If you are an Aussie or Kiwi, the newly formed Trans-Tasman rugby competition should sit well with you. Less matches against South African teams, same number of local derbies, better time zones and less travel, plus an extra international opponent.
Sounds good, doesn’t it?
It seems the ARU has listened to its supporters and players.
If you are a New Zealand supporter you might be a tad unhappy about the fact that New Zealand franchises will play against less South African teams, but the benefits of less travel, more local content, and better time zones will make up for it.
Perhaps the New Zealand Rugby Union didn’t exactly listen to their supporters.
If you are a South African supporter then there isn’t that much to get excited about. ‘Oh but you get to play Argentina and Japan’ they will tell us. Yeah great, add two more destinations to our schedule, two more time zones and more travel.
And great, we now get to see the Currie Cup twice a year. It seems the SARU has decided the Currie Cup needs a back-up plan – just in case you miss the early version, you get to catch up on it in October.
Teams in the same conference are now guaranteed to play each other four times a year, and if we are really, really lucky, we can see the same teams play each other as many as six times a year. Now isn’t that something?
Teams not in your conference are fortunate enough to play only three times a year minimum.
But that is not the biggest bummer in this new format, South African franchises will now only play five of their matches against either a New Zealand conference or an Australian conference, bringing the percentage of matches we have been so graciously permitted to partake in during the Trans-Tasman Stupor Rugby competition to 33 per cent.
It seems the SARU has no clue what their supporters want, or perhaps they don’t care and are more interested in keeping the politicians at bay than keeping their supporters happy?
Why then would this be an issue you ask?
Well, truth be told there is a trend that has been forming over the last number of years. It is difficult not to make the summation that the SARU is either slowly being marginalised in the Super Rugby setup, or there is an issue with Super Rugby now becoming a multinational, overgrown unorganised mess.
If you consider that during the Super 12, South African teams played 66 per cent of their matches against the Trans-Tasman teams, and 60 per cent of their matches against the Trans-Tasman teams during the Super 14, with a reduction to 50 per cent during the Super Rugby, the new figure of 33 per cent suggests there is less to come in future negotiations.
If the intention is to get rid of SARU by slowly phasing them out by reducing the number of matches the antipodean teams are involved in, there aren’t many more games that can be taken away. So you would expect the next contract negotiations to bring about the SANZAR partnership as far as Super Rugby is concerned.
If SANZAR is convinced that less inter-conference matches and more local content is the way to go, then why not have a short, truncated Super 9 competition with the best three teams from each country in a 10-12 week period, thereby opening the calendar for proper local rugby competitions?
When local derbies provide the majority of the fixtures, what is so Super about it?
By continuing to have such a long competition, it still does not allow enough time in the calendar for South African rugby to expand their local Currie Cup to more teams. Instead it forces their supporters to watch the same opponents face each other repeatedly.
As for Super Rugby, it is supposed to be strength versus strength, I would much rather see the best each nation has to offer, than watch the same local derbies over and over. Sometimes less is more, if you want to reduce travel, sure, no problem, if you want quality matches, reduce the number of teams.
Let the NRC, ITM and Currie Cup be the vehicle whereby each country’s franchises qualify for the Super Rugby competition.
It will provide relevance for the local competitions and it won’t just be about a Cup, it will be about qualifying from within your own local professional competition. It will be about claiming the right to represent your community in the highest quality interprovincial rugby competition in the world.
As it stands now, the qualification process, the ‘fairness’ of the conferences, and the unevenness in numbers of the conferences is ludicrous. Throw in the manner in which SANZAR has decided which ‘group’ gets which home play-off matches, and the seeding of teams for those play-offs and it gets even worse.
Super Rugby as of next year will be a convoluted mess of epic proportions. It is no longer about allowing every team a fair chance to get to the play-offs, it is no longer about finding the best and most consistent team in the competition.
‘Stupor Rugby’ has turned the most prestigious rugby competition in the southern hemisphere into just another volume of sports content.
It does not stand out from the rest, it is no longer unique and if the intention is to continue growing the number of participants then the importance of ‘less is more’ will be forever lost.
AndyS
Guest
Can't think there would be, unless there was some issue around when they could get stadia...?
Eddard
Roar Guru
How do you know? A couple of weeks ago you would have said the same thing about 20+ million Japanese watching a world cup pool match late at night. No one would have predicted that.. Australian Super Rugby games get about a 10th of the audience of a big Wallabies test match (home Bledisloe), and those are matches played in prime time. And if Super Rugby was simulcast on free to air (like test matches) it would be a higher % than that. Neither of us have any idea what support the Japanese team will get. I'm hoping it's moderately successful to begin with, but the potential is huge. If even say half a million Japanese people start regularly following Super Rugby that will be a huge boon for SANZAR.
RugbyMad
Roar Rookie
Eddard, With all respect you are not being realistic. You are comparing a Super Rugby match and a World Cup which comes around every four years. There will be 15 Super Rugby matches every year so the numbers won't be anything like world cup numbers. Going further the 2014 Super Rugby final got these TV figures - Fox Sports (357k), SKY Sport NZ (319k) SuperSport's audience (298k). Generally speaking these were 10% up on the year before. Collectively the SANZAR nations didn't even get 1 million viewing for the final - and you are hoping to get twice that from one new nation per match ? 2 million viewers in Japan is not going to happen.
Cylon
Guest
Tongue in cheek I think BB. Sharks v sharks..
Eddard
Roar Guru
The fact they had 25 million people watch their game with Samoa and 20 million watch the game against Scotland. Japanese people obviously like to see their teams compete on the world stage! Super Rugby will get nothing near that, but even if it can convert a 10th of that audience it'll be a bigger audience than any of the other super rugby teams. It'd be bigger than all the Australian and NZ teams audiences combined.
RobC
Roar Guru
Gday Andy. Yep. That was my original observation mate. Was wondering if there's more to it
AndyS
Guest
Do even the SA teams - the Bulls would currently play four other teams home and away, next year it would be only two for four matches and another three against the SA teams in the other conference..?
AndyS
Guest
What Rob is saying is that there is only one hour difference between Tokyo and Singapore. Time zones have nothing to do with when they choose to play the games.
PeterK
Roar Guru
I will repeat ARU have LESS local derbies. Each aust team played each other twice now they play each other once plus 2/3 others twice. They play 1 extra nz team.
PeterK
Roar Guru
No not all SARU. The ARU wanted Japan in instead of singapore. I believe so did NZRU. SARU wanted Singapore.
Dusty Pink
Guest
A tad bit off topic, but I keep wondering why Japan was not first invited to play in TRC before SR? Why are they not treated the same way as Argentina? And surely everyone can see that Japan in TRC is an easy sell. For fans, for teams, for broadcasters.
RugbyMad
Roar Rookie
RobC , that is 4am in the morning GMT which means that the bulk of the world's viewing eyeballs will not be watching. Broadcasters will pay more for matches that are closer to primetime. The prime audience is Europe given the population and Japan is well out of that time zone which is why they will play half their matches in SA and a quarter in Singapore. Does that make more sense ?
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
Simmo the Australian markets wants and needs are polar opposite to South Africa's, and NZ is sitting in the middle. Australia want more local derbies and a longer season as they don't (or didn't) have a domestic comp, even now the NRC is not well known. SA want a shorter Super Rugby season with more games against Aus and NZ because the teams play each in the successful Currie Cup (note the spelling) anyway, which happens to be the oldest rugby tournament in the world. NZ are trying to accommodate both and they want both. SA don't need to try grow the popularity of the game in SA as it's already super popular with no other competition. The more Super Rugby games the less popular it is actually because the novelty wears off, which is why stadiums in SA are emptier than previous years. Too much supply, like hearing that same song on the radio over and over again 10 times a day even though you may actually like the song. Aus are trying to grow it locally and seeing as though Australians are quite inward focussed when it comes to sport (NRL, AFL etc) and an Aussie will always win, they want more Aus vs Aus games and a longer season. Polar opposite. So ever thought that maybe Australia is the one who is the square peg in the round hole? Depends on what side of the fence you're on bud.....
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
Peter your perception is highly unlikely. Im not sure why you think SARU wanted it this way. As BB says it would've been interesting to see who wanted what, because no-one in SA wants to play the SA teams more. My opinion is different, I see it that the ARU has finally got what they've wanted for a long time, an extended season and more local derbies..... Which is exactly the opposite of what South Africa wants really. The problem is SA and Aus are trying to be friends and make a competition work to suit their markets, but their markets wants & needs are polar opposite. And NZ is stuck in the middle. Simmo says SA is the square peg in the round hole... but maybe Aus is the square peg in the round hole? Just depends what side of the fence you're sitting on.
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
Not true Twins. South Africa has by far the best time viewership over Aus and NZ. The first game in NZ starts at 8:30am. The last SA game is at 7pm. Having moved to Australia I find the timeslots for rugby just ridiculous now! I never knew it was so hard for Aussies to watch all the Super rugby games before moving here, or at least the games at 5pm and 7pm in SA (1am and 3am).
hog
Guest
What to me is so frustrating is that as good as the Japanese heroics in this world cup are, and may it be a positive step for the growth of the game there. However so many here seem to think that now were all going to get rich from Japanese broadcasters, so lets all just line up as Japan throws millions of yen at us as.
Harry Jones
Expert
Thanks for the work on this; I suppose we all agree the product must generate more revenue per game to compete with the Euro/yen/pound. This may or may not be the way to do it. We'll see.
Harry Jones
Expert
Amazing graphics. The Michaelangelo of the ROAR.
RobC
Roar Guru
Sorry, Im bit slow on the uptake RM. Is the difference because: - it is one hour earlier, if so why? - Or that the 11am / 4.15pm is not good viewing? is 4.15 am or pm? - Or temperature thing? - or something else
RugbyMad
Roar Rookie
In Round 1 Japan play the Lions at 4.15 GMT in Tokyo. In Round 3 Japan play the Cheetahs at 10.50 GMT in Singapore. Yes playing games in Singapore makes a material difference.