Andrew Mehrtens thinks the time has come to ditch South African teams

[Draggs]

id be happy with this, they need to realise that string domestic competitions are a stronger base than super rugby, we're already seeing people playing super rugby without playing NPC, without that stepping stone you loose the connection with the local fan base, make super rugby more elite would be more enjoyable to watch rather than team "topped up" with people you've never heard of from out of town

The only issue is that some player can step straight into SR. Pieter Steph du Toit made his debut with the Sharks in 2012 SR before his CC debut. I think Patrick Lambie did the same thing two years earlier. It's different in SA though, CC clubs are often the same as the SR clubs, compared to the ITM->SR transition where you have say Otago and Southland both part of the Highlanders.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Have to say; I agree with Mehrts. And for a number of reasons.

1. Health of the Game
This is probably the most important one of all; the game in NZ is suffering due to the current format of domestic competition.
20 years ago it was common place to pack Eden park out for an Auckland v Harbour game (and bear in my mind; that is two teams from the same city). Both teams had their stars playing, and there was no talk of burnout or players being rested.
Look at that fixture now. You would be lucky to hit 5 digits in terms of game day patronage.
People are not spending money on a product that does not have the top players.

2. Night games.
This isn't entirely due to SA, as this is for the NH market as well.
NZ hardly ever has day games anymore, and I think it sucks.
Those are important for the parochialism of the contests too. It is good to go along at 12 or 2pm to watch a game and be able to take the whole family. 9.30-10pm is pretty late to get kids home after a footy game.

3. Further expansion.
As long as we are part of SANZAR, we will have to put up with this ongoing dilution of the competition.
Face facts; Super rugby was at its best when it was 12 teams.
Now we have SA wanting a 6th team when their track record is actually absymal.
How often has a SA team taken the wooden spoon? I don't have the numbers, but I would hazard a guess at around 70% of the time.
Also, a SA team has only won the ***le 3 times in 19 years.
It's not a good argument for having more teams. It also means that subsequently there are more games in the middle of the night for Kiwi fans.

The Rules
Now, this one dosen't really relate to SA, but this is my belief regarding the elements required to improve the domestic/super competition as a product
Whether SA fans understand this or not; the game in Australia and NZ (particularly Auckland) has some pretty stiff competition for the entertainment dollar in the form of the NRL.
Now I am a staunch rugby man; but even I have to admit that the product the NRL are putting out is far far superior to that of Super Rugby at the moment.
The rules are partially to blame; but I feel some of this could be negated by the SH teams just choosing to make their own rules for their own competition (much the same as NRL has different rules to Super League)
I have to be honest; the Rugby product at the moment is suffereing from too many re-set scrums, too many breaks in play, too many instances where the clock is running and the ball isn't in play.
If you don't believe me; record a game then fast forward through all the re-set scrums and every instance the ball isn't in play.
You'll be finished watching within an hour. It is ridiculous.

Anyway; just my thoughts.

In summary I think that we don't necessarily have to dump SA, but we need to make some changes.
Because currently; Rugby is losing it's grip here in NZ.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Fine if its about time zones the Saffas can join us love to see how long the NZ/Aus/whoever else lasts then.

Actually, I agree wholeheartedly with this.
It just makes more sense for all parties.

NZ / Aus rugby will survive.
In fact; I think it woudl be better for all parties concerned.

An added benefit woudl be that we don\t play SA every year, so some of the magic of the fixture might return, as it has become mundane these days.

 

[steblin]

Here's what I would like to happen. Domestic competitions (ITM Cup, Currie Cup) become the bread and butter with Super Rugby (or equivalent) being a Heineken Cup type tournament. Will it happen? Of course it wont, Super Rugby in its current form is too far down the line, it would take a massive event for that to happen. International players now are just so used to playing Super and International and forgetting the domestic competition, how would they feel if their team didn't qualify for the Super competition? Also how does this model work without full private ownership, as the NZRU would want their top tier players playing in the top tier tournament.

Alot of idea's being thrown about are 'blank slate' ideas, which are good ideas! However, will never happen.

But just imagine, the increased levels of domestic rivalries, the excitement of seeing your team in the Super competition slugging is out with SA and Aus. One season one of the domestic minors making into Super Rugby, punching above their weight ... I'm getting misty eyed thinking about it!

 

[nickdnz]

Have to say; I agree with Mehrts. And for a number of reasons.

1. Health of the Game
This is probably the most important one of all; the game in NZ is suffering due to the current format of domestic competition.
20 years ago it was common place to pack Eden park out for an Auckland v Harbour game (and bear in my mind; that is two teams from the same city). Both teams had their stars playing, and there was no talk of burnout or players being rested.
Look at that fixture now. You would be lucky to hit 5 digits in terms of game day patronage.
People are not spending money on a product that does not have the top players.

2. Night games.
This isn't entirely due to SA, as this is for the NH market as well.
NZ hardly ever has day games anymore, and I think it sucks.
Those are important for the parochialism of the contests too. It is good to go along at 12 or 2pm to watch a game and be able to take the whole family. 9.30-10pm is pretty late to get kids home after a footy game.

3. Further expansion.
As long as we are part of SANZAR, we will have to put up with this ongoing dilution of the competition.
Face facts; Super rugby was at its best when it was 12 teams.
Now we have SA wanting a 6th team when their track record is actually absymal.
How often has a SA team taken the wooden spoon? I don't have the numbers, but I would hazard a guess at around 70% of the time.
Also, a SA team has only won the ***le 3 times in 19 years.
It's not a good argument for having more teams. It also means that subsequently there are more games in the middle of the night for Kiwi fans.

The Rules
Now, this one dosen't really relate to SA, but this is my belief regarding the elements required to improve the domestic/super competition as a product
Whether SA fans understand this or not; the game in Australia and NZ (particularly Auckland) has some pretty stiff competition for the entertainment dollar in the form of the NRL.
Now I am a staunch rugby man; but even I have to admit that the product the NRL are putting out is far far superior to that of Super Rugby at the moment.
The rules are partially to blame; but I feel some of this could be negated by the SH teams just choosing to make their own rules for their own competition (much the same as NRL has different rules to Super League)
I have to be honest; the Rugby product at the moment is suffereing from too many re-set scrums, too many breaks in play, too many instances where the clock is running and the ball isn't in play.
If you don't believe me; record a game then fast forward through all the re-set scrums and every instance the ball isn't in play.
You'll be finished watching within an hour. It is ridiculous.

Anyway; just my thoughts.

In summary I think that we don't necessarily have to dump SA, but we need to make some changes.
Because currently; Rugby is losing it's grip here in NZ.

On your first point - I think you will find that the health of the game is not at all represented by number of fans in seats. Money comes from television deals, man in the stands is surplus. It's unfortunate in a way, but if you remember 15 years ago - you wouldn't watch every game on television from your couch or local pub. I also think until prices etc are sorted, people just don't want to pay $30 a game for the worst seats - as well as a Sky subscription. If you lower the seat prices to $15, you would get twice as many going to games and make the money back on your overpriced food beverages.

2. I agree some more afternoon games really should take place - and I'm personally in favour of changing our model back to the NPC with a H-Cup style format, I think that is practically the healthiest thing for NZ rugby. Once again though I think you place too much emphasis on crowd attendance as a genuine measure of the health of rugby.

3. I'm not entirely sold on the expansion of Super Rugby really diluting teams. It hasn't guarenteed more New Zealand teams success at any rate - even though we haven't added a new team. The reality is - yes South Africa want another team. Because it has 50 million people (10x New Zealand's population) and there is no good to come from excluding a huge percentage of the population from games. People in Taranaki complained about the Hurricanes - they never visit and Wellington is a 2-3 hour drive. If you're from Port Elizabeth you're a city of 300,000+ - you don't want to travel to the Eastern Cape which having never done it myself - would guess it's at least a two day drive to Cape Town. Ultimately I think it's the conference system which hurts teams the most - as who cares if there is a weak team if everyone plays them the same number of times? I'm happy for the game to expand further, I'd love an Argentinian team in Super Rugby - providing we get rid of a conference system and go to a single round robin, or better yet ITM Cup with an inter-competition tournament. I think had we never changed from 12 teams - people would genuinely find the competition would become stale - especially as there is no promotion or relegation system. Ultimately agree there should be a change - but I don't feel excluding SA totally has anything to do with it.

4. I don't agree competitions should really have their own rules. The NRL and Super League can get away with it - because not to insult league fans - international rugby league is a joke. There are three teams that play in those two competitions and rugby league is simple enough that a converson of the rules isn't all that difficult. As it is, competitions can actually use their own rules, there is nothing to stop them. The ARC is trialing a bunch of new rules this season. However international rugby is still the most important tier of rugby, and if everyone has played their own set of domestic rules then international rugby would become a confusing, frustrating mess.

 

[RoosTah]

Brett Harris has an article in today's Australian saying that an unnamed ARU board member is pushing for Australia to stand its ground on refusing an expansion of the current tournament, and failing that just let NZ and SA have a Super Rugby tournament without us.

Personally I'm all for that. I honestly don't think we need to expand the game further at this stage, and the case for a 6th SA team is purely political. That said, if NZ support it, then Australia has to call it quits, because an expanded arrangement would be suicide financially for the ARU.

We've got a new National comp this year, and I'd say that an idea the ARU might choose to promote is holding a national comp followed by a Rugby State of Origin series. That way we could return the State teams to their former 'representative' status and stop calling Qld 'The Reds' (get em back wearing Maroon); make it a proper 3 match series with real importance. An Origin series would serve as a handy testing ground for the Wallabies and reintroduce some of the spite that seems to have gone from the Tahs v Reds games over the years.

 

[FlukeArtist]

On your first point - I think you will find that the health of the game is not at all represented by number of fans in seats. Money comes from television deals, man in the stands is surplus. It's unfortunate in a way, but if you remember 15 years ago - you wouldn't watch every game on television from your couch or local pub. I also think until prices etc are sorted, people just don't want to pay $30 a game for the worst seats - as well as a Sky subscription. If you lower the seat prices to $15, you would get twice as many going to games and make the money back on your overpriced food beverages.

2. I agree some more afternoon games really should take place - and I'm personally in favour of changing our model back to the NPC with a H-Cup style format, I think that is practically the healthiest thing for NZ rugby. Once again though I think you place too much emphasis on crowd attendance as a genuine measure of the health of rugby.

3. .... I think had we never changed from 12 teams - people would genuinely find the competition would become stale - especially as there is no promotion or relegation system. Ultimately agree there should be a change - but I don't feel excluding SA totally has anything to do with it.

4. ......However international rugby is still the most important tier of rugby, and if everyone has played their own set of domestic rules then international rugby would become a confusing, frustrating mess.

Nick just a quick response to a few points:

1. I am on the board of my Rugby Club here in Auckland and I can assure you that whilst Junior numbers remain high, Senior numbers are dropping year on year.
Take my club for example; This year alone we have lost our Club's under 20's team due to low numbers, and the Social grade team dosn't have a competition to play in now because there are only 4 clubs putting teams forward. They will be absorbed into the Presidents Grade (which is diminishing each year too)
I think all of this is a direct result of a disconnect between the lower levels and the highest.
When was the last time you had club players mixing with ABs? probably not regularly since the mid 90s.

2. Agree

3. I don't think it would become stale. The NRL actually improved by reducing the number of teams. I think this would happen should the number of teams in Super Rugby reduce to 12.

4. Hate to say it; but it already is a confusing mess. Honestly; there isn't a game go by when there is some sort of penalty etc, and no one, not even the commentators are sure what it is for! How can you have rules like that?! It is a mess as it is. As my Dad always says: the rules were perfect back in '96 when Super Rugby started. For some reason the IRB had to change them. They have been stuffed since.