• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Would a move north be better for South African domestic rugby?

RichardRheeder

Academy Player
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
26
Country Flag
South Africa
After a (second) disappointing Super Rugby campaign for South African rugby, I wonder if Jurie Roux and SARU didn't make a mistake by not pursuing an opportunity to align our domestic rugby with the best the north had to offer, instead of agreeing to a ridiculous and watered down Super Rugby in 2016?

Firstly, from a conditioning point of view, our local players would adapt much better to the travel situation, and start setting the ball in motion for a global rugby season.

Secondly, such a deal could possibly generate some extra revenue our domestic sides need to hang on to some of our better players ( I personally feel it's a shame a young talent like Wiaan Liebenberg won't shine in the Currie Cup, but rather be another South African putting in great performances in the Top 14 at such a young age).

From a national team setup, having our younger guys performing on a weekly basis against the current top springboks in the northern hemisphere side will give our Springbok coach a great reference point.

I for one would like the sound of the Bulls playing Wasps in Coventry, or the Sharks fans giving Jake White and Montpellier a hostile reception at Kings Park....

What does other SA fans or those from the North think of this?
 
What sort of deal do you think you would strike with the NH? They all have their own domestic competitions. At best your Currie Cup would be your premier competition and the best teams from that would qualify for the European Cup. I don't see how that would rake in much more money than the current Super Rugby system and you wouldn't be playing other European teams week in, week out.
 
South Africa's biggest mistake is allowing Springbok selection outside of the South African teams. Their second mistake is insisting on a 6th SR franchise.

What we have now is a South African conference with only about half the Springboks playing in it, and an extra team to fill. We also have a new conference system that's effectively designed to please SA - a 6th team and reduced travel.
 
After a (second) disappointing Super Rugby campaign for South African rugby, I wonder if Jurie Roux and SARU didn't make a mistake by not pursuing an opportunity to align our domestic rugby with the best the north had to offer, instead of agreeing to a ridiculous and watered down Super Rugby in 2016?

Firstly, from a conditioning point of view, our local players would adapt much better to the travel situation, and start setting the ball in motion for a global rugby season.

Secondly, such a deal could possibly generate some extra revenue our domestic sides need to hang on to some of our better players ( I personally feel it's a shame a young talent like Wiaan Liebenberg won't shine in the Currie Cup, but rather be another South African putting in great performances in the Top 14 at such a young age).

From a national team setup, having our younger guys performing on a weekly basis against the current top springboks in the northern hemisphere side will give our Springbok coach a great reference point.

I for one would like the sound of the Bulls playing Wasps in Coventry, or the Sharks fans giving Jake White and Montpellier a hostile reception at Kings Park....

What does other SA fans or those from the North think of this?

If you think the last two seasons were disappointing, then I can assure you that the NH is not the promised land.

1. The broadcast time zones might appear attractive, but people place far too much importance on them. The reality is that hardly anyone gets up in the wee small hours to watch, they record the match using MySky (or TiVo or whatever you have in your country) and watch it later at a more reasonable hour. I only watch the 7:30pm games of Super Rugby LIVE, and sometime the 10pm game from Australia if a NZ team is involved. All other games I want to watch, whether it is earlier in the day or in the small hours, get MySkyd for later viewing. I might get up at 6am on Sunday if the Crusaders are playing the last game on Saturday evening in South Africa.

2. In Super Rugby, your players only have to play, at most, 19 matches, and best 16. That's half a season in the NH. You can expect your players to be playing for 30-35 matches in a season

3. I wonder how many NH teams want to come down to play Rugby in South Africa on cnrete hard rugby ouithced in 35° heat. Not may I'll bet.

4. The travel factor is mostly a big myth. For starters, Jo'burg to Auckland is a 14 hour flight, while Jo'burg to London is 11 hours, not that much shorter in the grand scheme of things. Even if the time difference is a factor, teams managers are used to it now and can prepare for it with little or no ill effects on the players. Most teams leave the day after their last match, so five days is plenty of time to adjust. If the travel and jet lag was such a big factor, and South African teams really were so badly disadvantaged by it, we would expect to see this in the results... well, we don't. Following are some stats for the Super 15 competition since 2011 when the conference system first came in. Earlier stats are not much use because countries had different numbers of teams involved.

Win % away in foreign countries
NZL 39%
SAF 35%
AUS 24%

Win % away in own country
NZL 41%
SAF 37%
AUS 44%

I would argue that if any country is disadvantaged by travel, its the Aussies. They win 44% of away matches in their own country, but only 24% in foreign countries.
For New Zealand teams it makes little difference - 41% v 39%
For South African teams its about the same -37% v 35%

In other words for South African teams, their win ratio away in NZ and Australia is hardly any different to their win ratio for away matches in South Africa... not the result you would expect if travel was the big factor it is claimed to be.
 
No thanks to both a global season and inter continental matches by NH teams! Hate the idea.....
 
Ugh!

I'm so sick and tired of this talk of SA should leave Aus and NZ and look north. Why?? There is no goodwill from the North towards us! They plunder our squads and just leave the carcass for our local coaches to work with.

Here's my question.

If we move our teams to play in another tournament, would our players necessarily stay in SA?? I think not. Why would they play for a local team where they get paid in local currency when they can play against the same opposition for another team and get paid in pounds or euros. I think this would just make the exodus worse than what it already is.

And WTF is up with all this negativity all of a sudden with our teams? Our teams were still very competitive. We can't always win a trophy. Every team has a one in 15 shot at winning the trophy, not really good odds.

It would be the dumbest thing ever for us to leave the Super Rugby tournament, even with it's flaws and terrible referees (which isn't that much better in the NH) it's still the best and toughest tournament for domestic teams.

I'm rather looking at the positives from this season, than the negatives:
1. Our teams had to adapt for the first in playing some games without their Springboks, as they had to be rested.
2. Not one of our teams finished in the bottom 3.
3. We are the only conference where every team won 5 or more games.
4. The new contracts that players make with Japanese teams allows them to still be part of Super Rugby teams and be available for the Springboks. This will slowly curb the mass exodus to the NH.

I've stated this before, and I will say it again. The Super Rugby tournament was not the focus for players this year. The focus was on the RWC. Some coaches also knew beforehand that this would be their last season (Allistair Coetzee and Naka Drotske) while for others this was a last gasp attempt in keeping their seat in the coaches box (Frans Ludeke). And Ludeke would have been safe, I think, if it wasn't for that horrible 4 games on tour (The Bulls were second on the log before they went on tour) and granted, that they had the shortest straw when it came to ref calls, if they performed better on tour, then the playoffs would have looked very different.
 
Even if it might be advantages to SA and that is a big 'might' how are we going to convince 'Europe' to accept us? The grass is not always greener on the other side. Maybe just water it on this side. The bokke are no.2 in the world and I'll bet a lot of it has to do with the good (can be a lot better mind you) rugby structures we have in place in the Varisty cup, Currie cup and Super rugby where our guys go up through very competitive setups. The main issues we face are not rugby related and we won't fix them by changing our rugby structures other than getting rid of political and union interference in Super rugby (this is mainly an issue for the Stormers and Kings specifically).

I think the next move is the right one for SA despite the inevitable growing pains we are likely to see. For once the setup of the format actually favors us. We've been the 'odd one out' till now- it's just a fact of geography and culture (linked to geography), nothing sinister. That now counts in our favor somewhat. Similar to the US NFL conference system where teams are grouped geographically simply because of the distances of travel involved. Again, nothing sinister.

Japan being in our conference at this stage is a bit ad-hoc but I see it as a first step in the right direction and I see a conference system grouped along the lines of 4 conferences making up 2 groups in the future in an East-West style set-up that'll be more symmetrical:

East conference (12)
SA (6)
Argentina (2) / USA (2) / Canada (2)

West conference (12)
NZ (5)
Aus (5)
Japan (2)

Sure the conference with NZ and Aus teams will be the strongest for the start but I am sure the American teams will grow quickly enough with proper competition and Argentina dispersed across only 2 teams should make for highly competitive teams pretty much off the bat- have you seen the players already contracted to the new Arg team- they'll be up for it for sure.

The reality is rugby has gone pro and money talks. Adding new markets such as Argentina and the big economies of the North Americas and Japan can only be good for our own game if we get more money we can keep mre of our talents and be more competitive. It'll take tie though but I feel it's our best move.
 
Last edited:
Even if it might be advantages to SA and that is a big 'might' how are we going to convince 'Europe' to accept us? The grass is not always greener on the other side. Maybe just water it on this side. The bokke are no.2 in the world and I'll bet a lot of it has to do with the good (can be a lot better mind you) rugby structures we have in place in the Varisty cup, Currie cup and Super rugby where our guys go up through very competitive setups. The main issues we face are not rugby related and we won't fix them by changing our rugby structures other than getting rid of political and union interference in Super rugby (this is mainly an issue for the Stormers and Kings specifically).

I think the next move is the right one for SA despite the inevitable growing pains we are likely to see. For once the setup of the format actually favors us. We've been the 'odd one out' till now- it's just a fact of geography and culture (linked to geography), nothing sinister. That now counts in our favor somewhat. Similar to the US NFL conference system where teams are grouped geographically simply because of the distances of travel involved. Again, nothing sinister.

Japan being in our conference at this stage is a bit ad-hoc but I see it as a first step in the right direction and I see a conference system grouped along the lines of 4 conferences making up 2 groups in the future in an East-West style set-up that'll be more symmetrical:

East conference (12)
SA (6)
Argentina (2) / USA (2) / Canada (2)

West conference (12)
NZ (5)
Aus (5)
Japan (2)

Sure the conference with NZ and Aus teams will be the strongest for the start but I am sure the American teams will grow quickly enough with proper competition and Argentina dispersed across only 2 teams should make for highly competitive teams pretty much off the bat- have you seen the players already contracted to the new Arg team- they'll be up for it for sure.

The reality is rugby has gone pro and money talks. Adding new markets such as Argentina and the big economies of the North Americas and Japan can only be good for our own game if we get more money we can keep mre of our talents and be more competitive. It'll take tie though but I feel it's our best move.

Exactly,the new system, while not ideal, has been agreed upon to accommodate what the SANZAR partners want (Six SA franchises, less travel, growth into new markets). I could see your East and West conference idea being viable, but also think that both of these conferences are likely to stay split, so it would be a four conference system, with the top two teams from each of the Eastern conferences (and Western) playing off in a finals series, and the two top teams playing off for the ***le.

It just makes sense economically, although it does reduce the Australasian v South African encounters drastically
 
Well they're more likely to win something if they did switch
 
Well they're more likely to win something if they did switch

Really?

With next year's Super 18 tournament each team has a 1 in 18 chance of winning.

If we'd join the NH, there will be more than 18 teams in the tournament probably 24/32 teams. That actually decreases the chances of winning a trophy.
 

Latest posts

Top