After Round 1 of Super Rugby Trans-Tasman, it’s evident we have a flawed tournament format.
The Aussie teams play five Kiwi teams, while the five Kiwi teams play five Aussie teams.
The Aussies have it harder. Because only two teams qualify for the final, only those with a full house of wins can realistically expect to make it.
Since no Australian teams can achieve a full house, and all New Zealand teams still can, it’s unlikely any AU teams will make the final.
Yes, I know, we were only a couple of conversions away from a different story, and Queensland might beat the ‘Saders and stay alive, but we all know we’ll most likely be watching two Kiwi teams contest the final on 19 June.
This isn’t a surprising turn of events, though. New Zealand is a great rugby nation and Kiwi domination has been the meta-narrative of Super Rugby’s intercontinental flying circus over the last 25 years.
New Zealand teams won more than their fair share, and our Aussie teams seldom played in or hosted finals. In fact, after 25 years of Super Rugby intercontinental, and 18 years of Bledisloe Cup misery, Australian rugby was in a death spiral.
Then came the pandemic, and SR’s intercontinental flying circus was put on hold. Super Rugby AU temporarily took its place.
These are facts: simply because an Australian team won every game in Super Rugby AU the mood changed. Winning translated into improved morale and commercial optimism.
Super Rugby AU’s success was not PR spin: the 236 per cent improvement in TV audience and 41,000 grand final attendance are real.
That’s a signal. That’s the market talking.
Rugby Australia should listen.
Let’s be honest: Rugby Australia has been lucky. If it wasn’t for COVID, they would never have held AU. When Lady Luck smiles at you, you should smile back.
(Photo by David Gray/AFP via Getty Images)
RA should accept they stumbled upon a tournament format that resonates with the market, and has unexpected commercial potential, which they would have never known about otherwise.
Whatever else happens in our uncertain world, the AU cat is out of the bag. RA should nurture AU and its confidence building finals series. It’s better for us than Trans-Tasman.
You know, tournament formats are debated endlessly by Australian rugby fans. Everyone’s got a theory on a better way to do things.
That’s because, for many reasons, SANZAAR never got their tournament formats right. I know why that was: they didn’t listen to the marketplace.
Instead, they created a complex intercontinental flying circus that confused and disappointed fans, while racking up the blazer brigade’s frequent flyer points.
It appeared, to outside observers, SANZAAR’s managers were managing our rugby for their own personal fringe benefits, and not for the good of rugby. I don’t know if that’s true, but let’s not repeat their mistakes in order to find out.
Anyway, tournament formats are an important topic, because getting that right creates a framework to inspire engagement from rugby stakeholders and casual sports fans alike. We should think harder about what the ‘ideal format’ looks like before we start pencilling in teams names against flawed structures.
I don’t want to describe the ideal format here. I do have some models in mind – I can write another article explaining if you are interested. Let me know in the comments.
But whatever the format, once understood, the conversation needs to move easily to stories about the teams and the players. The sporting narratives must develop organically, without requiring convoluted multi-ladder explanations requiring use of functions on a scientific calculator.
Super Rugby AU had the mix right: the Queensland Reds fairy tale usurping the defending champion ACT Brumbies; and the underdog Western Australia Force foreign legion rising like the phoenix to beat their arch enemy Melbourne Rebels to make a SR final for the first time in their history.
These are the kind of stories that burned on rugby advocates love to tell to casual sports fans. That’s how interest in the game grows.
This year, we had our own Australian rugby stories to tell. That’s important.
Tom Robertson. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
When RA think about tournament formats, they should think independently from what New Zealand Rugby Union want, because they don’t have our best interests at heart.
They are motivated by access to Australia’s bigger economy and bigger potential TV audience to achieve their own commercial ends. They want to lock Australian rugby into their scheme.
We should still play rugby against New Zealand teams, of course we should. Just not so much.
Australian rugby needs to get tougher in the boardroom in order to give our players the best chance of winning on the field.
For example, why do we agree a best-of-three Bledisloe Cup series every year? There are too many dead rubbers and it’s hard for the Wallabies to win two from three.
The All Blacks don’t need any extra help. Let’s return two of those Tests to the Rugby Championship and make the third Test a one-off, winner-takes-all Bledisloe blockbuster.
There’s no cost to that fixture improvement. Strong negotiation could make a Bledisloe blockbuster happen for our Wallabies, this year.
Winning on the field starts with strong negotiation off the field: deciding what’s best for Australian rugby, our people, and not what’s best for New Zealand Rugby Union blazer brigade.
Commercially thinking, why would we bind ourselves exclusively to NZRU again when we could get closer to Japan – the third largest economy in the world, who just hosted the most commercially successful Rugby World Cup ever, qualified for the quarter-finals and have 120 million potential TV viewers in our time-zone?
Japan last toured Australia in 1975, playing two Tests against the Wallabies and matches against six State and country teams. It has been 46 years between drinks.
Since 1975, how much rugby have we played against New Zealand teams? The balance is wrong.
There are 102 member unions in World Rugby. RA could consider a greater variety, starting with Japan.
Encouragingly, COVID proved our rugby administrators can think on their feet. Actually, international variety aside, resuscitating Australian rugby should be thought of as if consuming a food pyramid.
•80 per cent green vegetables: the grassroots, clubs, schools, districts rugby. Build a strong foundation
•15 per cent representative rugby: sub-unions, country rugby, interstate and territories rugby, national and interstate club tournaments. Super Rugby AU. The proteins
•Five per cent international treats. The Cadbury chocolate on top!
During the days of the Super Rugby intercontinental flying circus, the supply of international treats exceeded demand to the extent that the stadiums were empty and no one watched on TV. The costs of maintaining the model were astronomical and the ship was sinking.
We’ve had our rugby pyramid upside down.
Just like a food pyramid, if you eat too many treats and not enough healthy vegetables and proteins, you’ll tire of the treats, and you’ll risk your health.
We need to turn Australia’s rugby pyramid the right way up.
The grassroots foundation of rugby is its advocacy.
The rugby community are the ones who pay for Stan subscriptions, buy tickets to Super Rugby and encourage their friends to watch the Wallabies.
RA know this, but there’s a logical implication. If you get the supply and demand of treats right (not so many) you’ll sell all your treats (at a higher price).
You’ll have full stadiums, strong revenues, and a healthy game.
Loosehead Greg
Roar Rookie
Wal, choosing a reo name for the kiwi franchises is a great suggestion. Aoraki could also work for the region from Mt Cook to Cook Straight.
Wal
Roar Guru
I wasn’t commenting on the actual names that I agree are Rubbish, just that they correctly dropped the provinces since these teams represent more than one region. Growing up in ChCh the Crusaders name was meaningless to me and I was all for them dropping their name after the Mosque attack, there are plenty of Ngai Tahu names far more appropriate. Specifically the Pouakai – Maori legend of the Haast Eagle.
Wal
Roar Guru
Yes but to a kid growing up in Nelson or Invercargill the Crusaders or Highlanders mean so much more without the Canterbury or Otago name. Which in SR is meaningless because they don't just represent those areas.
elvis
Roar Rookie
You assume I don't know all the old names? That's a bit nasty. My point stands, people care more about names that mean something and provide an idea of who you are playing. I might know the Highlanders are based around Otago, without going into the finer details, but to younger people in another country they might as well be based on the moon.
NO. My conclusion is that AFL does not aim to be good at internationals. They only have to appeal to a domestic audience to earn their money. Rugby is a International based sport which Aus needs to be good at and be at least top 10 in the world to make it a financial success. AFL please 1 audience. Rugby has to please lots of different audiences. The job of only pleasing one audience is far easier ( if they like it ) as the simple fact is that AFL gets a local winner from their comp every year. Rugby’s international standings means a Aus winner may not come along at all in a decade of competing. This means its a completely different scenario to engage fans even tho the success isnt there and makes the job a lot harder.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh Max! I am making a fortune selling rose coloured glasses to the tweed jacket brigade. All they need is one good game a year and the optimism levels sky rocket taking sales with it! I just hope that one Australian side flukes a win against a Kiwi side and I'll be able to retire!
max power
Guest
its laughable how you think super rugby au was a success. one match with a good crowd means nothing. the general public was not even aware the comp was operating
J Jones
Roar Rookie
obtusely contradictory contradiction of that meme and yet you've failed to demonstrate this in the least...
Maximus Insight
Guest
"AFL has never won a test match" Australian rugby has nothing to learn from by far the richest football code in Australia because it is not international (also sharing this quality with the sport of the richest competition in the world the NFL) "AFL is domestic only and has nothing above club level. Thats why rugby is played all around the world and AFL isnt." And this is (quite obviously) what is called a tautology. And your conclusion from this confused logic is that Rugby Australia, endeavoring to increase its popularity and viability in Australia, has nothing to learn from Australia's dominant code, because it is not popular in other places
Maximus Insight
Guest
"I’d suggest its a terrible reflection of Australian media… being beaten by anything kiwi is a pathology Aust media strives to ignore." Speaking of pathology, it is hard to imagine a more obtusely contradictory contradiction of that meme Certainly a big part of the Rebels problem is Super Rugby's decline in credibility during their existence - a phenomena which was quantifiably true everywhere. More generally the rebels obvoiusly don't have the advantage of being backed by the owner of the major tabloid like the Storm had for most of their existence
Loosehead Greg
Roar Rookie
How does the Crusaders name 'better reflect the regions' of the top of the South Island Wal? The Crusaders were baby-murdering soldiers in Middle-east religious wars which actually finished hundreds of years before Polynesians even set foot on Aotearoa. I don't really see the connection? And then there's "The Hurricanes"... In the Pacific, we have cyclones.
Wal
Roar Guru
Your showing your ignorance there Elvis, the NZ SR teams have always been regional and dropped the location names to better reflect the regions they actually represent not the NPC provinces. Crusaders are a perfect example where they draw from the top of the South Island including the Tasman Mako who have won the last 2 national titles and provide 10 of the current squad including Will Jordan, David Havilili and Sevu Reece. It more accurate to call the Tahs the Sydney Tahs because they never play outside Sydney and have even less players from regional NSW
fiwiboy7042
Roar Rookie
RA can't even beat NZ in the boardroom!
fiwiboy7042
Roar Rookie
Stop signing Kiwi coaches and players are a good start! :happy:
Last year
Firstly a 12 team comp requires a 15 or 16 week comp and thats pretty much all we have had so Im not sure how you throw another 7 team comp into it without ignoring some tests. Yes Aus rugby has players on 100k sitting around whilst those on more plus the Wallaby top up go and do their test thing so I guess a M10 type product is the best way to achieve a player continuance thru the year. A NRC with the two new teams minus their test players would probably make a great comp to be running alongside the test calendar year. Maybe even a top 2 or 3 M10 v a top 2 or 3 NRC when their respective seasons have been completed???
AndyS
Guest
Oh, I certainly don't think you'll hear any complaints from the players. But the overall wages bill is also somewhere north of $30M a year, which seems a lot for players to sit around not playing rugby. Almost gives a new meaning to player welfare, especially when any money made from additional games could be seen as free, when the overheads have already been paid...
elvis
Roar Rookie
When did we last win a test match anyway?
AndyS
Guest
I think that is a valid point. It was pure luck that RA wasn't facing Covid with four teams, with nothing left from which to raise a fifth.
AndyS
Guest
But if it helps, perhaps the upside is that you can stop thinking of TT and a domestic competition as mutually exclusive. If NZ is happy with a 12 week or so season, then they're sweet. If Australia were then to decide that they'll also play a domestic comp, surely no skin off NZ noses. Chances are the Fijian and MP teams might throw their hats in for it too...might as well put the players and coaches they've already paid for to use, and seeing as the overhead is already paid any money made is a bonus. So everyone is happy...