Four Conference system planned for 2016

[Shaggy]

In all honesty, NZ are equally benefitting from playing SA sides. We are after all the 2 best teams in the world.

Our tradtional style of play has however evolved the last few years. If we look at that test from last year which everybody was talking about as being the best game in a long time, both teams played at an unbelievable tempo and pace.

But, it came back to bite us as our guys are bigger, and in the end just couldn't keep up.

here's a scenario which nobody seems to be thinking of:
If SA were to remove itself from the Super rugby conference, then NZ would be mostly stuck with the Aussies and the Pacific Island teams. NZ would be exposed to generally the same style of play by all these teams. By the time they play SA, or the NH, the style of play changes dramatically and COULD end up being the thing that causes more losses than wins for the AB's

True enough (except the more losses than wins part), definitely could cause more loses than we currently get though (for the reasons you already outlined) ... I don't think anyone in rugby would want to see SA remove itself from Super Rugby, or if they did, that there would be no contact at the provincial level. Clearly, that wouldn't be a good thing for either New Zealand or South Africa ... most that advocate for a split, want some sort of finals scenario between the best from both nations, but I think the proposed 2016 Super Rugby model is as close to the right balance (for all parties) as we are going to get

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Yeah, okay, in that case I'd certainly agree. ITO the SA teams' competitiveness I think a lot will depend on whether we can keep the local talent local. In this regard I am less worried about the likes of Habana, Morne Steyn and co. leaving for Europe than I am about the likes of Rob Ebersohn, Quinn Roux, CJ Stander, WP Nel etc (the promising guys that have only played a year or the veterans though not being in Bok contention but are- or rather should be- the meat around the bones of the SA provincial teams) not staying put. There are 3 SA squads playing in Europe/Japan with better line-ups than what we have locally.

In all honesty, NZ are equally benefitting from playing SA sides. We are after all the 2 best teams in the world.

Our tradtional style of play has however evolved the last few years. If we look at that test from last year which everybody was talking about as being the best game in a long time, both teams played at an unbelievable tempo and pace.

But, it came back to bite us as our guys are bigger, and in the end just couldn't keep up.

here's a scenario which nobody seems to be thinking of:
If SA were to remove itself from the Super rugby conference, then NZ would be mostly stuck with the Aussies and the Pacific Island teams. NZ would be exposed to generally the same style of play by all these teams. By the time they play SA, or the NH, the style of play changes dramatically and COULD end up being the thing that causes more losses than wins for the AB's

I think a more accurate description would be our traditional style of play has recovered somewhat from the dumbing down of the PdV/John Smit era.

 

[smartcooky]

I have to wonder now, looking at the performances of some of the teams in this year's edition of Super Rugby, whether expanding the competition is the wisest thing to do.

As it was for the first two years of Super 15, the New Zealand Conference is the toughest with the best performers. The stats do not lie

Total table points differences
New Zealand + 179
Australia -35
South Africa -144

Wins v Losses
Only one South African team has won more than half its matches - Sharks
Only one New Zealand team last lost more than half its matches - Blues

Individual Points differences
Three South African teams have minus points differences, two of them over 100 points down
Two Australian teams have minus points differences, one of them over 100 points down
One New Zealand team has a minus points difference, and it is on -4

Bonus points
New Zealand 34 (21 4T / 13 CL)
Australia 25 (14 4T / 11 CL]
South Africa 23 (10 4T / 13 CL)

How can SARU justify a 6th team when two of the existing five teams are performing so poorly? Second to fifth on the South African log all fall between 4th and last on the NZ Log. Surely, this will just dilute the existing talent, making all teams weaker, and the crazy proposed quota system will ensure that this weakening will spread among all of the teams.

I'm not "having a go" at the South African teams here, I'm just calling what the stats tell me; its not a pretty picture. Based on what I am seeing so far, expansion is the last thing we should be thinking about doing, and if I was the major money backer for Super Rugby, I would have having serious second thoughts about the quality of the product I was paying for.

 

[Jaguares]

I have to wonder now, looking at the performances of some of the teams in this year's edition of Super Rugby, whether expanding the competition is the wisest thing to do.

As it was for the first two years of Super 15, the New Zealand Conference is the toughest with the best performers. The stats do not lie

Total table points differences
New Zealand + 179
Australia -35
South Africa -144

Wins v Losses
Only one South African team has won more than half its matches - Sharks
Only one New Zealand team last lost more than half its matches - Blues

Individual Points differences
Three South African teams have minus points differences, two of them over 100 points down
Two Australian teams have minus points differences, one of them over 100 points down
One New Zealand team has a minus points difference, and it is on -4

Bonus points
New Zealand 34 (21 4T / 13 CL)
Australia 25 (14 4T / 11 CL]
South Africa 23 (10 4T / 13 CL)

How can SARU justify a 6th team when two of the existing five teams are performing so poorly? Second to fifth on the South African log all fall between 4th and last on the NZ Log. Surely, this will just dilute the existing talent, making all teams weaker, and the crazy proposed quota system will ensure that this weakening will spread among all of the teams.

I'm not "having a go" at the South African teams here, I'm just calling what the stats tell me; its not a pretty picture. Based on what I am seeing so far, expansion is the last thing we should be thinking about doing, and if I was the major money backer for Super Rugby, I would have having serious second thoughts about the quality of the product I was paying for.

You're right, SA is the worst conference this year. Enlargement to 6 SA teams is not justified, I think it will be the more aggrieved SARU conference. Maybe Super Rugby in Australia can be more competitive and attract for more supporters from others leagues like AFL and NRL with better hours, plus this year are showing that they can be competitive against NZ teams with the amazing performance of their weaker franchises: Force and Rebels.

SARU with 6 teams and less games against NZ and Aussie franchises would be less competitive and ARU in a shared conference with NZRU would best times to its citizens, which would make stronger the presence of Super Rugby in Australia. And if they are now competitive with few supporters with more fans and more money they will be stronger.

 

[RoosTah]

Yeah, it's been obvious for a while that the South Africans have been the weakest for the past few years.

In any case, this new deal is truly awful from the Television perspective. I have no idea how they're going to sell it to broadcasters...

 

[TRF_heineken]

I have to wonder now, looking at the performances of some of the teams in this year's edition of Super Rugby, whether expanding the competition is the wisest thing to do.

As it was for the first two years of Super 15, the New Zealand Conference is the toughest with the best performers. The stats do not lie

Total table points differences
New Zealand + 179
Australia -35
South Africa -144

Wins v Losses
Only one South African team has won more than half its matches - Sharks
Only one New Zealand team last lost more than half its matches - Blues

Individual Points differences
Three South African teams have minus points differences, two of them over 100 points down
Two Australian teams have minus points differences, one of them over 100 points down
One New Zealand team has a minus points difference, and it is on -4

Bonus points
New Zealand 34 (21 4T / 13 CL)
Australia 25 (14 4T / 11 CL]
South Africa 23 (10 4T / 13 CL)

How can SARU justify a 6th team when two of the existing five teams are performing so poorly? Second to fifth on the South African log all fall between 4th and last on the NZ Log. Surely, this will just dilute the existing talent, making all teams weaker, and the crazy proposed quota system will ensure that this weakening will spread among all of the teams.

I'm not "having a go" at the South African teams here, I'm just calling what the stats tell me; its not a pretty picture. Based on what I am seeing so far, expansion is the last thing we should be thinking about doing, and if I was the major money backer for Super Rugby, I would have having serious second thoughts about the quality of the product I was paying for.

This is based purely on stats.

You seem to forget that the South African teams are the ones who travel the most of all 3 conferences.

What has been very damaging to our teams are the tours to Aus and NZ. It has always been the case. For our guys the tour is tough as they are usually 5 weeks away. Whereas NZ and Aus teams travel to SA for 2 games only and then go back. Your teams don't suffer as much as our teams do, it's as simple as that.

With that said, these are just stats of the current year. What about previous years?? Last year our conference was the strongest, bar the Kings who made their debut in the tournament.

I get your point of view, but I do think that you can't make the big decision purely based on just one year's performance.

 

[SomeOke]

The whole thing is beyond stupid and this is coming from a kings fan. I get that the govt wants the Eastern Cape to be more involved in order to increase the black presence in rugby but they are going about it in such a stupid way, development happens at grass routes, at the moment the players just aren't there. Most black children are worrying about food not rugby, until the underlying issues like poverty and lack of education are resolved the black players aren't going to magically sprout up. I don't blame Nz and Aus for being ****** off, they should be, in fact I doubt any South African fans would rather have this new format. Its so irritating it makes me want to pull a John Wilkes Booth on all of our politicians.

 

[smartcooky]

This is based purely on stats.

You seem to forget that the South African teams are the ones who travel the most of all 3 conferences.

What has been very damaging to our teams are the tours to Aus and NZ. It has always been the case. For our guys the tour is tough as they are usually 5 weeks away. Whereas NZ and Aus teams travel to SA for 2 games only and then go back. Your teams don't suffer as much as our teams do, it's as simple as that.

With that said, these are just stats of the current year. What about previous years?? Last year our conference was the strongest, bar the Kings who made their debut in the tournament.

I get your point of view, but I do think that you can't make the big decision purely based on just one year's performance.

OK. Draw your some conclusions from this....

Aussie teams were doing alright until they expanded to four teams, then things went pear shaped; even worse when they went to five.

 

[TRF_heineken]

OK. Draw your some conclusions from this....

Aussie teams were doing alright until they expanded to four teams, then things went pear shaped; even worse when they went to five.

Yeah, and let's use the Bulls as an example.

they were the team that used to be the very last team on that log for a couple of years in a row, and is now tied in 2nd place as the team that has won it the most.

What is interesting however is that only NZL and SAF have ever had a 1-2 finish, whereas there has never been 2 aussies finishing 1st and 2nd in the same year.

 

[smartcooky]

Yeah, and let's use the Bulls as an example.

they were the team that used to be the very last team on that log for a couple of years in a row, and is now tied in 2nd place as the team that has won it the most.

What is interesting however is that only NZL and SAF have ever had a 1-2 finish, whereas there has never been 2 aussies finishing 1st and 2nd in the same year.

Heineken, I think you are missing the point.

The issue I have is not with particular teams, that is why I haven't indicated in the chart which teams are which. If you look at 1996, well that NZ team at the bottom is none other than the Crusaders, they finished 6th the following year, and since then, they have only missed the post season once (2001), and have appeared ten finals, seven of which they won.

No, my issue is with talent distribution. I think there simply is not enough top level talent to make five teams in South Africa or Australia.

In South Africa, I know that SARU is hoping to deter players from going to Europe by having a sixth team, but it is never going to work, because the lure of money is too great. All that will happen is another, well below par team like the Kings is going to join the competition and become five point thrash-bunnies for just about every team that plays them. This will be made even worse when the quota system ends up causing more South African players to look overseas because they cannot get into teams due to being displaced by inferior quota players (no racism on my part, just stating a fact; if the quota players were good enough to be selected ahead of the players they replace, they would already be in the team).

In Australia, the expansion to four and then five teams has caused them to have to import dubious quality overseas players to make up the numbers because they didn't have sufficient talent within the Australian system to fill the fourth and then the fifth team.

For ten years when the competition ran as Super 12, the distribution of teams that finished in the bottom three was roughly even (I have added a couple of vertical lines to the chart to make that clear) In that time, nine New Zealand teams have been there. In the eight years Since expansion to 14, and then 15 teams, New Zealand teams have been in the last 3 only twice. Those spots have for the most part, been filled with the expansion teams Cheetahs, Kings, Force & Rebels plus the Lions, who haven't finished better than 11th since 2001.

Super 12 was the best elite level club/franchise rugby competition in the world. IMO, expansion to Super 14 then 15 has diluted the talent pool, lessened the quality of the matches and compromised the integrity of the competition. Expansion to 18 teams, along with the incomprehensible mickey-mouse double conference system they are going to introduce, can only make this situation worse. Super 12 was a brilliant competition, it wasn't broken and it didn't need to be fixed.

I think the Heineken/European Rugby Cup is now the world's Premier elite level club/franchise competition. While I disagree with the underhand, dishonest, bullying tactics that McCafferty and his cohorts in PRL and LNR used as they went about changing that competition, I do believe that their idea to reduce the competition from 24 to 20 teams is the right one, and will put the Heineken Cup (under its new name of the Rugby Champions Cup) in a pre-eminent position for at least the next decade.

I think that if we are not very, very careful, we could end up with Super Rugby becoming little more than a feeder for Europe.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Heineken, I think you are missing the point.

The issue I have is not with particular teams, that is why I haven't indicated in the chart which teams are which. If you look at 1996, well that NZ team at the bottom is none other than the Crusaders, they finished 6th the following year, and since then, they have only missed the post season once (2001), and have appeared ten finals, seven of which they won.

No, my issue is with talent distribution. I think there simply is not enough top level talent to make five teams in South Africa or Australia.

In South Africa, I know that SARU is hoping to deter players from going to Europe by having a sixth team, but it is never going to work, because the lure of money is too great. All that will happen is another, well below par team like the Kings is going to join the competition and become five point thrash-bunnies for just about every team that plays them. This will be made even worse when the quota system ends up causing more South African players to look overseas because they cannot get into teams due to being displaced by inferior quota players (no racism on my part, just stating a fact; if the quota players were good enough to be selected ahead of the players they replace, they would already be in the team).

In Australia, the expansion to four and then five teams has caused them to have to import dubious quality overseas players to make up the numbers because they didn't have sufficient talent within the Australian system to fill the fourth and then the fifth team.

For ten years when the competition ran as Super 12, the distribution of teams that finished in the bottom three was roughly even (I have added a couple of vertical lines to the chart to make that clear) In that time, nine New Zealand teams have been there. In the eight years Since expansion to 14, and then 15 teams, New Zealand teams have been in the last 3 only twice. Those spots have for the most part, been filled with the expansion teams Cheetahs, Kings, Force & Rebels plus the Lions, who haven't finished better than 11th since 2001.

Super 12 was the best elite level club/franchise rugby competition in the world. IMO, expansion to Super 14 then 15 has diluted the talent pool, lessened the quality of the matches and compromised the integrity of the competition. Expansion to 18 teams, along with the incomprehensible mickey-mouse double conference system they are going to introduce, can only make this situation worse. Super 12 was a brilliant competition, it wasn't broken and it didn't need to be fixed.

I think the Heineken/European Rugby Cup is now the world's Premier elite level club/franchise competition. While I disagree with the underhand, dishonest, bullying tactics that McCafferty and his cohorts in PRL and LNR used as they went about changing that competition, I do believe that their idea to reduce the competition from 24 to 20 teams is the right one, and will put the Heineken Cup (under its new name of the Rugby Champions Cup) in a pre-eminent position for at least the next decade.

I think that if we are not very, very careful, we could end up with Super Rugby becoming little more than a feeder for Europe.

It is already a feeder for Europe! The thing is they feed on only 2 categories of players from the SH:

1. Out top-class world cup winning players that will put bums in the stands.

2. Youngsters who could possibly end up representing one of the NH teams due to a long lost grandma that suddenly found her british passport somewhere between her knitting equipment.

It leaves us down here with the guys in between. The international fringe players.

The thing that we in SA are now focused on is development. And by adding more teams, we have the chance to maybe stem the flow of losing too many players to those money grabbing whores up north...

By adding additional team(s), we have a chance to see more guys play, and that will only beneficial to our main goal if it's in place.

While I do understand what you are getting at, you have to agree that SA was very hard done by in the past. Remember the whole debacle with the introduction of the ELV's? The changes in the laws that we struggled to adapt with which came so easy for the NZ and Aussie teams as it fitted with their natural playing style...

These are all things that counted against us.

While you might think that the ERC or Heineken cup is the most superior league in the world, and many people might agree with you, I still see the Super Rugby as the best, and many might agree with me too.

It's all a matter of opinion. All I'm saying is that there is way too much pessimism regarding the expansion, yet how can we judge it if it hasn't happened yet or have given us a more evidential statistic for comparison?

I say, SA has now been given the chance they have been begging for, it's now up to them to come to the party. If it fails, then the onus will be on SA.