The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Cutting teams is not the answer for Super Rugby

BacktoForward new author
Roar Rookie
30th March, 2017
Advertisement
The Australian Super Rugby captains at the 2017 season launch. (AAP Image/Dan Peled)
BacktoForward new author
Roar Rookie
30th March, 2017
96
2797 Reads

Perhaps Jim O’Neill and Phil Kearns have it right.  What if we’ve been thinking about this culling of Super Rugby teams all wrong?

There have been a couple of articles in this week’s press stridently suggesting that Australia keep all its teams.

If you saw this series of numbers – 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18 – your next guess wouldn’t be downward (in case you didn’t pick it these numbers represent the changes in the Super Rugby format through time – Super 6, Super 10, Super 12 and so on).

That’s what appears to be SANZAAR’s next move, but this contradicts everything that the Super Rugby concept has been doing since its inception.

It’s all been growth, growth, and more growth.   

If teams are culled, what then is its strategy? Does SANZAAR admit that the product is broken and the growth strategy flawed? Do we start reducing back to 14 if others teams appear non-competitive? Then back to 12 – where does it stop? Its raison d’etre will be gone.

If we analyze where the growth has been occurring it becomes apparent that it has been unevenly spread over the three major countries. New Zealand has expanded the least, with South Africa and Australia growing more than 200 percent each.  
 

Advertisement

This means that proportionally the number of teams representing New Zealand has been in decline.

The argument is that New Zealand’s resources have been concentrating while South Africa’s and Australia’s have been diluting and that this is part of the reason why the New Zealanders are outperforming the rest.

But harking back to the Super 15, 14 or 12 won’t necessarily help if history is any guide.

Simply culling team numbers isn’t the solution as there is no evidence to suggest that South African or Australian performance was any better in the Super 12, 14 or 15 competitions. In fact, the much-loved format of the Super 12s (everyone plays everyone) was a major disaster for both countries.

There is evidence to suggest that South Africa and Australia have been overperforming in the Super competition. By bench-marking against each country’s international performance New Zealand appears to be underperforming.

Advertisement

Should our conversation be about restructuring the Rugby Championship then?  

Rather than reducing teams, SANZAAR could look to expand the number of teams in New Zealand.

This will limit the ‘concentration effect’ that has occurred by expanding elsewhere.

By basing a Pacific team in South Auckland and requiring that half the players be Polynesian-New Zealanders, talent will be more widely dispersed. 

Similarly, a new franchise in the Rotorua/Tauranga/Taupo/Napier/Hastings area would provide central and eastern New Zealand with its own team to support. 

Once in place SANZAAR can begin its growth strategy again by looking to Asia, specifically Singapore and Hong Kong, or expanding in the Americas.

Advertisement

Culling is a backward step.

close