I have just read about another young New Zealand rugby player heading to the Western Force with young Tasman winger Mitchell Scott grabbing a two year deal. It is great for him, but surely it is a bit strange seeing all of these New Zealand and South African players needed to bolster Australian Super Rugby teams. Should New Zealand be allowed a sixth team, like South Africa? Surely, we are now widely aware of the lack of depth of Australian rugby, but you could probably make a team out of the New Zealanders or South Africans playing in Australia. Is it really good for Australia to have so many teams when they need players from other countries to remain competitive?
It has provided some players from New Zealand and South Africa with an overseas experience without leaving the Southern Hemisphere and it has given some players a Super Rugby lifeline, but is it really helping the depth of Australian rugby or not, when they rely on getting leftover players from other countries? Mind you, it has worked with players like Henry Speight and Clyde Rathbone in the past.
It is borderline to know if New Zealand could sustain a sixth team or if New Zealand should host a Pacific Islands team in Auckland?
Should Australia only have five Super Rugby teams? Or is it alright that they use players from South Africa and New Zealand to bolster their teams? Is it also alright that they usually have a team or two struggling in Super Rugby?
Players like Alby Matthewson, and Jason Woodward have helped the Australian teams out, but unless these players can then play for the Wallabies, you wonder if there is much point picking them? Daniel Braid and Adam Thomson are two All Blacks who have played for the Reds in recent seasons, but are they blocking the path for local players or is there simply not enough depth?