• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

The Current State of Rugby

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Sports Talk
1.5k Posts 90 Posters 154.3k Views
The Current State of Rugby
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    replied to Kiwiwomble on last edited by
    #1531

    @Kiwiwomble I think NPC pre-season starts this weekend, so you dont want club finals overlapping that with provinces likely pulling some players from teams?

    But agree with @mariner4life big old gap of nothing really, more so when you consider the exhibition game last weekend too.

    KiwiwombleK 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • KiwiwombleK Offline
    KiwiwombleK Offline
    Kiwiwomble
    replied to taniwharugby on last edited by
    #1532

    @taniwharugby i guess, sounds pretty lame though "pre season" for a competition largely ignored. kind of feel those guys involved in finals could just roll in to the NPC team next week

    I'd personally prefer that over another exhibition game

    Thereal thing is why didn't we role straight into the RC?

    taniwharugbyT 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    replied to Kiwiwomble on last edited by taniwharugby
    #1533

    @Kiwiwomble but for the club guys, club finals and playing for thier province is the highlight, pre-season might be thier only provincial run for some?

    KiwiwombleK 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • KiwiwombleK Offline
    KiwiwombleK Offline
    Kiwiwomble
    replied to taniwharugby on last edited by
    #1534

    @taniwharugby said in The Current State of Rugby:

    @Kiwiwomble but for the club guys, club finals and playing for thier province is the highlight, pre-season be thier only run for some?

    might be right

    i guess more an indictment of there is always going to be the lulls when transitioning between competitions and so it kind of sucks for those of us that follow club>NPC>Super>international

    most other sports players kind of only play one of the first 3 and then maybe the last and so the competitions are designed to last the whole "season"

    taniwharugbyT 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    replied to Kiwiwomble on last edited by
    #1535

    @Kiwiwomble I think as @mariner4life has alluded to plenty of times, particularly about the NRL how everything is concurrent, whereas Rugby has thier seperation of comps.

    Although do we usually have a gap like this prior to TRC? Does seem unusual?

    KiwiwombleK 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • KiwiwombleK Offline
    KiwiwombleK Offline
    Kiwiwomble
    replied to taniwharugby on last edited by
    #1536

    @taniwharugby i think its most sports, rugby in NZ is the only one i can think of that fits different levels at different times and has players playing in all of them

    it does feel unusual....but it also feels like it slightly different every year

    M 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • M Offline
    M Offline
    mohikamo
    replied to Kiwiwomble on last edited by
    #1537

    @Kiwiwomble

    Yes. Is unusual.
    An AB is actually a member of 4 teams at 4 different levels club/province/super/national. And could play at every level in one season.

    This does not happen in any other pro football code. They play in 2 at most. Usually their club and national team.

    The spanner in the works is Super Rugby. For those who dont know, it was originally a preseason comp for the PUs. And that is why it is played at the start of the season, not at the end, where you'd think it naturally would fit.

    SR was controversial right from the start! It didn't include all the PUs. Organised by the Auckland/Wellington/Canterbury PUs (not the NZRU) it shut out all the others. Who were pissed off, and right to be as it turned out.

    When they game went pro in 95 it was used by the establishment (led by Jock Hobbs) as an alternative to a non-establishment comp being organised (by Kerry Packer if I remember correctly).

    In retrospect.....probably better off if we went with Packer. Would have had a full season Super comp, with regular national team breaks.

    NepiaN KiwiwombleK 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • NepiaN Offline
    NepiaN Offline
    Nepia
    wrote on last edited by
    #1538

    It could be a lot less unusual if they just played the Rugby Championship straight away. Not sure why on earth there needs to be a break. Rugby is a squad game these days.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • NepiaN Offline
    NepiaN Offline
    Nepia
    replied to mohikamo on last edited by Nepia
    #1539

    @mohikamo said in The Current State of Rugby:

    SR was controversial right from the start! It didn't include all the PUs. Organised by the Auckland/Wellington/Canterbury PUs (not the NZRU) it shut out all the others. Who were pissed off, and right to be as it turned out.

    That was a completely different competition than the pro Super Rugby that started in 1996.

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • KiwiwombleK Offline
    KiwiwombleK Offline
    Kiwiwomble
    replied to mohikamo on last edited by
    #1540

    @mohikamo Super 10 and Super 6 are different to Super 12 etc.....fundamentally different organisation...just similar name

    M 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • M Offline
    M Offline
    mohikamo
    replied to Kiwiwomble on last edited by
    #1541

    @Kiwiwomble

    What I recall happened was....

    Before 1996 SR was sanctioned by the NZ/SA/Aus NUs, but the PUs organised it themselves.

    In latter 1995, after the World Cup, there was a battle between the establishment and outside investors over who was going to control the new pro rugby game. The outsiders proposed a super comp combining the Currie Cup and NPC with some Aus teams. The Establishment led by Hobbs won.

    After the rugby war was over, the national unions took the SR comp over. The amateur SR comp has never been seen since.

    The only real difference being 2 extra NZ teams, with all the NZ PUs were now involved. Which has echos down the decades with the current struggle for the control of rugby in NZ.

    AND THE PLAYERS WERE BEING PAID!

    I have not checked, but the actual team lists from 95 season to 96 season would probably have been very similar. SA and Aus teams would have been nearly indentical.

    For example, the amateur Auckland/Wellington/Canterbury PU teams of 95 would have been very similar to that of the pro Blues/Hurricanes/Crusaders 96.

    NepiaN mariner4lifeM 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • NepiaN Offline
    NepiaN Offline
    Nepia
    replied to mohikamo on last edited by
    #1542

    @mohikamo said in The Current State of Rugby:

    @Kiwiwomble

    What I recall happened was....

    Before 1996 SR was sanctioned by the NZ/SA/Aus NUs, but the PUs organised it themselves.

    In latter 1995, after the World Cup, there was a battle between the establishment and outside investors over who was going to control the new pro rugby game. The outsiders proposed a super comp combining the Currie Cup and NPC with some Aus teams. The Establishment led by Hobbs won.

    After the rugby war was over, the national unions took the SR comp over. The amateur SR comp has never been seen since.

    The only real difference being 2 extra NZ teams, with all the NZ PUs were now involved. Which has echos down the decades with the current struggle for the control of rugby in NZ.

    AND THE PLAYERS WERE BEING PAID!

    I have not checked, but the actual team lists from 95 season to 96 season would probably have been very similar. SA and Aus teams would have been nearly indentical.

    For example, the amateur Auckland/Wellington/Canterbury PU teams of 95 would have been very similar to that of the pro Blues/Hurricanes/Crusaders 96.

    Before pro Super Rugby there was the Super 10s, the Super 6, the SPC, and the CANZ series.

    There's a clear dividing line between those comps and the pro Super 12 introduced in 1996 - unless you're a Queenslander or Transvaalian and want some extra wins in your column.

    The Blues team of 1996 would likely be similar to the 1995 Auckland team, I daresay not so much the Crusaders and Canterbury.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • RapidoR Offline
    RapidoR Offline
    Rapido
    wrote on last edited by
    #1543

    The amateur Super 10 did include 'theoretically' all 27 PUs. It ran for only 3 years from 93 to 95.

    The top 3 NZ npc qualified for it.

    The predecessor to that. The South Pacific Championship which later changed its name to Suoer 6. Was a closed shop outside of the NZRU's remit. With Auck, Wgtn, Canty permanent entrants.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • RapidoR Offline
    RapidoR Offline
    Rapido
    wrote on last edited by
    #1544

    I recall fondly through late 1995, Ritchie Guy getting annoyed at media lazily labeling the new proposed professonal rugby competition to atart the following year as the Super 12.

    It had a 'working name' as the 'International Provincial Championship' (IPC) when Sanzar thrashed out their new Murdoch deal.

    Then a few months later once the marketing consultants had been engaged to come up with a brand for the IPC, they gifted us the totally left field name of 'Super 12'.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • mariner4lifeM Offline
    mariner4lifeM Offline
    mariner4life
    replied to mohikamo on last edited by
    #1545

    @mohikamo said in The Current State of Rugby:

    @Kiwiwomble

    What I recall happened was....

    Before 1996 SR was sanctioned by the NZ/SA/Aus NUs, but the PUs organised it themselves.

    In latter 1995, after the World Cup, there was a battle between the establishment and outside investors over who was going to control the new pro rugby game. The outsiders proposed a super comp combining the Currie Cup and NPC with some Aus teams. The Establishment led by Hobbs won.

    After the rugby war was over, the national unions took the SR comp over. The amateur SR comp has never been seen since.

    The only real difference being 2 extra NZ teams, with all the NZ PUs were now involved. Which has echos down the decades with the current struggle for the control of rugby in NZ.

    AND THE PLAYERS WERE BEING PAID!

    I have not checked, but the actual team lists from 95 season to 96 season would probably have been very similar. SA and Aus teams would have been nearly indentical.

    For example, the amateur Auckland/Wellington/Canterbury PU teams of 95 would have been very similar to that of the pro Blues/Hurricanes/Crusaders 96.

    Quit talking shit

    The Blues had a couple of very important inclusions from Counties.

    The Chiefs had a Waikato (and northland) forward pack and a harbour backline.

    This was not the same and you are talking shit.

    1 Reply Last reply
    3
  • RapidoR Offline
    RapidoR Offline
    Rapido
    wrote on last edited by Rapido
    #1546

    96 hurricanes were nothing like a 95 Wellington clone.

    Were a proper LNI team. 2nd div players playing super rugby. Such as Cullen, Hewitt, Hansen, Randle, Ranby, Konia, Chresten Davis. In fact Bruiser Hansen might have even been 3rd div

    Was awesome.

    1 Reply Last reply
    4
  • J Offline
    J Offline
    Jet
    wrote on last edited by Jet
    #1547

    Great chat by Keo and Zels here about head contact/red cards etc with David Kriels recent red at the forefront.

    I think these two lads are the best pundits on the circuit in 2024.

    Humour, good feel for the game, relatable to the average punter , little bit of trolling, but with a genuine love for the sport underneath it all.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1

The Current State of Rugby
Sports Talk
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.