South Africa

kiwilad says...

Jmangod, hell yes, we need SA.

Sadly everytime we weaken and give in to tha Aussies it dilutes the comp.

12 teams origionally was brilliant with no conference system.

But looking foward, we are likely to have Argie teams, and wouldnt it be wise at that stage to put in a couple of Pacific Island teams, maybe cut it into conference at that stage, bottom half plays off against each other, top half scraps it out???

Posted 04:05 03rd April 2012

isthatrightref says...

@ jmangod... only if they want the TV-rights money SA brings in - hell, yes! in other words - by virtue of having roughly double Australasia's population & being time-zone friendly for European pay-TV viewers.

Posted 08:58 14th February 2012

JayStarr says...

@ GoWalesGo: And how often do you watch Super Rugby..? Because with all that amazing rugby you have in the NH, I can't imagine you get much time to watch the 6 or 7 Super Rugby matches every weekend as well... Especially since most of it is in a different time-zone... And I doubt whether you get up at 6 am to watch a tournament you think is a "farce". So I'd say you don't really know what you're talking about.

@ BillyMutt: Yes, exactly - the current format of Super Rugby is basically designed to favour Australia. So I guess that might be the ground from which SARU argues - "we scratched your back, now you scratch ours". Didn't think of that before, until you just mentioned it...

@ itsamyth: Oh come on... I am a white South African and I don't agree with your lame old regurgetated "facts". Get off your soap box and stop believing everything you read in Die Beeld and Rapport - this is a rugby forum.

@ melkdave: I watched every game of Super Rugby last year and I don't agree with you - the NZ and SA conferences were equally strong last year. The Stormers finished one place above the Crusaders on the overall log and both countries had another team in the top 6 play-offs (Blues and Sharks). The Highlanders were almost as strong as the Bulls and the Cheetahs were very similar to the Chiefs. Both the Lions and Hurricanes were poor, but had a few good wins.

@ BDAUssie: I think it'a bit rich of you to start talking about "fielding championship contenders" and being forced to give into demands... Please explain the Force and Rebels - I believe they were worse than the Cheetahs and Lions (I'll ignore the Brumbies - they were good once upon a time). And also, the whole format as it is at the moment is due to the politics in Australian rugby. Think carefully before you start slinging mud.

Let's all just get our popcorn and see how this unfolds...

Posted 12:50 13th February 2012

RiverBlues77 says...

The problem here is obvious - the entire structure of domestic rugby in the Southern Hemisphere is crocked.

We do need to move back to a super 12 format, either with 4 teams from each SANZAR region or with 3 each from SANZAR and one from Fiji, one from Samoa and one from Argentina.

A) This will keep the season reasonably short.

B) This will re-invigorate domestic rugby in all these countries, with a place in the Super Rugby competition at stake in addition to the domestic title.

C) If we include teams from Argentina etc there will be more diversity, more global interest etc.

Adding a 16th team is ridiculous. Not only will this skew the balance of the competition, and add cannon fodder to the mix, but there is no way the Kings merit their place.

If SARU had one brain cell between them they'd just introduce relegation and promotion to the SA division (which would not interfere with the other SANZAR countries), and might make the Currie Cup more interesting.

But not, why move with a sensible relegation/promotion format which works brilliantly in European rugby and football? Rather just stick with a bloated bunch of half-fit pigs sucking at the teats of the Murdoch empire.

This is exactly why NH rugby will overtake the Southern Hemisphere in the next 5 years. Not that we'll notice, since we'll have long since stopped attending both Super Rugby and domestic games.

Thanks for killing SH rugby, SANZAR, SARU and Super Rugby!

Posted 08:01 13th February 2012

melkdave says...

I must admit im not a fan of the conferance system as the only competative coferance atm is the NZ one.Both the SA and Australian conferances are weak in camparision and have only 2 teams atm .So the usual suspects again this year Reds orTahs from OZ and Bulls or Sharks from SA against the Crusaders and another NZ team in the semis So predictable now isnt it

Posted 23:03 12th February 2012

Herbman says...

The problem is that the Kings have already started contracting players... very difficult situation SARU find themselves in.

Posted 22:26 12th February 2012

JayStarr says...

And as I predicted the Rapport was RAPPORTing rubish... once again. Seriously - who still buys that paper..? It's fiction. BAD fiction...

@ jmanngod: Do you think you don't..? All you'll be without SA is a glorified ITM Cup - instead of teams like Tarenaki you just have the Brumbies... That sounds exciting.

Back to the (new version of the) article:

So let me get this straight - the SA franchises are giving their "full support" to the inclusion of the Kings... but also making it clear that there is no way any of them are dropping out... So basically the only possible solution is for SANZAR to expand the competion - which they are not allowed to do and have already said they won't do...

Riiight...

...This is going to get interesting!

Posted 19:29 12th February 2012

JayStarr says...

If this is true... WOW.

But then again, it was reported in Rapport - which is like The News of the World... They also claimed that Francois Steyn is gay and that Alistair Coetzee has been confirmed as the next coach...

So I'll wait until a reliable source confirms this.

Posted 13:49 12th February 2012

kenttaff says...

they aint got the balls..

Posted 13:06 12th February 2012