Schalk calls SA to move North

Cape Town - Former Springbok flank Schalk Burger has suggested that the time is right for SA Rugby to leave SANZAAR and join forces with Europe.

In a wide-ranging interview with English publication, The Rugby Paper, Burger said it could be wise for the Springboks to swap the Rugby Championship for the Six Nations.

He also said it would be better if South African Super Rugby franchises enter European competitions.

Burger said the Boks joining the Six Nations would make it the “best competition in the world!”

“International rugby is still a money-spinner, but I think it’s ready for a change-up and if you had South Africa linking up with the northern hemisphere, it would make the Six Nations and other competitions even better. I’m just a rugby player but I’ve been thinking about it a lot and within South Africa a few attitudes have to change,” Burger said.

The Super Rugby competition structure has copped heavy criticism in recent times and reports have indicated that South Africa’s Super Rugby franchises could soon join European competitions.

The Wales Online website earlier this year reported that the Sharks would be the first to join the European PRO14 competition for the 2019/20 season, with the Lions and Stormers potentially following suit the next season.

SANZAAR subsequently rejected the reports but the 35-year-old Burger, who currently plies his trade at Saracens in England, saysthis would be a wise move.

“Something has to change in South Africa. We don’t know how the future of SANZAAR is going to look but it’s got to make more sense for South African teams to play up north. Argentina, USA and Canada should join forces to develop a competition there and then New Zealand, Australia, Japan and the Polynesian Islands can develop a high-class competition of their own," Burger said.

“I know it’s tricky because South Africa is traditionally linked with SANZAAR, but when I started out Super 12 was the best competition ever - short, intense and with the best players. Now, however, we’ve lost our magic.”

Burger, who played for the Stormers during his Super Rugby playing days, represented his country in 86 Tests between 2003 and 2015.

Bürger is absolutely right. SANZAR isn't doing anything for South African rugby. The very opposite actually. The rugby is poor, getting worse quickly, is damaging our stocks and we are bring the money to the table but getting treated like garbage for our troubles. NZ and AUS are eager to get rid of us now and I think we should give them what they want. There is no good reason to stay in the Southern Hemisphere rugby scene at all. It's garbage. 

To me its about money and not being able to keep our players. 

The down under refs are also a huge negative. Oz and NZ can be left to crook each other out.

The problem has always been the seasons? 

No its all about you lot running away to play softer competition, cant beat NZ therefore lets not play them hahaha what a bunch of poofs.

WR is so scared and unable of accepting the necessary termination of SA rugby this might happen.

European rugbys span over a dense area. Adding SA would destroy that wealth. Teams will have to fly long hours to play a distant nation with no national support.

SA rugby add nothing on the level side: EN, IR, SC, WA are already on the same if not higher level.

SA rugby brings no money to the table, only want to leech.

Other european nations are waiting on the door step. Promote rugby in Europe and let SA promote rugby in their environment: Africa.

Despite all this, and more, WC will press for this to happen as SA rugby is their pet child.

That's the part I'd love most. We take the money. Super rugby will collapse. In fact, both Australia and New Zealand will end up going back to their provincial tournament. That'd probably be better for Australia, or maybe they get swallowed by by league. Who cares? Not me. We should have left SANZAR a long time ago in my opinion. 

...Plum...to my way of thinking SA getting on their bicycle and heading north could be self defeating, ... 

For starters i can't say i've seen any real SA interest in the PRo 14 comp around here to date or any NH rugby comp for that matter - that judging by volume of related comments and threads... so there's questionable interest and is SA sides playing Italian and Scottish sides on a regular basis going to increase viewership in SA? ...i don't think so...we're talking boring as batshit rugby there...

...more likely SA viewers are only watching SA rugby because they're playing the best of the best in world rugby...the entertainers.. and people are watching SR hoping to see NZ get beaten... it's here Super Rugby makes yr teams look good - the death of Currie Cup suggesting the SA style in itself is not a very entertaining brand of rugby and so they probably need SR more than you think...

...as for leaving just to make NZ suffer that is kind of petty and laughable ...plenty of financial alternatives available with the Australasian world series in it's infancy and Asian and American markets opening up.....people will always pay to watch the best of the best - namely us ... and we'll just push the price up for the privelege...

... going NH maybe inevitable for some SA teams, but to go all in would be relinquishing the power SA had with SANZAR to the NH master where they would have virtually none...SA political uncertainty could also make the NH wary of admitting too many SA teams anyway.. 

That's right, go ahead and blame anyone bar the fact that spectator interest dried up because South African teams failed to compete.....why would anyone pay to see a game when the result is a foregone conclusion. Fans lost interest because NZ teams win and SAFFA teams don't. Not only do they lose to NZ teams but they lose by huge scores as well. I don't know of anyone who would pay to see a one sided game...….do you?

Boring rugby you say. I see something going different. New Zealand and Australia have ruined Southern Hemisphere rugby with their vision of one dimensional garbage, depowering defences and using the laws the stamp out any variation. Since the ELVs Super teams started playing mostly the same way. I see cut out New Zealand and Australia and let them play their frankenstein's monster version of rugby league and leave the rest of the world to play real rugby. This vision of lots of easy tries, lots of frantic running, weak set pieces and frustrating officiating is too much. I've had enough of it and I'm not the only one. Viewership has been drying up from a long time. It just isn't entertaining. Up north they have more money, money interest and they aren't afraid of playing proper rugby. Your lot made this mess and its best you are left in it alone. Fortunately for you, South Africa always makes wrong decisions.   

Your lot made this mess and its best you are left in it alone

Huh?

It was Australia and New Zealand who wanted to alter the game. They wanted to change the product because it was "boring" and there was too much defence and kicking. In 2007 and early 2008 they were like Liberals, trying to explain to us like idiots that the game hadn't really changed, just had a little twist. The rot goes back to the ELVs and the tinkering to effectively outlaw any variation in games. Doesn't matter if New Zealand kicked more than all SANZAR teams, and we represented the antithesis of what they wanted. They take the money SARU brings in and throw us beneath them for our troubles. Being talked down to, suffering horrible reffing. I've personally had enough of indulging this egocentric adventure of theirs. Let them stay on the back side of the planet and bask in their glorious superiority with maybe a few dozen sheep as spectators. That's if farmer Kirkpatrick doesn't mind.  

Double post

Lurker, I am not entirely sure what you are on about, but I agree with Denny here. So the laws changed a little, they have been changing periodically since the game started. We were just too slow to adapt to the latest batch of changes. We carried on playing our traditional style for too long after the laws changed, and by the time the penny had dropped, we were a long way behind.

As for us playing up North, well, in my opinion the quality of rugby is not as good as that in Super Rugby, but it is true, that Super Rugby has basically become a foregone conclusion as far as our teams facing NZ opposition. The end result, as has been mentioned, is a boring a predictable tournament. Hence the huge decline in support numbers. The format of Super Rugby is also basically universally disliked, so that also does not help. The reality is the countries involved in SANZAR are just too far apart, and there is no format for Super Rugby and The Rugby Champs that is entirely fair as far as travel is concerned. I don't blame the different unions, I just blame geography.  

From a selfish point of view, us playing in Europe would eliminate to a large extent the differing time zones, which levels the playing fields somewhat. Also, one would have to assume there would be more money for SArugby, meaning we would be able, for the most part anyway, to hang on to our talent. Which would theoretically boost Bok strength, and ultimately, that would mean increased support from the public for our teams.  

...what claptrap to say every game against NZ is a foregone conclusion - a very negative defeatist mindset from Dense there you'd only expect from some emotional overdramatic airheaded woman.. and Argentina have been equally competitive so should they also be apologising for improving their game...but the reality is all the SA franchises have beaten NZ franchises this season if i'm not mistaken ...even if it was with the help of a few bent yarpy refs ...

..the biggest problem i see is SA teams are not as fit as there NZ counterparts with the exception of the Blues and that won't change by moving north ...it could be even more disheartening to those with fragile egos like Lurker here to be losing to Italy instead of NZ is worth considering ....

... some like Kwagga and Marx show that greater fitness levels can be achieved... but heading north in itself won't cure deeper rooted problems... that move maybe being viewed through rose tinted eyeglasses with the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow fantasy ...the grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence that is until you get there...but if you took the time to water the grass on yr own side the grass could be just as green ...

This is standard nonsense,   After what has happened to the Cheetahs team after playing in the NH for one season should be a lesson for all of us.   They identified certain Cheetahs players for good performance and raided the team like it is unbelievable.   That means the Cheetahs has to replace key players next year,

Remember - the Cheetahs were one of the teams who did not match up to play Super Rugby.   What will happen to the franchises that are s till playing Super Rugby if they go North as well.   They will lose players like it is unbelievable and the record number of SA players playing club rugby in Europe will rocket,   

Sorry - the answer is not to go north - it will seriously damage SA Rugby on all levels.        

....Exactly, the Cheetahs have been raped, sabotaged and undermined by other SA t eams...they were only allowed into Pro14 on the condition that they strengthen their teams ...and shamefully what has occured has been the opposite...giving the impression that SA is not acting in good faith...not a great platform on which to base the admission of further SA teams...

The ELVs is where the rot began. Rugby didn't get better it got worse. It's spiralled out of controlled. Super rugby is garbage. Its a horrible rugby. Defence is an afterthought, its all run reactively. Players are getting dumber as a result of it. The rugby has a richer tradition up north. They have a greater appreciation for essence of the game. Australia and New Zealand have actually had discussions about how to get rid of rucks in Union. Everything must be frantic running like rugby league. They don't have the foresight or wisdom to make changes to the game. They are ruining rugby and must be stopped. Go north. SANZAR is not benefitting our players, our game. We don't benefit from being here. How bad is it when players tell you that went abroad because they couldn't take the monotony of the game? 

Lurker disagree here - you are welcome to your opinion here.

I believe that the test results showed where better rugby is being played.   And we sent two  cast-off teams  to play NH club rugby after the Super Rugby teams raided their players.   For a team like the Cheetahs being in the play-offs with the limited player corps they had tells everybody that they played a better game than most of the other clubs involved.   Result - the NH clubs raided the Cheetahs team.  

I checked the tackle stats in three of the games played on Saturday:-

Game one   -  tackles made    =     231

Game two    - tackles made    =     236

Game three  - tackles made    =     242

How many more tackles do you want in a game so as to deal with defense?        

How many sloppy tackles, and missed tackles do you want to see? Our game has regressed because of Super rugby. The product is not working. Its damaged our game. Only benefit has been increased cardio fitness. 

Brycy, you make a lot of good points.

It really comes down to a few points for me.

Will SA be able retain more players if we're more involved in NH rugby?

Seems likely.

Will SA players earn more?

Seems likely.

Will it bring back some of the excitement to Bok vs AB tests?

Certainly.

Will the league and test games be reffed more objectively/consistently?

NH refs are easily better than SH refs. For whatever reason it just seems like refs up north make much fewer mistakes per game. 

Probably my bias speaking but watching Euro games just feels a lot more clear cut. It's in some degree down to how the game is played in Europe but one  has to credit the refs also.

Totally cynical but the difference in reffing is so stark that one can't help but be suspicious at times.

The downside of this is that OZ Rugby might not survive and WR needs the big 3 SH teams to remain strong.

The big upside is that home field advantage won't be compounded by jet lag anymore. Something the NZ teams also fell victim to in big games over the last few years.

A forgone conclusion is something nobody wants...hopefully .

The Supers has become boring...it's just taking up too much time and space in the world rugby calender to the detriment of international rugby. Good players have paid the price of injuries (which affects international sides) often key players and fatigue of just too much play and travel time.

It should be trimmed to 10 franchises but more diversified...2 each from NZ, Australia and SA, 1 from Japan, 1 from Pacific Islands and 2 from the Americas (South and North).

This would spread interest and develope rugby internationally. It would be a quick and interesting competition with higher standards.

Some of you will think think this sounds crazy because it's unorthodox and different but this is because the present situation is a big problem but use the Benjamin Franklin decision making tool...that is draw a line down the page and put the pro's on one side and the cons on the other...bear in mind all solutions are no perfect but decisions where there are more pro's than cons are the right decisions.

Super Rugby is a mess...a better system is needed and I suggest that some of you are too clouded in your heads to think of the right answers.

The Tool is:

In the affair of so much importance to you, wherein you ask my advice, I cannot for want of sufficient premises, advise you what to determine, but if you please I will tell you how. When these difficult cases occur, they are difficult chiefly because while we have them under consideration all the reasons pro and con are not present to the mind at the same time; but sometimes one set present themselves, and at other times another, the first being out of sight. Hence the various purposes or inclinations that alternately prevail, and the uncertainty that perplexes us.

Then, Franklin describes how to weigh the “pro et contra” (Latin for “for and against”) in any situation:

To get over this, my way is, to divide, half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns, writing over the one pro, and over the other con. Then during three or four day’s consideration I put down under the different heads short hints of the different motives that at different times occur to me for or against the measure. When I have thus got them all together in one view, I endeavor to estimate their respective weights; and where I find two, one on each side, that seem equal, I strike them both out: if I find a reason pro equal to some two reasons con, I strike out the three. If l judge some two reasons con equal to some three reasons pro, I strike out the five; and thus proceeding I find at length where the balance lies; and if after a day or two of farther consideration nothing new that is of importance occurs on either side, I come to a determination accordingly. And though the weight of reasons cannot be taken with the precision of algebraic quantities, yet when each is thus considered separately and comparatively, and the whole lies before me, I think I can judge better, and am less likely to make a rash step; and in fact I have found great advantage from this kind of equation, in what may be called moral or prudential algebra.

Ben Franklin’s humble tool for decision-making is now known as the T-Chart. It is widely used to examine two opposing facets of a topic, object, situation, circumstance, or event under consideration. T-Charts are particularly helpful for analyzing advantages and disadvantages, as well as strengths and weaknesses.

...Plum SH referees are already involved in Pro 14 so a moot point  -  running away up north solves nothing if that's yr motivation....And to be greedily motivated by money is what got SR in this mess in the first place with the failed expansion  - which i believe we are still suffering a hangover from. Throwing money at something rarely fixes the problem and the more you get the more you will want anyway... tis just human nature. And if getting more money was actually the case then why are the Cheetahs losing players to teams playing in the SH if they're making so much?

Reducing the teams back to Super 12 would be my solution to the failing interest. We could then dump the conference system...This time of year viewer fatigue has also set in so i can understand  people getting bored...they talk about digital detox so maybe take a rugby detox...

One gets the idea that NZ has more leverage negotiating their SANZAR deal, because they are the best team in the world. SA an Aus should shutup and just be glad that they get to be in the same comp as the Kiwis.??? Hope I'm wrong.

Well that post of lurkers is the sookiest bit of shite I have seen in quite  some time,so your hoping NZ and Oz will collapse so the Boks might win or some such shit ? And its not NZ that makes the rules its your NH buddies .why would they make rules that favour NZ [ hint ,they do the opposite].

Grow some fucking balls ya big girls blouse .

I'm sick and tired of South Africa being a "Ah yeez baas, wad'iva yoo sayz baas". I'm tired of us being talked down to and watching the movers and shaker of our game being like Igor, passively serving them as if they are deities. These two clowns ruined Super rugby, and have taken the game in a bad direction, yet we must be happy to let them make more decisions? We don't benefit from playing in this shoddy tournament with this awful bland rugby league wannabe game. That's what Australia want and that's what New Zealand is happy to go with. The ELVs were a failure. If we leave, I don't care about their wellbeing. They can do their own thing and I won't give it another thought. South African interests first. That or no deal as far as I'm concerned. 

Here's another flaw in your logic Wardad. If you can't remember what happened years ago, it doesn't mean I don't!

PETER BILLS: ELVs THREATEN WORLDWIDE SPLIT

Yet given the Northern Hemisphere's palpable reluctance to move forward, there could be a huge split at the IRB conference to discuss the effects of the ELVs, this March or April. And for countries like Australia, a clear dilemma may arise. "We're not going back to the old ways; under these ELVs, rugby can promote a better, more entertaining product" says O'Neill. 

If Australia maintain that stance, New Zealand may go along with it, forcing South Africa into a quandary over whether to support their Southern Hemisphere rivals. Huge bad feeling would arise within SANZAR, if they didn't.  

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/peter-bills-elvs-threaten-worldwide-split-1209427.html

SA and the NH hated the short arm penalty at the scrum because it denied them a way to grind out penalties ,If you think most people want to go back to 10 man rugby your nuts ,is it because your boys cant hack this running and passing bizzo ?How about instead of trying to blame the opposition for having the temerity to keep wining you look at the root cause of your problems namely the player drain by the NH [ who still gerrymander rules to suit themselves] ,As for the Pro14 or 6N ? Fuck-me-running you may well struggle against the Mighty Italians !

As for this "Rugby League " style of game thats been introduced ? Look again to the NH as it doesnt help us but it sure as hell helps the likes of Ireland and England.

What you really want is something you can win isnt it ? Not our problem nor is it our fault look to SARU they are the ones calling the shots in SAANZAR or do you think NZ wanted this bullshit conference system ?

You sound like those kids at school who would cry and take their ball home if they didnt win.

So tackles are sloppy because you think so as an excuse to get out of the hole you  dug for yourself - you may try but poor arguments do not help.   I think better rugby is played in Super Rugby than was the case in the past - also in the NH because of the huge number of SH players poached by the clubs in an effort to upgrade their game.  

Weird thinking on your part - but as I said you are welcome to you weird ideas.    

So tackles are sloppy because you think so as an excuse to get out of the hole you  dug for yourself - you may try but poor arguments do not help.   I think better rugby is played in Super Rugby than was the case in the past - also in the NH because of the huge number of SH players poached by the clubs in an effort to upgrade their game.  

Weird thinking on your part - but as I said you are welcome to you weird ideas.    

So tackles are sloppy because you think so as an excuse to get out of the hole you  dug for yourself - you may try but poor arguments do not help.   I think better rugby is played in Super Rugby than was the case in the past - also in the NH because of the huge number of SH players poached by the clubs in an effort to upgrade their game.  

Weird thinking on your part - but as I said you are welcome to your weird ideas.    

plum

The Cheetahs experience this year taught us the exact opposite to what you are saying.   The poaching got worse when the NH clubs saw first and what talent is available and will only get worse if the other franchises play the NH clubs in future.   

Rugby is largely funded in SA by Supersport through TV deals,  And the option is not NH funding but getting franchise rugby in SA financially stronger by getting private partners - like is prevalent in the case of NH clubs,        

The entire purpose of the ELVs was to depower defence, to encourage teams to run. They decided to give them space. It became a pinball game where the breakdown became less accurately contested and poorly officiated. Defence became as reactive as the offence. This is not an attempt to dig myself out of a hole. I've never been in one. You won't find these things on a page of questionably collected numbers. You'll find it from assessing the game. One of the ideals Australia in particular had was to remove the breakdown completely. That's how they've been moving the game. Set pieces, rucks and defence are seen as being an impediment to "entertaining" rugby. There "must" be more tries, and defence is an obstacle. Speed up the game, encourage frantic running. It has led to a much less accurate and more passive and reactive game. Show me where this isn't the case. Show me how the game transitioned from 2008 to 2008 and 2009 to 2010. I know you don't know these things. 

Assessing the gamer must be done objectively and not on a biased basis as done by you.   It is obviously that in your idea of the game - the halfbacks must kick the ball away - the backline is only there to defend and .the Tight 5 forwards is to be better known as the Tight 8,   That approach is definitely not rugby -this a concocted game with no public appeal and the fact is it was losing support as a game throughout the world.   Something had to be done to save the game and make it what really counts - the scoring of tries.  

I keep practical and nothing in rugby can be compared to scoring of tries through  team effort.  That apparently does not count in your book and I am happy in my ignorance because I never come up pretending to be a better rugby authority than the experts.   

   .        

Assessing the gamer must be done objectively and not on a biased basis as done by you.   It is obviously that in your idea of the game - the halfbacks must kick the ball away - the backline is only there to defend and .the Tight 5 forwards is to be better known as the Tight 8,   That approach is definitely not rugby -this a concocted game with no public appeal and the fact is it was losing support as a game throughout the world.   Something had to be done to save the game and make it what really counts - the scoring of tries.  

I keep practical and nothing in rugby can be compared to scoring of tries through  team effort.  That apparently does not count in your book and I am happy in my ignorance because I never come up pretending to be a better rugby authority than the experts.   

   .        

Assessing the gamer must be done objectively and not on a biased basis as done by you.   It is obviously that in your idea of the game - the halfbacks must kick the ball away - the backline is only there to defend and .the Tight 5 forwards is to be better known as the Tight 8,   That approach is definitely not rugby -this a concocted game with no public appeal and the fact is it was losing support as a game throughout the world.   Something had to be done to save the game and make it what really counts - the scoring of tries.  

I keep practical and nothing in rugby can be compared to scoring of tries through  team effort.  That apparently does not count in your book and I am happy in my ignorance because I never come up pretending to be a better rugby authority than the experts.   

   .