RugbyRebels

The structure was driven by television money; if there wasn't a semi-final in each market the television rights would not be worth as much.

So yes, the current structure is shitty, unfair to better performing teams who aren't winning their own conference, and etc.

OTOH, the money is also good.

The question is, does the game get any benefit from the additional money, or do the administrators who signed the deal and approved the structure, get that benefit? Not suggesting anything funny, I really don't know. But if the answer to that question is that the game benefits, then the question becomes: does the shitty structure provide more benefit than it costs? IOW, is it worth it? Does the game benefit enough to make the shitty structure tolerable?

Apparently, the current crop responsible for administering the game, think it does. More or less.

Personally, I think it's short-term good but a long-term error. It will end up costing fans > eyeballs > advertising revenues > TV rights pricing.

Depends on how the crowds are this year. Any different to last?

Sunwolves doing surprisingly well for a change. Just two points adrift of the Sharks (in SA) at HT...

Update: Didn't last long! Sharks score straight after the break

Sharks ran away with it in the end. Does that also end the Blues' play-off hopes??

Holy cow! Canes win 10-35 in Christchurch. Surely one of the biggest home-losses ever suffered by the 7-time champions - rugby's 'Real Madrid,' as I call them. Not sure that it changes the play-offs picture any though, but at least the boys from Wellington are going in with plenty of momentum behind them. Could this be their year after all

Good game going on in Dunedin. Highlanders trailing Chiefs 5-7 HT. Solid Chiefs defence, bit of biffo, A Smith passing up a storm.

FT 25-15 Highlanders. Well deserved win, played most of the rugby. The Chiefs mostly defended well, but blew their attacking chances.

Hurricanes top NZ conference. Didn't see that coming on Friday morning.

What? The Canes finished top? That looked inconceivable a few weeks ago. So what's between them and that ever-elusive title this time? A Lions' den in Jo'burg, I suspect...

Jags leading Lions into final quarter. This could be a huge upset that would see the Canes finish top of the table, one point ahead of the South Africans...

Jags stun Lions 34-22, visitors only needed a bonus point to top the ladder!!! Well done, Argies. Totally justifies their inclusion in the competition.

Meanwhile, all the stars aligned for the Canes in the last few weeks of the regular season. They finish top with home advantage through the playoffs.

cashead wrote:Don't worry, the Hurricanes will fuck it up.

I'm sure. They ought to beat the Sharks but the semis looks like a potential banana skin - ACT or Otago - two of the Canes' old Nemeses. If it's the latter, that's going to be a huge grudge match after last year's final

cashead wrote:

rowan wrote:Jags stun Lions 34-22, visitors only needed a bonus point to top the ladder!!! Well done, Argies. Totally justifies their inclusion in the competition.

Not really. They were very sloppy throughout the game, and it was largely an inexperienced, C-grade Lions team strangling themselves through poor discipline that cost them. The Jags missed 20 tackles, and the Lions missed 29, while the Lions conceded 17 penalties to the Jags' 7, with 2 yellow cards to show for it. The Jaguares were only OK, and the Lions started decent and turned to absolute shit.

At the end of the day, it's a league and you're going to have to rest your players at some stage, so a win is a win and this was a big one for the Jags, who ultimately prevented the Lions from topping the table. For certain nobody ought to be questioning their involvement. They've had a far more successful debut season than the hapless Sunwolves, finishing ahead of two Australian teams (including former champions the Reds) and two South African teams (including the Kings). NB: The Port Elizabeth-based outfit actually debuted a few seasons ago but were effectively relegated after losing a play-off with the Lions.

cashead wrote:

scuzzaman wrote: I'm still puzzled as to why McKenzie didn't get a run against Wales. He has surely earned it.

From a couple of weeks ago, but if you're wondering why McKenzie didn't get a run, I'd imagine it would be related to his tackle success rate for the Chiefs this year - it's below 70%. I'd wager Ben Smith and Izzy Dagg are rating much higher than that.

There's a fair point.

Cheers!

Surprised there hasn't been more speculation in the press over the possibility of an all-NZ semi-finals. I don't think it'll happen, personally. 3 maybe, but one of the Kiwi sides is likely to trip up, and most likely one of te South Island franchises by the looks of the quarter-final draw. Still, an all-NZ semis has to be at least a 50/50 chance right now. What would that do to the credibility of this multi-national championship? Has a similar scenario ever occurred in European rugby or football, with 4 teams from the same country making up the semis?

rowan wrote:Surprised there hasn't been more speculation in the press over the possibility of an all-NZ semi-finals. I don't think it'll happen, personally. 3 maybe, but one of the Kiwi sides is likely to trip up, and most likely one of te South Island franchises by the looks of the quarter-final draw. Still, an all-NZ semis has to be at least a 50/50 chance right now. What would that do to the credibility of this multi-national championship? Has a similar scenario ever occurred in European rugby or football, with 4 teams from the same country making up the semis?

I don't believe so, although I'm pretty sure we've had 3 french and 3 english teams in the HC semifinals before now. These things tend to be a bit cyclical. It's not so long ago the English were wailing about being ineffective in Europe but recently they've been much better.

Not much of a cycle going on with Super Rugby tho. Kiwis have dominated from the outset, winning 14 of the 20 titles, and this year especially so. I would never have predicted this at the start. I remember thinking it would be Western Province, Northern Transvaal, NSW, Queensland, Canterbury & Auckland dominating, with Transvaal, Natal, Wellington and - perhaps - Otago battling in mid-table, and the other teams scrapping it out at the bottom. Of course, at that time, those 'other teams' were only ACT & Waikato (who have ironically both won it twicce), but I suspected expansion wouldn't be too far off in the future once they got it up & running.

14 of 20 titles.

I expect most New Zealanders will see that is 6 lost opportunities.

Canterbury has won more titles than all of the non-NZ sides combined!!

Anyway, I'm tipping 3 out of 4 Kiwi victories this weekend. Somewhat absurdly, three of them will have to play away, with only the Canes getting home advantage. I think it'll be one of the South Island teams who slips up, possibly the Saders themselves.

The Real Madrid of rugby!

So, I was wondering if playing all its international and super rugby at stupid times of night to satisfy a northern hemisphere market has had positive or negative impact on the quality of super and all black rugby? Any thoughts?

Cashhead, sure, but it's only a comparison in terms of their success, not their structures. I think Real were developing a lot of their own players during their heyday too, btw.

Canta-brian, I've seen reports which suggest a negative impact, but that was back in the days when the All Blacks were RWC chokers and might just have been an excuse (one of many). Haven't heard it doing the rounds lately anyway...

canta_brian wrote:So, I was wondering if playing all its international and super rugby at stupid times of night to satisfy a northern hemisphere market has had positive or negative impact on the quality of super and all black rugby? Any thoughts?

Can't see why it would have any negative impact.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote:So, I was wondering if playing all its international and super rugby at stupid times of night to satisfy a northern hemisphere market has had positive or negative impact on the quality of super and all black rugby? Any thoughts?

Can't see why it would have any negative impact.

I thought for a few years it would be negative. Bad weather and cold etc. But then I thought if you can play in that you can play in anything, so good. But I guess we can't really know.

canta_brian wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote:So, I was wondering if playing all its international and super rugby at stupid times of night to satisfy a northern hemisphere market has had positive or negative impact on the quality of super and all black rugby? Any thoughts?

Can't see why it would have any negative impact.

I thought for a few years it would be negative. Bad weather and cold etc. But then I thought if you can play in that you can play in anything, so good. But I guess we can't really know.

Aye. For years people have hoped that it would piss it down against the ABs, claiming it was a leveller. i've always thought that was wrong because your boys are much better at playing in the pissing rain whereas we can barely string a pass together.