The End of Super Rugby

[gel]

I would like to see a shorter super rugby season (fully decided prior to the June internationals).

I would like to see fewer super rugby teams (probably 12).

I would like to see an even number of international and local matches.

I do NOT want to watch ONLY South Africa and New Zealand play, so I would prefer the teams to be roughly balanced (I wouldn't mind if it were 5, 4 and 3 for example).

Financially this would be laughed at by FoxSports and Co as a backward step producing less rugby and so is highly unlikely. They want more games, not less (even if that means a lower quality, I reckon).

More teams at this point in team is utter lunacy and will lead to more weaker teams.

 

[Zander]

There are enough weeks of rugby for Fox (Super Rugby + Internationals) - the problem is the amount of games a week. There's only 2-3 that are going to rate compared to the NRL and AFL where every game will rate in some capacity. Shorting/lengthening the competition isn't the issue, it needs more local content each week.

 

[Mank]

no you should take my comment to mean what it says, the current format is, in my opinion the best COMPROMISE we have

Could you elaborate on how the current format is a compromise for Australia? As in, which parts are you unhappy with that you felt Australia had to live with in order to gain something else.

Thanks

 

[Parse]

Welcome to the 2016 Super 18 Competition (or is that 2015?)

Comprises 3 "conferences" of 6 teams each - SA 6 teams (guess who they'll be), Aus 5 teams +1 (maybe Japan, PI?), NZ 5 teams +1 (PI?)
For the first 10 weeks of the competition each team plays home and away matches against the other teams in their conference.
Then the top 3 teams in each conference is moved into Pool A, the bottom 3 of each conf is made Pool B
Pool competition teams play each other once - 8 games (4 home 4 away)
Then, the top 4 teams in Pool A plus the Top 2 teams in Pool B make up the Finals Pool of 6 (Pool B teams are the 5th and 6th ranked)
Those 6 play off in finals like the current finals - 3 weeks.

Now that I've made my silly post.. I'll go back to sleep....

 

[Bairdy]

I saw a proposal or two from the comments of the article in the OP, and seems logical enough.

I would like to see Super Rugby, but have the top 3 ranking teams of each conference in a Premiership scenario, like there is in the NPC or Currie Cup, playing for the trophy. Similarly, the remaining 2-3 teams (if South Africa get the Lions back in, along with the Kings) of each conference play in a Championship branch of Super Rugby, below the aforementioned, and the winner of the Championship trophy is promoted, and the bottom ranked team of the Premiership is relegated.

Obviously not intelligent enough to flush out the details of such a change in the current format of Super Rugby, but in my feeble mind it sounds like it could work.

Also, would make tehe point that while I might prefer the idea of a Trans Tasman Super Rugby level competition, I think for everyone's sake, we need to play against contrasting styles of rugby. Otherwise Australian rugby might become even more of bunnies to the Northern Hemisphere forwards, bar the Welsh, if they are not pit against the big brutes from Seth Efrika.

 

[Dan54]

I think there is some merit in your idea there bairdy, have to admit I would love to see it explored. I never thought I'd say it, but am starting to get a bit bored with whole super comp. The 2 local derby situation doesn't excite me a lot, although I can understand that Aussies are keen on it, I am happy for kiwi sides to play each other only once, and then see players wander off to Test rugb and ITM cup teams. Actually if you think about it hard enough would SA and NZ be better to go without Aussie??
Not sure what answer is, although time of SA games are pain in arse for me, they are still games that are hugely important to me, as are any NZ/SA rugby games!!

 

[FrankLind]

I want 15 teams - and if SA want 6 teams they must redraw their boundaries.

Each team only plays the other once - home one year, away the next, so no country benefits or is harmed from having a stronger or weaker conference.So noconference system.

For the semis - 1st play 4th and 2nd plays 3rd, Final goes to higher placed team on the table.

No June tests.

 

[Rassie]

I want 15 teams - and if SA want 6 teams they must redraw their boundaries.

Each team only plays the other once - home one year, away the next, so no country benefits or is harmed from having a stronger or weaker conference.So noconference system.

For the semis - 1st play 4th and 2nd plays 3rd, Final goes to higher placed team on the table.

No June tests.

I posted a picture of player totals and no one gave a comment on it but rather looking at the diversion of time travel. Is it unfair for SA to ask to add another team cause they have the player depth to do so? We gave Australia and NZ a chance to add teams that filled their full player quota to play at this level. We share the profits evenly even though we add value to the deal concerning bigger viewer totals. Now that we ask if we can allow another team because players are leaving our country cause of not getting opportunities. That is a bit selfish as we allow NZ and Aus to get their players all a possible spot in a top competition. Now let us do the same.

Forget about the conference system. If another team is allowed they would let go of it. Super Rugby is holding us back and we are losing more player than NZ and Aus. Also how will teams like the Lions ever become better and get consistency when they are being chopped and changed and expelled every time. They just rebuild due to the sharing with the Cheetahs and losing players. In 5 years they starting to find their feet. When they did that they we kicked out.

This hapens when you miss out one year of Super Rugby

Earlier: Michael Killian – Kings
Earlier: Doppies la Grange – Treviso
12 Jul 2012: Grant Hattingh – Bulls (he was only on a short term contract till the end of Super Rugby)
14 Aug 2012: Rudy Paige – Bulls (decision made before announcement on 16 Aug)
24 Aug 2012: Jacobie Adriaanse – Llanelli Scarletts (Wales)
25 Aug 2012: Caylib Oosthuizen – Cheetahs
27 Aug 2012: Paul Willemse – Bulls
28 Aug 2012: Ruan Botha – WP
11 Sept 2012: Josh Strauss – Glasgow Warriors (Scotland)
14 Sept 2012: Etienne Oosthuizen – Brumbies (Australia)
19 Sept 2012: Wikus van Heerden – Retired
3 Oct 2012: Pat Cilliers – Stormers
3 Oct 2012: Michael Rhodes – Stormers
15 Oct 2012: Cobus Grobbelaar – Retired
30 Oct 2012: Bandise Maku – Kings
31 Oct 2012: Butch James – Sharks
1 Nov 2012: Waylon Murray – Kings
Not sure when: Sebastian de Chaves – Mont de Marsan, France
21 Dec 2013: JC Janse van Rensburg – Bayonne
June 2013: Hendrik Roodt – Bayonne (rumoured)
July 2013: Elton Jantjies – Stormers (Offer to be made)
July 2013: Jaco Taute – Stormers (Offer to be made)

 

[RoffsChoice]

[/SIZE]This hapens when you miss out one year of Super Rugby

Earlier: Michael Killian – Kings
Earlier: Doppies la Grange – Treviso
12 Jul 2012: Grant Hattingh – Bulls (he was only on a short term contract till the end of Super Rugby)
14 Aug 2012: Rudy Paige – Bulls (decision made before announcement on 16 Aug)
24 Aug 2012: Jacobie Adriaanse – Llanelli Scarletts (Wales)
25 Aug 2012: Caylib Oosthuizen – Cheetahs
27 Aug 2012: Paul Willemse – Bulls
28 Aug 2012: Ruan Botha – WP
11 Sept 2012: Josh Strauss – Glasgow Warriors (Scotland)
14 Sept 2012: Etienne Oosthuizen – Brumbies (Australia)
19 Sept 2012: Wikus van Heerden – Retired
3 Oct 2012: Pat Cilliers – Stormers
3 Oct 2012: Michael Rhodes – Stormers
15 Oct 2012: Cobus Grobbelaar – Retired
30 Oct 2012: Bandise Maku – Kings
31 Oct 2012: Butch James – Sharks
1 Nov 2012: Waylon Murray – Kings
Not sure when: Sebastian de Chaves – Mont de Marsan, France
21 Dec 2013: JC Janse van Rensburg – Bayonne
June 2013: Hendrik Roodt – Bayonne (rumoured)
July 2013: Elton Jantjies – Stormers (Offer to be made)
July 2013: Jaco Taute – Stormers (Offer to be made)

Do they have the depth to recover, or are they just screwed now?

 

[Rassie]

Do they have the depth to recover, or are they just screwed now?

This is their gains
Gains:

Warwick Tecklenburg – flank (Bulls)
Marnitz Boshoff – flyhalf (Griquas)
Kobus de Kock – fullback (Sharks/College Rovers)
Franco Mostert – lock (Bulls)
Jacques van Rooyen – loosehead prop (Pretoria Police)
Hugo Kloppers – lock (Maties) (WP u/19, WP u/21, WP Vodacom Cup)
Stokkies Hanekom – Centre (SWD Eagles) (WP u/19, WP u/21, 2009 Boks u/20)
Lionel Cronje – fyhalf/fullback (Bulls)
JJ Breet – lock (Bulls)
Robbie Coetzee – hooker (Bulls)
Lambert Groenewald – Loose forward (Sharks/Italy/Spain)

Probably will take them another 5 years to get a good mixture of experience and youth going.

The Lions are on of the power houses in SA when it comes to producing good props.

Another thing is people complain that the Lions did poor so they not belong in Super Rugby.

Just look what consistancy did for the Saders, Stormers, Brumbies, Chiefs, Bulls and Reds. All of them were poor once. The Bulls even 4 years in a row. Lions never had something like that. Central Cats to Cats to Lions and Cheetahs created to getting expelled from Super Rugby.

Must I remind everyone in 2012 they almost nipped WP/Stormers in the CC semi final again! All Mitchells and Spencers foundations destroyed in a couple of months

 

[Dan54]

I want 15 teams - and if SA want 6 teams they must redraw their boundaries.

Each team only plays the other once - home one year, away the next, so no country benefits or is harmed from having a stronger or weaker conference.So noconference system.

For the semis - 1st play 4th and 2nd plays 3rd, Final goes to higher placed team on the table.

No June tests.

I all for the idea of everyone playing each other once, but think the no June tests is a no go, did you not just enjoy Lions Franklind?? I actually think conference system is the way to go, but maybe bring in more teams, and the idea of top 4 etc from each conference play each other!!

 

[Richo]

It seems to me that a comp across so many time zones has a necessary maximum size and perhaps even an inevitable shelf life. Logistics and competing interests can reach an intractable point. If there really is such player numbers pressure in SA, how long before they want a 7th team? 3 years? 5? With more and more SA players heading to play in Europe, perhaps it is simply logical that the future lies there for the SA Super teams?

 

[Baldric]

Why not have a comp where each country decides how many teams they want. SA can have 10, AUS can have 6 etc, who cares. The first stage of the comp is then the regional comp. The top 3 (or 4) in each country then play a home and away comp with finals at the end. That gets rid of the riff-raff in the internal competition and we get the best teams playing out for the Super Rugby title on a home and away basis.

 

[Richo]

That idea has some merit for supporters, but I can't see the teams liking it much. It will really privilege the powerhouses, who will get tougher each year by playing the foreign teams.

 

[Troy]

What about adding another say 10 teams from PI, Japan, US, Argentina, etc. Creating two pools, Pool 1 - AUS NZ & Others | Pool 2 SA, Argies & Others. Top three teams from each conference play a similar style finals as it is currently setup.

 

[Gagger]

Doesn't this smack more than a little of negotiating positions leading up to TV rights?

SA: We want 6 teams and more of that TV money we bring or we're playing with Arg/Europe

NZ & AUS: No worries, we'll have a great little comp between ourselves, maybe throwing in Japan. We don't need you

Neither really means it. Net result: same old with tweaks

 

[Rassie]

It seems to me that a comp across so many time zones has a necessary maximum size and perhaps even an inevitable shelf life. Logistics and competing interests can reach an intractable point. If there really is such player numbers pressure in SA, how long before they want a 7th team? 3 years? 5? With more and more SA players heading to play in Europe, perhaps it is simply logical that the future lies there for the SA Super teams?

The Kings are the last of the traditional top 6 we used to see in the old CC. You would note also that PE, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Durban the big cities in their regions. We are not talking about increasing totals as they always remained on average the same its about keeping our top players and give them game time instead of shifting them around the country.

Let me give you a example. If the Lions win the play offs Jantjies might stay with the Lions and Catrikilis might be back at the Stormers. If other way around Jantjies might move permanent to the Stormers. Sooner or later the players will get fed up and move abroad. Australia started of with 3 teams we had no problems allowing more and if it was not for those extra regions how would the Wallabies performed when you had the injury crisis like with last year. Or how many players would you have lost for sitting on a bench rather than playing? We allowed NZ and Australia to strengthen their own game with Super Rugby why when its SA turn to make a sacrifice there is a problem?

 

[southsider]

Could you elaborate on how the current format is a compromise for Australia? As in, which parts are you unhappy with that you felt Australia had to live with in order to gain something else.

Thanks

having to travel to south Africa I imagine would be a pretty big compromise, cant tell me any team in Australia WANTS to have to go all the way over there. (maybe for the whole experiencing another country but definatly not from a playing/performance view)

Thanks

 

[southsider]

I posted a picture of player totals and no one gave a comment on it but rather looking at the diversion of time travel. Is it unfair for SA to ask to add another team cause they have the player depth to do so?

but you clearly don't have the player depth, on that chart you provided a South African team has come last 12 times in the past 17 seasons, a south African team has also come second last 9 times in 17 seasons. In this same time period you have only come 1st 3 times and all 3 times were by the bulls in the late 2000's with the core playing group being pretty much the same.

on top of this the kings also came last this season.......

 

[Brisbok]

having to travel to south Africa I imagine would be a pretty big compromise, cant tell me any team in Australia WANTS to have to go all the way over there. (maybe for the whole experiencing another country but definatly not from a playing/performance view)

Thanks

That factor is not specific to Australia and works all three ways. I believe Mank was referring to a compromise specific to Australia only, and as a result of the extending of Super Rugby to allow for the conference system - note SANZAR and Super Rugby was already in place long before the conference system was brought in.

The extending of the Super Rugby competition has resulted in a weakening or dillution to some extent of the existing domestic competitions in South Africa and NZ (i.e these competitions were sacrificed somewhat for Super Rugby as part of the compromise). What sacrifice was made by Australia as part of the compromise?