From the South Pacific to Super 18: The Super Rugby odyssey

By Istanbul Wingman / Roar Guru

In the 1980s, Australia emerged as a major power in rugby union and both NSW and Queensland began to direct their gaze across the Tasman in search of meaningful competition.

Finally it came together with the inaugural South Pacific Series in 1986, which also included three New Zealand provinces and Fiji.

This ran until 1990 and was dominated by Auckland and Canterbury. It returned for a season in 1992, rebranded as the Super 6, and was won by Queensland.

Meanwhile, a rival league was set up by New Zealand teams disgruntled at having missed out. The CANZ series also involved Canada plus two Argentinean clubs in its first year. It ran from 1989 until 1992, and was dominated by Otago and Waikato.

Formal steps to end Apartheid rule in South Africa had begun by this time, opening up the mouthwatering prospect of the nation’s top provincial sides joining their Australasian counterparts in competition.

Super 10 began in 1993 with the addition of South African teams, which created great fascination.

They did not disappoint either. Transvaal won the tournament at its first attempt, although Queensland would take out the following two championships.

This also involved the Pacific Island champion, rather than just Fiji, allowing Samoa and Tonga to get a run. But when the game turned professional in 1996 and Super Rugby was expanded to 12 teams, the Pacific Islands were not among them.

The championship underwent a complete overhaul that year with regional franchises replacing provinces, so the 1996 season is generally recognised as the advent of Super Rugby as we know it.

Everyone who witnessed the frenetic opening clash between age-old rivals Auckland and Wellington knew the game had changed forever.

The former prevailed in that encounter, and would go on to win the first two finals, over South Africa’s Sharks and the ACT Brumbies respectively.

A major turning point came in the third final, however, when Canterbury scored a late try against Auckland at Eden Park to claim the first of their nine titles.

The Crusaders have hogged the silverware over the history of Super Rugby. (Photo by Martin Hunter/Getty Images)

The only other team to win the competition during its first decade were the Brumbies, who did so in 2001 and 2004.

Nonetheless, Super Rugby remained highly competitive, with all teams capable of beating any of the others.

South Africa failed to win a trophy during the decade of Super 12, although they produced semi-finalists on all but two occasions.

They were more successful when the championship was expanded in 2006, with Northern Transvaal grabbing three titles over the next five years.

The new entries were Orange Free State and the Western Force, meaning New Zealand and South Africa now had five teams apiece and Australia four.

Though both expansion teams struggled on debut, they were by no means out of their depth, and the move appeared to have been a success.

Super Rugby was going from strength to strength and in 2011 added another team, Victoria’s Rebels, and split into three geographical conferences – one for each nation.

Modeled closely on the NFL, this doubled the number of derby matches while significantly reducing travel requirements.

It was controversial from the outset, if mostly for its playoffs system, which ensured representation from all three conferences. New Zealand fans were particularly irate, as their teams were becoming increasingly dominant.

Furthermore, the vast distances between the three countries and the blocks of derby matches that appeared on teams’ schedules between overseas tours gave it more the appearance of three loosely connected competitions rather than a single league.

Be that as it may, Super Rugby was doing well.

It remained highly competitive and a few of the most dramatic finals in tournament history were played over the next five years. The Reds and NSW both collected their first titles with heart-stopping victories over the mighty Canterbury during this period.

SANZAR officials appeared to have the Midas touch. Super Rugby had experienced two decades of steady growth and overall success.

But that was when things started to get a little crazy, as the lure of a greatly enhanced TV deal saw three more teams added in 2016.

Certainly there was the need to include Argentina after that nation had joined SANZAAR, and pressure was also being applied to add a team from Japan after it was named as 2019 World Cup host.

Finally there there were the Southern Kings, who had been banging on the door for more than a decade – and actually played in the 2013 season after winning a promotion-relegation contest with the Lions.

This time expansion was doomed from the outset, however.

Japan’s Sunwolves react to another loss. (Photo by Anthony Au-Yeung/Getty Images for SUNWOLVES)

The convoluted format was madness, with two South African conferences including the Argentinean and Japanese franchises.

Needless to add, the playoff system became even more bizarre.

The newcomers struggled badly, notably the Kings and Tokyo’s Sunwolves, who were on the receiving end of a few blowouts.

This shouldn’t have surprised anybody, of course. There has been doubts about the Eastern Cape franchise’s viability going back a decade.

The Sunwolves’ involvement in a South African conference, meanwhile, was surely the first time a team had competed in a league on the opposite side of the world.

At the end of the day, if Super Rugby is not a Southern Hemisphere Championship, what exactly is it? A free-for-all circus? A dumping ground for non-Europeans?

And if the organisers are so keen to expand into overseas markets, why on earth did they allow teams to dispense with their geographical names? Nobody is going to take an interest in a side if they don’t know where it’s from.

With attendances plummeting, the organisers took drastic measures and restored the 15-team format last year.

The Kings were ditched but the Sunwolves and Argentina’s Jaguares were retained at the expense of OFS and the Western Force, both of which had been reasonably competitive.

The South African pair were able to join European competition. However, that wasn’t really an option for the Force – any more than the Sunwolves’ involvement in a South African conference had been tenable.

The Japanese franchise has since transferred to Australia, which makes more sense, though it is reportedly set for the chop after the 2020 season, allowing the tournament to go back to a 14-team round-robin.

The Crowd Says:

AUTHOR

2019-04-13T13:03:00+00:00

Istanbul Wingman

Roar Guru


Agree entirely.

2019-04-13T07:55:20+00:00

Rob9

Roar Guru


I’d have these ‘Tasman’ and ‘Atlantic’ competitions running when the current Super Rugby season does, completely independent from one and other with their own finals series. Then after these seasons and our domestic tests season, bring these 17 teams together along with the winners (or top 2) of the other competitions I’ve suggested and run the 20-team tournament with the RWC format from scratch. Totally agree the identity of Super Rugby teams has a lot to answer for with regards to the current woes it seems to be having. In terms of SA involvement, I think part of the issue (from and Australian perspective) is that they’re culturally and geographically distant from Australia and NZ. The average Aussie punter has no idea where the Lions or Sharks are from and even if they do, they don’t know a heck of a lot about J-burg or Durban because they’re on the other side of the planet, well away from our silo. At least this barrier is somewhat smaller when looking at our cousins across the ditch. I think the ‘Champions League’ concept at the back end of the season and exposing our teams and fans to these more global identities has merit as it’s the ‘cherry on top’ as opposed to the ‘centre piece’ that a domestic league represents. And you want this centre piece in viewer friendly timezones and played amongst teams that have meaning to fans. That’s not the case as it currently stands.

AUTHOR

2019-04-13T07:08:43+00:00

Istanbul Wingman

Roar Guru


Yes, they could run completely separate Pacific and Atlantic comps, then stage a final between the two winners. But the emphasis would be on the regional finals, not the match between the two winners, which would simply be an isolate fixture, like a world club championship game. Also, getting back to the issue of the novelty of South African involvement having worn off for Australasian fans, one of the main reasons is undoubtedly the name changes. There is no history attached to the Stormers and Highlanders, for example. With Western Province v. Otago there is - and a great deal of it. Even if they ARE regional franchises now, they really should have stuck with the geographical names.

2019-04-13T03:23:45+00:00

Rob9

Roar Guru


Bring back the Force and our (AUS) 5 and NZ’s 5 play a 13 round ‘Super 10’. Everyone plays each other once then teams from their own country a 2nd time. Meanwhile, SA brings back the 2 that went north and their 6 and the Jaguares play in their own comp. everyone plays each other twice for a 12-game/14-week competition. We then have in-bound tests against the north and the Rugby Championship before all linking up together in an Indian Pacific Champions League tournament that runs over 8 weeks before the northern hemisphere test. What that looks like: Australia and NZ’s 5, SA’s 6 and Argentina’s 1 plus the 2 best from the Japanese Top League and the MLR champion for a 20 team league run using the same format as the RWC (4 pools of 5). The domestic/provincial rugby puzzle solved using existing infrastructure and proven formulas that are engaging for the fans (more domestically focused leagues). There’s also a new concept in there to add that international flavor (that by no means represents the guts of the season) that will help further boost the bottom line and aid the financial health of the SANZAAR partners. There’s also possibilities for further expansion down the track when the game is in a position to do so.

AUTHOR

2019-04-12T10:05:26+00:00

Istanbul Wingman

Roar Guru


I think the novelty of playing South African sides has long since worn off for New Zealand and Australian fans, and they may eventually want to break away and form a Pacific league with less travel and fewer time zones. Japan and other Asian nations would then become a viable proposition, and offset the loss of South African funding. It will be interesting to see how the proposed Rapid Rugby championship fares, if it gets off the ground. Africa could continue to look to Europe, while Argentina appears set to become part of a South American version of Major League Rugby.

AUTHOR

2019-04-11T22:58:37+00:00

Istanbul Wingman

Roar Guru


I was with you there for a while, but it sort of went pear-shaped around the middle. I won't common on that, but your last couple of paragraphs did make sense.

AUTHOR

2019-04-11T22:54:23+00:00

Istanbul Wingman

Roar Guru


I liked Super 15 best too. But I'm all an NFL fans (( - ;

2019-04-11T18:40:58+00:00

John Gritt

Guest


Super Rugby needs to end as it is. The South African sides need to be cut from it along with the Argentinian Jaguares and the Nihonjin Sunwolves. Rugby needs to be built back up in Aussieland. A new 12-team league from Kiwi and Aussie sides ought to exist. Such a league would be above Mitre 10 Cup. The Rugby Championship needs to be end. Instead, two tournaments ought to arise: Pacific Rugby Championship (PRC) and Africa-American Rugby Championship (AARC). Eligible sides for the PRC would come from: New Zealand, Australia, Fiji, Japan, Tonga, USA, Samoa, Russia, Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, Mexico, Philippines, Malaysia and so on. Participants to each touranment should be limited to the top eight in World Rugby rankings for the respective region. So that means even though Fiji is ranked ninth by WR, Fiji would qualify since it would be the third highest ranked team in the region. The AARC would feature sides from Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Chile, Namibia, Kenya, Colombia, Zimbabwe, Tunisia, Uganda, Ivory Coast, Morocco, South Africa needs to be shunned from World Rugby. The country is racist and run by a racist government. It imposes an unofficial apartheid against the founding race of South Africa, people who happen to be whites. The SA government now imposes quotas to force teams to let black Africans play. If the government can stop its racist attacks against Afrikaners, then a national team should be welcomed back by the rugby world and as a participant in the AARC. As well, Six Nations needs to end. In its place, there should be a European Rugby Championship drawining sides from Wales, Ireland, England, Scotland, France, Georgia, Italy, Romania, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Malta, Czechia, Sweden, Croatia, Moldova, Latvia The Brit Isles people can restore their Home Nations tourney: Wales, Ireland, England, Scotland, but relegated to a lesser tourney below the ERC.

2019-04-11T17:52:08+00:00

Kevin Higginson

Guest


The Super 15 was the best format, even if the NZ didn’t like the fact that the play off had representation from every country. Maybe an adapted format of this. Keep home and away in conference, 8 matches Play 4 of the teams from other conferences, based on rotation, (8 matches), 2 home and 2 away so mini tour would be done. Play offs, conference winners plus the next best 3 overall records. 1st round - 3rd ranked conference winner v 3rd ranked wild card 1st ranked wild card v 2nd ranked wild card 2nd round - 1st ranked conference winner v lowest ranked 1st round winner 2nd ranked conference winner v highest ranked 1st round winner Week off Grand Final - 2nd round winners @ neutral pre arranged venue

Read more at The Roar