The End of Super Rugby

[Braveheart81]

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.

Absolutely. I don't get the idea behind wanting a shorter season either.

I do agree that the break for the June tests comes too late though. If the rugby calendar could be shifted such that the midseason inbound tours happen two weeks earlier then you'd have a decent number of rounds of Super Rugby after the break before the finals started.

I understand NZ and SA fans wanting the season shortened so their test players have more involvement in the ITM or Currie Cup but I think it is a compromise those two countries have to accept. Between tests and Super Rugby, players are already very close to the limit of an acceptable number of matches during the year.

 

[flat_eric]

All this talk of expanding the franchised competition to Argentina, USA and Timbuktu is just pie in the sky stuff. The way forward is to continue to grow the game domestically.

That means more Australian teams (in time), playing each other more regularly, and at times more suitable for Australian television (ditto for New Zealand and South Africa). Along with growing the game here it will increase our share of the television deal, mitigating the potential loss of South Africa.

Forcing South Africa out of the competition should not be our goal though. Expanding the conference system so there are always an even amount of teams (ie. 6), more domestic product and a greater representation in the finals, however, should be.

P.S. For those who will say Australia cannot support 6 teams, I would suggest it were the same people saying the same thing about supporting 5, 4 and 3 teams. It's called progression.

 

[gel]

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.

It could be argued that the club competitions are not strong enough because the super rugby players are hardly ever playing these days. Nothing stops Australia from playing some extra test matches against pacific island nations as a lead in to the rugby championship (whilst SA and NZ are playing their domestic competitions) either.

 

[southsider]

All this talk of expanding the franchised competition to Argentina, USA and Timbuktu is just pie in the sky stuff. The way forward is to continue to grow the game domestically.

That means more Australian teams (in time), playing each other more regularly, and at times more suitable for Australian television (ditto for New Zealand and South Africa). Along with growing the game here it will increase our share of the television deal, mitigating the potential loss of South Africa.

Forcing South Africa out of the competition should not be our goal though. Expanding the conference system so there are always an even amount of teams (ie. 6), more domestic product and a greater representation in the finals, however, should be.

P.S. For those who will say Australia cannot support 6 teams, I would suggest it were the same people saying the same thing about supporting 5, 4 and 3 teams. It's called progression.

possibly usa and argentina are for now but I think a Asian expansion is a real possibility, logistically could work and could also bring in way more money than any of the current 3 countries. Id rather japan etc enter a couple of shit teams in a expansion rather than Australia enter another team which will be horrible and weaken the other franchises........where would you even locate it?

 

[JSRF10]

It could be argued that the club competitions are not strong enough because the super rugby players are hardly ever playing these days. Nothing stops Australia from playing some extra test matches against pacific island nations as a lead in to the rugby championship (whilst SA and NZ are playing their domestic competitions) either.

I think that Super 15 players playing more regularly in the Shute Shield etc would improve the standard of that competition but it would hardly improve the Super Rugby players skills or fitness. These are improved by playing as against similar standard/better players, I don't see the benefit of someone like Ben Alexander smashing every semi pro prop in Sydney then wondering why he gets his head up his arse in internationals. Unless Australia start a fully professional 3rd tier they need to push for more Super Rugby, as a starting point why not have the franchises minus their Wobs play each other home and away in a domestic comp after the Soup is finished?

Even with the Super Rugby as it is now Australia should be playing one or two tests against the PI nations in the lead up to the Rugby Championship.

 

[JSRF10]

where would you even locate it?

If only there was an expanding metropolis that rugby seems to ignore whilst its rival codes are hoovering up talent and support

 

[No4918]

How much longer does SA need to run a 'full' CC comp? If the NH and SH seasons were aligned, June internationals scrapped, AUS and NZ could play there internationals after the Super Rugby comp and give good opportunity for development in the lead to the TRC, then if SA want a CC they can forgo the internationals (except in case of BIL tours) to have the extra time.

 

[gel]

Even with the Super Rugby as it is now Australia should be playing one or two tests against the PI nations in the lead up to the Rugby Championship.

But they don't. So they can. And that can fill in the block adequately.

 

[Braveheart81]

I question how worthwhile that would be.

A 'friendly' test in the lead up to the Rugby Championship is likely to see a local Pacific Islander team which is many times worse than their full strength sides including European players (such as the Samoa team that the Lions (the South African version) put 70 odd points on against earlier this year.

This sort of exercise would probably be a loss maker as well which the ARU would probably struggle with.

An internal trial or assembling a Super Rugby all star team to play the Wallabies would probably make more sense if this sort of situation arose.

 

[gel]

I question how worthwhile that would be.

A 'friendly' test in the lead up to the Rugby Championship is likely to see a local Pacific Islander team which is many times worse than their full strength sides including European players (such as the Samoa team that the Lions (the South African version) put 70 odd points on against earlier this year.

This sort of exercise would probably be a loss maker as well which the ARU would probably struggle with.

An internal trial or assembling a Super Rugby all star team to play the Wallabies would probably make more sense if this sort of situation arose.

If it is regularly scheduled (and not a set of friendlies) - then it would have a greater chance of being accommodated. I am sure the IRB and pacific nations would be keen for it. Australia vs Australia barbarians - an interesting idea.

Financially - not too sure. I am going to be honest here and say I haven't run the numbers myself so I don't know for sure. I'll also be honest and say that I don't have access to all the data required to run the numbers, so I won't pretend to know.

I still would prefer to have the premier clubs have greater access to their super rugby players in order to lift the profile and performance of the competition. This is pretty much what SA and NZ are saying as well for their local competitions.

 

[southsider]

If only there was an expanding metropolis that rugby seems to ignore whilst its rival codes are hoovering up talent and support

really? you think western Sydney should have its own super rugby franchise..........

 

[gel]

If only there was an expanding metropolis that rugby seems to ignore whilst its rival codes are hoovering up talent and support

Would that be the greater Perth or greater Brisbane metropolitan areas you are thinking of?

 

[JSRF10]

really? you think western Sydney should have its own super rugby franchise....

Personally I don't think Australia should have another one but if expansion depends on a 6th franchise, which I doubt would ever happen, its the logical place for it IMO.

 

[Dan54]

How much longer does SA need to run a 'full' CC comp? If the NH and SH seasons were aligned, June internationals scrapped, AUS and NZ could play there internationals after the Super Rugby comp and give good opportunity for development in the lead to the TRC, then if SA want a CC they can forgo the internationals (except in case of BIL tours) to have the extra time.

SA probably needs to run a CC comp as lond as they want the game to stay No 1 in SA. To be honest, I would rather NZ made ITM cup a bit more importance, as I don't want anymore Super Rugby games. While I appreciate why Aus rugby is keen on more Super Rugby, it I really don't think it doing a lot for game in NZ or SA.

 

[Tomikin]

Maybe Australia should have a Cup Comp with the Super Teams after Super Rugby finishes (So with out the Wobbs) Throw in a Combined Team Academy/Club to make it 6 and have at it. Round Robin call it the OZ Cup. Play it while NZ and SA do there cups. Then a Finals day at ANZ/Suncorp where 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4 5 vs 6.

Make it cheap for young kids and have coaching/meet the players day... Beer/Meat Pies/Sasuages and Rugby.

Play it on free to air tv. Simple ? ? Maybe not..

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

Interesting that the US want a pseudo national to compete which has NZ backing (for arguments sake the Eagles), whilst the Australians are favouring a link up with Japan/East Asia (Emperors). Could we see conferences along the lines of:

Tahs, Reds, Brumbies, Force, Rebels, Emperors

Blues, Canes, Crusaders, Chiefs, Highlanders, Eagles

Ten games against your conference rivals then play everyone else once, top 6 pay out the finals series. All the games in US/Asia could be scheduled so they are in the best possible times for Australian/NZ tv although afternoon games in Asia could be an issue in summer.

Overall, you are quite correct - however it is unlikely there will be a US and a Japanese Team considered - more likely one of the two - plus a SA 6th Team... The NZ & Oz RUs will not do anything to lessen their television rights - but they will find out very quickly which is likely to be more appealing to Murdoch.

The Wild Card here is the Saffers doing their old trick of trying brinksmanship - (or as they say in SA - 'Mine! Mine! Mine!) - only to have it blow up in their faces:

Advertisers will see more value in the Japanese & US (West Coast) markets than they will ever see in SA - and much of this decision will be influenced by Telecast Fees - not by Rugby Hardheads.

- The NZ & Oz RUs also know they have Argentina sitting on the sidelines, willing to put their hands up and undercut the SARU by putting up a couple of teams with minimal notice. It won't happen, but its a great bargaining chip to have in your hand.

I would be much happier to see more local teams playing between New Zealand and Oz - and a 10-year plan to roll out second teams in Sydney and Brisbane for example...

I have said it before and will say it again - Bye, Bye, SA - You will not be missed. (nor likely wanted, in the Northern Hemisphere).

 

[Brisbok]

I have said it before and will say it again - Bye, Bye, SA - You will not be missed. (nor likely wanted, in the Northern Hemisphere).

Agreed - You've said it so many times before it's getting boring. The only surprising thing is the time it took you to find a thread to continue your anti-SA crusade.

 

[nomis]

I really think the best option (all things considered) is to close off the conferences until the finals, increase the amount of teams in each conference by 3, to 8 each, and promote the conferences within each country as their country's own NPC (i.e. CC, ITM Cup, ARC), all the while maintaining the perception of a single Super Rugby comp. The winner and runner up from each NPC move thru to an international finals system.

There are some good arguments against this of course. There would be no international games during the regular season, and NZ and SA would need to shift the ITM Cup and CC respectively, to earlier in the year.

But in it's favour, the NPC in both SA and NZ would be back on centre stage and act as the premier competition within each country, instead of fans having a conflict of loyalty between Super Rugby and the CC/ITM Cup. And AUS would have a NPC to call it's very own.

Local derbies would be at a maximum interest because they would double as NPC games and as qualifiers for the finals of Super Rugby.

Cross-conference matches would be at maximum interest, no matter what time they're on TV, because they're during the finals, and are more 'mysterious'. People would literally be salivating to see how the best two teams from their country go against the best from the other two countries.

Travel costs and player burnout would decrease without international travel during the regular season.

SA and AUS could better capture their markets, and NZ could potentially reduce costs by supporting only 8 fully professional teams, rather than the 5 professional Super Rugby franchises plus the 14 professional/semi-proffessional provincial teams, it does now.

Player-depth issues for particular countries would be masked with teams only competing within their own conference, and only the best teams playing inter-conferences games during the finals.

If depth is spread evenly with each conference, all teams would find their own conference equally hard to reach the Super Rugby finals.

The length of the Super Rugby season would remain mostly unchanged. The June internationals would then provide a natural break between the Super Rugby conference/NPC games (played before) and the Super Rugby finals (played after).

Every game your team plays during the regular season would be on at an optimal viewing time.

 

[Rassie]

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.

Are the Force travelling East or West? If we really want to be nasty we let you Aussies fly in straight to Loftus and have your first game there 15h00 when the air is even more filled with tar. Bet your blokes would like that.

But as I said earlier the real issue is us loosing our players as we are running out of room in he 5 teams. We need 6

 

[gel]

There are some good arguments against this of course. There would be no international games during the regular season, and NZ and SA would need to shift the ITM Cup and CC respectively, to earlier in the year.

Each conference will have 40 test players. The balance of the conference's players will only be exposed regularly to 40 players. That is worse than the 135 we have now.

For Australia this will be devastatingly worse than for the others.