Super Rugby

[rowan]

Singapore is a bit of a rugby outpost

Exactly. & you expect them to develop a following for a Japanese club team? Didn't they promote this match or anything? I remember when the Warriors debuted in NRL, there was a spectacular amount of hype and fanfare, and the match was a sell-out well in advance. Of course, we can only analyse things as we see them, and from yesterday's attendance I'm assuming Singapore may well be abandoned next year.

[rowan]

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that apparently meaningless comment...

[rowan]

No, I don't think there is a comparison. That's what I'm trying to point out. Having a Japanese club rugby team play 'home games' in a 55 K stadium in Singapore is what's daft. They got 8000 for the team's first ever game at the venue! I wonder if they even bothered to promote it at all.

I don't imagine it's going to get any better, to be honest, and that's why I suggest they might be better off abandoning Singers altogether and just concentrate on trying to build up more of a fan base in Tokyo. Ok, the whole idea of playing in Singers was to reduce travel for their South African opponents.

Well, if SANZAAR has any nous at all, they'll find a way to switch the Sunwolves to an Australasian conference in 2017.

I think we'll soon see an All SA/Argentina competition, whether it be a single league or two conferences, and an entirely separate Australasian championship with an Australia/Japan conference and an NZ/Pacific Islands conference. That would solve a lot of problems.

[Lizard]

A more split competition would be easier for fans to understand. Presumably you could have a play-off between the winners of each if wanted.

This starts to get us into idealistic territory for national sides with the American and African championships (eventually if the Africans get strong enough) promoting/relegating into a SA/Arg league and 3 levels of promotion from Asian 5N -> PNC -> AU/NZ/Pac

[rowan]

But you missed the whole point of the comparison, Cashead. That's already been explained to you. & growing the game in Singapore is obviously not the objective here, and it almost certainly isn't realistic. If you want to grow the game anywhere you give them their own team; not a foreign club side which means nothing to them. Anyway, the organization and the franchise will do whatever is in the best interests of the team financially, and right now it's not looking good for Singapore's continued involvement. That's all I'm saying. They might look at an alternative, such as Hong Kong, but I personally think their best option would be to restructure the competition next year and create separate Atlantic and Pacific divisions. In fact, the former might entail a single 7-team conference with the extant teams (minus Japan), while Australia and NZ could expand their conferences to 6 teams apiece with the Sunwolves joining one of them, and another team (Pacific Islanders?) joining the other.

[rowan]

If you want to grow the game anywhere you give them their own team; not a foreign club side which means nothing to them

That's why

[rowan]

That makes about as much sense as having a European club play some of its home games in, say, Sweden, in an attempt to promote the game there. Why isn't that happening? Because it's clearly not the way to grow and develop the game in Sweden. That's being achieve through Swedish involvement in ENC competition. Similarly, the way to grow and develop the game in Singapore is through their invlvement in Asian competition - not by having a Japanese club team play some of its home games there. That's achieving nothing.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

That makes about as much sense as having a European club play some of its home games in, say, Sweden, in an attempt to promote the game there. Why isn't that happening? Because it's clearly not the way to grow and develop the game in Sweden. That's being achieve through Swedish involvement in ENC competition. Similarly, the way to grow and develop the game in Singapore is through their invlvement in Asian competition - not by having a Japanese club team play some of its home games there. That's achieving nothing.

Why pick Sweden rather that Belgium, Spain or the US, all of whom have hosted competitive Eurpean matches for precisely the reason of developing the game in those places.

[rowan]

Ok, Belgium or Spain. I knew the odd game has been played in Barcelona, but that's because of the size of the stadium, not due to the extensive travel requirements of the opposition. But does any French (or British/Irish) team actually use Belgium or Spain as a regular home base, the way the Sunwolves are using Singapore? I don't believe so. The USA analogy doesn't really apply as that's a tier 2 nation on another continent.

Anyway, the point I was making was that having the Sunwolves play regular home games in Singapore is not an effective way to promote the game there, as evidenced by the low turnout for their opening game at the venue. Perhaps the franchise could look at Hong Kong as an alternative next year. The game has a bit more of a following there and it would still shave a few hours off the South African teams' travel time.

Ideally, however, I think SANZAAR should look at switching the Sunwolves to one of the Australasian conferences. To balance it out, they might call for applications of interest in hosting a 19th Super Rugby franchise. Singapore might well enter the running, though I'd personally like to see a Pacific Island team involved, operating out of Suva. The Hawkes Bay province, currently within the Hurricanes franchise, has also expressed interest in the past.

Atlantic division
South African Conference: Lions, Bulls, Cheetahs, Stormers, Sharks, Kings, Jaguares

Top 4 teams into semi-finals leading to final to determine Atlantic division champion

Pacific division
Australian Conference: NSW, Reds, ACT, Force, Rebels, Sunwolves

New Zealand Conference: Blues, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders, Highlanders, ?Singapore/Islanders/Hawkes Bay?

Conference Champions determined by standings at the end of the regular season

Top 4 teams into semi-finals leading to final to determine Pacific division champion

Atlantic champion plays Pacific champion in Super Rugby final

[rowan]

You simply can not make a call that it will be absolutely of no use for Singaporean rugby to have a regular professional team playing there on the basis of one game.

Yes I can, actually. This is a chat forum and it's a free world where everybody has their own opinions on things. That concept is evidently beyond your grasp. I personally think you notion that a Japanese club team based in Singapore will promote the game there is pie in the sky & totally absurd - as indicated by the woeful crowd which attended their first game at the venue.

[Puja]

That makes about as much sense as having a European club play some of its home games in, say, Sweden, in an attempt to promote the game there. Why isn't that happening? Because it's clearly not the way to grow and develop the game in Sweden. That's being achieve through Swedish involvement in ENC competition. Similarly, the way to grow and develop the game in Singapore is through their invlvement in Asian competition - not by having a Japanese club team play some of its home games there. That's achieving nothing.

It's almost as nonsensical as having a European club play one of its home matches in New York, in an attempt to promote the game there. Or a French team playing some games in Spain. Or for New Zealand and Ireland to stage a test match in Chicago.

Puja

[Puja]

I'll also note that you're chucking around "only 8,000 crowd" like that's an utter disaster, when I'd view it as a very promising start in an unusual country for rugby. Sale fail to get 8,000 for a lot of games and they've got most of the North West of England to get fans from.

Puja

[rowan]

It was an awful crowd that left 85% of the stadium empty as the Sunwolves played their first ever game at the venue. It was never intended to promote the game in Singapore. That's pie in the sky. It was intended to reduce the South African teams' travel requirements because SA & Japan are basically antipodes - as far from each other as Europe is from Australia. Anyway, if you think 8K for a Super Rugby game under those circumstances in a 55K stadium is a good crowd, good luck to you. Everyone's entitled to their view. But personally I think Singapore won't be with us next season, one way or the other. We'll just have to wait and see what happens...

[Puja]

It was an awful crowd that left 85% of the stadium empty as the Sunwolves played their first ever game at the venue. It was never intended to promote the game in Singapore. That's pie in the sky. It was intended to reduce the South African teams' travel requirements because SA & Japan are basically antipodes - as far from each other as Europe is from Australia. Anyway, if you think 8K for a Super Rugby game under those circumstances in a 55K stadium is a good crowd, good luck to you. Everyone's entitled to their view. But personally I think Singapore won't be with us next season, one way or the other. We'll just have to wait and see what happens...

I think you're making quite a few assumptions here. You seem to believe that the crowd in the first game is the apogee. The closest comparison is the Aviva Premiership games that are being played in New York and they seem to believe that their crowds will increase each time they do it, as people come back and bring their friends.

The game in New York only sold 12,000 tickets, but the difference was that they gave away 2k more and stage it in a 25k stadium, so the crowd didn't get lost. I'd say it's more an issue that they haven't chosen the right stadium and didn't corral the crowd into one section, rather than anything else.

I don't know if Singapore will be involved next year, but I think there's a success to be got out of the fixtures, if they continue to work at it.

Puja

[Doorzetbornandbred]

Obviously the Greater Manchester should be abandoned when it comes to developing the game in that part of the world.

If England played a test versus Romania(or similar standing) they'd sell out Old Trafford or Maine Road at 70 odd thousand seats or whatever the capacitys are now.

[rowan]

I think you're making quite a few assumptions here. You seem to believe that the crowd in the first game is the apogee. The closest comparison is the Aviva Premiership games that are being played in New York and they seem to believe that their crowds will increase each time they do it, as people come back and bring their friends.

I think a pretty good comparison could be made to the Warriors' home debut in the NRL. They promoted it like mad and it was a sell-out well in advance. That's usually how it's done, as far as I'm aware, and for that reason a team's opening game in a major competition often is the apogee in terms of attendance - invariably surpassed only if the team goes on to be particularly successful. Singapore is a city state with 5 million people compressed into one metropolitan center. If they only got 8K into a 55K stadium for their first ever Super Rugby match, that suggests to me that either it wasn't very well promoted or simply nobody really cared (possibly a combination of both).

[Mikey Brown]

This conversation has clearly moved on but I thought the discussion earlier was kind of interesting. I'm not sure anyone is really being that serious when they mock Super Rugby for being non-contact/sevens+ etc. Or at least if they do, I don't know how they'd justify the chasm in skill levels between North and South.

I don't see a lot of it in all honesty but it's not perfect execution of 100% of plays that stands out to me, it's more how players react and realign so quickly whenever a mistake is made, both in attack and defence. It seems any NH attempt at a strike move is a complete bust if any part of it doesn't go exactly to plan.

I've got to say though it does seem like there's at least 1 pass in many scoring moves I see that would be called as forward here. I'm not saying it's wrong, maybe being a bit more lax on that would free people up to actually throw the ball around, but it does seem like Aus/NZ can work these flat passes a lot better at international level than anyone else. Maybe they just do it with a bit more confidence.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

This conversation has clearly moved on but I thought the discussion earlier was kind of interesting. I'm not sure anyone is really being that serious when they mock Super Rugby for being non-contact/sevens+ etc. Or at least if they do, I don't know how they'd justify the chasm in skill levels between North and South.

I don't see a lot of it in all honesty but it's not perfect execution of 100% of plays that stands out to me, it's more how players react and realign so quickly whenever a mistake is made, both in attack and defence. It seems any NH attempt at a strike move is a complete bust if any part of it doesn't go exactly to plan.

I've got to say though it does seem like there's at least 1 pass in many scoring moves I see that would be called as forward here. I'm not saying it's wrong, maybe being a bit more lax on that would free people up to actually throw the ball around, but it does seem like Aus/NZ can work these flat passes a lot better at international level than anyone else. Maybe they just do it with a bit more confidence.

You didn't have to say it, niot least because it's just not true. Unless what you mean is that there are plenty of people who run AND pass and some idiot fans STILL think that the ball moving forwards means that it's a forward pass. I don't think the referees would call it even slightly differently.

[Mikey Brown]

This conversation has clearly moved on but I thought the discussion earlier was kind of interesting. I'm not sure anyone is really being that serious when they mock Super Rugby for being non-contact/sevens+ etc. Or at least if they do, I don't know how they'd justify the chasm in skill levels between North and South.

I don't see a lot of it in all honesty but it's not perfect execution of 100% of plays that stands out to me, it's more how players react and realign so quickly whenever a mistake is made, both in attack and defence. It seems any NH attempt at a strike move is a complete bust if any part of it doesn't go exactly to plan.

I've got to say though it does seem like there's at least 1 pass in many scoring moves I see that would be called as forward here. I'm not saying it's wrong, maybe being a bit more lax on that would free people up to actually throw the ball around, but it does seem like Aus/NZ can work these flat passes a lot better at international level than anyone else. Maybe they just do it with a bit more confidence.

You didn't have to say it, niot least because it's just not true. Unless what you mean is that there are plenty of people who run AND pass and some idiot fans STILL think that the ball moving forwards means that it's a forward pass. I don't think the referees would call it even slightly differently.

I didn't say they were all forward passes.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

This conversation has clearly moved on but I thought the discussion earlier was kind of interesting. I'm not sure anyone is really being that serious when they mock Super Rugby for being non-contact/sevens+ etc. Or at least if they do, I don't know how they'd justify the chasm in skill levels between North and South.

I don't see a lot of it in all honesty but it's not perfect execution of 100% of plays that stands out to me, it's more how players react and realign so quickly whenever a mistake is made, both in attack and defence. It seems any NH attempt at a strike move is a complete bust if any part of it doesn't go exactly to plan.

I've got to say though it does seem like there's at least 1 pass in many scoring moves I see that would be called as forward here. I'm not saying it's wrong, maybe being a bit more lax on that would free people up to actually throw the ball around, but it does seem like Aus/NZ can work these flat passes a lot better at international level than anyone else. Maybe they just do it with a bit more confidence.

You didn't have to say it, niot least because it's just not true. Unless what you mean is that there are plenty of people who run AND pass and some idiot fans STILL think that the ball moving forwards means that it's a forward pass. I don't think the referees would call it even slightly differently.

The best part of all that was when those same people then basically started disagreeing with the laws of physics.

It's bloody infuriating. "constant forward passes" is right up there with "optional defence", "basketball rugby" and "crap set piece" as ridiculous myths about Super Rugby.

[Len]

You didn't have to say it, niot least because it's just not true. Unless what you mean is that there are plenty of people who run AND pass and some idiot fans STILL think that the ball moving forwards means that it's a forward pass. I don't think the referees would call it even slightly differently.

The best part of all that was when those same people then basically started disagreeing with the laws of physics.

It's bloody infuriating. "constant forward passes" is right up there with "optional defence", "basketball rugby" and "crap set piece" as ridiculous myths about Super Rugby.

Also known as beefeater syndrome. Would have loved to heard his comments on the recent RWC. DC dropping goals, Richie winning back to back, ABs away from home and winning with relative ease.

[Len]

It's bloody infuriating. "constant forward passes" is right up there with "optional defence", "basketball rugby" and "crap set piece" as ridiculous myths about Super Rugby.

Also known as beefeater syndrome. Would have loved to heard his comments on the recent RWC. DC dropping goals, Richie winning back to back, ABs away from home and winning with relative ease.

[beefeater]blah blah blah referee should've sent off Ben Smith blah blah blah, pretty sure some of the passes were forward, blah blah blah, cheating, blah blah blah

Don't forget that there were some that were quick to defend Aurelien Rougerie for eye-gouging in 2011.[/quote]

Smith did go off. He was rightly yellowed. A red for that? No.

He wouldn't have had a leg to stand on after Englands piss performance anyway.

[Doorzetbornandbred]

Personally I think several years back Super Rugby was a different beast to Test rugby more 20/20 compared to a Test match. It was a bit too much "basketball" at times, they now appear to be playing a more traditional game but at a speed that we in the NH have got to try and match if we want to think about ever winning a World Cup again or winning tests in the SH. The skills etc on display have been outstanding from all players, will we ever emulate it up here? Who knows, until a change in mindset occurs from the lowest levels in kids rugby it wont. Jones in charge of England may eventually lead to a change in the way the games played in England. Anyway Im heading off on a tangent here so back to the subject matter good win for the Crusaders 2nd/3rd XV this morning. I cant wait to see how the AB's do go without all the old heads.

[rowan]

Anyone know the attendance of today's match in Tokyo? Media seldom bothers to report this vital information these days.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

When even the Aussie commentators are saying that the Blues are being hard done by in the scrum penalties something has gone seriously wrong. The Blues are on the brink of losing a man to the bin despite having been on top for half the match.