2017 was a year that, for rugby fans in the southern hemisphere, made Queen Elizabeth’s 1992 ‘Annus Horribilis’ or Barnaby Joyce’s last few months seem like a walk in the park.
It only took three rounds of Super Rugby to confirm to SANZAAR what many fans had been telling them for some time; that their once revered Super Rugby competition was killing the game.
A crisis meeting was hastily arranged in the UK, others followed, and a new battle plan emerged. South Africa would relinquish two franchises – not the sacrifice it first appeared because it allowed them to establish a footprint in the northern hemisphere – and Australia would revert from five franchises to four.
This proved problematic in practice, an exercise intended to take 72 hours morphing into excruciating torture for rugby fans in Western Australia and lessons for the leadership of Australian rugby about how not to go about winning the hearts and minds of rugby supporters.
But ham-fisted or not, like a taxi trip through Kolkata, where the experience is less about enjoying the ride but simply making it to your destination intact, SANZAAR has emerged in 2018 with a 15-team competition restored and its broadcast partners still on board.
As harsh as it may sound it is this truth that tells the tale for WA fans – they are expendable, the broadcasters (who essentially fund rugby) are not.
So will reverting to 15 teams restore Super Rugby as a competition to be envied by rugby fans around the globe, re-engage local audiences and cause broadcasters and new media giants to start tapping away on their calculators ahead of the next round of rights negotiations?
In two words, yes and no.
Yes because some of the anomalies present in the 18-team competition that so upset fans have been removed. While it will still be possible for a side finishing with six wins to host an elimination finals match against a side finishing with 12 wins, as happened last year, it is far less likely.
(Photo by Mark Nolan/Getty Images)
Yes because 15 sides are more easily arranged into three conferences that are more logically constructed and that eliminate the impost of tens of thousands of flying kilometres.
Yes because there is promise that one of the key concerns with the 18-team competition, dilution of playing talent leading to a drop in quality, seems to have been addressed. Clearly the Melbourne Rebels are stronger than last year, the Waratahs too have added important new playing stock, and the Brumbies – last year’s top Australian side – certainly look no weaker.
Removal of the Cheetahs and Kings immediately heralds a more imposing South African presence. And with Rassie Erasmus edging into the driver’s seat at the expense of the irreconcilable Allister Coetzee, there is a feeling that the restoration of important South African rugby values such as abrasiveness and combativeness, and a sharper focus on player conditioning, will pay dividends.
The Sunwolves, too often the undermanned easybeats in their first two years in Super Rugby, also provide reason for optimism. For the first time they have been afforded more flexibility in selection and adequate time for preparation.
Conversely, all of the sides expecting to improve this season will still need to beat New Zealand franchises that are not standing still. What if the Rebels improve from one win last year to, say, seven, the Sunwolves from two wins and the Bulls from four, but New Zealand sides still top the ladder? Better perhaps, but hardly a win for the new format.
Some structural problems remain. The imbalance where not all South African franchises tour New Zealand and vice versa potentially gives rise to claims of illegitimate finalists. Such is the price paid for a cross-continental competition.
Shipping out the Cheetahs and Kings doesn’t align ambivalent Australian fans any closer to the Lions, Stormers, Bulls and Sharks, and won’t suddenly have them springing out of bed at 3.00am to switch on the TV. Some fans simply aren’t coming back to Super Rugby, whatever the format.
(AAP Image/Glenn Hunt)
What is forgotten is that in the stampede to howl down the 18-team competition, one of the reasons given for expansion at the time was that Super Rugby had grown stale. Like a contrite adulterer forgiven his or her sins upon returning to the nest after a fizzled-out fling, one must hope that they aren’t soon reminded why they strayed in the first place.
It well may be that the stars align in the future so that Super Rugby, or some derivative of it, is in position to try expansion again. Picking up Perth, Fiji, Japan, North America, perhaps in concert with Andrew Forrest, or an alliance with the Pro 14 are all possibilities.
But today they are all pie in the sky, as remote as Bernard Tomic taking to the court of public opinion and winning ‘great bloke of the year’.
Right now, SANZAAR needs a season where it can learn how to walk again before it can front up to its broadcast partners, confident that it has a product with sufficient value to ensure the ongoing financial viability of all four unions. And because its most chronic problems have been in Australia, it is Australia more than any of the partners who must turn their fortunes around, and soon.
Sagacious Roar scribe Harry Jones tendered over the weekend the theory that the long-term future of southern hemisphere rugby rests with Australia. If one accepts that, in the professional era, rugby’s real battleground is commercial, and that New Zealand’s size, South Africa’s politics and Argentina’s rank confusion render each of them individually impotent in the long run, then this is almost certainly true.
Australia may never match England or France, but whatever the might of the AFL and the strong imprint of rugby league, football, cricket and netball in the Australian sporting fabric, Australia’s growing population and relative economic advantage provide an opportunity of sorts for rugby to forge a commercially viable path forward.
This will, of course, require bold leadership and competent administration that allows for re-connection to rugby’s grassroots and success at the elite level to occur simultaneously; not one at the expense of the other.
Despite the protestations of influential Sydney-centric rugby men, Australia withdrawing from Super Rugby in favour of a domestic solution is untenable – not unless Forrest is somehow coerced into covering the tens of millions forgone from SANZAAR, and then some. Annually.
(AAP Image/Justin Chadwick)
It is for the same reason that New Zealand fans shouldn’t smugly regard this as Australia’s problem. While it is vitally important that each country tends to its own domestic structures, for as long as the money trail leads to England and France, the diminished financial outcome from Australia going it alone would only serve to hasten the loss of elite players from both sides of the Tasman.
So while Raelene Castle sets about bridge building and fence mending, and players are better identified, up-skilled and flogged into better shape, the immediate responsibility to shift momentum rests with the Australian Super Rugby franchises, none more so than the one in the biggest rugby market of Sydney, the Waratahs.
Trial footy isn’t competition footy, but the Waratahs have shown enough for fans to be cautiously optimistic that the plodding, uncertain funk of 2017 has been left behind. Daryl Gibson’s 2018 side has resolved to play with pace and purpose – in attack and defence – as if not to leave pregnant pauses in games for self-doubt to infiltrate and eat away at individual and collective confidence.
And let’s face it, any side at this level that contains Michael Hooper, Bernard Foley, Kurtley Beale and Isreal Folau – let alone other seasoned internationals and promising up and comers – should always be an important factor at the sharp end of the competition.
Gibson and Waratahs fans may be intently focused on the short-term and whether Gibson gets to keep his job or not. Fair enough, but on their season I’d suggest that far bigger matters – the restoration of Australian rugby, and prospects for SANZAAR at the negotiating table – will turn.
It was thus disappointing that SANZAAR – a conglomerate that has never figured out how to market itself properly – began Super Rugby this year with a tentative, two-match ‘soft launch’ in South Africa. No chance of any prospective fence-sitting fan in Brisbane or Dubbo being hit between the eyes there and convinced to jump on board!
Trivia buffs can mark down Damien de Allende as the first try scorer for the season, beneficiary of a Jaguares defence that lacked intensity throughout the first half. To their credit, the Jaguares stayed in the contest, to the point where they were one scrum away from an unlikely win late in the match.
New Stormers flyhalf Damian Willemse showed poise on the ball and coach Robbie Fleck will be delighted to pick up a 28-20 win against a Test-strength side without his two forward pillars, who will rejoin the side for their tour to Australia and New Zealand.
It was a similar tale in Johannesburg, where the losing Sharks also found themselves in position to rescue the game late against the Lions. They foundered, however, due to an ineffective lineout maul that the Lions countered as decisively as they had dominated the Sharks’ scrum. Just as fans despair that rugby risks becoming a repetitive hybrid version of rugby league, we are reminded that set-piece dominance remains as important as ever.
What was most noticeable across the three South African franchises was the pace and elusiveness of the wingers on display, Lions debutant Aphiwe Dyanti taking the chocolates for his superb try after a grubber and re-gather at full pace.
AndyS
Guest
As I noted below though, the whole of super rugby hinges on people watching the whole competition. That is what it is selling to the broadcaster, and was ultimately the failing of S18 for mine. I even noticed it myself - I don't think the decline in viewership was the standard, it was that I no longer had any connection to the two SA conferences and found myself not bothering to watch them play among themselves. Three conferences of six might have addressed this, but would have remained something of a problem. In SR, what should be the special events are the derbies. The comp has been in continual decline ever since they started artificially creating more of them, because it strikes at the heart of why SR was created. It might maximise viewing in one country alone, but I have often wondered how those matches looked as total viewing across all three countries. Because that is what determines the worth of SR.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
*one more deal since then I mean of course.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
*one more deal since then I mean of course.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Thanks, AndyS. Gotta agree - partly - that SARU got a pretty raw deal back then... And how things have changed, back then SR and the Tri-Nations was in rude health. Also, super-interesting to read that the idea with a Trans-Tasman League + Japan was discussed back then already (that is an idea I still believe is the future for NZ and OZ). There has me knowingly been two new deals done since then. They still share the money equally? (Japan and Argentina probably get a little tiny bit also of course). Shooting from the hip here: Maybe a golden compromise could be "almost" closed conferences. In the middle of the season, they could have two international rounds or something similar? Not perfect sporting justice, but not too far away. Maybe the fans in all three countries want the international flavor, but not too much. The international games should be a special occasion and something to cherish and look forward to.
AndyS
Guest
Knew if I rummaged around long enough I'd remember where I saw it...http://www.superxv.com/sas-super15-revenue-deal-is-laughable/ Still works out similar because SA and NZ sell their own domestic comps separately, but that alone probably gives some indication exactly what would happen if the conferences were closed and they became replacement domestic comps. No idea how it got jiggled about when they went to 18 though, or what they think is going to happen next time with two new countries and only four teams in SA and Aus...
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Well. I thought the size of each ones internal market (and ratings) decides how much money each one get, but you don't think so? And they share the money they get from broadcasters outside Sanzaar evenly?
AndyS
Guest
Absolutely no doubt it would have advantages and attractions, but the whole point of SR was that it gave broadcasters 15 teams worth of content while each nation only had to supply 5 of the teams each. It relied on interest in the matches played in other locations which, while less, certainly still existed. Once there was no cross-over until the very end, there just wouldn't be...a couple of matches at the end of the season against (say) Saracens and Wasps wouldn't have people tuning in to watch all of the Aviva Premiership. So the broadcasters would only get the local games, which either means a lot less content (and therefore less money), or a lot more domestic teams that will need paying, accommodating, travelling, etc. And more teams, less quality...apparently 4 teams is Australia's limit at an acceptable level, so two games a weekend and it is going to become a very repetitive and boring season after the first three weeks. Or they go to the NRC instead, double the number of teams adding probably 50% to the total wages bill of SR unless they are prepared to lose all their top players. So they would wind up with half the quality, half the number of matches for the broadcaster, so maybe a quarter of the money, with 50% more costs...? If they could have done it, they would have in 1995 when the CC and NPC got big followings. They couldn't then, and can even less now.
In Brief
Guest
The pubs I go to show the rugby- having said that I avoid the western suburbs like the plague so my samples may not be representative .
Joe King
Guest
It's a fair point AndyS, but I really believe it would have satisfied the desire for a domestic comp in Oz at the highest level, but with extra special finals - the best of both worlds, without the negatives of SR ATM. If you please the majority of the fans, demand increases, and so does revenue. And with mostly domestic travel for the regular season, it would would also help to offset any revenue loss. Happy for you to come back at me on this.
AndyS
Guest
Is that still the case? My recollection was that when they went to 15 teams one of the attractions was that it just went to a straight three way split for SR/3N and SA and NZ then separately sold CC/ITMC. It gave rise to a bit of angst as I recall, with SA accused of lowballing the SR contract and loading the CC to shortchange their partners. That even split presumably changed when they introduced the sixth team, but I'd be surprised if they unwound it so that SA kept the lions share. If only because it would completely negate the point of expansion into Japan, if the principle is that they'll only keep any potential revenues themselves anyway. May even prove an interesting wrinkle for the next contract. SA will only have four teams...will be curious to see how things go if it means a reduced cut, when arguing for more could be used against them in future by Japan or others.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Very fair point AndyS. But you indirectly highlight one the big problems, SR tries to be and do many things at the same time. NZR and RA get a little extra broadcasting money because they play Saffa teams, but that also helped to ruin the interest in OZ (mostly) and NZ (in parts). fewer and fewer people watch SR, no matter what country or market. With all games that are attractive to the local market played at prime-time, that could boost the total viewing figures, so maybe it is not such a bad idea? Sanzaar is really between a rock and hard place right now. To survive long-term and be financially competitive they need to expand, but right now would an expansion spell total disaster among the few fans that are still left. And Sanzaar's confidence when it comes to expansion is probably at an all-time low (as it should because they have been useless the last couple of years). Somehow they have to leave things as it is, pray that it works, hope that the teams in the NH don't flash more dollars and poach more top players. And on top of that must, NZR and RA calculate that there is a risk that SA jumps ship and goes to the NH full stop. P.S. SA already gets a much bigger piece of the broadcasting pie, so not sure how much it would change with closed conferences.
AndyS
Guest
..
AndyS
Guest
Or perhaps they realised that closing the conferences would also obviously mean there would be no need for SA to share any of their broadcast revenues with NZ or Aus. Why would they share - they would effectively just be three separate comps, with each country keeping their own broadcast money and no real interest across borders. Then they'd split a small token amount for the finals (there'd only be few matches after all), which realistically would soon come to be viewed as warm-ups ahead of the RC.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
The "worst" thing is, especially with your added ideas JK, is that the concept is so simple... and maybe that is why it has such an appeal? And it would have been so easy to expand with more teams in the future without creating havoc. The playoffs would have been something truly special. Both fans and players would have been really fired up. SR is very much the trial training ground for the Test sides, and as you say, it gives the competition a very plastic feel, which is a shame hence the quality of the rugby is usually great.
Joe King
Guest
Exactly TNVFS, 3 conferences of 6 teams each. Also with NO cross conference games until the finals, with top 2 from each conference moving thru. Would of saved so much travel money, solved the lopsided score-lines and player depth problems, been time-zone friendly, and would have done wonders for the domestic scene in Oz. Also would have made the inter-conference games/finals so much more appealing and highly anticipated. Even if they played 3 rounds within the conference before the finals, the local derbies rate better. Can't believe they missed this opportunity. If the reason was because the national unions are simply using SR to prepare Test players and want them playing players from the other countries, then that is why SR will never win the hearts and minds in Oz, no matter how competitive the teams are.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Yes you're right Fionn, he has been told he has to return to play in Japan if he wants to play in the World Cup. And yes I agree, the best Aust franchise player last year - perhaps only Hooper came remotely close. But even with him out, the overall point is that whatever the whole team does this year - effectively as a start-up - they will likely improve on in their 2nd year.
Fionn
Guest
But Geoff, don't they lose Mafi next year? He is honestly (I believe) the best player in the Australian conference.
Wobblies
Guest
"Australians want to see Australians playing Australians". NO Australians want to see Australians winning, that's not happening so thats why the crowds are low. Wake up
sheek
Guest
Geoff, The only power rugby fans, indeed sporting fans have, is the removal of their support. Don't attend live matches, don't buy pay-TV subs, don't invest in a new jersey every season. Keep your money in your wallet. Only when sufficient fans walk away will RA, SANZAAR & the other controlling bodies force themselves, force I say, to talk to the fans. As long as they're all getting an income stream, it's "business as usual". If fans are too selfish to give up anything, too selfish to deprive themselves of their weekend "hit" until things turn around, then the only other thing I can say is this: You, the fan, deserve the game you eventually get & the code deserves to be exactly where it finds itself.
AndyS
Guest
Indeed. And then they all sit around scratching their heads about why everyone has lost interest and no-one is watching...