So then, Super Rugby Pacific, eh?
Not a huge surprise with the name, and not a whole lot of thinking for a new name was needed, really. It does what it says on the tin; Super Rugby, with a Pacific Island flavour.
It’s great that it’s now all done, and the teams will certainly benefit from the certainty of a start date – even if there’s a bit of uncertainty around whether the date can actually be met. But more on that later.
On Zoom calls with Brumbies assistant coach Laurie Fisher and new Waratahs coach Darren Coleman yesterday afternoon, that was a common and early theme: February 18 as a nominated start date now means they can work backwards from there and structure their pre-seasons accordingly.
Generally speaking, the format as announced was the same as that which was leaked to the New Zealand media last week. 12 teams – with Moana Pasifika and the Fijian Drua’s admission formalised – playing 14 games each in one conference.
Even the mooted eight-team, three-weeks finals series made it through after no particularly compelling argument against it when the idea was flown up the metaphorical flagpole last week.
The only real ‘new’ detail was that the extra three games beyond the eleven round-robin games would be structured and fixtured with an “emphasis on derby matches”, rather than some complicated system based on seedings that might not really benefit anyone.
In terms of timeframe, the February 18 start through to a June 18 Final is exactly the same calendar footprint as Super Rugby AU + trans-Tasman occupied this year.
Taniela Tupou with the Reds. (Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
On the topic of timeframe, the two-year confirmation aligns Super Rugby Pacific with the end of the current three-year broadcast deals done at the end of last year. It gives the new competition time to find it’s feet for local broadcasters (and ideally formalise an international broadcast deal for these next two years), while also creating a target date for the next move. And the idea of linking with Japan in some shape or form remains a clear goal.
And sure, eight teams playing quarter-finals from a twelve-team comp is a bit clunky. “There will be mixed views on that,” Darren Coleman said yesterday.
“Personally, I think you should be winning more than 50 per cent of your games to make a playoff series, but there’s commercial reasons, I’m sure.”
It’s a hard point to argue. But making eighth play first in a quarter-final on hostile turf, and so on, does at least stack the deck enough that the semis and Final will ultimately be left with the best teams. But, by that point, if seventh and eighth can get through, then good luck to them, I say.
Coleman also had the foresight to at least joke that the playoffs are now a better prospect for his rebuilding Waratahs squad than they were yesterday morning before the announcement.
“If we’re not going in with that goal, we’re not having a go,” he said.
Fisher said in answer to a question I posed to him that he didn’t believe Australian teams would suddenly start playing ‘Pacific rugby’, but admitted he was interested to see what the inevitable pace of the competition and the positivity of the island sides does to evolve the Australian game.
And interestingly, and though he was quick to say most discussions around format were very much at the CEO level, he did confirm that “even at our level, we’ve been engaged in what our preferred model going forward is, and I think they’ve done a pretty good job.”
“As good as it has been playing local derbies over the last few years, I don’t know that that really helps generate or to improve our game when you then come up against the New Zealanders doing the same thing,” Fisher said.
“The ability to bounce around between different opposition, bring a bit of travel back in, I think it makes a really refreshing start for players and coaching staff, and a refreshing product for hopefully a whole new generation of rugby supporters.”
Ratunaisa Navuma of Fijian Drua. (Photo by Anthony Au-Yeung/Getty Images)
Of course, with the continued rise of new COVID-19 cases on both sides of the Tasman Sea every day, and new daily cases nearing 400 in Fiji as well, the very obvious question around contingency is valid and ever-present.
And not just if border bubbles don’t open in time; contingencies will also be needed if international borders and Australian state borders are yet again forced shut in 2022. And yes, the Federal Government is doing its best to talk a strong game of open borders and skies above them, but the reality is they just cannot see the future.
They might think they know, and they like to project confidence, but they just do not know.
(A side note here, I was happy to note that while Australia and New Zealand vaccination rates are slowly climbing, more than 95 per cent of eligible Fijian adults have had their first dose, and more than 45 per cent have had a second. You’d think this can only help getting Fiji added to the trans-Tasman travel bubble when it eventually reopens.)
So what’s the fall-back option? What happens if half the teams can’t travel in a certain direction? Split conferences, a la Aotearoa and AU? Single point of hosting, a la the remainder of The Rugby Championship?
Fisher didn’t know for sure, though I suspect he gave us a fair inkling. “If I was going to be a betting man, I’d say contingency plans would just be a change of draw rather than a change of competition,” he said.
“So, you may go to New Zealand for a three- or four-week bubble tour, rather than bouncing around from New Zealand to Perth to the Sunshine Coast, back to Canberra. You might play your game across the ditch in a clump, I’d say that may be the contingency, but it’s above the pay grade, mate.”
And from a local perspective, what comes of Super Rugby AU competition? Are we now seeing the chance for it to become the stand-alone next tier of competition played at this time of year?
I’ve said for a little while now, and I believe it more and more now, that it is genuinely, the cheapest, quickest, and easiest way to create a new competition, and one that has all the instant fan appeal and tribalism that the powers that be seem focussed on. And I know it’s been discussed by the CEOs. Several times.
It almost makes so much sense now that RA would be mad not to make it happen.
“Without doubt, we need something between club rugby and where the professional games sits,” Fisher said.
“So indeed, we might well be able to run some sort of NRC-type competition based out of the five Super Rugby teams, given that you’re going to have 30 or 40 players away with the Wallabies.
“It does provide a genuine avenue, with a few other injuries and the like, it does provide an extra avenue – for some teams more than others – to introduce 15 or so new players into a back-end of season comp.”
Even adding that he really enjoyed the Brisbane semi-finals on the weekend, and would still ideally like to find a way to support the club rugby finals around the country as well as replace the NRC, Fisher certainly sees the benefit of building into the next Super Rugby Pacific season on the back of a domestic competition at this time of year.
But that’s another column for another day. Or at least, a repeated commentary on an obvious and achievable development competition for another day.
For now, Super Rugby Pacific is here, and all the reaction since yesterday’s announcement has been overwhelmingly positive.
The balls of recruitment will start rolling in earnest for the Drua and Moana Pasifika, and already it appears Highlanders playmaker Josh Ioane in the crosshairs of the latter. The more names they sign, and the more announcements they make, the quicker their momentum will build.
It’s an exciting time for rugby in this part of the world. It feels like the thought bubbles and pipedreams of many a rugby fan over the last two decades have all come to being in one bulk email announcement.
Let’s just hope the February 18 competition start can happen as planned.
BleedRedandBlack
Roar Rookie
I know. It's all just very disappointing. After watching the fishheads botch domestic rugby for the last twenty years I don't have any faith in the judgment.
Old Bugger
Guest
We can't say that NZR should've started right from the beginning of pro-rugby in 1996. Why?? Because a) there were no divisions of rugby in NZ at the time. All amateur rugby was generally played between provinces within their regions of rugby and basically, the only time a province flew out of its region, was to play a Ranfurly challenge. b) the financing offered wouldn't have covered the whole spectrum of NZ provincial rugby hence, a regional set-up involving 5 zones and their respective provinces, were amalgamated to form 5 SR teams and c) there were 2 other rugby nations keen, to get on-board. However, fast forward 25years and surely, you would've assumed that the powers that be, have got this competition nailed down and if not, have at least recognised the pros and cons, of this competition. Unfortunately not to be so, such are the wonders of professional rugby, perhaps. So within that scheme of things, now that sponsors have been and are being sourced, why is it that NZR could not have gone on its own, with a domestic pro-competition, now. That's the big question. Not enough players....hardly, since NZ rugby is consistently credited with having the best and most rugby talent available, this side of the black stump. Not enough financial support....probably the biggest hurdle, stopping NZR in this pursuit but I'd suggest, give it 10years of all plus SL investments and let's see whether or not, there is a profit margin in there somewhere, for SL to exploit both for their benefit and of course, for NZ rugby's, benefit. If it succeeds, then who knows...perhaps, NZ rugby can go it alone. If all this fails well, there's always another few years of SR Pacifica rugby to keep the turnstiles, turning until some bright spark, comes up with another idea.
The World in Union
Roar Rookie
And add a 6th Presidents/Barbarians SRAU team like what happened in SuperW.
BleedRedandBlack
Roar Rookie
There's what you want, and what's going to happen, and the two don't often match in this world. I'd agree that what NZR should be doing, should have done right from the start of pro rugby, is look to expand the footprint of genuinely sustainable pro rugby in NZ. There is a lot more playing and coaching talent in this country than can be accomodated within the very narrow SR structure. There is also a lot more money than is generally appreciated, as Altrad and SL are making clear. NZ is the foundation of SR rugby, holds exactly the same place as Victoria does in the AFL and NSW in the NRL. NZR should have and still could use SL and other money to set up new SR franchises in NZ. [For a whole series of reasons you can't get rid of the existing set ups] When Sanzaar SR fell over they looked at creating more franchises. There was discussion of the country being split into 7 SR teams, 2 NPC teams per franchise, meaning two more teams in the North Island. North vs South Island of Origin happened, and was the best game of rugby in 2020. It was all looking so good. And then nothing happened. No new SR teams in NZ, except MP, which at best is only partially NZ, and no Island of Origin. The reasons became obvious. NZR didn't want more SR teams because of the cost, the SR teams didn't want more competition for players, and the NPC teams that weren't SR bases didn't want the risk. Everyone was just looking after their patch and no one was willing to create a winners and losers situation. I agree a 8 to 10 team NZ domestic championship would be ideal and doable, with games against Aussie/Japanese/Pacific teams in a Heineken Cup time comp as a follow up, plus a 3 Match Island of Origin series. But no one with any sort decision making power in NZ rugby as a whole wants that. In fact on the evidence what NZR seem to want is to colonise Aussie SR teams with NZ players and turn themselves into the NRL.
Old Bugger
Guest
So jez, just who do you think is paying for Drua?? Is it RA?
jeznez
Roar Guru
While teams like the Brumbies, Force and Rebels cannot fill their rosters from local options then I think the problem doesn’t exist. A guy like Anstee makes his way to the Force, Reimer to the Brumbies. Etc. In the future if the squads are being filled locally and we worry that players are missing out then we can look to expand to SA and send overflow candidates there to help them develop.
AndyS
Guest
So now they are going straight to SR contracts if brought in from outside? If there is no money, the question is how they would justify relocating someone just to have a look at them in the NRC. That is the hurdle if teams in other states are expected to pick up the slack for local shortsightedness.
The Late News
Roar Rookie
Where are you mate? You running late again?
jeznez
Roar Guru
.
jeznez
Roar Guru
how would anyone justify relocating players? Given there are more New South Welshmen playing for Super AU teams other than the Tahs, there doesn't seem to be any issue making the justification?
AndyS
Guest
Not allowed to say anything that explicit these days. Better to go with the standard and well understood "You'll be lucky if you can get them to work for you"...
AndyS
Guest
Maybe, but only if they are fishing in the one pond. So if they are cementing the status quo and treating SS/HC as the only place to look for new talent, yes. If they are each looking locally, as they should be, not so much. And with so much made of the lack of money, how would anyone justify relocating players?
Joe King
Roar Rookie
For me, the key advantage of using the AU teams for the NRC level comp is that it's the most effective way to develop cohesion among the players in those teams in order to be more competative for SRP. Because if the AU teams are equally competative with the NZ teams, then SRP would actually be a very exciting comp!
AndyS
Guest
It is an extension of the same thing...even within the amateur potentials, the only people who will be seen are those that SR were already looking at and going to pick. It is not an opportunity for anyone who wasn't already under close consideration for that opportunity with or without NRC. At most it is a final selection audition to get selected into a development program, not a development program in itself.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Further to that point - I think the way we cover for that is by there being 5 different teams in Super AU. If Darren Coleman and Laurie Fisher don't think someone has what it takes, maybe Tim Sampson does.
jeznez
Roar Guru
That's something different again no? Original discussion was whether the Super AU as proposed would provide opportunity for players that aren't already in the squad for Super Rugby Pacific. Now you seem to be advocating for a different coaching team/selectors for the tier below SRP?
AndyS
Guest
But my point was that it will still be those same four players looked at, because the same people selecting for SR would be selecting for the NRC. What you will never hear the SR selectors say is "We didn't think that player had it in him, but he showed us and he's earned a contract". Because if they think he doesn't have it in him, he won't get a chance at NRC level either. It might slightly inform better selection at SR level, but only by players showing they aren't up to it, never by showing they are against expectations.
Old Bugger
Guest
Agreed Potsie. A 10-team Premiership pro-rugby competition backed up by semi-pro 2nd and 3rd division competitions - that IMO, is about the only proposal all 26 unions, would agree to. So, you end up with Premiership (1st Div, 10 teams), Championship (2nd Div, 8 teams) and Heartland (3rd Div, 8 teams). The Ranfurly Shield challenges, can remain as decisions, for the holder. I'd consider promotion-relegation between Divisions except, it would need to be carefully considered against, my option below. Exactly the same as now....oh and one more option to stir the pot - allow the Premier teams to attract overseas players (max 2 players), using 3rd party sponsorship, as additional players to their NZ roster. In other words, overseas players are paid by 3rd party finance and not, NZR finance. BTW Potsie, any idea what the total annual income could be for NZR, when you include the Sky, Altrad, INEOS and SL investments deals?? Be interested to know that one when you think Sky is $400M/5yrs, Altrad is $118M/6yrs, dunno what INEOS is but, let's assume its $100M/10yrs and SL is $380M up front plus $200M grass-roots fund plus, a potential profit income over say, 10yrs. Don't worry about the in-and-outs of the SL deal - be optimistic in a conservative manner to come up with, a ball-park figure.
potsie
Guest
Like you, I'd much prefer an NPC First Division professional competition than the Super Rugby Pacific which looks to me like the worst possible and most compromised competition anyone could come up with. But I think NZ can really only support about 10 well financed professional teams which means either dropping 4 teams from the professional ranks back to Heartland Rugby or a few mergers.
Colin Fenwick
Roar Rookie
The funny thing is, when I was in Cusco with my ex-fiancee, I suffered badly from altitude sickness. The remedy, according to the locals, was to have coca leave tea. I gotta say, it worked.