There will be some notable milestones occurring this weekend. There will be a new first-time winner of Super Rugby, the last tournament in its current format, and there will also be a fourth New Zealand team to win the championship.
New Zealand has been the most consistent SANZAR partner in terms of team participation (five) since its inception back in 1996. That consistency has been rewarded with all five teams contesting a final and, after this weekend, four of the five teams winning the title.
However it has taken the better part of 19 years for this to occur, despite the inherent playing strengths and traditions of New Zealand rugby.
South Africa expanded to five teams in 2006 and Australia in 2011.
So far the ledger between the two countries favours Australia with three different title winners and finalists, while only one South African team has won the title (albeit three times) but they’ve provided three different finalists.
Considering the differing history and status of rugby in both countries, the Australian team’s performances in Super Rugby is remarkable.
So how long before we can see the Force and the Rebels contest a final and win the title? Similarly how long before the Stormers, Sharks, Cheetahs and Lions do the same?
The Force are now nine years old and had their best ever season last year, narrowly missing out on a play-offs spot for the first time. Many predictions featured the Force as a strong contender to push on further this year, and their sharp decline asks some obvious questions.
What was significantly different about the team last year? Was last year a fluke?
Historically the Force were a stronger performer during the Super 14 where they finished mid-table for three straight seasons from 2007-2009. They’ve since endured a horror stretch of bottom two places from 2010-2013, so finishing with the wooden spoon this year isn’t an isolated or unfamiliar experience.
The sustained success of the Force will be achieved on the back of their local club scene, supplemented by smart recruitment but not superseded by it. After nine years, the prospects of the Force making a title run in the near future looks further away than 2014 suggested. Particularly as it doesn’t appear they’ve filled the apparent gaps in their squad for next season.
The Rebels are the youngest team in the competition. However, they’re trending on a similar curve of the Force since they were formed in 2011. An unsurprising wooden spoon place in their first year was followed by incremental improvements and higher ladder positions in the next two seasons, they finished last again in 2014 before achieving their highest ever position of tenth this year.
Based on improvements in their performances this year and greater depth in their squad, much more is expected of them next year when they turn five. Will they continue to make incremental gains or will they have a breakthrough season in the years to come?
Where to now for South Africa’s teams?
Their policy of allowing international players to play in foreign competitions and remain eligible for the Springboks is slowly eroding the player depth of their Super clubs. While the raw talent will continue to emerge through their age grade programs and Currie Cup competition, it’s the growing gap between the emerging and established players that is of concern.
The introduction of a sixth team will only place further strain on a stretched player pool.
Next year represents a changing of the guard in South African coaching circles with the Bulls, Cheetahs, Sharks and Stormers all looking for new coaches.
It is to be hoped that with this personnel change there will be fresh thinking and an honest embrace of different ways to play Super Rugby for these teams.
The one common denominator shared by previous title winning teams is the coach’s ability to adapt and develop his team to exploit their natural advantages and borrowing ideas from other teams to minimise their weaknesses.
It should be an embarrassment for South African rugby that only one of their teams has won a Super Rugby championship in 19 years.
The Super Rugby III format provides South African teams with stronger chances, increasing the play-offs from six teams to eight and each conference winner guaranteed as host of a quarter-final.
However, the format only serves to provide a structure for the season, games still need to be won or lost, and scoring tries is one aspect of play that drastically needs overhauling among South African teams.
The odds are leaning in favour of a new first-time champion emerging from the South African conference ahead of an Australasian one.
But which one? And how long will it take?
Pie_t
Guest
Nor can I. Doubt I'll watch a single game. Total crock. Hopeless rubbish. A direct result of rugby becoming a business.
Pie_t
Guest
Can't see a South African team winning it any time soon for the following reasons:- Poorest coaches on earth and players jaded by a horribly boring competition which is destined to get far worse next year. And their fans are voting with their non-attendance. I have to agree with them - I won't be watching the repetitive, going-through-the-motions bore-a-thon, far less go to the SFS to watch games live.
Old Bugger
Guest
I think you'll find making NZ & Argie sides travelling the furtherest throughout, went down like a lead balloon. I do however, struggle to acknowledge why Japan was forced to join a SARU conference - it should've been more reasonable to plonk Japan with either the ARU or NZRU conference, even if SARU wanted 6 teams.
Old Bugger
Guest
Yeah Sam - good luck to Canes and hope you enjoy.....btw, great question?? Wouldn't it blow the comp apart if the Argie side got up and made the finals series ( sorry to the Blossoms, but can't see it for them....)??
Old Bugger
Guest
hog Now that this comp is slowly but surely heading in the direction you have consistently sought, namely conferences with minimal international travel, do you think it may provide a timely boost for rugby union in Oz?? And yes, I realise it is just a start, but will it be a good start on the pathway?? Perhaps, a trial run of a couple of seasons to see how it fares?? Whaddya reckon??
TV rights aren't bought with rands, but dollars
The new format is nit designed to advantage anyone, that is pure coincidental if it does actually advantage any one country. super 18 is merely the next step in cutting the ties with South Africa, once there is more financial benefit for the ARU in the pacific or the asian countries South Africa will be a mere after thought.
Isolating your club/provincial rugby is not the same thing as isolation 20 years ago
Pinetree
Guest
Thanks for the link Justin. You make the "system" look as diabolical as it sounds! I think a better system would be to expand to 20 teams, 5 in each conference, with 3 teams from Argentina. The system would then be: All teams play their own conference twice. Top 2 of each conference continue for a round robin, playing 7 games, points starting over again. Bottom 3 play for a second devision, playing 7 games, missing 2 teams each, points starting over again. Top four play in semifinals and final, and bottom four play in semifinals and final in top division. Top 4 of second division and then next 4 from 2nd division play semifinals and final. This would look more like and sevens final format, with different cups for different levels (Title winner, bowl spoon etc.) It would mean less travel for SA too. Probably got some flaws, that will no doubt be commented on. Be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on it.
AndyS
Guest
My take is slightly different Winnie. I think the ultimate end game is three conferences aligned vertically to cover Asia-Pacific, Africa-Europe and the Americas, playing in isolation with (say) the two finalists from each conference fighting it out at the end. Lots of slips possible between cup and lip, and there may well be one eye on fall-back strategies, but I don't think they are thinking small.
Pinetree
Guest
The super 15 format , with the Aus Conference being weaker, gave the stronger Aus teams a leg up. This means that it is a little bit easier to get top of the table, thus give a greater chance to win the competition. That means that the winner from Aus may be over rated, hence may not go back to back because any team that wins a title gets targeted more the following year, and has to be really good to combat that for a back to back win. I actually think the Reds were far more deserving with their win in 2011, than the Tahs were. My reasoning is that the Reds won 13 games to the Tahs 12. 2011 was also a more competitive year, as the top teams had more wins all up, with Reds 13, Stormers 12, Saders 11, blues 10, Tahs 10 and Sharks 10 wins. That is 66 wins for all top teams all up. In 2014 the Tahs had 12, Saders 11, Sharks 11, Brumbies 10, Chiefs and Highlanders 8. That is 60 all up. To compare this to other 15 years, 2012 had 68 wins total, 2013 65 wins, and 2015 65 wins. So 2014 was not a competitive year. Also the Tahs got second lowest percentage wins for a top of the table in super rugby with 75%, which equals the Chiefs in 2013. The lowest are Reds '99, Brumbies '01 and '04 on 72.7% wins for round robin. The Brumbies were an awesome team, and despite the low percentage on their winning years were very consistent for 8 years! I write this because I think it puts the Tahs achievement in better perspective, when some, but not most Tahs fans, think the their title win was one of the best ever, but I see it as one of the most average, and rate the Reds '11 far greater, because of their ability to change game plans, and playing in a competitive year with 13 wins. I am sure that Reds team would of won under any format. Tahs were a good team, don't get me wrong, just think some fans (not most) over rate them.
conor
Guest
This new 4 conference model and teams was the exact format proposed by Super Sport TV South Africa 2 months before it was agreed by SANZAR. It would have been so much more logical to have a 3 conference system - 6 x South Africa, 5 + 1 (Japan) x Australia, and 5 + 1 (Argentina) x New Zealand but South Africa's views prevailed. How it did so with such a weak rand is difficult to understand.
Justin
Roar Pro
This is correct. What a "system"! Who could possibly think this was a good idea? And when you start looking at potential fixture lists it gets even more crazy. I wrote a roar article about it a while back. http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/05/01/super-18-the-madness-will-continue-in-the-new-format/ Basically you could easily have this type of scenario as a comparative fixture list for the Highlanders and the Stormers: Nine identical fixtures (against the Aussie conference, and against one of the SA conferences). For the remaining six games the Highlanders play against all the other kiwi sides, including home-and-away matches against the Crusaders and Hurricanes. Meanwhile, the Stormers will play six games made up of home-and-away clashes with the Sharks, Kings and the Argentinian side.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
South African? pretty much never as the country bleeds talent overseas. Australian? whenever one of the franchises can align talent in the forwards and backs for more than a few games per season.
Pinetree
Guest
The way I understand the super 18 format - NZ and Aus teams will play their own conference once, plus 2 more games against teams from their own conference, which makes 6 games (e.g. Brumbies play Reds, rebels, Tahs, Force, then Rebels and Tahs again). NZ plays all of the Aus Conference, and vice versa, which makes 5 games. Then NZ and Aus play ONE of the SA conferences, to add other 4 games. 6+5+4=15 games for the season. The 2 SA conferences play everyone in their conference twice, 6 games, and other conference once for 4 games. Then they will either play the NZ or Aus Conference for another 5 games. Not sure if this alternates between 3 and 2 away games each year, but probably so? So 6 games within conference, 4 games other SA conference, 5 games, either NZ or Aus Conference, which makes up 15 games. The playoffs will start with quarter finals. The top team from every conference will get the top 4 places, decided on points. The wildcards will consist of 3 Australasian teams and one SA conference team. The seeding will be decided on points. So 1 will play 8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5. Then semis and final. What a shambles it will be. I wonder if any if the 3 nations are happy, and if not, what was SANZAR thinking!?
Harry Jones
Expert
One way this could develop is tiers (with promotion/relegation) with a top tier that only focuses on the biggest cities: Cape Town Sydney Auckland Melbourne Jo'burg Durban Wellington Media market Luxury boxes Sponsors Etc
Winnie
Guest
From what I can see the new format is designed largely to advantage one nation and that is South Africa. It is highly unlikely a Final let alone a semi final will be played outside of the Republic for a few years. I believe NZ and Aus have agreed to this as SA rugby from the outside looks to be tearing itself apart from the inside. Money is another contributing factor of course however I feel the ANZACs are going to be testing the waters for a potential break away TT super rugby competition. SA can not and will not generate the same amount of money without the involvement of Wallabie and All Blacks in the competition. South African rugby has become far too political.
RobC
Roar Guru
Thanks Sam. The SR conference format disadvantages SA. I believe next year will be the start of a big improvement. There's some adjustments that they are currently undergoing, which may delay it somewhat though. SR16+, the Oz teams will have a tough time to win the conference. Not without improving grassroots, coaching
Harry Jones
Expert
I know that OZ needs $, SA needs some of its OS players back, and NZ needs a challenge
Rugby.ftw
Guest
Saying that basically says that teams that do not go back to back were just lucky and didn't deserve to win. I would say it's more to do with luck when teams do go back to back, through lack of injuries and losing players overseas etc. The tahs got to second place without Kane Douglas (there best forward in 2014), injuries all year (including AAC for almost half a season) and then the Beale injury for finals. I think they showed that they are a pretty strong team despite all this, and if they hadn't been so UNlucky then they would have probably been in the finals next week and who knows what would have happened.