The time has come for Australia, South Africa and New Zealand rugby to start working together to make this great competition better for every single one of its Super members.
There has been growing discontent among almost all three nations when it comes to Super Rugby and for almost entirely different (but not disconnected) reasons.
There have been whispers, murmurs and rhubarbs around South African teams heading north in search of more profitable and practical pastures. There is no doubt that South African teams have logistical issues completely separate from Australian and New Zealand.
The latter of these two is suffering (although you’d never know it from the results) from a large number of players moving outside of the Super system, from lower crowd and TV numbers and concerns about the lack of competition from their cousins across the pond.
Australian rugby… well, we all know enough to be concerned.
Glen Ella mentioned this week that a solution for Australian rugby, in particular, would be to encourage SANZAAR to allow players to travel freely between Super teams without putting their representative duties in doubt. The ability of teams to gather expertise from all over the Southern Hemisphere would lead to hopefully more depth and greater skill levels of all teams.
Personally, I think this is the natural evolution of the competition that has to happen. However, in the interest of equitable focus it is important to look at the positives and negatives for all countries involved to see if it is a genuine solution for the competition as a whole or just a desperate, but understandable, move by Australian pundits to support our wonderful game against the tsunami of cross-competition that exists on our shores.
Australia
Verdict: may hurt Wallabies but better for the game as a whole.
The negatives for Australia include (to name a few): lack of ability for Australian players to experience top line competition as competition for spaces increases, increase in foreign players similarly would potentially mean more players leaving Australia as they fail to unseat the international contingent vying for their positions and further disconnect between positions with less combinations establishing during the year reducing the cohesiveness of the international team.
The positives, however, are mostly around the game as a whole, looking at getting people back into the game and removing the focus from the international team. Granted, aside from the Socceroos, the Wallabies are still the most popular Australian rep football team in the country and need to be strong, but we cannot solely rely on it anymore.
(AAP Image/Jeremy Ng)
If an increase in popularity of regional rugby came at the temporary expense of our world position, it could still be a net gain. That being said, young Australian players would be free to sign for New Zealand and South African teams (and you would have to factor in Argentinian and Japanese rules as well) without worrying about representation restrictions.
This could increase their skill levels, learn new styles of rugby and generally increase Australia’s base skill level as a whole.
New Zealand
Verdict: could decrease European exodus and allow talent to be somewhat localised, however at the expense of a centralised coaching setup.
The negatives for New Zealand are simple: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. New Zealand rugby does not need to do this per se as they are doing a pretty decent job of retaining good talent and oiling the conveyor belt of All Blacks that seem to grow from an orchard somewhere in Taranaki.
Having Kiwi players in South Africa and Australia may mean losing frontline All Blacks to Australian teams and I do not know how easy it would be watching Beauden Barrett suit up for the ‘Tahs.
The positives, however, lie in the fact that their players would at least be ‘around’. They can easily track their development, bring them back for international windows, and so on. In addition, young players who might be tempted to go to Europe would at least stay in the competition because they could potentially still catch the eye of international selectors.
(Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)
Also, strong Australian rugby does help New Zealand. The growth of rugby in both countries is important and taking an isolationist view (as other codes have done) is problematic in my opinion. We should always be looking at working together in all facets of life, not just sport.
We are too close and too alike not to.
South Africa
Verdict: supporter interest in South African players on the field for Australian and New Zealand teams and decreased exodus.
I cannot sit here and pretend to know what is best for South African rugby. There are commentators who know far more about the intricacies and issues than me and I encourage them for their thoughts on this matter.
The negatives, as I see them, is that a focus on this is probably not really a priority for South African rugby right now. I could be wrong, but as much as this is trying to justify an Aus-centric problem it could be seen as just that – an Australian solution to a uniquely Australian problem.
But I do see positives in the form of increased interest in non-South African matches. Following potential future-Boks in other conferences is as good a reason to watch a neutral game as any.
I am much more inclined to watch a European based game if there are Australians playing, in fact sometimes I prefer it to local teams. I get to see how their game adapts to a new team and new style and not worry about the result.
It is an enjoyable way to watch rugby. This could be a very long bow that I am drawing, however, I believe it has some merit. Whether it has enough merit to warrant change, who knows?
As a rugby tragic and someone who desperately wants rugby to remain in the forefront of our culture and not disappear into the wilderness this option of inter competition player movement makes sense. It is mostly driven by issues unique to Australian rugby, but there can be benefits to all if done right.
I do, however, think that it is important for Australia, New Zealand and South Africa to work together to challenge the money and pulling power of the north and in turn be able to assist the likes of the Pacific Islands, Argentina et al in the process.
KD
Roar Rookie
It wouldn't have to be a top AB as such maybe a fringe AB or mid tier SR player, like the ones we're losing quite regularly to Europe atm. But my understanding is that in Oz there are allowances for TPA. So if you were a corporation in Oz and maybe sponsor a local SR why would you not want to explore the possibility of a TPA with an AB? That could be huge for your company aswell as the side and could even see alot more expats come to said teams' games or watch them on TV just to see that AB play. It would also bring more exposure for your company by having an AB in board.
KD
Roar Rookie
Yes bro its a win win both ways and by capping the amount clubs can sign it would prevent sides from becoming flooded with foreigners. Alot of the commenters on here are against such a thing and think it would hurt the national sides. But if done right it can only help everyone involved by players learning other nations styles, training and coaching regimes etc. The biggest concern seems to be the loss of ABs from NZs shores. But I honestly can't see a host of top line ABs leaving to play in Oz unless they get a offer too good to pass up. More than likely it would mostly be fringe ABs or mid tier SR players (guys who are leaving at quite a big rate atm) and its alot better to have them still eligible for their national side than being loat forever. Also with the original SANZAAR Unions (unsure if Arg do this) all having some form of a top up or dual contract system they would still have the ability to sign the top 30-50 players out right, therefore keeping a big base of the best players at home.
richard
Guest
Nice in theory,but you may have trouble convincing the Aussies to come under NZ authority ( and understandably so).
rebel
Roar Guru
"Blaming the imports is just a lazy argument." Ok you tell that to the seasoned journalists and analists from around the world. Of course it is not the only factor, but when the French themselves are concerned about it, then I think it may be an issue. "Japan and Scotland have a lot of imports mate. A lot. Have a little look where their Test players come from." Japan I was clearly talking about their improvement being down to Eddie Jones coaching. They had the same level of imports before him and with him. Clear what the difference was, I am quite aware of the number of imports. Scotland are reducing imports and have better coaching and systems in place. They are doing better now than when they had a Shute Sheild 5/8. "The Kiwi teams you mention is a bit silly, hence NZ rugby has never worked with imports so we can’t know how t would pan out." Not silly at all. I was clearly talking about improved coaching and structures leading to success. Imports can come from the same country and NZ teams tried the high profile imports without success. "I say Ireland is the only example you give that has some merit. But they do have some imports also, it is not a closed shop like it is in SH". Don't need your approval. Also SH is not closed shop as they also have some imports, about the same as Ireland actually. You don't need to make things up. "You probably know I am half-German and die-hard fan of the national team. I could go into great detail here but I save that for another day. There are some similarities between DFB and NZR, but DFB would not even dream about restricting the German clubs from importing players, they firmly believe that top-class imports improve the standard of both Bundesliga and the German players. And overall, DFB lives in a very different world with different “rules” and have a lot more opponents that are truly competitive compared to NZR." Yeah I learned geography as well. NZ has imports also but clearly the economies are different. You clearly think I'm saying no to imports despite me never saying that. I am talking about the quantity of imports. Being deliberately obtuse about this doesn't help. "Great players will always be a drawcard. Both for fans and for broadcasters." Never said they wouldn't be. As I have clearly stated all along but instead have red herrings thrown back. There is nothing wrong with some imports, but too much is detremental to the local game. Teams that focus more on other things are the ones getting the results. My narative has been clear all along, you just want to keep chucking up strawman arguements to knock down. The key to Australia getting better is not importing talent, it is fixing up their coaching and structures. This is proven in many cases across the world. No it is not 100% black and white as there are other factors as well, but more often than not it is the case. Now you disputed my original comment about French rugby and I have had to go on answer several other topics which is ridiculous. I stand by my comment about French rugby and I am not alone in that thinking. If you want to throw up any more red herrings, I'm not really interested.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
I am not sure if you understand the implications in French rugby. For starters, they play 26 League games and 6 European Cup games. Add another 5 games if they reach the final of both competitions. It is a no-brainer they need huge squads and they need imports to cover hence the league keeps on playing even during Test windows. As said, the French national teams' recent poor performances have its roots in other issues. Blaming the imports is just a lazy argument. Japan and Scotland have a lot of imports mate. A lot. Have a little look where their Test players come from. The Kiwi teams you mention is a bit silly, hence NZ rugby has never worked with imports so we can't know how t would pan out. I say Ireland is the only example you give that has some merit. But they do have some imports also, it is not a closed shop like it is in SH. You probably know I am half-German and die-hard fan of the national team. I could go into great detail here but I save that for another day. There are some similarities between DFB and NZR, but DFB would not even dream about restricting the German clubs from importing players, they firmly believe that top-class imports improve the standard of both Bundesliga and the German players. And overall, DFB lives in a very different world with different "rules" and have a lot more opponents that are truly competitive compared to NZR. Great players will always be a drawcard. Both for fans and for broadcasters.
Ex force fan
Guest
Give it all to RA, Clyne an co is a recipe for disaster. Almost glad that the Force is not part of this mess.
Johnno
Guest
I say yes.. 1) Im sick of the wallabies being the only team valued.. Super rugby is just reduced to a feeder wallaby trial comp, no wonder there is no tribalism and passion from oz super rugby fans when super rugby is devlaued so much that's it's only given "wallaby trial status" as opposed to an EPL style lets be the best club teams we can be.. 2) imports are good get over it.. Jpots an experienced Bok helped massivly the Tahs winning in 2014, how is that a bad thing, him blocking a locals pathway if it means winning super rugby titles? It's not.. I mean do barcelona fans cry that Messi is blocking the pathway of an inferior spanish local who may or may not play for spain one day? Um no.. 3) revenue streams? Is RA only dependant on wallaby profit but not on SR? If that's the case no wonder they don't care how many or how little games there super rugby sides win as it's only a wallaby development comp to them.. Im bored of super rugby, i can't wait to the european cup this weekend with all the imports blocking locals pathways and striving to be the best club comp it can be. Dan Carter is good fro french rugby, he has given it massive expsosure which means more money for french rugby and also kids in france have taken up rugby coz of DC... Get over it i say to RA, fans care about club footy to not just the wallabies(one team).. i hear next year though no imports will be allowed unless it's developmental imports they can poach who might one day stick around long enough(5 years) to play for the wallabies.. Sick of RA's obsession eggs all in one basket business model the Wallabies$
Fionn
Guest
Pre* You could be right about New Zealand being fine financially on its own. However, if I were a betting man I would bet you were definitely wrong, and I get the feeling Tew feels the exact same way. New Zealand's population is just too small to compete by itself.
Fionn
Guest
That's nice, Jacko, but ultimately meaningless. In the pro-professional era the population difference didn't matter in terms of economics. Since professionalism SANZAAR have stood together in order to compete financially. Despite the full SANZAAR alliance currently more and more All Blacks are already going overseas. You'd have to have your eyes shut and your ears covered to be unaware of this. SANZAAR is now creaking and there is a very big danger of South Africa going north and/or rugby collapsing in Australia. If either of those were to happen it would be potentially catastrophic for New Zealand. If both were to happen nit almost certainly would be catastrophic. It isn't about New Zealand's heritage or passion, it's about population size and market size.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
You might be right Jacko. The things is, full houses and passion is a hot commodity when selling TV-rights. No matter how good the rugby is, empty stands are a poor watch and signals that we are seeing is not really important.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Hmm... Still sitting on the fence about that one. And as said, neither SANZAAR or Pro14 are interested in two new SA teams unless the money is already there. At least that is what I believe.
Derm
Roar Guru
Ok - keep the Australia & New Zealand test teams, they do ok. Combine everything else. Save money, reduce bureaucracy, keep your players, and play SA as often as you like. Put the NZRU in charge though, ditch all the others.
I think it is rather obvious. If Super Rugby pays for four teams and Pro14 pays for four teams
KD
Roar Rookie
I believe he fitted in better in the Reds system than he did the Blues and actually played alot better too, but if you look at Waisake Naholo, Malakai Fekitoa, Ben Lam etc a few players have left the Blues and played alot better. Same thing happened with Jason Woodward played well with the Rebels was told by Shag if he wanted to play for ABs had to come back to Nz so he did and didn't fit in and fit in aswell at the Canes as he did the Rebels. I can't speak on the Oz $ situation but if the comp is run independently from the Unions but by the clubs for example (but say the Oz and Sa sides must give 20% ownership to the national union) then they can work out whats best for them and with the unions having some or in Nzs case majority ownership they still get some say just the major say they get atm. Im not saying they shouldn't still work towards International rugby they just shouldn't do it to the point where the comp is nothing more than a feeder comp. For exsmple I read an article the other about SR being very poor in the social media side compared to NRL, where NRL post highlights and such mid games SR shows nothing until after the games are well and truely over and then you have to go looking on sky or foxtel etc, these are the parts where SR is lacking because irs a feeder comp and not a unified league such as the NRL, AFL, NFL, NBA etc.
Jacko
Guest
On a side note, I watched some Old ITM games and old finals in SR yesterday. The stands are full and passion is there to see for everyone. We are so far away from that today it is not even funny. So how do we get back to something that at least resembles what we once had? i think that era has gone...Its about TV deals these days...most sports are experiencing live attendence drops but yes i remember sitting on the hill in Hamilton cheering on the Waikato Mooloos with a full house and stuff all luxuries like stadiums of today
rebel
Roar Guru
French rugby in general, imports haven't improved the quality of their local players, there are numerous articles on it. Scottish clubs, Welsh clubs, plenty of English clubs, Melbourne Rebels, Western Force, Auckland Blues. Qld reds last year. Now sides that have improved due to coaching and structures: Japan England Ireland Scotland New Zealand Transvaal Highlanders Chiefs Hurricanes As for sports yes I'm talking Germany in football and NZ in rugby. The two best sides in their respective codes who focus more on the big picture. I never said they aren't recruiting, I said it's not their main focus. Also teams that are shifting their focus away from imports are also improving, eg Ireland and Scotland. Now if you're talking TV then its the chicken or the egg. Do clubs import big players to increase revenue from TV, or does the TV revenue allow them to import bigger layers. Not a topic I want to get too involved in as I feel it would go around in the same circles as the issy saga.
Jacko
Guest
True but what makes the success is the rugby culture they learn the game in, the coaching, the skills training etc etc and going to Aus as a young player wont make these guys as good as if they stay in the NZ system
Jacko
Guest
Fionn...No I accept the realities that NZ has a massive population deficiet compared to most other countries but its been that way from day dot and nothing can ever change that. What i think most non NZers dont get is the way we view rugby...Its something that constantly stands out to me.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Hi Corne No doubt SA could have eight teams in a perfect world (probably even more). But until money and players start coming in/back it is nothing more than a beautiful dream. So where is the money gonna come from?
Jacko
Guest
That is all true Albo but AUS is not set up correctly to be prosperous and until that changes i fail to see why NZ should give up their advantage, which is, to be very efficient at what they do and having the ABs as a carrot. The States are the biggest stumbling block to real change in Aus and until that happens then the what else can we do conversation becomes a bit redundant