A tweak to the global calendar could pave the way for the perfect Super Rugby season
Despite a significant improvement in the Australian sides’ fortunes in this year’s Super Rugby competition, it’s clear that there’s still a marked divide between the clubs on either side of Tasman Sea.
In 2022, Australia’s five Super Rugby Pacific teams managed just seven wins over their New Zealand opposition – five more than the previous season. There are undoubtedly some who have taken this improvement as a sign of things to come, that the disruptions of 2020 and 2021 (which saw NZ and Australia split off to play their separate Super Rugby Aotearoa and AU competitions) left the Australian sides unprepared for trans-Tasman warfare and that with more regular match-ups throughout the season, the competition will even out over time.
That’s not supported by the evidence of the past few years, however. From 2016 to 2019, before the pandemic threw the world into disarray, the five Australian Super Rugby sides managed just 12 wins from their 85 trans-Tasman matches – averaging three a season. From 2016 until 2018, they lost over 40 games in succession.
That’s likely the reason why when New Zealand Rugby conducted an independent report in 2020 to determine the best future for Super Rugby it was suggested that at most three Australian teams be included in NZR’s mooted competition alongside the pre-existing Kiwi franchises.
Rugby Australia baulked at that suggestion, however, and eventually Super Rugby Pacific was conceived – a competition which preserved all 10 existing Australasian franchises while also bringing Moana Pasifika and Fijian Drua into the mix.
While the latter side lured an influx of additional talent into the competition, Moana Pasifika primarily built their team using the next tier of players in New Zealand – the men who had initially missed out on earning selection in one of the five 36-man squads.
That’s in part due to the short time frame that Moana Pasifika had to assemble a squad after their addition to Super Rugby Pacific was only confirmed relatively late in the piece, preventing them from recruiting players from across the globe.
While some may suggest that the Australian sides stepped up a notch in 2022, it’s equally reasonable to attribute the levelling of the competition as a product of the New Zealand teams having their depth significantly stretched. The trans-Tasman games didn’t kick off until halfway through the season when teams were already struggling with injuries and Moana Pasifika’s addition to the competition meant that the next tier of talent which would normally slot in as injury replacements for the existing five NZ franchises was no longer available as a resource.
So while there’s reason to believe that the Australian teams could step up their game next year, the seven victories they recorded in trans-Tasman fixtures in 2022 was actually the most they’ve banked in any season over the past half-decade and is likely about as good as it’s going to get.
That’s not great for the competition and it’s especially problematic for Australian rugby, with the former superpowers of the game falling to lower and lower depths every season.
Rugby Australia have made it clear they aren’t willing to shed a team, however – and that means it might be up to NZR to think outside the box. The inclusion of Moana Pasifika in 2022 tested New Zealand’s depth and ultimately produced a better competition – and perhaps that’s the best means of creating a more marketable game.
Without too much tinkering, NZR could very easily expand their five current franchises into nine:
- Taniwha – Northland and North Harbour
- Blues – Auckland and Counties Manukau
- Chiefs – Waikato and Bay of Plenty
- Bulls – Taranaki
- Vikings – Hawke’s Bay and Manawatu
- Hurricanes – Wellington
- Mako – Tasman
- Crusaders – Canterbury
- Highlanders – Otago and Southland
With nine New Zealand franchises, five from Australia and the two Pacific Island teams, the NZR-RA alliance could forge ahead with a relatively evenly-matched 16-team competition that could be played over 20 weeks.
It would also make the current NPC somewhat redundant, but that’s perhaps a natural evolution of the game in New Zealand. Professional athletes playing in the NBA, NRL and other elite sporting competitions around the world rarely spend their off-season playing in a lower tier of competition and an evenly-matched Super Rugby would be a much easier sell to offshore markets than the current package which includes one competition which always seems to end with the Crusaders holding the trophy, and one which attracts only a passing interest even from fans within its own nation where the top players are almost entirely absent.
There’s an unsurprising resistance from NZR to change things up too much when it comes to the five franchises for two major reasons.
The first is that the teams have spent 25 years establishing identities that would be diffused somewhat by changing the provincial make-ups of each club – but the five identities could at least all be retained in the transition, and we’ve seen over the years that the provincial ties to each side are relatively flexible (with North Harbour, Counties Manukau and Taranaki also switching from one franchise to another over time). Many would argue that there’s also still a divide between the clubs and the wider regions, with the Blues rarely taking matches to Whangaparaoa and the Hurricanes only intermittently playing in Palmerston North and Napier. Ultimately, NZR should be looking to future-proof the game, which means what worked almost three decades ago when the franchises were first conceived in 1996 may no longer be appropriate and sunk costs shouldn’t prevent a necessary switch-up.
The second, more real concern is that the All Blacks’ standing on the world stage has been strengthened by the creation of the five franchises, with strong links between each of the players on the field. Five teams gives plenty of players opportunities throughout Super Rugby but also makes it easy to bring the players together for the international season. Selecting players from nine different sides would present a bigger challenge – but there’s a potential solution to that.
Cutting the NPC and investing heavily in a reinvigorated 20-week Super Rugby competition would open up some space in the calendar and presents the opportunity for NZR to introduce a series that many have been craving for a number of years: an inter-island competition.
There was a huge interest in 2020’s North v South clash and with 11 weeks cut from the standard club calendar (Super Rugby Pacific and the NPC will take up 31 weeks of action in 2022), a three-game series could be introduced which would be hugely successful from both a commercial and high-performance point-of-view.
Whether it takes place at the end of the season or is spread throughout (as is the case with rugby league’s Stage of Origin series), a best-of-three North v South affair would be hugely appealing to fans and almost as marketable as a Test series. It would also allow an intermediary transition between the nine Super Rugby sides and the All Blacks team, mitigating the impacts of expanding Super Rugby. Australia, meanwhile, could introduce their own similar competition to be played concurrently with the North v South series – something RA have had one eye on for a number of years.
There would also be space in the calendar for some cross-over matches with Japan’s Rugby League One competition – even if it’s simply a three-week knockout tournament that takes place in the formative stages of the year as a lead-in to Super Rugby.
Of course, the above proposal can only operate with a significant change to the Test season. A mid-competition break is never ideal but would be necessary if the mid-year internationals remain in July. At present, the placement in the calendar of the Southern Hemisphere-based Tests is relatively arbitrary, however, and there have been ideas bandied about over the past few years that a more comprehensive shift than simply moving the games from June to July could be worthwhile. By pushing out the international calendar by a month, the Test season for the Southern Hemisphere nations could run from the start of August until the end of November, creating a perfect window for the club season to operate between February and July.
As a mock-up, the schedule for the New Zealand season would include:
- February: Asia-Pacific play-offs
- February-July: Super Rugby
- July: North v South series
- August: Southern Hemisphere-based internationals
- September-October: The Rugby Championship
- November: Northern Hemisphere-based internationals
Of course, not every player would take part in every fixture and there would certainly have to be some compromises throughout the season for Test players (they might sit out the Asia-Pacific play-offs, or the early weeks of Super Rugby, for example) – but it’s an entirely workable calendar that wouldn’t compromise on player welfare and would create a relatively seamless transition from club to international competitions.
A more marketable Super Rugby season (along with the addition of cross-over games with Asia and some incredible popular heritage series) would likely strengthen the standing of the game in Australia while also future-proofing the game in New Zealand. A Super Rugby competition that’s unpredictable from week to week and evenly matched across the board would be a much easier sell on a global scale and, at the very least, would likely ease some of the pressure on the game in Australia and help to heal the damaged relations between the trans-Tasman unions.
New Zealand Rugby might be resistant to significantly altering something with over 25 years of history under its belt but tradition can be the enemy of progress – and the game is in desperate need of some progress in Australasia right now.
Comments on RugbyPass
Thanks Nick The loss of players to OS, injury and retirement is certainly not helping the Crusaders. Ditto the coach. IMO Penny is there to hold the fort and cop the flak until new players and a new coach come through,…and that's understood and accepted by Penny and the Crusaders hierarchy. I think though that what is happening with the Crusaders is an indicator of what is happening with the other NZ SRP teams…..and the other SRP teams for that matter. Not enough money. The money has come via the SR competition and it’s not there anymore. It's in France, Japan and England. Unless or until something is done to make SR more SELLABLE to the NZ/Australia Rugby market AND the world rugby market the $s to keep both the very best players and the next rung down won't be there. They will play away from NZ more and more. I think though that NZ will continue to produce the players and the coaches of sufficient strength for NZ to have the capacity to stay at the top. Whether they do stay at the top as an international team will depend upon whether the money flowing to SRP is somehow restored, or NZ teams play in the Japan comp, or NZ opts to pick from anywhere. As a follower of many sports I’d have to say that the organisation and promotion of Super Rugby has been for the last 20 years closest to the worst I’ve ever seen. This hasn't necessarily been caused by NZ, but it’s happened. Perhaps it can be fixed, perhaps not. The Crusaders are I think a symptom of this, not the cause
9 Go to commentsNo way. If you are trying to picture New Zealand rugby with an All Blacks mindset, there have been two factors instrumental to the decline of NZ rugby to date. Those are the horror that the Blues have become and, probably more so, the fixture that the Crusaders became. I don’t think it was healthy to have one team so dominant for so long, both for lack of proper representation of players from outside that environment and on the over reliance on players from within it. If you are another international side, like Ireland for example, sure. You can copy paste something succinct from one level to the next and experience a huge increase in standards, but ultimately you will not be maximizing it, which is what you need to perform to the level the ABs do. Added to that is the apathy that develops in the whole game as a result of one sides dominance. NZ, Super, and Championship rugby should all experience a boom as a result of things balancing out. That said, there is a lot of bad news happening in NZ rugby recently, and I’m not sure the game can be handled well enough here to postpone the always-there feeling of inevitable decline of rugby.
9 Go to commentsNo SA supporter miss Super Rugby - a product that is experiencing significant head wind in ANZ - the competition from rival codes are intense, match attendance figures are at a historical low and the negativity of commentators such as Kirwan and Wilson have accelerated the downward spiral in NZ. After the next RWC in 2027 sponsors will follow Qantas and start leaving in droves.
2 Go to commentsLike others, I am not seeing the connection between this edition of the Crusaders and the All Blacks future prospects under Razor. I think the analysis of the Crusaders attack recently is helpful because Razor and his coaching team used to be able to slot new guys in to their systems and see them succeed. Several of Razor’s coaches are still there so it would be surprising if the current attack and set piece has been overhauled to a great extent - but based on that analysis, it may have been. Whether it is too many new guys due to injuries or retirement or a failure of current Crusaders systems is the main question to be answered imo. It doesn’t seem relevant for the ABs.
9 Go to commentsharry potter is set in stone. he creates stability and finishes well. exactly what schmidt likes. he’s the ben smith of australian rugby. i think it could quite easily be potter toole and kellaway for the foreseeable future.
5 Go to commentsThis is short sighted from Clayton if you ask me, smacks of too much preseason planning and no adaptability. What if DMac is out for a must win match, are they still only going to bring their best first five and playmaker on late in the game? Trusting the game to someone who wasn’t even part of planning (they would have had Trask pinned in as Jacomb preseason). Perhaps if the Crusaders were better they would not have done this, but either way imo you take this opportunity to play a guy you might need starting in a final rather than having their 12th game getting comfortable coming off the bench.
1 Go to commentsThanks Brett.. At last a positive article on the potential of Wallaby candidates, great to read. Schmidt’s record as an international rugby coach speaks for itself, I’m somewhat confident he will turn the Wallaby’s fortunes around …. on the field. It will be up to others to steady the ship off the paddock. But is there a flaw in my optimism? We have known all along that Australia has the players to be very competitive with their international rivals. We know that because everyone keeps telling us. So why the poor results? A question that requires a definitive answer before the turn around can occur. Joe Schmidt signed on for 2 years, time to encompass the Lions tour of 2025. By all accounts he puts family first and that’s fair enough, but I would wager that his 2 year contract will be extended if the next 18 months or so shows the statement “Australia has the players” proves to be correct. The new coach does not have a lot of time to meld together an outfit that will be competitive in the Rugby Championship - it will be interesting to see what happens. It will be interesting to see what happens with Giteau law, the new Wallaby coach has already verbalised that he would to prefer to select from those who play their rugby in Australia. His first test in charge is in July just over 3 months away .. not a long time. I for one wish him well .. heaven knows Australia needs some positive vibes.
21 Go to commentsWhat a load of bollocks. The author has forgotten to mention the fact that the Crusaders have a huge injury toll with top world class players out. Not to mention the fact that they are obviously in a transition period. No this will not spark a slow death for NZ rugby, but it does mean there will be a new Super Rugby champion. Anyone who knows anything about NZ rugby knows that there is some serious talent here, it just isn’t all at the Crusaders.
9 Go to commentsI wouldn’t spend the time on Nawaqanitawase! No point in having him filling in a jersey when he’s committed to leave Union. Give the jersey to a young prospect who will be here in the future.
5 Go to commentsIt was a pleasure to watch those guys playing with such confidence. That trio can all be infuriating for different reasons and I can see why Jones might have decided against them. No way to justify leaving Ikitau out though. Jorgensen and him were both scheduled to return at the same time. Only one of them plays for Randwick and has a dad who is great mates with the national coach though.
53 Go to commentsBrayden Iose and Peter Lakai are very exciting Super Rugby players but are too short and too light to ever be a Test 8 vs South Africa, France, Ireland, and England, Lakai could potentially be a Test player at 7 if he is allowed to focus on 7 for Hurricanes.
7 Go to commentsPencils “Thomas du Toit” into possible 2027 Bok squad.
1 Go to commentsDon’t see why Harrison makes the bench. Jones can play at 10 if needed, and there is a good case for starting her there to begin with if testing combinations. That would leave room for Sing on the bench
1 Go to commentsWhat a load of old bull!
1 Go to commentsOf the rugby I’ve born witness to in my lifetime - 1990 to date - I recognize great players throughout those years. But I have no doubt the game and the players are on average better today. So I doubt going back further is going to prove me wrong. The technical components of the game, set pieces, scrums, kicks, kicks at goal. And in general tactics employed are far more efficient, accurate and polished. Professional athletes that have invested countless hours on being accurate. There is one nation though that may be fairly competitive in any era - and that for me is the all blacks. And New Zealand players in general. NZ produces startling athletes who have fantastic ball skills. And then the odd phenomenon like Brooke. Lomu. Mcaw. Carter. Better than comparing players and teams across eras - I’ve often had this thought - that it would be very interesting to have a version of the game that is closer to its original form. What would the game look like today if the rules were rolled back. Not rules that promote safety obviously - but rules like: - a try being worth 1 point and conversion 2 points. Hence the term “try”. Earning a try at goals. Would we see more attacking play? - no lifting in the lineouts. - rucks and break down laws in general. They looked like wrestling matches in bygone eras. I wonder what a game applying 1995 rules would look like with modern players. It may be a daft exercise, but it would make for an interesting spectacle celebrating “purer” forms of the game that roll back the rules dramatically by a few versions. Would we come to learn that some of the rules/combinations of the rules we see today have actually made the game less attractive? I’d love to see an exhibition match like that.
29 Go to commentsIrish Rugby CEO be texting Andy Farrell “Andy, i found our next Kiwi Irishman”
5 Go to commentsI certainly don’t miss drinking beers at 8am in the morning watching rugby games being played in NZ.
2 Go to commentsThis looks like a damage limitation exercise for Wales, keeping back some of their more effective players for the last 20/25 minutes to try and counter England’s fresh legs so the Red Roses don’t rack up a big score.
2 Go to commentsVery unlikely the Bulls will beat Leinster in Dublin. It would be different in Pretoria.
1 Go to commentsI think it is a dangerous path to go down to ban a player for the same period that a player they injured takes to recover. Players would be afraid to tackle anyone. I once tackled my best friend at school in a practice match and sprained his ankle. I paid for it by having to play fly-half instead of full-back for the rest of that season’s fixtures.
5 Go to comments