Field Theory by Hadyn Green

Read Post

Field Theory: Horrors of the Past

43 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

  • Hadyn Green,

    What O’Neill is suggesting here is a very good idea. For Australian rugby.

    I don't think it is.

    It will dilute their player base to other Super 14 teams (based in Japan) it will bring in some more money from overseas without growing the game locally and because they have to keep playing the number one team in the world (ie. us) to make the international games interesting, then we just keep ahead.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2081 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    It will dilute their player base to other Super 14 teams (based in Japan)

    Will it? Doesn't the Super 14 have rules or limits on players from foreign countries? I know lots of NZers go over to Japan now to play in their pro teams, but unless the super rules are relaxed, how many NZers or Australians would be able to just jump on a plane and play for the Tokyo Tigers or something?

    Since Nov 2006 • 6165 posts Report Reply

  • LegBreak,

    The main reason it’ll be good for Aussie is that it would give them a professional tournament of the same length as the NRL and AFL, with associated increase in exposure, following and of course $$$.

    Such a competition would have the side-effect of further weakening the NZ NPC, and no-one would realise that more than O’Neill.

    And I’m sure Overlord O’Neill has a 5th Aussie team in his master plan too.

    There are some many adjectives that can describe OO, but stupid is not one of them.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    how many NZers or Australians would be able to just jump on a plane and play for the Tokyo Tigers or something?

    All rules are internal. Australia just relaxed theirs for overseas players (depending on the length of the player's contract. So if Japan said they would let 10 of the 15 starters be foreign then so be it.

    Wouldn't it be weird if the whole Super 14 was a franchise set-up and players could be in any team? Could I cheer on George Smith or Nathan Sharpe if they were Chiefs? ... actually, yes I could.

    @LB
    Yeah you're right, he is an evil little bastard

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2081 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    All rules are internal. Australia just relaxed theirs for overseas players (depending on the length of the player's contract. So if Japan said they would let 10 of the 15 starters be foreign then so be it.

    Ah OK.

    Assuming that it stayed that rules are only internal, it would be interesting to see how Japan approached it. For Japan to be competitive they'd need to bring in a fair number of foreigners. But on the other hand, it would be no good for their domestic competition if it didn't provide spaces for local players to move up into. Surely part of the reason for moving into Japan (hopefully it's not just all about money) is to improve the strength of Japanese rugby.

    Could I cheer on George Smith or Nathan Sharpe if they were Chiefs? ... actually, yes I could.

    I think you could, but not as much. I think our rugby has very strong nationalistic and identity ties with it. Partially because we play so much international/test rugby, which is the pinnacle of the sport. That's not necessarily the case in a lot of other sports (ice hockey, baseball, NFL, NRL league) that are franchise based - the competition that the franchise is in is the leading competition in the world.

    You'd also be worried if half the super 14 locks were foreigners, what that meant for NZ rugby in the locking department (or whichever position).

    Since Nov 2006 • 6165 posts Report Reply

  • LegBreak,

    What such a system would mean is the NZers would be more likely to cheer on the team playing against another NZ franchise.

    At the moment, I only do that for teams playing against the Crusaders, but if there was no NZ only aspect to the other teams I'd gladly cheer against them :)

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    For Japan to be competitive they'd need to bring in a fair number of foreigners.

    I think they'd have foreigners but the majority of players on their teams are Japanese.

    At the moment, I only do that for teams playing against the Crusaders, but if there was no NZ only aspect to the other teams I'd gladly cheer against them :)

    Then again there are a lot of big teams (especially the Super 14 bases) that have few players from that province (see: Williams, Ali) but the crowd still cheers them on like the were born and bred there.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2081 posts Report Reply

  • LegBreak,

    Hadyn (and I spelt your name right this time),

    What I meant was how you’d approach games played by a NZ franchise that’s not your own.

    The Hurricanes are my team; I cheer for them. I cheer for anyone playing against the Crusaders. That part is easy.

    But it’s the other 3 that I’ve got problems. Part of me wants to see the Chiefs, say, lose. But then you think “I should be cheering on the team with the NZ players against that team half-full of Wallabies.

    But in a true franchise system I wouldn’t have to worry about such faux patriotism.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1162 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    But in a true franchise system I wouldn’t have to worry about such faux patriotism.

    I hear ya brother. I never quite cottoned to the "it's the Crusaders and the Waratahs in the final, so you should cheer for the Crusaders" line of logic. I don't like the Crusaders, so how about I don't cheer for either team?

    During the last Superbowl I was sitting next to these Austrian guys who were cheering on the Patriots. I asked why two guys from Austria would cheer on a team from New England.

    They answered that they actually support the Philadelphia Eagles and hence hate the fucking Giants! I laughed because I was cheering the Giants for the same reason, as a Jets fan I hate the fucking Patriots!

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2081 posts Report Reply

  • Naly D,

    For Japan to be competitive they'd need to bring in a fair number of foreigners.

    I can't help but disagree with you.
    For starters, you choose to pick on Japan, not North America despite the fact JAP are ranked hire than the US.
    Second, Japan, under JK's leadership have developed a rugby program with an eye to the future, with rugby academies in AUS and the US.
    Sure they got dicked by AUS in the RWC, but only lost by 4 points to Fiji and in the Pacific Nations this year beat Tonga and lost to Samoa by 6 points.
    The main thing JAP are calling out for is player development and I think putting even one team could help their nation immensely.

    It should be noted though that JK is the one stalling the inclusion of JAP in S14, at least according to Steve Peppy Chew and Possum Head.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2008 • 307 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    For starters, you choose to pick on Japan, not North America despite the fact JAP are ranked hire than the US.

    I'm not picking on anyone.

    My comparison isn't between Japan and USA/Canada, it's between a potential Japanese franchise and existing franchises in the super system. Even if their team had the entire Japanese national team in it, it would still struggle against most Super 14 teams, and they'd catch a fair few poundings.

    The situation would probably be worse for a North American team, but that really wasn't something that interested me.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6165 posts Report Reply

  • Jo S,

    OTOH, will be quite good for the Heartland unions to have the Shield circulating in their ranks without the big boys coming and hogging it...

    If it did end up in he heartland, they would have to defend it in pre-season games against Air NZ Cup teams, so likely it would never make it into the main season where it would be played for during that team's home games during the heartland season - a Air NZ Cup team would snaffle it quick.

    just to jump back a bit ... Do Sheild holders _have_ to put the sheild up for grabs in preseason games? I thought it was just the main competition games that it was required to be defended.

    Of course, the only reason that there is a requirement at all is from back when Northland had the sheild and refused to put it up for grabs for the last few games of the season. "Nope it's ours and we're keeping it til next year".

    is it autumn yet? • Since May 2007 • 80 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    From Wikipedia (my emphasis):

    The Shield holder at the end of each season is required to accept at least seven challenges for the following year. All home games during league play, but not during knockout playoffs, in the Air New Zealand Cup or Heartland Championship are automatic challenges. The remaining shield defences must be made up of challenges from unions in the other domestic competition. For example, since North Harbour, an Air New Zealand Cup team, held the Shield at the end of the 2006 Cup season despite losing their home quarter-final to Otago, they were forced to defend the Shield against Heartland Championship teams during the 2007 pre-season.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6165 posts Report Reply

  • Jo S,

    The Shield holder at the end of each season is required to accept at least seven challenges for the following year. All home games during league play, but not during knockout playoffs, in the Air New Zealand Cup or Heartland Championship are automatic challenges. The remaining shield defences must be made up of challenges from unions in the other domestic competition.

    Not to be pedantic, but what do they mean by remaining? Apart from your Heartland championship home games you have to let ANZC teams challenge for it? You can't take it on tour during the HC season to make up your 7 challenges? Even if you did have to let the ANZC teams challenge, it sounds like you could keep it a whole season - is it only precedent requiring them to be pre-season challenges? You could make up your 7 after the season of Heartland challenges.

    Does anyone have any better info? Not that wiki isn't right a lot of the time, but it certainly isn't right all of the time.

    is it autumn yet? • Since May 2007 • 80 posts Report Reply

  • Jo S,

    OK sorry - to answer my own question, from the NZ encyclopedia of Rugby, although it does refer to NPC still.

    12. Provided in each case the challenge has been lodged as provided in regulation No 9, then:
    (a) if the holders are in division one of the NPC, they shall accept challenges totaling not less that two from unions in divisions two and three, provided not fewer than two challenges have been lodged by unions in division two and three.
    (b) if the holders are in division two of the NPC, they shall accept not less than two challenges from unions in division one and two challenges from unions in division three, provided in each case challenges had been lodged by not fewer than two unions.
    (c) if the holders are in division three of the NPC, they shall accept not less than two challenges from unions in divisions one and three challenges from unions in division two, provided in each case challenges had been lodged by not fewer than two unions and three unions respectively.

    is it autumn yet? • Since May 2007 • 80 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    There were also rumours that they were going to make every game a Shield challenge, so it would change hands more often. I was not in favour of that idea.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2081 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    In fact here we go, from Stuff today:

    Traditionally, it was only contested when the holders were playing on their own patch. Now we appear to be on the cusp of a new model where, after four successful home defences, teams put the shield on the line wherever they are playing.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2081 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    In fact here we go, from Stuff today:

    Traditionally, it was only contested when the holders were playing on their own patch. Now we appear to be on the cusp of a new model where, after four successful home defences, teams put the shield on the line wherever they are playing.

    I'd favour this approach or some minor variation. A good team ought to be able to win on the road but a flukey win should still have some reward... It'd be nice for a second division team to have at least the home advantage for a challenge and, if successful, the first few defences at home.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2230 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.