Dilemma over size of Super competition
THERE is a growing consensus that if Super Rugby is to prosper it must be reduced in size to improve competitiveness and make the brand more appealing to disillusioned fans.
Just how Super Rugby will evolve in the years ahead is unclear but there are a number of options on the table to invigorate the contest.
The decision facing rugby bosses is whether quality is better than quantity as they wrestle with ways to make the tournament more attractive. Fans have already sent a strong message to Super Rugby decisionmakers by staying away from games in their thousands.
Even Sanzaar (South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Argentina Rugby) chief executive Andy Marinos has admitted that Australia’s ability to maintain five teams, and South Africa six, was a concern.
There has also been talk of support for a new Super Rugby franchise in Fiji and the possibility of one being created in either Tonga or the US.
Innovative England coach Eddie Jones and former Bok legend and TV analyst Joel Stransky have both made it clear they want the tournament slashed in size.
Last year’s expanded 18-team format failed to give the contest the extra edge it needed despite the introduction of Japan’s Sunwolves and Argentina’s Jaguares.
Super Rugby’s administrators, Sanzaar, have delayed making a decision on the future shape of the tournament until March, when the competition will be under way.
One idea that has been mooted is for South Africa and Australia to lose one team each, which would reduce the tournament to a more workable 16-team format.
There appears to be little agreement on which two teams would be cut, but most speculation appears around the Cheetahs, Southern Kings and Western Force.
If no one can agree on who will be Super Rugby teams will help improve the standard of the game in that country. In a hard-hitting statement, Jones said culling the Western Force and Melbourne Rebels would help to strengthen the Waratahs, Reds and Brumbies.
“The reason Australia wanted to have more than the three Super Rugby teams was to create extra depth, so the immediate question that needs to be answered is, have those two extra teams strengthened the Wallabies?” he said.
“If they have, then keep them. If they haven’t, then they’ve got to look at whether they should persevere with them or not.”
And Stransky is singing from the same hymn sheet. He wants the Cheetahs and the Kings to be booted out of the competition so that the standard of Springbok rugby can be improved. “We need to understand that we can’t compete with six Super Rugby franchises,” he said. “We’d probably be at our best with four. If we want to be strong in the future we need strong domestic Super Rugby.”
Stransky said the surviving Super teams would have better player rosters and increased financial clout, making it easier for them to lure young talent back from overseas.
Stransky’s comments will heap extra pressure on the Kings as they look to improve on last season’s showing when they could win only two of the 15 Super Rugby matches they played.
At a meeting last year with the national unions, Super Rugby coaches and TV broadcasters, Marinos said the main concerns expressed had been over the competitiveness of some teams.
It is likely any final decision on the matter will be delayed until later in the year, when rugby bosses have a better chance to assess the merits of any team facing the axe.
If the feelings of Jones and Stransky are taken on board, then the winds of change could blow in for a new era for Super Rugby next year.