Two articles were published today calling for the abolishment of Super Rugby as we know it.
Paul Cully in SMH advocates for Australia to go it alone and establish a domestic competition. While David Lord called for a revamped multi-nation competition here on The Roar, focused on the Pacific with no South Africa.
What these proposals suggest and most fans seem to agree, is that Super Rugby is quickly losing relevance. The biggest problem though, is these two suggested solutions are very Australia centred, ignoring the strong health of the game outside our shores and not fixing the problems vexing the local game.
Curtis Rona (Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images)
The major issues with the competition as it stands are the unequal and confusing draw, unappealing kick off/broadcast times and the wide gap in quality between sides. From a fan’s point of view this equates to games they cannot watch live, predictable results and teams not being rewarded fairly with finals appearances.
Any revamped competition has to offer practical solutions to these problems, including the commercial realities and approval of the national unions. As an Australian supporter, the alarming deterioration in franchise performance and exodus of top players compound these problems, but that is a topic for another article.
A solely Australian competition would struggle at the moment as there isn’t the financial or consumer market to sustain such a competition and the player drain to Europe would be hastened.
It would need at least eight teams, so this would muddy the waters when it comes to territorial divides and state based teams.
For example, what would become of the ‘NSW’ Waratahs and ‘Queensland’ Reds. Would they be dissolved in favour of the NRC franchises or be part of the new competition, but no longer represent the entire State?
The manufactured franchises and amalgamation of Sydney clubs in the NRC hasn’t generated much support and it also sacrifices historical supporter allegiances and rivalries. However, one enticing prospect in this model could be a return of true NSW versus Queensland State of Origin-type matches as matches outside of a franchise based competition.
Dropping South Africa may have some merit when it comes to a provincial competition, but removing them from the Rugby Championship would be a big mistake. The tradition and rivalry between the Springboks, Wallabies and All Blacks to too valuable to sacrifice and the All Blacks especially would not want to go without regular matches with their traditionally strongest opponent.
The other proposal of forcing players to return to their country of origin is too restrictive and removes player freedoms. It would also be extremely costly to remunerate these players; who would pay for it?
Courtnall Skosan of South Africa (Photo by Anthony Au-Yeung/Getty Images)
A practical solution would be a Pacific-based provincial competition from Feb-June, followed by inbound tests against the Northern Hemisphere nations and a two tiered Pacific Nation Test competition.
The provincial competition would comprise of teams from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the Pacific with the potential to expand into Asia.
I would not include Argentina in this competition. Instead a separate Americas provincial competition could be set up with teams from North and South America. To level the playing field, New Zealand should expand their number of teams to six or seven with five from Australia, one from Japan and 1-2 from the Pacific and options to add further Asian teams down the track maxing out at 18 teams.
A simple format of playing every team once per season, at home one year, away the next, with the top ranking teams qualifying for finals (this could be six or eight teams depending on the total number of teams).
I would also allow any player in the competition to be eligible for their national side regardless of which club they play for. That is, an Australian player would be eligible for the Wallabies even if they play in New Zealand or Japan or the Pacific Islands. South African provinces are then free to join Europe.
When it comes to Test matches, there would be time for three matches against the touring Northern Sides, either a series or individual matches. This would be followed by a revamped Rugby Championship absorbing the Pacific Nations competition.
I propose a promotion/relegation competition involving New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Japan, USA and Canada.
The top five teams play a competition playing each other once per year as they do in the six nations. The bottom five teams play an equivalent.
The bottom ranking team from tier one gets relegated, the top tier two team prompted. The Bledisloe cup would continue as a three match series, ideally incorporating one Rugby Championship fixture, with the other two book-ending the main competition (so long as Australia doesn’t get relegated! Then they would need to fit in an extra match).
This leaves time for a 4-5 match Northern tour to conclude the calendar year. This works out at 10-14 Tests per year.
While this proposal sacrifices the South African provinces to Europe, the potential for a more even competition, strengthening traditional markets, and importantly in similar time zones would have more commercial and consumer appeal while providing potential growth into new markets, especially Asia.
The competition could have potential for broadcast revenue from Europe and South Africa for further funding. The Test competition retains traditional rivalries but adds relevance and opportunities for developing Test nations.
This format is practical and achievable although does require some sacrifices and change to the status quo, particularly from New Zealand, who have the most to lose. But importantly it would offer accessible and exciting rugby.
Jimbo Lamb
Guest
Australia is the only country competing with THREE other codes. Each of those three codes run a domestic competition and people know who the teams are and where they come from. If New Zealand, Australia and South Africa had their own "domestic" competition - which would allow say two Asian teams in the Australian comp. New Zealand could easily have a eight or ten team domestic comp which could include and Pacific club and South Africa could include and team from Argentina. Then the top four teams from each comp play off for the Asia-Pacific Challenge Cup. 75000 fans packed Twickenham for the final of the Aviva comp. They were there to support THEIR TEAM. This is an example of tribalism and that is why fans travel and support their teams. Also clubs should be able to contract any players they want and can afford into their teams. RA insists on players being contracted to them. Why???? We are being run by a 20th Century organisation in the 21st Century.
Gavin
Guest
Exactly. There was never any discussions about favourable times and travel when the Brumbies were winning and more recently when the Reds and Tahs won the competitions. Now the teams are playing poorly it's all about change. How about an improvemnet in performance. If people want to watch the games being played in SA they can always push the "record" buttom and watch the game at a suitable time.
Cliff (Bishkek)
Guest
An interesting article and it has some merits and as you said the internal problems of Rugby in Australia would not be addressed by this format or any format. Until RA and all of the State Administrations seriously begin to fix grassroots and pathways and improve the Rugby Nous and Skills of our players, then Australian rugby will go no where - no improvement at all. This is the Bull in the China Shop. Australia thinking about what to do with SR and the RC before addressing the long outstanding Australian skills problems, then we will be gone. Typical example. Australia has plenty of PI Heritage players in Aus Rugby but guess what? Compared to their NZ PI heritage and Maori brothers, the Aus PI players are not where near of the same calibre and skill levels. The problem is the Administration, Coaching and lack of direction and inputs at the grassroots levels.
mania
Guest
agree Gav, but IMTF is correct. pacific have more than enough players but dont bring an audience with them so theres no money. super would have to accept that the pacific teams would run at a loss. plus if pacific players managed to get to the fitness level that (kiwi?) super rugby is played at then they would start to threaten the top 10 sides around the world. i cant see any of the tier 1 nations allowing that. pacific is the opposite of aus. they have the players but no money, economy or infrastructure
Brian
Guest
Actually the best way to level the playing field in Super Rugby is for RA, and to a lesser extent SARU, improve the quality of coaching and player development such that Australian teams are better able to compete.
Clelo
Guest
This proposal has merit and I have long touted this change. We need to centralise the competition in friendly time zones to enhance viewing options. WSR has merits so why can't we combine the two and go from there. I also see no need to disolve the Rugby Chamionship as that will be the only bit of long range travelling teams will encounter apart from EOY tours. SR as it stands at present is a dead duck just waiting for it's final death knell. Any change needs to be innovative, far reaching and long standing so must be well thought out. I think this proposal is travelling down the best road so to speak. We just need to hone it for bumps and get it right. One thing for sure is that Australian rugby talent will continue to export itself in droves if conducive changes are not made soon. There is an urgency on this but not a panic if handled correctly. Give Raelene her head and see where she goes with it.
CJ
Guest
Main trouble with the concept now is that the NZ teams are so much better than the others. Unless that changes there is no point trying to reshape it.
KCR
Guest
I have often thought that the problem with modern super rugby is that SANZAAR is trying to turn an exhibition tournament into a domestic one. That is what brought more teams, conference format to deal with the extra teams and travel.
Old Bugger
Guest
My guess is the review, is proposed under the foreign aid budget - its probably the only opening, to commit their assistance. Still, what better opportunity to get an unbiased review......let's hope it will contain a positive outcome.
Tigranes
Guest
Muzzo well maybe the NZ Rugby Union is recognising the contribution that the Pacific Islands have made to New Zealand rugby...Blokes of Pacific Islander heritage represent a significant proportion of the NZ player numbers in Super Rugby teams. Many of these guys were either born in NZ or raised there, so they are 100% entitlted to be NZers and play for the All Blacks, but I think the Pasifika factor is the reason why the All Blacks are so far ahead of every other team, Australia has access to another pool of Pasikika players, but many of them play rugby league, look at any NRL squad and you will see a fair few Islander names - Pasific Islanders represent maybe 2% of the Australian population, but maybe 30% of NRL players.
Muzzo
Guest
Pretty much agree with what you have said OB, but the thing that gets up my nose, is why should the NZ taxpayer pay for a review of PI rugby involvement? Well, we do know that how the finances have been handled by PI nations over the years as far as mismanagement goes.They have had a shocking record on that, for their part of the game. We must realise that there are those in NZ, the taxpayer kind, that surely object to where their taxes are going, especially those that are involved with other sports, & getting no taxpayer assistance, for their off shore counterparts. It's a gracious offer, as you say, BUT??? In the long run, over the decades, NZ, has helped the Islands out with resettlement, employment, education, etc, etc, etc, which is acceptable as being foreign aid, but assisting in off shore sporting set up's, does make one wonder, considering their atrocious records. Cheers
Crazy Horse
Roar Pro
Complaining about time zones but not only retaking Argentina but proposing more teams from the Americas. That just doesn't make sense.
BrainsTrust
Guest
What revenue source. The South Africans fix their Tv deal and to a lesser extent the Kiwis. The Curry cup gets the majority of the Tv money so they then avoid sharing the revenue.
Lion Brown
Guest
All these proposals have Australia at the centre of them and at the same time happily dumping a major draw card and revenue source in SA - all at the same time acknowledging that Australian rugby is in a terminal death spin. What competition organiser would go balls deep into a brand new, untested competition with the major reliant component being AR ? the far more likely scenario is that Australia will be viewed as a add on in any future focus of SR
Gav
Guest
Hardly a lack of players, there's 340 of them playing professionally around the world
Old Bugger
Guest
You know what's so funny with this article and the previous ones by Cully and Lord?? Only one article, discusses how and what Australian rugby fraternity should do, to help themselves. Cheers PC, for considering the obvious. The other two articles are hell-bent on (a) getting rid of SA rugby and (b) dumbing down NZ rugby, to limit their impact. IMO, until such time as SARU advises what they will be doing, then NZR won't be offering any other alternatives to the SANZAAR partnership, from what it currently provides. The only consideration that I can foresee, is what the outcome will be from the NZ Govt's gracious offer, to pay for a review of PI rugby involvement in SR/RC rugby, post 2020. Otherwise, SR/RC rugby will probably remain unchanged, under SANZAAR's umbrella except, for the potential entry of PI involvement.
i miss the force
Guest
no money in the PI and a lack of players
KD
Roar Rookie
I like and have thought out a similar proposal before. But atm I think it would be disastrous to drop Argentina to a 2nd tier comp, as the majority if players would leave or not develop tp their full potential. They could easily be fitted into such a comp by adding an extra side to reduce travel and help development and by playing home and away in blocks of 2, 3 or 4 matches. My proposal would see 6 Nz sides (Central N.I), 5 Oz (bring back the Force), 2-3 Jap/Asia, 2 Arg, 1 P.I (anymore than one would be unsustainable). This would equate to a 16-17 team comp with a full round robin of 15-16 games plus 1 or 2 byes followed by finals. I believe this to be the perfect solution should Sa leave. It keeps Arg in a Tier1 comp aswell as bringing in more Jap or Asian sides and also solves the P.I situation. Not to mention bringing back all the disfranchised W.A fans and bringing Nz down a little bit by adding another side.
Malo
Guest
Let’s face it the ra are incapable of organising anything. It really is up to nzrfu and they are more likely to try to appease SA than be with our rag tag mob . Twiggy for ceo and we might get a harmonious competition that satisfies the spectator. The ball is in NZRFU court .
I think the reality is when South Africa leave Super Rugby the practicality of the season would remove South Africa from the Rugby Championship. I would propose South Africa to go back to test series and remove themselves from any tournament other than the RWC. Home test series in Three three test series per year.