There have been a number of articles about the new Super Rugby format being a shemozzle, but I have withheld judgement until now.
I have been sceptical about the inclusion of the sixth South African team, the Kings, but I have liked the idea of including a Argentinean and Japanese teams. The teams from new countries add a different flavour to the competition and helping rugby grow its non-traditional strongholds appeals to me.
After several weeks, I don’t like the new format. This is due to the way the draw is set up, which unfairly favours South African teams. As Africa has two conferences, two African teams are guaranteed spots as conference leaders.
This advantages those teams by putting them higher on the pecking order to host finals series games than potentially better teams in the Australian and New Zealand conferences. This is an advantage both in improving the odds of a win and in revenues for the African conference clubs.
Compounding this unfairness is that the inclusion of three new teams, the Kings, Sunwolves and Jaguares, are all in the African conferences. This means that the best South African teams like the Stormers and the Sharks have more bankable wins and are better able to manage player workloads.
Even the weaker South African franchises are benefitting from this, does anybody really think the Lions would currently be in eighth wildcard position on the Super Rugby ladder if they didn’t have the Jaguares and Kings in their conference?
Certainly the conference system as it was until last year disadvantaged the New Zealand teams, who on many occasions would give up a top finals place to Australian and South African teams that they would have earned on points playing tougher matches against other New Zealand teams.
Unfortunately if the Super Rugby finals placings until 2015 had been entirely merit based, Australia or South Africa would have missed out entirely and the competition would have lost its appeal in those countries.
It would have struggled to survive. The Kiwis compromise in the spirit of the game should be acknowledged.
However, where the old draw constituted a necessary compromise, the new one appears to have been driven by the desire to include non SANZAR nations in the competition, which I consider to be a good thing. It also appears to be driven by South African political interests and abuse of commercial power, which is not a good thing.
Statistically giving South Africa teams more than twice the chance to get into the finals, plus other advantages compared to a New Zealand or Australian team, goes against the spirit of fair competition.
I see several potential ways to address this situation.
1. Include the Sunwolves and the Jaguares in the New Zealand and Australian conferences, for three conferences of six teams each
The advantage of this would be that each conference would only get one conference leader and one wild card spot, so the competition would be fair again.
The disadvantages include that the competition wouldn’t be much fun for the Sunwolves and Jaguares to begin with, and scheduling compromises would need to be made in order to avoid blowing out the length of the competition.
2. Australia and New Zealand breaks away from South Africa and runs their own competition, including teams from Asia, the Americas and potentially the Pacific
The advantages of this would be that the integrity of Super Rugby would no longer be prisoner to South African rugby politics. It would replace the large broadcast market in South Africa with even larger potential markets in new regions.
Aside from the Japanese and Argentinean markets which are now served by Super Rugby, the US, Canada and the Pacific Islands are other potential bases for new teams.
3. South Africa stops insisting on having a sixth team and goes back to having a five-South African-team conference
Growth of the game could be addressed with three new teams from Asia, the Pacific and/or the Americas, with all five non-SANZAR teams forming their own conference and gaining one conference leader spot.
This would grow and add variety to the competition, while providing balanced development opportunities for new teams.
Whatever option was to be adopted, be it one of the above or something else, I am fairly certain that the need to accommodate South African demands which undermine the integrity of the competition.
I would hate to see a central nation in international rugby like South Africa leave Super Rugby. However, the people in charge of the game need to be confronted with the fact that they are not indispensable if they continue to insist on making unreasonable demands.
Deano
Guest
I didn't know Andrew Lees was a South African.
Deano
Guest
Sorry, you are wrong. NZ's relationship with SA rugby is more important. Australian Super rugby teams are now so full of Kiwis that it's like watching NZ teams v NZ B Teams. NZ v SA is also a clash of different styles; that is whyAB coaches value regular meetings. At national union level, SARU, since re-admission, has never stabbed the NZRU in the back like the ARU has done. According to R.McCaw, the All Black players have a far better relationship with Springbok players than they do with the Wallabies. All parties in SANZAAR need to accept that they won't get their own way all the time.
Boz
Guest
So the thinking in South Africa was "Hmmm, Australia has stuffed up the Currie Cup for us and we didn't have the spine to dig our toes in then, so we feel justified in stuffing up Super Rugby". Mature. PS, the ITM Cup in New Zealand and the National Rugby Championship in Australia seem to operate ok, despite the longer Super Rugby season. Me thinks you are making things up.
chucked
Guest
to be honest I simply can't be bothered anymore watching games between Aussie and SA teams. A simple round robin draw is what's needed.The conference syst.em is to allow teams from Aust and SA to make the finals..nothing more. It's stupid lopsided with the kings and is purely money driven. Once more we will have a NZ team scoring more points that an overseas qualifier yet not making the semis.
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
No Boz.... go back to 2009 & 2010 when negotiations occurred for the new expanded Super 15 to start 2011, with 2 local derbies and a competition running until August!? It turned into a shamozzle then. Many in SA saw that as Australia completely getting their own way and shafting the Currie Cup because Aus didn't have their own domestic comp. SARU had a completely different plan during those negotiations but that was thrown out the window. Part of that plan was including the Kings then, way back in 2009.. but that got chucked out the window too. Everything SA wanted got thrown out and Australia got everything they wanted... pretty much. So what has SA got this time round??? Only one extra team because the politicians were demanding it and most fans didn't really want that anyway? Everything else? Nada.. nothing... still a long season.. Not one iota of consideration was given to the Currie Cup timetable, simply because Australia lacked their own comp at the time.... And less games against Aus/NZ and still 2 local derbies??? SA didn't want that they wanted more games against Aus?NZ teams and less local derbies. As I said SA and Aus want completely opposite things.... SA has been shafted with everything except for the 6th team... Aus has got the longer season, more local derbies and less games against SA teams. And yet you're unhappy?? Seriously Boz... take the blinkers off....!! Go and do some research .....
NaBUru38
Guest
Sooner or later, Super Rugby will have more teams. I think it will mean that the Africa-Americas and Australasia groups teams wont play each other anymore. A secobd Americas team would take the Sunwolves place. With 8 tesms, the Africa-Americas teams would play each other twice for a total 14 matches per team. Australia-Sunwolves would play each other twice, New Zealand-Pacific Islands would play each other twice, and the two would play each other once, for a total 15 matches.
Hey, at least we try. ;)
Boz the Younger
Guest
Not that there is anything wrong with bringing your own backup, the South African teams do it for every home game in the form of the referee. Overall it hasn't done em much good though, hence perhaps the stacked conference system ...
Boz the Younger
Guest
No, there is another dude called Boz on here who got the handle first , so I changed mine to BTY. I sometimes forget to add the second two words though, my bad.
wardad
Guest
"Shota Horie "
wardad
Guest
Some SA teams dont seem to want to play us at all ,Stormers and Bools have adroitly avoided NZ teams while the Stormers have been lucky enough to play the 2 strongest Aussie teams [ at the comp start anyway ] at home and the rest away . Still if they want an armchair ride without really getting some tough games under their belt it may well bite them on the backside . Apropos of nothing I reckon Sota Horie has a wicked bad name for playing against Kiwi teams !
It is a new method of debating Bring your own back up.
hedle
Guest
NZ and Aus can't afford to let South Africa leave or kick them out as they provide most of the money from broadcasting, advertising and ticket sales.
Taylorman
Guest
Is this Boz then Boz the younger sequencing a kind of tag team thing? Eerie!?
Bakkies
Guest
They were happy give them the trophy in 2007 when the ABs were running around witches hats for half the season and it was too late to play catch up.
There is no inference in my post that SA is the real challenge for the All Blacks. My comment merely suggests we play them once every four years preferably. And Super rugby was a sham and a convoluted mess since 2011 ;)
SP
Guest
"One of your SR titles was against a Crusaders team that had not played a single game at home. The second due to a wrong penalty call. This year your only strong looking team is the Brumbies. You have three gimme teams in the Reds, Force and Tahs. The Rebels will hopefully continue their decent form. You seem quite condescending" And i was told kiwi's didn't understand irony.
richard
Guest
True,but it is irritating.I,too don't think our dominance will last - at some stage kiwi teams will start losing.But,I'll enjoy it while it lasts.
CUW
Guest
maybe kingplaymaker needs to understand the japanese system also. the players are more or less property / assets of the big companies. they pay salaries and take care of medical and other needs. so where players go is more or less decided by the companies than the jap rugby union. the companies were not happy about the wolves , due to the timing. the japan season ends when super season starts thus the players will have no rest inbetween the two seasons. (why do u think the jap guys come into super squads later than the other players?) that is why the star of the world cup Amenaki mafi went to england and not to the super team or to super competition. the company decided his fate. it takes two hands to clap - unless u consider banging ur palm against he thigh clapping :)
Jonny Boy Jnr
Guest
Just remember since the Mandela Plate was introduced in 2000 (after the golden period in Aus rugby) it's 15-12 to the Wallabies so they're down at the moment but certainly not out. There is no need for inferences that the All Blacks provide the only real challenge to the Boks. Also remember it has been the SAFRU who have been throwing their weight around and responsible for the ridiculous 16th side which has created havoc with the comp