As the Super 14 winds to an end, you can’t help but wonder what might have been. Throughout the off-season, the option of an extended finals series, possibly including six teams, was discussed amongst the SANZAR partners.
However, like most positive recent suggestions, cold water was quickly poured on this idea.
Australia and New Zealand were understandably keen for the business end of the tournament to be extended for as long as possible. This part of the tournament attracts the most excitement and consequently, is the most profitable for the respective rugby unions.
However, the continuing trend of South Africa’s oppositional stance has meant that the four-team semi final series was retained. South Africa’s condition for approving a six-team series was that it must involve two teams from each country, no matter what position they placed on the table.
This way of thinking is hard to understand as it goes against nearly every principle of competitive sport where a team is rewarded for winning.
Giving two playoff spots to each nation could potentially result in a team who has placed highly on the table missing out on a playoff spot.
This just doesn’t seem logical.
Much has been made of the competitive nature of this year’s tournament and the fact that five out of seven of the final round’s games will have a bearing on the make up of the top four.
In the last month of the competition, up to seven or eight teams have still been eligible to make the playoffs. This shows that there is enough competition within the tournament to warrant a six-team playoff. It also means that the three or four teams who have dropped off the pace in the last few weeks would all still have something to play for.
Again, this would attract even bigger crowds to the remaining games and provide yet more profit for John O’Neill and his troops.
The Bulls, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders, Waratahs, Brumbies and Sharks have all shown glimpses in the last month that they have what it takes to win the competition.
However, some of these teams are going to miss out on that opportunity because they do not make it into the limited semi final places. Wouldn’t it be great to see all these teams involved in a finals series where bonus points go out the window and the teams that cope best with the pressure will ultimately succeed?
Who knows what might happen in a do or die situation?
The NRL, which only has two more teams than Super 14, employs an eight-team finals series that stretches out over a month.
This allows anticipation to build and it pits the best teams against each other time and time again. That should be what sport is all about: the best testing themselves against the best in a pressure environment where everything is on the line.
It would also provide the national selectors with an opportunity to see their players performing under pressure-cooker situations and give them an insight as to who will cut it at international level.
It seems to me that SANZAR has missed a great opportunity, not only in terms of revenue, but also in terms of a spectacle.
With all the talk about Super 14 needing a facelift, this seems to be an obvious and simple starting point.
Jim
Guest
My recommendations: Expand the competition to Super 16 (Victoria + Pacific Islands). 16-game regular season (a 2-game rivalry against an archrival, 1 game vs everyone else). Top 8 into the Finals, the Finals should be played using the AFL Finals format (fairest). My pick for the Super 16 Rivalries: Auckland: Blues vs Wellington Hurricanes Canterbury Crusaders vs Otago Highlanders Waikato Chiefs vs Pacific Islands Queensland Reds vs New South Wales Waratahs Australian Capital Territory Brumbies vs Victoria Western Australia Force vs Bloemfontein Cheetahs Johannesburg Lions vs Cape Town Stormers Pretoria Bulls vs Durban Sharks
van der Merwe
Guest
Quality over quantity, Tommy.
tifosi
Guest
Actually i like how the super 14 is only 4 team final series. It rewards the teams that do the best job over a season and not teams that peak at the end of a season.
TommyM
Guest
The great thing about having more teams in the finals, regardless of argumenmts about rewarding mediocrity, is that it maintains fan interest for longer. For instance, think of the permutations this weekend if there were a top 6- even teams like th Force might still have a shot. This is especially important in maintaining home corwd numbers- sould expect it would be welcomed by the NZ teams particularly. Van deer Merwe- don't know what top say mate... maybe you just don';t reall like your team that much. Personally I could happily watch rugby 52 weeks a year!! PS Carn the Force...
Ben J
Guest
A 6 team final is on paper not a bad idea but I agree that all teams had 13 oppurtunities to cement their place at the top. Hemjay, I do not know why South Africa alledgedly vetoed a 6 team final but I get the feeling that SARFU thought that they have enough product already with the Currie Cup and Trinations to follow. Thats why they made a ridiculous request to have 2 teams from each nation. Have you ever heard SARFU saying they want more product?
Guy_Chev
Roar Rookie
Some interesting points raised here which I think could work and would make the competition much more interesting than what it is at the moment. You are exactly right in saying there are 7 or 8 teams that could potentially make the top 4 after this weekend and for nearly half of them to miss out would be a bit disappointing. Also, the best rugby that has been played, and probably the only games that I've actually watched with any interest are those involving the top teams who are still playing for a finals spot. Wouldn't it be great to have that on a little bit of a bigger scale? Hammer, wouldn't this intense addition to the Super 14 lead into the International part of the season even better? It would build everyone up for the internationals and the players would be pumped and ready to go to play the best for their country in the toughest matches of the year. Then again, do these extra and tougher games open a door to more injuries to the top players, therefore ruling them out of the internationals and taking some interst away from them?
van der Merwe
Guest
Another mini Super 14... how cute. It seems like overkill. At this point in the season, people are generally tiring of the Super 14 and want to watch international rugby - something the simplified variant can't talk about.
Hammer
Guest
Do you really want to have almost half the teams included in a finals series ? ... 6 out of 14 seems too much for me ... 5 max ... Including this round we've had 14 weeks of rugby leading up to semis and finals .... and for me that feels about enough - can anyone out there honestly say that tacking on another 8 - 10 rounds plus a 6 teams final series would be a good thing ... and that's just the quantity - we all know the quality will be down ...
Nashi
Guest
I agree with you on this one armchair, as has been pointed out by a number of commentators the round robin should be viewed as the qualifying rounds. That is you can take some chances but you still need to be up there with the leaders to have a shot at the business end. Once you get to the finals the do or die nature of the contest dictates a different, less flamboyant style of play. We should enjoy the round robin for the spectacle of high risk rugby (it needs to be longer than 14 weeks to do this), we should enjoy the finals because everything is on the line. They are two quite different styles of football, the competition winner must have a game that is compelling in either situation. Therefore they are the more rounded team and deserved winners. The finals are more like test matches, and as they precede the test series the audience makes a natural progression to that style of play.
hemjay
Guest
OJ your right in some ways we do have a play off round this weekend and its up to the individual teams to treat it like a playoff. I'm sure teams like the Chiefs and Brumbies will it will have the intensity of a Final yet I somehow still struggle to see the Brumbies getting over the Chiefs The irony is that south africa could fail to get a second team in the finals even should the Sharks win and I'm sure the SARU will be kicking themselves they didn't go with the 6 teams finals format. Should the 3 NZ teams win this weekend maybe we will see the Bulls win with a bonus pt(i think this will happen anyway), should a NZ team lose will we see the Sharks win with a bonus pt while the Bulls too also score 4 tries and finish within the seven pt losing margin to ensure a home semi? It makes some compelling arguments but I don't think there is much truth in it.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
I like the top 6 idea, but for this season anyway, you've more or less got a round of playoffs this weekend.
Mark
Guest
I agree, if the Brumbies roll the Chiefs and fail to make the 4..I recon some teams only come into it in the second half of the comp in some cases. 6 teams would work.
Armchair-critic
Roar Pro
Its true the travel factor would be a problem and that is something that would have to be looked at. in relation to the debate about sides being rewarded for mediocrity: If it were up to me, the top 2 qualifying teams would have a bye the first week of finals while teams 3,4,5 and 6 play each other. Then the winners of those games play against teams 1 and 2 and we go from there. It's not perfect by any means but it does reward those teams that have qualified top of the table. As soon as we start looking at automatic qualification to the finals i think it will create too many games that have no bearing on the outcome of the tournament. I just think it would be great to have more high quality, intense rugby matches. And to me the easiest way to accommodate this would be an extended finals series
hemjay
Guest
Armchair, I couldn't agree with you any more on the finals series and how they should be made up and I have expressed my views in this site many times on the matter. The idea of conferences is a good idea to begin with at the start of the season but I'm strongly oppossed to the top two teams from each country going through to the final 6. If the current standings were the final make up after conferences and round robin the Crusaders would have to drop out to accomodate the Warratahs where is the fairness in this? Actually whats the point in a complete round robin if the top two teams from each country are going through, why not just decide them from the conferences if this is going to be the case. What amazes me most is even my South African friends (there is a huge SA community here in Auckland Howick/NorthShore) are strongly oppossed to this concept as most Kiwis are going by sites such as this and I'm starting to get the feeling Australians are too. The fans have been sreaming out what they want. Doesn't it amaze you that the powers that be are ignoring the fans and trying to deliever something that isn't wanted by the rugby public after all it is us who pay to go to the games and pay for the TV subscriptions. If you ask me South Africa has taken that stance because quite simple put they are not the powerhouse of SH rugby and have struggled in the Super concept. In 13 years South Africa has featured in only 3 finals of which they have won only one. This coming on the back of NZs ill fated world cup campaign when the ABs were rested for the first half of the tournament. While we need South Africa financially, they are not the sole reason why this competition is so strong if you ask me personally I believe the powerhouse teams are from NZ and Aus, if not please explain to me why NZ has featured in 11 finals and won 10? Australia featured in 7 finals and won 2 Save me the pity finals only the best deserve to go through to the finals not sympathy teams.
True Tah
Guest
I actually think the finals system for Super 14 is great as it is. It means you have to be consistent through the season, and it underlines how tough the comp actually is. I know a few of you knock the South African sides like the Cheetahs and Lions, but they have really hurt the likes of the Sharks, Brumbies and Crusaders this year, by knocking them off. I have problems with the AFL and NRL systems where you finish in the top 50% of the comp, you get a shot at the final, to a degree it rewards mediocrity, and is pretty much a money making venture for these comps, as it helps you sustain interest in a team. However the main issue with having a 6 team finals series is the travel. Unlike the NRL/AFL, which operate in a relatively limited geographical zone, Super 14 encompasses a far greater area. Potentially a side could play away in South Africa one week, play a game in NZ the next week, and they fly back to South Africa for the next game. How is that going to enable a side to play to their optimum? Not to mention the viewing hours would really make it hard for a lot of people to really get behind their team. Armchair, re: having 2 teams guaranteed in the finals may go against the grain of competitive sport, but it would not be the first. As it is, the two Scottish sides in the Magners League qualify automatically for the Heineken Cup, regardless of their performance.
Justin
Guest
The SA attitude on this one reminds me of the movie "Meet the Fockers", every kid wins a prize even if you come in 9th! Please...
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
That we don't have the chance to enjoy a 6 team finals series is thanks to our Saffie brethren. And again, thanks very much!!!! NOT. This naivity wont change and we need to get with the programme and make our way with NZ where sensible decisions are made without bully boy, stupidity. Lets see where the players play when given the choice. Will Saffie players go north and get played into the ground in the rain and snow or come East to play Aus and NZ? I suspect, if the money is similar, and it will be if the season is extended, they will come east.
Brett McKay
Guest
And therein lies the beauty and stupidity of SANZAR rolled into one, Armchair. Not only was a six-team finals series discussed but it was agreed to, but what bought it down was the qualification method, as you've highlighted. I've always used this debacle last year as the bext and worst example of why we may not see a S15 in 2011. All three countries have a veto, so even if there is universal agreement on something in principle, any one of the three countries can still veto the decision for whatever reason they see fit. The final dscussions on Super Rugby expansion begin today in Dublin (I noticed that 10 or the 13 ELVs became IRB law overnight), and I will not at all be surprised to hear that the outcome of the discussion is a 14-team, 14-week competition with a top 4 finals series.