1
Jordie Barrett's sabbatical isn't going to make a difference for Super Rugby Pacific
By Ben Smith
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.
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.
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.
It was a slow one two jab, a good cop bad cop duo water cooler plan. It amazes me what passes for content these days.
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
Yet value would be up on a per match basis, along with a multitude other benefits. Really, when it comes down to it, sports bodies simply adjust to reflect revnue, so even if you lose money it can still be preferable. I for instance would take dropping the unbalanced derby home and away games if all it meant would be losing Barret for 3 years.
How does changing to 4 teams improve the comp and create more interest?