Changes in the Currie Cup: Good or Bad?

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Eight-team Currie Cup mooted

The South African Rugby Union has asked its competition committee to reconsider the Absa Currie Cup structure so that a place can be made for the Southern Kings in a future competition.

http://www.supersport.com/rugby/currie-cup/news/130816/Eightteam_Currie_Cup_mooted

Ah, you gotta love South African politics. Let's review:

At the end of 2011, SARU decided to change the Currie Cup format. To accommodate a strength-versus-strength competition, the Premier Division was changed from 8 to 6 teams, which would include the Eastern Province Kings. Of course, the Kings had to win a promotion-relegation play-off against the no. 6 team of the 2012 season. Many thought the smaller union Griquas would be the unfortunate party in this scenario.

The difference is, that the Griquas team performed above expectation and the Free State Cheetahs ended 6th. That got SARU in a different situation that was almost impossible to resolve. If the Kings earned promotion, the Cheetahs province would be relegated. A province being a big feeder to Springbok Rugby with the lucrative and very successful Grey College in their region. The Cheetahs won and the Kings were in the First Division for another year.

With the Kings in Super Rugby in 2013, after a big lobby by the ANC, Cheeky Watson and Alan Solomons, this year would be different. After losing Super Rugby rights for the following year by losing the Super Rugby play-offs (not to be confused with the Currie Cup promotion/relegation play-off) to the Lions, several players left the organisation.

My opinion, and if you guys disagree, please, debate, is that recent events in Currie Cup rugby caused SARU to re-think their strategy. With the Griquas team beating the Natal Sharks team in Durban in round 1, it was imminent the Griquas team would again not end as 6th, again leading to a big team taking on the Kings in a play-off. The other thing is the disappointing results of the Kings provincial team.

The Currie Cup First Division started in June, when the Kings were still playing Super Rugby, leading to a second-string team taking on their opponents in the Currie Cup. This eventually led to them losing to the Pumas (13-29), Leopards (18-22), Boland (23-30) at home. The following result is that the Kings are 4th in the First Division, only 1 point ahead of Boland. Will the Kings ever get to the Premier Division when they keep it in the current format? Apparently SARU doesn't think so. Oregon Hoskins now comes with the brilliant idea to turn back the decision and going back to 8 teams. Everything to accomodate the Extremely Petty Kings (What else could EP mean?).

This brings me to the second part I would like to discuss. Should SARU take notice of what the NZRU is doing with the ITM Cup? Both countries have 14 provincial teams, but in New Zealand, they have 2 divisions of 7 teams, with teams also playing inter-divisional games. Long-term that benefits the overall development of players for all teams. Should SARU do the same? I know, at first, the scores against teams like Griffons, Falcons and Bulldogs will be massive, but you cannot change things over-night.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

While I hate the behind-the-scenes reasoning for possibly returning to an 8 team Currie Cup premier division I am for it;

I think the development f the Kings can only be good for SA in the very long run. SARU have to take care though not to favor the Kings at the expense of the other unions which is exactly what they did in SR. Be patient and help develop EP rugby from the ground up while working towards 6 SA teams in SR but DON'T cut off an already existing feeder in the process.

For a strength vs strength Currie Cup, there needs to be an upliftment of the Kings, Lions and either the Pumas or SWD/Boland/Border. As the Griquas help the Cheetahs out in SR the 8th team that would probably be the Pumas can help out the Lions or if the others, they can help out the Kings as an extra pool of players to draw into SR. I would love for the Boland to develop but race politics and the thumb f WPRU means the Boland is a shadow of what it could be. I mean how many current/recent Bokke came through Boland schools/club rugby or were bron in the area!?; Willie le Roux, Francois Hougaard, Morne Steyn, Andries Bekker, Schalk Burger, Schalk Brits, JP Pietersen, Joe Pietersen, Guthro Steenkamp, PS du Toit, Handre Pollard, Jean de Villiers.. who am I missing..

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

I just wish we'd have a similar system to NZ where all teams play each other. Now, the smaller teams are not even worth mentioning. How is SA Rugby ever going to evolve if we keep focusing on 6 teams?

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I just wish we'd have a similar system to NZ where all teams play each other. Now, the smaller teams are not even worth mentioning. How is SA Rugby ever going to evolve if we keep focusing on 6 teams?

I hear you but I think 8 strong tteams are enough. If we open it up to all 14 then we'd have to drop the return matches entirely and we'll be seeing some horrendous winning margins for a good while. 6 is too few but I think 8 evenly matched teams are fine.

 

[TRF_heineken]

It has always puzzled me as to why they ever went to the 6-team format.

They always talk about growth, and expansion (look at the Super Rugby talks), and by going to 6 teams, they are not doing that. All that it did was to make a bigger gap between the top 6 and the other unions.

I am all for the 8-team format, but in all honesty, it should be a 10-team tournament. Then you can include the Pumas, Leopards, Valke and Kings, and even Boland. To me the Pumas are the front-runners ahead of the Kings when it comes to a quality team. Since they moved to Nelspruit, they have been silently developing into a proper team, that is dominating the other lesser-union teams.

This is just once again proof that SARU is being mismanaged. That their priorities are not where it's supposed to be, and that political interference still plays a major role in SA Sport. With Oregon Hoskins, and Jurie Roux for that matter, we will never have a completely independant governing body for our sport that we love so much.

P.S. did you guys read the article about the Maties Rugby finance scandal?? Of which Jurie Roux used to be the boss of...

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

What kind of winning margins are we talking about? In the 2006 NZ season (i.e. the first one expanded from 10 teams to 14) there were some pretty regular high margins posted (not unusually large, just consistently large such as 45-0, 41-10, 46-6, 37-0) but I'd expect the SA ones to be larger. The major difference is that when we expanded we obviously already had 10 teams, so the competition was already more even. Over time it would create a better competition for you, I don't necessarily know if it would actually increase the strength of the Springboks, to be honest, or at least not much. It's more the middle tier which would benefit.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

What kind of winning margins are we talking about? In the 2006 NZ season (i.e. the first one expanded from 10 teams to 14) there were some pretty regular high margins posted (not unusually large, just consistently large such as 45-0, 41-10, 46-6, 37-0) but I'd expect the SA ones to be larger. The major difference is that when we expanded we obviously already had 10 teams, so the competition was already more even. Over time it would create a better competition for you, I don't necessarily know if it would actually increase the strength of the Springboks, to be honest, or at least not much. It's more the middle tier which would benefit.

I agree all 14 teams being in one comp won't do much for the Bokke. As for margins.. well, I don't expect more than 25-50 points between the top 10 teams but the bottom 4 are pretty dire. I do think that we need to consider something in between the two; 6 being too few and 14 too many. 8 or 10 would suit SA as is and going forwards. The only problem with a 10 team Currie cup is the 2nd tier 4 teams won't make a viable tournament. Maybe then look to split the Bulls (Limpopo BB already are somewhat separate), maybe split the Boland into its two distinct parts; winelands and west coast and look at 2 other opportunities to create 18 total with 10 in one and 8 in the other.

A MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger issue than propping up the middle though is how do we keep hold of our top players (that and developing channels for township kids but that is an entirely different kettle of fish)? Up until now you'd see players moving off who would probably only have max 2 years left at test level and it was almost a good thing to have them move on to create room although if they could play in SA it would be good for their experience to influence the younger generation. But now we see current and even earmarked future Bokke moving on. If the likes of CJ Stander etc return in their prime that is all fine and dandy but we have reached something of a soft watershed in having to decide how we deal with overseas-based current Bokke.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Just some random blow-out games:

In 2006:

Pumas 10-89 Lions
Bulls 66-3 Pumas
Pumas 14-82 Sharks
Sharks 48-10 Valke
WP 66-13 Valke

In 2007:

Lions 75-0 Boland
Valke 7-48 Bulls
Griquas 63-10 Valke
Cheetahs 91-3 Boland

In 2008:

Valke 7-78 Cheetahs
WP 92-15 Valke


I still feel, if SARU would stick to a system where all teams play each other, it could benefit the development of young players currently in George, Nelspruit, Welkom and Potch but SARU is too focused on the 6 big teams.

It also doesn't really help to have all Super Rugby players registered to the biggest unions (Cheetahs franchise being the only exception). Imagine if the Bulls players would be divided among several teams. All teams benefit, in the long run getting more players the opportunity to make a name for themselves and develop.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

^^ Those marginsare exactly reason why I think 8 is enough as I can't see the Kings and Pumas give away 8o points currently. They probably won't win any games except for the odd big upset but I can't see them giving away more than 40 in a bad game.

 

[TRF_heineken]

In all fairness, the Margins of victory doesn't really bother me, as long as the quality of rugby is good.

With the tournament expanding, there must always be an expectation that established teams will score more tries than lesser established teams. With growth, the new teams will slowly but surely get there. Just look at the Griquas, At some stage they weren't part of the Currie Cup premier division, but got their chance, and are now a feared team... Especially by the Sharks...

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

True. Back in 2007 (not even 10 years ago) Griquas lost by similar margins to the big teams. The problem is that SARU never sticks with a plan long enough for it to work out. Since the early 90's, the format of the Currie Cup has changed at least 5 times. Ridiculous.