which is twice as much as SA/Aus combined. Every NZ team has won in, 3 aussie teams have and only one safa team has.
The quality of rugby in the Mitre10 cups shows there is easily the depth to bring in a nother team without drastically affecting the performance of the current teams. Hell, if it's done properly , recruited propertly, marketed properly, it has the chance of really succeeding.
-
I think that the model NZRU run under sky shows bums on seats isn't a huge driver for them.
-
@Duluth said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
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.
Aumua looks to be an outstanding prospect while Faiva, Mitchell or O'Reilly wouldn't fare too badly at a higher level.
-
This sixth franchise is going to need a coach. Bring back Hammer.....
I think part of the success for NZ franchises has been the depth within squads. When there's been injuries and forced restings, most of the time there has been quality to select replacements from. As it stands, most if not all the franchises will have a current or past international on the bench.
A new franchise will need 35+ players straight away. IMO coming up with a process to get them a solid base and not a bunch of newbies and also rans would be messy.
-
Terrible idea if you ask me.
Taking a squad of players, particularly decent players, out of the other 5 teams would have a massive impact on their depth and ultimately performance. This would lead to more of the poor quality imports we have started seeing over the last few years. Volavola, yamashita etc. This would be bad for NZ rugby. At the moment we have JUST enough depth for 5 teams. Lots of injuries and you have to start scraping the barrel.I also don't see parachuting a new team into the existing landscape as something that would be successful. By now people have decided who they support. There isn't some untapped area to cover. A " North of Auckland" team would have a hugeamount of Blues supporters in it's area. All those fans aren't going to just switch. Thats not even mentioning the fact that rewarding the city of the lowest performing existing team with an additional team is stupid.
Geographically a Bop, Hawkes Bay, Manawatu, Taranaki would be the only one that would make sense to me.
Regardless of all that, i doubt NZ is where SANZAAAAAAAAR want to expand into. There is no untapped market in NZ. Places like the pacific island (although lacking money), japan, Argentina, Canada and USA are surely where they see expansion happening.
-
@taniwharugby said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
I think that the model NZRU run under sky shows bums on seats isn't a huge driver for them.
A 6th team would mean we would have more New Zealand derbys. In a round-robin with 5 teams you would have ten NZ vs NZ clashes. If you add a 6th team then currently you have 15 of them. Plus it would mean an extra game in New Zealand some weekends.
I'm dead against the concept but it could be good for broadcasters.
-
Hutt/Pram/Rapa.........
Enough mullets, afros and ratstails to make even @Bones blush and no shortage of mongrel either.
Lets face it, the champs don't need this dead skin anymore....
-
In France, the broadcaster of the SR competition (Canal Plus) has stopped broadcasting games of the round robin without a NZ team involved. The NZ derbies are systematically programmed. So, more NZ derbies means more viewers. Canal Plus is also broadcasting the Mitre 10 Cup. I don't know if many people watch it but I guess the main recruting agents of the French clubs do !
-
Always thought a 6th team would be a great idea, especially since it allows more players to be under contract in NZ vs. heading off overseas. I think we do have the depth to support a 6th competitive side, especially when you consider that across all 5 teams there are fringe AB / players of the future sitting on the bench.
An expansion draft would be the way to go. Expansion drafts are common in the US sport leagues when a new franchise has been awarded to a city. General rules are:
- Existing teams can protect a number of players from being drafted. So for rugby let’s make it 12.
- Once a player is selected from an existing team, the team can then protected another player.
-
If it ain't broke don't effin fix it.
-
@JayCee said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
Always thought a 6th team would be a great idea, especially since it allows more players to be under contract in NZ vs. heading off overseas. I think we do have the depth to support a 6th competitive side, especially when you consider that across all 5 teams there are fringe AB / players of the future sitting on the bench.
An expansion draft would be the way to go. Expansion drafts are common in the US sport leagues when a new franchise has been awarded to a city. General rules are:
- Existing teams can protect a number of players from being drafted. So for rugby let’s make it 12.
- Once a player is selected from an existing team, the team can then protected another player.
I don't want NZ rugby to resemble American sport like this.
If a bloke grows up in Christchurch then there is a good chance he wants to play for the Crusaders. It's a dangerous path when we are telling players where they have to live and play.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
If it ain't broke don't effin fix it.
It is broke, were too good for 5 teams.
-
Having a 6th , or even 7th team, is the logical way to go if they're heading down the conference route.
More teams in our half of the hemisphere so less travel.
But.
It's not about playing depth, or even geographic irritants ( the original Chiefs geographical make up)
It's whether NZRU can afford it, if they see it being self-financing.
There are about another 7 teams worth of SR talented players already overseas.
I wouldn't want 6 teams if it meant we couldn't have kept guys like Carter, McCaw etc because funds were diverted.
-
@Rapido said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
Having a 6th , or even 7th team, is the logical way to go if they're heading down the conference route.
Just to be clear I do not want any expansion. Having said that..
7 teams would allow for a closer link to the NPC teams. Each franchise could take players from 2 NPC sides
Northland/NH, Auckland/Counties, Taranaki/Waikato, BOP/Hawkes Bay, Manawatu/Wellington, Tasman/Canterbury, Otago/Southland
(Central North Island is harder to divide)The standard would be a lot lower but there is something appealing about a better link to the NPC sides.
