Editorial: Super 14 needs makeover

Remarkably few people seem miffed by the likely absence of leading All Blacks from much of next year's Super 14.

Coach Graham Henry, anxious about injuries and fatigue in a World Cup year, is thought to want to withdraw 22 players from the first six weeks of the competition.

The muted reaction suggests, first, that even the spectacle of the Crusaders and the Hurricanes contesting this weekend's Super 14 final cannot disguise that competition's loss of sheen, and, second, that winning the World Cup has become something of a national obsession.

It seems almost anything will be accepted as long as, for the first time in two decades, the Webb Ellis Cup is claimed next year. Reports of the proposed withdrawal sent New Zealand rugby officials scurrying for cover.

They need not have bothered, given that the plan is a logical extension of Henry's desire to safeguard the welfare of his players. That has become more difficult as the rugby season has expanded.

Where once the summer stand-down period went for several months, it is now a mini-break. Missing the first half of the Super 14 is a way to regain an adequate period for rest and recuperation. Henry's concerns have already led to moves that have made traditionalists blanch. Players have been rotated on All Black tours, and recently he criticised some Super 14 franchises for not pursuing a similar policy.

Soon, that approach will lead to Crusaders and Hurricanes players being overlooked for the tests against Ireland while they recover from their Super 14 exertions. Debate has been minimal, perhaps largely because Henry's strategy has been extremely successful.

What he now proposes is certainly not unique.

South African coach Jake White is adamant that the leading Springboks will have a heavily reduced schedule in the 2007 Super 14. Their participation in this year's provincial championship, the Currie Cup, will also be scaled back. If Australia does not follow suit, it will signify only the Super 14's value to it in the absence of a meaningful state competition.

The fact that South Africa's plans appear well advanced suggests its rugby governors do not anticipate intractable problems with Super 14 contract obligations. But that does not mean the franchises do not feel a considerable disquiet. Their discussions with rugby union officials last Wednesday would have included the observation that competitions are inevitably devalued when leading players are removed.

A ready example is English soccer's League Cup. The franchises' trepidation should be tempered by the fact that the Super 14 needs a drastic overhaul. The concept is tired, despite the attempt this year to inject vigour through the addition of two new teams. Just possibly, the blooding of new players, in the absence of the All Blacks, will rekindle interest.

Certainly, the dullness associated with the same four teams contesting the semi-finals in consecutive seasons would not be repeated. Emerging talent is one of the reasons the National Provincial Championship continues to attract a high degree of interest even when no international players are on show. That suggests the absence of cream may devalue a product but need not necessarily curdle it. Not all the risks are carried by the Super 14 franchises. Henry is also putting himself on the line.

Effectively, all New Zealand's eggs will be deposited in the World Cup basket. If the 2007 campaign fails, much will have been sacrificed - by the franchises, broadcasters, sponsors and fans.

The sense of disappointment will be all the greater. For now, that is a gamble the great majority of rugby followers seem willing to take.