Relegation would alter Super mindset
13 Feb 2012
JON CARDINELLI writes that with the merger option quashed and the six-franchise option unlikely, South African teams may be forced to employ conservative tactics in order to secure Super Rugby survival.
Gary Gold put it best when he described how club rugby differs in the northern and southern hemispheres. ‘In the south they play to win, whereas in the north they play not to lose,’ he said, citing his experience as a coach in competitions like the English Premiership and Super Rugby.
Gold explained that the relegation factor influenced the style of play in England, while the Sanzar nations could afford to be more adventurous as the results had no bearing on their continued involvement in the south’s premier competition.
But that could change in 2012, at least for South Africa’s Super Rugby teams.
Saru is currently wrestling with the problem of fitting six franchises into five slots. They’ve ruled out the possibility of merging two franchises, and while they hope to convince Sanzar to accommodate six SA teams, the 2013 tournament is unlikely to differ to that of 2012. The existing franchises won’t like the idea of relegation, but considering the contractual obligations, there may be no alternative.
The final decision will only be announced next month, but we already know more than we did at this time last week. There will be no amalgamation similar to that of the Cats, and there are those at the Cheetahs and Lions who will laud this decision as a massive victory. But now that the merger option has been ruled out, another scrap will begin.
History will show that of SA’s five franchises, the Cheetahs and Lions have fared the worst at Super Rugby level. The Cheetahs have performed consistently at domestic level while the Lions recently won the Currie Cup, but this has never been a true indicator of Super Rugby aptitude. Going into the 2012 competition, the Cheetahs and Lions will be the South African underdogs once again.
At the start of 2012, both sides may have held lofty ambitions of finishing in the top half of the table or even sneaking into the play-offs. Now that relegation could become a possibility, they may have to alter game plans and adjust priorities and goals to ensure that come the end of the competition, they don’t receive the chop.
Of course, it is yet to be determined whether the relegation option will be adopted and, if it is, how it would be implemented.
It could be that Saru decides to stage a relegation series after the Super Rugby season, in which case the respective teams’ Super Rugby survival would be riding on the result of two or three games. That option wouldn’t make much sense, however, as it would take place at the end of a grueling six-month competition and both teams would be without their Boks due to Rugby Championship commitments. It would also lead to the bizarre situation where coaches save their best players for the relegation/promotion series rather than risk them in the last rounds of the Super Rugby tournament itself.
If an automatic relegation option was installed, in other words if the worst South African side made way for the Southern Kings in 2013, the question would be thrown back at Saru: Why wasn’t the decision made before the 2012 competition started?
The coaches could even take it a step further and ask why the decision wasn’t made before the pre-season when tactics and other plans are implemented. These are relevant questions, because as Gold once intimated with his description of the northern competitions, the threat of relegation can alter a team’s goals and thus its style of play.
The current laws prescribe a move towards percentage play, and while the Bulls, Sharks and Stormers all differ slightly in game plan, they do prize territory above all else. The Cheetahs and Lions, while traditionally the worst SA teams in terms of results, have often employed a more expansive approach to the game. It has sometimes made for entertaining rugby and on occasion has brought them success, but how will the prospect of relegation alter the mindset in the respective camps? Results will no longer be crucial in terms of shooting for a play-off place; they may be vital for survival.
The Cheetahs showed their conservative side when they played in Cape Town nine days ago, which may suggest they are already starting to think along these lines. The Lions entertained in the 2011 Currie Cup with an all-out-attack, but it was clear that John Mitchell has installed some balance. It could be that the Lions play more to the laws in the coming season, and in doing so, improve their chances of staying in the top flight.
The Super Rugby race will be closely contested, as the length of the competition adds to the challenge.There may also be a competition within the competition as the South African teams scrap for survival.
The Bulls, Sharks and Stormers won’t take the traditionally weaker sides in their conference lightly, as they won’t want to fall into a potential relegation zone either. This could mean that the big three SA teams are also effected when it comes to selection and playing style.
Saru will announce its decision at the end of March, and if a relegation system is favoured, it will prompt a scrap that could transform the South African psyche into something resembling the mindset of European clubs up north.
Follow JC on Twitter
Follow SA Rugby magazine on Twitter
413 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] Show All
14 Feb 2012, 07:12 am
@rangerman-399:
It is like when I try to fix the iron, I end up with spare parts and then have to chuck the whole thing away!
The current 5 teams have been at the top of the tree for many years and no matter how kuk the Lions or Cheetahs do, they still miles better than whoever is next in line.
14 Feb 2012, 08:43 am
@rangerman-399:
The reason for NZs problems with their franchises has been the lack of outside finance, unlike SA. They’re now changing that.
Auckland – The New Zealand Rugby Union has opened the path to outside investment in their Super rugby franchises, inviting bidders to buy management licenses in four of the union’s five teams in the southern hemisphere competition from 2013.
The NZRU would retain the ownership of the Auckland Blues, Waikato Chiefs, Wellington Hurricanes and Canterbury Crusaders and be responsible for contracting of playing and coaching staff, the NZRU said in a statement on Friday.
The Otago Highlanders, the other New Zealand side in the southern hemisphere competition, would not be included, NZRU chief executive Steve Tew said in the statement, as they were already seeking other opportunities.
“This is an early phase to get a real view of the level of interest in an opportunity to be associated with New Zealand’s brand of rugby and what is considered to be the world’s best rugby competition,” Tew said.
The decision has been mooted for some time by the NZRU, who have been forced at various times to bail out all of the Super rugby teams, which are run by the provinces, and a number of domestic provincial sides.
The NZRU will also underwrite about NZ$10 million ($7.8 million) of the operating loss from the recent rugby World Cup in New Zealand. Tew said during the tournament the NZRU stood to lose about NZ$13 million this year because of the World Cup cutting into sponsorship, television and gate revenues.
The successful licensee would have the right to manage, operate, select and promote the team brand and the matches played by that team.
Their revenue-generating opportunities would include naming rights and non-rugby activities, but the teams would have to remain in New Zealand as part of the license agreement.
14 Feb 2012, 09:01 am
@David-402: yes david, i saw that.
but who wants to “manage” a team where you have no say over the playing staff?
no one.
so again, central contracting will lead to issues.
its no wonder they are leaving out the highlanders, they have done it for years already. would you buy the canes when you know the blues and crusaders will be loaded with all blacks and you will get scraps?
no bud, you wouldnt.
and anyways, that announcement was made last year already, where is the news on the rush of investors?
hmmm…….
14 Feb 2012, 09:09 am
@rangerman-403:
Here is a question…
Do you believe the current setup in SA is working?
Simple yes or no.
14 Feb 2012, 09:16 am
@Robzim-393:
Seeing as though I built the damn thing, I would have to have tried all three out and yip, as far as I know there are only three people that have nailed the drop off, with bod and bod jnr being two of them.
Most downhillers would breeze it, but they couldnt be bothered getting up that mountain..
14 Feb 2012, 09:21 am
@PissAnt-404: cmon PA, do you seriously expect a simple yes or no to that question?
lets rather have a chat about it bud?
we have won 3 out of the last 5 superrugby titles so that part seems to be functioning well.
our unions are infinitely more profitable than the kiwi unions (barring the loser lions of course but they seem to getting back on track).
crowd numbers in sa dwarf those of anywhere in the southern hemisphere. (i think the stormers drew nearly as many spectators as the whole aussie conference last year? maybe i am wrong on this one though)
we have appointed a coach who may take us to another level…or not? lets see.
yes, i want a better run central body but i am an african and history has taught me that centrally run bodies with too much clout are a recipe for disaster.
14 Feb 2012, 09:31 am
@rangerman-406:
Profitable? Unfortunately not. More profitable than the Kiwis and Aussies, perhaps – but every single union in SA with the exception of the Bulls I imagine is struggling to keep themselves afloat.
Crowd numbers were actually down in 2011 from 2010 – the only increase in numbers were Australian TV audience numbers – the rest all took a dip.
3 out of the last 5 – good show on the face of it, but when you consider only 3 of 5 franchises (most of the time only 2) are anywhere close to competitive then it paints a different picture.
SA has infinitely more resources than Aus and Kiwi’s combined, and look at where we find ourselves year after year.
If this is something that is working, I would hate to see failure.
14 Feb 2012, 09:41 am
@PissAnt-407: struggling to keep themselves afloat?
no bud, you cannot be referring to the sharks? stormers maybe?
obviously aussie audiences increased, they now have a domestic comp but that isnt the full story pa, what were the audience numbers?
the aussies have what, two competitive teams and the kiwis have three at a push?
and i dont really consider the canes or chiefs or highlanders as perennial contenders do you?
whilst the sharks, bulls and stormers have all been contenders over the last few years?
yes, the aussies won last year because of a ridiculous format that punishes the stronger conferences (nz and sa) and rewards them. its no coincidence they hadnt supplied a finalist in years before last year.
no bud, externals must be taken into account and whilst there is room for improvement i personally am not willing to simply transfer my support, generated over decades, to some fanciful new team that is a businessmans pet project and i suspect i am in the majority here.
why do you think the varsity cup is such a success crowds wise? ready made support base bud.
and it draws regular crowds the kiwis and aussies wish they had for ANY rugby.
14 Feb 2012, 11:08 am
@rangerman-408:
2 years ago it was published that the only union in SA that showed an actual operational profit was… wait for it… the GRIFFONS!
Now granted that was 2 years ago, I did not see much change from any union in the recent past to suggest that things are much better…
Unfortunately unions are very loathe to make their audited financials available (I wonder why…) so all we can go on is what is reported.
As for the various teams and countries performances…
Only ONE SA team averages a 50% win ration (Stormers). Sharks and Bulls are close behind but still, in the 40′s.
Brumbies and Tahs both average in the mid to high 50′s, with the Reds on 48%.
If memory serves the Force started the same time as the Cheetahs in SupeRugby? Force 36% win ration, Cheetahs 27%
NZ is a different story altogether, two teams are in the 60′s (Saders & Blues) with Canes in the 50′s.Chiefs and Highlanders are mid 40′s.
Overall, Kiwi’s win 54% of their matches (central contracting model), Aus 43% (including the newbies Rebels which won only 19% and they have no local competition or depth) and SA…39%
We are almost 20% behind the Kiwi’s considering rugby as a whole in both countries! And it shows at test level too.
As far as ‘pet projects’ go…
Investing millions into any business is hardly what I would call a ‘pet project’ – it will be 100% success driven to get a ROI. In fact the term ‘pet project’ much easier describes the current situations where rugby (teams) is a pet project of hopefully out of depth amateurs who has zero financial or operational accountability.
Here is what I struggle to get.
SA Rugby runs like government in this country where incompetent idiots are voted into power.
Every single day I have to hear about how pathetic and useless our government is because of this (zero accountability, squandering of resources and funds and little actual success).
Yet most on here now wants to ‘protect’ that system in rugby? Because of what? Emotional attachment?
Go figure.
My point is quite simple.
Get rid of amateurism in rugby, it is going to destroy the game.
14 Feb 2012, 11:26 am
@PissAnt-409: well it would be interesting to see true financials but teh feeling i get is that our rugby is in a far better place wrt finances than aus and nz.
maybe i am wrong and the salaries being paid are unaffordable?
as for superrugby success rates, i would love a breakdown of the last 5 years rather than the comp in its entirety PA because the period where we have started to show regular success of our top three (not just one) is in this time.
sure, we lag but again, externals are just as much to blame. travel cannot be discounted and the fact that the lions won zero % and the cheetahs 27% obviously is an issue but the stronger unions are doing ok without central contracting?
i agree fully on the pro vs amateur debate PA, seriously. even at my rugby club thge politics are astounding but as i said, i will not simply transfer my support to a fancifully named new franchise which removes all the traditions i am attached to.
and that is the bottom line imo.
14 Feb 2012, 11:28 am
@rangerman-403:
I think you misunderstand the concept of central contracts. It is based on the fact that the S14 series is based on the elite 150 players, not the elite provinces. The S15 is owned by SARU in SA, unlike the provinces, which are independent entities. In fact the super competition is actually an extension of the national sides, which has replaced national trials with a more formal and structured competition.
Central contracting is also just an extension of national/Springbok contracts to a far wider squad of players whilst the provinces/unions still contract players for the domestic competitions.
Of course, central contracts depend on the national management constantly identifying and monitoring emerging talent that they’d like to see at a higher level. It isn’t about loading one or two sides as each franchise draws its squad from the constituent provinces. In NZ the Franchise nominates a core squad of 26 playersout of 30, whilst the NZRU can excercise the right to draft unnominated players who wouldn’t normally get much game time, to strengthen franchises that might be weak in certain positions. This prevents Franchises hoarding emerging talent. This is a national coaches dream situation compared to the problems ours have traditionally.
We all know how difficult it is for a national coach to
14 Feb 2012, 11:36 am
@David-411: dave you kinda tapered off theree bud.
i gotta go sorry man, chat laters, you too pa!
14 Feb 2012, 11:37 am
@rangerman-410:
The one aspect we are discussing here is a central system, and I think David explained it quite nicely.
I would personally venture as far as to say that a central system will strengthen the individual unions, not weaken them (and your support for them).
I am also quite happy to follow a European model where clubs/unions qualify for SupeRugby PROVIDED the professional arms in each union is not owned and controlled by the amateur arm (and that they show a operational profit like the model they have in France). At most I reckon the amateur arm should own up to a maximum of 25% of a union not 51% (and more) as is currently the case.
It all comes down to accountability and responsibility which if you get that right, success will be an automatic by-product.
No-one is talking about destroying the unions, in fact, my whole idea is to ensure we look after all 14 (not just the big 5 as is currently the case).
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.