The End of Super Rugby

[Bardon]

Bardon, you might very well be the one to give an inkling to a question I asked earlier in the thread

In all honesty, how is the Super Rugby comp viewed in terms of 'absolute' quality? I ask sincerely, for example I never manage to catch any of the NH games so I don't really know. Not withstanding the answer, my point is that any absolute quality it has stem from it including the SA teams? For the life of me I cannot see the quality increase if the SA teams left.

I presume that you DO actually live in Ireland and hence get at least some idea of the NH (well, irish at least) scuttlebut and thoughts??? BTW, what is HEC? (heneikin?)

In any case, and I am not an outsider (if outsider means living somewhere other than one of the Super Rugby countries) but I agree with you.

Super Rugby generally is viewed as very high quality entertainment up north. However it doesn't always attract a large viewership. That's more to do with time zones than anything else.

NZ games are generally at 6-8am so have the lowest viewership. Aus games are at 10-11am so the time is a bit more friendly. SA's tme zone is very close to UK and Ireland so those games are at the most NH friendly time. However they often clash with NH games so personally I sky plus one and watch the other depending on who's playing.

Yes the HEC is the Heineken European Cup. Up here Super Rugby would be seen as of roughly equal quality. I prefer the HEC format but it works up here because they're so many teams compared to S15. Don't think the format would work in the SH at present.

I live in Ireland but I've been here in Tokyo for the last 4 months. Still managed to watch S15, Premiership, knock out stages of the HEC and Challenge cup and the B&IL tour.

 

[Christopher McDonald]

Here is some interesting data that I collated for anyone that is interested.

8 of 42 (19%) semi final matches have been won by the away team in Super Rugby.
1996: Sharks beat Qld
1999: Crusaders beat Qld / Highlanders beat Stormers
2002: Brumbies beat NSW
2011: Crusaders beat Stormers
2012: Sharks beat Qld / Sharks beat Stormers
2013: Brumbies beat Bulls

4 of 17 (24%) finals have been won by the away team.
1998: Crusaders beat Blues
1999: Crusaders beat Highlanders
2000: Crusaders beat Brumbies
2007: Bulls beat Sharks

1 of the 17 (6%) titles have been won by a team finishing outside the 1st and 2nd qualifiers.

 

[AngrySeahorse]

The only thing I could add to this is that players should be able to play for any club anywhere in the world and be eligible for their country.
This will work perfectly if a proper international season is agreed upon.

Maybe not anywhere in the world but certainly any team in the Super Rugby. I'd like to see players still have to play Super Rugby to qualify for internationals but be able to play for Super Rugby teams in other countries if they choose/are selected.

 

[Braveheart81]

Here is some interesting data that I collated for anyone that is interested.

8 of 42 (19%) semi final matches have been won by the away team in Super Rugby.
1996: Sharks beat Qld
1999: Crusaders beat Qld / Highlanders beat Stormers
2002: Brumbies beat NSW
2011: Crusaders beat Stormers
2012: Sharks beat Qld / Sharks beat Stormers
2013: Brumbies beat Bulls

4 of 17 (24%) finals have been won by the away team.
1998: Crusaders beat Blues
1999: Crusaders beat Highlanders
2000: Crusaders beat Brumbies
2007: Bulls beat Sharks

1 of the 17 (6%) titles have been won by a team finishing outside the 1st and 2nd qualifiers.

I would be surprised if a lower ranked away team (which is the case in every finals match) has a better record than that in regular season games. The underdog winning one out of every four or five games seems about right.

 

[mudskipper]

The Northern hemisphere wont have the Boks in their 6 nations... If the Boks want to play international rugby they are southern hemisphere with us which means they'll need to stay on board the Super Rugby machine or get left behind...

Just grandstanding by the Boks as its politically complicated for them there...

 

[Zander]

Here is some interesting data that I collated for anyone that is interested.

No one has won a grand final travelling from Oceania to Africa or vice-versa.

 

[Christopher McDonald]

No one has won a grand final travelling from Oceania to Africa or vice-versa.

Yeah, and only on one occasion was a final won by a team playing overseas. (By my Crusaders )

 

[Gnostic]

Its easy from the cheap seats. You go travel to NZ wrestle with 15 other monsters week after week then go back home and see if you would call it whining or complaining. If you still could walk by that time.

Rassie it is just whinging. How many games do the SA teams lay over here? They do the time zone trip once. As do the NZ and Aus. sides. The team with the real bitch in the way of travel requirements is the Force. They have the travel to SA, the travel to NZ and the east coast of Australia for EVERY away match. How many time zones and changes do they have to make. One big change each way in a season versus what the Force have to do. If you think a change in your days of three hours is a small thing you give it a go each week for 3 or 4 months and tell me how your performance is effected.

Anyway I am totally over the SA whinging on this regard. I have always considered the SA trip a great test of teams, to have to perform after the travel and usually at altitude. If this unseemly whining continues I would rather it was dropped altogether and just get on with a smaller (and shorter Super) season. I would actually like to see Super Rugby finished totally before the test season.

 

[gel]

I don't think it is in anyone's interests for any of the countries to leave (or to have closed off conferences). Each country uses around 35 players per season for tests. There are probably another 10 players that are fringe or ex test players. The way it is now, every player in the competition is exposed to 135 of these guys every season and that makes them better players through that experience and in turn, the test players have to play better to stay ahead.

It is that level of competition which has propelled the three southern hemisphere nations ahead. I am certain Australia has gained more from this than South Africa and New Zealand given their local competitions (and our lack of one), but Super Rugby has clearly played a big part for all three nations due to the sheer numbers of quality players involved.

Australia would have the most to lose, but SA and NZ would also lose out in the long run.

I do think the season is too long, and would prefer it to finish prior to the internationals. For this to happen the number of teams would need to be reduced.

 

[nomis]

I don't think it is in anyone's interests for any of the countries to leave (or to have closed off conferences).

There are certainly plenty of good arguments against closing off the conferences. But I wonder if it would be in the players interests to not have any international travel until the finals? It may also take the travel advantage/disadvantage out of the discussion? Just a thought.

I do think the season is too long, and would prefer it to finish prior to the internationals. For this to happen the number of teams would need to be reduced.

I agree about finishing the comp before the inbound tours. I wonder if the players will get their way and the inbounds will be pushed back to July?

 

[Mank]

The Northern hemisphere wont have the Boks in their 6 nations. If the Boks want to play international rugby they are southern hemisphere with us which means they'll need to stay on board the Super Rugby machine or get left behind.

Just grandstanding by the Boks as its politically complicated for them there.

That's a terrible attitude.

 

[Mank]

sorry rassie maybe your argument got lost in translation a bit, I struggle to follow what your saying sometimes but that made no sense to me as a argument that SA has enough depth to justify another super team...

Rassie is arguing the wrong thing. He is not going to convince anyone who sees the results that SA should have the extra team because of depth. Rassie, no offence guy, but I'm telling you I would be inclined to agree with you but even I find your arguments too verbose or obscure.

However, the point is, regardless of deserve or not, SA want/need the 6th team. Stop making the argument about deserving it, you will lose, lets just settle on us wanting it. How can we make the comp work for this? How can our business partners accommodate this? Will they be prepared to compromise for this, like SA compromised on the extended season, extra Australia team, and more money to Australia?

 

[Phil]

Rassie is arguing the wrong thing. He is not going to convince anyone who sees the results that SA should have the extra team because of depth. Rassie, no offence guy, but I'm telling you I would be inclined to agree with you but even I find your arguments too verbose or obscure.

However, the point is, regardless of deserve or not, SA want/need the 6th team. Stop making the argument about deserving it, you will lose, lets just settle on us wanting it. How can we make the comp work for this? How can our business partners accommodate this? Will they be prepared to compromise for this, like SA compromised on the extended season, extra Australia team, and more money to Australia?

Sorry,can you explain why it is a compromise to have 5 teams from each country?

 

[Mank]

Sorry,can you explain why it is a compromise to have 5 teams from each country?

It was a concession by the other two business partners, regardless of how you felt about it. Perhaps compromise was the wrong word. Nevertheless, substitute concession in there and my point stands. What are your thoughts to my question?

 

[Phil]

It was a concession by the other two business partners, regardless of how you felt about it. Perhaps compromise was the wrong word. Nevertheless, substitute concession in there and my point stands. What are your thoughts to my question?

OK,we can agree on the wording.I think it is going to be very difficult to convince the other 2 nations to accept any additional team,but I would certainly hate to lose SA from S15.I also doubt that SA really want out.Where would they go?HEC(if it continues as such)would certainly not accommodate 6 more teams.
How do you suggest getting Australia and NZ to agree to extra team.Kiwis would probably want another one too.

 

[Sidbarret]

Rassie is arguing the wrong thing. He is not going to convince anyone who sees the results that SA should have the extra team because of depth. Rassie, no offence guy, but I'm telling you I would be inclined to agree with you but even I find your arguments too verbose or obscure.

However, the point is, regardless of deserve or not, SA want/need the 6th team. Stop making the argument about deserving it, you will lose, lets just settle on us wanting it. How can we make the comp work for this? How can our business partners accommodate this? Will they be prepared to compromise for this, like SA compromised on the extended season, extra Australia team, and more money to Australia?

I am not so sure.

The way I see it we want room in the calender to have proper currie cup that we can run what any way we want. We only need/want another team in super rugby if the currie cup is going to continue the way it has for the last three seasons due to the expanded super season.

 

[Mank]

I am not so sure.

The way I see it we want room in the calender to have proper currie cup that we can run what any way we want. We only need/want another team in super rugby if the currie cup is going to continue the way it has for the last three seasons due to the expanded super season.

This is ultimately what every SA fan I know wants:

- Shorter super rugby comp
- Proper break before June incoming tours (and proper tours)
- 4N to stay but..
- Enough time for a proper Currie Cup with all players

Unfortunately, we are not going to get these because of the money, it won't generate as much money. Also, these are at odds with what Australia wants, and so far, Australia is 'winning'.

So we get to the 6th team debate. This issue isn't going away in SA, the politicians will keep at it. SA can support a 6th team. We have a large country with 6 traditional powerhouse locations and the reality is that the EC needs a place in Super Rugby to become competitive again. Therefore I am saying that this, realistically, is what SARU wants and what the next negotiations will likely centre on.

And because I'm not involved in the negotiations, just a participator on a discussion forum, I can ask questions like: Are Australians willing to make concessions for SA this time round, as we did previously?

(We can go to 16 teams, and scrap the conference system)

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I'll state up front that I like the fact that three countries comprise the Super XV. Always have, right back to 1996 when this all really got going in the pro era. It's been to the mutual benefit of all three countries and has led to all three consistently being at the top of the rugby pile for some time.

With that said, I don't like threat (veiled or otherwise) of a single union going their own way. I think that Aus and NZ should call the bluff of SARU if it comes to the crunch. I don't think it will come to that though, the media deal is worth too much to the parties in this negotiation for anyone to screw it up. I'm unconvinced about the arguments for a sixth Saffer team though.

 

[gel]

And because I'm not involved in the negotiations, just a participator on a discussion forum, I can ask questions like: Are Australians willing to make concessions for SA this time round, as we did previously?

(We can go to 16 teams, and scrap the conference system)

15 rounds - playing every other team once - is fine by me actually. The home and away games would then alternate every year. I think that just about makes it perfectly fit with the June internationals doesn't it?

My biggest fear is that the TV dollars will want more games though and it is up to SANZAR to provide this in order to get more bikkies. Sanity surely must prevail soon though.

 

[JSRF10]

I'm surprised there are people on here advocating a shorter Super rugby season as better for Australian rugby! What do you propose filling the void between Super Rugby and the international season? The club structure just isn't strong enough, if anything the ARU should be fighting for more games, or a shield competition so most sides get an extra game or two.