Boks loss to Italy should force a Super Rugby format re-think

This is the year of upsets, OK? The Chicago Cubs, Ireland defeating New Zealand for the first time and now, the big bang of them all at Stadio Franchi in Florence, when a fired up Italy defeated South Africa 20-18.

This was far and away the most unlikely of the three upsets.

Italy’s Azzuri have lost all 12 of their previous encounters to the Springboks since they started playing Tests back in 1995. All of these previous losses were by 16 points or more. And it was against a seemingly shattered Azzuri team that had been monstered by a second-string All Blacks side the week before.

During the 2015 Rugby World Cup tournament the Springboks were defeated in the pool rounds by Japan, a result that former Springboks champion Joel Stransky claimed was “the biggest upset in the history of sport!”

Leaving aside the hyperbole, Stransky was right to make the case that this result was a massive upset. I would rank it at about 7.6 on the rugby Richter Scale.

But I would rate the defeat against the Azzuri at about 8.0 on the same rugby Richter Scale.

The point here is that Japan were a good side, a superbly coached side full of ambition and skills that won three pool round matches in the 2015 Rugby World Cup tournament.

On the other hand, everyone beats Italy. Italy’s Test victories in the last decade or so against top ten rugby teams can be counted out on the fingers of one hand, with several fingers held out of the counting.

The result, therefore, is a great thing for Italian rugby. It is another disaster, in a year of disasters, for the Springboks and for South African rugby in general.

It is a rugby earthquake that should send tremors through South African rugby and through SANZAAR, an entity that has been run by and for the interests of South African rugby in the main part.

This year, the Springboks have lost home Tests to Ireland and Argentina. They have been thrashed by the All Blacks, in South Africa, in their heaviest home loss ever. In recent weeks in Europe, they have drawn with the Barbarians, been defeated by England for the first time in ten years and lost to Italy (I can hardly believe that I am typing out these words).

Rugby is in crisis in South Africa. The performance (or the lack of performance) by the Springboks is a symptom of this. Crowds are down. Television viewing is down. Players are leaving in droves to play out of South Africa, around 300 or so of them.

There is a massive resentment within the rugby community (and rightly so) about the performance of the SARU and its connivance with the direction imposed on it by the corrupt officials of the ANC, the political party that is presiding over the destruction of the nation and its iconic sporting asset, the Springboks.

The ANC has insisted on a Super Rugby franchise based in Port Elizabeth, the Southern Kings, that is supposed to encourage and showcase the emergence of black talent.

To provide room for the Southern Kings in the Super Rugby format, SARU insisted on having six teams in the tournament.

This, in turn, has led to the creation of three conferences: Australia with five local teams, New Zealand with five local teams and the Africa Conference, with six local teams and two other teams, from Japan and Argentina, making a conference of eight teams.

The first year of this format, 2016, saw widespread confusion about which teams could become eligible for the finals and the ridiculous situation of teams playing home finals against overseas sides that were higher than them on the points table.

SANZAAR is looking at this mess with a view to “future structure and strategy” of both Super Rugby and The Rugby Championship.

Its executive committee (ExCo in the business jargon of these matters) held its last meeting of the year on Thursday, November 17. Here is the full statement made by SANZAAR CEO, Andy Marinos:

“It was a productive meeting that identified key areas where further work is required. This important work will enable us to be in a position to table new concepts and proposals, in line with the roll out of the 2017 – 2027 strategic plan, at our March 2017 meeting.”

If I may be pardoned for some impertinence, there is a large measure of Pulverisation in this statement. By Pulverisation I mean the tendency of officials to keep stakeholders in their enterprise fully in the dark about changes and proposals for reform and change.

What, for instance, does SANZAAR’s Marinos expect all the stakeholders in the rugby enterprise, outside of the inner conclaves of SANZAAR, to make of this ridiculous statement?

What are the “key areas where further work is required,” for instance?

Wouldn’t you think that rugby supporters, players and indeed the media companies that invest money in televising the game should be informed at the current thinking of SANZAAR about the 2018 season?

Is SANZAAR still obsessed with taking Super Rugby to the east coast of the United States of America?

What are the prospects of another team from Argentina? That is another idea that has been raised.

What does SANZAAR think about the proposition put forward by Ben Ryan, the former coach of the Olympic champion Fiji Sevens side and now the coach of Fiji’s national XV team, that some major corporations have told him they are prepared to invest about $30 million in a rugby stadium at Nadi which could be the home ground of an Islander team in the Super Rugby tournament?

“We have got some of the biggest companies in the world backing this,” Ryan says. “They have ties with the Pacific Islands. I have had conversations and we have got money on the table to be able to pay for all of this. We will have more money behind the team than any other Super Rugby franchise.”

So far, I have read nothing from SANZAAR about this proposal.

If it is viable it would resolve a lot of problems that currently confront Super Rugby.

To begin with, the introduction of an Islander team would shift the balance of Super Rugby away from South Africa and back to the New Zealand and Australia nexus.

Moreover, if the Ryan proposal holds up it would allow for the creation of a Super 18 tournament based on five teams each in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, with the Jaguares joining the South African conference, the Sunwolves joining the Australian conference and the Islanders joining the New Zealand conference.

SARU would have to bite the bullet and get rid of one of its six teams. This would probably be the Cheetahs, as the ANC would insist on retaining the Southern Kings, even though it is virtually a bankrupt organisation.

The five South African teams would consolidate the undoubted talent there is in South Africa, judging by the performance of the South African Under-20s at the World Rugby tournaments.

As for Australia, this Super 18 model would allow the retention of the five Super Rugby franchises. I regard this as a necessity to develop and deepen the rugby talent available to the coach of the Wallabies.

But – and this is a crucial consideration – the current Western Force franchise in Perth needs to be shifted to the western suburbs of Sydney. The name of the team can stay the same. This is rather like what happened with the Sydney Swans.

The viability of Super Rugby in Australia depends, to a large extent, on the Sydney market. It makes no sense that every second week this market does not get the opportunity to come to a ground in the city and see a Super Rugby match.

There is also the potential with the Sydney Western Force to create a terrific inter-city rivalry with the Waratahs, a side that has always been associated with the eastern and northern suburbs of Sydney.

The ARU owns the Western Force so it can move the franchise back to the heartland city of Australian rugby.

What really annoys me is that you get no discussion of matters like this from the ARU.

And clearly, from the Marinos statement, we will no discussion about these matters from SANZAAR until we (the rugby public) get the ruling from the self-selected masters of rugby to the followers of the game.

This is not good enough. The ARU, along with SANZAAR, is facing a sullen rebellion from the followers who love the game and resent the way it is being manipulated into competitions and formats that do not interest them.

The fact that it took several weeks into the Wallabies current Grand Slam tour for the free-to-air coverage television coverage on SBS of the crucial Ireland and England matches to be confirmed should be a warning shot to Bill Pulver, CEO of the ARU, and his board.

Fans will support their team/teams when they believe their interests are being considered, as well as the perceived commercial advantages that television deals can bring into the game.

But they will turn off (literally) when they are treated with some contempt by not being brought into the conversations going on at the official levels about the future formats of Super Rugby.

The pity of all of this is that Michael Cheika’s Wallabies have exceeded expectations on their current Grand Slam tour.

The record after three weeks is played three, won three. Most importantly, two of the wins, against Wales and Scotland, were Grand Slam victories. This leaves Ireland next weekend and England the week after to be defeated for the Grand Slam to be achieved.

Ireland played a terrific Test against the All Blacks at Dublin over the weekend to go down 21-9, three converted tries to three penalties.

The statistics totally favoured Ireland, with the possession, position, penalty, running metres, passes made and so on all going in their favour.

As the green-eyed commentators stated several times in their over-the-top commentary, Ireland gave the All Blacks a much harder Test than any side in The Rugby Championship.

This is true. But at what cost to their chances against the Wallabies next Saturday?

It is extremely hard for a side to play two ferocious matches back-to-back. My guess is that Ireland could be vulnerable to a spirited Wallabies challenge. This hope (rather than a prediction, I hasten to add) is based on the fact the Wallabies, finally, have got some winning momentum to build on.

The 25-23 victory over France was more impressive in reality, in my opinion, that the scoreboard suggests.

France, in France, has been a difficult side for the Wallabies to beat. The evidence for this is that this is the first such win in 10 years.

One of the features of the Test and an indication of what is happening in world rugby is that all four starting wingers, Noa Nakaitaci and Virimi Vakatawa for France and Sefa Naivalu and Henry Speight, are of a Fijian background.

Tevita Kuridrani, another Wallaby with a Fijian background, scored a sensational try, one of the memorable moments of the 2016 season, by diving through the air and planting the ball for a try milliseconds before going into touch.

This try was scored in the 58th minute of play and took the Wallabies to a 25-16 lead.

All five of these players played splendidly with runs and plays that thrilled the spectators.

This brings me back to what the 2018 Super Rugby format will be and the insistence that it should include the sort of Fijian option suggested by Ben Ryan.