It seems the New Zealand Rugby Union and South African Rugby Union have already put their eggs firmly in the Super Rugby basket, and will maintain their traditional domestic competitions as development comps under Super Rugby.
I can only imagine that they saw this as a necessity.
In that case, it’s not unrealistic to expect Super Rugby to continue in a format similar to its current one for a long while yet.
The main problem for Super Rugby is the amount of irrelevant games. I don’t necessarily mean these games are uninteresting, but they are powerless to reach the Australian market. Games played in South Africa at 2am take the wind out of the sails for Super Rugby in Australia. The novelty of getting out of bed at that time has worn off.
This is coupled with no Super Rugby on free-to-air TV. Rugby needs more demand to become free-to-air worthy, but it can’t get more demand under the current set-up.
This situation looks likely to worsen with more games to be played in South Africa and less all-Australian derbies when the next broadcast deal is finalised. Because of Australia’s crowded winter sporting landscape, this has the potential to harm rugby in Australia in a way that South Africa and New Zealand won’t experience.
I think the ARU needs to go with the flow and see Super Rugby from the same perspective as the NZRU and SARU – a competition that pits the best players in the Southern Hemisphere against each other, and not as a pseudo-national domestic competition. It simply cannot fill that void for Australia and meet the demands and aspirations of the other nations.
Once the ARU does accept this perspective, however, perhaps we will be in a position to move forward together and maximise Super Rugby’s potential – whatever that might be.
Going hand in hand with this, I would love to see the ARU strongly promote and invest in the NRC, which has the potential to quench the Australian thirst for a national domestic competition to call our own. And one of the positives for the NRC over the old ARC is that it appears to have the support from the grassroots, at least in New South Wales.
While this may have resulted in a few less-than-ideal (for some) arrangements in terms of who controls the teams, I think it has ended up pretty good, all things considered. And I’m sure there is room to tweak things as the competition goes forward.
Further to this, with the NRC complementing the Wallabies in The Rugby Championship in the second half of the year, rugby has the potential to pack a more powerful punch within the Australian sporting market at this time.
The Wallabies have been alone in trying to capture the public and media’s attention for a long time, but the NRC gives rugby more high-level content to catch the eye in the back end of the year. While the NRC won’t be on the same level as the NRL or AFL, the whole (including the Wallabies) may turn out to be greater than the sum of its parts.
Assuming the best-case scenario of the NRC doing well, then perhaps we will be in a better position to tweak the Super Rugby set-up as well.
For Super Rugby to be special again and more appealing, there probably needs to be less, not more. On top of my wish list would be the NRC generating more revenue than expected, taking the pressure off Super Rugby needing to provide more than it was designed for. I would love them to be in a position to scale Super Rugby back to finishing before the June internationals.
Assuming there will be 18 teams with a new team from South Africa, Argentina and Asia, my ideal would be for three conferences of six teams each, with the format as follows:
Each team would play all the other teams in its own conference once (five weeks). After this, the top two teams in a particular conference would play the bottom two teams in the other two conferences.
At the same time, the two middle teams in a particular conference would play the two middle teams in the other two conferences. And at the same time, the two bottom placed teams in a particular conference would play the top two teams in the other two conferences.
This means that each team would play four cross-conference games – two home and two away (4 weeks). Then the top eight teams on the overall table would move through for the finals using the same finals system as the AFL and NRL (four weeks). Add in a bye week, and the competition would run for 14 weeks.
Of course, expecting Super Rugby to be finished before June may be a bit too much of a reduction in content and revenue. But if The Rugby Championship was then played over July and August, it would free up the Test players in each country to be available for their respective national domestic competitions in September and October, thus driving up revenue for these.
I remember hearing about some discussions at a high level of moving the June Internationals to July in the hope of better aligning the Northern Hemisphere season with the Southern Hemisphere season. I’m not sure if this will ever happen, but it certainly isn’t out of the question.
And if it did happen then it could still work, with the format as follows:
Each team would play everyone in their own conference once (five weeks). After this the top three teams in a particular conference would play the bottom three teams from the other two conferences. At the same time, the bottom three teams from a particular conference would play the top three teams from the other two conferences (six weeks).
The top eight teams on the overall table would them move through for the finals using the same finals system as the AFL and NRL (four weeks). Add in a bye week, and the competition would run for 16 weeks.
By finishing Super Rugby before the June/July inbounds, it gives Super Rugby a clear window without disruption. The competition can keep its momentum instead of the current stop-start situation.
While there would be less conference derbies under both proposed formats, the conference derby games would also become a lot more meaningful because they would determine who you have to play from the other two conferences at the next stage. Players and fans would be a little more excited to win their conference derbies to get an easier run to the finals. This should attract a few more spectators to the games.
And besides, with the introduction of the NRC, Australian fans might be just as satisfied as some of their South Africa and New Zealand counterparts seem to be with teams from their conference only playing each other once.
If your team is in the top two/three teams in your conference, the interest from a fan’s perspective is that you have a real shot at making the final eight and will want to track your team’s progress as they play teams from the other two conferences.
If your team is in the bottom two/three in your conference, the interest from a fan’s perspective is that you still have a chance of making the final eight and you will be playing the best teams from the other two conferences!
While there would be less content than there is currently, and potentially less revenue, the hope is that the NRC would pick up some of this, especially if the Test stars became available for some of it.
It would also make the rugby calendar more defined and less messy in the Southern Hemisphere. Super Rugby would start on the last weekend in February or the first weekend in March every year. The June/July inbound Tests would then follow after the completion of Super Rugby.
The Rugby Championship would then start on the first weekend in July (or August) every year, and finish at the end of August (or September). This would leave the Test players available for part of the NRC and the equivalent national domestic competitions in New Zealand and SA.
The NRC would also start on the first weekend of July (or August) every year and finish before the outbound tour in November.
A simpler and more interesting Super Rugby format. An international season which flows from the inbounds into The Rugby Championship. And a stronger national domestic competition for each country.
alex
Roar Pro
Do you watch the ITM cup sheek your comments about the blues and crusaders is way off the mark you will find that the itm cup teams Auckland and Canterbury have almost completly different players involved, and that Auckland is split into other teams like Noth Harbour, Counties Manakau etc... Just saying
Thunderguts
Guest
Chopper, I am at a loss to understand how the NRC could possibly benefit RSA and NZ. SR cannot be confused with NRC but canbe equated to Currie Cup and ITM and both are considered feeders to SR and national teams. THE NRC comes too late to achieve anything substantial and the focus should be on SR and Wallabies
Chopper1
Guest
The sooner the NRC is a fundamental part of the fabric of Oz rugby and something worth protecting, the better, for SA and NZ as much as for Aus. Because that will mean that Aus supporters will also tire of superfluous derbies, and hopefully SR can morph back into a competition that provides the SANZAR nations to pit each others' franchises against one another, rather than a slightly enhanced version of the domestic competition. At that point reverting to this focus will benefit Aus as much as NZ and SA, as it will make the NRC derbies more valuable through increasing their scarcity value, and much more eagerly anticipated. And as a result the quality of the NRC will improve. The converse of this has been clearly seen in SA, where now the Currie Cup is perceived as a feeder competition or tier 2 competition (it is not, but is perceived as such outside SA and inside, as demonstrated by lower attendance numbers for CC games and SR derbies). Then all of our interests will be aligned. Let's pray the NRC works. Btw for those interested, this is the general view of the expanded SR format from SA. (Courtesy or Keo and SA rugby mag). I'm still waiting for anyone to show the way to an article that is independent of Wayne Smith's in The Australian that indicates SA wants a team from Spain. http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/super-rugby-headed-for-mega-mediocrity
jeznez
Roar Guru
Correction - apologies to the Convicts - they no longer play Halligan and are now playing 4 Div Subbies in the Maclean Cup.
Subsy
Guest
I can understand the logic behind wanting to introduce the NRC but to try and model it on on the ITMC or Currie cup is in my opinion flawed. Those provinces have long rich history and unfortunately the NRC just won't have that aspect or create that tribalism. Personally I think that a comp that had perhaps the top 3 teams from each club comp would have been better. That still provides the pathway as well as reinvigorates the local comps when teams realise they can gain national exposure. Getting the players back from professional teams into clubland will also do wonders for the real target of this whole exercise, the future generations of rugby players. Before I moved to Australia I didn't realise club rugby has such a rich tradition here and I think that has been forgotten in the rush to create a level of Rugby that I don't think will ever be truly embraced or successful.
Thunderguts
Guest
again I cannot speak for RSA but your observations of NZ rugby are correct For example alot of my kiwi rugby mates played for Northland [or as in my time North Auckland] but today support any SR team other than the Blues because of past rivalries. One mate in particular during SR season has his front fence painted in Crusader colours and is then painted in AB colours for the NH tour. By the way have you seen Air NZ new dreamliner painted black with the Koru on the tail but a big silver fern on the fuselage which will no doubt deliver the AB to Australia for this years Bledisloe Cup. Lets hope that the Wallabies come back from their bush experience ready to do battle.
Magic Sponge
Guest
I really dont think Randwick are on board. I heard that the Country team will be training at Woollahra but could be wrong. They have to be in one area.
Joe King
Guest
Thanks for your comments Sheek. I think you make some fair points. I guess my idea for SR is based on the existing structures that look set to remain in place. As you suggest, it seems that the NZRU and the SARU have already made the financial decision to house only 5-6 teams each, in an international competition, with all the best players involved, and place their traditional domestic competitions as the tier below. And the way they have done this is by creating a distinction between the traditional domestic teams and the SR teams. But I know what you’re saying, the line between the SR teams and some of the domestic teams (especially in SA) can appear to be a little superficial from a particular point of view. And maybe this perception will depend on the person. A bit like how some will see the UC Vikings as Tuggeranong in disguise, while others will support them as a distinct representative team, despite supporting another club other than Tuggeranong in the John I Dent Cup. In any case, it seems the NZRU and the SARU have decided to walk this carefully chosen path. On the one hand, they have removed the provincial names from the SR teams in which they’re housed in order to have the SR teams represent players and fans from other provinces which don’t house a SR team. But on the other hand, they have kept some continuity between the SR teams and the provinces in which they’re housed in order to attract local support. It’s a tricky path to walk, but perhaps the best one in their minds, for as long as they see SR as the better financial option. I get the impression that NZ and SA would both be happy if the teams in their respective conferences were to play each other only once in SR.
Turnover
Roar Guru
Hahaha. Can't deny that Mickey Mouse is a big deal. I am more of a Donald Duck fan though.
Turnover
Roar Guru
I must say I also enjoy the end of year tour immensely. Definitely over South Africa versus Australia within Australia. Over in South Africa is a different matter. Cutting that back would surely be costly as well. Don't the AB's get bucketloads for fronting up at Twickenham every year?
Turnover
Roar Guru
Rubbish from Fava, he preaches to all his players about Norths being a club that won't pay for talent and then does a deal with Dave Harvey on the side... It fell through but that's not the point.
sheek
Roar Guru
Hi Thunderguts, Yes, that's true. The NZ pathways that you explain have also been been pointed out to me by others, although in somewhat more personal tones! Maybe it's irreversible, maybe not. I'm told it's irreversible (again in sometimes personal tones), but I guess nothing is set in stone, so to speak. Anything & everything can change as circumstances change. Anyway, southern hemisphere countries have some challenges ahead.....
jeznez
Roar Guru
no worries mate - you know that reasonable comments rarely get play here or in the general press. The cranks get all the airplay - it is easy to forget they are in the minority just because they are so loud and do the most talking.
Thunderguts
Guest
Sheek, I cannot speak about RSA rugby with any great knowledge but on the NZ front I believe the various competition are very well defined and are clearly separate competitions in the minds of the Kiwi Rugby fan. The ITM cup of 14 semi professional teams is a feeder to SR. The Blues are not just about Auckland as they draw upon ITM teams of Northland, North Harbour,Auckland and Counties Manukau, all of whom have a tribal following. The other element is the Heartlands competition which caters for the amateur teams. In amongst the 3 competitions is the Ranfurly Shield which is a challenge competition. Therefore imo the NZRU have clearly differentiated Rugby played in NZ. The key difference between NZ and Australia is that Rugby is the national sport and as such has to provide to the Rugby public a constant stream of matches at all levels and that is why NRL and AL will always have a limited audience in NZ. After following the NRC debate over the last few months I still remain of the opinion that the NRC is not for OZ and that the focus should be Wallabies, Super Rugby and club competition because of competition from other sports, no FTA, limited finances and resources, and a public which equate Rugby to the Wallabies only.
sheek
Roar Guru
Joe, Good article, very well presented. I do have a fundamental point of difference in the purpose of super rugby. While NZ & SA saw the financial necessity of super rugby, they didn't need it from a development point of view, their respective NPC & Currie Cup doing an outstanding job of funneling & fine-tuning talent for the All Blacks & Springboks. I don't share your vision for super rugby, although I agree it should be truncated. I don't believe super rugby should be the saviour of Asian & American rugby as well. That is the job of the IRB. At the risk of again offending some Kiwi & Saffie supporters, especially sensitive Kiwis, there is already too much repetition cross-over between SR & either ITMC or Currie Cup. The Blues are Auckland by another name & Crusaders are Canterbury by another name. The Bulls are Northern Transvaal (Pretoria) by another name & Stormers are Western Province by another name. Yet the Sharks or Cheetahs don't pretend to be different from either Kwazulu-Natal or Free State. So at present, you can get these teams under their different guises, playing each other 4-5 times a year. Surely, there is a better way to utilise these resources & minimise the number of times they meet each other every year? I also hope the NRC will be what it hopes to be, but I remain unconvinced looking at the makeup of some teams, that the ARU has nailed this part of it completely. Why not get it right from the start? Especially when the ARU is already in a parlous financial situation?? Also, the Shute Shield coaches comments as relaid by AD at the beginning, are from united. So while disagreeing with some aspects of your article, I applaud it all the same.
boomeranga
Guest
I disagree. You will certainly find parochialism but there are lots of conversations going on across the rugby community. It might depend on what you are looking for when you read articles and debates, and also where you are engaging with it. I think many people are excited.
sheek
Roar Guru
AD, The enthusiasm of Easts coach Campbell Aitken is curious considering neither Easts nor Randwick have direct access for their players in the NRC. Unless reading between the lines, NSW Country will actually be East Sydney! This just confuses my understanding of the NRC even more...
Daws
Guest
Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - George Carlin
Magic Sponge
Guest
Salads and potato and cheese sensational
Thunderguts
Guest
It seems that the NRC debate continues to be bogged down in parochial discussion rather than focusing on the merits of the competition as it relates to building the rugby product in Australia.