I’m just going to nail this coffin shut.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/a ... d=12220512
Pass me the hammer
Moderator: morepork
-
Lizard
- Posts: 4050
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:41 pm
- Location: Dominating the SHMB
Pass me the hammer
______________________
Dominating the SHMB
======================
Dominating the SHMB
======================
-
Puja
- Posts: 18181
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm
Re: Pass me the hammer
What's so drastically wrong with those ideas? They seem pretty sensible to me.Lizard wrote:I’m just going to nail this coffin shut.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/a ... d=12220512
Puja
Backist Monk
-
Lizard
- Posts: 4050
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:41 pm
- Location: Dominating the SHMB
Re: Pass me the hammer
A neutral final venue is all well and good if you're only asking, say, Exeter to spend a couple of hours in a bus on the M4 to Twickenham. It's a different kettle of fish to ask the Crusaders to spend 20 hours flying across 10 time zones to play at Loftus Versfeld. That would be completely unfair. Of the 23 finals to date, 16 have involved teams from two different countries. The travelling team has won only once. Home advantage is massive, and the odds of a New Zealand venue ever winning a bid for the final (given stadium size and time zone) seems slim.
How many people would turn up for a Hurricanes v Chiefs final in Cape Town, do you think? Apart from NZ teams in Sydney, I can't think of anywhere likely to have decent resident base of support for foreign teams.
You just can't compare Super Rugby with NFL or the Champions League in this respect. The distances are far greater, and fan bases far more parochial.
The NZ residency rule for the All Blacks has delivered us two World Cups. I believe that the control/understanding the NZRU has with the NZ franchises is key to that. Aussie and SA have dabbled with various relaxations of their criteria that have been, by and large, unsuccessful. Just ask the Pacific Island national unions how well it goes trying to control how foreign clubs treat test players and respect release requirements.
Mid-week games between test sides and Super Rugby sides is less daft. It would be novel and interesting and provide a lower pressure environment for national sides to blood players etc. Obviously it would mean an expansion of national squads and increased game load for both dirt track national players and the franchises which might not be ideal for player welfare.
How many people would turn up for a Hurricanes v Chiefs final in Cape Town, do you think? Apart from NZ teams in Sydney, I can't think of anywhere likely to have decent resident base of support for foreign teams.
You just can't compare Super Rugby with NFL or the Champions League in this respect. The distances are far greater, and fan bases far more parochial.
The NZ residency rule for the All Blacks has delivered us two World Cups. I believe that the control/understanding the NZRU has with the NZ franchises is key to that. Aussie and SA have dabbled with various relaxations of their criteria that have been, by and large, unsuccessful. Just ask the Pacific Island national unions how well it goes trying to control how foreign clubs treat test players and respect release requirements.
Mid-week games between test sides and Super Rugby sides is less daft. It would be novel and interesting and provide a lower pressure environment for national sides to blood players etc. Obviously it would mean an expansion of national squads and increased game load for both dirt track national players and the franchises which might not be ideal for player welfare.
______________________
Dominating the SHMB
======================
Dominating the SHMB
======================