Perhaps Jim O’Neill and Phil Kearns have it right. What if we’ve been thinking about this culling of Super Rugby teams all wrong?
There have been a couple of articles in this week’s press stridently suggesting that Australia keep all its teams.
If you saw this series of numbers – 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18 – your next guess wouldn’t be downward (in case you didn’t pick it these numbers represent the changes in the Super Rugby format through time – Super 6, Super 10, Super 12 and so on).
That’s what appears to be SANZAAR’s next move, but this contradicts everything that the Super Rugby concept has been doing since its inception.
It’s all been growth, growth, and more growth.
If teams are culled, what then is its strategy? Does SANZAAR admit that the product is broken and the growth strategy flawed? Do we start reducing back to 14 if others teams appear non-competitive? Then back to 12 – where does it stop? Its raison d’etre will be gone.
If we analyze where the growth has been occurring it becomes apparent that it has been unevenly spread over the three major countries. New Zealand has expanded the least, with South Africa and Australia growing more than 200 percent each.
This means that proportionally the number of teams representing New Zealand has been in decline.
The argument is that New Zealand’s resources have been concentrating while South Africa’s and Australia’s have been diluting and that this is part of the reason why the New Zealanders are outperforming the rest.
But harking back to the Super 15, 14 or 12 won’t necessarily help if history is any guide.
Simply culling team numbers isn’t the solution as there is no evidence to suggest that South African or Australian performance was any better in the Super 12, 14 or 15 competitions. In fact, the much-loved format of the Super 12s (everyone plays everyone) was a major disaster for both countries.
There is evidence to suggest that South Africa and Australia have been overperforming in the Super competition. By bench-marking against each country’s international performance New Zealand appears to be underperforming.
Should our conversation be about restructuring the Rugby Championship then?
Rather than reducing teams, SANZAAR could look to expand the number of teams in New Zealand.
This will limit the ‘concentration effect’ that has occurred by expanding elsewhere.
By basing a Pacific team in South Auckland and requiring that half the players be Polynesian-New Zealanders, talent will be more widely dispersed.
Similarly, a new franchise in the Rotorua/Tauranga/Taupo/Napier/Hastings area would provide central and eastern New Zealand with its own team to support.
Once in place SANZAAR can begin its growth strategy again by looking to Asia, specifically Singapore and Hong Kong, or expanding in the Americas.
Culling is a backward step.
BacktoForward
Roar Rookie
I don’t think mediocrity is the right word Nicholas. The idea is to create a “competition” - where people compete in a “match”. Teams which are of a similar ability (matched) are likely to create an environment where there is ‘competition’. The results should not be easily guessed – make the bookies work harder for their money. At the moment one could argue that some of the other rugby competitions suffer some systemic ‘match’ and ‘competition’ flaws. The 6N nations have Italy, perennial cellar dwellers ( apart from a couple of years). The Rugby Championship + Tri-Nations is NZ skewed, as the graph above shows, and the jury is out on Argentina’s ability to compete for the ultimate prize. I’m not abreast of European rugby competitions to comment on them. Ultimate excellence should reside in the Internationals, where the cream of each country performs for the greatest honours. What we are craving for is a competition where teams are matched. Winning isn’t everything in a ‘competition’. Scotland’s role in the 6Nations , where it hasn’t ever won ( 16 years and counting) plays the role of a constant spoiler. It has integrity even if it hasn’t won any trophies. One might say that the Highlanders have played a similar role in NZ. Equally I don’t necessarily buy the argument that the rugby is any more mediocre in Super 18 than it was in Super 12. That was part of the point in the analysis – NZ has dominated the tournament since the advent of Sanzaar (nee Sanzar). If we could time travel a team back in time I wonder how 2016’s Hurricanes would perform against the Super 12’s 2004 Brumbies. or if the 2004 Cats played the 2016 Sunwolves. What I thought of interest is that in the Super 6 and 10 both SA and Australia prospered. This indicates to me that at that point the domestic structures of SA and OZ where producing a higher standard of rugby than NZ’s NPC equivalents. (Clearly would need some extra analysis but an interesting conjecture.) Once Sanzar was formed it all went downhill for SA and OZ. It may well be that this NZ dominance is cyclical, but it’s a very long cycle, and as someone famous once said – in the long run we are dead. (It’s lucky that rugby is the game they play in heaven then!)
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
I still wonder what Argentina will do 2019? There are many people involved in Argentinian rugby that would like to see a "quota" that would allow them to chose 3-7 players from Europe. Even Hourcade admits that he would like to chose 3-4 players from Europe. You could say that Argentina pretty much lost their top 8 ranking due this rule. And that could cost them dearly in the next World Cup. We shall see.
Good Game
Guest
Indeed. No argument there.
taylorman
Guest
Who cares? Last time I checked finals are about winning, and I think they did that better.
Good Game
Guest
I don't recall saying the ABs lucky to win. And I will say they were yhe team of the tournament. Were they the team that played the better rugby in the final?
AndyS
Guest
Thought this was interesting (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/84024285/how-new-zealand-rugby-keeps-our-best-players-in-country-under-salary-cap). Observes that in 17 years only the Blues and Crusaders managed a title. But they equalise the salary cap and within four years all three of their other teams have titles...
AndyS
Guest
That could be a problem then Nick, as Argentina are driving strongly toward only selecting domestically...(http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2016/07/14/hourcade-european-based-argentine-players-pumas-backward-step/). Not sure whether that means we can expect Los Pumas to never be more than a SR team, or whether we will all end up with one or two amalgamated teams each playing Super Rugby.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Totally agree Sam, although it's currently hard to see how Australia will improve quickly enough with their talent spread around five teams.
Kirky
Roar Rookie
Good Game" you're treading on shaky ground with that statement sunshine, just remember the French were extremely lucky to even be there in the Final as they lost two games in the lead up, the All Blacks had lost none, so it was poetic justice in fact and by the powers, they owed them Froggies' that loss. I get a bit sick of hearing people say the "All Blacks were lucky to win in 2011" as the way they controlled that ball in the final 15 minutes meant that there was no way they were ever going to lose that game and the tactics used should have been a lesson to all top rugby teams in the fine art of controlling the game by retaining the pill, great to watch!
Kirky
Roar Rookie
One Eye!! Love it mate and I remember it well, two mickey mouse Super Titles undeserved, but "dems da breaks!" Unfortunately the points are on the board and the only thing to do is carry on with the norm; of kicking Aussie butt at every opportunity!
Sam Taulelei
Roar Guru
Hi Nick I remember the same argument in NZ rugby during the late 80's and most of the 90's when Auckland ruled the roost and dominated provincial rugby. They were so good, many north of the Bombay hills believed they were better than the current All Blacks. There were many suggestions about Auckland sharing the talent around the country and imposing rule changes to player movement to create an artificially level playing field. It took a long time but eventually other provincial unions caught up. Dominance is good for a short time but long term it creates an imbalance that inhibits the development of strong competition from rivals. Without competition it's harder for those at the top to keep striving to improve to stay there. I agree that the other SANZAR partners need to improve plain and simple and that has nothing to do with the competition format.
Old Bugger
Guest
Sorry Jeff - that's as clear as mud init?? I should've said if they were born outside of England like in NZ and, moved to England under a British passport to play rugger, then they could play for England without serving, the residency requirement.
Old Bugger
Guest
Jeff If they were born outside of England, but moved to and play their rugger in England under a British passport and if, they're good enough for selection, then yes, they can play for England.
Good Game
Guest
Nah man. He could bring up the 2011 RWC final. Don't get me wrong, Joubert had a good game but it doesn't mean the ABs were the better team on the day.
Cooper Morrison
Guest
hahahahhaha Here we go
One Eye
Roar Rookie
You should probably add the caveat to that of the Waratahs being handed the title by an erroneous Joubert penalty and the Reds won by dint of the Crusaders running out of steam after playing no home games following the earthquake in chch.
Good Game
Guest
All good man. It would be interesting to compare the % players playing in the NH competitions from Australia and South Africa (New Zealand for that matter too) that would eligible for selection from their home countries. I have no idea of what the figures look like but hands down I believe South Africa would have taken the biggest hit on player numbers alone. I take your point regarding NZ players "loaned" to competing conferences. Possible transfer fee may be... And I hear your point regarding a potential mass exodus. Patrick's piece earlier in the week certainly provided cause for cautious optimism but that remains to be seen. In any case, expansion will only be possible if the Currie Cup, NPC & NRC are looked after. If European rugby is going to be cautious about expenditure in the future than it may be too late to retain the current SH generation of player. But not the next.
KD
Roar Rookie
The population between Hawke's Bay, Bay Of Plenty and Taupo is more then Waikato, more then the Higlanders catchment of North Otago, Otago and Southland and not far off Wellington and Cantebury so don't know where you get your numbers from but they're wrong!! Both HB and BOP have Rugby loving businesses that would pour sponsorship into this in a heart beat, rugby loving fans who also would pour money into this in a heart beat (through tickets, membership, merchandise) and consistently have playera coming through the ranks it would be a win win situation!! The only problem is the major centres (Tauranga and Napier) are around 4 hours away from each other and Tauranga doesn't have a proper rugby stadium as IMO its a Speedway Park and should stay that way but they have big development opportunities there and enough public to support a brand new Rectangle Stadium. Although Rotorua does have one cuts atleast an hour travel from Napier. Hawke's Bay and Manawatu may be a better option as both major centres are only around 2-2½ hours apart and do have more of a historic affinity between them. Whatever one works this is a must for future of Rugby in Central or Eastern North Island. Nz could sustain 6 sides easily and would be better benefitted by it, as these Regions only receive one SR match a year each maximum, if that. Sometimes only once every 2 years, thats hundreds of thousands of rugby loving fans (aswell as potiential sponsors/companies etc) not spending their hard earned on a local SR side and local economies missing out on the revenue those matches would bring in. Not to mention home grown players (including current and former All Blacks and other Internationals) having to leave their home town and family and friends behind to play professional rugby, meaning they get little chances to give back to their Region.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
But a slightly disingenuous question as well. Does that mean that as the Jaguares improve and become closer and closer to a national side, that will then set the standard and NZ may have to reduce teams to compete…? Any real chance of this happening Andy? I doubt it! NZ seem comfortable with their five teams, so why try to force their hand to accommodate the weaknesses of others? It's negative thinking. It's up to SA and Aus to get better to match them.
Johnno
Guest
The ARU do not have enough money to centralise and own all 5- super rugby franchises, it needs private owners of it's SR clubs, and private owners have every right to be selfish and want the best possible super rugby side they can afford, not have to be ordered to care about wallaby interests(by having tight foreign import restrictions). Where is the incentive then to own a private super rugby club when your told you have to care about wallaby interests(despite not getting any profits from wallaby earnings). How will such a business model give incentives for big business flamboyant business downers like Nathan Tinkler/Clive Palmer/Twiggy forest types to buy a super rugby club in OZ? Or are you saying rugby in OZ is better off without private rich fat cats buying super rugby clubs for there own agendas and interests e.g. other business interests and only caring about there own club. Well in that case, most here are advocating the ARU buy all 4 or 5 SR franchises in OZ and we centralise like the kiwis and make Wallaby success the no 1 priority, and rich fat cat private owners/flashy imports/role playing imports have no role to play in wallaby success or OZ rugby, is that what you lot are saying. It seem the majority are. Well okay then I'm gonna pretend I'm a billionaire or multi-millioanre, I'm gonna take my money to french rugby or EPL where I'm allowed to be far more selfish and put my club that i buy and my own business interests no 1 not there national teams, which I receive no revenue from. Is it any wonder now the NHL is demanding money from the IOC at the 2018 Olympics, they are now saying if we are gonna send our best players in your Ice hockey tournament we want a shaw of your profits. They already make the IOC pay the insurance costs now they want a share of the profits. I also red the NBA are looking at the same thing at 2020 games, they want a share of TV revenue and mrchnaise sales from Olympic basketball. The Melbourne rebels owner has every right to demand he be able to buy the best team he can afford if he is the team owner, otherwise he might just walk and hand in his melba rebel licence to the ARU, and let the ARU take over the team.