Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 | 359 | 360 | ... | 676

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2415310 9-Feb-2020 21:31

The last few days have been really interesting with the rumours that South Africa may join the Six Nations. Objectively it would make a lot of sense for them. The timezones line up really well and the travel would generally be much easier for them.

It's becoming more and more apparent that New Zealand rugby isn't well liked internationally. Scotty Stevenson was pretty outspoken on Twitter that the relationship with South Africa and Australia isn't great. With the mess that Super Rugby is in and the provincial unions in various degrees of disarray there are incredibly significant problems that need to be addressed. The NZRU has contracted an un-named consultancy to conduct a strategic review. One would assume that there will be some fairly significant redundancies to get the costs of the NZRU under control.

Nobody goes to Super Rugby or provincial rugby and the All Blacks don't sell out anymore. Super Rugby is a plastic TV driven competition which the NZRU has increasingly devalued. Now that Tew and Hansen have gone the media are increasingly writing about the real issues that rugby has in New Zealand. In many ways it appears that their longevity in their roles may have held back the game overall. It was great for the performance of the All Blacks but overall it doesn't appear to have been positive for New Zealand rugby.

I hope Mark Robinson and Brett Impey are willing to be honest with themselves about where the game is at and make significant changes to the way the NZRU runs its self.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2415317 9-Feb-2020 21:44

Which is all well and good, except that as Mark Robinson has already commented today, SARU are contracted to Sanzar till 2025, so how they would exit Super Rugby in 2024 is a bit of a mystery.

You seem to have an overly negative opinion of NZRU in my opinion. I am not really sure what magic you expect them to pull? If you were in charge, what would you be doing differently?

Do you think the English RU is liked more? It's rare to see good comments made about them, and pretty much the only Rugby supporters I talked to during the RWC who wanted England to win, were English, and honestly, even some of them weren't that fussed.

One thing I see over and over is people talking about how crowds have diminished in Rugby. Blaming this all on NZR is delusional. EVERY Sport, every sports club is struggling in NZ and Australia. People just don't have the time any more to play sport as much as they used to, let along attend games regularly. This isn't a Rugby problem, this is a lifestyle problem in my view. You can help it somewhat by moving games earlier (Something I'd support), but the main reason I don't go to live games, is it costs $60 pretty much minimum for me and 2 kids, then chances are we need to eat, so add $500 in food (yes I know it's not that expensive), and transport too and from. But above and beyond all of that, it's because the commentary and replays are much better on a TV. Rugby moves incredibly quickly, you can't really see what's happening at the breakdown or scrums or pretty much anything, from the sidelines unless it's in front of you and even then...

I have enjoyed the atmosphere of the games I have attended, but if it's a choice, I'll take commentary and replays almost every time.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2415322 9-Feb-2020 22:07

New Zealand rugby have known the domestic issues for some time. What meaningful changes have they made to respond to what has been happening for many years? I feel that Hansen probably had too much control over the entire organisation. It makes sense for him and the All Blacks but not necessarily for New Zealand rugby overall.

The English RU have functional relationships with their key partners. The Six Nations countries (especially the four home nations) tend to be pretty supportive of each other. Ireland, Scotland and Wales are heavily dependent on the Six Nations and England tend to support them against threats to their revenue.

New Zealand went on their mad attempt to try and get money out of the northern hemisphere unions from the end of season tours. That was never going to fly and has resulted in New Zealand not playing England at Twickenham for a number of years. This type of stuff has left New Zealand rugby without too many friends in World Rugby. We have had an incredibly successful run at All Black level but that isn't the same as being able to bring a huge amount of value to the larger countries. We have an important place in world rugby but we don't go anywhere trying to be bullies to the northern hemisphere. They are quite content to ignore us.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2415329 9-Feb-2020 22:43

Handle9:

New Zealand rugby have known the domestic issues for some time. What meaningful changes have they made to respond to what has been happening for many years? I feel that Hansen probably had too much control over the entire organisation. It makes sense for him and the All Blacks but not necessarily for New Zealand rugby overall.

The English RU have functional relationships with their key partners. The Six Nations countries (especially the four home nations) tend to be pretty supportive of each other. Ireland, Scotland and Wales are heavily dependent on the Six Nations and England tend to support them against threats to their revenue.

New Zealand went on their mad attempt to try and get money out of the northern hemisphere unions from the end of season tours. That was never going to fly and has resulted in New Zealand not playing England at Twickenham for a number of years. This type of stuff has left New Zealand rugby without too many friends in World Rugby. We have had an incredibly successful run at All Black level but that isn't the same as being able to bring a huge amount of value to the larger countries. We have an important place in world rugby but we don't go anywhere trying to be bullies to the northern hemisphere. They are quite content to ignore us.

Well, that's certainly one way to look at it.

What do NZ fans care about? Who wins provincial games? Who wins Mitre 10 Cup? Who wins Super Rugby? Or do they actually really only care that the NZ is the best team in the world, or thereabouts? I think you'll find it's the AB's that matter to the fans. Perhaps you might say the balance wasn't quite right, but NZRU are hardly rolling in money. If it wasn't for their much-maligned relationship with AIG, NZR would have been in serious trouble a few years ago.

What do you see as the key issues at the lower levels? What do you propose gets done about it? Money? From whence should this money come from?

I don't consider NZ asking England for a cut of the gate sales as "mad" in the slightest. A small cut would have made a much bigger difference for NZ than it would have to RFU. NZ did it because to a good percentage of the fans, they were the reasons for such good attendance. NZR needs the money to keep our talent here, and for there to be money to even consider flowing downward. RFU are about the most breathtakingly arrogant sports organization I've ever seen along perhaps with the Football governing body, and the IOC. If they had been left to their own devices, there wouldn't even be a RWC.

Some commentary from Tony Brown yesterday made some sense to me. The resting of the AB's as a blanket affair, whether those players play 1 game or 16 tests a year, doesn't make sense, but if you look at our core players, if you asked them, they would play every minute of every game, but someone must have common sense and look at the bigger picture. I like watching the AB's play in SR as much as the next guy, but like almost all Rugby fans, my primary concern is test matches. Plenty of fantastic games have been played at SR level without the AB's and plenty of rubbish ones have been played with them. If your only interest in SR is watching the AB's play it, then I am not sure what to say.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2415330 9-Feb-2020 23:02

School boy numbers are falling off a cliff. There were around 26,000 school boys playing in 2014 and in 2018 there were around 21,500. In Auckland there were 225 rugby teams in 201, in 2018 there were 181. If the only point of the NZRU existing is to have a successful All Blacks team then that is one view. To me the primary duty of the NZRU is to rugby players - to make it an attractive sport for everyone, not just at the professional level.

Schoolboy rugby has been allowed to become a semi-professional game. It's killing rugby as a participation sport.

Why would the England give New Zealand a cut of the gate? They sell out Twickenham regardless of the opposition so what financial value does New Zealand rugby bring to them? That's not arrogance, that is a realistic view of the value that New Zealand rugby brings. I haven't seen New Zealand rugby rushing out to support the pacific islands or anyone else so why would we expect other nations to support us?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12194711

https://www.metromag.co.nz/city-life/city-life-sport/the-death-of-club-rugby-in-auckland-is-coming-fast

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2415333 9-Feb-2020 23:25

Handle9:

School boy numbers are falling off a cliff. There were around 26,000 school boys playing in 2014 and in 2018 there were around 21,500. In Auckland there were 225 rugby teams in 201, in 2018 there were 181. If the only point of the NZRU existing is to have a successful All Blacks team then that is one view. To me the primary duty of the NZRU is to rugby players - to make it an attractive sport for everyone, not just at the professional level.

Schoolboy rugby has been allowed to become a semi-professional game. It's killing rugby as a participation sport.

Why would the England give New Zealand a cut of the gate? They sell out Twickenham regardless of the opposition so what financial value does New Zealand rugby bring to them? That's not arrogance, that is a realistic view of the value that New Zealand rugby brings. I haven't seen New Zealand rugby rushing out to support the pacific islands or anyone else so why would we expect other nations to support us?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12194711

https://www.metromag.co.nz/city-life/city-life-sport/the-death-of-club-rugby-in-auckland-is-coming-fast

Declining numbers is not a Rugby problem alone. Pretty much every sport is in the same boat. Squash is down around 27%, and a lot of those kids play cricket in the cricket season. A parent who's kids I have a bit to do with at Squash was commenting at the end of last year, that both his kids cricket teams couldn't form teams and play 3 times this season (They play for different age group teams so 6 times total in a single season). These are traditionally popular clubs. Comparatively, e-Sports is about the only "sport" seeing growth. One of the big issues with kids sport is the fact that parents are now facing upward of a 2 hour round trip to get their kids to a game on a Saturday, and that's travel time alone. What would you have NZR do about this particular thing? The problem has many many causes and many of them don't have solutions.

I agree that schoolboy Rugby has become too Elite, but this as much driven by parents as anything and how early talent scouts are approaching young players. I saw a proposal I support that says, under 16's can't be approached by a talent scout. In Squash for example, there has been a HUGE shift in the past 2 years in NZ and Australia toward the kids having fun. All of the coaching has been moved toward taking the pressure away in under 15's.

I agree with you, that NZR should be making it attractive for everyone, but if the fans won't turn out for anything except the AB's, what do you expect NZR to do? Sky actually has been doing some interesting things, in promoting and televising many lower levels of Rugby, but it's a two-edged sword.. If you televise it, then people won't go to the games because it's way more convenient to stay home and watch it.

It's an easy thing to make NZR the scapegoat in all of this, but in reality, the world has changed/is changing and despite the paradox, people want to watch sport, but it's harder and harder to get people to actually play it.

One thing to think about.. If NZR make some of the changes I see people ranting about on twitter and the like, supporting participation and pushing more resources down, and remove those resources from the top-level (Because there isn't enough for both levels), and they can't keep the top talent, and they don't make it all about the AB's and the AB's win loss ratio drops by 20-25%, how many kids will want to play Rugby?

During the Commonwealth Games, NZ Squash did really well, immediately afterward, enrollments at clubs spiked the highest it's been in 25 YEARS. It's a chicken and egg thing, and I absolutely know the value that our development system has in the success we have enjoyed for most of the past 20 years.. The lack of it in Australia has been the reason (other than HORRIFYING management of ARU) Australian Rugby is in the mess it is now.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2415336 10-Feb-2020 05:58

A lot of sports are shrinking but not all of them. Basketball, for example, has huge growth.

Rugby has had every opportunity - it has a huge advantage and has failed to capitalise on it. Ultimately New Zealand rugby probably won't be able to keep it's best players in New Zealand. It hasn't got enough money and there is no practical way to keep the best players in a global market as the markets inflate. If South Africa leaves super rugby and the rugby championship that will just hasten things.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2415340 10-Feb-2020 07:10

everyone's playing "e-sports" lol

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2415415 10-Feb-2020 09:49

Handle9: A lot of sports are shrinking but not all of them. Basketball, for example, has huge growth.

In NZ?

Professionally at least, basketball is height dependant (NBA for example where the average player is 200.4cm tall). It surprises me there is significant growth, are you talking about in NZ? It's not played as a team sport or even during break times at my kids school, which I understand is totally anecdotal and a very small sample size, however, I honestly can't recall the last time I heard any parent anywhere discussing a basketball team their kids were involved in.

Rugby has had every opportunity - it has a huge advantage and has failed to capitalise on it. Ultimately New Zealand rugby probably won't be able to keep it's best players in New Zealand. It hasn't got enough money and there is no practical way to keep the best players in a global market as the markets inflate. If South Africa leaves super rugby and the rugby championship that will just hasten things.

You've been very vague throughout. What exact opportunity have they had, and how have they failed to capitalize on it? How are they supposed to fix the "issues" (Which again other than mentioning dropping numbers, which is true of most sports and has massive number of factors), in your mind?

Let me ask you something, will you encourage your kids to play Rugby? What would get you attending local games (as opposed to watching on TV)?

I've explained why I don't attend games, not sure how they fix that particular thing. I won't let my kids play Union, because I worry about their heads. It's a full-contact sport, both my kids are tiny, but mostly, it's about not wanting to put them in a head collision zone. My son is SO keen to play, but if he was to play, I'd probably be pushing him toward 7's. I know LOTS of parents who feel the same way (Concerns around head safety).

You raised the fact that NZ doesn't help Pacific Island Rugby, and I do kinda get that, but how would they help them? What they need is resouces, IE Money. We don't have enough for ourselves, how are we supposed to be helping others? Compare this to the RFU? The RFU could provide the funding and NZ could provide the coaching talent and infrastructure type things with that money, but realistically, how are we supposed to help the Pacific Islands with their Rugby?

I am not trying to have an argument, I am genuinely interested.

Grunta47

97 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#2415516 10-Feb-2020 12:40

networkn:

Handle9: A lot of sports are shrinking but not all of them. Basketball, for example, has huge growth.

In NZ?

Professionally at least, basketball is height dependant (NBA for example where the average player is 200.4cm tall). It surprises me there is significant growth, are you talking about in NZ? It's not played as a team sport or even during break times at my kids school, which I understand is totally anecdotal and a very small sample size, however, I honestly can't recall the last time I heard any parent anywhere discussing a basketball team their kids were involved in.

Rugby has had every opportunity - it has a huge advantage and has failed to capitalise on it. Ultimately New Zealand rugby probably won't be able to keep it's best players in New Zealand. It hasn't got enough money and there is no practical way to keep the best players in a global market as the markets inflate. If South Africa leaves super rugby and the rugby championship that will just hasten things.

You've been very vague throughout. What exact opportunity have they had, and how have they failed to capitalize on it? How are they supposed to fix the "issues" (Which again other than mentioning dropping numbers, which is true of most sports and has massive number of factors), in your mind?

Let me ask you something, will you encourage your kids to play Rugby? What would get you attending local games (as opposed to watching on TV)?

I've explained why I don't attend games, not sure how they fix that particular thing. I won't let my kids play Union, because I worry about their heads. It's a full-contact sport, both my kids are tiny, but mostly, it's about not wanting to put them in a head collision zone. My son is SO keen to play, but if he was to play, I'd probably be pushing him toward 7's. I know LOTS of parents who feel the same way (Concerns around head safety).

You raised the fact that NZ doesn't help Pacific Island Rugby, and I do kinda get that, but how would they help them? What they need is resouces, IE Money. We don't have enough for ourselves, how are we supposed to be helping others? Compare this to the RFU? The RFU could provide the funding and NZ could provide the coaching talent and infrastructure type things with that money, but realistically, how are we supposed to help the Pacific Islands with their Rugby?

I am not trying to have an argument, I am genuinely interested.

Basketball is the fastest growing sport in NZ. At my sons college we have 3 senior boys, 1 senior girls, 4 junior boys and 2 junior girls teams. For the boys that is about 70-80 boys playing basketball vs 60-70 playing rugby. However a number of boys play both, as our Senior A team had 4 boys who played both codes.

Height is not an issue to be playing college bball. My boys are around 188-190cm and on the taller end of the snr A team. Other boys are probably around my height of 175cm. When we play the top teams we're small, but when we play others were about even.

In answer to NZR not supporting Pacific islands....rubbish. NZR does huge amounts for the Pacific Islands in sponsoring teams, supply equipment, sending over technical expertise, coaching the coaches and many other incentives. A lot of the negativity that comes with NZR and Pacific Islands is the perceived poaching that goes on.....however the largest poacher of PI talent is the European clubs especially the French. I read a report a year or two ago that up to 250 Fijian teenagers a year go to French clubs on trial for a year....most get dumped.

How to fix rugby? An interesting question for another time:-)

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2415521 10-Feb-2020 12:52

Grunta47:

Basketball is the fastest growing sport in NZ. At my sons college we have 3 senior boys, 1 senior girls, 4 junior boys and 2 junior girls teams. For the boys that is about 70-80 boys playing basketball vs 60-70 playing rugby. However a number of boys play both, as our Senior A team had 4 boys who played both codes.

Height is not an issue to be playing college bball. My boys are around 188-190cm and on the taller end of the snr A team. Other boys are probably around my height of 175cm. When we play the top teams we're small, but when we play others were about even.

In answer to NZR not supporting Pacific islands....rubbish. NZR does huge amounts for the Pacific Islands in sponsoring teams, supply equipment, sending over technical expertise, coaching the coaches and many other incentives. A lot of the negativity that comes with NZR and Pacific Islands is the perceived poaching that goes on.....however the largest poacher of PI talent is the European clubs especially the French. I read a report a year or two ago that up to 250 Fijian teenagers a year go to French clubs on trial for a year....most get dumped.

How to fix rugby? An interesting question for another time:-)

Well, so this is getting a bit off-topic, but primarily, when you play the "top teams" are they the top teams with height being a considerable factor in their success? Do you have any top teams where the team averages a more common size of say, 180cm?

I am not saying you can't play BBall as someone of average height, but to some degree, to become eligible to go pro, height is surely going to be a pretty big factor. Unlike Rugby, where some height is a serious advantage positions like lock, a strong and solid average human being could be a back and adding weight is something you can do, but adding height is something you can't do :)

I guess it's going to depend on where the discussion is focused, but at the top levels, Rugby is a paid sport. You need players to come through the system, but the paid part is becoming earlier and earlier, and Rugby is competing for attention from other sports who pay early too. I don't really know what the answer is, but I think it's entirely unreasonable to say NZR is responsible on it's own for the state of Rugby in NZ. That's just an easy and lazy scapegoat argument IMO. I guess there are ideals, and conversely, commercial realities.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Grunta47

97 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#2415548 10-Feb-2020 13:21

networkn:

Well, so this is getting a bit off-topic, but primarily, when you play the "top teams" are they the top teams with height being a considerable factor in their success? Do you have any top teams where the team averages a more common size of say, 180cm?

I am not saying you can't play BBall as someone of average height, but to some degree, to become eligible to go pro, height is surely going to be a pretty big factor. Unlike Rugby, where some height is a serious advantage positions like lock, a strong and solid average human being could be a back and adding weight is something you can do, but adding height is something you can't do :)

I guess it's going to depend on where the discussion is focused, but at the top levels, Rugby is a paid sport. You need players to come through the system, but the paid part is becoming earlier and earlier, and Rugby is competing for attention from other sports who pay early too. I don't really know what the answer is, but I think it's entirely unreasonable to say NZR is responsible on it's own for the state of Rugby in NZ. That's just an easy and lazy scapegoat argument IMO. I guess there are ideals, and conversely, commercial realities.

My response was more aimed at sport in general, not the top tier. That's the way I saw the conversation......around all sports in NZ having declining numbers.

And to add to that, the internet/gaming is probably the biggest cause of kids not playing sport (physical, not e). I know many boys who no longer play sport because they just game their hours away.

Top teams in all sports will have players who are either taller, bigger, faster, more skilled so I don't really get where you're going with those comments. If you look at the AB's (and our SuperRugby teams) we are generally just that bit smaller especially when compared to SA teams and win through skill/tactics.

NBA Golden State Warrior Steph Curry is 191cm and has won 3 championships and twice most valuable player. He is relatively short for an NBA player.

Agree that the paid part is coming in earlier and earlier. There is a young man from Porirua who was visited by the NRL Bulldogs CEO a few years ago when he was only 12. What the?? He's still playing college rugby (last year I think) and was the player of the tournament at last years Red Bull Ignite 7's. Will he go the Bulldogs? Perhaps, but if those around him had any clues they would get him to be an AB first and then command big dollars in Europe or Japan in his twilight playing years.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2415670 10-Feb-2020 18:40

networkn:

Handle9: A lot of sports are shrinking but not all of them. Basketball, for example, has huge growth.

In NZ?

Professionally at least, basketball is height dependant (NBA for example where the average player is 200.4cm tall). It surprises me there is significant growth, are you talking about in NZ? It's not played as a team sport or even during break times at my kids school, which I understand is totally anecdotal and a very small sample size, however, I honestly can't recall the last time I heard any parent anywhere discussing a basketball team their kids were involved in.

Rugby has had every opportunity - it has a huge advantage and has failed to capitalise on it. Ultimately New Zealand rugby probably won't be able to keep it's best players in New Zealand. It hasn't got enough money and there is no practical way to keep the best players in a global market as the markets inflate. If South Africa leaves super rugby and the rugby championship that will just hasten things.

You've been very vague throughout. What exact opportunity have they had, and how have they failed to capitalize on it? How are they supposed to fix the "issues" (Which again other than mentioning dropping numbers, which is true of most sports and has massive number of factors), in your mind?

Let me ask you something, will you encourage your kids to play Rugby? What would get you attending local games (as opposed to watching on TV)?

I've explained why I don't attend games, not sure how they fix that particular thing. I won't let my kids play Union, because I worry about their heads. It's a full-contact sport, both my kids are tiny, but mostly, it's about not wanting to put them in a head collision zone. My son is SO keen to play, but if he was to play, I'd probably be pushing him toward 7's. I know LOTS of parents who feel the same way (Concerns around head safety).

You raised the fact that NZ doesn't help Pacific Island Rugby, and I do kinda get that, but how would they help them? What they need is resouces, IE Money. We don't have enough for ourselves, how are we supposed to be helping others? Compare this to the RFU? The RFU could provide the funding and NZ could provide the coaching talent and infrastructure type things with that money, but realistically, how are we supposed to help the Pacific Islands with their Rugby?

I am not trying to have an argument, I am genuinely interested.

All good.

Rugby has the largest media presence, the most money and the greatest mind share of any sport. They had a huge lead compared to other sports and their strategy hasn't worked in terms of money or growing player numbers. The NZRU stakeholders (unions and super franchises) are increasingly unhappy.

Specifically I would have expected to see them make significant efforts to change their business model based on what is happening. The forward looking sports organisations globally have or are doing this, investing in direct to market streaming, and creating significant interest via non-traditional channels. Instead we have Sky, who aggressively take down any form of internet content that they don't produce. Contrast this to the six nations who have had their moments but have found a way to support the likes of Squidge rugby having access to content.

While you like to disparage the ARU they have come up with a very interesting broadcast strategy based around making rugby more accessible. It'll be interesting to see what comes from the tender process they are running but on the face of it the process they are running seems very sensible. They have more leverage than it may appear - Kayo subscriptions fell 10% after the rugby world cup and a million people watched the Wallabies quarter final.

I would have also expected to see the NZRU having functional relationships with other international unions - this isn't the case. Similarly the All Black coaching process last year showed many signs of being mismanaged. These are all signs to me of an organisation that isn't functioning effectively.

Basketball has grown 45% in the last 10 years despite not having a strong national league. It's now the second most popular sport in high schools behind netball. In the next couple of years it will likely be the most popular sport in high school.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12203393

I'd be happy to have my kids (both girls) play rugby, if the coaching was good. I think if they start playing young, before the collisions get big, they learn how to play relatively safely. There's a risk with any sport and I feel that the benefits outweigh the risks.

I have had concussion problems, which meant I stopped playing union and league in my late teens, so I understand the risks. I didn't start playing those sports until I went to high school so I didn't learn good technique. I also got a really bad concussion from a freak accident playing softball which I think caused most of the problems. I'd also be happy to say to the kids enough, you need to do something else.

You keep saying the RFU has the money and they should give it to others. Do they? They posted a 4 million pound profit last year after losing 30 million pounds the year before. It's not like they are rolling in money. The northern hemisphere also operates a very different business model in many ways - the northern hemisphere unions all own their grounds and that requires investment, they are not subsidised like they are here with the councils largely funding the development and operations of the major stadiums. The clubs are privately operated and largely lose money.

The reason that I keep raising pacific island rugby is the gross hypocrisy of New Zealand rugby complaining that they can't compete and need funding by the northern hemisphere but ignoring what goes on in the islands. If SANZAR had made a genuine effort to grow the pacific when they were riding high I would have far more sympathy for them.

For me to go to more games (when I am in NZ) they need to be during the day. I can't take my kids to night games, it's not possible with a 5 and 8 year old who go to bed at 7pm. They both really enjoy watching rugby with me on TV and loved going to the Dubai 7s last year but it's not possible to watch night rugby.

My main point is that New Zealand rugby has to change the way it operates, possibly dramatically. Instead I mostly see an organisation that doesn't want to change. It's entire MO is to maintain the status quo.

If the outcome is that most of the senior All Blacks play off shore and we operate a more sustainable union that invests in growing the game then that would be ok. It's not ideal and there would be a fall away in revenue but we need to be realistic about our place in the global economy. We also need to be prepared to try to do things differently, rather than just rinse and repeat.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2416673 12-Feb-2020 12:08

I'll come back to the above a bit later, I am still thinking things though :)

On another note, it seems that we have the usual two trolls in the media, but now, Hamish Bidwell seems to be trying to get in on the action. We don't really need more, so that's a shame. I don't recall him being like that in the past.

I see there were the usual suspects in the media suggesting nonsense like the NZ Coaches have told the players to get retribution against SA for them winning the RWC hence all the brutality and thuggery of the weekends. In reality, it's not going to be that, the more reasonable conclusion is simply that the Hurricanes allowed themselves to become (very) undisciplined, out of frustration that the game wasn't going their way. I still don't feel happy with the discipline in general from NZ teams, so there is some of that mixed in as well I think. I see the Chiefs reverted to trying to get under the skin of the Crusaders, but I think the Crusaders need to find a way to stop that affecting them as much. There was a period the Chiefs were doing it a lot and winning more as a result of it when the Crusaders stopped letting them get under their skin, games went their way. (I mention the Crusaders simply because it was the most recent example of it not because it's the Crusaders).

I was wondering a bit more about the resting of the All Blacks. @handle9 is this one of the reasons you think Super Rugby is "bad" right now? In theory, I understand both sides of this coin. The SR coaches want their fringe AB's to play more, whereas now they are covered by blanket protocols, but if you look back to (2016 I think) where due to horrific injury numbers, we ended up using all our fringe players, and then many uncapped players on top, having those guys being brought in after big seasons or SR and then suggesting they play big seasons of International test rugby, it's a problem as well.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2416675 12-Feb-2020 12:24

One thing I wonder about, but don't have any insight into, was how the pro players get paid.

Are all SR players getting the same, or is it on a tiered system whereby say Richie McCaw gets paid more than say Matt Todd. Is it a flat rate regardless of what how many games they play and what happens if a player is out with Injury, and then if they then go and play for the AB's are the AB's paid a base salary and then for every test they are selected they get an additional fee?

1 | ... | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 | 359 | 360 | ... | 676