Changes coming to Super Rugby?

[dasNdanger]

Read a brief article by...um...a certain former AB , and it raised some questions for me. I'll just post the bits I don't quite understand:

Depending on what happens at Sanzar and IRB level over the next 12 months, this might be the last time franchises have to manage this tricky period (June internationals). If Super rugby sees significant changes, this might also be the last time we see home-and-away derbies, which I know the players find incredibly demanding on both a physical and mental level.

The rugby in derby matches is hard, and thinking about how you break down opponents you know so well not once, but twice (and in some cases with playoffs, three times) a year requires a hell of an effort.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11202615

What are these 'significant changes' that may happen?

Also, explain please the bit about 'derbies'. This isn't a term we use in the States and so I'm often confused by what it means exactly.

Thankies in advance!


das

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Derbies are the matches between two teams from the same country. Many have suggested that playing each other twice per season is too many, especially when you take into consideration finals matches and the provincial competitions.

The 'significant changes' include everything from new countries being involved to greater geographical separating of the countries (i.e. NZ teams only playing SA teams at the end of the season in finals etc.)

 

[RoosTah]

I've heard that there's an idea to expand the comp to include a collection of Argentinian teams and then split it into a dual conferance system of Aus-NZ and SA-Arg. Would certainly be interesting if they went in that direction.

 

[smartcooky]

Derbies are the matches between two teams from the same country. Many have suggested that playing each other twice per season is too many, especially when you take into consideration finals matches and the provincial competitions.

The 'significant changes' include everything from new countries being involved to greater geographical separating of the countries (i.e. NZ teams only playing SA teams at the end of the season in finals etc.)

They need to harden up and not be a bunch of soft-cocks.

Top14, Pro 12 and AP teams play every other team in their competition a minimum of twice each season, and then some can possibly meet a few more times in the Heineken Cup or Amlin CC, e.g. the following play a minimum of four times this season

Pro12
Leinster v Ospreys
Blues v Glasgow
Connacht v Zebre
Ulster v Treviso
Munster v Edinburgh

Top 14
Clermont v Racing
Biarritz v Oyonnax
Bayonne v Grenoble

Aviva Prem
Sharks v Worcester

Some might meet further in the playoffs

 

[ratsapprentice]

I saw a different article with Cory Jane making some comments on this.

The crux of his argument was "I don't like playing against my mates".

 

[William18]

They need to harden up and not be a bunch of soft-cocks.

Top14, Pro 12 and AP teams play every other team in their competition a minimum of twice each season, and then some can possibly meet a few more times in the Heineken Cup or Amlin CC, e.g. the following play a minimum of four times this season

Pro12
Leinster v Ospreys
Blues v Glasgow
Connacht v Zebre
Ulster v Treviso
Munster v Edinburgh

Top 14
Clermont v Racing
Biarritz v Oyonnax
Bayonne v Grenoble

Aviva Prem
Sharks v Worcester

Some might meet further in the playoffs

Labelling players soft cocks because they are worried about getting injured is hardly fair. Player welfare is extremely important - if you ran the NZRU we would have players streaming off to Japan.

 

[nickdnz]

They need to harden up and not be a bunch of soft-cocks.

Top14, Pro 12 and AP teams play every other team in their competition a minimum of twice each season, and then some can possibly meet a few more times in the Heineken Cup or Amlin CC, e.g. the following play a minimum of four times this season

Pro12
Leinster v Ospreys
Blues v Glasgow
Connacht v Zebre
Ulster v Treviso
Munster v Edinburgh

Top 14
Clermont v Racing
Biarritz v Oyonnax
Bayonne v Grenoble

Aviva Prem
Sharks v Worcester

Some might meet further in the playoffs

The reason I don't like darby matches is because it is boring as hell. Playing eachother twice each season is fine when it's every team in the league as there is more variety to the ridiculiously long season. I don't want to watch repeats of the same matches over such a short season, frankly I find it boring and it disadvantages teams in a difficult conference.

 

[Draggs]

The conference system is pointless in South Africa, considering we have the Currie Cup. Sharks played Stormer/WP SIX times in 2012 (2x SR Conference, 1x Finals; 2x CC, 1x Final).
Play everybody once (or maybe miss one or two teams) and make it interesting. I'd still like a Super12!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

The conference system is pointless in South Africa, considering we have the Currie Cup. Sharks played Stormer/WP SIX times in 2012 (2x SR Conference, 1x Finals; 2x CC, 1x Final).
Play everybody once (or maybe miss one or two teams) and make it interesting. I'd still like a Super12!

Agreed. S12 worked ITO travel and the fact that everyone played everyone so you have integrity in the comp (playing each home and away would make it even more 'fair' but that will make things unfeasible again).

So have a top tier of the 12 best and then the rest are in a lower tier which has these benefits;

- strength vs strength (in both tiers) so better gsmes, better product, better value
- keeps 'international flavour'
- gives bottom teams a chance to actually win a few games between each other so there is meaning in the efforts
- allows a flexible bottom tier that allows for easy expansion; throw in the weakest of each current conference, add the Kings, hell, do Aus or NZ want another team? Lets give Arg spots for however many teams they decide to field, is Japan interested?
- each partner (SANZAR) can decide if they want their teams to be able to play promotion/relegation games;
lLets say the top tier is Sharks, Stormers, Bulls, Cheetahs, Crusaders, Chiefs, Blues, Hurricanes, Waratahs, Brumbies, Reds & Rebels with the Cheetahs, Rebels and Hurricanes being the lowest placed teams of each of the SANZAR partners. In the Lower tier the Lions, Force and Highlanders are top. SA decide, yes, let the Cheetahs and Lions play promo/releg matches. NZ and Aus might decide, we keep it as is for whatever reason. SANZAR nations can keep control until there is a point in time when a change makes sense; like giving Arg (or whoever) equal and full rights within the partnership.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

hate the conference system but love the derbies, love the fact you can actually get to see all the local teams play live every year without having to pay a fortune to travel.

in the end these guys get paid a mint to play a sport...there has to be a downside...and that downside is its hard work. if they want to go overseas because they don't like playing against there mates or its too hard on them...let them go, i'd rather watch less skilled players that actually know how lucky they are and want to be there than prima donas

"i dont like playing against my mates"...honestly!

 

[smartcooky]

Agreed. S12 worked ITO travel and the fact that everyone played everyone so you have integrity in the comp (playing each home and away would make it even more 'fair' but that will make things unfeasible again).

So, you believe that the Heineken Cup has no integrity because each of the 24 teams involved only play a maximum of six of the other teams involved?

NZ won the RWC in 2011 without ever playing England or South Africa; South Africa won it in 2007 without playing New Zealand or Australia or France, England won it in 2003 without playing New Zealand. Does the RWC lack integrity because every team doesn't play every other team?

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

So, you believe that the Heineken Cup has no integrity because each of the 24 teams involved only play a maximum of six of the other teams involved?

NZ won the RWC in 2011 without ever playing England or South Africa; South Africa won it in 2007 without playing New Zealand or Australia or France, England won it in 2003 without playing New Zealand. Does the RWC lack integrity because every team doesn't play every other team?

I think the issue is that certain teams consistently get easier games under the conference system.

World Cup seeding is based on past performance - perhaps if the Super Rugby conferences weren't based on geographical location then it would be a bit different.

I know I'd consider the competition to be a lot fairer if the pools were something along the lines of:

Chiefs
Cheetahs
Stormers
Rebels
Force

Bulls
Reds
Sharks
Hurricanes
Highlanders

Crusaders
Brumbies
Waratahs
Blues
Lions

But of course due to geographical constraints that's not possible.

 

[smartcooky]

Ideally, I would not only like to see the Conference system retained, I would like to see a proper Conference system with teams not playing outside of their Conference until the playoffs. Let SARU have six teams, drop a Japanese based team into the Australian Conference, and Pacific Islands team in the NZ Conference. Teams play home and away within their Conference (10 weeks, 11 or 12 if byes are needed).

Top two in each Conference, plus the two best third placed teams across all three Conferences progress to the quarter finals. (I understand the draw would be problematic, but it isn't something that could not be resolved).

Of course, if we could add an Argentina/Americas Conference at some future time, then the top two teams in each conference progress to the quarter finals, and its a straight draw out of a hat, with the Conference winners seeded into the home side of the draw.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

So, you believe that the Heineken Cup has no integrity because each of the 24 teams involved only play a maximum of six of the other teams involved?

NZ won the RWC in 2011 without ever playing England or South Africa; South Africa won it in 2007 without playing New Zealand or Australia or France, England won it in 2003 without playing New Zealand. Does the RWC lack integrity because every team doesn't play every other team?

i dont think there can be much argument that full home and away league is the truest way to determine the best team. That obvious can always be used. seeded pools being good but less than perfect...the current conference system is a long way down the list. one thing i would like to see for the RWC is everyone other than the host having to qualify. some one sided games but would raise the profile of the game if England and France had to play Georgia and romania et al every four years

 

[Draggs]

Ideally, I would not only like to see the Conference system retained, I would like to see a proper Conference system with teams not playing outside of their Conference until the playoffs. Let SARU have six teams, drop a Japanese based team into the Australian Conference, and Pacific Islands team in the NZ Conference. Teams play home and away within their Conference (10 weeks, 11 or 12 if byes are needed).

Top two in each Conference, plus the two best third placed teams across all three Conferences progress to the quarter finals. (I understand the draw would be problematic, but it isn't something that could not be resolved).

Of course, if we could add an Argentina/Americas Conference at some future time, then the top two teams in each conference progress to the quarter finals, and its a straight draw out of a hat, with the Conference winners seeded into the home side of the draw.

That's boring as ****. I have currie cup for regional matches. I want to play the Aussies and kiwis during the season. It is an international tournament. Super 12/14 was near ideal. The new format is too long and country-based. Start earlier, reduce the derbies and scrap the June break.

Ill be honest here, super rugby isn't there for nations to develop. If they have a finished products to send and compete, then join. I don't want some crappy development side in for the good of rugby, I want a competitive team that will be entertaining to watch.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Ideally, I would not only like to see the Conference system retained, I would like to see a proper Conference system with teams not playing outside of their Conference until the playoffs. Let SARU have six teams, drop a Japanese based team into the Australian Conference, and Pacific Islands team in the NZ Conference. Teams play home and away within their Conference (10 weeks, 11 or 12 if byes are needed).

Top two in each Conference, plus the two best third placed teams across all three Conferences progress to the quarter finals. (I understand the draw would be problematic, but it isn't something that could not be resolved).

Of course, if we could add an Argentina/Americas Conference at some future time, then the top two teams in each conference progress to the quarter finals, and its a straight draw out of a hat, with the Conference winners seeded into the home side of the draw.

Another system which will hugely favour the Aussies and South Africans...

I'd be more partial to the two conference set up that has been mooted - a Western conference and an Eastern conference.

The biggest issue with that is that the South Africans are getting sick of constantly playing each other (given their fixtures in the Currie Cup as well as Super Rugby).

To be honest there's no reason why it can't be set up more like the Heineken Cup.

Have the sixteen Super Rugby teams, throw in some teams from Japan, the Pacific Islands, the Americas and maybe one from Africa and you'll have enough teams to run a proper pool based tournament.

Pool 1 - Chiefs, Highlanders, Rebels, Sharks, Argentina 1, Japan
Pool 2 - Crusaders, Reds, Force, Cheetahs, Argentina 2, North Americas 1
Pool 3 - Blues, Brumbies, Stormers, Lions, Pacific Islands 1, North America 2
Pool 4 - Hurricanes, Waratahs, Bulls, Kings, Pacific Islands 2, Africa

Have each team play each other twice (home and away), then split them up into three quarterfinal draws (trophy, plate, shield etc.). Throw in a couple of byes during the season and you've got yourself a fifteen week season including finals, meaning everything can finish up before the June tours.

 

[smartcooky]

That's boring as ****. I have currie cup for regional matches. I want to play the Aussies and kiwis during the season. It is an international tournament. Super 12/14 was near ideal. The new format is too long and country-based. Start earlier, reduce the derbies and scrap the June break.

Ill be honest here, super rugby isn't there for nations to develop. If they have a finished products to send and compete, then join. I don't want some crappy development side in for the good of rugby, I want a competitive team that will be entertaining to watch.

Draggs, the current system would not have been necessary at all if SARU hadn't kicked up such a fuss over the original proposal. It was for expansion to Super 15; every team was to play every other team, but it would have resulted in the Currie Cup either being shortened, moved back two weeks and having Springboks not involved for the first two rounds, or starting Super Rugby two weeks earlier at the end of January. SARU were not prepared to compromise on any of these. They came up with this stupid arrangement of having each team play only four of the five teams in the other two conferences on a rotation basis, and went to their old standby of chucking their toys and threatening pull out if they didn't get their way. What we have now is almost entirely down to SARU's stubborn attitude.

 

[Draggs]

Well, considering we will have fewer springboks involved with the CC as per Meyers wishes, it doesn't seem to matter now!

 

[nickdnz]

Every options seems pretty sh*t to me. I'd so much rather we just go back to NPC teams and have a intercompetition like the H-Cup. I either want to play everyone once - the only way to make the competition fair - or if we're stuck having a tonne of home matches - I'd rather see Wellington play 13 other NZ teams than four other teams over and over again.

Also with the conference system - how does one decide where the home game in the final is played? In other leagues with conferences it's assigned to a city which frankly I dislike, but there is no other fair way of deciding if the teams don't play eachother.

 

[smartcooky]

Every options seems pretty sh*t to me. I'd so much rather we just go back to NPC teams and have a intercompetition like the H-Cup. I either want to play everyone once - the only way to make the competition fair - or if we're stuck having a tonne of home matches - I'd rather see Wellington play 13 other NZ teams than four other teams over and over again.

Also with the conference system - how does one decide where the home game in the final is played? In other leagues with conferences it's assigned to a city which frankly I dislike, but there is no other fair way of deciding if the teams don't play eachother.

Currently?