What are the chances of an all-Australian Super Rugby grand final?

This structure is a fit for them and not for us because they designed their systems to accommodate the professional/amateur split and we just assumed what had worked before would continue to work forever. It has taken an astonishingly long time for the penny to drop and an attempt at restructure, but it remains to be seen whether they've left it too late or even understood all the bases they need to cover. I would certainly be dubious about the proposition that NZ need to change all their systems because we've made a mess of ours. A closed conference is a somewhat different thing if it is maintained separate from the ITMC though. Adding more SR teams and weaning audiences off international games in favour of derbies is obviously where they are heading at the moment and a possible end game might well be closed Super Rugby conferences within countries. It would require much greater support and following in Aus and NZ to make it pay though, so I guess we'll see how that goes. They still don't seem to be addressing the whole visibility issue for mine.

Yes is is laughable that as we watch the slow train wreck that is Australian rugby continue its slow decline in status in this country as less and less people each year watch and play the game, as it is stuck in a professional structure and competition that has been nothing short of an abysmal failure in competing against the other 3 football codes. However surprisingly this structure is a perfect fit for our Tasman neighbors, ironic how they are beating us on the pitch and f____g us of it. Ironic for NZ they may have to revamp there pro structure when the game here goes belly up. And although i do not speak for Sheek, a closed conference is not eliminating teams, it is a structure designed by each union that suits the specific need of each country not some foreign entity

True that. But my observation was that while that system worked fine when there was no professional layer, it is no certainty that it would work equally well once that fundamental change was made. If that were the case I would have put money on SANZAR sliding down the path of least resistance into the S12. Which is what the South Africans did, and why their continual complaint now is that the CC is now just a replay of the SR. We more or less did as well, in that we were only really adding another state team into a stand-alone comp. But the Kiwis looked over the horizon and actively created a whole new level of rugby in order to preserve the essence of what they already had. They didn't do that because they were bored, they had a reason and that reason still stands.

The integrity I am talking about is, as best they can, keeping of all the teams on the same level playing field as they were pre-professionalism. Effectively 100 years of history was maintained, with a separate professional level introduced between it and the ABs, so that they have 5 professional teams with a semi-pro ITM level below. What Sheek is suggesting is eliminating entirely the Auckland, Waikato, Wellington, Canterbury and Otago teams and replacing them with the Blues, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders and Highlanders, regardless of where those players actually originated. Those teams plus three more new professional sides would then play at the same time as the two tiers below, with those lower teams stripped of all their best players forever. If you think the Championship and Heartland comps struggle now, they'd have no chance at all under those conditions. The Shield would be a meaningless joke too - imagine a Hawke's Bay team minus all it's current SR players, and their next best three say (to fill the additional sides) trying to defend the Shield against the Hurricanes...laughable. If you want an Australian equivalent it would be for the ARU to start a national club competition for the top two qualifiers from each state, then the NSWRU to respond by dividing all the Waratahs between Uni and Randwick, funding only those two teams to go fully professional, removing all funding from the other SS teams and then applauding the initiative to return the Shute Shield to it's rightful position of significance. The sad thing is, there would be people here who would think that is a good idea.

AndyS, I've mentioned this before. There was a perfectly good system operating before professionalism, if we go back 20 years, to 1995. You had your domestic comps - SA Currie Cup, NZ NPC & Australian State of the Union (SOTU). I only mention the SOTU for structure, not substance, since it only had NSW & Qld. The S10 was an expanded example of what the Champion's Cup might look like. National selection flowed from these comps. Anyway, what we think adds up to three-quarters of bugger all.

Considering the way the ITM cup has been treated since Super rugby using the word integrity is a stretch. 100 years history was happily put on the shelf to accommodate the professional comp. And considering the size of NZ, it is not a stretch that 8 pro teams could play a conference with essentially an amateur ITM level below.

I think we've had this conversation before. Even putting aside all consideration of finances, we might have the issue of creating a domestic comp that matters but they've got one with long history. With all the best will in the world, they couldn't make all of those teams professional, so it would only be the Premiership. But that would mean that all the professional players would have to move to Premiership teams, forever relegating two thirds of the domestic teams to amateur feeders and nothing more. At the most superficial level the end result might look similar, but everything about that domestic structure would have changed. Far from amiably going along with the crowd, the NZRU were smart enough to see that coming a mile away and went to the franchise system. They could have just promoted teams to play S12 the way the South Africans did, but they didn't. That is why they don't have the same teams in the final every year like the CC, or the same teams qualifying every year like the HC/ERCC. Their competition retains its integrity, not completely distorted by trying to turn it into something it was never intended to be. Frankly, they would be doing to their entire domestic structure what we did to the SS and I would be astonished and disappointed if they were so stupid as to revisit that approach. Listening to the Robbie Deans interview though, I was encouraged that it seemed unlikely regardless of what we might want to do.

AndyS, I don't agree that its purely ideal fro Australia. We're the ones who would have the greatest problem coming up with a national domestic comp of any significance. NZ went the Super Rugby path because both Australia & SA wanted it, & the Kiwis are a pragmatic lot. If it can be shown that domestic conferences can be financially successful, they would welcome it because they have a deep history of provincial rugby. Saffies on this site often complain how their revered Currie Cup is being ruined by Super Rugby. I'm sure they would jump at a viable alternative structure. Getting back to NZ, why would they need to totally dismiss their domestic structure? Yes, they would have to accept a number of 'super' or 'elite' NPC sides, but apart from that, all their provinces can still exist. Anyway, nothing's going to change & Australian rugby is sliding backwards slowly into oblivion. One step forward, two steps back.....

That, and that the NZRU need to completely dismantle their domestic structures. Creating a completely different competition on a different basis and destroying the two tiers beneath it is not preserving the ITM Cup just because you use the same name. Even if you think that it would be the ideal, it would be at most the ideal for Australia. Even then, I doubt that would be true when the finances were run...

Katipo, You have expressed above precisely the most ideal southern hemisphere domestic structure: "If all Wallabies, All Blacks & Springboks were required to play NRC, NPC & Currie Cup for their clubs we could see the domestic finals become something meaningful again. Each country would host their own domestic finals series every year followed by a shorter, more intense Super Series that would give us more finals. More big matches. More big TV audiences. More broadcast dollars." Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! But to the above, add Pumas playing for their clubs in the Campeonato Argentino. Then the Super Series would include four teams at least. Or eight, if you want to add also the runners-up from each domestic final. Of course, this could lead to the anomaly of a runner-up from a domestic comp winning the Super Series. But that's a minor point for the moment. Let's restructure first, then consider that option. For Australia, we would do away with these convoluted joint ventures currently in the NRC. The Revised NRC, or whatever, would already have five teams - Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Rebels & Force, & only need to add three more for a meaningful eight team national comp. The comp can either be national club (NRC) - Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, etc, or provincial (ARC/APC) - NSW, Queensland, Victoria, etc. Kapito, you go on to say: "The AFL get it. Melbourne hosts an AFL grand final every year. The A-League & the NRL gets it too." The AFL, A-League & NRL certainly DO get it. They are giving their fans here in Australia what they want - mostly Australian players playing for Australian teams in their own cities every week, broadcast on local TV every week. Unlike SANZAR which proposes to have domestic teams flying all over the Pacific, Indian & South Atlantic Oceans for 20 odd weeks, give or take a couple. I've said it before, it's the role of the national teams to fly across all the oceans seeking other national teams to conquer. It's not the job of domestic teams to do same, unless in short bites. The ideal structure is there, waiting to be adopted. But of course, for southern hemisphere rugby to change, that would mean admitting they've(SANZAR, etc) got it wrong the past 5-10 years. Which of course, they won't do.

Then you don't get the point of the article, how does Australian rugby improve its market share if the finals in Tokyo????

The ARU need to lobby and plan for closed conferences come 2021, it is the only chance the code has got here of at least getting some decent market share.

I care Iester!!! Let's see where it takes us I like going into the unknown then if doesn't work kick The crap out it

Who cares. This new format will make the whole tournament utterly missable anyway.

Pffft. Very brave? Give it a rest.

I must admit to not even having really looked at the new format closely, knowing that it's after the more important stuff this year and is inevitable so plenty of time to do that over summer. Not sure about the averages of hosting the final being useful. Some sides haven't got anywhere near hosting a final, the Saders, blues, brumbies and bulls taking up most of the numbers.

Rugby purists or just old fashioned?

If I can expect to see a Super Rugby in Tokyo final in eighteen years? I just about might still be kicking (funny that we kick pre-birth, kick the footy in our youth, and finish up kicking the bucket). Tokyo v Tah's. The old 2020 Olympic Stadium as the venue. For all Roarers first sake is on me. Book early. Meanwhile back at the ranch, Landers very brave but it does seem to be the year of the Canes. Give us a good game. Run it boiz.

Too much rugby at the Mo. Bring back test matches, 6 weeks camped out in the oppositions country and visa versa playing test matches. S12 was great but now we have watered down "super duper" rugby. As the old saying goes "sometimes less is more" EOYT's and touring test matches are for the rugby purists but as for tv rights? who knows?

as a kiwi I would like 2 see it go back to the old way points team with more wins top spot an so on next best weather you from same country or not get second spot get it let play fair