Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Jordie Barrett's sabbatical isn't going to make a difference for Super Rugby Pacific

Richie Mo'unga of New Zealand celebrates with Jordie Barrett of New Zealand after scoring his team's second try during the Rugby World Cup France 2023 match between New Zealand and Uruguay at Parc Olympique on October 05, 2023 in Lyon, France. (Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images)

The sabbatical as a retention tool for keeping top All Blacks around has been widely criticised but is more attractive than the alternative.

ADVERTISEMENT

If Jordie Barrett decided to link with Toyota Verblitz for three years and disappear, how does that help the All Blacks and Super Rugby Pacific?

The short answer is it doesn’t. Which is why NZR has to come to the table and accomodate such a move. It’s a smart business decision.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

New Zealand Rugby losing a player like Richie Mo’unga again at 29-years-old is a situation to avoid as long as the current eligibility rules are in place.

If all avenues were explored with Mo’unga and they couldn’t come to an agreement, so be it.

But to play hard ball in negotiations, roll back sabbatical offers, doesn’t serve NZR’s own interests.

The sunk cost investment in Mo’unga for New Zealand Rugby is huge. He’s been the starting No. 10 for the All Blacks at two Rugby World Cups. He’s been Super Rugby’s best player every year for over half a decade.He holds experience that could prove invaluable in 2027.

And now he isn’t available to All Blacks for at least three years.

Even if he was given two sabbaticals back-to-back, it would be better than none at all.

ADVERTISEMENT

Barrett will miss one Super Rugby season and play the next two after his stint with Leinster.

This is the club that turned Jamison Gibson-Park into a world class No. 9 and James Lowe into an international calibre winger. It isn’t going to be a walk in the park and will likely do Barrett’s game good.

Super Rugby Pacific’s ills go deeper than the pulling power of one exceptional All Black. Simple fixes can make this product more interesting.

Rolling back the playoffs-for-everybody structure that makes the regular season redundant is first on the list.

Just four playoff spots would make this current season’s race real, with pressure on all sides every week. The lack of consequences currently allows for less intensity, huge player rotations, and of course, less incentive to watch.

ADVERTISEMENT

The undefeated Hurricanes at 8-0 would not yet be assured of a finals berth, let alone the top seed. The Blues too, would have to maintain a winning pace.

The Crusaders should be mathematically ruled out already but unfortunately they still could make it despite holding a 1-7 record.

The competition’s integrity would be raised if they were denied a sniff at the title, or any other team that sports a losing record for that matter.

The second easy fix is the length. With eight out of 12 teams guaranteed to make the playoffs, there is absolutely no need for 15 rounds of regular season action.

We could cut this competition down to 12 weeks, with each team playing everyone just once with one bye week. Then two more rounds for semi-finals and a final.

This would cut four weeks of meaningless Super Rugby fat out of the calendar, meanwhile strengthening the entire competition as a product. We could start in mid-March and not go head-to-head with cricket in the height of summer.

With an extra month off, there would be no reason to rest stars, and they wouldn’t want to either. Every regular season game matters when you are fighting for just four playoff spots.

That brings back some intensity to the competition and moves it a step away from just being a development playground.

The first counter-argument to cutting down the length of the season will be the loss of TV revenue to support the current cost base. Maybe the TV revenue can stay the same with guarantees the on-field product will be stronger.

That extra month in the calendar could support pre-season tours overseas if needed, to Japan and Europe as was seen in 2024.

However, improved competition integrity would offset the loss of any star All Black on a sabbatical.

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

6 Comments
F
Forward pass 244 days ago

Another silly article. The only people who have “widely critisized” it are journo’s looking for a sensation. Let it go Ben. No one cares.

S
Shaylen 244 days ago

Sounds a bit like an idealistic view. Any approach poses problems. Sabbaticals are not ideal because you lose a star for a year. Having said that it becomes several degrees harder to keep them without the sabbaticals. The benefits of sabbaticals are well documented however more and more seem to be granted and its a dangerous precedent to set. Cutting the season down will definitely trim the broadcast revenue. Less matches means less tv time, means less value for sponsors and broadcasters. A stronger on field product would not materialise. Less matches means less time on the park for players which means slower development. Changing down to 4 teams for qualification is a start at improving the comp and creating more interest

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 29 minutes ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

144 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ 'Springbok Galacticos can't go it alone for trophy-hunting Sharks' 'Springbok Galacticos can't go it alone for trophy-hunting Sharks'
Search