SANZAR/Super rugby future format

[Scotty]

Maybe the answer is for SA to extend their CC, NZ and Aus to form a ANZ comp that is played simultaneously, with an added 'champions league' knockout comp played during, or at the end of it with the top teams from each comp. The 'champions league' could also include one or two teams from Japan.

It seems it might be the only way to keep the CC in a similar or better state, while also growing the product in Aus & NZ.

 

[PaarlBok]

At least the Kings / Spears / Knobs get to play one game.

I hope it is their last.

Wont be the last you here about them altho I do share your sentiment.

Going back to the drive behind the idea lets go back to where rugby starts, the schoolboy talent in their catchment area.

The current SA Schools Top 20 at the moment.
1. Waterkloof (Brutes)
2. Affies (Brutes), Grey College (Cheetahs), Outeniqua (Southern Kings)
5. KES (Lions)
6. Paul Roos (Stormers)
7. Marlow (Southern Kings)
8. Grey High (Southern Kings)
9. Bishops (Stormers)
10. Paarl Boys' High (Stormers)
11. Selborne (Sothern Kings)
12. Queen's College (Southern Kings)
13. Paarl Gim (Stormers)
14. Glenwood (Sharks) . Our representative in the world Japan tournament
15. St Andrew's of Grahamstown (Southern Kings)
16. Monument (Lions)
17. Rustenburg (Lions)
18. Oakdale (Southern Kings)
19. Centurion (Brutes)
20. Michaelhouse (Sharks?), Die Brandwag of Uitenhage (Southern Kings)

As the schools play more it will be interesting to see the performances of Dr EG Jansen (Lions), Dani?l Pienaar(Southern Kings), Noord-Kaap (Griekwas). Landboudal (Cheetahs), AHS Kroonstad (Cheetahs), Wilgerivier?, Hilton (Sharks), Maritzburg College(Sharks), Eldoraigne (Lions), Florida (Lions), Kemptonpark (Lions) and others

8 out 20 of the Top20 schools, now add the black population in that area and they sure have the ground talent to dig from.

RB: Agree on the afternoon matches. Think if they change that the bums will be double to what it is at the moment.

 

[PaarlBok]

Maybe the answer is for SA to extend their CC, NZ and Aus to form a ANZ comp that is played simultaneously, with an added 'champions league' knockout comp played during, or at the end of it with the top teams from each comp. The 'champions league' could also include one or two teams from Japan.

It seems it might be the only way to keep the CC in a similar or better state, while also growing the product in Aus & NZ.

That make a lot of sense. :thumb

 

[PhucNgo]

Why not just call the S14 the Curry Cup. Problem solved. :fishing

 

[PaarlBok]

Why not just call the S14 the Curry Cup. Problem solved. :fishing

Ag ja man, wat sal ek nou se? :angryfire:

 

[Thomond78]

Why not just call the S14 the Curry Cup. Problem solved. :fishing

That's the IPL. Wrong played in SA cash-cow. The Currie Cup is rugby. HTH.

 

[PhucNgo]

Why not just call the S14 the Curry Cup. Problem solved. :fishing

Ag ja man, wat sal ek nou se? :angryfire:

Lighten up. ;D

 

[PaarlBok]

On our sports news on TV
Superrugby

The work of the SANZAR task team briefed to devise a structure for the Super competition that would be suitable for all partners was suspended at the instigation of Australia.

However, SA Rugby acting managing director Andy Marinos says there is only one major stumbling block to the parties agreeing to the format that was being worked on at the time the task team was suspended.

While South Africa want the entire Super competition to be played at full strength and want to avoid conflict with the Absa Currie Cup, Australia and New Zealand are moving for the tournament to be played under-strength during the incoming international tour window to the southern hemisphere in June.

?We?re committed to the SANZAR relationship and have no desire to walk away from it, but it is a cause for concern that Australia and New Zealand have advised SA Rugby that they will be exploring the option of establishing a purely Trans-Tasman competition,? said Marinos.

?That is their right but the Vodacom Super Rugby format that is currently on the table now has only one stumbling block. If we can?t negotiate our way past that, we?re happy to put both models before the broadcasters for their input, or to follow SANZAR protocols and go to mediation and arbitration on the issue. We?re all agreed on expansion and lengthening the Super Rugby season. To accommodate that Australia and New Zealand want to continue playing Super Rugby with weakened teams during the June in-bound test window.

?We prefer to start earlier -- in mid-February -- and then suspend playing Super Rugby during the test window. But because of declining crowds in Australasia -- particularly at the start of the season -- they would like to delay kick off until March.

?We?ve suggested that South Africa starts the schedule two weeks earlier, while they start in March. But Australia and New Zealand are not prepared to compromise on that idea as they say the break would be an advantage to South Africa."

Marinos said that it was SA Rugby's view, and the view of the local stakeholders, that playing under-strength games late in the schedule would undermine the Super tournament.

?It was their initiative to play through the June test window but we believe that playing rounds 14 to 17 without the leading players could significantly skew positions on the log and affect the integrity of the competition,? he said.

Marinos added the South African position had been workshopped at all the local provinces, and there was ?no appetite to compromise further at the expense of the Currie Cup?.

He said the idea of a Super 18, with each nation hosting a conference of six teams, had met with the approval of SA Rugby.

?But we would be reckless if we were pushed by another territory?s dynamics into destroying what has made us the rugby nation we are over the last 118 years of Currie Cup rugby,? he said.

They can fix this in no time but they wont and interesting to make them 18 teams. Still dont like this conferense thing one bit and more teams may mean more games but shitter rugby.

Leave it as it is or even make them lessor teams.

 

[cyclopath]

Declining crowds may well be an issue, but the bigger issue is that it is frequently 35 deg + in Perth, Sydney and Brisbane at that time of year, and about 1000 percent humidity on the east coast, and not much cooler in Canberra at times. Why play in those conditions? It would be madness.

 

[PaarlBok]

I dont like that conferense suggestion. Think thats where they have to cut the rope. Leave the conferense one for each country to decide when to start and money spinner for the country at the start. Thats the part we should have as the CC. Start the real one with lessor teams in April and get on with it. If Aus want to start in March, so be it with 5 teams, SA with 8 and start in January and Kiwi with 14 when they want to start and called it CC & NPC.

 

[PaarlBok]

Time to dig this one up , now that the axes has been buried.

We know now: Super Rugby will continue for a starter. So next question?

Will they change the format. I dont want them to change but they will change it for various reasons.

So if they change it : to what?

It will be conferences, cant see it other then that. I know, I know its only speculation but good to talk about it and this way we all are inform.

My thoughts: Think the fact that they decide to go forward now meaning it must have been a win win situation for all involve. What do you think will be that win win situation. Not a S15 I think but a S20, 4 conferences. a SA , NZ, Aus and mix bag. SA will have their Kings, Aus will have Melbourne , makes it 16 teams and leave way for maybe another NZ one plus three more. It can be this or a straight S18 with three conferences of 6 teams.

Thoughts?

 

[Cutter]

I dont think they are stupid enough to dilute their product by expanding it in a contracting global economy. One more team is a possibility but 4-6 more is remote.

Maybe they will drop the additional team and start it later but move to a 5 or 6 team finals series. That is the best answer isnt it?

 

[PaarlBok]

Yep, I'll be over the moon if thats the case. At least we know we'll play Super Rugby.

 

[Scotty]

Australian rugby needs more games in the super format for its teams to survive. So they need to expand the length of the competition, and I assume that NZ and Aus have proposed the playing through the test window to accomdate the start of the currie cup. If they have done this, why is SA not backing it? Starting in Feb would be ridiculous.

I don't have an issue with playing through the test window, provided they play split rounds at those times (ie each team will have at least one bye in those 4 weeks) and there is a total minimum season length of around 20 weeks plus finals. I would have an issue if it is only 18 weeks, as playing tests in weeks 14-17 could cause major issues.

 

[RugbyReg]

If they are going to add an Aussie team they need to add 3 more kiwi teams and a couple of SAF teams to dilute their depth and make the competition more equal.

 

[Biffo]

If they are going to add an Aussie team they need to add 3 more kiwi teams and a couple of SAF teams to dilute their depth and make the competition more equal.

errr, had a look at the S14 ladder? Three Australian teams are competitive with the best. The Reds will be highly competitive if (and only if) they sort out their management issues.

When the Brumbies were formed, we heard all the same drivel about Australia's lack of depth to support another team. We heard it all again when the Force was formed. The same argument three times - and now ignoring the Brumbies and Force outcomes - is three times too many.

The right time for a fifth Australian side is right now.

 

[formeropenside]

If they are going to add an Aussie team they need to add 3 more kiwi teams and a couple of SAF teams to dilute their depth and make the competition more equal.

errr, had a look at the S14 ladder? Three Australian teams are competitive with the best. The Reds will be highly competitive if (and only if) they sort out their management issues.

When the Brumbies were formed, we heard all the same drivel about Australia's lack of depth to support another team. We heard it all again when the Force was formed. The same argument three times - and now ignoring the Brumbies and Force outcomes - is three times too many.

The right time for a fifth Australian side is right now.

You are kidding right?

I think the Force proved depth is an issue. It wasn't so much an issue back in the Brumby days, and they actually locally developed a lot of key talent: by 1998 (the third year of operation) they had Gregan and Larkham, and in later days developed Giteau.

How many players have the Force developed again?

a 5th team will just further weaken Australian rugby. The cupboard has been pretty bare since the Force was set up, so you cant point to Wallaby performance to prove what a success they have been.

 

[Biffo]

The cupboard has been pretty bare since the Force was set up, so you cant point to Wallaby performance to prove what a success they have been.

I'd look elsewhere for why the Wallabies didn't do so well in 2006 and 2007. In 2008, the Wallabies finished with number 3 ranking in the world, won more away games than their predecessors did in total in the four previous seasons and introduced nine (?) test-standard players ... and fixed the scrum

The Wallaby fall started straight after RWC in 2003. They had very obvious weaknesses and/ or lack of depth at 1,2,3,9,10,12 and 13 and nothing that we can see was done to overcome them.

I'd put the blame for the 2003-2007 horrors on coaches and administrators- national and S14.

Acquit the Force.

 

[RugbyReg]

Biffo, don't compare now to when the Brumbies came in. Totally irrelevant. When the Brumbies came in, in 1995, rugby was amatuer. On the verge of professionalism sure, but there were no player contracts. So they could sign who they wanted. And got Wallabies McKenzie, Coker, Gregan, Roff, Howard, Knox.

If you think Reds rugby hasn't suffered by the addition of the Force than you are borderline delusional. I'd say both Tah rugby and Brumby rugby has as well.

Where are we going to get these 28 players from? That's 28 new players, not currently contracted by any Aussie team. You take, even the 7 worse players out of each current team, hell even the 5 worse players and you're going to get a crap team in Vic and 4 much weaker teams everywhere else.

Wallaby depth may be better for the pure reason that we have 5 first choice hookers, rather than 4. But it will nothing for the levels below.

 

[louie]

you can't blame the force forever.
every team is responsible for setting up there own program and attracting players.
QLD don't do this very well, that's why players leave.
there are times when it comes down to how you develop a player. not how good they are to start.
with the right program QLD could do anything