- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
SANZAR is apparently meeting in Sydney this week to discuss the future structure of Super Rugby for the 2016-20 period.
It seems that a two-conference arrangement is rapidly gaining favour.
South Africa is likely to have their way with both the Kings and Lions making up six franchises from the Republic. They would be joined by two regions/provinces from Argentina.
Meanwhile, the other conference would be an ANZAC pool comprising the five provinces from Australia and five regions from New Zealand.
The top four teams from each conference would contest the finals play-offs.
The Trans-Atlantic (T-A) conference would look like this:
From South Africa – (North Gauteng) Bulls, (Free State) Cheetahs, (Eastern Cape) Kings, (Gauteng) Lions, (Kwazulu-Natal) Sharks, (Western Cape) Stormers and from Argentina (suggested only) – Buenos Aires and Combined Provinces (the rest).
The Trans-Tasman (T-T) conference would look like this: From Australia – (ACT) Brumbies, (WA) Force, (Victoria) Rebels, (Queensland) Reds, (NSW) Waratahs and from New Zealand – (Auckland) Blues, (Waikato) Chiefs, (Canterbury) Crusaders, (Otago) Highlanders and (Wellington) Hurricanes.
For the uninitiated and those forever complaining they don’t know where these teams come from, I have indicated in brackets the likely province, or state, for each franchise.
It hasn’t been decided yet how many home and away games will be played. However, 14 appears to be the magic number.
In the T-A conference, the eight franchises would play each other twice (14 games per province).
In the T-T conference, the 10 franchises would play each other once (9 games), the other teams from their country a second time (four games), plus a second game against one team from the other country, making the 14 matches.
The finals series made up of eight teams would perhaps be played over three or four weekends.
Ultimately, each franchise would play a minimum 14 matches (eliminated at conference stage) over 15 weeks, up to a maximum 17 matches (the two grand finalists) over 17 weeks.
I’m suggesting therefore the Super Rugby season will comprise a maximum of 19 weekends.
This would be a full saving of one month from the 2013 Super Rugby season, which ran over 23 weekends, not including a forced hiatus of three weeks for inbound international tours.
Hopefully, it is planned for the Super Rugby season from 2016-20 to conclude before the inbound tours arrive.
This proposal should be satisfactory to most SANZAR countries.
South Africa get their sixth team, Argentina enters the Super Rugby comp, while both South Africa and New Zealand will feel vindicated in being able to bring some prominence back to their respective premier domestic comps, the Currie Cup and ITM Cup (NPC).
It’s interesting how the effects of travel is now being recognised.
It wasn’t so long ago we were getting outlandish suggestions of Super Rugby franchises being planted in Tokyo, or Los Angeles, or Hong Kong, or Vancouver.
While this might have been noble thinking, it was absurdly impractical. Fortunately, some common sense has prevailed.
I like this probable proposal as I see it heading back to where I hope things might eventually end up. Now let’s talk about Australia.
There is the suggestion from ARU chief executive Bill Pulver reprising the ARC. As someone who has steadfastly argued the merits of an ARC, you would think I might be thrilled about this possibility. But I’m not.
My own thinking of what constitutes an ideal national domestic comp has moved on. While I still believe in the concept of an ARC, I don’t wish to return to the 2007 model.
To do so would continue the fatal erosion of resources and revenues, which the ARU clearly doesn’t possess.
This is the thing about a 2007-style ARC. Add 8-10 ARC clubs to five Super Rugby franchises, plus the Wallabies and you suddenly have 14-16 entities requiring 14-16 different playing strips and nicknames/emblems. This would also require 14-16 different playing squads and coaching staff.
Although, with respect to players and coaches, there would be some obvious crossovers. We haven’t yet added the Sydney Shute Shield or Brisbane Hospital Cup clubs to this list.
Clearly, Australian rugby can’t cope with so many different entities.
It’s instructive that with the inclusion of both the Kings and Lions with the Bulls, Cheetahs, Sharks and Stormers, South African rugby has a Super Rugby conference and Currie Cup comp that comprise virtually the same entities.
New Zealand would adopt the same profile in a flash, but for domestic inter-provincial politics.
In other words, as far as South Africa is concerned, Super Rugby regions and Currie Cup provinces should be the one and the same. It’s actually second tier. This concept of a third tier has always been nonsense.
Which is something I’ve been arguing for almost the entire professional era.
For Australian rugby’s national domestic comp, read this: ACT Brumbies, NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds, Victoria Rebels and Western Australia Force.
Bill Pulver’s suggestion of a B-comp is actually on the money, but not these ridiculous ’50 minutes’ curtain-raisers that are being proposed.
By all means, have curtain-raiser B-matches, but make them the full 80 minutes. It’s important to keep the provinces the same.
This means same coaching staff oversees the A-team squad, while also perusing the B-squad for future talent to be promoted.
It’s clear to me at least, that the southern hemisphere is trying to retain its history and tradition, and for this, we should especially thank the South Africans and New Zealanders.
Eventually, I’m hoping SANZAR, or will that be SANZAAR with Argentina made a full member, would by 2021, be heading towards four enclosed conferences (one for each country) of perhaps eight provinces each.
Perhaps the top four from each country would then play-off in a crossover finals series.
The four enclosed conferences would then effectively be the national domestic comps of each country: Currie Cup (South Africa); Zona Campeonato (Argentina); ITM Cup/NPC (New Zealand) and APC/ARC (Australia).
How each country manages its local national comp, is a personal affair. If New Zealand wants 12 teams in its premier division, that’s okay, as long as they fit all the matches into about 14 weeks. Promotion and relegation would also be a personal affair.
However, I would guess both South Africa and Argentina would move to permanent premier division competitions of eight teams.
Australia of course, would only just make eight provinces anyway.
So where would Australia’s next three provinces come from? Well, my suggestions are South Australia based in Adelaide; Eastern Australia based in Newcastle and North Queensland based in either Townsville or Cairns.
It’s worth pointing out here that both the Newcastle-Hunter and North Queensland regions were huge rugby nurseries prior to the coming of the union-league split.
Another two possibilities are Western Sydney and Gold Coast.
In conclusion, if SANZAR is beginning to show an appreciation of returning to the historical and traditional structures that so formidably shaped southern hemisphere rugby pre-professional era, then the future is looking good.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.