NZ | Sports Thread

[cambennett]

I thought i would start an NZ sports thread. After all there is plenty to discuss. Let's kick it off with this from stuff, it looks like the south african teams are negotiating with the magners league in the UK (the Celtic teams league) and are likely to leave the Super 14 next year:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4850535a1823.html

Ok personally i think this is good news. Having South Africans in the super 14 makes the comp disjointed and imposes ridiculous travel demands on the players.

I would like to see a Australasian competition with 10 NZ provinces and 4 current aussie super 14 sides (Not composite franchises with stupid pseudo american sports team names like Blues, Chiefs etc). After which you could have a champions league knockout comp with the 4 top finishing teams in the currie cup (South Africa) champs, 4 top finishers in the Japanese domestic champs and the 4 top finishers in the Australasian comp. Ala the Heinekin cup, tyhis way rather than selling one competition to news ltd for the TV rights you would be selling them 2.

Any thoughts?

[Howdy]

I agree completely, the South African teams almost ruin the competition for me. Far to disjointed as you said. I think 12 teams with a double round robin would be nice. Five Australian and seven New Zealand teams would be ideal (North Shore, Napier-Hastings and Tauranga possible contenders for expansion teams). I'd also like to see place names used in titles, I'm sick of hearing them referred to purely as the Blues, Chiefs, Reds.

[cambennett]

Yeah i think when i look at top sporting comps around the world, like the english premier league, and to a lesser extent in it's hey day the NRL they have two things. Firstly quality on the field and secondly fanatical support.

The first one we would have with the NZ and aussie teams already. The second you would get if you used NZ provincial teams. Draw on that tradition and local pride built up over 100 years. People in this country will get in behind their provinces more than they would behind super 14 franchises.

I get sick of all this talk of incorporating teams from Japan and the pacific and Argentina into a domestic comp. It would add nothing in terms of quality of the tournament and would make it even more disjointed. Plus how the hell would a pacific islands team sustain a team in a competition like this?

[jarbury]

I liked the idea of having a pool for each country, with each team playing home and away, with the top 2 teams from each pool going through to a 6 team finals series.

[cambennett]

hmmm yeah the conference system. They use that in american sports a bit. it is feasable if you do have a comp with a few nations involved. I think it has been mooted by sanzar as a possible way to do it

However i still prefer the idea of a champions league style knockout comp after each of the respective competitions to get the best of the best.

[cambennett]

http://nz.sports.yahoo.com/rugby/new...per-14-walkout

Looks like there was not a lot of truth to the story. A shame as it would have made for a better comp without them in my opinion.

[Richard7666]

Sports thread huh...hmm, thoughts on the NZ Maori kerfuffle the South Africans are causing? I saw the poll on Close Up last night was 71% of respondants thought we shouldn't have a Maori rugby team. I'm actually inclined to agree with the South Africans on this one (though it's been pointed out they actually have a racial quota for the Springboks, which makes them a bit hypocritical). Though I think they should ditch that too.

Originally Posted by Howdy

I agree completely, the South African teams almost ruin the competition for me. Far to disjointed as you said. I think 12 teams with a double round robin would be nice. Five Australian and seven New Zealand teams would be ideal (North Shore, Napier-Hastings and Tauranga possible contenders for expansion teams). I'd also like to see place names used in titles, I'm sick of hearing them referred to purely as the Blues, Chiefs, Reds.

I'd advocate going back to place names provided they were along the boundaries of current first-division teams. I don't particularly want to support the OTAGO Highlanders when half the players are from Southland if it includes the current Highlanders catchment. Agree about the South Africans, don't know who half those teams are, they're all meaningless, and from across the other side of the world, which is a massive waste of money.

[Richard7666]

Originally Posted by cambennett

I thought i would start an NZ sports thread. After all there is plenty to discuss. Let's kick it off with this from stuff, it looks like the south african teams are negotiating with the magners league in the UK (the Celtic teams league) and are likely to leave the Super 14 next year:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4850535a1823.html

Ok personally i think this is good news. Having South Africans in the super 14 makes the comp disjointed and imposes ridiculous travel demands on the players.

I would like to see a Australasian competition with 10 NZ provinces and 4 current aussie super 14 sides (Not composite franchises with stupid pseudo american sports team names like Blues, Chiefs etc). After which you could have a champions league knockout comp with the 4 top finishing teams in the currie cup (South Africa) champs, 4 top finishers in the Japanese domestic champs and the 4 top finishers in the Australasian comp. Ala the Heinekin cup, tyhis way rather than selling one competition to news ltd for the TV rights you would be selling them 2.

Any thoughts?

I like this idea. The only problem might be that only Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland, and probably Waikato (with others from time to time) would really be able to compete with those Aussie state teams (QLD and NSW, anyway). Damn Australia for not having good-sized regions. Perhaps if we chucked teams from some of the weaker Aussie states in there to balance it out? Northland vs Victoria (though those weaker Aussie states might be TOO weak). So then again, maybe ACT and WA would be fair matches for the likes of the mighty Northland Taniwha.

[cambennett]

Originally Posted by Richard7666

Sports thread huh...hmm, thoughts on the NZ Maori kerfuffle the South Africans are causing? I saw the poll on Close Up last night was 71% of respondants thought we shouldn't have a Maori rugby team. I'm actually inclined to agree with the South Africans on this one (though it's been pointed out they actually have a racial quota for the Springboks, which makes them a bit hypocritical). Though I think they should ditch that too.



I'd advocate going back to place names provided they were along the boundaries of current first-division teams. I don't particularly want to support the OTAGO Highlanders when half the players are from Southland if it includes the current Highlanders catchment. Agree about the South Africans, don't know who half those teams are, they're all meaningless, and from across the other side of the world, which is a massive waste of money.

The NZ maori issue is an interesting one. Personally i don't have a problem with them however it is a racially selected team so i suppose if you wanted to be consistant you would do away with the concept. I wonder if there is really a need for it in this day and age. In saying that there is a lot of tradition behind the NZ Maori team that goes back to the early 20th century.

Agree about the SA racial quotas, they say that they do it because the springboks should be representitive of the society they come from. This misses the point a rugby team does not need to be representitive of the racial make up of the society it comes from it just has to be representitive of the best rugby players from that society. That's like NZ imposing a pakeha quota on the ABs because there is a disporportionate amount of polynesian players.

Would be great if we could just have a trans tasman comp. Will probably not happen though if anything it will get worse. Any time changes are suggested people start talking about including teams from Japan, Canada and Argentina which would make it one hell of a mess and even more disjointed and contrived.

I totally agree with you about the regional teams. I'm a north harbour supporter so can't really get passionate about supporting the blues. We have always been local rivals with Auckland and the battle of the bridge used to be a big match. Same with the Southland v Otago derby people get behind their province they are not as passionate about a contrived regional team. How excited to people from the Hawkes Bay get about the Hurricanes?

The exception would be the Crusaders but that's because they are really just Canterbury anyway.

[cambennett]

Originally Posted by Richard7666

I like this idea. The only problem might be that only Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland, and probably Waikato (with others from time to time) would really be able to compete with those Aussie state teams (QLD and NSW, anyway). Damn Australia for not having good-sized regions. Perhaps if we chucked teams from some of the weaker Aussie states in there to balance it out? Northland vs Victoria (though those weaker Aussie states might be TOO weak). So then again, maybe ACT and WA would be fair matches for the likes of the mighty Northland Taniwha.

Yeah that's a very good point. I think ideally you would want every team to have at least an outside chance of winning the comp. The way to acheive that would be a salary cap i suppose so that a team like Northland had the same amount to spend on players as NSW or any other team. You would probably have to allow a couple of foregin players per team as well although you would have be strict on the quotas for that.

You may also (shudder) need to allow a degree of private investment into teams so that there is enough cash to go around.

Like the air nz cup there would be some sides who would not make the cut because they just dont have the finances to sustain a team. You would probably retain a second division for some of these teams which would be ametuer. Sucks for those provinces but that's the way it is with professional sport.

What do you reckon?

[Richard7666]

Yeah that's a good idea...or maybe the Australian teams could operate on slightly different regional bounds? The ACT Brumbies' catchment actually includes a portion of New South Wales already, and I had an idea NSW cover Victoria, or part of it.

So maybe instead of state-based teams, they could have city-based (with appropriate districts attached to a city so the entire state is covered). Brisbane (perhaps divided into more than one team like Auckland currently is), Sydney (again, perhaps more than one team), Gold Coast, Canberra, Newcastle, Wollongong, and a North Queensland team covering the whole upper half of the state? And on our side, you'd have Northland (hopefully), North Harbour, Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Hawke's Bay, Taranaki, Wellington, Canterbury, Otago, Southland. With the second-division teams having the opportunity to get back in like in the former NPC? I don't think making the second-division fully amateur would be a good idea, because it would be near impossible for a team to get back into first division. Hawke's Bay were second-division in the old NPC, and now they're kicking arse in the Air NZ Cup. Imagine if they hadn't had a fair chance at redemption?

I mean, if we only had 8 teams on our side in this 'first division', and they were based on the 2008 Air NZ Cup standings for the first season of this new Super comp, the teams would be Wellington, Canterbury, Hawke's Bay, Bay of Plenty, Southland, Waikato, TASMAN of all places, and Taranaki. Imagine Auckland being forced to be in a fully amateur second division!

The only certainty is that no matter how the teams exist, Canterbury's one is still almost always going to win.

[cambennett]

Probably wouldn't make to much difference if you slightly changed the georaphical boundries in terms of players. Being fully professional players would move around from state to state anyway.

Interesting ideas the only thing i would wonder is would the aussie having enough playing depth to support more than say 4 to 5 teams max? The other problem would be that again you are contriving teams. Their state sides have been in operation for a long time so you would be asking their fans to get in behind some new team much like we have complained about.

The other thing i'm not sure of is what sort of support base Rugby Union has outside of Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra. Does it have a foothold at all outdside of these places? (i think Perth works beacuse of the large amount of South African, English and Kiwi expats living in the city). Would people in places like Newcastle or Northern Queensland get behind rugby union team? From what i've seem league seems to rule the roost in places like that.

I do like the idea of having divisions but don't know if it's pssoible for an ametuer team so suddenly go up to a professional league and compete. I reckon the second division teams would more likely act as feeders to the top comp much like the minor leagues in baseball.

[Milan Luka]

Im sorry I know nothing about union so cant add anything here.

What I am going to say is that the first 20/20 between NZ and India takes place in Christchurch tomorrow. I never really rated 20/20 but enjoyed the last few games Ive seen so will be watching tomorrows match all the same.

The forecast is for showers dying out in the afternoon and temp of 17 so not the best cricket weather. But then we all know what they say about rain and the black caps.

[cambennett]

No worries probably time for a topic change anyway.

Not a huge 20/20 fan either more looking forward to the test and ODI series, but i'll be watching as well.

A real shame we have not been able to get a test match venue sorted up here in Auckland yet might have to make the trip to Hamilton.

[Richard7666]

Originally Posted by cambennett

Probably wouldn't make to much difference if you slightly changed the georaphical boundries in terms of players. Being fully professional players would move around from state to state anyway.

Interesting ideas the only thing i would wonder is would the aussie having enough playing depth to support more than say 4 to 5 teams max? The other problem would be that again you are contriving teams. Their state sides have been in operation for a long time so you would be asking their fans to get in behind some new team much like we have complained about.

The other thing i'm not sure of is what sort of support base Rugby Union has outside of Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra. Does it have a foothold at all outdside of these places? (i think Perth works beacuse of the large amount of South African, English and Kiwi expats living in the city). Would people in places like Newcastle or Northern Queensland get behind rugby union team? From what i've seem league seems to rule the roost in places like that.

I do like the idea of having divisions but don't know if it's pssoible for an ametuer team so suddenly go up to a professional league and compete. I reckon the second division teams would more likely act as feeders to the top comp much like the minor leagues in baseball.

Sorry yeah that's a good point about contriving THEIR teams. The Brumbies and the Warratahs are very old teams, but the others are both Super 12 era (1996+). As for the last paragraph...Auckland as a feeder for Northland, I reckon (well, if we were to start with the teams as currently ranked in Air NZ cup that would indeed be the case).

[cambennett]

Originally Posted by Richard7666

Sorry yeah that's a good point about contriving THEIR teams. The Brumbies and the Warratahs are very old teams, but the others are both Super 12 era (1996+). As for the last paragraph...Auckland as a feeder for Northland, I reckon (well, if we were to start with the teams as currently ranked in Air NZ cup that would indeed be the case).

Yeah as funny as i would find that (although i'm an Aucklander i'm a North Harbour suppporter) i don't think that would happen money and population would mean Auckland would be in there no matter how shitty their team was.

Yeah the other teams are newis ones although ACT have had a team for many years before the professional era (Campese used to play for them years ago). They were really crap.

Oh well looks like the Super 14 is here to stay in one way or another. It will be interesting to see what "improvements" are suggested. Can't see myself staying up to watch the Blues V Kobe steel live from Japan.

[jarbury]

Originally Posted by cambennett

A real shame we have not been able to get a test match venue sorted up here in Auckland yet might have to make the trip to Hamilton.

Gahhhhhhh

I can't believe that Auckland gets deprived of test cricket. Come on.....!

[cambennett]

Yeah it's a bummer. Eden Park outer oval has potential but they would have to spend a bit on it to put in more seating sort out a grass embankment and generally bring it up to scratch.

Are there any other parks around Auckland you think could be developed as potential test venues? None spring to find for me.

[nthbeach]

would love to see the ACG with a 25k stadium half stadium, half grass embankment at Albany. Sheikh Zayed Stadium in Abu Dhabi is a good starting point for a new cricket ground http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/othe...und/59396.html
Albany is a long way for most Aucklanders, but they choose to live there.

[Howdy]

Originally Posted by cambennett

Yeah it's a bummer. Eden Park outer oval has potential but they would have to spend a bit on it to put in more seating sort out a grass embankment and generally bring it up to scratch.

Are there any other parks around Auckland you think could be developed as potential test venues? None spring to find for me.

Aren't there plans to turn the outer oval into a "boutique" venue as part of the overall redevelopment. I think they were aiming for a capacity of about 7K.