I’m sure we are all well aware of the changes that are going to take place in Super Rugby in 2016. I, for one, am not happy with them.
The introduction of three new teams into the competition won’t only have the affect of diluting the standard of the competition and adding onto an already massive travel schedule, but it will also have a knock on effect on the international season.
There have already been several attempts of expanding the competition, none of which have entirely successful. In 2006, the competition expanded from Super 12 to Super 14, with the inclusion of two new teams.
The Western Force from Perth and the Cheetahs (Cats), who were to draw their players from the Free State and Northern Cape provinces.
Both of these teams have been a relative failure since being introduced. The Force have averaged 11th on the table since 2006, with zero appearances in the playoffs. The Force surprised many this year, just missing out on the finals, but one can’t be blamed for being sceptical about them repeating it again next year.
The Cheetahs have fared only slightly better. Also averaging 11th on the table, they have two appearances in the play offs, both times losing in the opening round.
The Melbourne Rebels were the last team to be introduced, creating Super Rugby. They have been abysmal, averaging 14th on the table with no appearances in the play offs. In the first couple of years they were forgiven for their poor performances, you can’t expect much from a team that’s never played together before, but they’ve had four seasons now with no improvement.
Therefore, the expansion to 18 teams in 2016 is insane. Adding another South African team, the Kings, will only see a repeat of what happened to them in 2014.
They will be the whipping boys of the competition. They will without a doubt finish at or around the bottom of the table. South Africa struggle to field three quality teams, let alone six. The Kings will join the Cheetahs and Lions at the bottom of the table.
The inclusion of an Argentine team is even more baffling. They too will struggle to field a quality team that can compete. This isn’t the biggest problem though. The travel factor is the biggest problem.
Players, particularly South African players who have to travel to both Australia and New Zealand, will now have to travel to Argentina as well.
How are players supposed to recover properly if they are in a plane half the time? This is ridiculous. Considering the standard of Argentine rugby, particularly with their best players in Europe, this type of travel is not worth it.
This won’t only have knock on affect on rest of the competition. As teams struggle to work around this ridiculous travel schedule, players won’t have the time recover properly for the June Internationals and the Rugby Championship. The November tour would also feel the affect.
The best way from Argentina to play this, is for them to try and get a majority of their players Super Rugby contracts, or get a majority of them playing in Europe. Having an Argentine team would be a massive detriment to the competition and the international rugby that comes after it.
The same can be said for Japan. It’s simply not worth it. They will bring nothing to the competition apart from inconvenience and a bonus-point try for the teams that play them.
Now, if I’m going to criticise the new format, I have to provide an alternative. My alternative is to either keep the competition how it is, or have an ITM cup style tournament, with two separate tables and kick out the Rebels, so there are two tables of seven. Or, keep the Rebels, add the Kings to keep the South African’s happy and have two tables of eight.
Equivalent of the premiership table
1. Crusaders
2. Waratahs
3. Sharks
4. Chiefs
5. Brumbies
6. Bulls
7. Highlanders
8. Reds/Hurricanes
Equivalent of the championship table
1. Reds/Hurricanes
2. Stormers
3. Blues
4. Force
5. Cheetahs
6. Lions
7. Rebels
8. Kings
Having a format like this would generate a larger interest in the game, particularly from supporters of the lower ranked teams, for several reasons.
Firstly, more teams are going to be included in play off matches. Teams that regularly finish 8-12th will no longer be sitting out the final part of the season, they will be playing in the semi-finals and finals, fans won’t have to be content with watching the Crusaders, Brumbies, Chiefs, and Waratahs battle it out again.
They can support their team in the finals and experience the excitement of them being promoted to the Premiership table. Add something like the Ranfurly Shield in, and it will actually create excitement. Ranfurly Shield matches are some of the best in the ITM cup, my team never plays in them and I still get excited.
We would still experience the high tempo and high quality nature of Super Rugby that we’ve all come to love, but this will add another level to it.
Add in the fact that the tables will be constantly changing with say, the bottom two teams being relegated and the top two teams of the Championship table being promoted, new teams will get a chance to get to the top every season.
This won’t stop the dominance of the top teams, but it will add something new without the inclusion of more sub standard teams and a ridiculous travel factor.
In conclusion, the addition of an Argentine team and a Japanese team will only serve to weaken Southern Hemisphere rugby.
Only Japan and Argentina benefit from this. South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand gain nothing, or, it will have a detrimental affect on their rugby. What I have proposed above, or something similar, will increase interest in the game while keeping the high standard of tri-nations rugby.
Theo Repinz
Guest
There is no point in introducing teams that are gonna get no where in the super 15. The Japanese and Argentines clubs will just lower the standards of them selves!!!
Deb
Guest
We all agree that dilution at this stage will damage the quality of our rugby. We are agreeing that 'All is not well in the state of Denmark'. There needs to be a shake-up at the top...the public can see more clearly than the Management!! Pugwash, I may not support your solution, but good on you for opening a conversation about where to from here.
Deb
Guest
We all agree that dilution at this stage will damage the quality of our rugby. There needs to be a shake-up at the top...the public can see more clearly than the Management.
But the added benefit of doing it like this is we have used the Super rugby pool stages as the Currie Cup. This allows each nation to have some short format knock out comp during September October.
The Bush
Roar Guru
The countries broke mate!
44bottles
Roar Guru
Sure, if you put Argentina a normal kid, rather than the kid who is snapping at the heels of the others and should've been put in the class earlier.
44bottles
Roar Guru
I read somewhere they couldn't afford the cost of two teams sadly.
44bottles
Roar Guru
I can think of plenty of Islanders, and a couple of Japanese/argentinians in the NZ Super teams.
44bottles
Roar Guru
Who did you think they would add? And it isn't the national team, though it would have quite a few members, at least those who aren't playing in Europe.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
That's right. I mean, the current season, including finals and byes goes for 20 weeks or so.
Just leave the pools closed, let each pool play amongst themselves home and away, 10 matches. Then have the top two qualifiers from each pool play in quarters, semi's and final. 13 weeks, done and dusted. The alternative is if they want more matches, play a super 8 first, six weeks as you have already played against the one team from your pool, and then semi and final. Another 8 weeks, that is 18 weeks plus perhaps a bye week or two.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
It already is like the NFL because it is a conference system starting in 2016. That was the intention. Despite the complaints, people will get used to this system and understand it's benefits in terms of less travel and more local rivalries. When constructing your divisions it is most important to look at the vertical timelines, geographically. NZ will fit together with a team from the Pacific Islands (Asian Dragons) while Australia can join with the Japanese team. There are your Groups of six. The Argentinian Team should join with US and Canadian teams because they are in the same Time Zone, plus another team from Argentina. South Africa already has 6 teams. 24 teams. 4 groups of 6 teams. 6 New Zealand 6 Australia 6 South Africa 6 Americas Play own group teams home and away (8 games) Play one other group once (4 games) Play one other group once (4 games) TOTAL 20 game season March April May July August The reason this will work for Super Rugby in 2020 is that you can see there are only games against two different conferences, and of that, the need for only two long overseas tours. So an American team can play within their own continent, and only twice needs to venture to Australasia until playoffs, two times for 2-game tours or even one 4-match tour. So it is actually very doable.
JohnB
Guest
At some point, it will become like the NFL/AFL in the US - multiple smaller divisions, playing home and away against all the teams in your division and only playing some of the teams from other divisions. The best performing teams then meet in the play-offs. For Super Rugby, that could mean say 4 divisions each of 6 teams. Australia, SA and NZ obviously form their own divisions (with Australia possibly adding one team from outside). The final division is the Pacific, including Samoa, Tonga and Fiji (sadly ignored in other proposals) and teams from Japan, the US, Canada and Argentina (acknowledging it's not on the Pacific). One of those teams could go in the Australian division. Each team would play the other 5 in its division twice, and say 2 teams from each other division, rotating from year to year. That gives 16 regular season games. You could have the top 2 from each division going through to the play-offs with maybe the 2nd ranked teams playing 4 "wildcard" teams (next 4 on the combined points table) in the first week, winners to play 1st ranked teams, winners through to semis, and then a final. The $$ of course are the issue, but this would achieve a lot of the objectives people express above (and, in supporting the Pacific islands, some others besides).
Wii
Guest
The Phoenix and the Breakers are not National representative squads you may actually want to check your facts on that. Sure there are a few reps but hardly anything close to the NATIONAL equivalent
Nobrain
Guest
Well , this comment just paints your way of thinking, my friend let me tell you that monarchy is no longer in place in most part of the world.
Nobrain
Guest
Finally someone with the understanding of what is going on. Top comment tc.
Bakkies
Guest
Well that would have happened already if that was to be the case. Argentinians need the opportunity to see their players at home and to put some structures that they already have to feed in to the side.
tc
Guest
This is going to be fantastic for Rugby Union in the long run, this is not about NZ,SA,AU, it is about taking pro rugby to new places and building those audiences for future expansion. Today it is Buenos aires and Tokyo, tomorrow it will be the likes of San Francisco, Singapore, Toronto and on and on. Rugby Union is growing internationally at a rate that is phenomenal, just look at the All Blacks test in Chicago this week, it is sold out (61 500) and is expected to get a big audience on NBC sport live on a Saturday night. There is talk in the USA and in Europe that this game will be the turning point for pro Rugby in North America. The game is growing and we in the small southern hemisphere countries had better stake our claim because we have all heard about the increased money in European Rugby, plus Japanese corporate Rugby, well shortly you will be able to add North American Rugby to that mix, and who knows how big that may become. If I had said to you a year ago that the All Blacks were going to play the Eagles at Soldier Field and that it would pack out, plus be on national TV live you probably would have laughed at me, why do I say this?, because that's how fast international Rugby is moving, and it doesn't look like it is stopping any time soon. To all those who oppose Super Rugby expansion, sorry guys you are living in the past, and that's sad because the game will move on without you. Australia seems to be the only country that is having problems with its Rugby, if you believe all the negative reports from this site, (which I don't), it doesn't matter though the ARU, SANZAR and the IRB are all on the same page, and that page is called "EXPANSION".
Nobrain
Guest
Captain, I bet you that the team for Argentina will be in the middle of the table in it first year, and will get to play off the second year. Mark my words.
Nobrain
Guest
This not a competition about whom is a more serious fan. The fact is that you cannot consider yourself serious about your article without doing the basic research and just write what ever comes to your mind. In order to the game to growth you have to expand the base, Aus is not doing it so Sanzar is looking somewhere else. I really do no think is to hard to understand.