I wonder if Aussies will need local derbies in Super Rugby as much now they're introducing an equivalent of ITM and Currie Cup?
The biggest problem in trying to decide a new format is the difficulty of distance between the nations.
More games = More money, which they all need/want. But more games also = more travel, which is not good for the players, who we are already asking so much of.
I think there are 3 options:
1) To reduce the Super Rugby comp to approx 10/12 teams - 3 NZ, 3 AUS, 3 SA, 1 ARG, 1 JAP, 1 Island. (or thereabouts). Each teams plays each other once only, then the finals.
The teams selected to play in this Super Rugby comp are based on the results of the ITM/CURRIE CUP/NPC - so it is not necessarily the same teams that will compete in Super Rugby each year.
This places a greater importance on the results of our 3rd tier tournaments, and gives plenty of local derbies in those tournaments.
2) To increase the amount of teams to approx 18/20, then this is my best idea:
Conference 1: 3 NZ, 2 AUS, 3 SA, 1 ARG, 1 JAP
Conference 2: 2 NZ, 3 AUS, 3 SA, 1 ARG, 1 JAP (OR island)
Each team in the conference plays each other once. Then top 3 or 4 from each conference play each other in finals.
3) To end Super Rugby as we know it.
It makes sense geographically, probably financially, and definitely in terms of player welfare, if NZ and AUS teamed up with Japan/Islands for their own comp. And if SA teamed up with UK/Europe for their own comp. It would also make sense if ARG teamed up with US/Canada.
To do this however would go against tradition, and reduce the quality of the tournaments to a certain extent.
I certainly wouldn't propose ending the Rugby Championship however.
All in all then it is a big headache. Obviously there are financial factors involved which I can't know about, but I certainly don't think the new proposal above is the best option.
The biggest problem in trying to decide a new format is the difficulty of distance between the nations.
More games = More money, which they all need/want. But more games also = more travel, which is not good for the players, who we are already asking so much of.
I think there are 3 options:
1) To reduce the Super Rugby comp to approx 10/12 teams - 3 NZ, 3 AUS, 3 SA, 1 ARG, 1 JAP, 1 Island. (or thereabouts). Each teams plays each other once only, then the finals.
The teams selected to play in this Super Rugby comp are based on the results of the ITM/CURRIE CUP/NPC - so it is not necessarily the same teams that will compete in Super Rugby each year.
This places a greater importance on the results of our 3rd tier tournaments, and gives plenty of local derbies in those tournaments.
2) To increase the amount of teams to approx 18/20, then this is my best idea:
Conference 1: 3 NZ, 2 AUS, 3 SA, 1 ARG, 1 JAP
Conference 2: 2 NZ, 3 AUS, 3 SA, 1 ARG, 1 JAP (OR island)
Each team in the conference plays each other once. Then top 3 or 4 from each conference play each other in finals.
3) To end Super Rugby as we know it.
It makes sense geographically, probably financially, and definitely in terms of player welfare, if NZ and AUS teamed up with Japan/Islands for their own comp. And if SA teamed up with UK/Europe for their own comp. It would also make sense if ARG teamed up with US/Canada.
To do this however would go against tradition, and reduce the quality of the tournaments to a certain extent.
I certainly wouldn't propose ending the Rugby Championship however.
All in all then it is a big headache. Obviously there are financial factors involved which I can't know about, but I certainly don't think the new proposal above is the best option.
Last edited:
