We are officially in one of the wettest, coolest summers in recent history. We are also in the coldest part of the off-season for rugby. That whole: ‘it gets darkest just before the dawn’ thing? Yeah, that’s now.
I can no longer taste the victory when I remember the Wallabies beating the French on the spring tour – it was too long ago. The Ashes have been decided, the blame game has started, and tears have flowed.
As a nation we have moved on and are now collectively focusing on how much of a waste of time the 7 game One Day series is, against the same team we have been playing since late spring.
Yes, the off-season.
At this stage I’d like to see a return to the Tri-angular One Day series of yesteryear. Packer was right. Not just cricket though.
If there was free to air coverage of the infantile Melbourne Rebels actually getting to play trial rugby games against second rate Tongan sides – I’d watch. I’ll take it further than that. I’d watch a NSW Academy side play a trial game against the Fijian Navy rugby team right now.
Such a desperate state, I know.
Without any of those heavenly contests available I might have to go and watch NSW vs. QLD in the KFC Big Bash tomorrow instead. That’ll kill 3 hours.
Yes, the off-season.
In order to keep myself sane, I’ve got to thinking about some details of the rugby season. There are a couple of things that go hand-in-hand and I don’t think have gotten much attention yet – byes, the draw and expansion. I don’t want to make this sound like a rant or simply a stream-of-consciousness – but it is. We’ll see how this goes.
By sane I mean everyone occasionally tries to find things that kill seemingly endless, vast swathes of time. Remember staring out the window in class at school?
Or the frantic search for something remotely interesting to read in the newspaper on that long train commute from work? Even if that means reading the MX – the afternoon paper made by the people that bring you the quality programming that is Foxtel. That type of sane.
Byes are just plain boring.
They wreck a competition. Do fans ever want byes? No. Do byes make more money? No. Should elite competitions have bye weeks? No. I don’t think so anyway.
There is merit to the idea that bye weeks are good for recovery from injuries for players. But bye weeks seem to only slow momentum of the competition. In Super Rugby each team will get 2 byes this year. That’s fairly atrocious. For two weeks every fan of a team will probably be about 50% less interested in the competition. For two weeks a team can’t make money from gate receipts to pay their players. For two weeks a television market will have one less team to barrack for.
The English Premier league is a hard competition because of the week-in, week-out high stakes nature of the competition. Sure isn’t a high contact league, but it puts a demand on a strong deep squad of players. It gets exciting because inevitably the younger, flashier, riskier players will see pitch time.
With 15 teams in our competition, a bye is inevitable. That doesn’t mean it’s good, though.
That leads me to the next point. The best way to alleviate the ‘need’ for byes as regularly is to have an even number of teams in the competition – expansion. That way a single bye could be rotated through the competition as sort of a leveller to let players rest – if it has to be at all.
However, if we want to keep this conference mentality going, we actually need to expand by three teams at the same time next time we expand. Here is why.
Imagine a 16 team competition with three conferences.
It’s going to get very interesting, if not downright silly when the next round of expansions come along. Eastern Cape is going to get a ticket into Super Rugby; it seems that much is assured.
But ideally for a 16 team competition we need four groups of for, or two groups of eight. What do we do? We can’t go NFL style and just name them north, south, east and west.
Our geographical spread just doesn’t work like that (neither does theirs actually). We could go college football style and just make arbitrary names such as the ‘Sun Belt Conference’ or ‘Mountain West Conference’ – we could actually use that to divide into two conferences.
Make one all the teams West of the Great Dividing Range on the eastern seaboard of Australia in one conference, and everyone to the east on the other.
That almost works.
The bye is going to be a bug bear of our competition for sometime. It decreases the value of the product significantly. Hopefully before long we have a Western Sydney, Eastern Cape and a South Auckland or Pacific Island team to join the three conferences in time to make this work.
As a package a three conference 18 team tournament would be fantastic. It means that if we need to we could rotate through one bye week for each team and the season would fill the calendar.
At this point I can only imagine one significant draw-back of that idea – useless games. More teams in a competition means, more likelihood of games that don’t matter at the end of the season.
Teams will know sooner whether they will make the finals series or start ‘building for next year’ a few rounds early. That happens in many leagues around the world including the NFL and AFL. But that is only a small problem.
The best way to find a solution to meaningless games is to truly turn the Super Rugby tournament into a champion’s league style tournament that needs qualification from a home competition.
That will hopefully be in the back of the minds of the men running SANZAR and holding fort in each union. It solves the problem of useless games because you need to play to your full potential until the end of the season to gain a place at the big boys table.
No team is going to waste time on the field with that at stake.
With a team in Western Sydney and possibly the Gold Coast, Australia would be in a position to have a full tournament each year within itself that can submit the top four teams to a Super 12 Champions League competition along with New Zealand and South Africa.
Having said that, right now, I’d watch one of those useless games anyway.
The off-season. See where it takes you?
I’ve already started thinking about home-field advantage, but I won’t go there in print today. I wish there were some games to pick apart.
GavinH
Guest
both points of view are valid. It comes down to dollars versus quality. a 'super 12' type comp is all about quality ie concentrated teams of a country's best players, a short season and bye rounds for rest. The same debate in a way is in the NH in the Magners league vs the english Premiership (rugby). The EP plays league games, LV= cup, Heineken cup every weekend and sometimes more frequently than that. the owners wanted to ditch the LV= (2nd tier) games and increase league games. this was to increase revenue at the expense of further player 'burn out'. Magners league players in eg ireland are contracted centrally and managed a lot more for internationals. This is often cited as a reason for munster leinster doing well in the heineken cup also. french coach leivremont this week just shrugged when asked about his 6N build up and pointed to his captain at the launch function as he was off the next day to play club rugby.
GavinH
Guest
the rebels may be an exception, but what a great exception. A sports-made State with a population of millions, an economy of many billions, a storied rugby history, fantastic pre-existing sports infrastructure, a large business elite ripe for marketing to, etc..... and until now no rugby team. Perhaps similar (with a twist) to the EP Kings, which has a large population of potential players and fans without the economy of melbourne. In both cases you can see why the national bodies want professional rugby in those areas - ie to expand and fill up an obvious hole in the market. Personally I think the Rebels will do very well in the long run for one reason - money. As long as they make shedloads of cash (which i think they will) they will continue to invest in academies, local youth development, national and international marquee players etc
Spencer
Guest
Cricket.
Ben S
Roar Guru
England didn't win in 2003 via a 'rumble', Matt - that's simply disengenuous. Let's be frank - Australia won in 1999 due to clinical professionalism, same as England in 2003. That's what WC rugby is about. NH teams have long been behind the 8 ball in terms of professional structure and conditioning and yet England have made 3 WC finals. They may have only won 1, but that they have generally been there or threabouts lends validity to what VC is saying. We saw in 2007 how far mental strength can take a limited side, and given how tight WC rugby is anything can happen. There has, after all, only been two WC final blow-outs, in 87 and in 99. Every other final has been closely fought. It's a wild oversimplification to suggest that the WC 'stats' suggest Super rugby is the best preparation/higest quality. You're fudging the issue.
silent.one
Guest
take out the only from the first line...
silent.one
Guest
the central north island of nz is crying out for a super side, we have 3 provinces that gain great support during the ITM Cup but then the fans have to drive all the way 3-5 hours to watch the hurricanes or go to a one off match every year or so. We have the players, we have the facilities, we have the money and we also have the fans, what more do we need to make Sanzar realise that the central area of the north island NEED A SUPER SIDE!!!
silent.one
Guest
I also agree that each team should become a 'provincial franchise' and not the current 'franchise' model we have now were we have a team simply called the Blues in the same comp as a team like the Western Force. BRING BACK THE BLOODY PROVINCIAL/STATE NAME TO EACH TEAM! Its what the game needs, to be professional but also to represent a province/state by using that name before then team NICKNAME. Also whats more confusing is the Sa sides that include a franchise version of there currie cup sides where a franchise gets to pick players signed to provinces within there area yea the franchise is named after one of those pronvinces just without the provincial name, how are the non super sides fans ment to support these teams during super rugby then hate them during currie cup? They don't I would imagine they wouldn't really care about SR and this could be the main reason why south africans rate currie cup higher then SR, apart from the long history and tradition it holds but SR still is and always will be a level above the CC!
Jiggles
Roar Guru
oh no doubt the Australian teams are very thin. take my team, the reds, for example. there fit starting 22 can match it with any team in the comp I think, but 1 or 2 injuries and there is not many players to step up. it goes from quality super rugby players to good club players very fast, and that is not what you want. This is why I also think no australian team can win this comp, 1 or 2 key injuries and the season is shot. Also your description of the Rebels is spot on, but That is not such a bad thing if its getting a professional rugby team into Melbourne I guess, time will tell.
silent.one
Guest
The HC styled comp just wont work as it will only generate revenue for 4 out of 14 provincial sides within nz & sa and 4 out of 8/10/12 for aussie, leaving the rest to lose alot of money for the year (nz teams will never accept this comp as half of them have already lost alot of money from overspending and can't afford to risk pro rugby's future within their respective pronvinces). Why can't everybody just see that super rugby is the way to go, all we need is another team in each conference and ozy need a domestic comp to develop great rugby players aswell as gaining support and sponsorship nationwide. 18 teams, 3 conferences, 23 rounds including finals and buys (26 inc. june test w.e's/3 week SR break) you play each team in your conf. 2 (h&a) as well as 4 teams from the other 2 conf. followed by 3 weeks of finals. You could also add to the super rugby brand a comp featuring USA, Canada & Argentine/Sth American battling it out in the same format and then 4 teams from each comp vying for the International Super Rugby Cup each pre-season (with normal SR points being awarded to give each team a head start for the season). Also in the future a Asian-Pacific SR comp could be added to further develop Sh rugby and give teams huge international exposure to create alot more revenue streams then the HC could only dream of.....
Matt
Guest
The big issue amongst all the expansion talk is that the Southern Kings have been promosed Super entry for 2013. They've been guaranteed matches against the other African Super teams this season and next (as preparation) and will also take on the like of Romania and Georgia in the Nations Cup later this year (taking the place of the Emerging Boks team). It's hard to see SARU cutting one of the existing team, which are still the power bases of South African rugby. How would these franchises go about fulfilling obligations to their sponsors and fans if there is a chance that they're going to be relegated 2 years time (with no known guarantee to be reinstated). How would Super rugby be the same comp without a team in Cape Town, Durban, Pretoria, Johannesburg or Bloemfontein? What I'm basically getting at is that it seems we're destined for 16 Super teams (at least) by 2013. It seems SANZAR is also aware of this factor having name it 'Super Rugby' and not Super 15. So if it seems to such a "done-deal" then how will the season structure pan out? Will the Africans just play without byes, or will they start the derby matches in early February? Will SANZAR get much of an increase in TV money for the extra 18 or so matches the 16th team will add. Will SARA then ask for a larger piece of the TV pie (will they ask for all of it?). More importantly, will New Zealand then want a 6th team also, as the NZRU would argue they have the deepest playing pool and the most need of a 6th team to cater for all the young talent in their development squads. To me, 6 team pools are the inevitable next step. It'll happen in South Africa in 2013, then probably for NZ in 2014/15 and Australia after that. The season will then revert back to the standard 1 bye per team, as it was in all previous versions of super rugby, which have always included an even number of sides.
silent.one
Guest
But if a certain amount of teams participate in a HC styled comp after the NPC, Currie Cup and ARC, then what will happen to the rest of the teams that pay good money for year long contracts to good players then they only get to use them for half the year, how are they ment to gain financial stability? What then happens to there bank when they have to pay players to do train for half a year and have no way to make any money off them (except threw t.v ads) because they don't got any games to play. We need to think of the 'minnows' and the development and financing of SH rugby. Thats partly why I think my idea from a few comments above is the way to go...
silent.one
Guest
bro get your facts straight the only nz players don't go get a tan at the beach after the super rugby season. Because not only is it in the middle of winter but they've also gotta get straight into the NPC/ITM Cup FOOL!
Matt
Guest
That's no black and white rule though VC. Afterall, the 'sprinting' ways of the Kiwis and Aussies have won three World Cups compared to 3 won through 'rumble' by England and South Africa. And it's a little hard to call the African schedule a long haul compared to NZ. It's not necessarily the quantity of rugby being played, but of course the combination of quantity with high quality opponents. I still believe that the Super Rugby competition is the best breeding ground for WC success. The stats for WC champs shows that Super rugby is clearly the highest quality of rugby below test level. Whether an extra team is going to affect the quality of the competition is up for debate (it probably will drop it a little) but there is certainly going to an increase in the number of matches Super rugby players will now have at this high intensity level. That can only be a good thing for increasing the depth of talent in the SANZAR nations (particularly Australia, as has been mentioned).
The Bush
Guest
Sheek, The main problem with your set up is that each year only four domestic 'clubs' from Australia are playing HC/SR, whatever you wanna call it... This means that the power clubs will attract the best players and have access to the tournaments money to the detriment of te lessor teams. If you enforce a salary club then you face the prospect of Test players missing out on the comp because their team didn't qualify, meaning they're outta touch... Furthermore unless every Australian 'club' is playing HC/SR then they are playing as few as 7 or 8 games under your system, not enough to generate any real revenue... Essentially what I'm saying is all eight teams must qualify for this tournament, or at a minimum the eight teams must play home and away - preferably both. This would mean a team that doesn't make any finals would still play 14 games domestically and 20 including the HC/SR. Finals would add only as many games as the systems choose (between 5 and about 8).
ohtani's jacket
Guest
It may be heaven for the rugby fan, but what rugby needs more than anything in New Zealand and Australia is people going to the games, and if we look at the present model in New Zealand, the test matches sell out and the provinces struggle (particularly in the cities.) Rugby fans are interested in all three tiers and they often have their own local club, which is another tier below, but they can't all be thriving. We don't have the population or economy to support so many levels of professionalism. I'd argue that a longer Super Rugby season and a shorter test season among other changes. The broadcasters would never go for it, but aa it is Super rugby is simply unimportant.
Elisha Pearce
Expert
I agree with this whole-heartedly. And I think it would be realistic to see this happen in 5 years time in all honesty. Hopefully some suits think so too. The current format, while good, is unsustainable. Clearly the people who are poking holes through my article are starting to realise this too! That may be one unintended outcome of my piece. Once again reminding people of the less than perfect nature of our competition.
Elisha Pearce
Expert
Haha, I agree that there are practical reasons to have byes. But I still think they are rubbish. They kill interest in a sport. Especially having 2 of them. But you're right that its a tough competition. I think with a champions league format being played out of a tough, well funded and produced national comp is the way to go for that reason. But you are a long time fan of rugby remember that. And I am too (relative to my much, much younger age of course :P) If we are serious about giving rugby something strong to stand on in this counrty - which if we are honest isn't in place at the moment - doing things like not stalling a competition for many bye weeks is essential to a young person like me. "Come and watch the Waratahs with me! Oh, wait, they don't play this week. Then they play the week after, they have a 2 week tour to New Zealand the after that, followed by their 2nd bye week." Not fact, but at the same time that wont grow the game. Yes, stranger thoughts do happen in the off-season, however I really do hope that the people running our game have an ultimate goal in mind apart from SuperSport/Fox Sports funding in the future.
Elisha Pearce
Expert
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying expansion there is a necessity at the moment. I was more just throwing ideas out there to see where the thoughts took me. Silent.One I think 6 teams isn't out of reach for each conference, but going further than that would be a struggle. And that is where I suggested the champions league format. That way each union would focus on getting the national competition as broad and healthy as possible and making sure there was enough coverage within their own country. I strongly believe there needs to be a competition within Australia for Australia in the long term.
silent.one
Guest
Nearly all nz domestic unions are in strife except for Hawke's Bay who have made a profit every year for the past 14 years and they obviously don't look like stopping with great sponsor's who decided aginst naming right's for there companies to keep it the team as the Hawke's Bay Magpies. Anyway the reason why I have stated that is because I strongly believe a 6/6/6 split could work with the Sourthern Kings, Western Sydney Cylcones and either the HB MAgpies enter or HBRU share ownership of a 'Central' based franchise between Taranaki (who entered a bid for the 15th team) and Manawatu and split games evenly or just go in to business with the 'naki' and host one or two games a year at FTG Stadium (Manawatu Turbo's home ground). Also I believe the comp should be expanded by two weeks so every team plays the others with there conference twice (10 games) aswell as 4 teams from the other 2 conferences. That is a 20 week round robin comp (including the status quo of 2 byes) plus 3 weeks of a finals series which could be played out between the 8 sides or keep the status quo of 6. Also I believe it would be better if the comp starts on the first w.e of march so players bodies don't over heat from high temperatures. You would have a 3 weeks break in june for the 3 yearly tests and on top of this the abs, wallabies and springboks would get the first week of june off so they get a full week in camp. Going from that the super rugby comp will finish on the last w.e of august each no world cup year. Also Sanzar should demand australia create a domestic comp played out over ten round robin maches plus 2 weeks for finals (during this time international players will be battling it out in the four nations featuring a few weeks byes and followed by the november tour). The domestic comps would start the 2nd w.e after super rugby finishes (2nd w.e of september) and finish on the last w.e of november followed by a full months rest for all rugby players then 2 months/8 or 9 weeks of super rugby pre-season training starting on the third of january each year. Also you could create another super rugby comp between argentina, usa and canada and have a preseason cup featuring the top team from each conference aswell as the next top team from the sanzar comp and the acusar comp playing in a 3 week knockout tournament (to make it more interesting you could make it that each game you can gain normal super rugby points for the season ahead, it may make the workload bigger but if you use your top players in the comp and gain win you could get upto a maximum 15 points which would make it easier to manage players workloads durring the season). This format brings an 8 week pre-season, 23 round super rugby comp, 12 week domestic championship, 12 international games, 5 weeks breaks between comps plus a full 4 week stand down period each year which I believe would set up rugby in the southern hemisphere for life.
p.Tah
Guest
Many equate the success of the HK 7s as being a key indicator that rugby has a strong presence in HK. The success of the HK 7s has little to do with actual rugby. It's just a massive party for expats. Those expats won't necessarily follow a super rugby team week in week out, many of them clear out of HK on the weekend to travel. In my view, Japan is the only suitable option initially for a super rugby team in Asia.