Page 4 of 41
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:07 pm
by rowan
cashead wrote:rowan wrote:Puja wrote:
With due respect, that comparison is nonsense. Selling rugby league to New Zealand, a country where the national sport is very similar to it and where they're next door neighbours to the effective home of the sport, is not even remotely comparable to selling rugby union to Singapore, a country with practically no culture of team sport.
If you want to look at an example of attendances being built over time in a inhospitable environment, then Major League Soccer in the USA is a fairly sensible example. They certainly didn't start off with their biggest crowds for their first games.
Puja
I'm not sure that's a very appropriate comparison, to be honest. A Japanese rugby team debuting in Singers and MSL getting off the ground in the USA ??
Also, when you talk about Singapore being a country with practically no culture of team sport you are merely confirming my original point that this is not a suitable location for the Sunwolves' "2nd home." Quite clearly they don't care much. The population is about 3/4 Chinese, to begin with. Do you think Chinese Singaporeans would be champing at the bit to see a Japanese rugby team in action?
Meanwhile, I did a quick google on the debut home crowds for both the Force & Rebels and, guess what, both were around capacity; in the former's case this entailed ovr 40K at the Subiaco. What was really interesting, however, was that, in both cases, crowds declined rapidly as the new teams failed to deliver. That was the point I made earlier. The crowds the Sunwolves have pulled so far have been relatively modest, below capacity in a 27K stadium in Tokyo, and only getting 8k into a 55K-seater in Singers, and unless they start winning (not looking promising right now), it's unlikely to get any better.
MSL in the US is a far more apt comparison than NRL in New Zealand.
Further, you're continuing attempt to use the 8000 in a 55k stadium is actually a pretty shitty and disingenuous thing to do, when taking into account that the other grounds used for rugby union are in no way appropriate to host a professional rugby game.
No, what's disingenuous is making claims without explaining your rationale. I think the Warriors' comparison was more appropriate because it entailed a club's home debut in another country's professional rugby competition (albeit of the 13-man variety). You're trying to compare it to an entirely new tournament in an entirely different sport.& you also ignored the comparisons I made to actual rugby union teams making their home debuts in Super Rugby in front of capacity crowds. Even more disingenuous.
As for the other grounds in Singapore, that's irrelevant. What matters is the size of the crowd and it was modest to say the very least. But in such a big stadium it simply looked embarrassing. It must have run at a huge loss financially, that's for sure. So all I'm saying about that is perhaps the Sunwolves should look at an alternative next season - such as Hong Kong. I don't know why that antagonizes you so much . . .
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:08 am
by cashead
rowan wrote:cashead wrote:rowan wrote:
I'm not sure that's a very appropriate comparison, to be honest. A Japanese rugby team debuting in Singers and MSL getting off the ground in the USA ??
Also, when you talk about Singapore being a country with practically no culture of team sport you are merely confirming my original point that this is not a suitable location for the Sunwolves' "2nd home." Quite clearly they don't care much. The population is about 3/4 Chinese, to begin with. Do you think Chinese Singaporeans would be champing at the bit to see a Japanese rugby team in action?
Meanwhile, I did a quick google on the debut home crowds for both the Force & Rebels and, guess what, both were around capacity; in the former's case this entailed ovr 40K at the Subiaco. What was really interesting, however, was that, in both cases, crowds declined rapidly as the new teams failed to deliver. That was the point I made earlier. The crowds the Sunwolves have pulled so far have been relatively modest, below capacity in a 27K stadium in Tokyo, and only getting 8k into a 55K-seater in Singers, and unless they start winning (not looking promising right now), it's unlikely to get any better.
MSL in the US is a far more apt comparison than NRL in New Zealand.
Further, you're continuing attempt to use the 8000 in a 55k stadium is actually a pretty shitty and disingenuous thing to do, when taking into account that the other grounds used for rugby union are in no way appropriate to host a professional rugby game.
No, what's disingenuous is making claims without explaining your rationale. I think the Warriors' comparison was more appropriate because it entailed a club's home debut in another country's professional rugby competition (albeit of the 13-man variety). You're trying to compare it to an entirely new tournament in an entirely different sport.& you also ignored the comparisons I made to actual rugby union teams making their home debuts in Super Rugby in front of capacity crowds. Even more disingenuous.
As for the other grounds in Singapore, that's irrelevant. What matters is the size of the crowd and it was modest to say the very least. But in such a big stadium it simply looked embarrassing. It must have run at a huge loss financially, that's for sure. So all I'm saying about that is perhaps the Sunwolves should look at an alternative next season - such as Hong Kong. I don't know why that antagonizes you so much . . .
Go have a cry about it.
Rugby league already had an existing market here, with significant public interest and support. Singapore is a largely clean slate, aside from a few attempts at expansion by WR and the Singaporean Rugby Union - ergo, the MSL comparison being far more apt in terms of public exposure and prior interest. At least the MSL had a fairly successful World Cup just beforehand, Singapore doesn't.
Further, elsewhere you talk about the need to expand the game into other territories that are promising, and yet here you are calling for SANZAR to move away from Singapore as soon as possible. If you can't see how having a professional rugby team (which
doesn't have a geographic marker in its name, leaving it to potentially develop into a pan-Asian team) in their neck of the woods will benefit Singapore in the long run, I don't know what to say to you. Or is further expansion only on the agenda when it involves your beloved South Africa in some capacity?
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:20 am
by Lizard
Speaking of South Africa, I knew the Kings would be kak but they are really stinking the joint up:
Played 3, 0 wins, 0 draws, 0 bonus points, and an aggregate score of 158 - 56 (more than half of which they scored against a 2nd rate Crusaders exhausted from running in 7 tries of their own.
What are they achieving, exactly?
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:30 am
by rowan
Further, elsewhere you talk about the need to expand the game into other territories that are promising, and yet here you are calling for SANZAR to move away from Singapore as soon as possible. If you can't see how having a professional rugby team (which doesn't have a geographic marker in its name, leaving it to potentially develop into a pan-Asian team) in their neck of the woods will benefit Singapore in the long run, I don't know what to say to you. Or is further expansion only on the agenda when it involves your beloved South Africa in some capacity?
Yes, I'm all for expanding the game globally, but that doesn't mean I'm about to put the cart before the horse. Things need to be done sensibly, the game needs to be developed within the confines of what is meaningful and viable, whether it be in terms of existing competitions or new ones. Geography is precisely what gives sporting competitions their meaning. Ignore this at your peril. Singapore simply doesn't appear to be the best option for a Japanese rugby team's 2nd home. Hong Kong or even Sydney might be better. Singapore would be better off pushing for their own team and further expansion of the competition. That's why I suggested dividing the championship into an Atlantic division contested by seven or eight South African & Argentine teams, and a Pacific division comprising an Australian conference plus the Sunwolves and an NZ conference possibly including Singapore (if they can put together a viable bid).
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:27 pm
by rowan
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
A few decades down the line we might end up with an Americas division (Argentina and North American teams), SA, Australia & NZ divisions, and an Asian division. Each would play for its own title. Then there would be inter-division playoffs for the Super Rugby title. Would there then be a possibility of entering the European champion into those playoffs, so that the Super Rugby winner would effectively be the World Club Champion?
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:08 pm
by Puja
Watched the Sunwolves game today - looked a better crowd in Singapore. They may just have gathered them all together in one stand this time, but at an eyeball, it looked like 10-12k. Anyone got an official figure?
Puja
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 4:54 pm
by morepork
Crusaders blowing a chance for an away win at the Sharks. Played about 90% of the game in the Sharks half, and had almost all possession but two breakaway tries (intercept and a pounce on a dropped ball 15 metres out from the Sharks goal line) has the fish ahead with 10 to go. Crusaders not very clinical on the old finishing attacking moves.
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 4:55 pm
by morepork
Scratch that. Second soft try disallowed. 2 points in it.
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 5:11 pm
by morepork
They pull it off (ha ha ha). Reid gets a try from in close with 5 to go and they hang on. Good win on the road.
Reid still looks a bit wobbly with kick receipt and line ourt takes no?
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:41 pm
by rowan
Just 7500 in Singers today. Sunwolves' loss leaves them 0-4 after four straight games at home, and now they must embark on a tough South African tour
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:51 pm
by Puja
rowan wrote:Just 7500 in Singers today. Sunwolves' loss leaves them 0-4 after four straight games at home, and now they must embark on a tough South African tour
Huh. They did a much better job of grouping the supporters together today then. Not that they could've done much worse than last time though.
They may be 0-4, but they are competitive and have not been outclassed in any of their games. Probably better than was hoped for given their underwhelming pre-season organisation.
Puja
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 8:17 pm
by zer0
IIRC this is the second week in a row that the Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders and Highlanders have each won their cross-conference matches. NZ conference looks quite handy when the Shambles aren't out ruining our reputation.
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 9:08 pm
by rowan
They may be 0-4, but they are competitive and have not been outclassed in any of their games. Probably better than was hoped for given their underwhelming pre-season organisation.
They were thrashed at home by the Rebels, one of the competition's easy-beats (themselves thrashed at home this week). But apart from that, they've done ok. But now the honeymoon's over and they've got to hit the road. Let's see how that goes ...
Re: RE: Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:16 am
by canta_brian
morepork wrote:They pull it off (ha ha ha). Reid gets a try from in close with 5 to go and they hang on. Good win on the road.
Reid still looks a bit wobbly with kick receipt and line ourt takes no?
Like in the world cup? Struggled catching anything. Effects of concussions?
Re: RE: Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2016 5:05 pm
by morepork
canta_brian wrote:morepork wrote:They pull it off (ha ha ha). Reid gets a try from in close with 5 to go and they hang on. Good win on the road.
Reid still looks a bit wobbly with kick receipt and line ourt takes no?
Like in the world cup? Struggled catching anything. Effects of concussions?
Hope not. He's not right though.
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2016 7:20 pm
by rowan
So Kings get their first win and Sunwolves are left rock bottom with 5 straight defeats. Doesn't get any easier either, with a visit to the Stormers next on the agenda..
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:45 am
by rowan
The Kiwi domination of this tournament is becoming more and more pronounced, with even the traditional Aussie flag-bearers floundering this season. I'd be surprised if it isn't another all-NZ final this year.
I'm convinced more than ever that Super Rugby needs to be modified and streamlined next year, with South Africa having a single conference of seven teams including the Jaguares, Japan being added to the Australian conference, and a new team - perhaps Singapore - being added to the NZ conference. With teams continuing to meet their conference rivals both home and away, that would mean South African teams would only be playing four regular season games against Australasian franchises (two at home & two away), while the Australasian franchises would have six games each against teams from outside their own conference (three at home and three away).
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:15 am
by rowan
Expansion teams struggling more and more as the season progresses. Perhaps that's not surprising, particularly in the case of the Sunwolves with their limited depth, but I've been a little disappointed by the Jaguares. Still, they're on a very tough tour, playing the strongest teams on the competition on their home grounds. Good news is the Jags & the Wolves meet in Tokyo in a couple of weeks - and one of them's got to win (unless it's a draw)
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 1:50 pm
by Lizard
There is no surprise at the performance of the Sunwolves or Kings. I was expecting a little more from the Jaguares given the players they have.
Mind you, before tonight their losses were basically all within 1 score or so. They are competing but not quite getting there. Assuming they maintain the squad, they will be a better proposition next year with experience of the necessary intensity week in and week out, and the travel. Much like the Pumas in the RC.
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:12 pm
by rowan
I may have to go back to supporting the Canes. They're actually on form, but we've seen this all before. Masters of setting their fans up for disappointment. So I think I'll stick with the Jags after all
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:59 am
by zer0
Current standings.
Basically half of the Australian and South African teams are tracking worse than the Blues. Quite an achievement, that.
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:28 pm
by Lizard
2016 national results so far:
NZ teams v Aus teams: played 10, won 7, lost 2, drawn 1
NZ v SA: played 7, won 6, lost 1
NZ v Arg: played 3, won 3
NZ v Jap: ha ha like SANZAAR would let that mismatch happen in their first year.
NZ total v foreign teams: played 20, won 16, lost 3, drawn 1
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:32 pm
by Eugene Wrayburn
Lizard wrote:2016 national results so far:
NZ teams v Aus teams: played 10, won 7, lost 2, drawn 1
NZ v SA: played 7, won 6, lost 1
NZ v Arg: played 3, won 3
NZ v Jap: ha ha like SANZAAR would let that mismatch happen in their first year.
NZ total v foreign teams: played 20, won 16, lost 3, drawn 1
Do the Sunwolves really not have any fixtures against the Kiwi teams this year? How the hell did they wangle that?!
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:33 pm
by rowan
zer0 wrote:Current standings.
Basically half of the Australian and South African teams are tracking worse than the Blues. Quite an achievement, that.
Wow, the Canes are a lowly fourth in the NZ conference despite having a healthy 20 points and ranking above every other team in the competition bar the Stormers!! That really does show up the strength of the Kiwi teams
Re: Super Rugby
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:15 am
by Lizard
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Lizard wrote:2016 national results so far:
NZ teams v Aus teams: played 10, won 7, lost 2, drawn 1
NZ v SA: played 7, won 6, lost 1
NZ v Arg: played 3, won 3
NZ v Jap: ha ha like SANZAAR would let that mismatch happen in their first year.
NZ total v foreign teams: played 20, won 16, lost 3, drawn 1
Do the Sunwolves really not have any fixtures against the Kiwi teams this year? How the hell did they wangle that?!
The system is that each conference plays inter-group matches against only one conference from the other regional group.
This year, the Australian conference only plays the Africa 1 conference (including the Sunwolves) and the NZ conference plays Africa 2 (with the Jaguares).
It's worth mentioning that this is not randomly determined but is someone's deliberate choice.
The process by which it is decided which teams in the NZ and AU conferences play each other twice rather than once is also not randomised. Someone decides this and you are a better man than I if you can find any published explanation of how and by whom this is determined.