What the new rugby comp could look like
Kiwi ex-pat trainer Chris Waller pulled off another Group 1 training coup with Toffee Tongue breaking her maiden in style in the Australasian Oaks (2000m) at Morphettville yesterday.
Although she went into the Adelaide race a maiden, punters recognised her class and sent Toffee Tongue out the A$5 favourite, and the daughter of Tavistock duly delivered by three-quarters of a length over Moonlight Maid (A$11).
Waller said the original intention had been to send Toffee Tongue to Queensland but the Oaks in Brisbane has been cancelled as part of a reduced winter carnival impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic.
“We only decided to send her to Adelaide after she ran so well in the Australian Oaks and the Adrian Knox before that,” Waller said.
“It’s great to get the Group 1 with her.”
Thornton had Toffee Tongue well positioned on the fence and stuck to the inside in the run home, with Moonlight Maid making her run late.
Affair To Remember (A$6.50) was wider and closed late to finish on the heels of Moonlight Maid.
With biosecurity protocols in place regarding interstate travel, Waller said although neither he nor any of his staff could go to Adelaide with the filly, he had the next best thing.
“Andrew Clarken worked for me for about 10 years and he has taken out his own licence in Adelaide, so I was able to send the horses to him and it was like they were being looked after by our own staff,” he said.
Waller, who won the Australasian Oaks three years ago with Egg Tart, said he expected the Jonathan Munzowned Toffee Tongue to be a force again in her next preparation and would again step up distances.
The daughter of Tavistock is also a full-sister to Group 1 performer Milseain and New Zealand Cup (3200m) winner Gobstopper.
Toffee Tongue was bought by bloodstock agent Dean Hawthorne out of Highden Park’s 2018 New Zealand Bloodstock National Yearling Sale Book 1 draft for Munz’s Pinecliff Racing.
Toffee Tongue becomes the fifth individual Group 1 winner for Cambridge Stud stallion Tavistock, who died last year. — NZ Racing Desk
Super Rugby has taken a beating lately. So many commentators have crept out of the woods to stick the boot in the corpse of the competition, you wondered if it was necessary to remind them about social distancing.
To be fair, critics (and fans) have blasted the format for years and Super Rugby’s woeful error of expansion ahead of common sense will make an intriguing case study in future sports management courses.
While Covid-19 has seen off Super Rugby, it also had underlying health issues which saw it on a respirator in recent seasons.
But it is good to see a few ideas surfacing, too — not just endless spitting on Super Rugby’s grave. Phil Gifford’s Weekend Herald column quoted reliable rugby sources that the five existing Super Rugby franchises would join forces with two more from New Zealand and a Pasifika team, maybe based in Suva. Those eight could be boosted to 12 if the Australian franchises are in decent enough health.
Do we really have the depth for two more professional franchises here? Where does the money come from? Will the smaller broadcast dosh be enough if South Africa and Japan are not involved? How competitive will the Aussies be?
In the short-term, everyone agrees we need to return to domestic roots. But that’s only half a solution, really. What about beyond 2021?
What happens to South Africa, Japan and Argentina? In the longer term, can we really afford to do without the vital broadcast loot South Africa’s 55 million population brings? And what about the Pacific Islands? This rugby rethink is an ideal chance to bring them into calculations, even though they bring little broadcast revenue.
Long term, we must surely attempt to involve South Africa and the burgeoning new market of Japan. But how to accommodate all these teams without blowing out costs and getting round the problem of time zones?
Our rugby overlords probably have to look to American football and the hugely successful NFL. That truly super competition, involving 32 teams across different time zones in the United States and leading to the Super Bowl, takes place in just 17 weeks.
That’s what Super Rugby has to do, too — plus it needs to limit the damage time zones cause, while retaining South Africa and Japan.
One option being discussed is a four-week finals format involving teams qualifying from their respective domestic competitions for a European Heineken Cup-style champions format.
Now we’re talking. Here’s how such a competition might shape up, money permitting: In domestic round-robins in each country, New Zealand’s five franchises, Australia and South Africa’s four each, would play home and away to find the top two teams from each country to advance to the playoffs.
The same thing would happen in Argentina and Japan, where the latter’s rugby imports would play a big part in finding their top two. Fijian, Samoan and Tongan teams would do the same (they already have two teams each in the annual Pacific Rugby Cup).
That’s preferable, surely, to a blended Pasifika team — a strange beast, neither one thing nor the other, and which has failed to gain public following previously.
The key would be a centralised champions cup or knockout playoffs to reduce travel costs.
Play the first year in Australia (they need the most help), maybe South Africa next, then New Zealand, Japan and so on. Maybe the host pays a fee.
So basing themselves in Australia for the duration of the knockout playoffs would be 16 teams — two each from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Japan, Samoa, Fiji and Tonga.
The first nine weeks of the competition would be domestic derbies with All Blacks and Springboks playing (less those contracted to appear for Japanese teams, for example) and at least one bye week. The knockout playoffs would take five weeks in Australia, including one bye week.
That is less than the NFL’s 17-week spread. The old Super Rugby competition started in January and was due to end this year on June 20.
A 14-week spread (or thereabouts) means it could start in March and finish well ahead of the June internationals (if such things exist by then).
Big squads would be needed for this pressure-cooker itinerary and to allow rotation but the travel costs inherent in the old Super Rugby format would be greatly reduced, helping to counterbalance smaller TV cheques.
There may be myriad faults in the practicability of the above — but at least it’s a way a new competition might adopt “less is more” while embracing the Pacific Islands and growth markets. That might please World Rugby and shake loose a few more dollars. And, let’s face it, rugby has to do something significant or we’ll all be out there kicking its corpse.