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, 16:43 pm
@Tacitus-298: well, if you use Man Yoo as an example, you might as well as go the whole hog, china.
who owns
Man Yoo – Americans (The Glazers)
Chelsea – a Russian (Abramovich)
Liverpool – Americans
Man Citeh (Saudi Arabians) Sheikh Manseur
13 Feb 2012, 16:44 pm
If provincialism is really the pulsating force in SA Rugby and in the world, then it is inevitable that at some point in a professional era the wealthiest franchises would import the best players, regardless of nationality.
We might sit with a Bulls team featuring 6 Kiwis, 6 Saffas,21 Aussies and 1 talented Argentinian prop in 15 year’s time.
13 Feb 2012, 16:44 pm
@willievz-290:
I am with Tac on this one, even though he is a bull. Provincialism, natural selection, cannibalism, survival of the fittest is the only way to go. It has been like that for over a hundred years. No way can kiwi socialism work here.
Now if that means only 3-5 strong unions then so be it. The 9 country unions just have to continue being food for the big 5 …. now Willie as a Griqua you know this to be true.
13 Feb 2012, 16:48 pm
@RL-303: Ok. Then you too need to accept provincialism as the biggest stone in the shoe for SA Rugby, and stop blaming other factors like transformation for our issues.
13 Feb 2012, 16:50 pm
@RL-303:
and as a lion so do you….
13 Feb 2012, 16:53 pm
@willievz-300: Would never happen , the Bulls siss !
13 Feb 2012, 16:54 pm
@Tacitus-286:
That wasn’t me either.
13 Feb 2012, 16:54 pm
@willievz-304: I only blame incompetence, Lions literally sit on a gold mine and should absolutely dominate all.
@au revoir mon tout noirs, au revoir…-305: there was a time when Lions feasted on Bull, hell man the Lions won a RWC!
13 Feb 2012, 16:57 pm
Who is imposting everyone else here!
13 Feb 2012, 16:59 pm
@willievz-300:
No, I would not welcome that.
13 Feb 2012, 17:02 pm
@RL-308:
true…true…that they did… and for which we are eternally gratefull.
but as dylan sang ‘the times they have a’ changed’…. and boy… have they changed…
10 out of 16 last place finishes aint pretty for nobody… less so a team of rwc winners…
13 Feb 2012, 17:13 pm
@Tacitus-310:
Would you feel the same way if the Bulls was a bottom-of-the-table team?
What is the difference between recruiting Dagg or Viljoen?
You mentioned that the nation state is losing relevance in the modern age – surely then the colour of players’ passports don’t matter?
13 Feb 2012, 17:19 pm
Sort your mess out saru,sanzar not going to bail you out on this one.You relegated the Stormers once,so give the lions also a chance.
13 Feb 2012, 17:32 pm
@willievz-312: that’s the hypocrisy of tacitus
as long as the Bulls haven’t profitted from it, it is kak.
he can laud Todd Louden for ostensibly transforming the Bulls backline but sneer @ the Sharks for drafting French and Argentine Flyhalfs.
13 Feb 2012, 17:36 pm
@willievz-312: oh s(hit, i forget, Heyneke Meyer brought in Todd Louden so that makes that call a stroke of genius
13 Feb 2012, 17:40 pm
I believe Meyer isn’t as narrow-minded as Tacitus .
13 Feb 2012, 17:41 pm
@Transformation-315:
And Jake brought in Eddie Jones and that call was a stroke of desperation.
13 Feb 2012, 17:49 pm
Kak day, had no time but this looks like an interesting discussion. Summary? Anyone?
13 Feb 2012, 17:51 pm
@PissAnt-318: nothing new chap, just the usual snapping at the ANC Southern Kings
13 Feb 2012, 17:52 pm
@PissAnt-318:
Provincial Plodders v. Franchise Globe Trotters.
13 Feb 2012, 17:55 pm
@Transformation-319: @David-320:
Damn and there I thought it was interesting for a second!
13 Feb 2012, 18:08 pm
Frankly I don’t give a rats asss if the kings play next year.
10 points in the bag for the other sa teams competing.
Australia is allready doing it.
I feel sorry for the lions, they will probably be relegated, but i cant stand laughing at them anymore in super rugby. Time to laugh at a new team.
13 Feb 2012, 18:20 pm
@David-320: I’m all for the franchise system as long as they are based in the 5 biggest cities keeping the name and jersey of the host union. If not well end up with nothing brands like the Hurricanes, Chiefs, Stormers and Cats ……… devoid of all support.
13 Feb 2012, 18:21 pm
After all is said and done, I will be surprised, no, VERY surprised if the Kings play next year.
SA Rugby just buying time, as they did since 2006. It becomes easy because those they ‘fight’ against changes all the time.
And let’s be honest, it would be easy to make Cheeky Watson public enemy #1 – much easier than what it was with Tony McKeever.
13 Feb 2012, 18:21 pm
@Mr Black-322: eina.
dont laugh at transies team, they are world beaters or at the very least only as kuk as the lions
13 Feb 2012, 18:24 pm
@RL-323: exactly you can like to talk sense sometimes my hairy knuckle dragging aquaintance.
who wants to support the ratels or the ****** bushcats or whoever, give me the sharks thanks.
once the lions are gone, we will welcome you to the fold bud dont worry.
13 Feb 2012, 18:28 pm
My thoughts:
For 2013 let the Kings play in the place of the Lions. Give them a year to sort out their business. After that, I would go with a my super plan which goes as follows:
Each nation commit to doing away with regional franchises and revert to provincial teams. I would love to see Griquas playing against North Harbour. It’s time for some spice.
Each nation commit to having the top 5 teams in their home tournament (yes that means Aussie would have to create their own) be the qualifiers for the Super tournament. All players playing for non-qualifiers would be entered into a national draw whereby the top 5 teams can draft players on a one at a time.
This would add value and interest to the local competitions.
Two other pipe dreams:
I would also do away with local derbies altogether, making it that all teams only play 10 games against foreign opposition, 5 home and 5 away. This would do away with the stale nature of the current structure.
I would make it madatory that teams only be allowed to have one player who is not eligible for that country. For example, the Sharks could only play Michalak and no other foreigner.
13 Feb 2012, 18:35 pm
The Lions wants to be the Manchester United of world rugby ….according to Kevin de Klerk.
13 Feb 2012, 18:37 pm
@rangerman-326: the less I hear from the guppies and thier supporters, the more I like them. Keep it up and they may become my second most favorite team.
13 Feb 2012, 18:39 pm
@RL-323:
I actually disagree.
I would like to see 5 franchise licenses offered to the highest bidders (professional businessmen/consortiums/etc).
These organisations then bid for their ‘host cities’, ie. courting local municipalities (JHB, PTA, CPT, Bloem, DBN, PE, wherever) and unions in those areas (they need players afterall) from which they then ‘pick’ their favourite bidder and enter into an agreement (for the duration of the license they were awarded).
As an example, Rupert will court the City of Cape Town, WP Rugby, Boland Rugby to ‘operate’ as a SupeRugby franchise in that region.
So there are two stages – SA Rugby puts 5/6 franchise license up for grabs – private businesses submits their proposal in order ‘buy’ / ‘win’ these licenses (conditions attached).
With a franchise license they will approach various teams (unions) /cities in SA in order to establish their ‘base’ or host city (conditions attached).
Conditions attached means these businesses/consortiums will have to invest in SA Rugby (buy the license) and the cities/unions (using their players/stadiums).
If these negotiations end up that the PTA team is still called the Bulls and they use Loftus as their host stadium, then so be it.
Idea that was mentioned to me by someone – he was a lot more detailed than this post but I am really too tired to go into detail – but it is quite an interesting concept I reckon.
13 Feb 2012, 18:46 pm
Keo’s website is as s hit as the Lions.
13 Feb 2012, 18:46 pm
@PissAnt-330:
Simple question: Why?
Why destroy the fan bases that have been built up over 100 years and largely transferred straight onto the respective Super rugby teams?
Why mess with a franchise that gathers fanatical support the like of which the Bulls currently enjoy. Will those Bulls fans be happier if their team now encompasses Pretoria and Joburg?
Will the Sharks fans be happier if their team is now called the KZN Impis and wear Red jerseys?
Why mess with something which makes the fans of all the big unions happy a pigs in mud? Who are you trying to please here, if not the fans?
Why destroy that which they hold precious? In reality you know the Currie Cup has been devalued and will become increasingly meaningless, which means that a fanatical Bulls fan will no longer be able to live his passion for his team at the highest level, if you do away with the current union based system?
Why do that? Just to help out some begging freeloaders in the Eastern Cape?
13 Feb 2012, 18:50 pm
Ranger @ 326
Redphussy must first go through qualifying school before he can support the Sharks.
Wildebeest supporter – 1 Year
U21 supporter – 6 Months
CC supporter – 1 Year
Then after handing in his thesis of how kakkas the lions are he can start to support our Super rugby team.
13 Feb 2012, 18:54 pm
@PissAnt-330: interesting, but it will not happen. The Sharks and province will block it with all their might – Rupert will target Cape Town stadium. The City will undercut any offer Tightass makes for Newlands. Same thing with the City of Durban. Those stadiums are game changers and you can bet your life savings that unions will torpedo any such plan.
At the end of the day the best option would be to drop the 49% limit and let the union suits do what they want to do … grab the money, enrich themselves and step aside for the professionals.
13 Feb 2012, 19:00 pm
Didn’t we go through this yesterday
13 Feb 2012, 19:01 pm
@RL-323:
The few times I’ve been to Ellis Park lately, I wouldn’t call the Lions “devoid of all support”. I definitely remember seeing a couple of elderly gentlemen in red shirts passed out in the main stand.
13 Feb 2012, 19:03 pm
Hell that is one big cannon! What are they planning on doing with it ….. blow up the Maties change room.
13 Feb 2012, 19:06 pm
@David-336: dronkies man, dronkies.
13 Feb 2012, 19:07 pm
@Tacitus-332:
I thought the Bulls were only 74 years old.
13 Feb 2012, 19:08 pm
@Tacitus-332:
Quite simple really. To ensure the continued success of rugby and rugby development at all levels in SA.
But then again, all your posts on this subject makes it clear that the big 5 should own everything and screw the rest of SA and the other 9 unions.
Problem I have with that is that 100 000 (players) does not divide that well into 5 (unions).
I support any solution that;
a) Ensures we keep on developing rugby talent not only in the major cities of this country but everywhere
b) Is professional, and cuts the freeloading gravy train amateurs down to a minimum.
13 Feb 2012, 19:10 pm
@RL-334:
Ja neh – amateurism rocks.
13 Feb 2012, 19:23 pm
@PissAnt-340:
Interestingly, in a conversation we had with Oregan and Johan Prinsloo a few years back,, they were concerned that the number of white kids playing rugby had declined alarmingly and that the future of the game lay in growing it amongst the black communities. This had nothing to do with having more black players in the Boks or S14 and CC, but increasing the popularity of the game itself.
The choice here is whether you put your love of a particular team or your love for the game of rugby first.
13 Feb 2012, 19:25 pm
@David-342:
Your last sentence sums it up. As much as I love the history of unions in SA, and provincial rivalry and how it has contributed to our game in SA for over 100 years – out perceived strength might just end up in being or biggest weakness.
On the decline – its quite evident – just look at the drop in numbers in schools rugby and club rugby.
13 Feb 2012, 19:31 pm
What’s with this pink ball …. hell no doubt the idea came from Cape Town.
13 Feb 2012, 19:32 pm
Even the score banner is pink.
13 Feb 2012, 19:38 pm
@David-342: And your love for the national team.
13 Feb 2012, 19:38 pm
@PissAnt-340:
Let’s cut through the ****. I think there is a fundamental disconnect between the old farts at the IRB, and the common fan on the ground.
I couldn’t care less about the growth of the game – in SA or internationally.
Rugby is not a cause in itself anymore than badmington or bowls is. Rugby is a vehicle through which I gain emotional satisfaction. Simple as that.
If I grew up in America, it would’ve been American Football. But I grew up here, so it’s rugby.
I cannot conceive of a situation where my emotional satisfaction can be increased beyond the level it reaches when the Bulls clobber their opposition. That’s why I pay DSTV subscriptions, and that’s why I watch rugby.
Anything that threatens to interfere with that emotional satisfaction will naturally be opposed by me.
And I am not alone. At the heart of it, if they had the self awareness to analyse their motivations, emotional satisfaction is what is behind the interest of the vast majority of rugby fans.
Not an appreciation for the intrinsic beauty of the game or some such hogwash.
We don’t care about hypothetical, intangible benefits to this or that community of rugby players. We just want to see the team we love run out and clobber the team we hate. For the emotional satisfaction of it.
13 Feb 2012, 19:43 pm
@PissAnt-343:
You know, black rugby in the Eastern Cape (the old SARU) has a far longer history and tradition than the Bulls or Lions. I wonder if, during the Bulls “building period” under Meyer, they had no S14 franchise. Would they have attracted or retained the players that eventually took them to the heights they eventually attained? Personally I doubt it. Even during those times the intensely loyal Blue Bull fans that Tacitus referred to, deserted in droves.
13 Feb 2012, 19:46 pm
@Tacitus-347:
Ha ha, the truth and nothing but the truth.
I cant fault your reasoning tact.
13 Feb 2012, 19:47 pm
@Tacitus-347: well I can relate … for me it is Lions first … Boks second.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.