A draft should be introduced with the new Super Rugby competition from 2016, Brendan Cannon writes

SANZAR needs to introduce a player draft if they are to reinvigorate Super Rugby under their expansion plan, Brendan Cannon writes.

SANZAR needs to introduce a player draft if they are to reinvigorate Super Rugby under their expansion plan.

I fear the tournament will become stale and frail if organisers do not inject new excitement and relax limitations on players.

Putting the top 30 players into a draft pool – the best two from each club as nominated by rival teams – and allowing any franchise to bid for them at the start of the expanded tournament would bring huge buzz and excitement to Super Rugby.

It would also allow players to experience life at an overseas club without being lost to Europe or Japan where they’re never seen again by the local audience.

Teams will inevitably complain that they would lose their main drawcard; for instance NSW with Israel Folau. But under the draft system, there would be nothing stopping the Tahs bidding for Sonny Bill Williams or Dan Carter, who would bring equal amounts of publicity and hype. So it’s all relative.

What is happening now is unsustainable.

Players are defecting in big numbers to overseas competitions that have embraced international mix.

South Africa already allows overseas-based players to continue playing for the Springboks, and it’s time Australia and New Zealand moved into the 21st century and did the same.

Spreading the talent around within the SANZAR pool while allowing players to still represent their countries would solve some of the issues around retention, but also ensure a much better broadcast deal.

Let’s face it, if the ARU does not get the extra money they hope for out of the next broadcast deal, they’re facing extinction.News_Rich_Media: State chiefs and the ARU have confirmed that they are happy with SANZAR’s decision to expand Super Rugby, with ARU chief executive Bill Pulver saying it’s only going to make the competition bigger and better.

By having South African players in Kiwi franchises, or Kiwis in Aussie franchises, the interest in overseas games suddenly has more appeal among local viewers.

Surely more people would watch the Lions play the Stormers at 11pm Sydney time if the Lions boasted Kieran Read and the Stormers had Quade Cooper.

As for the expanded model, I generally like the concept.

However, Australia is at a big disadvantage, and there is serious doubt about the chances of one of our sides winning the competition unless they finish in the top two of the competition.

History shows that it is almost impossible to win semi-finals and finals in South Africa or New Zealand.

Australia will have to play every Kiwi side and one less local side each season, which is a much tougher ask given the strength across the board of the five New Zealand franchises.

At the same time, the strong South African teams play in smaller conferences with weaker sides, so it is likely there will be one of their teams in the top two every year.

The Argentinian team is also at a big disadvantage. You can’t have these poor buggers travelling those distances every second week.

They will need to create blocks of home games and then blocks of away trips for them, which will put pressure on the travel schedules of all the other sides.

The Buenos Aires team and the 18th team, likely to be from Asia, will travel the greatest distances, presumably have the least star-studded rosters, and yet be expected to remain genuinely competitive to avoid criticism of the expansion.