Should Super Rugby change its format?

[Melhor Time]

Super Rugby has ensured all three of the SANZAR countries continue to have strong international teams. All three have won the World Cup during the professional era. All have done well home and away against European opposition and all three continue to have a regular supply of talented players. Quite the recipe right? No.

The only real winner has been Australia as it had absolutely no domestic structure at all before Super Rugby and this continues to be the reality. Australia´s best competition is the Shute Shield, played in Sydney. No nationwide professional competition exists and there is nothing amateur of note to mention. South Africa´s Currie Cup and New Zealand´s NPC were amongst the best tournaments on the planet fifteen years ago. Today neither comes close to any of the Top 14, Aviva Premiership or the Pro 12. There are a host of problems ranging from the top players missing most or even all of the competition to fans having a massive overload from the February-October season to the competitions being nothing less than of secondary importance to Super Rugby. The Currie Cup still gets good crowds, especially for the play-offs. The same cannot be said of New Zealand´s competition, the ITM Cup.

Is the same thing true in Europe? Is the Heineken Cup taking something away from the domestic competitions? In England and France it certainly is not. The only place where it could be argued is in the Pro 12 in which some teams, notably Leinster and Munster have records of resting some or many top players for Pro 12 matches only to then put out their best teams in the Heineken Cup. Does this have the result of the Pro 12 losing significance? Do fans attend Heineken Cup better than the Pro 12? For play-off´s, in Ireland, they do but otherwise there is no evidence. From memory, last seasons Scarlets vs Ospreys Pro 12 (the then Magners League) clash had the best attendance for the home side of the season. Last weekends Ospreys vs Biarritz match was far from a sell out in Swansea. This is the norm. Earlier tonigh the match of the year took place in Scotland as Edinburgh defeated Racing Metro 48-47 at Murrayfield after being 24 points behind after 60 minutes. The 67,000 stadium had a few thousand people in attendance. Crowds are low for Heineken Cup and Pro 12 rugby as they are in Glasgow.

So, in other words, its safe to conclude that the Heineken Cup has not had a negative impact on the national (or local in the case of the Pro 12) competition. They work well as they are played interchangably. The national competition starts first then pauses for Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup rugby and then returns. This happens throughout the season and it enables both competitions to be successful. Neither tournament suffers and neither is regarded as second fiddle to the other, unlike in the case of Super Rugby´s prominiance over the ITM Cup and Currie Cup. Both the ITM and Currie Cup´s have have been downgraded from their former status´s. South Africa´s event, for instance, has fewer sides. Super Rugby has come along and in a decade and a half reshaped New Zealand and South Africa. Would the European model, not be favorable?

Super Rugby has too many matches. With fifteen sides the event goes on too long. I´d like to have pools rather than a round robin or conference format. Get a team in Port Elizabeth (Kings) to make it sixteen and then divide the teams into four pools of four or two of eight to have regular season matches in the same way as in the Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup. Start the ITM Cup and Currie Cup in early February for run them for five weeks before breaking for two weeks of Super Rugby. Return for another month of domestic rugby and so the cycle continues. The season can break in June for the international home series´ vs European sides before starting again in July for the Super Rugby finals as well as the domestic finals. The the The Rugby Championship can get underway in the same time slot as at the present date of time and subsequently the sides can go to Europe for an end of season tour in November before the season ends for two months and things feel a whole lot fresher. Alternatively, start The Rugby Championship earlier, for instance in April to have to matches and then return for the final four rounds after the completion of the Super Rugby and domestic seasons. This could enable additional rest time and reduce the season from ten months to nine.

After not too long it will be possible to expand into the big money markets that have been talked about with the likes of Tokyo, Kobe, Hong Kong and Denver being added to the mix. Super Rugby could easily have these sides involved as well as a Canadian side and two from Argentina to have 20 or 22 teams in five years from now. I don´t think its a pipe dream. South Africa and New Zealand just need to get together to work it out so it is mutual and then take it to the ARU and SANZAR for ratification.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Well, this is a discussion that has been around for years but in the Southern Hemisphere, the same format is not possible. Why? Because the Super 15 is not a competition you can qualify for like the Heineken Cup. The Super 15 competition is played with franchise teams. For instance:

The Highlanders play in the Super 15 but they are a franchise made up from Otago, North Otago and Southland mainly. Players from those teams can be used to represent the Highlanders.

How would it be possible to have a franchise team playing 1 week and provincial teams the next? It won't work since the players won't have quality time to get used to each other and train together. The Australian (no domestic competition, no provincial sides) and South African (most franchises consist of 1 major province) teams would have the advantage over the New Zealand franchises who build their team with players from 3 sometimes 4 or even 5 teams. They would be training together for a couple of days, play a Super Rugby match and go back to the ITM Cup where they might play against each other after being in the same team a week earlier.

As mentioned, the Australian teams won't have this issue but would have only 16 matches divided over 10 months. What should they do in the mean time? Or South African teams... Let's have a look at the Sharks. They pull all their players from 1 province, the Natal Sharks. They are the exact same team in the Currie Cup as they are in the Super 15. The competitions are completely different with teams being different. The Sharks, Bulls, Lions (disregarding some Pumas and Leopards players) and Stormers (who aren't using any Boland players) would have a massive advantage over the other teams and it just wouldn't be fair.

I like the idea, but it's just not possible, unless they step away from the whole franchise-format.

 

[Melhor Time]

Well, this is a discussion that has been around for years but in the Southern Hemisphere, the same format is not possible. Why? Because the Super 15 is not a competition you can qualify for like the Heineken Cup. The Super 15 competition is played with franchise teams. For instance:

Great post!

Under the current set up thats true but when it was amateur and called the Super 10 the sides were not franchises. I recall seeing Transval (Gauteng Lions) vs Auckland play the final in Johnaesburg. It worked well. It would certainly enable the domestic competitions to have more postitive things going for them with Super Rugby places on the line for the top five in each national competition.

As mentioned, the Australian teams won't have this issue but would have only 16 matches divided over 10 months. What should they do in the mean time?

As it stands they do nothing from June-January. Australia needs a domseitc competition of some kind or to, somehow, convince New Zealand of having an ANZAC compeition in place of the ITM Cup. Something, I think is silly but could work.

Or South African teams... Let's have a look at the Sharks. They pull all their players from 1 province, the Natal Sharks. They are the exact same team in the Currie Cup as they are in the Super 15. The competitions are completely different with teams being different. The Sharks, Bulls, Lions (disregarding some Pumas and Leopards players) and Stormers (who aren't using any Boland players) would have a massive advantage over the other teams and it just wouldn't be fair.

This is an important weakness of Super Rugby as it has depleted many sides as players are concentrated in the core teams. I read comments from a Bay of Plenty fan earlier today complaining about players from his team playing for the Highlanders rather than the Chiefs. Many share this.

I like the idea, but it's just not possible, unless they step away from the whole franchise-format.

That´d be the way to go.

The only question to address is whether or not such changes would harm the All Black, Springboks or Wallabies. Would they? If not or if in a minimal way then they should be fast tracked to take effect in 24 or 36 months time with the Kings entering.

 

[Tricia McMillan]

You're right that it has had the most benefit for Australia, but just because the importance of the Currie Cup and ITM Cup have paled in comparison to Super Rugby does not mean the sport is being harmed in South Africa or New Zealand.

That said, I don't have much else to say, other than that I believe that the competition is now way too long and needs to go back to being about 4 months long at most. The date of the final has gotten progressively later and later in the year as of late:

1996-2010: Last or second-last weekend in May
2011: Second weekend in July
2012: First weekend in August

Granted, for 2012 that includes a three-week international break, but still, it's starting to get a little silly. Is this going to become an 8-9 month club-type competition with dedicated international breaks like football? God I hope not.

I much prefer having the final in May and for the thing to be over before the mid-year internationals. It was rather nice when Super Rugby, the NPC, the Tri Nations, and mid-year/end-of-year tests never overlapped each other. Now it looks like they're going to, and I hate it.

What's even more ridiculous is that it looks like this year the Super 15 will still be going on when the ITM Cup kicks off... ugh.

 

[Seaton]

Good posts here, I'm oing to have to introduce some mediocrity to average the thread out before it gets out of hand.

It's a tough situation really. If we keep the franchises, the New Zealand teams stand to suffer greatly, and if we abolish the franchises, well then what would the effect on the ITM Cup be? It could become a situation where AB congregate/ concentrate in a few select teams at the top of the pecking order, and then these would qualify year in year out for Super Rugby, and thus be in the same situation as South Africa. However with the way the players are centrally contracted there (I am not sure if this also happens at ITM Cup and Heartland level), this is unlikely so happen, which would leave their representing teams seriously under-powered as the top players are spread out over all the ITM teams.

As far has been mentioned, a domestic competition in Aus would economically unviable and even unwanted by Aus fans if yon survey done a handful of years ago was fairly accurate.

Again, flight times are an issue, if it goes to groups of four, there would be at least one South African team in it. The travel time from New Zealand/ East Aus and back is around 24 hours, so it would disadvantageous for one team to travel all that way to play one or two games, then comeback and have to play a game the next weekend. If it goes to two groups of eight, well touring schedules would be easier to sort out and could involve byes the week after touring sides tour.

There, that should be enough to keep the trolls away.

 

[nickdnz]

As a New Zealander it's interesting. I did a set up that I quite liked which would work pretty well.

Basically, in my opinion we should throw away Super Rugby. Teams get poor crowds partly due to high ticket prices (which needs to be changed for the average man in NZ to afford to go to a game week in week out), and partly because there is a lack of affiliation from a quarter of the provinces which make up the teams. I think this format would benefit New Zealand rugby from a spectators point of view while giving smaller provinces a shot at winning a huge tornement by themselves (which if you asked someone from Manawatu or Taranaki, they'd likely rather that be the case). Ideally something like 6 teams from New Zealand, 6 teams from South Africa, 5 teams from Australia (the current five Super Franchises), 2 teams from Japan, 2 teams from Argentina and 1 team from either USA/Pacific Islands. I think that tornement would generate interest and help expand the game.

The issues with this however are:

As mentioned, New Zealand would in part suffer with this set up. There are 14 teams in our NPC, with equal money being rationed around. We currently only have enough money for five Super Rugby teams. Player depth isn't a huge issue, as if this new tornement became the new top level that teams were playing at, all the All Blacks would be avalible. You probably would see Auckland, Canterbury, Wellington, Otago and Waikato dominate for a while with all their All Blacks, but other teams still have a good chance of getting a couple of spots (especially Otago's). For example, right now the Wellington Lions is looking better than the Hurricanes in terms of players (should still have Nonu, Gear, Weepu, Smith, Jane). It would also mean that with more money having to be injected into each team (as they are now the top tier) it would allow a bit more room for importing other players from places like Argentina etc (who would also benefit by having 2 teams in the competition). I also worked out the playing time, and it should be a little bit less than the regular season. Australia will suffer if they don't put up a domestic competition, however their teams will still get at least 6 games, with the potential of 9 games. They really need to set up a domestic competition, or if worst game to worst, join an existing domestic competition such as the ITM Cup).

The main issue with this is, New Zealand rugby relies fairly heavily on Super Rugby viewership in South Africa. The commercial model for this would have to be good enough to guarentee NZ rugby isn't destroyed. I think this could be achieved with heavy sponsorship and viewership by including Japan into the tornement, but I'm not sure. Hundreds of technical issues to work out such as promotion/relegation, secondary tornement, flight times, ticket sales (Because NZ/Japan/South Africa/Argentina/Australia are miles apart, you can't have a situation in Europe where fans are expected to travel to see their teams play in the finals. So you would have to rely on selling finals tickets between the gap that they qualify. Not too bad if the tornement is spread out like the H-Cup is), players pay (which the top players would likely get paid even less to pay the salaries of the other players) etc.

In idea it's great. It would be more entertaining, include teams from outside the top three and would be slighlty less rugby (which is a positive). The bad side though is that it's not affordable for NZ at least with out a lot of outside sponsorship. I like it, and I'd love for it to happen, but it'd requite a lot of interest in rugby from Japan, Argentina and which ever other team, to be able to pay the players. We currently have 150 spots for our highest paid players. The benefit for the tornement would have to be enough to pay for 420 professional players at a competitive rate.

 

[smartcooky]

Running a Heneken Cup-like structure in the Southern Hemisphere would be just impossible, unless the pools were regionalised.

Why?

Well here's your answer.....

The ENTIRE Heineken Cup is run over a similar area to that which the Australian NRL is run.

Having a Pool set-up with teams from the three countries split over the pools, and operating over a distance that requires 13 hour flights is just completely untenable

Super Rugby has too many matches. With fifteen sides the event goes on too long.

It has 16 round robin matches;

The Top 14 has 26, the Pro12 and the Premiership have 22

That makes them even worse.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Bloody hell, Australia is ridiculously big.

Just to go (slightly ) off topic - what the hell is actually in the massive gap between the East coast and then Perth? Is the majority of it desert?

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Bloody hell, Australia is ridiculously big.

Just to go (slightly ) off topic - what the hell is actually in the massive gap between the East coast and then Perth? Is the majority of it desert?

Aye that is correct!

 

[smartcooky]

The point I make is that travel is a factor that should not be dismissed lightly.

The average All Black spends around 300 days each year away from their home, while the average non-All Black Super Rugby Player spends about 180 days away.

The twelve teams of the Premiership play over an area that is less than the size of the South Island of New Zealand

The 14 teams of the Top 14 play over an area about twice the size of New Zealand

Super 15 is played over an area about 1/3 the size of the planet.

Travel IS a factor (and a big one) in the way rugby competitions are formatted in this part of the world

 

[nickdnz]

The point I make is that travel is a factor that should not be dismissed lightly.

The average All Black spends around 300 days each year away from their home, while the average non-All Black Super Rugby Player spends about 180 days away.

The twelve teams of the Premiership play over an area that is less than the size of the South Island of New Zealand

The 14 teams of the Top 14 play over an area about twice the size of New Zealand

Super 15 is played over an area about 1/3 the size of the planet.

Travel IS a factor (and a big one) in the way rugby competitions are formatted in this part of the world

As mentioned, providing it is return flights for gaps in the tornement (as there is in the H-Cup), the flight times are ludacris.

New Zealand to Australia: 3 hours
South Africa to Australia: 14 hours
Japan to Australia: 10 hours
Argentina to Australia: 13 hours
Total for Australia on return flights: 80 hours/3.3 days

South Africa to New Zealand: 15 hours
Australia to New Zealand: 3 hours
Japan to New Zealand: 13 hours
Argentina to New Zealand: 13 hours
Total for New Zealand on return flights: 88 hours/3.6 days

Japan to South Africa: 19 hours
Australia to South Africa: 14 hours
New Zealand to South Africa: 15 hours
Argentina to South Africa: 9 hours
Total for South Africa on return flights: 114 hours/4.75 days

South Africa to Argentina: 9 hour flight
Australia to Argentina: 13 hours
Japan to Argentina: 24 hours
New Zealand to Argentina: 13 hours
Total for Argentina on return flights: 118 hours/4.9 days

New Zealand to Japan: 13 hours
Australia to Japan: 10 hours
Argentina to Japan: 24 hours
South Africa to Japan: 19 hours
Total for Japan on return flights: 132 hours/5.5 days

If it was that set up, it would be very, very taxing and very expensive as well. The only way it looks visable would be to play one team in the conference, both home and away in the same week, in the same city (so essentially 2 home games against any one team). That way the teams would only have to travel to 2 other countries. That way would seem to work better, and would half the flight times. eg.

Say you have a conference with this 4 pools of 5 teams (H-Cup has 6 pools of four teams)

Suntory Sungoliath
Wellington Lions
Blue Bulls
NSW Waratahs
Pucara

Wellington Lions play twice in Japan against Suntory, twice against Waratahs in Sydney, twice against the Bulls in Wellington, twice against Pucara in Wellington.

 

[psychic duck]

the current Southern Hemisphere system from the outside doesn't look like it makes fans that excited, key matches don't sell out, as mentioned above South Africans turn out far more regularly in numbers than NZ or Aus

@SmartCooky: you keep saying travel is a big issue, but what exactly is the system that you think would get round this problem best

this is the Southern Hemisphere system I think would work best

Australia/New Zealand/Pacific Island league

• 5 Australian sides and 6 New Zealand sides and 1 Pacific Island side
• drawn into two halves of 6 who play each other twice, top two in each group go through to semi final
• no promotion/relegation as fans from those nations prefer matches with teams having nothing to lose

10 team South African league (least changes as crowds are good here already)

• promotion/relegation league
• each team plays each other twice with playoffs at the end of the season
• players from Namibia, Zimbabwe, Kenya etc encouraged to play in league, and could perhaps have a Pan-African side in the second division

10 team Argentine league

• promotion/relegation league
• each team plays each other twice with playoffs at the end of the season
• players from Uruguay, Chile, Brazil etc encouraged to play in league, and could perhaps have a Pan-South American side in the league

---

Southern Hemisphere championship ideas

idea 1

• best 6/7 teams from the Aus/NZ/PI league and SA league and best 2/4 teams from Argentine league (could earn more spots if they improve over time)
• 4 groups of 4 teams then top 2 in each group go to knockout rounds
• each team plays each other once in each group (twice ideally but travel would be more taxing)

idea 2

• 32 team knockout cup style tournament between all teams from each league
• each round has two legs, until the final so the maximum a team would play would be 9 matches

both tournaments would take place during the domestic league season like the Heineken Cup

---

by the way there was a very interesting article written by Bordeaux-Bègles lock Cameron Treloar last year on Green and Gold rugby.com

I agree with him that in France/Italy/Argentina/South Africa the fans are more passionate than Australia

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/cameron-treloar-where-weve-got-it-wrong/

very good article

 

[nickdnz]

the current Southern Hemisphere system from the outside doesn't look like it makes fans that excited, key matches don't sell out, as mentioned above South Africans turn out far more regularly in numbers than NZ or Aus

@SmartCooky: you keep saying travel is a big issue, but what exactly is the system that you think would get round this problem best

this is the Southern Hemisphere system I think would work best

Australia/New Zealand/Pacific Island league

• 5 Australian sides and 6 New Zealand sides and 1 Pacific Island side
• drawn into two halves of 6 who play each other twice, top two in each group go through to semi final
• no promotion/relegation as fans from those nations prefer matches with teams having nothing to lose

10 team South African league (least changes as crowds are good here already)

• promotion/relegation league
• each team plays each other twice with playoffs at the end of the season
• players from Namibia, Zimbabwe, Kenya etc encouraged to play in league, and could perhaps have a Pan-African side in the second division

10 team Argentine league

• promotion/relegation league
• each team plays each other twice with playoffs at the end of the season
• players from Uruguay, Chile, Brazil etc encouraged to play in league, and could perhaps have a Pan-South American side in the league

---

Southern Hemisphere championship ideas

idea 1

• best 6/7 teams from the Aus/NZ/PI league and SA league and best 2/4 teams from Argentine league (could earn more spots if they improve over time)
• 4 groups of 4 teams then top 2 in each group go to knockout rounds
• each team plays each other once in each group (twice ideally but travel would be more taxing)

idea 2

• 32 team knockout cup style tournament between all teams from each league
• each round has two legs, until the final so the maximum a team would play would be 9 matches

both tournaments would take place during the domestic league season like the Heineken Cup

---

by the way there was a very interesting article written by Bordeaux-Bègles lock Cameron Treloar last year on Green and Gold rugby.com

I agree with him that in France/Italy/Argentina/South Africa the fans are more passionate than Australia

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/cameron-treloar-where-weve-got-it-wrong/

very good article

What would South Africa's and Argentina's 10 teams be?!

South Africa doesn't have 10 teams in the top Currie Cup and if Argentina could afford to pay 10 professional teams, they'd have their own system up. NZ surely has far more depth and club game numbers than 10 Puma teams...

I don't know about Italian fans, but of course there are more passionate fans than in Australia. It's behind AFL and NRL and A-League.

I don't know if I'd say passion is measured based purely on crowd numbers. There are plenty of external reasons why people don't go to the Hurricanes and Wellington games. Prices are too expensive for the average Joe Bloggs to spend. If you looked at the television auidences, New Zealanders in general are some of the most passionate fans. It's just ruined for a number of reasons.

 

[JW.]

What would South Africa's and Argentina's 10 teams be?!

South Africa doesn't have 10 teams in the top Currie Cup and if Argentina could afford to pay 10 professional teams, they'd have their own system up. NZ surely has far more depth and club game numbers than 10 Puma teams...

I don't know about Italian fans, but of course there are more passionate fans than in Australia. It's behind AFL and NRL and A-League.

I don't know if I'd say passion is measured based purely on crowd numbers. There are plenty of external reasons why people don't go to the Hurricanes and Wellington games. Prices are too expensive for the average Joe Bloggs to spend. If you looked at the television auidences, New Zealanders in general are some of the most passionate fans. It's just ruined for a number of reasons.

True, this scheme would largely be to improve the quality for Argentinian and South American rugby IMO, which is a good thing but shouldn't be at the cost of NZ and Austraulian rugby. If Argentinia can improve there teams and win the Vodafone league, they should deserve a spot in the Super15/16? Which would be a better wayIMO. But they need a steady proffesional league of there own first.

And Italy have football, basketball, cycling, Motor racing, Waterpolo and I think even Handball might be ahead of Rugby. Might have even forgotton a couple. A better argument would be that Australia is alot bigger than Italy and has a smaller population.

 

[psychic duck]

What would South Africa's and Argentina's 10 teams be?!

South Africa doesn't have 10 teams in the top Currie Cup and if Argentina could afford to pay 10 professional teams, they'd have their own system up. NZ surely has far more depth and club game numbers than 10 Puma teams...

I don't know about Italian fans, but of course there are more passionate fans than in Australia. It's behind AFL and NRL and A-League.

I don't know if I'd say passion is measured based purely on crowd numbers. There are plenty of external reasons why people don't go to the Hurricanes and Wellington games. Prices are too expensive for the average Joe Bloggs to spend. If you looked at the television auidences, New Zealanders in general are some of the most passionate fans. It's just ruined for a number of reasons.

the amount of teams in those leagues could be flexible between 8-12 but unlike NZ and Aus they would be privately owned so wouldn't have to put money equally into each team, there will always be a Connacht in every league

yes there is more NZ talent but less teams so the NZRU can afford to keep the best players as you pointed out earlier in this thread

 

[Dizzy]

All I know is, the Super Rugby tournament format sucks. They should've stuck with playing each team once and having semi finals and the Final.. And that's it.. 17 weeks!..

 

[Victorl]

The only problem I have with the current format of Super Rugby is that teams don’t play all other teams in the competition. It’s just two extra games over a season, and if SANZAR believes this is too much (which I doubt they do, more games more money) then they should revert to the old format of a normal round robin, each team playing each other once.

I don’t think that SANZAR should model the Southern Hemisphere comp on the Heineken Cup. Yes I like the Heineken Cup and the support for it in Europe is big and there is a lot of money made from it, but it wouldn’t work down here for a few reasons and it will also have a negative effect on the performance of our sides, at least in my opinion.

I am happy with any format in which all of the teams play each other, whether just a single round robin as in Super 14 and prior, or if they have a Conference system as they do now but add 2 more games for each team during the season. I’d say stick with the conference system if only because I don’t want to just get use to it then have SANZAR revert the comp back to a round robin and then have them come up with some other farfetched idea in another 3-4 years.

In regards to future expansion as we all know SANZAR is thinking of it, so here is one of my ideas.

If they choose to keep the conference system I would like to see them introduce a Argentine conference (full 5 team conference so to be the same as the other 3 conferences). Have players from the SANZAR countries that did not make the teams in their countries and players from the Pacific Nations to play in these teams along with Argentine players so as to make the teams competitive from the get go. Maybe also get other South American players and some Japanese/US/Canadian players. This will have the benefit of helping to develop more young talent for the SANZAR teams as well as getting a professional comp in Argentina going that will be competitive in Super Rugby. Also it will get people from the SANZAR nations to maybe watch the Argentine Conference games because there are players in the team whom they can relate to (i.e. players from their country).

If SANZAR were to do this, keep the Conference system and make all teams play one another each team would have 23 regular season games plus 3 playoff games (based on 8 team knock out) so 26 games max, the same as the Top 14 regular season. If they just have a round robin (no need for conferences but still have 5 teams based in Argentina) then have 19 games regular season and 2/3 play of games (4 or 8 team knock out) so a total of 21/22 games max for each team, same/less than the Aviva Premiership regular season.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

might just drive up to the Greek Islands this weekend.......


sorry I have nothing useful to add

actually i'll add that my opinion is that everyone should play eachother once, but have a top 6 final structure.
and the next year is the identical draw at opposing ground, then the draw is reshuffled. so over 2 seasons, you play the same teams both home and away.

I am dissapointed that the chiefs don't come to Melbourne next year (yes i know they are playing a praccy game in Geelong, but it's on a friday night and the cricket is on at the G)

 

[Melhor Time]

Running a Heneken Cup-like structure in the Southern Hemisphere would be just impossible, unless the pools were regionalised.

Why?

Well here's your answer.....

The ENTIRE Heineken Cup is run over a similar area to that which the Australian NRL is run.

Having a Pool set-up with teams from the three countries split over the pools, and operating over a distance that requires 13 hour flights is just completely untenable



It has 16 round robin matches;

The Top 14 has 26, the Pro12 and the Premiership have 22

That makes them even worse.

Australia is huge - no questions there. But I think that in two years Russia will have a team in the Amlin Challenge Cup and within a decade the Heineken Cup. The current Russian champions are from Siberia - which from Limerick, Munster is quite some distance further than going from Brisbane to Perth. Tblissi is not covered by Australia either and this is also interesting since Georgia is likely to, like Spain, play in the Amlin Challenge Cup at some point (hopefully with it expanded to include an extra pool).

The maps below are quite useful in this regard as Moscow is not covered by Australia and the distance from Moscow to the Siberian rugby cities of Krasnoyarsk is like going from Brasilia to Caracas. Moscow are bound to have a team and I´ve seen reports of a stadium under construction for next season with the intention of playing in the Amlin Challenge Cup in 2013. Siberia is technically Asia but this should not go against them - hopefully! Buenos Aires - Johannesburg is quite similar to Siberia - Ireland.

Just imagining the Heineken Cup format used in Super Rugby with 20 teams. For instance South Africa (6), New Zealand (5), Australia (5), Argentina (3), Pac. Islands based in North Harbour (1)

Pool A Bulls, Hurricanes, Los Pampas, Sharks.

Round One Los Pampas vs Hurricanes, Bulls vs Sharks
Round Two Sharks vs Los Pampas, Bulls vs Hurricanes

Break for one month (return to Currie Cup, etc)

Round Three Bulls vs Los Pampas, Hurricanes vs Sharks
Round Four Los Pampas vs Bulls, Sharks vs Hurricanes

Break for one month (return to Currie Cup, etc)

Round Five Hurricanes vs Los Pampas, Sharks vs Bulls
Round Six Los Pampas vs Sharks, Bulls vs Hurricanes

I think it would be really tough travel wise but can be handled by playing on Friday in New Zealand then Sunday in South Africa or Argentina. Also, this appears to be a worst case scenario with South Africa having two teams and New Zealand and Argentina one each.

 

[Seaton]

The European games you speak of however would be one off games, as opposed to multiple teams existing in far-stretched time zones.