Piss poor URC

Forum » Rugby » Piss poor URC

Apr 19, 2024, 21:21

Just had to endure another below par SA team playing up north. This time it was the sharks that completely capitulated. They were more like guppies. 

Again, there was youngster and the rest were just rubbish. 

I come back to the fact that Europe drags the rugby season out when we could easily just have 12 games in the season and let the best players play against one another. 

No team wants to play a B side, hammer them and then just throw games away. 

It is the fans that have to endure this. 

I’m. It sold on the URC. We often have to watch a weak Leinster team in SA as they never send their top team to SA or we send a poor SA team to get beaten up. 

This rubbish needs to end 

Apr 19, 2024, 21:45

It’s looks a bit like the SA coaches are more focused doing good in the URC…you almost need 2 A Teams to do quite good in overlapping Comps….a difficult balance where the Coaches are weighing the Pro,s and Cons of each Competition, and seeing where they realistically stand a Chance of Getting Gold results.

Apr 19, 2024, 21:56

Yeah this fielding B sides is telling

Apr 20, 2024, 06:16

Yes, it is challenging...they're sending a development team on a 2 week tour to Europe while the A Team is preparing for the Challenge Cup playoff match at home vs Clermont the week after.

Apr 20, 2024, 06:42

I was up for it it originally to develop youngsters, but then you watch Glasgow and  hear the announcer say that they have a full house. 7000 people showed up to watch rugby. I mean, how do they survive with so little fans. Neither does it help not seeing the like Etzebeth to grow the game or get more bums on seats. 

I do think Wales needs to drop a team or have the comp split into an A league and a B league. Non of this nonsense that each country have to have a set amount of teams. 

It will also open the door for countries like Portugal, Romania, Georgia to start their own professional teams with the hope of getting the to qualify for the next tier. 

The Euro can still be played and teams could end up always fielding the best players. 

That is what made super rugby work. You got to see the best. Not this rubbish. 

Apr 20, 2024, 10:00

I come back to the fact that Europe drags the rugby season out when we could easily just have 12 games in the season and let the best players play against one another. 

Okay South Africa its really great to have you onboard in Northern Hemisphere with your long and great rugby tradition and given the the difficulties in travel distances we will do what we can to accommodate you, (for example there will be an off week in the Champions Cup between last 16 and quarter finals to give teams more rest time) but would you kindly shut the fuck up about re-arranging the whole of northern hemisphere club rugby to suit yourselves please.

The problem with 12 games is that bugger all players in an extended squad would get to play. Leinster for example have an extended team of 45 plus another 20 academy players. Only playing the so called A team (allowing for injuries) doesn't help develop depth at both club or national level and actually leads to a weaker team overall. How on earth would you keep the fringe players happy if they never get game time.

Then there is a second problem of less games equalling less tickets sold equalling less revenue generated. A reduction in the number of games would probably see the value of the TV rights drop as well, meaning even less revenue.

No team wants to play a B side, hammer them and then just throw games away. 

I’m. It sold on the URC. We often have to watch a weak Leinster team in SA as they never send their top team to SA or we send a poor SA team to get beaten up.

Leinster sent the B side to South Africa. And in the 4 matches, they got hammered once (there only loss in the regular season last year) they lost 2 games by less than a converted try and won one game. Leinster's B team would probably finish in the top 8 of the URC.

The SA teams don't have the depth that Leinster do, few do. They mostly don't send B teams but with the Bulls and Sharks there was/is logic behind their recent decision.

The Sharks have zero to play for in the URC because they had such a terrible first half of the seasons. The Challenge Cup is their only way in the Champions Cup next season (and that equates to a lot of cash for them) so it's absolutely critical they win it. It makes no sense to send the best players way for home for 3 weeks thousands of miles away to play two meaningless dead rubber matches and risk burning the best players out or picking up injuries before playing the critical match.

I was up for it it originally to develop youngsters, but then you watch Glasgow and  hear the announcer say that they have a full house. 7000 people showed up to watch rugby. I mean, how do they survive with so little fans

They have more fan's, I think the derby between Edinburgh this season had near 40,000 at it. its just rugby isn't the main sport of Scotland and Scotland don't have a massive population. They are living within their means. Scottish clubs aren't exactly rich but probably have higher operating budgets than the SA team's and aren't saddled with debt building larger stadiums (Munster and Ulster I'm looking at you)

Non of this nonsense that each country have to have a set amount of teams. 

There is no such thing about a set amount of teams per country. Where did you get that from?

That is what made super rugby work. You got to see the best. Not this rubbish. 

Super rugby in its prime may have been the best club league in the world. But here's the thing, the teams never had to compete in two competitions at the same time. Leo Cullen called it two seasons ago when Leinster where playing in SA, the South African teams had yet to experience the war on two fronts. South Africa have good A team's, but their depth is being exposed and you can't compete in both tournaments without it.


 
You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top