Field Theory: The Real Deal
60 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
I never knew The Highlanders were the General Motors of New Zealand rugby - to big to fail no matter how useless they are.
They don't have to be that big. Players are contracted for a certain length of time, as are sponsors. And then there would be the new uniforms - adidas has the contract for the Super 14 franchises but Canterbury does most of the ANZC teams.
I agree that there is nothing particular about the lower half of the South Island that means it should have team. But when the franchises were awarded Otago were good and got the nod.
And who can say whether, if given the franchise, the new team (or teams) will stay there for more than a year? And if that's the case, then what would be the point of going through all the problems with moving them.
-
Err, dude, if it is a business, then why should they be protected from their dismal on and off field performance?
It's not protection from being crap, it's protection from having to move base every year at short notice. super rugby will have already appointed coaches and support staff, head office staff will all be in place. November is too late to uproot that for February.
Find me a multi-million dollar business with about 40 staff that moves every year depending on whether some other business has done well.
And they're not just businesses. Super Rugby is part of a sporting structure which has a purpose. Part of their purpose is having geographic spread so that all parts of the country have coverage, and players from everywhere have a team they could play for.
I couldn't particularly care less if the highlanders moved, but if they did, it should be done long term.
-
Regarding crowd numbers they are up about 20% on the same time last year. 7,500 versus about 6,000 after 4 rounds in 08.
Not spectacular but definately noticeable. TV ratings and general interest on the radio is also noticeably up.
They will have to cull 4 teams though and they certainly need to make it the bottom 4. Unfortunately they can't now because they have said they are using other means to decide it. So big teams who finish in the bottom 4 will jump up and down and say you've moved the goalposts.
At the other end if minnow unions finish outside the bottom 4 but are told they are getting relegated the lawyers will be out in force. The NZRU will still be trying to sort this out at Christmas time no doubt and then wind up compromising and relegating the bottom 2 and offering to do the same next year.
I'm all for an 8 or 10 team ANC and post season they take the top 5 and play a shortish champions league style comp with the top Aussie and Currie Cup teams. Keep it to say 6 matches each (4 pool teams home and away) and then semis and finals. It seems to me to be the only sustainable (I'm talking fan interest here) way forward where we won't be changing the format and teams etc every 10 bloody years. You could run it at the start of the following season and it would mean that rugby kicks off at the end of March instead of bloody February.
Won't happen though. Makes too much sense and not enough money.
-
Find me a multi-million dollar business with about 40 staff that moves every year depending on whether some other business has done well.
The Premier League does something pretty similar, as does almost every other football league in existence, including the Champions League.
-
take the top 5 and play a shortish champions league style comp with the top Aussie and Currie Cup teams.
This is an idea I've toyed with a bit before. As our players are centrally contracted to the NZRU I don't see why it would be so difficult for the five top teams to retain the bulk of their squads and run a draft from the remaining 3-5 teams to pad out their numbers for the "super 15" or whatever they'd want to call it.
Unions could put players on a bonus-based contract where they have an average base-rate salary, which gets a hefty top-up if they make the top 5 (Increased gate-takings etc providing the revenue, but also not leaving the unions out of pocket if they don't make it). Drafted players also get a decent top-up to their pay-packet.
We would have to re-work the jersey deal with Adidas, as ideally the unions would keep their own strip. Staff could also be picked up on events-based contracts. The marketers in Hawkes Bay must do something to keep themselves busy over summer, I'm sure they could manage it in Hamilton.
Get two distinct playing windows (Run the ANZC during the Currie Cup) and everyone wins, surely? And a whole lot more interest in the ANZC if your team has A) a shot at playing the best from Aussie/SA or B) a shot at playing Wairarapa Bush for promotion next season.
-
A combination of varying facts and figures, not pushing any agenda in particular but I've been bored for the past few hours and done this in ad breaks.
Super 12:
1996: Auck 2nd, Chiefs 6th, Highlanders 8th, 'Canes 9th, Crusaders 12th.
1997: Auck 1st, 'Canes 3rd, Crusaders 6th, Chiefs 11th, Highlanders 12th.
1998: Auck 1st, Crusaders 3rd, Highlanders 4th, Chiefs 7th, 'Canes 8th.
1999: Highlanders 3rd, Crusaders 4th, Chiefs 6th, Blues 9th, 'Canes 10th.
2000: Crusaders 2nd, Highlanders 3rd, Blues 6th, 'Canes 8th, Chiefs 10th.
2001: Highlanders 5th, Chiefs 6th, 'Canes 9th, Crusaders 10th, Blues 11th.
2002: Crusaders 1st, Highlanders 4th, Blues 6th, Chiefs 8th, 'Canes 9th.
2003: Blues 1st, Crusaders 2nd, 'Canes 3rd, Highlanders 7th, Chiefs 10th.
2004: Crusaders 2nd, Chiefs 4th, Blues 5th, Highlanders 9th, 'Canes 11th.
2005: Crusaders 1st, 'Canes 4th, Chiefs 6th, Blues 7th, Highlanders 8th,Crusaders: 4.3
Blues: 4.9
Highlanders: 6.3
'Canes: 7.4
Chiefs 7.4Super 14:
2006: Crusaders 1st, Hurricanes 2nd, Chiefs 7th, Blues 8th, Highlanders 9th.
2007: Crusaders 3rd, Blues 4th, Chiefs 6th, Hurricanes 8th, Highlanders 9th.
2008: Crusaders 1st, Hurricanes 4th, Blues 6th, Chiefs 7th, Highlanders 11th.
2009: Chiefs 2nd, Hurricanes 3rd, Crusaders 4th, Blues 9th, Highlanders 11thCrusaders: 2.25
Hurricanes: 4.25
Chiefs: 5.5
Blues: 6.75
Highlanders: 10Overall, for S12 and S14 combined:
Crusaders: 3.275
Blues: 5.825
Hurricanes: 5.825
Chiefs: 6.45
Highlanders: 8.15
As to the shifting unions idea, remember what happened to the Southern Spears when they tried to push for it.In 00-01-02 the Highlanders were undefeated at home for three seasons, has another team achieved that?
The '07 and '08 seasons as I remember them as a foaf Highlanders fan [most of my friends are from Otago] were absolutely abyssmal in the way other unions treated the Highlanders - they would loan their players to them and withdraw them if they showed any promise. Nick Evans, Paul Williams, Viliame Waqaseduadua, Isaac Ross etc. Vainikolo was the first to break that string of players with potential signing to big unions.
If James Ryan hadn't had that injury, he'd be an iconic member of a team which has historically built themselves around personalities - Oliver, Randell, Wilson, etc.
All the focus of the Bledisloe is on the performance of the coaches, right? With Henry having a 5-1 advantage?
Well, Glenn Moore's been in control of the Highlanders for two seasons and has beaten Canterbury twice. Colin Cooper and Ian Foster are yet to achieve that in their whole career. Lam is 1-0 up against Moore. Oh and the Highlanders and Crusaders were the only NZ team to beat the Bulls in 2009.What I find weirdest though is that of all the games in 2009, the Highlanders only had a PD of -15. Matter of fact they were only beaten by double figures twice, by 20 (Blues, week 10) and 18 (Waratahs, week 3). Their other losses were 2 (Brumbies, week 1), 5 (Hurricanes, week 2), 4 (Chiefs, week 5), 7 (Stormers, week 11), 8 (Sharks, week 12). So in all but 3 of their losses a converted try would have won it. And if they'd won those games, would this conversation be happening? But, so I don't seem to be completely biased, I will say IIRC the Highlanders' fatigue actually cost them the lead in a lot of their games.
Expect the team to have a largely unchanged backline for 2010, with Dagg, Bowden and Shoemark (and Cowan and Vainikolo not going anywhere - I'm not sure about Lucky but I assume he's staying too.) likely to be unwanted by the unions which can protect them. I'm not gonna check given it's not 11:20, but I think this is the first time in 4 seasons they've had an unchanged team - as well as an assistant [Peter Russell] who works with a lot of the team at ANZ Cup level.
The Highlanders, along with Auckland, North Harbour and Waikato were the NZ representatives in the Super 10. So back then for Wgtn/Canty fans it was Otago, Waikato or bust.
I was gonna do an analysis of average ages for this year's teams, but I CBF right now. Maybe tomorrow.
As I said, these are just things I've heard/researched. While I don't agree that the union should go just because of on-field performance [otherwise Manawatu should have been one of the teams cut from ANZ last year], if the NZRU [who are a business, not a publicly owned enterprise, so they don't take your opinion seriously and rightly so] decide to move them, I won't give two flyings.
-
who are a business, not a publicly owned enterprise
No, they're an incorporated society, not a business. The overly corporate approach to rugby is part of the problem.
-
Well, Glenn Moore's been in control of the Highlanders for two seasons and has beaten Canterbury twice. Colin Cooper and Ian Foster are yet to achieve that in their whole career.
I call bullshit. The Chiefs beat the Crusaders twice on the trot in 07 and 08.
2007: Chiefs 30-24 at Christchurch
2008: Chiefs 18-5 at Hamilton
Half-way down the pageIn '07 it made the Crusaders fly to SA to play the Bulls in the final where they lost.
In '08 it was the Crusaders first loss in 10 rounds - their only other loss on the way to the title was to the Highlanders in the final round.The Hurricanes haven't beaten the Crusaders since 2004.
Otherwise, point taken.
-
I'd just like to point out, that whilst England may be a nation of moronic chavs and retarded public school twits, I still support them when playing Aussie at cricket.
WE WON THE ASHES!!!
Kiwi's who were around in 1985 will remember the pleasure in beating the Aussies..
-
I am not entirely sure what the point of an exhaustive analysis of the Highlanders performance is for. In a competitive promotion-rtelegation system, you are only as good as your last performance. The rest is as about as relevant as working out the match statistics from Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars.
Your seems to go something like "Well, Manchester United MAY have come last in the last three premier seasons, but they won it three times in a row so you can't relegate them."
patently absurd nonsense.
-
Your seems to go something like "Well, Manchester United MAY have come last in the last three premier seasons, but they won it three times in a row so you can't relegate them."
Actually I think that wasn't Naly's point at all. Nice straw man though, very flimsy.
The analogies to the English Premiership are not valid. They are teams moving up and down a multiple-competition structure. Otago and the Highlanders and different teams, with different coaches and players. You can't take the form of one and translate it to the promotion/relegation of the other.
And remember that it's not the movement of a team. If you relegate Man U it still stays in Manchester, the team still exists, the fans can still go and watch them.
What Naly's analysis shows is that a team's final position is highly variable. So almost every year we would have teams moving in and out of the Super 14. Then at the ANZC level teams might start complaining about the All Blacks poaching their players and losing them their franchise. And imagine how many team-hopping Rico Gear-type players we'd have.
Seems like the perfect way to start internal fighting.
Super rugby is currently flawed, but moving teams in and out isn't the solution.
-
I have a question. Has any union other than the 5 current ones expressed an interest in being a S14 franchise? Just wondering.
-
The Premier League does something pretty similar, as does almost every other football league in existence, including the Champions League.
As Hadyn pointed out, I was talking about physical moves.
I have a question. Has any union other than the 5 current ones expressed an interest in being a S14 franchise? Just wondering.
Hawkes Bay definitely wanted to be the expansion team. As did Taranaki I think?
-
As Hadyn pointed out, I was talking about physical moves.
No, you asked if there was etc. which, yeah, there is. Have you looked at what actually happens when a team goes up or down? Suddenly the amount of money available massively changes, and they buy up or sell-off accordingly, as a rule, which is what I thought was the idea: the NPC union forms the nucleus, then expands, not that the Hurricanes would just move to Palmy and start wearing green and white, which, yeah, would be daft.
-
Thanks Hadyn, that was my point :)
@Simon; I stand corrected, apologies. (Did I mean Nucifora instead? I can't remember.)
-
What every post here says to me is that the franchise model is what's fucking things up - the franchises are unnecessary and merely duplicate work that could be done at provincial level. I say the top five finishers are our S14 reps, and the next four play in some other comp (though money will be a major factor in that) and the tenth team goes down.
WRT the relegation system - it's not like the NZRU to make things more complicated than they need to be is it? Perhaps they should have relegated two teams this year, and two teams next year, based solely on table position - rather than send everyone down at once.
-
No, you asked if there was etc. which, yeah, there is.
Actually no I'm quite confident I was talking about physically moving, as noted by my use of the word "moves":
Find me a multi-million dollar business with about 40 staff that moves every year depending on whether some other business has done well.
-
This is an idea I've toyed with a bit before. As our players are centrally contracted to the NZRU I don't see why it would be so difficult for the five top teams to retain the bulk of their squads and run a draft from the remaining 3-5 teams to pad out their numbers for the "super 15" or whatever they'd want to call it.
Forget the draft Simon.
You don't reward unsuccessful players in unsuccessful teams. You take the teams that qualified and go with them. You don't see Manchester United or Arsenal etc drafting in top players from other sides for the Champions League. Once you start doing that you reward poor performers and poo on the guys who got the teams qualified in the first place who then get booted out. Not to mention those guys aren't from that team so you start to erode the fan connection.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Currie_Cup_Premier_Division
Just looking at the Currie Cup and it's quite interesting with the dynamics of it.
They only have 8 teams not 14 like us. The Sharks stay as the same team (massive advantage if you ask me in both the Currie Cup AND Super 14), the Bulls more or less stay the same (they have another feeder side but they aren't in the Currie Cup so ALL their players would play for the same team year round, while the poor other three unions are split up so they have 2 sides in the Currie Cup but come together to form 1 side in the Super 14. It's no wonder they are awful year after year while the Bulls and Sharks look so dominant.
Crowds are interesting in the Currie Cup as well. Theres a match between the Boland Cavaliers and Platinum Leopards this year that had a paltry 850 along to it while over 20,000 show up to watch the Sharks play the Bulls.
This to me shows once again how the Super 14 is crapping on local rugby.
But thanks to TV rights and national unions with the type of vision that shows their heads up their arses we will be stuck with a dogs breakfast of a season with the same stupid issues for the next century.
-
Forget the draft Simon.
You don't reward unsuccessful players in unsuccessful teams. You take the teams that qualified and go with them.
Sounds good, but wouldn't work. You need to reward the good players in developing teams and give them further opportunities to develop - and then send them back to those teams for the ANZC to help improve their fortunes.
Would Hawkes Bay ever have gotten to the point they're at if their players had been barred from S14 selection unless they finished top 5? Same goes for BoP, plus can you really deny players like Aaron Cruden a slot because Manawatu are going to struggle to finish in the top half of the competition?
Lack of a draft would just encourage massive player transfers to the top provinces, and impoverish the rest - exactly the scenario we're trying to avoid.
-
Forget the draft Simon.
You don't reward unsuccessful players in unsuccessful teams. You take the teams that qualified and go with them. You don't see Manchester United or Arsenal etc drafting in top players from other sides for the Champions League.
Have to disagree. The structure of the game is fundamentally too different for that analogy to work. Professional football in Europe is geared towards the clubs and their success. We want a structure in NZ rugby that drives representative success - in particular AB success (though I appreciate this may be a moot point).
Allowing a limited draft (say 5 players added to a squad of 30 to give a S14 squad of 35) enables players (developing or otherwise - say Daivd Holwell for Northland) access to top level rugby, as per Simon's point. It also means that developing players are less tempted to move to a big union to ensure they play S14 (for a start, Welly aren't guaranteed to finish in the Top 5)
-
I think I just repeated all of Simon's points :)
-
Sorry guys but the "wouldn't work" argument is ridiculous. There is no reason whatsoever that Hawkes Bay wouldn't be playing in this 'champions league' style comp.
The idea is that the ANC would become the main competition in NZ each year (in times of length) just like the premier league is. England pick their world cup football squad out of the entire EPL, not just the handful of teams that go into the champions league.
The Champions league style comp would run at the start of the season and be over before the ANC kicked off. The ABs would play their rugby after the ANC and be picked from this competition. NZ has been doing that for decades remember. The Super 12/15/15 is a relatively new competition and is possibly starting to pass its use by date.
What you guys are arguing for is essentially exactly what we already have.
Super 14 teams with a few provincial unions making it up and they pick the best players and draft in other players that other sides don't want. THAT IS THE CURRENT SUPER 14. Glad you enjoy it.
My main point at the end of all this is...
Make the ANC the dominant comp in NZ each year and make the international comp a scaled back version. -
In fact, the FA picks the national team from every player eligible by nationality, no matter where they play.
-
The idea is that the ANC would become the main competition in NZ each year
Agreed, but not just in terms of length - in terms of a quality, NZ exclusive competition
What you guys are arguing for is essentially exactly what we already have.
Not al all. What we have now is five teams with specific and exclusive bases based on geography. As it stands HB cannot be a S14 franchise base so S14 games will not be played there as a matter of course, and players are dependent on the whim of the S14 franchises to pick them. Under a "qualification" system like the Saffas started with, if HB finish in the Top 5, Napier will be their base - their reward for success.
The idea of a subsequent draft is just confusing the matter - it's a way to address the concerns of those who see Super rugby as a necessary qualification for national selection (and looking back, a second-tier international provincial comp woul eliminate that need altogether).
My main point is that franchising is distorting the game at provincial level, not the S14 itself (though the S14 is way too big and clunky as it stands).
The Champions league style comp would run at the start of the season and be over before the ANC kicked off.
And there is the other issue: is there time to run two competitions like this in the rugby year?
In fact, the FA picks the national team from every player eligible by nationality, no matter where they play.
In the NZ context, let's go back to picking on NPC form, rather than the closed shop that is the S14, eliminating the franchises will do that.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.