The End of Super Rugby

First topic message reminder :

From 2016 SA are threatening to withdraw from Super Rugby unless the can field 6 sides.The corollary for this would be a Super 18 6 sides each conference.Or the old chestnuts SA sides playing in Europe and a separate ANZAC conference or a two tier Super season.The idea means if logically
concluded,more games,spreading the product even thinner etc.4Ns apparently is not effected thoughts anyone?

The Super Rugby evolved from Australia not having a Club Base like SA and NZ the expansion has`nt really helped Australia.Realistically they can only sustain 3 sides at that level. SA is
being developed on political grounds hence insisting on 6 teams.Nz could like Sa survive without Super Rugby could Aus?
The big plus about Super Rugby was it provided a mid point between club at ITM/Currie Cup level to tests.
The conference system was step backwards and playoffs too much advantage given to top 2 sides.
For SA supporters here ask yourself,will it improve your Test side,keep players at home or finish quotas if you go it alone.IF the answer is YES then go for it because the current system
isn`t working for you.
BECAUSE no way should you be Second best to the AllBlacks since your return in 1992[,even Australia have a slightly better record] to have sunk level you have.
Because I for one am saddened by it much as I am an AB fan,this was THE big matchups for me.

Exactly, it's a shame South Africa haven't won the world cup twice since then.

Look, I'm a bit worried. A sensible conversation has broken out here.

If the South Africans leave the tournament, we (australia and New Zealand) could go back to the old South Pacific championship (SPC) format. With three New Zealand teams (Auckland, Wellington and Canterbury) Otago and Waikato would be excluded because they havent got an International airport. NSW and Queensland from 'Stralia, plus the best performing Pacific Islands nation, at the moment Samoa.

Only problem is we'd all be broke after one or two seasons.

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Well the Rebels should never have got the 5th Franchise in the first place.... NZ are at the limit with 5 teams, AUS probably 4.... SA it would be 6 IMO.

Thats what financially would have been the sensible thing to do as well as from a players numbers perspective.
But SA often gets out ranked in SANZAR decisions... AUS has too much weight, they are not an equal partner either in player numbers or financial strength and contributions.

havnt really bothered with the politics of all this but this isnt purely because SA believe they should have 6 sides surely?

Theyve only ever had one winner and to date other than the Cheetahs huge improvement 3 of the sides remain cellar dwellers- Lions, Cheetahs and Kings.

All 5 of NZ's sides have made finals with (hopefully after this weekend) 3 winning it twice or more. Could we put out a 6th side? Easily. But probably not one capable of winning it easily. But we're not unique there.

If SA were to go to a NH comp it would drag them down I reckon. They play a similar style to the NH and would end up in that league, and the lesser contact with the faster NZ and Oz game would struggle in the top 3.

disagree with you taylorman.

It took SA a decade to adjust to the tougher travelling schedule compared to NZ and OZ.

Since the Super XIV we have been much more competitive.

In the 5 years of the Super XIV

Semi finalists.
NZ 10
SA 7
OZ 3

Winners
SA 3
NZ 2

Super XV
Qualifiers for play offs
SA 7
NZ 6
OZ 5

Winners
Oz 1
NZ 1

Since the conference system we have 4 teams with a better than 50% win rate in cross conference maches, more than OZ and NZ.

No matter how you cut it, we are very competitive and looking at who wins is looking at one team, compare what really matters, cross conference results.

As for not playing in the Super Rugby, why would we get weaker?

Familiarity breeds contempt, the less we play OZ and NZ the tougher they will find it to combat our physicality.

That said, I'd rather have us go on our own than join the NH.

Perhaps, but perhaps the timing of the SA turanround on away matches coinicides with the need to win conferences matches as a priority. A lot of the away wins are by teams not coping in their home conference. Personally I think our sxv sides are stronger than previously as a result of the increased home matches and the familiarity breeds contempt thing means this is being reflected in the AB results.

I think the sxv is what keeps SH rugby ahead of NH rugby, not the RC or 3N. A SA based NH side would struggle at 3N time for that reason. Just my opinion but they cannot possibly be playing tougher club matches prior to the start of the RC than those in the sxv.

In saying this, the issue looks wider than just a who can beat who which is usually all I'm ever interested in. Geographically SA are in a unique position with no one within a thousands of miles that play the game at any major level, whereas there are two main groups- the home unions and France and ANZAC/ Pacific.

Argie are in the same boat so I guess its a matter of having unique challenges that we just can't identify with.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
If the South Africans leave the tournament, we (australia and New Zealand) could go back to the old South Pacific championship (SPC) format. With three New Zealand teams (Auckland, Wellington and Canterbury) Otago and Waikato would be excluded because they havent got an International airport. NSW and Queensland from 'Stralia, plus the best performing Pacific Islands nation, at the moment Samoa.

 Only problem is we'd all be broke after one or two seasons.

You would also see a massive player drain.

Also as you point out money would be a problem, it could possibly bankrupt the ARU.

In europe the debate is about clubs/regions getting more money. Here it is about the SARU seeing internal and external problems facing it and feeling they can do more with their money to fix it.