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, 15:08 pm
@willievz-242:
The fuss is that the Lions and Cheetahs will each get half of the money they got before.
13 Feb 2012, 15:09 pm
@youknowwho-246: Langers,your tea-break not over yet?Time to sweep Stevenage’s snow-covered streets, uct failure.
13 Feb 2012, 15:15 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther-252: ai ai ai.. did you sneer while typing that
I actually did buy a snow shovel… snow is melting so no problem
13 Feb 2012, 15:16 pm
@Tacitus-251: A small price to pay for improving the state of SA Rugby in the long run.
13 Feb 2012, 15:19 pm
@youknowwho-253:
that is an impostor.
I would never wish physical labour upon you.
13 Feb 2012, 15:19 pm
@PissAnt-248: “incapable” or not empowered to?
what are his “powers” as SARU President? who can make a final decision on this issue, CEO, jurie roux, the Exco, the Presidents Council?
13 Feb 2012, 15:20 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther-255: I should have known… just not you to be so horrible
13 Feb 2012, 15:22 pm
@Tacitus-251: um, what have the Lions done with the FULL amount they’ve been getting since 2006? they weren’t even paying their franchise partners. where is it written that the Lions & Cheetahs deserve full super rugby payouts?
13 Feb 2012, 15:22 pm
@stormersboy-244: If he knew that I’ll eat my shoes
13 Feb 2012, 15:26 pm
@Transformation-258: Transie would you be happy if Barry “17-0″ Geel play for the KINGS next year
13 Feb 2012, 15:27 pm
@Transformation-256:
Good question.
I suppose you would have to study the constitution to find the answer to that.
13 Feb 2012, 15:27 pm
@Atreides-259: start with the tongue
13 Feb 2012, 15:28 pm
@willievz-254: what you seem to be missing is that the “state of SA rugby” is not dependent on the EC improving, Heyneke Meyer said “keeping the same team/squad from the currie cup into super rugby improves a franchise’s chances in super rugby”.
the blacks (since they are soon to be the richest group in SA) in the EC must spend their own money to improve their lot, they need to spend on rugby boots & equipment etc. leave the likes of the Bulls to enjoy the privileges that come from being involved in Super Rugby.
13 Feb 2012, 15:34 pm
Catch you all later
13 Feb 2012, 15:35 pm
@Transformation-263: there was this wonderful SASI article about rugby in the EC late last year, if I fund I’ll post it. Basically it highlighted the difference between the haves (white scools/clubs) and the have nots! Well in SASI Cheeky was labelled the assshole of the month for paying lip service to transformation and keeping the status quo.
So why should the haves (existing super franchises) give up their spots for the have nots when all Cheeky wants is pie.
13 Feb 2012, 15:35 pm
@Transformation-263:
Glad you finally get it.
13 Feb 2012, 15:35 pm
@PissAnt-261: you see, this is what makes all the gnashing of teeth and emotional posts useless. most of us are not even clued up on the institution that we love to hate ie. SARU.
everyone is jumping on hoskins for sending the letter to the other nine unions for comment, well, as he is effectively elected by them, is he not bound to inform all of them about what decision or deliberations are the other unions make?
13 Feb 2012, 15:36 pm
Blacks need to get over this entitlement sickness.They just want,want and are not prepared to work hard for the things that my people gained through hard work.That’s the prime reason why i’ve barricaded myself in…electric fences,beams and dobermans to keep the sickness out.
13 Feb 2012, 15:36 pm
Hell my spelling is bad.
13 Feb 2012, 15:37 pm
@Transformation-263: You are talking about provincial strength, which I don’t give a damn about.
Ideally, I would like the best 150 players in the country to be divided equally between 5 franchises, to compete in a regional tournament with the Kiwis and Aussies.
The franchise should be independent of the provinces. Otherwise you will have problems like the ones we are currently seeing.
13 Feb 2012, 15:38 pm
@Tacitus-268:
Sigh. Some immature contributor falsely using my nic in post 268. Wonder who it could be…
13 Feb 2012, 15:38 pm
@willievz-260: yeah, he can play for us any day!
13 Feb 2012, 15:38 pm
@Transformation-267:
I know SARU moved to basically dissolve the president’s council since Jurie joined, I will chat to a mate of mine in SARU to find out.
13 Feb 2012, 15:40 pm
@Transformation-263: Also, the experience in Aus and NZ contradict Heyneke somewhat on that statement.
Especially the Aussies, where they don’t have the equivalent of a CC.
And the Kiwis, well they are a prime example of a nation that puts the national interest above that of the different provinces / regions. Which is partly why they are, by some distance, the best rugby nation in the world.
13 Feb 2012, 15:41 pm
@willievz-274:
I’m the one who quoted Heyeneke on that issue, and if I recall correctly he was talking from a South African point of view. He never claimed to speak for the Aussies and Kiwis.
13 Feb 2012, 15:42 pm
@Tacitus-275: I never said he spoke on behalf of the Antipodeans.
13 Feb 2012, 15:43 pm
@RL-265: thanks in advance
13 Feb 2012, 15:44 pm
@Tacitus-271:
Poodlenaaier.
13 Feb 2012, 15:44 pm
@Tacitus-251:
but they will also save half as much in running costs and expenses, no..?…
13 Feb 2012, 15:45 pm
@willievz-276:
The point is the SA teams were **** in the S12. As they gradually moved to having the same coaches and squads for the Currie Cup and S14, the continuity ensured that we started improving our performances.
Heyneke spent 5 years building the Currie Cup squad that eventually became the S14 champions in 2007.
That kind of success will not be emulated if you divorce the S15 squad from its direct Currie Cup counterpart.
13 Feb 2012, 15:49 pm
@au revoir mon tout noirs, au revoir…-279:
Meaning letting go half their players…Destroying the union.
13 Feb 2012, 15:49 pm
@willievz-270: you reckon the best 150 players in NZ are distributed equally among their franchises?
think carter, mccaw, dagg, guilford, maitland, fruean, sam whitelock, andy ellis vs anything ragtag the hurricanes have
13 Feb 2012, 15:52 pm
@Tacitus-280:
Going further, those combinations developed at Currie Cup and S14 level were crucial at Springbok level, as they were already developed units from provincial level.
I would argue it is better for Bok rugby to have 2 or 3 powerhouse unions, than half a dozen mediocre ones.
13 Feb 2012, 15:53 pm
@Tacitus-280: I follow the logic.
But – case in point – how much rugby did the Brumbies of the early 2000s play outside of Super rugby?
And how many CC matches did the Bulls’ Springboks play since 2007?
It is not the amount of rugby you play together that ultimately defines squad cohesion and a culture of efficiency. Squad experience or cohesion is but one part of the equation.
Rugby is a simple game, but one that needs complex and well defined structures for any team to be successful.
13 Feb 2012, 15:55 pm
@the artist formerly known as gunther-278: Why the obsession with the poodle?
13 Feb 2012, 15:56 pm
@David-285:
That wasn’t Gunther. It was the childish nikstealer.
13 Feb 2012, 15:57 pm
@Tacitus-283: And yet, in 2010, we did have 2 powerhouse unions who contested the Super final.
We all know how that ended for the Boks.
13 Feb 2012, 16:01 pm
@willievz-284:
I think your “problem” and I say “problem” to show how you seem at odds with the majority of SA rugby fans, is that by your own admission you don’t give two hoots about the strength of our provincial teams.
You will find that this is simply an incomprehensible position for most SA rugby fans, myself included. It’s like telling a Man U fan you don’t give a rats *** if for the good of England football Man U had to sacrifice its own wellbeing.
Incomprehensible. It’s like you watch rugby in a vacuum, from some base on the moon, with bloodless passion, and are interesting purely in the academic principles of the game known as rugby.
I cannot engage in debate with you, because the goals we are pursuing are so incompatible.
13 Feb 2012, 16:03 pm
@willievz-287: it’s not an exact science, this whole “theory” hinges on heyneke mey being in charge of everything!
pdv & his stooges were the problem
13 Feb 2012, 16:04 pm
@Tacitus-288: Fair dues. Our ideologies differ too much.
I refer back to my earlier statement that provincialism is the ultimate enemy of SA Rugby, not transformation.
As long as we put club / province before country, the Boks will never be the strongest team in the world. Provincialist supporters need to accept this.
The England football team suffers the same fate, and has done so for a while now.
13 Feb 2012, 16:06 pm
@Tacitus-288: BULLSHIT, Man YOO contribute S(HIT to the wellbeing of English Football!
when was the last time the ENGLISH football team won anything? you probably don’t know the answer to that but you’re willy nilly yapping about man yoo.
how many english players actually play for Man Yoo, Tac?
and how many of them are of international quality?
13 Feb 2012, 16:09 pm
@Transformation-291:
The fact that there are very few English players in the top English Premiership teams is indicative of how the English nation puts club before country.
13 Feb 2012, 16:15 pm
@Tacitus-281:
why would it destroy either of the unions? it may destroy a franchise yes (which is sort of the point when merging two franchises) but the two respective unions could still exist in relative independence of one another running at their traditional costs while a single franchise can be maintained using the resources previously available to two seperate franchises, thus meaning they could keep the best of two sets of players, two revenue sources, two coaching setups and so and so…
13 Feb 2012, 16:16 pm
@Tacitus-288: FYI, just like the Irish Rugby Association, the English FA that runs football in England has introduced QUOTAS for every club, clubs are to have more english born or “raised” players in their squads. which is why a clun like Man City let Craig Bellamy go so that they could keep the likes of Teves, Ballotelli as their foreign contingent.
it’s of no use for Chelsea to play Man Yoo in the CL final when 80% of the players involved are NOT English.
13 Feb 2012, 16:18 pm
@willievz-292: ek weet
13 Feb 2012, 16:21 pm
@Transformation-294:
I think you missed my entire point.
I wasn’t saying that Man U contributed to English football’s performance on the international stage. I was actually saying that for most Man U fans, they would not accept a weakening of Man U if it somehow benefited English football as a whole.
And I was saying there’s nothing wrong with that, because in the modern age the nation state is becoming less of a uniting factor, with people increasingly forming their identities around their communities or other localised points of convergence.
People care less about their national teams, and more about their clubs. This is reality of the 21st century, and only likely to increase as population sizes grow.
13 Feb 2012, 16:28 pm
@willievz-292: look, a guy like Tacitus would prostitute himself to any Russian oligarch and have romanian players running on the Loftus just so he can brag that the Bulls have more Super rugby itles than anyone else.
13 Feb 2012, 16:30 pm
@Transformation-297:
Not true. I am rather happy that we haven’t gone the route of the Sharks, with their French imports.
13 Feb 2012, 16:38 pm
@Tacitus-296: is that now your pretext to justify emigrating to Perth?
hehehe
13 Feb 2012, 16:41 pm
@Tacitus-298: And if McCaw, Carter and Dagg make themselves available for the Bulls?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.