Typical narrow-minded journalist. Super 14 success does not translate into international success because we're talking about different teams. In almost any year of the Super 14 if you were to pick the best 20 odd players from South Africa, New Zealand or Australia there would be very little between them in terms of playing ability, regardless of how well the respective countries have done in the competition.. No different this year.

The question of what becomes of the NPC is staring you in the face. A Super 15 in which 66% of the games are against ourselves is in effect a two-round premier NPC. Now here is the irony. For South Africa and us it is now simplier to just have the top 2 Currie Cup teams play off against the top 2 NPC teams. Why have 24 weeks of Super 15 to deliver that? As it is Super 15 is actually a contraction rather than an expansion; and a real backward step. All conferences do is focus the fans on their third of the competition for 8-weeks. How does that extend commercial and financial reach when only a few games are played abroad? Who is going to avidly following the African conference or the Australian conference. Are they going to avidly follow ours. If you take on board a lot of the sideswipe comments from TV, not too many.

I think we play too much rugby against Australia and South Africa as it stands (Super 12/14/15, Tri Nations). Making the southern hemisphere competitions longer just serves to reduce interest even further.

Please somebody get rid of the away strip stupidity!!! Whichever marketing moron came up with this ill-conceived attempt at making money should be given the boot immediately. The red-and-blacks - ah - grey - ah - Crusaders as the commentator said ...

This whole thing of overexposure of our players because of more teams in the semis came about by a better travelling schedule. We transplanted the belief that we are better to the AB’s and were then disappointed again and again. The better travelling necessarily did not mean we are the best. Look this season and grasp the magnitude of this Bulls team who have to be on tour for 6 weeks of finishing in the nr.1 spot.. When the playing fields are level as in World Cups and by the look of things the new S15 we must not blindfold ourselves in thinking we are superior to the Boers. They have intelligence, brawn and by the looks of things better management.. see how they rested their WorldCup 30 in the 2007 TriNations while we again made the bragging rights ours by winning the Tri-Nations. In the meantime Jake White outsmarted Henry.

Every year some journalist says that S14 success doesn't translate to tri-nations success-when it actually does! Since the inception in 1996 NZ teams (Crusaders / Blues) have won 10/13 titles-during the same time the AB's have won 9/13 Tri nations titles. How does this not translate into success?? Sure 3/4 teams in the semi's doesn't guarantee we'll win it - but we've got a better chance than an Aussie team! Of course by Linday Knight's logic Aussie's massive failure in the S14 should guarantee the Wallabies a magnificent season this year!

I see you stratagy now Mr Knight. Have all 5 NZ S14 teams lose, and the ABs will be the winners. By that logic, can we expect to see an AB squad dominated by Highlanders, quite a few Blues, and barely a nod for the Canes and Chiefs? Clown!

SA won it once, and they also won the RWC the same year. The Brumbies won a couple of times, and the Wannabies were pretty handy around that time as I recall.

Do agree with your point re Aus though. What is O'Neill thinking (or drinking)? But hey ho, maybe it's actually a masterly bit of cunning from Tew to allow O'Neill to spread the Aussies so thin they have no confidence or combinations comes test time.

Australia can barely support four teams. If one is to take all of the Kiwi players and coaches out of the Australian super 14 teams, what would be left? Certainly not enough playing stocks for 4 teams. The Reds are regular bottom placed finsihers. GT its not that he Autralian teams are above the Blues, its that they are below the semi final qualifiers mate. South Africa's fifth team was also a mistake. As can be seen by the diluted might of the Cats, Cheetahs and Stormers. When injuries hit, the Sharks fell over from lack of player depth. Look at he NZ teams, count the personell lost overseas, the injuiries of 09 and how well they have coped, against most expectations. Wasn't it Nucifora who was telling the Oz sides to be wary of the South Africans becasue NZ didn't have the depth? This from a man who coached the Blues and spent at least three years here and he still doesn't get it does he?

Disagree with this supposedly experienced sports journo.... What you FORGOT to acknowledge was the reasons for the POOR seasons in 1998 and 2003. YES of course history states that 3 NZ teams in 1998 didnt translate to a successful ABs campaign. However NZ all of a sudden lost players in that year through sudden retirements with lots of experience especially in the pack(i.e Olo Brown/Fitzpatrick/Bunce/ Zinny etc) so we were rebuilding in some key positions. Compare that year to this year when we still have the core of the players that we were rebuilding from last year retained then it isnt that BAD. ALso 2003 was only bad because of a intercept try to Mortlock in the World Cup semi. Other than that, the 2003 All Blacks whipped everyone that year and we finally retained the Bledisloe. So please get your stories RIGHT. I dont know whether if youve run out of stories to generate for the paper or maybe trying to stimulate conversation but very feeble MATE... As far as Super 14 success translating to Test Arena, Yes it does have an effect. The effect is CONFIDENCE and MOMENTUM.. THe Bulls had it in 2007 and transfered to the Bok set up at the World Cup (although they had the luck of the draw and we tripped up badly). Last year the Crusaders won the title, and they had key players that was part of the core All Blacks (Carter/McCaw/Thorne/Sommerville/Ali Williams etc) and that MOMENTUM and CONFIDENCE was the key in getting great results in the Test arena. SO Please next time you mention dates and figures in your articles ensure that you explore ALL reasons for your view rather than some feeble conservative comment align to Dingo's views earleir in the week.

first you get the money then you get the power then you get the women. unfortunately for nz rugby we have no money, no power, no women and no rugby world cup. we do have fish heads who continually bow down to other fish heads showing how players exactly how to lose.

There is no doubt that our franchises have the best of the competition in terms of travelling schedules. I know we have gripes about the travel but it is nothing compared to the South African teams. They are on the road for a minimum of 5 to six weeks where at worst out teams play three matches outside Australia. The only upside is that the South Africans teams know about the schedule before it begins. This must be a huge factor in our success over the years. That is why I agree it does not translate into All Black dominance. The Aussies however have travelled well with the NSW winning three is South Africa.

While I am a blues supporter I will be rooting for the Chiefs this week