Victor Matfield's idea for SANZAR.

Leading on from a discussion Victor Matfield, Kobus Wiese and Naas Botha had on the current structure of the super rugby conference system, some ideas came out which I think is worthwhile having a look at.

Matfield beleives each conference should be played first as to double up not only as the Currie Cup in SA and the ITM Cup in New Zealand, but also as a preliminary round of pool games for the Super rugby tournament.

Once completed, the top 3 teams from each Conference qualifies for round two of the Super rugby competition, whereby all 3 teams from each country then plays all three teams of each other nations, this basically means 8 weeks of round two. At the end of round two, there will be a semi final and final for those teams who qualify.

For a lot of reasons this makes sense.

We have roughly 15 weeks before the June test window. So if the two round conference system is set up, you could even have different number of teams per country. South Africa can for example add the Southern Kings to have a total of 6 teams, NZ can do the same so these two countries will have 6 Super Franchises and Australia could possibly work on developing their 6th team with a future plan that could see them first develop players and perhaps in a few years add another team.

This method will not influence other countries when done on that basis. ZANZAR only need limit the maximum number of teams each conference have. Considering you have fifteen weeks, you do have enough time for 7 teams per conference considering home and away derbies.

Five teams ill take 10 weeks
Six Teams will take 12 weeks
Seven teams will take 14 weeks

So effectively you complete the round one of the competition before the june tests. (Which includes the Currie Cup and ITM cup.)

Once the June tests are completed, the top 9 teams then compete in round two. Looking at the time available, you need 8 weeks plus 2 for preperation of the Four Nations and another 10 weeks to complete the Super Rugby tournament. So a little shuffling is needed to move the June tests a little forward.

Super rugby round 1 - 6 teams maximum - 14 weeks. (added 4 weeks for preparation)
Midyear tests - 3 tests - 4 weeks (added 1 week for preparation)
Super rugby round 2 and finals - 11 weeks. (added 1 week for preparation)
The Rugby championship - 10 weeks (added 2 weeks for preparation)
End of year tours - 5 weeks (added 1 week for preparation)

This totals 44 weeks. Australia benefit because their "domestic" competition is now sustainable and forms part of the Super Rugby tournament, South Africa and New Zealand benefit, because they can continue their Currie Cup and ITM cup under the "guise" of the Super Rugby tournament.

All competitions are completed in blocks and do not interfere with any other.

There is a complete structure which is feasable and each country can add a 6th team if they so wish as it doesn't impact on any other further calendar requirements or formats for any other country.

The climax of the Super Rugby Tournament will be much more competitive and extremely tense and exciting for spectators, and the "super" will have been put back into Super Rugby.

Consider the following:

Round two of the super rugby tournament consists of the following teams.

Chiefs
Highlanders
Crusaders
Stormers
Bulls
Sharks
Reds
Brumbies
Waratahs.

Can you imagine the quality of competition that will be witnessed by seeing these nine teams tackling each other?

Currently the Super Rugby Tournament provides each team with 8 derby matches, and 8 matches against teams from abroad. a total of 125 matches to be played.

When considering the new format, each team will still play the same number of local derby matches, each of the nine teams will play an additional 8 matches in round two, of which 2 will be derby matches and 6 will be against foreign team (Three travelling and three at home). This means the two extra derby matches which according to the people in the know, brings in more money and spectators anyway, plus six teams from abroad (which would cut costs on travelling and accommodation expenses, would result in exactly the same number of matches to be played.

However it is structured much better and also more cost effective.

The only structural change required, would be to move the June test window forward by two or three weeks to accommodate the rest of the calendar. so instead of completing the June tests at the end of june, it is completed middle of June.

This will still remain a ten month long season for the players, however much bettered structured.

Now if SANZAR can accommodate this type of strucutre, I promise I would stp complaining about the conference system and the Super rugby structure as a whole.

Has its merits Biltong but using this years sides and performances only thing I can think of against this sort of format is what do players like Mealamu, Nonu, Weepu, JOC, Beale, Conrad Smith, Goosen etc do for the 11 weeks of the second round and finals, particularly a team like the Blues who after 5 losses out of 6 in round one find theyre effectively out of the season inside 6 weeks? Gone by April.

Aucklanders and Wellingtonians will have nowhere to go watch rugby other than tests for the rest of the year. (not that theyre getting great matches now but none at all is a very different thing).

Some teams are in that position now but to be not playing at all about now isnt going to go down well.

Players can't be kept 'unemployed' or under utlised on contracts for that long I wouldnt think. Players like JOC and Beale would seriously look at playing for the Rebels/ Force in the way they are boosting the team now.

Taylorman,

How about a Plate competition that would run alongside the "cup"? It worked really well at the 7s in Glasgow, keeping interest for all supporters for most of the day.

Good idea scream. The other teams can compete in a second tier competition whereby it is more matches, more money, happy days.

This is brilliant.

As Taylorman says,the Blues season would be over by April,it would mean some of these players would have to go back and play for their clubs wich is what a lot of these players need,playing in a team with some real people like farmers,builders,plumbers etc before they moved back up to ITM cup.
The benefits for clubs to see a Tony Woodcock,an Anthony Boric,Mealamu,Williams turn out in their club colours again is what grassroots/suburban rugby needs.

Yes some egos would get dented,but so what, thats what happens when you play like a bunch of illdisciplined,unfit,ungrateful fools.

Considering that only three teams make the second round, it would put a lot more value on the round one conference competitions as well. I am thinking specifically in NZ where they usually have 4 teams competitive.

Biltong
Personally,I see alot of merit in trying to reduce the size of this competition wherever possible, and if that coincides with raising the quality of the competition then surely it must be a good thing for all concerned,including sponsors, broadcasters and people in stadiums.

I agree, for me the crucial aspect of this is that the round one can also double up as Currie Cup/ITM Cup. So instead of aving the top teams playing with virtual Vodacom cup teams in the currie cup, this won't happen now.

Besides, the currie Cup this year is only six teams anyway. so by adding the Southern Knings to round one, won't make any difference whatso ever and they won't have to be embareesed by being beaten 80-0 by the crusaders.

This most important aspect of this is that anyone of the teams can qualify for round two as long as they are good enough, (even if it takes a team like the Kings 5 -100 years to get there)

Biltong
I think the suggestion that the first instalment be inclusive with Currie/ITM is not really all that neccesary,The Blues eg, covers three provinces which translates to three Itm teams.

Well it will work for SA, as we have the currie Cup premier division and the Currie cup first division.

I also think it’s a good idea and worth exploring… I would have a few reservations on the format however.

The question that really matters is how much money would this format generate, both for the clubs and the unions via TV rights?

The current format currently allows for each Franchise to have home and away matches vs. every team in their own conference which provides 20 domestic matches each season. Bar the increase of the domestic conferences by 1 the proposed change wouldn’t increase the number of domestic matches played.

The problem that I would see with the above is that its fine for clubs such as the Bulls, the Crusaders etc as they would qualify in the top 3 of their conference every season…. But what about clubs like the Cheetahs, Highlanders & Force?
If these clubs don’t qualify for the 2nd round then either their season is finished or they would go into a plate competition. Lets be honest the Amlin is no where near as lucrative as the HC so it will hardly be a positive thing for them.

In essence its a lot to gamble on for the middle to lower ranked clubs esp. given most of the these clubs are generally the ones with lower gate support/natural fan base and depend greatly on the TV money to allow them to compete with the majors.

Also esp. for SA & NZ you lose the domestic cup competition bar the final stages. Firstly this will cause a drop in revenue for the clubs…. WP still draws in about 32,000 for every home Currie Cup game on ave. (CC 2010 season… ’11 was world cup year and no boks were playing). That will be a loss of 5 home games a season or r14.5MM per season (that is assuming the 32,000 CC ave. attendance over the 5 matches at r90 per ticket). This doesn’t include the amount of money the clubs get in food, drink and other match day sales. That is big money for any rugby club around the globe.

The Currie Cup also provides the 2nd tier of SA rugby to get match experience. The gap between Vodacom Cup and Super rugby is quite great so it helps clubs prepare young players for the big step. Often the test players will play few Currie Cup matches per season and the team is a mix of Super rugby players who aren’t in the bok squad and the best of the Vodacom Cup players to fill the gaps.

In essence the proposals are driven mainly due to the political situation of the EP Kings being granted a Super Rugby place even though SA can only field 5 teams with all of them being taken by the Stormers, Bulls, Sharks, Cheetahs & Lions.
The Lions will be the obvious casualties and we may even see a merger of the Cheetahs & the Lions but I can’t see that happening.
It would be fine if EP were snapping at the Lions heels but they’re not even close. They are at best the 8th best side in SA… they recently got knocked out by the Pumas in the Vodacom Cup… who themselves are not even close to the next best side in SA which doesn’t have a Super license… Griquas.

Whatever the case I doubt clubs will sign up for it if it means they lose more money or their players have to play more games which increases their chance of injury and travel costs etc. Certainly worth exploring though.. if it can be made to work that none of the teams losing money... for their entire season (not just the SR campaign) then I could see it having merit.
Unlikely AUS can field another side though... they don't have the strength in depth unless they were able to hold all of their players who ply their trade in Europe.

The question that really matters is how much money would this format generate, both for the clubs and the unions via TV rights?

The current format currently allows for each Franchise to have home and away matches vs. every team in their own conference which provides 20 domestic matches each season. Bar the increase of the domestic conferences by 1 the proposed change wouldn’t increase the number of domestic matches played.

true, but it would sustain it exactly the same way it does currently, as the matches played are the same.

The problem that I would see with the above is that its fine for clubs such as the Bulls, the Crusaders etc as they would qualify in the top 3 of their conference every season…. But what about clubs like the Cheetahs, Highlanders & Force?

they are still part of the tournament, and the number of games will still provide the same revenue, hence the teams should still recieve the same amount of income.

The Currie Cup also provides the 2nd tier of SA rugby to get match experience

during the second round of super rugby there is more than enough time for the remianing three teams plus the other Provinces to compete in some format.

If they have a conference of 6 how many matches will each team play? I assume it would be a home and away against each so 10 matches.

Currently each side plays 16 matches, 8 domestic and 8 cross conference.

If there is no 2nd tier competition the teams that don't make it through will lose revenue from the additional 6 matches and if there was it will probably be less than what they get for 6 cross conference matches... there will be less demand from networks for a 2nd tier competition.

They will also lose the additional revenue they get from the Currie Cup rounds.

At the moment a team like the Cheetahs will have 16 SR matches and 10 Currie Cup matches at a minimum. Thats 26 matches with 18 domestic.

Will the new format be able to generate enough income to supplement the number of matches?
The idea would only guarantee 10 domestic matches with an additional 8 cross conference for an Amlin style plate competition if it went ahead.

Thats a big drop in games played, unless I've missed something

Not trying to pick holes dude... I think it has a lot of pluses... just trying to get my head around it!

biltongbek wrote:I agree, for me the crucial aspect of this is that the round one can also double up as Currie Cup/ITM Cup. So instead of aving the top teams playing with virtual Vodacom cup teams in the currie cup, this won't happen now.

Besides, the currie Cup this year is only six teams anyway. so by adding the Southern Knings to round one, won't make any difference whatso ever and they won't have to be embareesed by being beaten 80-0 by the crusaders.

This most important aspect of this is that anyone of the teams can qualify for round two as long as they are good enough, (even if it takes a team like the Kings 5 -100 years to get there)

I quite like this system Biltong, the only changes I'd suggest are:
-A "plate" competition would be good
-in NZ's case I would like the ITM cup to stay separate - unlike in SA the NZ SXV teams are quite separate from the teams in the ITM cup. The Crusaders for example draw many of their players from Canterbury, but there is representation from Tasman, Hawkes Bay, Otago, Southland and the Southern Kings (Ross Kennedy). The Highlanders have only 3 Otago players and 8 Southlanders with the rest coming in from outside the region.

FA work it out.

Currently there are 125 matches in the super competition.

If you look at the round one matches.

Each conference with 6 teams plays 30 matches. X 3 that is ninety matches.

The round two is an additional 36 matches plus the semi and finals.

So totalling 129 matches, 4 more than the current system.

Therefor revenue from Murdoch should not be affected, hence all teams still get same cut, even if the teams that don't qualify for round two do something else.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

biltongbek wrote:I agree, for me the crucial aspect of this is that the round one can also double up as Currie Cup/ITM Cup. So instead of aving the top teams playing with virtual Vodacom cup teams in the currie cup, this won't happen now.

Besides, the currie Cup this year is only six teams anyway. so by adding the Southern Knings to round one, won't make any difference whatso ever and they won't have to be embareesed by being beaten 80-0 by the crusaders.

This most important aspect of this is that anyone of the teams can qualify for round two as long as they are good enough, (even if it takes a team like the Kings 5 -100 years to get there)

I quite like this system Biltong, the only changes I'd suggest are:
-A "plate" competition would be good
-in NZ's case I would like the ITM cup to stay separate - unlike in SA the NZ SXV teams are quite separate from the teams in the ITM cup. The Crusaders for example draw many of their players from Canterbury, but there is representation from Tasman, Hawkes Bay, Otago, Southland and the Southern Kings (Ross Kennedy). The Highlanders have only 3 Otago players and 8 Southlanders with the rest coming in from outside the region.

As some have mentioned, the "plate competition" could well become the ITM Cup/Currie CUp without the top three teams. It gives additional motivation to the other teams and usually you will also find whilst the Rugby Championship is on the way and the round two, it provides almost 20 weeks for the "second tier comps to run be it a ITM Cup/Currie Cup.

It requires a bit of tweaking. Many who play for the Super franchises are contracted to other provinces. Drafting would stop with this balance and therefore you run the risk of certain provinces and franchises (namely Canterbury) grabbing the major talent and leaving others (namely the Highlanders but not exclusively) with the dregs.

That said I like the proposal. What is clear to me and many others is that this competition simply cannot continue to swell in its current format. Something needs to be done to make sure we have the best teams fighting out between SA, Aus and NZ and whoever might join in the future but this can only happen after the number of teams have been whittled down to a manageable size. This format at least tries to address these problems and whilst I think it needs further tweaking, I think it goes in the right direction. The ITM and Currie Cup already have many top players not playing in it. Putting it at the start of the season means there is more likely to be at some stage top players playing that would not be the case at where those comps are in the rugby calendar at the moment.

Good on ya Vic. You may be a forward but you´ve shown the intelligence of a back there. Maybe he received just the right amount of knocks to the head.

I think everyone of us Southern Hemisphere posters on this web site are in one on this issue,yet the powers that be seem hell bent on increasing the size of the competition every year,in2022 it will be the Super xxv.

Laurie I am sure by then they would have dropped the Super and just call it XXV.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Good on ya Vic. You may be a forward but you´ve shown the intelligence of a back there. Maybe he received just the right amount of knocks to the head.

and you thought he couldn't read between the lineouts

True,Super would hardly be a reflection of quality when your talking about a competition with 25 teams in it.

No mate, it´ll just be the Super Crusaders by then.

He wants to be lifted to even greater heights by masterminding a Super tournament that people actually like.

I agree but the increased number of matches is assuming 18 sides rather than the current 15. The financial pie will get smaller and the increased games overall will mean a cut on average for the existing sides.

Under a format of 6 sides you are right that their will be overall 90 matches.

But crucially for the clubs, each club will only play 10 conference matches which is contrary to the 16 each club currently plays.

With the additional cross conference sure that puts the matches to 18... but if you lose the Currie Cup round robin matches which is 10 per side then the net loss is -8 games.

Perhaps they could keep the CC so that it has another home and away round which continues at the current time period. That would certainly mean more home games for each franchise and give non test players chance to develop their game like the current format allows. So the CC league would go from 10 games played under the current 6 teams 1 home, 1 away to each.... vs. 20 games, 6 teams with 2 matches home & away to each of the other sides.

That would mean 30 matches compared to the current 26. May be a little too much for the players but given the test players will only play the 20 odd CC & SR matches it shouldn't be much worse then current conditions.

Apologises dude if you think its like banging your head against a brick wall... I think we both have valid points and the format could certainly work if the clubs didn't lose anything in the long run.

Well half the teams will play 10 matches and the other half who qualifies will play 18 matches.

fa0019 wrote:Apologises dude if you think its like banging your head against a brick wall... I think we both have valid points and the format could certainly work if the clubs didn't lose anything in the long run.

don;t worry mate, it is a work in progress, early stages yet.

What I like about his thoughts are the fact that essnetially is is the most logical solution to how to split the season and keep the interest going.

I admit there is some thinking necessary, but this looks to be the best proposal currently.

I guess something needs to be done about the EP Kings... with them losing to the Pumas it shows they will get destroyed by even the lions next year let alone the very best in SR... ever seen a side get 150 points put on them... it could happen.

Given there won't be many players out of contract bar some from the Lions I can't see how they will attract enough players of quality in the short term to be competitive.

Its going to be embarassing for SARU thats for sure. Cheeky wields his power once again.

I was looking into this the other day and it turns out that EP in terms of those who are schooled in the province produce as many players as Natal so they potentially have a future in SR. But the Sharks have in my mind the best academy in the country and a massive support base.... 2 things which take decades to build, and both which EP lacks.

Players like Nokwi, Watson, Daniel, Kolisi, Kankowski, Ndugane twins and Tim Whitehead are all from the EC so if they invested big in their academy they could be a force.

The most important thing to realise about cheeky watson is that he is doing this for his own political gains, no other.

totally agree..... anything to turn 1 finger up at the rugby establishment.

He went from being a great pillar of morality in SA sport to one that just seems intent on destroying the foundations of the sport with little reason.

Today he seems to be the epitome of everything that is wrong with SA sport..... the political hand which holds back teams and players.

OK, just a quick question for you southerners (hemisphere that is). Do you think that "qualifying" for the cup rather than the plate (or whatever the system is that is used) will change how teams play?

Lots of fans of the premiership love/loathe relegation and Heineken cup qualification. Some would say it appears to make the national team better at knock out competition but can cause very negative tactics.

I am sure it will make a difference to the way the teams play. It is do or die, otherwise you are out.

Will some people not like that though? And will it affect the national teams (especially Australia who like to throw the ball around a lot!)

The idea has merit but there are other options a two tier system for example with two up two down.The idea of course gets SA of the hook because effectively it is spreading Super Rugby ever more thinly.In recent years at BEST
you could make a case for 4 NZ,3 SA and at a pinch 3 Aus Super sides,NOT more.Face it Super Rugby isn`t any more ,it would make more sense to say play Currie Cup ITM first part of season.A Smaller Super Series on a two tier basis then the tests.