Rugby...

[Mntboy]

Not surprised or shocked at the Stormers' capitulation to the Brumbies. Couldn't beat them in the regular season wasn't going to beat them today. Basically need a new backline. Only De Allende is worth keeping, the rest aren't good enough or consistent enough. We were lucky to be playing in this game at all and to be able to have it at home.

[JGR]

Not surprised or shocked at the Stormers' capitulation to the Brumbies. Couldn't beat them in the regular season wasn't going to beat them today. Basically need a new backline. Only De Allende is worth keeping, the rest aren't good enough or consistent enough. We were lucky to be playing in this game at all and to be able to have it at home.

Stormers beat them during the season

[Mntboy]

Stormers beat them during the season

Oops my bad!

 

However the Stormers were highly inconsistent this season and didn't really deserve to be playing in a qualifying final.

[Frosty]

I don’t like the current format of the Super Rugby... for one there are too many teams, too many games and all about TV rights.

 

The fact that the Stormers finished 3rd but were only good enough to get points placing them in 7th would indicate that SA rugby has a problem.

 

 

What is the better format?

I don’t think there is the perfect formula, but having less teams IS a way forward. Sadly TV rights is where the money is, so it means less games = less income.

 

If it were up to me, I'd allocate the best players into 3 teams and let them "Tour" their country as well as playing abroad. They don't have a specific home ground and play at least one game at the major union's stadiums. The money from TV rights are split across the unions and fans get to see every local team as well as some of the oversees teams.

 

Development teams can be set up for each of the 3 teams to pull reserves from. They then play the curtain raiser to the main game - on a similar format to the Super 9.

 

The Kiwis would probably still reign supreme because of the culture they have about rugby in their country, but the game in the southern hemisphere would just get better.

 

Like I said, there is no perfect solution.

[GLuvsMtb]

I don’t like the current format of the Super Rugby... for one there are too many teams, too many games and all about TV rights.

 

The fact that the Stormers finished 3rd but were only good enough to get points placing them in 7th would indicate that SA rugby has a problem.

 

2015-06-21 08.24.33.png

 

What is the better format?

I don’t think there is the perfect formula, but having less teams IS a way forward. Sadly TV rights is where the money is, so it means less games = less income.

 

If it were up to me, I'd allocate the best players into 3 teams and let them "Tour" their country as well as playing abroad. They don't have a specific home ground and play at least one game at the major union's stadiums. The money from TV rights are split across the unions and fans get to see every local team as well as some of the oversees teams.

 

Development teams can be set up for each of the 3 teams to pull reserves from. They then play the curtain raiser to the main game - on a similar format to the Super 9.

 

The Kiwis would probably still reign supreme because of the culture they have about rugby in their country, but the game in the southern hemisphere would just get better.

 

Like I said, there is no perfect solution.

I don't like the pooling of teams. This was tried in the past and failed dismally (remember the Cats?). The dynamic between players and coach gets lost and the continuity is lost from the Currie Cup. I agree on too many teams. The way forward imo is take your 3 or 4 best Currie Cup teams. The problem with the current format for me is all the home derbies and then 'conferencing' a substandard side into a home play-off. By using the CC as a qualifier you also blow some life into what has become a very incidental occurrence on the rugby calendar. Edited June 21, 2015 by GLuvsMtb

[Frosty]

Yes, I forgot about the Cats. Good point

[flymango]

Stormers weren't electrifying at all!!! So much so that Eskom had to move to stage 3A just after the game. Actually, I think SA rugby is on the verge of a total blackout. Dark days ahead for RWC I fear. It will be interesting to see what Bok-rugby can dish up in the next 6 weeks.

[GLuvsMtb]

Stormers weren't electrifying at all!!! So much so that Eskom had to move to stage 3A just after the game. Actually, I think SA rugby is on the verge of a total blackout. Dark days ahead for RWC I fear. It will be interesting to see what Bok-rugby can dish up in the next 6 weeks.

At least Meyer cannot complained about players not being rested enough. Basically the whole Springbok squad's been doing F-all for 3 more than months now. They also now have 2 weeks paid holiday before they all convene.

[flymango]

At least Meyer cannot complained about players not being rested enough. Basically the whole Springbok squad's been doing F-all for 3 more than months now. They also now have 2 weeks paid holiday before they all convene.

 

And by contrast the All Blacks have named a 41-man squad already which will be reduced to the 31-man RWC squad after the Rugby Championship. How good were Ben (15) and Aaron (9) Smith for the Highlanders last Saturday? They don't have their equals in world rugby.   

[JGR]

I don’t like the current format of the Super Rugby... for one there are too many teams, too many games and all about TV rights.

 

The fact that the Stormers finished 3rd but were only good enough to get points placing them in 7th would indicate that SA rugby has a problem.

 

2015-06-21 08.24.33.png

 

What is the better format?

I don’t think there is the perfect formula, but having less teams IS a way forward. Sadly TV rights is where the money is, so it means less games = less income.

 

If it were up to me, I'd allocate the best players into 3 teams and let them "Tour" their country as well as playing abroad. They don't have a specific home ground and play at least one game at the major union's stadiums. The money from TV rights are split across the unions and fans get to see every local team as well as some of the oversees teams.

 

Development teams can be set up for each of the 3 teams to pull reserves from. They then play the curtain raiser to the main game - on a similar format to the Super 9.

 

The Kiwis would probably still reign supreme because of the culture they have about rugby in their country, but the game in the southern hemisphere would just get better.

 

Like I said, there is no perfect solution.

I also dont like the conference system, not only because of each country being given a slot in the top 3 but because it isnt a true reflection as the Tahs and Brumbies get to play the Rebels and Force and more recently a poor Reds outfit twice. The Stormers won more games than the Brumbies, including sending out a very weekend team against the Sharks. NZ have it worst as all their teams, except the Blues of late are very strong.

 

I think each team should play each other once, alternating between home and away every year. 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3. Final - end of story.

 

Leave the derbies for CC

 

But anyways I think the Top 14, Henieken cup is going to be the better comp after the WC anyways as all the best players will be heading north, not just ours.

[Skubarra]

The way forward imo is take your 3 or 4 best Currie Cup teams. The problem with the current format for me is all the home derbies and then 'conferencing' a substandard side into a home play-off. By using the CC as a qualifier you also blow some life into what has become a very incidental occurrence on the rugby calendar.

 

Will also bring their own set of problems - massively negative impact for a union to be relegated from Super 15. Loss of income, loss of players, loss of potential players.

 

Personally never quite got the rugby public's fascination with derbies, always thought the whole point of Super rugby is to measure yourself against sides from other countries, but seemingly people are far more interested in watching us playing against our own teams...

[GLuvsMtb]

Will also bring their own set of problems - massively negative impact for a union to be relegated from Super 15. Loss of income, loss of players, loss of potential players.

 

Personally never quite got the rugby public's fascination with derbies, always thought the whole point of Super rugby is to measure yourself against sides from other countries, but seemingly people are far more interested in watching us playing against our own teams...

Your draw-back is my biggest positive. The reality of losing out because you miss the play-offs in the Currie Cup will force the bigger unions to acquire / develop sufficient cover for players doing national duty or players who are injured. This would develop better Super Rugby squads with more continuity between the Currie Cup and Super Rugby. Squads that train together since July will perform better than squads that train together from January and hopefully with better quality rugby, Currie Cup players will be better remunerated meaning that the talent drain up North will be slowed down.

 

Fringe sides have an even playing field to crack it into the Super Rugby competition and alternatively they can benefit by loaning players to stronger unions for considerable financial benefit to these smaller unions if they don't make the grade.

[Skubarra]

Your draw-back is my biggest positive. The reality of losing out because you miss the play-offs in the Currie Cup will force the bigger unions to acquire / develop sufficient cover for players doing national duty or players who are injured. This would develop better Super Rugby squads with more continuity between the Currie Cup and Super Rugby. Squads that train together since July will perform better than squads that train together from January and hopefully with better quality rugby, Currie Cup players will be better remunerated meaning that the talent drain up North will be slowed down.

 

Fringe sides have an even playing field to crack it into the Super Rugby competition and alternatively they can benefit by loaning players to stronger unions for considerable financial benefit to these smaller unions if they don't make the grade.

 

Don't quite agree, yes the reality of losing out could be a motivation to do better in the Currie Cup (although I think it's debatable in the short term how much that pressure can actually more than a hindrance than a help) but reality is losing out on a Super spot can wipe out a union financially, very hard to attract sponsors & do long term planning & long term  player contracting if you have a 2/5 chance of losing say half you income on short notice any given year.

 

The reality is we need all our big 5 unions to be well-run year after year for our national team to be competitive, if we kick one or two of them in the teeth every year we are not helping SA rugby.

 

What happened to the Kings after they were kicked out of the S15 is a good example, Lions were "lucky" that the bulk of their squad was tied down on contracts for another year when they were relegated, they lost every single decent player that weren't and couldn't attract a single high profile player while they were relegated.

 

S15 Promotion/relegation just not feasible given our structure. In theory you could have a side winning the S15 and then being kicked out of the next S15 for having a bad CC.

[Zatopek]

Your draw-back is my biggest positive. The reality of losing out because you miss the play-offs in the Currie Cup will force the bigger unions to acquire / develop sufficient cover for players doing national duty or players who are injured. This would develop better Super Rugby squads with more continuity between the Currie Cup and Super Rugby. Squads that train together since July will perform better than squads that train together from January and hopefully with better quality rugby, Currie Cup players will be better remunerated meaning that the talent drain up North will be slowed down.

 

Fringe sides have an even playing field to crack it into the Super Rugby competition and alternatively they can benefit by loaning players to stronger unions for considerable financial benefit to these smaller unions if they don't make the grade.

 

The bulls are living proof that, although money help, there are things in life that can't simply be fixed by throwing more money at it or made OK with how much cash you carry in your wallet 

[mazambaan]

Like cricket, the problems with SA rugby go deep.

 

But central contracts for players, as I understand operate in NZ, would be a good start.

[Shebeen]

So funny the way people now feel justified in saying the seventh ranked stormers never deserved their playoff slot.waratahs are at home to the landers who had more points too. You don't have to agree with the system, but don't blame teams for taking advantage of it.

 

Ps.it is changing next year, for those who hadn't realised. Going even more convoluted