Lineout Call of the Week

So, continuing on with our new format, we focus mainly on the games in the Super Rugby first round of knockout stages and the URC semi-finals – with some rather tasty affairs on offer. However, we start by carrying on from our theme brought up last week of is there all just a little bit too much rugby going on which ultimately dilutes the quality at club level but more importantly at a national level? We feel it’s timely to ask some uncomfortable questions, especially in Australia’s case with a Lions Tour just around the corner. So here’s what got us talking in Part One of this week’s Calls with What to Watch and Why out on Thursday in Part Two.

Time for some weight loss training?

So carrying on from last week’s concerns about there being too much rugby, ultimately diluting the quality of the competitions we currently have, we’re going to throw out the highly contentious assertion that in some of the tournaments perhaps there are too many teams. This, in turn, runs the risk of diluting the quality of the respective national sides. Whichever way you cut it, what we are about to say is probably not going to go down well with some fans in the URC and Super Rugby. However, we’ve singled out these two competitions as both are slightly unique.

Why are they unique, you ask? Aren’t there too many teams in the English Premiership which seems in permanent financial crisis, or how about the French TOP 14? In the case of the English Premiership it’s a fair question, but in France we’d argue that the system seems to be working just fine from a financial perspective, bums on seats, entertainment value and ultimately the development of a strong national side through a deep player base. Nevertheless, in England, despite the problems, there is a setup similar to France whereby promotion and relegation serve as an impetus to improve. In other words, losing every game of the season has dire consequences. Equally winning the second Tier Competition in both countries, the Championship in England and the PRO D2 in France, has the cherry on the cake of promotion to the big leagues. As Newcastle and even Stade Francais contemplate the bittersweet tears of relegation this year, Ealing Trailfinders and Grenoble can start dreaming about a life on the big stage.

That same sort of jeopardy and the resulting drive and motivation simply doesn’t exist in Super Rugby or the URC. Take Wales’ Dragons or Italy’s Zebre Parma as cases in point. Consistently the worst teams in the league every year and yet still turning up for more of the same every September. Super Rugby is slightly different, but when was the last time you can remember the Highlanders being competitive or in recent times the Waratahs or Western Force living anywhere but the basement of the log come the end of the season? In short, is there a sufficient player base in the countries these top-level competitions serve to have as many teams as they do? We’d argue probably not, at least not without some system of promotion or relegation. Don’t get us wrong we love both competitions and they produce some great rugby – but the reality is that at least 25% of the teams in each competition are simply nowhere near the level they need to be.

Without a system of relegation and promotion to/from a second tier, we’re not really sure how you go about fixing the problems of the perennial strugglers in both competitions. However, we’d also argue that by being able to field a smaller number of genuinely competitive teams, the competitions themselves would become more exciting as a spectacle as well as genuinely honing the skills necessary for those countries to feed into their national sides.

So alright, axemen, we hear you say, who goes on the chopping block? Well, let’s start with Super Rugby. Australia, at best in all reality, can only field three teams able to go the distance and find themselves in a final. There were five until the departure last year of the Melbourne Rebels. Look how much more competitive the four remaining Australian teams have become this year as a result. Reduce it to three, and all of a sudden, New Zealand sides might sleep a lot less easily in the regular season, as well as this rationalization translating into success for the Wallabies against the Lions this summer and ultimately the World Cup in 2027.

For us, it would be the Brumbies and the Reds who get to stay, but out of the Waratahs and the Western Force, we’d argue that the Waratahs need to exit stage left. They may have finished higher on the log than the Western Force this year, but not by much. The Force have a passionate fan base and are the only representation of top flight club rugby on the Western edge of a VERY large country. Therefore, in the interest of growing the game in Australia, they get to keep their spot. We appreciate that’s a pretty harsh judgement on the Waratahs and how do you make the dearly loved State of Origin games meaningful and competitive if, unlike Queensland, New South Wales doesn’t have a top flight team? We have to admit we don’t have an answer to that conundrum, but something needs to change.

In New Zealand, as mentioned above, for us, without a doubt, the first side on the chopping block would be the Highlanders. We appreciate this would be a deeply unpopular decision, but in all reality, New Zealand fields four very good Super Rugby sides, but that would appear to be as much as they can do. If there was relegation, a side that did really well in the Ranfurly Shield or the Bunnings NPC domestic competition could find itself along with other players from teams in the region promoted. Say Otago wins this year’s Ranfurly or Bunnings, then players from Southland and North and South Otago would make up the Highlanders and find themselves back in Super Rugby, at the expense of say the Blues and the Auckland based clubs should the Blues end up being the lowest ranked Kiwi side on the Super Rugby log next year.

Hang on a minute, we hear you say what about Fijian Drua, who finished bottom this season? Well, therein lies the exception. Given that so many players in Super Rugby can trace some if not all of their heritage to the Islands, then we simply have to have a team representing the Pacific Islands in some way. Isn’t that what Moana Pasifika is all about is the next question? Well, in principle, yes, but in reality, it doesn’t feel like it. For all intents and purposes, it’s just another New Zealand team. They have played the odd game in the Islands every season, but Auckland is their home for all intents and purposes. Even with the talismanic services of their Captain Ardie Savea this year, which saw them have one of their best seasons ever, they still fell short of a playoff spot.

The Drua, on the other hand, finished last on the log this year, but play at least half their games at home in Fiji to sell out crowds. In short, the Drua are good value for money entertainment wise and give the competition some genuine “Pacific” representation and buy in. All of this has benefitted the national side in Fiji enormously. If Moana Pasifika could actually be based in the Islands, say shared between Samoa and Tonga the dividends could be huge but at present they simply add additional weight that the competition struggles to make competitive and skews it more towards New Zealand dominance.

As for the URC, well, it’s Wales first up. The harsh reality of Welsh rugby is that the four teams they have in the URC are four too many. Scotland remains competitive with only two and we’d argue that the same should apply to Wales as harsh as that may seem to a country passionate about its rugby and the proud history of the four franchises it fields every year in the URC. However, on current and recent form since COVID, the Dragons days must surely be numbered as most likely are one of the other three. Scarlets would appear to be the strongest of the Welsh sides and have had a good reputation in the tournament in most years. However, if we go the Scottish route, then Cardiff and the Dragons should merge into one team, leaving Wales with no more than three teams, Scarlets, Ospreys, and Cardiff/Newport.

In Ireland, we’d argue the reality is that there’s also only really room for three teams, most likely Leinster and Munster simply because of their respective history in the competition, and one other, which probably needs to be Ulster to keep the whole “we play as one” concept unique to Irish rugby and the IRFU where Ireland plays internationally as a united country. If Connacht did lose out in the process then maybe a combined Munster/Connacht team, which has the potential to be an Irish “super” team on par with the likes of the unofficial Ireland team also known as Leinster could be the way forward, though where that would leave Ulster as potentially the “poor Northern cousins” would likely be a thorny and possibly intractable bone of contention.

For Scotland despite their lack of success when it comes to getting the big prizes like the Six Nations or the World Cup, we’d argue the two team system of Edinburgh and Glasgow works just fine, no tinkering needed. Glasgow are currently the defending URC Champions, and Edinburgh tend to fare well in European competition most years. In Italy, despite Zebre Parma being permanent bottom feeders, the exposure its players get has helped the national side improve in the last few years, but the reality is two Italian teams is pushing the limits of Italy’s player base but worth sticking with.

Finally, South Africa and it would seem that the Lions are holding the only jeopardy card so far. However, this is where closer integration between the Currie Cup and the URC could be beneficial. South Africa does have the player base make no mistake, but the logistics make fielding four competitive teams in the URC challenging. Relegation could work for South Africa if they fielded three instead of four teams. As it is the big three, (the Sharks, Bulls and Stormers) simply poach any promising talent the Lions may develop, making them ultimately South Africa’s whipping boys in the URC. Also whatever happened to the Cheetahs – remember them? Well they are still a force in the Currie Cup every year and play in the European Challenge Cup even though they don’t participate in the URC.

Something needs to change here – remember how competitive the Lions were in Super Rugby and the raft of big names that ultimately became Springboks that the Johannesburg outfit produced – Faf de Klerk, Franco Mostert, Malcolm Marx and Kwagga Smith to name a few. But yes in short, it would appear that South Africa despite its impressive player base can really only support three competitive teams in the URC, but they more so than Wales or Ireland have the ability to develop some sort of relegation/promotion option.

Is there scope for a URC second tier competition to address some of the discrepancies and difficulties faced by traditional strugglers like the Dragons and Zebre Parma? Probably not, but certainly in South Africa, there is a potential mechanism to support the process for its URC representatives if the move was made to reduce to three instead of four South African teams.

So in conclusion, to make two good competitions even stronger, we’d argue the following. In the URC, three teams each from Ireland and South Africa, two each from Scotland and Italy, leaving Wales and its parlous finances to field preferably two but most likely three. As for Super Rugby, it’s pretty straightforward, really. Four teams from New Zealand, three from Australia, one from Fiji, and hopefully one from a combined Samoa/Tonga but based in the Islands.

In what is no doubt a controversial opinion, it’s our view that some moves towards this kind of alignment would make these tournaments more consistent in terms of quality across the board. There would be less competition for the limited amounts of funds, players and resources that the URC and Super Rugby can generate, meaning more to go round for the teams participating. All of this would translate into making all the national sides that much more competitive as the quality and intensity of week in week out competition goes up a notch on a more even playing field. Furthermore, it could, if managed properly, reduce the risk of one or two sides dominating as only the big budget super clubs like Leinster for example in the URC can buy up the limited number of top quality players as well as expensive internationals. Furthermore a more equal distribution of generated revenue could and should provide the funds to make a team like Moana Pasifika truly representative of the competition’s Pacific culture and based in the Islands.

Like we say, we love both competitions and completely understand the loyalties to the teams in both. Consequently, we appreciate that this could appear rather heartless and simplistic. Our desire is more to see two tournaments that already provide some great rugby find some consistency coupled to some genuine sustainability, especially with all the other demands for more rugby that keep being heaped on our sport by cash hungry governing bodies.

Anyway that’s our rant for the week, and this piece has gone on long enough, so to give everyone’s eyes a break we’ll be back Thursday with the four games we’ll be watching this weekend which as it so happens are all in the URC and Super Rugby Pacific.