Super tournament demands Super change
20 May 2011
MARK KEOHANE, in his Friday Cape Argus column, writes that every coach has to change his mindset on selection to accommodate the playing demands of Super Rugby next year.
There was no conviction in the answer of any coach when asked about the new Super Rugby format but every coach had a reservation about the length of the tournament, the intensity of the local derbies and the difficulties of managing their players.
All the fears have been played out in the first 12 rounds of the competition with the tournament league structure too long and the double round of local derbies, especially in South Africa and New Zealand, brutal and not sustainable if quality – and not quantity is the name of the game.
Where no coach has got it right is in the management of their players because no coach in the competition has backed the concept of 30 players. Every coach talks the cliché that 30 players win you the tournament and not a starting XV, but in every squad there is a some distance between the first XV and the remaining fifteen and no coach has been prepared to back the principle of 30 players in the context of a league season that demands 16 unforgiving performances in 18 weeks. And that’s not counting the newly introduced play-off system that accommodates the top six teams.
Every coach in the competition applied last season’s approach to team selection and in 90 percent of the selections picked the strongest possible line-up every week.
There has been no confidence in the second string squad member to do a job, unless it has been enforced through injury to the first team regular.
It is crazy and unrealistic to expect the senior players with the Test experience to front every weekend and to perform with excellence. It also does nothing for the development of the next tier.
The Stormers coaches have been particularly naïve (some would say conservative) in their selections and it could be the undoing of their campaign in the last month.
The selections have been shortsighted, as has been the dismissive attitude of the value in bonus point wins.
Andries Bekker has been played to a standstill, as has Duane Vermeulen, and the only time a senior player has had respite is when his body has caved in. Schalk Burger, Jean de Villiers, Jaque Fourie, Bryan Habana and Peter Grant had to be injured to miss a game and no consideration was ever given to trusting tomorrow’s stars to do today’s job.
When Burger was out Pieter Louw and Nick Koster produced good performances, improved their own game and added depth to the ideal of having 30 players who could start any weekend. Deon Fourie has been more than capable in the injured Tiaan Liebenberg’s absence. Lionel Cronje has not looked out of place at flyhalf and Johan Sadie was outstanding in his first start on the wing.
Why did it need injuries to give these players a chance and why is every match approached as if it is the final? No player can sustain enthusiasm and form week in and week out for four successive months, especially not in a tournament with exhausting international travel demands.
In these types of competitions it is more pertinent to how a team finishes more than how it starts and the Stormers coaches may find themselves in the situation that come the last two rounds and the play-offs many of their first XV are crocked or running on empty.
It looks like anything between 50 and 55 points will be enough to get a top six place in the expanded Super 15 and that five or six defeats in 16 matches would be consistent with play-off qualification. If the format is to stay for 2012 and beyond then coaches (and supporters) will have to be more realistic in their approach and there has to be less romance about dominating the league stages and trying to go unbeaten.
Each coach needs to accept it won’t happen and more pragmatism needs to be applied in weekly selections. The rugby media – as the messenger and storyteller of the season – also has to apply this pragmatism and resist the hysteria that usually follows a league defeat. Teams will get beaten and it won’t be a crime to lose games.
It would also be more accurate to say a player has been dropped if he falls out of the tournament squad; not the match 22.
If coaches are true to the 30-player squad principle then they have to apply it throughout the season knowing the risk of losing games is greater but also knowing the long term reward is having a functional and conditioned squad ready to peak in the play-offs.
Listen to Mark Keohane and Cape Town-based former Welsh centre Scott Gibbs talk rugby on GoodHope FM every Saturday morning between 8 and 9am or listen to pod cast on www.keo.co.za
28 Comments
20 May 2011, 15:49 pm
stormers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
20 May 2011, 15:56 pm
Shew, lucky.. I was starting to miss them
20 May 2011, 15:59 pm
I think the Stormers proved the point you are making today. All the 2nd choices / subs performed well. I think the significance of making the top two is why coaches persist with this idea that they must put their best 15 on the park week in & week out. Anton Van Zyl will never let the side down yet he has probably played 10 minutes of Super Rugby. I guess it requires a leap in faith by the coaching staff. Bottom line is the tournament in it’s current format is rediculous!
20 May 2011, 16:19 pm
All the teams currently in contention are in a desperate bid to be in the top 2. The chances of a team occupying positions 3-6 winning the tournament are practically null – so no wonder all teams are putting out all the stops.
Besides, results are all that matter, and all teams are under pressure to perform. If this is driving our top players into the ground, it is the tournament schedule, and not the winning mentality, that must be scrapped.
20 May 2011, 17:22 pm
Interesting,
I would say that rotation is key to success going forward.Only Mitch has used entire super squad (except 1 player).
20 May 2011, 17:25 pm
I’m not enjoying the current format. If I wanted to watch local derbys I wait and watch the currie cup. This format as it currently stands is going to water down the currie cup.
Maybe a shift up North???
20 May 2011, 18:05 pm
Aussies were clever in selling this format to NZ and SA. Suits them – especially in WC year, when our players will all turn up completely kn*ch*red and their will be nice frresh and peaky.
Also improves their chances of winning Super rugby competition.
John O’Neil pulls a fast one on us again.
20 May 2011, 18:15 pm
@Train(Train)-7: Because we have Marinos (how the hell did he get into that position anyway?) representing SA and it’s not hard to win him over…… as clever as clown shoes.
20 May 2011, 19:09 pm
Great article by Keo…
Very true.
His last 2 articles have been very good in contrast to the other twaddle churned out this week…
20 May 2011, 19:15 pm
@ali(ali)-4: On the contrary, I reckon a team from 3 and 4 stand a fairly good chance… Yes, you will say they play an extra game but at that stage of the tourny, momentum will be quite a significant factor, especially if 1 and/or 2 lose their last game before knockouts… Anything could happen… I would fancy Sharks and Crusaders at 3 and 4 respectively, winning their wildcard playoffs and then facing Blues and Reds respectively…. Even Stormers… (If teams don’t kick over their D line)…
I reckon anything goes….
20 May 2011, 19:22 pm
No Keo. It is not the coaches that need to adapt.. It is the Competition. I for one, as I believe many fans would rather see 10 qualtiy games than a squad running around winning or losing just for the sake of playing that week… And then when they were “lucky” enough to make it into the semis all the sudden pick the “Best| side and try and win this thing…
The new Conference system sucks, and everyone in the media is too scared to say it! Same with the teams and same with rugby vosses of the relevant unions. Some how no One will admit that this format was a brainf@rt. Whether it was from the Aussies or Nz or SA side….
Trying to sell us the idea that fans want to see more derbies is also not true in SA, As we have a currie Cup that fullfill that concept. I for one know that when we played the fisrt derby against the sharks… Didnt care about that game as I knew they still had to come to Newlands later on… Soit becomes about the home game for a specific derby against that particular team… I think a stormers supporter residing in Cape town would not have bothered this year to go and watch the game at Kingspark….. cause there was another game against the sharks coming just a couple of week later..
It is not working and needs to be dished… Keep it to 15 teams if you want, but let us play a semi and a final and thats that….
20 May 2011, 19:28 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-10:
Remember, Not finishing in the top 2 you almost certainly gonna play all your games away from home… Say the sharks can actually score against the bulls and end up 6th on the log… then they will have to face the 3rd placed Saders in NZ….. should they some how win… they will have to travel to Either Newlands or the reds homeground for a semi against who ever finishes 1st…
Should they be able to pull off that game, they will have to travel yet again to whoever wins the other semi….
Not so sure you wanna end in the Wildcards…. cause its gonna be exactly that…. wild!!!
20 May 2011, 20:28 pm
The Bulls are even worse than the Stormers in this regard in my opinion. None of this expanded Super rugby is good for the players. I hope that they are not so stuffed by the time the world cup comes around that Northern Hemisphere teams are beating the Southern Hemisphere teams.
20 May 2011, 21:09 pm
It’s a silly format, clearly invented by the Aussies to suit the Aussies because they have no domestic tournament. I think it’s going to backfire on them horribly anyway, because their fans don’t want to watch the likes of the Brumbies, Rebels, Force and Waratahs play each other twice a year. The only team any of the Aussies are interested in watching are the Reds. So perhaps the Aussies will come up with a new format next year in which the Reds play more games than any of the other Aussie teams to get more bums on seats … it couldn’t be much worse than the 2011 Super 15.
20 May 2011, 22:07 pm
@Tuna(Tuna)-8:
I am so freakin glad somebody at last questions this guys involvement in SA rugby. Where the hell does he come from to have this much “power”?
He was born in Zimbabwe.
Played for the Sharks and WP/Stormers and tried to qualify for Scotland/Wales to play in the 2003 RWC, if I’m not mistaken.
He was the reason why Stormers lost in 1999 semi against the Highlanders at Newlands, trying to bargain for more money on the Saturday that they had to play the semi in the S14.
Question: Is he a SA citizen? Beast had to become one to play for SA. Not so? How is it that this guy can run SA rugby?
He was a Zimbo, SA, Scot/Welsh, now again an SA.
Are we saying that we don’t have South Africans who can run our rugby?
He must vokkof if you ask me.
20 May 2011, 22:27 pm
@Keo
“Why did it need injuries to give these players a chance and why is every match approached as if it is the final? ”
Because in a competition like this, EVERY GAME IS A FINAL, or at least a victory will bring them closer to the final.
Rather tell us how much money does a franchise stand to gain if they reach the SEMI’S, or the FINAL, instead of talking general kak like you are doing now.
@SpearTackle(hardcore)-6:
And you are only realising this only now?
21 May 2011, 00:42 am
Rotate or burn. Like a spit-roast, really.
21 May 2011, 05:18 am
Difficult for a coach to have the long term outlook when job security is generally a factor, we’ve seen some coaches are not guaranteed 18 weeks! Plus dont see the hysteria surrounding a league defeat to lessen anytime soon from either the media or the public. If the competition stays at it is, perhaps it should be a certain amount of minutes each player can be on the field for during the round robin stages and force the solution. You hear of the top players picking up light injuries now, forcing a two week lay off and the common sentiment is that its a ‘blessing in disguise’. Time to force their hand.
21 May 2011, 05:52 am
I thought one of the reasons given for the new conference format was the travel factor for SA teams?? Harder on them coming over to Aus and NZ for so many away games?
We have the NPC as well which takes a battering now in popularity due to the Super 15. The only decent crowds for our “Currie Cup” are in the provinces where they get less good rugby. I would say though that many people in smaller uniouns here feel more for their local province than the big franchise from the big city that takes all the money.
Definitely some tough derbies in NZ like SA as Jamie Joseph has said.
21 May 2011, 06:03 am
Maybe we should be like the Americans and ask for Marinos’ birth certificate??
This is a big professional business – Marinos is just the representative. Like any other global business, one man does not have the say on behalf of 6 multi milion dollar businesses he represents. What is it with the Saffa fans, it’s always a conspiracy theory. If we not b!tching about being screwed over by a travel schedule, it’s an Australian conspiracy to watch our teams beat each other up in derbies????
I personally don’t like the format and don’t know how good the Marinos is at the negotiation table, but I’d rather see some facts than give a toss about where he was born. The Aussies are a professional bunvh in every sport they are involved in … and thats why with a 3rd of the talent they remain competitive with the other 2 southern hemisphere heavyweights.
21 May 2011, 07:12 am
Aus has more players than NZ and SA more than both combined
According to the IRB South Africa has 434,219 registered players
The New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) figures for 2009 show a 4% increase in the number of people signed up to play rugby in New Zealand.
The figure of 145,472 players represents an annual increase of 5,193 registered with New Zealand’s 26 provincial unions (PUs).
One of the biggest increases is in the under-13 age group with 6% growth.
Australian Rugby Union has announced participation figures for 2009 that feature an unprecedented number of players registered at the senior and junior club levels.
The total number of players involved in the game on a regular basis across Australia – through seniors, juniors, schools and women’s competitions – are also at an all-time high.
Adding the Golden Oldies and schools players who compete on an irregular basis lift the national total to an overall figure of 192,581 for 2009.
This represents an additional 8771 players compared to 2008 – an increase of 4.8% — and reverses the minor fall off in numbers recorded in both the previous two year
21 May 2011, 08:40 am
I like this new format apart from the inevitable impAct on the currie cup. The possible permutations keep up the interest on different levels. More teams have a shot at the semis so the results of more games are important. Within each conference is a separate battle as conference champs is not only important for semis positions but it is acomp in it’s own right. Travel is proportionately less of an issue for all teams. From here on in every week is going to be huge for top and mid table teams. I find the whole comp more compelling than before we have trEed an imperfect system for an imperfect system, but I believe this one is a lot more exciting.
21 May 2011, 08:44 am
Treed =traded
21 May 2011, 08:45 am
@stormer in a teacup(stormer in a teacup)-22:
Dont you think that this will lead to more young talent in the currie cup where some future stars may result
21 May 2011, 09:03 am
Absolutely.
21 May 2011, 10:26 am
Ewen Mackensire wrote a great article on rotating players in the Super 15. He felt that coaches had to rotate and believe in the bench. He started this really early in the tournament so when it came down to the back end he had players competing for places and they were fresher than those teams who heavily relied on their first 15 players.
He wrote one is tempted to play the full strength side but if one the coach would end up relying on the reserves as the main players would get injured. This time around the reserves would not have the experience in the back end of the tournament.
Thi is not about RSA and NZ it is about management…RSA pushed for a RSA finalist regardless of result. so SANZAR had to come up with this format.
Dont get caught up believing this is Aus branchild…NZ and RSA still had to agree with it and if it was not beneficial to NZ and RSA do you think it would have been voted in???
21 May 2011, 13:47 pm
@wallabie.(wallabie.)-26: Given that not one Australian team managed to win the Super 14 and the Bulls won it three times out of a possible five, most recently in a final contested by another South African team, the Stormers, I don’t think it was the South Africans who were too worried about having a team in the playoffs.
21 May 2011, 13:53 pm
@wallabie.(wallabie.)-26: In fact, two of the five Super 14 finals were contested by South African teams alone. Only one Australian team, the Waratahs, qualified for a Super 14 final – and they lost.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.