Official Super Rugby 2014 Thread

Mephisto_Helix said:
One above Greg in the MyG pool ..... my weekend is complete :D
Click to expand...

GRRRR! MY SB has been like the BULLS progress. Up Down Up Down. Inexplicably linked. Okay, explicably linked.

At least:

GreGorGy said:
So, as with last year, this year again Rob is flapping about the Sharks/Stormers being the great SA hopefuls

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Super15/Sharks-roster-not-so-special-20140120


He said the same or similar last year and had to eat his words. I hope the same happens this year.
Click to expand...


He has some words to eat. Stormers - argh! I have lost enough points on them this year in SB.
 
Super Rugby expansion plans revealed

Super Rugby is poised to move forward with a four-conference model in 2016 - with two based in South Africa.

Australian Rugby Union boss Bill Pulver has revealed the announcement of an expanded and restrucured model to take to broadcasters is only a fortnight away.

On the eve of an important meeting with provincial chief executives, Pulver has backed a Super 18 model for 2016 where Australian and New Zealand conferences would remain the same.

Australia's five teams would play two less "local derby" matches in a 15-game regular season but would strengthen their Anzac ties by increasing their four matches against Kiwi rivals to five.

Significant changes will be made in South Africa with their six teams, including the recalled Southern Kings, put in two pools with a new Argentine team and a final side, which the ARU hopes will be based in the Asian market.

Those two four-team conferences - including an overseas expansion team in each - will only face one of the two Australasian conferences each year, which reduces fears of an increase in travel.

"It's likely to be a four-conference model and this will be finalised in the next couple of weeks to be announced," Pulver said today.

While the ARU chief executive is supporting SANZAR's in-principle expansion plans, they're unlikely to be applauded by his provincial counterparts.

Pulver has been under pressure from the franchises and the players' association to pull Australia out of South Africa-driven plans to increase Super Rugby from 15 teams to 17 or 18.

Political pressure for more black participation saw SARU demand the Port Elizabeth-based Kings, who were relegated last season, be reinstated for good.

With South Africa providing almost half of the broadcast revenue, governing body SANZAR has listened to their powerful voice, and New Zealand are opposed to breaking the partnership.

Plans for less local derbies in Australia - dropping from eight to six, and meaning one less home game every second year - has upset state officials who believe it will see them go bust.

Pulver said he understood the concerns but backed the proposed changes as the best model to improve the competition and importantly boost broadcasting revenue.

"I'm more than happy to go along with it," he said. "I think it will be a terrific structure for the game."

Queensland Rugby Union chief executive Jim Carmichael hoped Australian officials remained open-minded about expansion plans to ensure the best result for the cash-strapped code.

"We don't have a preferred model, as yet. We have a preferred position, and that is not to prejudice Australian interests in the competition moving forward," Carmichael said.

"I'm okay to come to the table and hear alternative views as long as we are able to review those and ensure it ultimately delivers for Australian rugby."

While the Reds, NSW Waratahs and Brumbies are unhappy about the loss of derby matches, Pulver said less was more for the Melbourne Rebels and Western Force.

"In Brisbane, Sydney and Canberra they work very well," he said. "In Melbourne and Perth those two franchises aren't too excited in home derbies."

SANZAR'S PROPOSED MODEL FOR 2016

Teams: 18 - current 15 plus Southern Kings (RSA), Argentine team, plus one more

Conferences: 4 - Australia (5 teams), New Zealand (5), two based in South African (4 each, including one expansion team)

Matches: 15 per team
Click to expand...
 
Bit worried about this part:

Those two four-team conferences - including an overseas expansion team in each - will only face one of the two Australasian conferences each year
Click to expand...

Does that mean both SA conferences will play against only the NZ or Aus conference, or that each of the 2 SA conferences will play against either of the 2 Australasian conferences?

Either way, more teams not playing against each other. :(
 
http://www.sport24.co.za/Columnists/TankLanning/Convoluted-but-not-too-bad-20140501
For an oke who would like to see the top 4 sides in the Currie Cup participate in a Super 12 that sees every side play against each other, this gargantuan new Super 18 is positively vomit inducing.

Throw in the fact that the four groups/pools are different sizes and that one of the African groups will only get to play against Aussie opposition in a given year, and nibbling on said vomit seems more appealing!
But that is a slightly superficial and unfair take on what SANZAR have come up with. Dig a little deeper, and perhaps, given the constraints the powers that be were working within, this new convoluted tournament is not as bad as it first sounds?

The SARU General Council vote count on whether South Africa needed a sixth franchise in Super Rugby was 14 to 0! The players, together with their unions, wanted less games, and less travel. So that is what CEO Jurie Roux, together with the best TV numbers in the tournament by far, took to the bargaining table.

Whether we will be able to staff or afford a sixth franchise is for another debate (interestingly though, the Kiwis were against it to begin with, as they see it as a way for SA to grow (rather than dilute) their player base, but in the end, it became one of two primary reasons as to why the tournament restructure took place. The other was to expand into growth markets like South America and Asia.

So how do you accommodate a sixth South African franchise, shrink the amount of games and travel, while still accommodating countries that exist on different sides of the planet?

Sure the countries up North are an option, and it is understood that they were keen to have a chat, especially with South Africa given the time zone similarities, but they have not exactly been drinking champagne and eating caviar while discussing the future of the Heineken Cup!

I have a feeling that this remains an option, and that more games between the two will happen in the interim, perhaps as warm up games, or perhaps in a second tier tournament that will replace the current Vodacom Cup, but it is understood that the IRB are a long way from OK’ing anything official just yet.

So with a new South African franchise and 2 teams to come from new markets (1 from Argentina, the other yet to be decided), SANZAR had to make a plan to accommodate 18 teams.

The round robin option was binned for player welfare reasons...

The plain 2 conference option was binned by broadcasters for lacking decent content...

The plain 3 conference system was binned because of both player welfare, and because positioning of new teams became tricky (if in Australasia, it would have meant massive extra travel for the SA sides) …

So we have ... 18 teams … 2 conferences ... 4 groups ... 15 games per team ... quarter-finals with 1 side guaranteed from each conference, 3 from Africa, and 5 from Down Under!

In a nutshell, from and SA perspective, think of it as a 6, 5, 4 tournament ... 6 games home and away in your own group, 5 games against EITHER the Aussies or Kiwis (2 home one year, 2 away the next), and 4 against the other African group (2 away, 2 home).

So while it is untidy that 3 South African sides will miss out on playing the Kiwis completely every second year, it does mean that the tournament will be different every year, and at least we do keep that vital SA v Aus v NZ flavour.

For me, the spice will come in how the 6 SA sides get divided, and who will get that 18th franchise. How about a European-based side made up South African players playing their trade overseas, but still under the SARU roof in some way?
Click to expand...
 
Half Time:

Rebels 6 - 15 Sharks

All penalties.

Reading the game every 5 minutes or so is quite painful. At least they are in front.

@ Devill, I have them by 7 to win. I see 80% of the "Brus" went with the Sharks to win.
 
McT said:
Half Time:

Rebels 6 - 15 Sharks

All penalties.

Reading the game every 5 minutes or so is quite painful. At least they are in front.

@ Devill, I have them by 7 to win. I see 80% of the "Brus" went with the Sharks to win.
Click to expand...

I think the Sharks lost at the right time last weekend. It really would have shaken them up and hopefully losing out on 4 last weekend sees them gaining 8-12 points on tour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X