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
13 Feb 2012, 05:08 am
Relegation DRAGON…this story is far from over.
13 Feb 2012, 05:09 am
Another SARU stuff up. Just par for the course for them.
It’s difficult to work out what they were thinking, when we can’t field 5 regularly competitive sides, when they sprouted the call for a 6th team.
I glad SANZAR told them to go and shove it. The existing 15 team competition tv rights are settled. Too late to make changes.
SARU are the single biggest problem with the game in this country. They need a massive cleanout ASAP.
13 Feb 2012, 05:10 am
Less than 2 weeks to go…
Come join my Super Rugby prediction game on SuperBru! It’s free and loads of fun. Just click here:
http://www.superbru.com/superrugby/pool.asp?p=230425
Pool name: Muppits fly Business Class
Pool code: earnpent
13 Feb 2012, 05:31 am
Dump the “Kings”. They’re a waste of time.
13 Feb 2012, 05:31 am
Yes it is time to get rid of that ***** Oregan Hoskins, he is so useless, what has he actually done for SARU? There is no leadership at SARU, useless bunch of idiots, I would tell the unions to get lost, the best way forward is to drop the Lions, they are bankrupt, it should be a pre-requisite to be solvent and play superugby.
13 Feb 2012, 05:33 am
Oregano Hoskins is a pu$$y
13 Feb 2012, 05:35 am
The franchises have told SARU that:
The letter reads:
“After lengthy discussions between the Franchises, we unanimously decided that it is imperative:
That such inclusion will benefit South African rugby in general;
That none of the existing franchises shall be prejudiced by such inclusion in any way whatsoever;
That none of the existing franchises shall be eliminated from the tournament in 2013 or at any stage thereafter as a result of the inclusion of the Kings;
That SARU as custodian of the South African leg of the tournament will ensure that the Kings are included without prejudice to any of the existing franchises.”
Which means they do not regard relegation as an option either and if they can get their franchise partner unions behind them voting will be 11 to 3.
It is clear from their letter to SARU that they voted “unanimously” for the Kings inclusion from 2013 provided SARU negotiate an expanded Super Rugby. If that doesn’t happen then SARU will have to go back to the Kings and tell them their inclusion will be negotiated with SANZAR for the next expansion.
If SARU unilaterally refuses to renew one of the current franchises at the end of the year we could see a new SARU board soon after.
Simple really – SARU must fix their own mess. None of the franchises are prepared to commit rugby suicide to accommodate an inferior franchise.
13 Feb 2012, 05:50 am
@maximus1-5: Weird. I’ve yet to read that any court have found the Lions to be bankrupt. And I would have expected people like Gumede & Co, Altmann Allers, MTN and Redefine Properties to investigate the Lions’ financial viability before investing or sponsoring.
Until a court decides otherwise I prefer to take de Klerk & Allers’s word for it that the Lions sorting out their financial issues.
13 Feb 2012, 06:35 am
JC once again Keo is running with the wrong story. First it was about the non story about the merger rejection when the real story was about the letter. Now you are on about the non story of relegation when you should be the phone with your client, Luke, asking him if he going back to Bath in 2013 when the inevitable chop is given to his Kings.
13 Feb 2012, 06:37 am
Screwwww the unions threatening to boycott. It is about time the fans boycotted their pathetic union administrators. The whole lot of them. This is not a new phenomenon, we had the same old **** a lot of the time pre 1994, but this now a professional era and this divvy up the spoils amongst our mates mentality can no longer be tolerated. As long as fans are happy to let cabals of committee members with matching ties and reserved parking spaces act like they own the teams we get the crummy administrators we deserve.
Re the EP Kings. if this region has the huge number of registered players we are told it has, the following questions must be asked.
1. Is there anyone, anywhere who get this union to at least Currie Cup standard, not to mention Super rugby level?
If yes, where are they? Why are they so rare? What special powers must they possess?
If not, why not? We are talking about the union with one of the largest player bases of any being unable to compete even with the perennial sad sacks of Super rugby. What are the issues this make this simple task so seemingly unachievable?
If we can answer these questions we are on the way to getting SA rugby as a whole healthy.
In the meantime it is just more bullsheet rearranging of the deckchairs while the cold water rushes over us.
Signed,
Royally pissed off.
13 Feb 2012, 06:49 am
@stormer in a teacup-10: I asked the same question about the EC. Their so called “large” player base and club league is nothing more than a fantasy. How can a rugby region, twice the size of the WP not qualify for the Currie cup premier division in the last 10 years.
It is mind boggling.
13 Feb 2012, 07:09 am
Hey I came across this golden oldie and for some reason it made me think of extra ball…
When you feel that nobody loves you,
Nobody cares for you,
Everybody is ignoring you,
You should really ask yourself…..
Am I a doos?
13 Feb 2012, 07:22 am
As I said on Pissant’s site – The smaller unions that are currently part of Super franchises will also back the Big 5, to protect their own involvement in Super rugby. The Kings are a threat to them as much as to their Big 5 partners. So when it comes to the crunch, the Kings will vote alone against 10 or 11 out of the 14 unions who will oppose them replacing any of the existing unions.
(No idea why this post is in italics)
13 Feb 2012, 07:29 am
@Tacitus-13: Pissant has a site?
13 Feb 2012, 07:32 am
Relegation seems to be the only answer but none of the Big 5 unions will go for this – imagine now that the Lions now get relegated and lose their lucrative tv contracts , the union might as well close its doors …. I am sure if i was in the Eastern Cape i would be jumping for joy that the SKs are being involved but a wise decision imo not a good one at this point .
13 Feb 2012, 07:38 am
@Tacitus-13:
Tac, the smaller unions will go where the money is.
@Jeez-14:
http://www.ruggaworld.com/
13 Feb 2012, 07:41 am
@Tacitus-13:
This is correct. Hoskins being the spineless president that he is has sent the letter from the big 5 to the 9 country unions asking them to decide on which unions should play superrugby. Now 6 of these 9 are already receiving SANZAR cheques from their franchise partners and they will not do anything to jeopardize those cheques.
Now some will say that the Pumas and Leopards may side with the Kings and forget about the Lions since they have not received their piece of the SANZAR pie. This is not going to happen because they know that they will get their pie (eventually). Thier SANZAR pie is needed more than ever since they were relegated from the premier division of the Currie cup so expect them to s.crew the Kings.
13 Feb 2012, 07:44 am
@stew-15: Yep that will surely be the end for the Lions. It would be great if all our teams do well this year…Especially the LIons and Cheetahs. They need to strengthen their cause to stay in it! If they end up at the bottom agggaaain then they deserve each other and deserve to become a cat once more…
Although the cheetahs might just hold on and wait for the Lions to go under and then sign their top players….all the other franchises for that matter, like vultures.
Read a funny comment on an article in the Rapport yesterday: die bulle en lions moet saamsmelt en die Bloukatte word. Lol bloukatte, cracks me up.
13 Feb 2012, 07:48 am
The Stormers have been playing this way for the past few years already. It’s been very effective, but more a NH style than a classic Super 15 pattern of play.
13 Feb 2012, 07:49 am
Yup, relegation is the way to go. But it must be kept in place to ensure the six SA teams remain competitive.
So Lions get relegated at the end of this season and rebuild during 2013 and then the Kings are relegated after 2013. Welcome back Lions…
Problem, what problem?
13 Feb 2012, 07:57 am
@simbachips-20:
Check the fine print, Kings are guarenteed a spot for 3 years so your promotion/relegation will be between the Lions and the 4th SA franchise…
13 Feb 2012, 08:09 am
Relegation makes no sense. The Cheetahs and Lions should stop their yapping and merge and make it work 2nd time round. They have the worst track records of all the super rugby teams. They havent shown much improvement so its time to face facts.They wont be competitive unless the have a decent squad, with quality depth. If they merge they will have a decent squad capable of being at the top. Like i said if the cheetahs refuse, that will be the end of the lions and then they will probably sign lions players anyway. No decent player will stay at the lions if he cant play super rugby…
13 Feb 2012, 08:19 am
Kings could not beat Boland last year, how on earth do they deserve a S15 spot
13 Feb 2012, 08:21 am
@Jeez-22: So can you name 26 players from the Kings that has those credentails ?
All they have are semi retired players, Barry , Stick, Watson ect.
13 Feb 2012, 08:32 am
@Jeez-22:
why
must
the cheetahs
and lions
or any other
franchise
for that
matter
do anything
just to
accommodate
a politically
motivated
franchise
with basically
zero
rugby credentials
sheer
stupidity
13 Feb 2012, 08:34 am
@capebull-24: It doesnt really matter does it…Theyre in and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The other 5 franchises approved this decision. The Kings will just be another embarrassing franchise like the lions who will loose 99% of their games…
13 Feb 2012, 08:44 am
@Porra the Fat and Clever Speedster-25:
I agree its unfair, but that is what will have to happen if sanzar disallows SA to have 6 franchises. So thats all im commenting on. Its been a pain to watch to watch 2 of our teams doing so badly each year…. With the Kings in next year, its going to be torture to watch half of our teams loosing more than 60-80% of their games. Why not merge and have 4 competitive teams and one struggling one-Southern Kings.
Its been long enough. The Lions have been the laughing stock of super rugby since the Cats split. The cheetahs not far behind. The Kings dont deserve it, but thats politics in SA.
13 Feb 2012, 08:48 am
@RL-17:
As much as I have zero respect for SARU or the various unions… Hoskins is correct in sending the letter to the other 9 unions. WHat is he supposed to do? Keep a SARU issue secret from other stakeholders?
Transparency is key.
The real reason for justifiable anger is how we got into this mess in the 1st place. This is many years of bad decisions, bad management and bad negotiating.
13 Feb 2012, 08:49 am
anyone remember teams like sheffield united?
nottingham forrest?
sheffield wednesday?
and a host of other teams left behind when the poms created the premier league from the old first division.
and new ones like hull have made their way into the top league as “projects” of wealthy investors.
will the lions or cheetahs one day be a “project” for someone?
13 Feb 2012, 08:53 am
@stormer in a teacup-10:
Was there really a threat of boycott?
I am not convinced a 2013 boycott was even threatened. Jurie Roux has denied it.
The only references I have seen are some badly written, emotional arguments from Keo himself.
I would like to see the whole letter. The below except states that they want no relegation etc. It does not say they will breach contract and boycott in 2013.
Keo needs to front up and produce evidence that the threat of boycott exists!
An exceprt says :
“After lengthy discussions between the franchises, we unanimously decided that it is imperative:
* That such inclusion will benefit South African rugby in general;
* That none of the existing franchises shall be prejudiced by such inclusion in any way whatsoever;
* That none of the existing franchises shall be eliminated from the tournament in 2013 or at any stage thereafter as a result of the inclusion of the Kings;
* That Saru as custodian of the South African leg of the tournament will ensure that the Kings are included without prejudice to any of the existing franchises.
‘The existing franchises will endeavour to provide all necessary assistance and support to Saru in its negotiations with Sanzar to ensure the inclusion of six South African franchises in 2013 onwards.’
13 Feb 2012, 08:59 am
You can be assured that Keo is in a strategy session via conference call with Cheeky Watson right now, urging him to strike now, cause “These guys are out to screw us again, Cheeky!”
Expect some dirty tactics from the Kings team, some borderline blackmail, political name dropping, an expose on some supposedly racist activities by one of their rivals. etc.
I like how Butch’s salary of R3m compared to Elton’s R500k was highlighted as supposed racism by the Lions, this when Keo himself was loudly proclaiming Butch as the number 1 choice flyhalf for the Boks at the World Cup, while Elton is yet to start a Bok test.
Anyway, expect more of the same, as Keo gets his media attack into high gear to protect the interests of his clients at the Kings. A lot of cash at stake here. Not only for the Watsons, but also for HSM.
13 Feb 2012, 09:00 am
@rangerman-29:
Rangerman, do you remember the year the Freestate lost a promotion/relegation game against the purple people eaters? The problem is that it is not only the Lions and Cheetahs that can turn into a ‘project’….
13 Feb 2012, 09:01 am
@Biscuit-30:
Ja the bottom of the letter said…or else!
13 Feb 2012, 09:12 am
There’s a lot of speculative and uninformed opinions about this situation.
If one looks at the structure of rugby in SA, there are actually two levels, which fall under different SARU management structures. The one is based and controlled by the provincial unions up to Currie Cup level. The second is the elite structure that includes the Boks and S15 players and franchises
As far as the NewsCorp contract is concerned it stipulates that SA should field its 150 elite players. Now if a franchise is “relegated” to an alternative competition, what happens to those elite players that SARU has contracted to include in the S15? Surely they’d need to be redistributed to the participating franchises, effectively gutting the relegated union. The other point is that the provincial unions and the franchises are completely separate and different legal entities, so that players contracted to a union would be free to move to a different S15 franchise unless contracts were rewritten to exclude S15 participation. In reality the S15 franchises are not an extension of the provincial unions, as most people here seem to think, but an extension of the elite Springbok structure, which is player rather than provincially focused. This is why centrally contracting those elite 150 players by SARU makes sense as it protects the national structure from the whims of the provinces and franchises.
The other point, of course, is that faced with imminent relegation it would dawn on a union that partnering with another franchise for the next 2 to 4 years would be far more attractive than being consigned to the non S15 wilderness and losing its top CC players in the process.
13 Feb 2012, 09:12 am
The SARU has dug a deep dark hole for itself on the Kings issue.
And the hole is getting deeper. The sun now barely visible.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
no way out.
13 Feb 2012, 09:12 am
@Tacitus-31: do you really think he has time to spin for Cheeky and his client with the Olympics only months away. one would think that he and his corrupt SASCOC are away at some 5 star resort plotting their all expense paid trips to the games, working on their cover stories while the atheletes scrounge around for donations.
13 Feb 2012, 09:18 am
Said last week… all SARU has done is set the various parties against each other… and don’t be fooled by the ‘unity’ of the ‘big 5′… if and when they don’t get their way or their bluff is called, they will gladly slit each others throats to safeguard their own self-interests…
IMO… SARU should be held accountable for bringing South African Rugby into disrepute…
Instead of blurting out the ‘news’ of the Kings inclusion in this unplanned and inopportune manner… they should have either worked with SANZAR behind the scenes… or the saffa unions… to reach a truly united win-win strategy before making anything public…
But the fact that they have announced this at the beginning of 2012… the beginning of the ‘new SANZAR/newscorp deal demonstratess that SARU has put absolutely no preplanning or thought into this this decision because if they had they would have pushed for some sort of deal with NZ/Aus/Newscorp to begin now…
The fact that that haven’t proves this is simply an afterthought put forward not for rugby reasons but private personal and political agendas…
IMO… fikile should order a parliamentary investigation into SARU… appoint a team of leading auditors and businessmen and women to fully investigate the operations, management, strategising, planning, negotiating, transformation sincerity, and general running of SARU…
when the report reveals the ineptitude (which it will) and corruption (which it is likely to in terms of voting to hang onto jobs etc…) they should then appoint a team of business people to run SARU as a professional business running it according to three criteria: springbok rugby, development transformation and financial strength…
in other words… long story short… kick the lot of them out… and start again…
the definition of insanity is doing the same things repeatedly while expecting different results…
the only way we’ll get different and positive results is if we clear the decks and start again with not just one or two professionals but a full board and management team of demonstrably successful, innovative and financially sound business people… who preferably have no prior rugby connections,..
13 Feb 2012, 09:20 am
@David-34:
You would destabilize the SA rugby setup in a single stroke.
It took us 10 years to win a Super Rugby title. Your system would spread the wealth more equally, but just consign SA to Super Rugby mediocrity again.
13 Feb 2012, 09:20 am
@Tacitus-31: Net so Tac! Geld is op die spel. Dis in sekere mense se belang om die Kings in te kry. Murdoch se geld is baie handig.
13 Feb 2012, 09:24 am
The Cats thing is a major reason of the financial problems the Lions and Cheetahs have been sitting with for years. When they merge they each get 50% of the main portion of the SANZAR money whereas the other teams get the full amount. For years the Lions and Cheetahs got shafted. Merging can only work if the merged teams each get as much as the other franchises … and this will never happen.
13 Feb 2012, 09:27 am
@ufo-37:
But we’re doing fine right now. We’ve won 3 Super Rugby trophies in the last 5 years, and made numerous play-offs. We won the 2007 World Cup, and now that the politicians have been given the middle finger, we’ve got a coach who will take us to the top of world rugby, and our top Super Rugby teams are set to begin a new era of dominance in the tournament.
We are set to go into a Golden Era.
Why risk all of it just to give the Kings a free ride?
13 Feb 2012, 09:28 am
If it’s true that the 5 current Super Rugby unions only voted for the inclusion of the Kings provided their inclusion is not at the cost of an existing union, then SARU are even more retarded than I believed. What kind of professional organization makes this kind of public commitment to a course of action that carries immense consequences, without having clearly worked out exactly how it will be implemented? This reeks of attempted manipulation – SARU is writing metaphorical cheques and expecting SANZAR to cash them. Not only are SARU custodians of a national game; they are also responsible for a multi-million dollar industry, and the amateurish, politically-crippled management they have demonstrated is shameful.
13 Feb 2012, 09:29 am
@ufo-37: I am hoping that the impending court case against the Lions achieves the same thing – expose the rotten fruit and clean out the house. Then only can the Lions rebuild.
13 Feb 2012, 09:39 am
SUPER RUGBY STARTING TO GET SUPER BORING. PROPER FULL STRENGTH CURRIE CUP MATCHES WILL FILL STADIUMS – CURRENTLY AT THE MOST 50% FULL FOR BOTH. 4 NATIONS ALSO GAGGA – GET RID OF THESE TWO TOURNAMENTS AND BRING BACK PROPER TOURS AND TEST SERIES. I SKIP RUGBY CHANNELS – EUROPEAN RUGBY SLOW AND UGLY, SUPER RUGBY AND EX-TRINATIONS TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO BEND RULES + OTHER FUNNIES – AUSSIES & NZ TRYING TO SAVE THEIR RUGBY. THEY NEED US!
13 Feb 2012, 09:41 am
“Gary Gold put it best when he described……”
“Gold explained …..”
honestly… i don’t rate this guy as a coach….
13 Feb 2012, 09:44 am
@Tacitus-41:
do you honestly believe things are honky-dory in south african rugby… or do you simply advocate the status quo to protect your precious bulls above all else…? i believe the latter applies to you…
IMO… any success in sa rugby is inspite of the saru not because of saru… it is because we continue to produce quality players who can compete on the world stage despite limited coaching and skills… but success is rather haphazard and not consistent… it seems teams are capable of being champs one year and chumps the next…
our world cup win in 2007 was very fortuitous and could just have easily not happened… sure the bulls have been very successful but that is not indicative of the general state of south african rugby… and their success has been due to some good planning and coaching by heyneke… but more IMO due to the exceptional players who have played for them over the last few years… the same applies to the sharks and province… the players often carry the coaches….
as pissant says… with our player resources we should dominate world rugby consistently and continuously… and the only reason why we don’t is because of the lack of effective management, foresight, skill, innovation, professionalism and vision by SARU…
so IMO… it’s not just about the kings… it’s about clearing the decks and getting out rugby ship in order to carry south african rugby forword into an era of expected and literal dominance… not hopeful, haphazard patches of glory every now and then…
@RL-43:
exactly… and the same applies to the national body too…
IMO…
13 Feb 2012, 09:45 am
@Staal-45:
who does… besides the keo crew???
13 Feb 2012, 09:48 am
@HA-HA-44:
We need you fhukkers like
The Lions need the Kings.
13 Feb 2012, 09:48 am
@David-34:
SARU doesn’t contracted any players to play Super Rugby, the unions/franchises hold the contracts and there is only one contract. The player plays for the province and the franchise to which his province is affiliated (clause 9.1.5. of the Collective Bargaining Agreement). So a player is not free to move to another franchise while staying with his union for Currie Cup/Vodacom Cup unless specifically agreed to by his union/franchise. There are no separate SR contracts.
So any franchise that gets cut would be free to hold on to their players until their contracts expire. However they may lend the players to another franchise.
13 Feb 2012, 09:49 am
@Baylion-49: *doesn’t contract
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.