Super Rugby suffers from ridiculous travel requirements, maddening scheduling and mystifying fixture lists. How does scrapping a side in Australia or in South Africa fix any of those fundamental problems?
There continues to be a total lack of vision and common sense.
Firstly, can the will of SANZAAR really prevail over the ANC in South Africa? The sport is highly politicised and the idea of relegating the Southern Kings to the dust bin seems wishful thinking.
Even if that happens, how long until the sport and competition are held to ransom again?
Secondly, it makes no sense to chuck the Jaguares and Sunwolves out. Agustín Pichot now sits on the World Rugby board and would fight that tooth and nail, while Japan are hosting the 2019 World Cup – why withdraw from that market just as it promises free advertising and growth?
Much has been written about the failure of Australian Super Rugby sides in the recent past. Yet the Reds won the comp in 2011 and the Waratahs in 2014. No South African side has won it since 2010.
If you asked the Chiefs or Blues whether they’d rather play Melbourne or the Kings, they’d take the Kings every time. The Force are better than both Melbourne and the Kings combined this year.
I don’t see that scrapping the Rebels or Force is a must, however it seems a foregone conclusion.
[latest_videos_strip category=“rugby” name=“Rugby”]
With all that in mind, how to fix Super Rugby?
The competition should be divided into the following four pools:
Pool A: Five South African franchises
Pool B: Five New Zealand franchises
Pool C: Four Australian franchises and the Sunwolves
Pool D: Jaguares, Uruguay XV, Canada XV, USA XV
Each side would play home-and-away fixtures within its own pool. This would immediately lead to guaranteed local derbies and far less travel.
At the end of the home-and-away rounds, the top two sides from each pool would go into a cup competition, where quarter and semi-finals are played before a grand final.
The remaining sides would play in shield and plate competitions.
Not only does this guarantee less travel and more local derbies, it mirrors the format used in the Rugby World Sevens, one of the bigger rugby success stories over the past decade.
Pool D could also be expanded to five teams after initially being restricted to four. Candidates for the fifth place could be a Pacific Islands XV or a second side from the United States.
Of course, there will be push back from New Zealand.
The Kiwis will argue that all five of their sides should be eligible to qualify for the top eight – and there is merit to that argument. However, there is a big picture that needs to be considered.
We owe it to the game to grow it. Excluding Japan or Argentina or ignoring the United States and the Pacific Islands is wrong.
It is not out of the question for South Africa to pull the plug and head to Europe if the completion deteriorates further, and Australian rugby really is at a crossroads. Things either change or it dies a slow and agonising death over the next five to ten years.
If either of those scenarios play out, how is New Zealand rugby a winner? It will be left without local competition.
Super Rugby is dysfunctional and not fit for purpose. It is falling apart and SANZAAR needs to stop the rot, quickly and decisively.
markie362
Guest
I thought it was world rugbys job to grow the game
Nobrain
Roar Guru
I think that everybody should have the chance to play the best.
Garryown
Guest
Australia should not suffer from the present political situation in South Africa i.e the New government against the old timers and the ARU and New Zealand should tell them to sort out their mess. The ARU haven't helped by deliberately over the years keeping the 2 new teams -the Force and the Rebels hamstrung in limiting the number of players they could bring in from overseas. If they want rugby to grow here in the West they should help not obstruct Given the right encouragement some of the South Africans would come here because of the difficulty they will have finding openings in there own super teams and becoming Springboks.Imports would have to qualify by being here for a number of years but in the meantime their participation would helping more Australians become better players Stop and have a look at how many "foreigners" are playing for Six Nations teams now!
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
I went to the AB-USA game. I even covered the AB-Ireland game for the Roar PLUS the NZ Maori game with the USA. By the way, there were not many people at the Maori-USA game. To extrapolate from the AB matches is not appropriate or relevant. I have been in the USA for a long time, as player, referee and fan. I am aware of the situation....
wre01
Roar Guru
Hi No Brain I think things would balance out. For example the 3rd SA team would still play the 3rd Kiwi team and/or Aussie team in finals of the shield or plate. Sides would also move up and down just as Otago and the Chiefs have within their own comps.
wre01
Roar Guru
Hi Celtic To clarify, I was trying to say that the Kings are easier to beat than the Rebels generally. I think most other sides in the comp would agree putting travel and Melbourne's night life to one side.
wre01
Roar Guru
Carlos- I was in Texas 5 years ago and it was incredible the interest in the game. Chicago drew a crowd of 60-70,000 for Ireland v The All Blacks. There is easily enough interest, participation and resources for one, if not two, super Rugby sides.
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
Oh my goodness! Here we go again with the rampant growth of rugby in the US. It is not happening. This is beyond a pipe dream.
wre01
Roar Guru
Hi mate There is rampant growth of Rugby in the US. Arguably stronger growth than even in Japan or Argentina. I think Chicago, Boston, Houston and San Diego would all compete for two franchise spots very quickly. That's before Vancouver and Toronto in Canada. Then Montevideo and Buenos Aires have a ready made and competitive local derby just separated by a river. Brazil would be a step too far.
wre01
Roar Guru
Hi Gilbert. There is simply too much travel to have each team play another home and away (or even once). Just no chance unless the Jaguars and Sunwolves are kicked out which would be a bad move I think given the RWC happening in Japan.
wre01
Roar Guru
Hey Sheek. I have culled an Aussie team because I believe that is a full gone conclusion (unfortunately). I have allowed 5 SA teams because i can't see any way to accommodate 6 feasibly and I believe the Cheetahs will be pushed out. The new conference would be 4 to start but i think the US would easily raise sponsorship for two rugby sides, perhaps East and West Coast franchises. There is allot of guess work in there but guess work is necessary while Sanzar dither and mess about.
wre01
Roar Guru
Hi Baylion I just can't see that happening- we've been through the Lions being pushed out, then the Kings coming in and then the Cheetahs being under threat. Even if a SA team or two is forced out it will only be 2-3 years before politics in SA has an Eastern Cape team back on the table.
NaBUru38
Guest
Adding three new Americas teams would be a step too far. I'd add a second South American team based in Sao Paulo to the African-American conference, to make 8 teams.
Yeah very true Sheek, rugby is getting really repetitive here in SA
AndyS
Guest
I would have said it was pretty easy to see the differences when both Wellington and Otago are playing in the Championship rather than the Premiership. They clearly aren't just the SR teams, and I can quite understand why the NZR might want to keep it that way.
Gilbert
Guest
I just hope the conference system is scrapped under the new format. Each team play each other once, the top 8 on the points table progress to the playoffs. Easy!
sheek
Roar Guru
Wre, You cull one Aussie province & one Saffie province, even though you say you don't want to, but then add an uneven group (4 instead of 5) including other South American & North American teams. I appreciate you having ago here but respectfully, you have only added to the confusion.
sheek
Roar Guru
BTB, One thing that SA supporters don't want, & this article might not appreciate, is having the SR teams play each other twice in their conference, then twice again in CC. And this doesn't include how often they might meet in play-offs. It's really not that much different in NZ. They obviously don't want to see their regions play each other twice then provinces back up in NPC twice. Kiwis tell us that the Blues are not Auckland, the Chiefs are not Waikato (they're Mooloo), the Crusaders are not Canterbury, the Hurricanes are not Wellington (they're Lions) & the Highlanders are not Otago. But it's not hard to see the similarities!
Baylion
Roar Rookie
I agree, which is why I don't understand why most unions and rugby clubs don't have a proper youth programme. Sports like cricket, hockey and football have, but not rugby. Rugby depends on schools. And why I mentioned the opportunity to get rugby on SABC. It won't be a money spinner but some sort of deal should be possible to promote rugby to a wider audience.
Republican
Guest
.......sorry no disrespect, but I reckon as a spectacle, Union is horrible to watch period.