Why Super Rugby should only be 9 teams.

For some time now there has been criticism about the expansion of the Super rugby competition. Here are some real facts about why the Super XV should be a Super 9 competition.

Since the expansion of the Super Rugby compeition to the super 14 in 2006, here are the pool matches played by all the teams, the log points they have earned and the win percentages for each team.

Spoiler:

When you look at the log it is clear that there is a signifcant gap between the win percentages and competitiveness of the first nine teams and next 6 teams.

It however doesn't tell the whole story, from this picture you might come to the conclusion that there should be 4 NZ teams, 3 SA teams and 2 OZ teams. That is however not what I am advocating.

The Australian Franchises were more successful than what these figures show prior to the Super 14 being introduced.


The established Australian Franchises during the Super 12:
The Brumbies prior to the super 14 had won 66 out of 110 matches for a 60% win record.
The Waratahs prior to the super 14 had won 57 out of 110 matches for a 52% win record.
The Reds prior to the super 14 had won 59 out of 110 matches for a 54% win record.

The South African Franchises during the Super 12:
The Bulls prior to the super 14 had won 36 out of 110 matches for a 33% win record.
The Stormers prior to the super 14 had won 45 out of 99 matxhes for a 51% win record.
The Sharks prior to the super 14 had won 45 out of 110 matches for a 41% win record.

These two countries were given additional teams as the super rugby tournamnet expanded. It is clear that the three established Australian franchises have sturggled more as a collective due to their expansion from three to five teams due to the spread of their talent over 5 instead of three teams.

Although the South african three leading franchises have improved their success rate even after the expansion is misleading for the following reasons.

Firstly they started the super 12 as Provinces that qualified through the Currie Cup and were in essence Currie Cup teams competing in super rugby, once the Regional Franchises were created each of these franchises recieved "feeder" provinces from which they could add to their squads for the super rugby tournament.

Another reason for their successes was the terminal decline of the Transvaal province who went from winners of the super 6 in 1993 to semi finalists as the Cats (combined with the Cheetahs in 2000 and 2001) to bottom feeders in the last 5 years.

The Cheetahs and Lions have effectively been pilfered by these three top franchises and very few stars were present representing these two franchises.

Looking at the Cheetahs over the past 5 years alone, they had lost 58 players to retirement and poaching by other professional outfits.

Here is a list of players the cheetahs have lost over the past 4 years.

2008
Bevin Fortuin, Eddie Fredericks, Gavin Passens, Hendrik Meyer, Herkie Kruger, Conrad Barnard, Falie Oelschig, Tobie Botes, Duanne Vermeulen, Darron Nel, Rory Duncan, Barend Pieterse, Ronnie Uys, CJ van der Linde
2009
Fabian Juries, JW Jonker, Piet van Zyl, Hanno Coetzee, Jacques-Louis Potgieter, Gerrie Odendaal, Darron Nell, Wayne van Heerden, Flip van der Merwe, Francois Uys, Richardt Strauss, Kobus Calldo, Bees Roux, Jean Botha
2010
Jongi Nokwe, Danwel Demas, Bjorn Basson, Lionel Mapoe, Meyer Bosman, Louis Strydom, Marnus Hugo, Hendro Scholtz, David de Villiers, Nico Breedt, Barend Pieterse, Wian du Preez
2011
Riaan Viljoen, F Juries, Philip Burger, Corné Uys, Wilmaure Louw, Barry Geel, Naas Olivier, Sarel Pretorius, Kabamba Floors, Frans Viljoen, Johan Wessels, Pieter Myburgh, Leon Karemaker, Wilhelm Steenkamp, Hendrik Roodt, Ryno Barnes, Skipper Badenhorst, Kobus Calldo

They stand to lose another bunch of players end of the season who are already confirmed to leave for Europe, George Earle - Scarlets, WP Nel - edinburgh, Izak v d Westhuizen - Edinburgh, Ashley Johnson - Wasps.

For all intent and purposes it could be argued that New Zealand can maintain 4 teams in the super rugby competition, South Africa could sustain 4 competitive franchises, but not with the unequal economic situation of their franchises, only the bulls, stormers and sharks can financially afford and sustain their expensive pplayers, the cheetahs has never had the money to retain players and the Lions are in serious financial trouble and has been for some time.

Australia as shown above can only compete with three franchises.

Therefor to keep it fair for all three countries, in my opinion the super rugby competition should be reduced to 9 teams. For a number of reasons it will be an improvement on the current system.

1. Double round home and away matches will be fair to all teams.
2. 16 weeks round robin
3. 4 semi finalists.
4. higher quality rugby.
5. fewer teams means improved performances from the teams and higher level of quality esposure for players making the step up to test rugby smaller.
6. National coaches will have an easier task to select test squads.

If necessary and viable, there can be a second tier, whereby each country can then have their other two franchises compete and leaves door open for Argenitina to enter a lower level super rugby tournamnet when they are ready.

They should let London Welsh in

I agree with you Biltong, far too many club matches are being played these years which leads to far more injuries. Also having only 3 teams from each country would make it a far more high quality competition as each club would have a greater pool of players to choose from.

I feel the same way about the Aviva Premiership. We really need to cut back the numbers of teams and stop promotion/ relegation in order to improve the quality of our clubs and then our success in the Heineken Cup.

Fewer teams with better squads is the future.

I enjoy Super Rugby the way it is. All three super rugby countries have dominated world rugby for a long time and have won all bar one world cup.

So if it isn't broken don't fix it.

JayM: my concern is that it may be in the process of breaking (to continue your metaphor), and it would be good to prevent breakage (not that it will happen as SANZAR are largely concerned with cash)...we will see how the players cope with the ridiculous number of games they're expected to play in a virtually non-stop season!

Biltong: good reasoning...I always thought the format peaked at Super 12.

It is also interesting to note that in the Aussie conference 4 out of five teams have a negative points difference compared to two SA teams and one NZ team...

The break is coming, just look at the number of injuries already this season.

The Reds one third throught the season were on the 4th best flyhalf, the cheethas are already on their third best flyhalf, the Lions, Reds and a number of teams had stages in the competition wherevy they had virtually their whole first XV on the injury list.

The stormers have to send SOS's to europe to find back rowers.

The list is endless.

Just look at the Boks, just at back row, their injury list is longer than my... well it is long, burger out, Smith out, Vermeulen out, Alberts is just returning, Deysel haven't played etc.

biltongbek wrote:The break is coming, just look at the number of injuries already this season.

The Reds one third throught the season were on the 4th best flyhalf, the cheethas are already on their third best flyhalf, the Lions, Reds and a number of teams had stages in the competition wherevy they had virtually their whole first XV on the injury list.

The stormers have to send SOS's to europe to find back rowers.

The list is endless.

Just look at the Boks, just at back row, their injury list is longer than my... well it is long, burger out, Smith out, Vermeulen out, Alberts is just returning, Deysel haven't played etc.

So finally NH and SH rugby is on a more even footing, and sadly all rugby is the worse for it.

We know tv has driven the expansion of the number of teams as they want a longer season and viewership in more cities. But, at least in Australia, this was also looked on as an opportunity to expand the exposure of top flight Rugby to other parts of the country to increase interest, viewership, and participation. An investment in the future. From that standpoint having the larger number of franchises makes sense. The newer teams would always struggle in the beginning.

On the other point yappy makes, it is quite apparent the longer season will result in more injuries. The Northern Hemisphere season is too long as it is. The SH teams are only beginning to see the impact now. And it will multiply and become worse as this continues in the next few seasons.

Until the NH teams starting flying more than 4 hours to a game across more than 3 times zones the SH teams will still be disadvantaged.

The problem with your analysis is that the Brumbies, Blues and Reds have won 6 titles between them. And the Bulls were hopeless for so long they almost made the Lions look successful.

So which teams are going to make up your 9 Biltong?

SA would do better if they had regional teams but you guys just can't get on. Aus would do better if they had a better domestic competiton feeding into the super level.
NZ would do better if fewer players took off overseas

I agree somewhat the flights are the things of nightmares. You know better than me, but how many trips across the Indian Ocean between SA and NZ/Oz do each team take every season? I thought it was only one time which is not too bad. The flights between Australia and NZ are short and would not contribute to any disadvantage.

Even with the new schedule, I think players in the North play more matches. In England the current limit, I believe, is 32 matches per season, including club and national matches.

You are right in that it is just one trip. I think however, the other elements of travel are often forgotten. The distances involved within countries are large. Even in NZ the internal distances are large compared with the premiership. There are very few games that don't involve flights as a necessity (only the Bulls/Lions and the Blues/Chiefs come to mind). The tyranny of distance means that players are on the road for long periods of time.

doctor_grey wrote:I agree somewhat the flights are the things of nightmares. You know better than me, but how many trips across the Indian Ocean between SA and NZ/Oz do each team take every season? I thought it was only one time which is not too bad. The flights between Australia and NZ are short and would not contribute to any disadvantage.

Even with the new schedule, I think players in the North play more matches. In England the current limit, I believe, is 32 matches per season, including club and national matches.

I don't think there is a big difference in the number of games played between NH and SH players.

Even when you go back to the Super 14 when there were 13 rounds, then a player would play 13-15 matches in Super rugby, 12-14 matches in test, plus 5-7 Currie cup matches and some warm up matches pre season.

What has happened now is that the South African super rugby players will play more Super matches and less Currie cup matches.

But still end up with 30 odd matches played.

Then if you add the travelling the time spent on travelling becomes rather daunting.

When you look at the SA players, they'll be in the Antipodes for a minimum of a month during Super rugby, then again in the Antipodes for the Tri Nations, now you add Argentina to the list as well, so another month travelling the globe for the Rugby Championship.

Anf then finally another month in the NH.

So travel wise the challenge for the SH nations are particularly daunting.

So which teams are going to make up your 9 Biltong?

The top three teams of each nation on the table.

SA would do better if they had regional teams but you guys just can't get on. Aus would do better if they had a better domestic competiton feeding into the super level.

We already have regional teams, Aus will struggle with a domestic set up under Super rugby, hence the other teams from each country must play in a second tier competition.

NZ would do better if fewer players took off overseas

NZ and SA will do better, but don't have the finances to pay these players, Lions are financially ruined, the Cheetahs just don't and never will have the money.

The only travel which I see as impacting the Super Rugby players is the cross-Indian Ocean trip. And that's got to be real tough. Here in the US, their sports teams on planes constantly, and those distances are similar to or are greater than the distances up and down Aus, NZ or SA. There are always some teams criss-crossing the continent. Sometimes for only one match. So I can't believe this impacts Rugby players any differently.

I think we all agree the number of matches played is too large. Everywhere. This is what causes the injuries and general wear and tear.

What kind of squads do the weaker teams have? For instance the top European teams have 45 man squads.

profitius wrote:What kind of squads do the weaker teams have? For instance the top European teams have 45 man squads.

Squads are all 28 strong. The NZ teams then each have a 6-man "wider training group" to dip into as injury cover, while the SA teams are able to call up players from lower level competitions if needed. The Highlanders have had to pick up a couple of players from Japan to cover their injuries (they've been hit hard by injuries to flankers and flyhalves), while the Force, the Reds and the Stormers (or possibly the Sharks?) have recruited mid-season injury cover from Europe.

It would be nice to hear from people like Afoa, Thorne, Haskell etc about the differences and similarities between playing the different competitioins

doctor_grey wrote:The only travel which I see as impacting the Super Rugby players is the cross-Indian Ocean trip. And that's got to be real tough. Here in the US, their sports teams on planes constantly, and those distances are similar to or are greater than the distances up and down Aus, NZ or SA. There are always some teams criss-crossing the continent. Sometimes for only one match. So I can't believe this impacts Rugby players any differently.

I think we all agree the number of matches played is too large. Everywhere. This is what causes the injuries and general wear and tear.

The teams in the U.S that are flying across the nation would have simpler domestic travel, whereas the teams down here would have the issues of Immigration and Customs. In terms of time zones Auckland is 12 hours ahead of Capetown.

Australia and South Africa are such big countries that they can maybe have the extra teams, there is growth potential in these countries. To be honest having the expansion on the Super 15 has not made any difference to the dominance of the Southern Hemisphere teams.

Also more games means more oppertunities for academy players. If those sportsmen are not getting oppertunities in Union you may find they leave for other sports so they can earn a living there.

All true Alyn, but the problem is inherent in the fact that the season is too long firstly and secondly it is impacting on the quality of a competition which is supposed to be Super in quality.

A second tier sytem is ideally suited for developing more teams, and will also make a lot more sense once Argentina want to entertain the though of participating in the super rugby tournament,

For them to join into a second tier with the bottom teams in the Super 15, will mean they can be more competitive until by promotion and relegation they can build up toward the tier one.

The Vodacom and NPC cups are more than adequate second tier competitions, and frankly the quality in them is equal to the Aviva, and Rabo dierct leagues already.

The problem with Argentina of course is they refuse to be professional, though adding Buones Airies to the Supr 15 would enhance it, but that has been discussed elsewhere.

I accept the argument that the inclusion of some of the newer Australian provinces has weakened the Super 15, but those areas will grow over time.

Alyn, no, the Vodacom cup is our third tier, it is the Currie cup that is the loser, they have now reduced the Currie Cup Premier division to six teams as there is no place in the calendar for it.

biltongbek wrote:Alyn, no, the Vodacom cup is our third tier, it is the Currie cup that is the loser, they have now reduced the Currie Cup Premier division to six teams as there is no place in the calendar for it.

Bloody hel I have seen a few Vodacom Cup games over the years if thats the third then whats the second like!

Expand the Super 15 and give us a chance!

AlynDavies wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Alyn, no, the Vodacom cup is our third tier, it is the Currie cup that is the loser, they have now reduced the Currie Cup Premier division to six teams as there is no place in the calendar for it.

Bloody hel I have seen a few Vodacom Cup games over the years if thats the third then whats the second like!

Expand the Super 15 and give us a chance!

Ag, it is only slightly better.

biltongbek wrote:Ag, it is only slightly better.

Looks like we need to try and find another reason to ban South Africa from playing international rugby...

No need mate, we doing a grand job of keeping it messed up.

biltongbek wrote:No need mate, we doing a grand job of keeping it messed up.

Yes true, to be fair your nearly as good as the Welsh at pressing the self destruct button.

Why not let Kobus Wiese run South African rugby, he may not do a good job but at least there won't be any arguments.

Nah, he is too politically correct. The commentators in this country are so used to not being allowed to criticise "quota" players, that their objectivity is long gone.

THEY NEED ME!

Because we're regional three wouldnt work. Based on this year the Auckland and probably wellington regions wont have any super rugby. Yet Blues have won it more than any teams after the saders.

And how does Auckland get back in next season. What do their players do off season. Do fans have to travel to Hamilton to watch a decent rugby match?

All five of our sides have made super finals. The worst overall...Chiefs...is currently at top of the table.

So NZ simply wouldnt agree to less than five teams. Each has proven they deserve to be there.

Some have never got near a final. Agree the current format isnt ideal but 3 teams from NZ wont work either.

If S15 went to S12 or S9 you would see more players leaving and heading North to get a solid place and good money before returning to a bench spot.
As it is NH takes youg up and coming players so if they had a tier 2 or just have a domestic comp it would be worse.

Also having three players for each position is fine but it doesn't leave much room for injuries.


I know its all about money but any idea how much profit/loss a union makes when the team is paid for for 3,4 and 5 teams.
You would think that the money goes up the more teams there are but so does the cost of running the teams so is there much of a gain.

Taylorman wrote:Do fans have to travel to Hamilton to watch a decent rugby match?

Just be glad you werent born Scottish

AlynDavies wrote:The Vodacom and NPC cups are more than adequate second tier competitions, and frankly the quality in them is equal to the Aviva, and Rabo dierct leagues already.

What have you been smoking, Alyn!

profitius wrote:What kind of squads do the weaker teams have? For instance the top European teams have 45 man squads.

Not all of them. Ulster certaintly dont and with the exception of Munster and Leinster I doubt any other Pro12 team has 45 full time players.

Brendan wrote:If S15 went to S12 or S9 you would see more players leaving and heading North to get a solid place and good money before returning to a bench spot.
As it is NH takes youg up and coming players so if they had a tier 2 or just have a domestic comp it would be worse.

.

Woudl you though ?

The English have a salary cap in place
The Irish are reducing the number of NIE players and in Wales the trend seems to be away from NWE players.

Could just mean a lot of players without employment - unless by North you mean Japan

Take NZ or SA. Of their six top players in every position how many of them would be happy on SH wages sitting on the bench for most of the season when they could be playing in the NH on more money.

If Super went to 9 top teams they would have to change their no national players can play abroad policy.

I think that the problem with the Super rugby is they want a league but no weak teams, any league will have good and bad teams.

They need to have a setup of conference league and top two from each country go through to Super Cup and next two go through to super plate and the last team can sit in the corner and do lines for being rubbish.

That would be 8 + 6 so same as now but a higher standard for half of it.

Speaking of squad size, I see former Shannon player Connor Finn made the bench for the Force against the Reds. Fair play to him.