-
Francois Steyn - Source: Getty Images -
Related
The sixth round of rugby's Super 14 needs to display a lift in quality or we are facing one of the least compelling competitions yet.
Super rugby has changed remarkably since its inception in 1996.
Then, it was a revelation with players exhibiting extraordinary skills, huge scores being registered and wonderful, exciting tries being scored.
The Super 12, as it was then, was such a brilliant invention that it began to attract audiences who had never previously considered attending rugby games.
The weather helped, because in early March it was still pleasantly warm in most places.
Women began attending in their droves. Families went with their dads. It seemed that rugby had found its ideal competition.
But as the years have gone by, laws have changed, defences have become superbly organised, many of the people who embraced the concept in the early days have become bored with it.
Uninspiring formula
It's those people who complain and criticise Super 14 the most. What must be realised is that as they have grown tired of the competition, a new breed of fan is emerging.
Young spectators are filling many of the seats vacated by the dissatisfied. Sadly for the administrators and beancounters, those younger folk aren't willing to spend the big dollars on season passes, and tend to go to the games only when they feel like it. There are plenty of other options out there in the world of entertainment.
The Rugby Unions which form the governing body of Super Rugby, have been fully aware of the dangers facing the competition for many seasons.
They continually attempt to find ways of boosting its popularity - not just for the fans, but also the broadcaster which funds a large percentage of the competition.
Right now the ARU and NZRU are faced with the difficult task of getting agreement from SARU regarding the expansion of Super 14 to include one more team, and also delay the start to March.
Incidentally, in 1996 the inaugural game was played on 1 March. From then on it was a week earlier. In 2004 the first round was played in the third week of February.
The advent of Super 14 saw it start on 10th February and in World Cup year it began on 2 February.
In Australasia, the feeling seems to be that February is too early to start.
Early start
In South Africa they'd like to start even earlier. They have massive crowds at their grounds early in the year and their administrators and sponsors are demanding the top players be available for their domestic competition later in the season.
How do they reach compromise?
Could the Super Rugby survive without South Africa? Will it come to that?
The administrators charged with the competition's expansion and ultimately its survival, will hope compromise can be reached, but they will have alternative plans mapped out just in case.
Players who depart for overseas contracts often cite the massive amounts of travel and time away from families which the Super 14 demands, as reasons for their decisions. If South Africa withdrew, not many players would be overly worried.
Surely the savings on financial costs associated with travelling there would be significant too.
John O'Neil could then implement his often-stated desire to introduce a Japan-based team and perhaps one from the
Pacific or Argentina. He would of course hope that the involvement of a Japanese side might help offset the financial effect of South Africa's absence.
But is this what the fans want? Several comments I've heard lately suggest some Kiwi fans wouldn't care less if South African teams did not continue their participation, but surely it would leave a gaping hole.
A Japanese team would need to include non-Japanese players to make it competitive. A Pacific Islands team would not be easy to establish and Island players based in other countries would be necessary.
Argentina's best players are still earning a living overseas, but a competitive Super 14 team is a possibility.
At the beginning I commented that round six needs to provide a lift in standard. I've been prepared to wait this long because some teams need four or five weeks to hit their straps.
The time has come.
Do you think Super rugby can survive without South Africa's involvement? Have your say on our message board below...
Add a Comment:
Post new commentMelbourne 2011 said on 2009-03-22 @ 08:55 NZDT: Report abusive post
The only way super rugby can survive is without South Africa, It should be the Super Pacific with 14 teams played over 18 rounds and a top six final series. NZ should have 6 teams Auckland, Waikaktio, Central North Island (hawks bay), Wellington, Christchurch, Southland/Otago (with 18 rounds you can play more games across NZ and make the NPC a second tier comp). Australia should have 5 Queensland, N.S.W, Canberra, Victoria and W.A. And the last three coming from Japan and Hong Kong. All teams will need to have quota system i.e. All NZ teams must at least two players not eligible to play for NZ, Australia a minimum 4 and Japan and Hong Kong a minimum of 6. These Player should come from the Pacific Islands and Argentina Then you could look at having five nations NZ, Aust, Pacific Islanders (including Japan/Hong Kong), Argentina and SA
razbra said on 2009-03-21 @ 16:05 NZDT: Report abusive post
drop super rugby all together. tri nations should be extended to include argentina. Have the teams play each other 3 times each and hopefully tv revenue can be generated this way. A 4 team comp could be the answer to the 6 nations. Scotland and italy only make up the numbers anyway so it ends up being a stream lined better version of the northern comp. We develope our own players at home and the provincial teams become stronger across the board
razbra said on 2009-03-21 @ 15:59 NZDT: Report abusive post
we don't need Australia either really. its they who need us. they have a pathetic domestic comp. union in aussie would cease to exist without super14. surely we recognize the need for revenue from tv rights and distribution which africa are largely resposacble but we had the best domestic competition in the world before super rugby came along. it was a good product intitially but it is dead in the water now.
cheenus said on 2009-03-21 @ 02:53 NZDT: Report abusive post
I dont think so SA has viewership and revenue over 65 %, super 14 will fadeout as a competion. NZ rugby should be realistic .......else
samuelleague said on 2009-03-20 @ 16:12 NZDT: Report abusive post
Who needs south africa, they do nothing good for the comp. Need a southern hemisphere based French team, and then we can have a team we hate more than south africa. So there only use is now gone. Also a couple of pacific teams and a southern hemisphere based team from USA