Field Theory: The Real Deal
60 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
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...
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.
Ok. I wrote out a big reply yesterday then decided not to post it for one reason: Comparing SA to NZ is an exercise in futility.
The reason why there are no crowds at Currie Cup minnows matches is because the CC has historically been dominated by two teams. Almost every game in the CC is like the promotion/relegation games of yore in the NPC, where HB would trounce whatever team was trying to come up.Lately this has changed so in any season 3 or 4 teams are competitive. But guess what has helped that? Your hated Super 14.
And returning to the crowd figures, the CC is played over 5 months. In that time, the Springboks play almost all of their matches. The 'Bokke have only been allowed back in international for what, 15 years? And they're world champions.
But I digress. The situation in SA is different to what's happening in NZ and while you may be able to look at it on paper and go 'oh professionalism/tv rights/super 14/whatever issue fits is ruining the game, here look at what it's doing in other countries', every country has its own politics. Look at what happened with the Mazda Cup in Aus, and that was run almost outside of the AFL window, and just before the end of the NRL. It also encompassed areas which had never had a top-level rugby union team before. But the failings in the Mazda Cup can't be applied to NZ. Different markets have different politics and requirements.
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.
A. If the All Blacks picked on nationality we'd have had Howlett, Hayman, Jack etc last year. And wouldn't have come across Wulf, Owens, Ross, Thomson, Kaino etc. Because of those 4, Ross was the only one I thought 'yeah, he's better than Ali'.
B. You can't pick on ANZC form when the international season starts before it. And the IRB sets international windows, not the NZRU.
And can I just say with all the dicking around that's going on here, the S15 is gonna be a cracker just because there's so many naysayers [going on all the bah-humbugging of the ANZC last year as opposed to this year].
-
A. If the All Blacks picked on nationality we'd have had Howlett, Hayman, Jack etc last year. And wouldn't have come across Wulf, Owens, Ross, Thomson, Kaino etc. Because of those 4, Ross was the only one I thought 'yeah, he's better than Ali'.
Um, this is not a logically sound statement. That's like saying if the NZRU decided not to pick from Auckland the quality of the ABs would go up. Clearly, not picking eligible players currently working overseas hurts the ABs & so clearly there's more to NZ rugby than fostering AB success.
-
Cheers Paul, it sounds like we're working the same line of argument here.
Yamis: Accepting a draft system is just acknowledgement that the players in the top 5 teams will play twice as much rugby as the players in the other ANZC teams. As Paul said, and as Naly has pointed out just above, you can't get picked for the AB's when 1) You play half as much rugby as the rest of the contenders and 2) The international window starts before the ANZC.
Unless you plan on picking players for the AB's from ANZC teams based on 6-month old form over players that you have seen performing in the S15 more recently, then every AB that doesn't make the S15 might make the November tour, but there's no way they'd be picked for the June internationals having not played Rugby for 6 months.. That's not the way to build a consistently good national squad - which is actually the aim, I thought. A small draft fixes this.
-
The reason why there are no crowds at Currie Cup minnows matches is because the CC has historically been dominated by two teams
????
With respect Naly, where did that come from??
Thorough research over the last 5 years worth of competitions?
-
Heh, no. About 15yrs of loosely following it through a kid from J'Burg (Golden Lions) who came to my primary school when he was about 6 or 7 and would always bleat on about it. And as my interest in rugby grew and the internet improved, so did my attempts to follow CC, which is actually a damn good series despite what I said up there.
From memory, 2007 was the first year neither NT (Blue Bulls) or WP (Stormers) made it to the final, and if I had only looked at the past 5 years LB, I would have seen crowd #s on the increase and closer games with more competition. -
No idea about the crowds but it's the most evenly contested comp around (apart from the Isolation Years).
You were nmisleading there. Hopefully intentionally.
As for this thread, there is a lot of cross-threading between Tom's solutions.
1. The NPC idea. Bottom 4 go down. That's given. So obvious and un iversal.
2. The Super Clubs shifting around. The other 2 countries don't do that; better ways of quelling the Pitchfork Revolution than that. -
No idea about the crowds but it's the most evenly contested comp around (apart from the Isolation Years).
I suppose that depends on how you define evenly contested. Since 1995 five teams have won the title:
Team - Wins (number of finals appearances)
Natal Sharks - 3 (7)
Western Province - 3 (5)
Blue Bulls - 5 (7)
Golden Lions - 1 (4)
Free State Cheetahs - 3 (5)1997-2000 seems to have been the period of greatest equality where no team returned to win the tournament.
In comparison the NRL (a tournament I consider to be very competitive) has had 8 different winners since 1998 and 12 different finalists.
-
1. The NPC idea. Bottom 4 go down. That's given. So obvious and un iversal.
2. The Super Clubs shifting around. The other 2 countries don't do that; better ways of quelling the Pitchfork Revolution than that.1. Agreed. Shame the NZRU can't change that now. Still I imagine the extra criteria had to be added when the unions grumbled at the various meetings they had about it.
2. Also agreed.
Upthread someone mentioned selecting players from overseas. I think it would definitely be good for when we tour in November, save a bit of money on airfares in these harsh economic times. Even though it does seem nicer to pick players who haven't buggered off to get a bit of cash and a holiday.
But the best thing about it would be that the NZRU could use it's marketing power to make the English clubs release players. And if they did that for us, then they would have to do it for the Pacific nations too.
-
NRL has a salary cap, so that automatically makes it more even; same with the A-League.
But the original comparison was between the Currie Cup and the NPC, and I’d say the CC, if anything, is the more even of the 2.
The overseas eligibility thing is really complicated. The main purpose of banning them is to keep All Blacks in NZ. It’s restraint of trade, but there is logic behind it.
But now the Carter precedent has been set...
-
But the original comparison was between the Currie Cup and the NPC, and I’d say the CC, if anything, is the more even of the 2.
Easily, the NPC (in it's various incarnations) has been one of the most unequal competitions for years. It's either Canterbury or Auckland, with Wellington recently. And occasionally Waikato shows up too.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.