The End of Super Rugby

[Braveheart81]

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.

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.

I see these two paragraphs as being the primary reason why this sort of idea would never fly.

NZ and SA destroying the history of their domestic competition by merging or disbanding teams is never going to align with the idea of making their domestic competitions take centre stage again.

 

[Sully]

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

If you fly one way you have to fly the other. It makes no difference which way you start.

 

[Braveheart81]

Rassie's posts are confusing without the animated gifs to explain everything.

Based on that new information, you obviously fly west first.

 

[Brisbok]

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

Rassie I think the lack of a 6th team is a very minimal factor in this problem. The overwhelming issue is that South African teams cannot compete financially with clubs in Europe or Japan. Whilst this is a problem also experienced in both Australia and New Zealand, it is significantly compounded by the weak (and weakening) South African Rand.

Furthermore, rightly or wrongly, our policy of allowing overseas based players to play for the Boks is also a contributing factor.

 

[Dam0]

Rassie I think the lack of a 6th team is a very minimal factor in this problem. The overwhelming issue is that South African teams cannot compete financially with clubs in Europe or Japan. Whilst this is a problem also experienced in both Australia and New Zealand, it is significantly compounded by the weak (and weakening) South African Rand.

Furthermore, rightly or wrongly, our policy of allowing overseas based players to play for the Boks is also a contributing factor.

Good points.

I would also question the premise that this issue is worst in SA. Over here we can't hold onto our players either, and it doesn't have much to do with the number of teams available. Players that know they aren't going to make the AB's go off to make the big bucks, and even the lure of the black jersey isn't always effective to keep them here. Same thing in SA I would reckon.

 

[gel]

The issue of players leaving for Europe or Japan is not unique to SA or NZ though.

Unless SA super rugby franchises are going to be able to afford millions of euros per season for their players, adding a 6th team isn't going to do diddly.

 

[southsider]

To rassie or one of the other people advocating depth in SA can you put forward a 30 man? squad of players that arnt currently signed to a super franchise?

 

[Mank]

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.

If we want to accomodate Australia, yes we have to accept that. I'm not sure why otherwise?

The way forward is to continue to grow the game domestically.

How much longer does SA need to run a 'full' CC comp?

Just a few snippets from this thread. I'm being a bit selective (I could quote more) but for the most part the impression I get is that Australia are out to look after themselves, as they should be. That's fair enough, as I already stated, rugby is a business and you guys have to maximise your gains. I also get the impression that if push came to shove Australia would look to break away and cut South Africa out of the equation (*), even though some people have stated they don't want that to happen. I don't know where NZ sits in all this, it looks like they're just lead around on a leash by Australia.

So even though I would prefer SA to remain in SANZAR, I think South Africa have to start preparing for a potential exit and try to make it on our own terms rather than a forced exit. It seems the only leverage South Africa has is the financial side, and judging by the last round of negotiations this wasn't enough to prevent our end of the deal getting worse. I don't know what SARU can bring to the table this time.

(*) If you don't believe me, consider a deal on the table for more money to form a super comp with NZ, Japan and perhaps a few PI teams. I doubt many of you, if any, would say no to this. SA would be screwed.

 

[Rassie]

To rassie or one of the other people advocating depth in SA can you put forward a 30 man? squad of players that arnt currently signed to a super franchise?

Habana, Pietersen, Steyn, Ralepelle, Kruger, Jacques Potgieter, Vermaak, Kirchner, Andries Bekker, vd Heever, Louw, Ebershon, Joe Pietersen.......

 

[southsider]

Habana, Pietersen, Steyn, Ralepelle, Kruger, Jacques Potgieter, Vermaak, Kirchner, Andries Bekker, vd Heever, Louw, Ebershon, Joe Pietersen...

funny looking 30 man squad.......

despite the fact that those 13 players would take up a WHOLE lotta cash to sign

 

[Rassie]

Rassie I think the lack of a 6th team is a very minimal factor in this problem. The overwhelming issue is that South African teams cannot compete financially with clubs in Europe or Japan. Whilst this is a problem also experienced in both Australia and New Zealand, it is significantly compounded by the weak (and weakening) South African Rand.

Furthermore, rightly or wrongly, our policy of allowing overseas based players to play for the Boks is also a contributing factor.

Yes because a Union can only afford xxx amount of top players. Stormers could make a bid for Taute and Jantjies because they can afford it as Habana is leaving as well us some other players. Bulls lost a lot of players because they can not. Kings or Lions can not employ them as their Super Rugby entry is unknown.
You guys are not considering player totals and size. NZ did not have the enough players to fill their teams and have depth so they used players from the Pacific Islands till they had enough depth. Australia as well. Rebels? Are they improving? Australia should be the last complain because they have benefited more than anyone else from it.

And that WEAK Super Rugby team at least could beat Samoa and did it with 60 points more than the Australian national side could do against them

 

[Rassie]

funny looking 30 man squad...

despite the fact that those 13 players would take up a WHOLE lotta cash to sign

Steyn ->Pollard
Vermaak->Piet van Zyl
Olivier->Serfontein
Joe Pietersen->Taute
Jantjies or Catrakilis?

Keeping those players mean a lot of players from that u/20 JWC would have to sit on a bench as there are not enough teams to give them a place to play. Rhodes, Minnie would have done what if they were not taken on loan? Pat Cilliers? Everyone forget that the Lions team were a lot of youngsters. And gave me one team that thumped them in 2012 even with their huge amount of injuries?

If you fly one way you have to fly the other. It makes no difference which way you start.

Whaaaa Whaaaat? You don't know about the body and the internal clock which takes longer to sync when it has to go forward than rewinding?

The adaptation of the 12 subjects to the 10-hour eastward transition is illustrated in Figure 3. This figure displays the estimates of acrophase on consecutive days after the flight, based on the estimated values of the individual sets of parameter values. Eleven subjects adapted by delaying
his circadian clock, while only one adapted by advancing it. Those who delayed had adapted to within one hour of the new time zone after 8 days, whereas the one who advanced was adapted to within one hour after 6 days. During the time when the circadian acrophases were changing rapidly, the amplitudes of the rhythms were reduced to between 2% and 52% of the entrained values.

This study emphasised the enormous individual differences in adaptation of the circadian. to long eastward time zone transitions. Performance rhythms also adaptation to a new time zone is also direction sensitive. Like physiological measures performance adapts more slowly after eastward flight and greater decrements in performance are observed after eastward travel. (Klein et al., 1970) The rate of adaptation also appears to be influenced by the complexity of the task. The more complex tasks are more sensitive to time zone crossings.

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/EN/RTO-EN-016///EN-016-03.pdf

And are you avoiding this

Sat.2 Mar Bulls v Force
Sat. 16 March. Reds v Force 14 days

Sat.20 April Sharks v Cheetahs
Sat. 27 April Chiefs v Sharks Waikato Stadium, Hamilton - 7 days for a game in NZ

Fri. 5 April Sharks v Crusaders

Sat. 13 April Force v Crusaders 8 days how convenient for a game in Aus

 

[Sully]

Whaaaa Whaaaat? You don't know about the body and the internal clock which takes longer to sync when it has to go forward than rewinding?

I'm typing really slowly now so you understand

If you fly to South africa to play you then have to fly back to Australia or New Zealand to play your home games. It evens out!




.

 

[wamberal]

A very interesting article in today's Sydney Morning Hurled, which posits that the competition could be split into two conferences - the Saffers (six teams, if they want them) plus Argentina, and Australasia, possibly incorporating a Japanese based side. The two conferences would produce two (maybe three?) finalists who would fight it out.

The article claims that Australasian games rate pretty well in Safferland, which makes sense because of the slightly friendlier time slots for them.


Something like this could be the best of all worlds.

 

[Rassie]

To rassie or one of the other people advocating depth in SA can you put forward a 30 man? squad of players that arnt currently signed to a super franchise?

I have a better answer for you

NZ starting Super 12 with 5 teams

2005

SA getting a 5th Team

Super Ends 2010

Super Rugby Australia getting a 5th team

2013

 

[The Red Baron]

I'm really not sure what your host of tables and diagrams are supposed to prove? I'm really confused as to what your actual point is.

 

[southsider]

I have a better answer for you

NZ starting Super 12 with 5 teams

2005

SA getting a 5th Team

Super Ends 2010

Super Rugby Australia getting a 5th team

2013

nah id just prefer that you'd answer the question instead of chucking a heap of tables out there that have nothing to do with my original question.........cheers though

 

[Brisbok]

To rassie or one of the other people advocating depth in SA can you put forward a 30 man? squad of players that arnt currently signed to a super franchise?

I'm not one of the ones advocating that we have significant depth and therefore deserve another team, but in answer to your question, the Kings competed in Super Rugby this year with a squad of players with zero 'loan' players fromt the Lions. At the same time, the Lions maintained their own squad with the exception of a few players who were loaned out to the other Super Rugby teams for this season.

The Lions and the Kings are mutually exclusive and therefore there are effectively two squads of 30 each between the two teams (as for the quality of the players, that is a separate issue).

 

[Rassie]

nah id just prefer that you'd answer the question instead of chucking a heap of tables out there that have nothing to do with my original question...cheers though

So I guess you have been under a rock?
From top of you head who won the titles on those years.
Also look how 5th team struggle then go up as it gets continuity
Last thing watch the black slip down the table.

 

[biltong]

The situation is simple.

South African rugby is forced by political pressures to have a team in the eastern cape to participate in super rugby as that is traditionally where the biggest history of non white rugby is.

The problem with that is The Lions rugby union is older than most trees and possibly some mountains (Ok, I exaggerate slightly) but the point is it has been on of our power houses for many many years.

Why would SARU want to lose such a tradition in rugby's history?

So either a compromise is found, the structure is altered to accommodate SA or they split.

But, we do not want to join Europe, and we do not want to join Argentina on some convoluted second choice option.

If we leave we go it alone. Simple as that.

Yes, we might earn less money, but we will also have less expenses and nobody to subsidise.

So even if we have less money, at least then SARU can start focusing on growing our Currie Cup, perhaps back to 8 professional teams, we may pay players less, and those who wants more money can go overseas.

I for one would be happy if we just get back to a point where the Currie Cup (if we leave Super Rugby) is our top domestic event, and we play test match rugby only against every one else.

It will be good enough for me.