New Super 18 format unfairly benefits some teams

Finally, SANZAR has been trying for years to get the June test window moved to July. This would have benefits for all parties: -allow Super Rugby to play continuously and finish in the first week of July. - allow NHS players a week or so rest before embarking on their Summer Tour down under. The exact same situation as SH sides when they travel North. - allow full strength NH teams to come down under unlike previous years It was only blocked by rich Northern Clubs who feared not enough rest for their stars during contractual rest periods would mean they miss the September start of the NH club second. Which of course is trash because All Blacks and Wallabies are 'managed' through Super Rugby sometimes missing preseason and early games as a result of the Northern Tours. In the North there is no such support. What is simply needed by Eddie Jones is RFU contracts for 30-35 players that enforce rest periods the same way these players are now managed in Wales, Ireland, Australia and South Africa. The issue is that the clubs bring into the bargaining with the RFU all sorts of other things such as player release before 6 Nations and compensation during the world Cup (they got millions). This really has got to stop and at the moment they are randomise their own union while the rest of the world waits on practical solutions to a global season. Why is this relevant? The Super Rugby schedule would look much better were it over a shorter period. Also other regional competitions like NRC and Currie Cup could get a proper window. There must come a point when SANZAR puts it's foot down. But it can only do so with commercial clout - how can it do this? With a $2billion combined broadcasting deal for Super Rugby and TRC in 2020 and including Japan, Argentina and the Pacific Islands aswell as emerging South American and Asian nations into its fold SANZAR would be able to demand the window be changed to July and that English clubs stop running the World Rugby boardroom.

You can complain about unfairness of wildcard spots SA 1 to NZ/AU 3 but this is soon cancelled when you realise that SA has two Guaranteed QF spots. It balances out. In future if two more teams are added they will likely be added to the SA conference evening out the Wildcard spot issue. Travel. This has been discussed over and over. There is roughly the same overseas travel this year as previous. Each team does 2 overseas trips 2 games and 3 games for a total 5 matches overseas. This hardly kills a young man especially when some of these destinations are famous cities like Tokyo, Singapore, Cape Town, Sydney, Auckland, Fiji, Melbourne. Young rugby players don't actually moan as much as you think and they do get days off to enjoy these wonderful places and go shopping and go out all expenses paid. Please stop feeling sorry for them. They don't hate it as much as you think and 2 overseas 'tours' isn't as onerous as people are making out. They are getting paid $200,000 to do it and they love it.

I still don't understand what is complicated about the draw. Your team is in a 4 or 5 team pool and to progress to the quarter finals your team must top your pool. There are Wildcard spots (like American sports) so if your team is in the SA conference there is 1 Wildcard spot or in Australasian conference 3 Wildcard spots. That would not trouble a 12 year old kid. If you need a definition of 'Wildcard' look it up in Wikipedia. It's an established system. There is nothing complicated about the draw.

It seems like way too much travelling for a player to handle. I don't get it, seriously what is the point of a NZ team travelling halfway around the world to South Africa, Japan or Argentina just to play an 80 minute game. NZRU and ARU should just make a league of their own, where you'll get fit players playing while not hindered by JetLag.

I'd much rather it was a super 12 with four teams from each country and a home and away game and everybody plays everybody. Japan and Argentina can start their own tournament with North America. Super Rugby teams will now need to score three more tries than their opposition to earn the bonus point instead of scoring four tries regardless of how many tries the opposition has scored. The idea behind the move is to motivate teams to play attacking rugby even if the contest is a lopsided. Historically teams would go out and score four tries and secure the victory but allow their opposition back into the game and potentially score four tries and earn the losing bonus point. Under the new rules the team in front on the scoreboard would have to keep pressing for the bonus point to ensure that they keep three tries ahead. The current rule in which Super Rugby teams are rewarded for losing within seven points or less will remain intact. This may work in Europe where they have to persuade their lard ass forward to defend late in the game instead of letting in soft tries. In the Southern hemisphere it will mean more emphasis on defence late in games for teams leading but it will also mean teams ahead by three tries will slow the game down kick for touch and force scrum resets and just generally make it a boring spectacle.

Having read all the comments, Owens make the most sense to me. Well done Owen Personally, I am interested in watching the changed format. So much more variety for me, and instead of feeling I need to watch every match I will have the luxury of picking and choosing the interesting ones this season I so look forward to seeing how the Argie and Jap teams go - will be very interesting if they play anywhere near the high quality and passion their RWC teams did. I doubt they will lack in passion, which is good for contests. I hope the Kings are better than what others think here, but at least I have other matches to watch. The SA derbies are often of lower excitement to me, as are most Aust derbies. I applaud SANZAR for looking forward and not backward. They have listened to their customers (TV = $ to keep good player pool here, and consumers who don't want to see good players burned out or leaving), their franchises (where overseas games are costly) and the players (all the above reasons). Unless they changed it up, people would complain there was no change. (More than a fair share of Roar posts are complaints). Change is the norm these days in business and life. Adaptibility and agility are key, as they are in playing this great game. Lets be positive and try to embrace the new

hope to observe you eat your words soon loftus :)

Those Kiwis need no excuses ,just check out how many titles NZ teams have ,the Crusaders alone have as many as SA and Australia combined . Hows that for superior Mr Inferiority Complex ?

I agree I'm a Kiwi bit I'm also not able to say our teams are better than others. Every year is new and Melbourne on its day could beat anyone last year. One of the hardest places to win at was Perth and the Lions are becoming a Force to be reckoned with. Let's not forget the number of Wallabies in the Waratahs or Bramber or that the Bulls put almost 60 points on the Chiefs in the Super Rugby final a few years back. You cannot predict anything in Super Rugby.

Yes, so TMan and Mania are talking complete rubbish above. Hope they have powerful detergent to wash those sheets, they are going to be really sticky.

So you're bitching about a format being unfair to the Japanese - when the format was designed to satisfy the Japanese - who continuously whined about travel and how that was why they were so uncompetitive

Cheers Rooie . Sounds like a wise course of action ,mate .

I like most union lovers, will watch league all year until the finals if the tahs make it and watch the finals, who wants to watch a whole lot if meaningless games with no tribalism

The Kiwis are preparing their excuses already I see. It's all so unfair because they are just so superior.

I remember people moaning about it when it went to 16 teams, and we still got fantastic rugby. Under Super 12 there were some weak games too, lets be real, you are never going to get all teams at their best, and some will go up and down (e.g. Reds). Agree you can't keep on growing indefinitely, but adding Argentina is great for rugby, and hopefully the Japan gamble will pay off as well. I agree, though, that the format is too complicated and normal fans will have a hard time understanding where their team fits in the middle of the championship. I'll go against the tide and say they should have gone one step further, made it into 20 teams under a much simpler format. An additional team from Argentina (top 4 nation, only 1 team, too strong) and a PI team based in Hawaii (to put a pinky finger in the US market), with some games in the islands. Four groups of 5 teams (AU and NZ as is, some sensible division for the other two). If I'm calculating right, you have 22 weeks. Play home and away inside group (8 matches), nine games against the other three groups (plus a couple of bies). Top two in each group into the QFs. A bit unfair for NZ teams (easily 3 each year could), but about right for AU and SA; alternatively add a week, make 2nd and 3rd play other groups to get to QFS. Even with the present convoluted system, there will still be some great rugby to watch and I'm very much looking forward to it. Bring it on, go Tahs!

Seriously the SA teams get a huge advantage rather than being disadvantaged. They will get home finals. This means other teams have to travel to SA for the finals. It also means they get the revenue from home finals. Let us look at how many easy games each conference gets. Bulls and Stormers get 4 easy games in their conference (home and away). Then 2 easy games against the other African conference. Then they get 2 easy games against aussie conference. So in total 8/15 are easy games, that is more than half. Sharks and Jaguars get 4 easy games in their conference (home and away). Then 2 easy games against the other African conference. So they get 6 /15 easy games. The aussie and NZ conference play 4 SA games, 5 against the other conference and 6 within their conference so only play 2 teams in their conference twice. So aussie conference gets 2 easy SA games and 2 easy games within their conference (some will get 3 easy games) So 4 or 5 easy games / 15. NZ conference gets 2 easy SA games and 2 easy Aust games so 4 easy games / 15. So Stormers have it made to finish 1st. Then 2nd spot Sharks / Jaguars have the edge to get it. However the best NZ team will lose hardly any so might snatch this. 1 aussie team to make the finals in 4th spot. They may get a second team in 7th or 8th.

The research was done by SANZAR on Super Rugby a couple of times. Each time they found: fans love the derbies BUT players find them physically difficult Players want less travel* *Teams didn't complain about uneven travel just wanted less overall travel or for it not to grow. These results are publicly available and common knowledge and form the basis of the new Super 18 structure.

what research? on super rugger or the local inter district tournaments? derby or not fans will watch a good match as long as the competition is even. attraction falls when the 2 teams are mismatched. this is something proven in cricket and football. also in a home and away league, travel is same for all teams. the present problem is uneven travel plans for some AND unmatched strength of the teams. one reason for the all blacks performance is their ITM league, whihc is very competitive. one reason for the abject french is also their league, that has too many foreigners. however, in most games, leagues work better than adhoc conferences like super rugger.

yeah taylorman I agree. upside is we get to play each other. at this level of rugby u cant compete without the fitness level of the nz teams. whilst it'll be cool the nz teams going at each other honing their skill levels and trying to out fitness each other I'd also like to see all the nz sides bashing other countries . oh well it is what it is. at least this season we really need the derbies to establish a new world order in the ABs