[2019 Super Rugby] Semi Finals (29 June 2019)

[petite]

It's not an excuse. It's embedded in our DNA. We love playing against our fellow Saffas.



Most teams do prioritization. They have a list of must-win, should-win, could-win and then they have a list of games where they might falter. I think all the teams underestimated all their opponents, not just the jaguares. I think the Sunwolves also showed how tight this competition was.

But let's take the Lions as an example. This was the 3rd year in a row where they sent a second string team to Argentina. That is a sign that they didn't consider the Jaguares away game as a serious match for them, and they rather wanted their more experienced players to remain home, and not carry the extra fatigue of travelling to and from Argentina in less than a week.



Derbies matter the most for qualifying. Don't you get that? Because of the conference system, you need to win your derby games in order to qualify. The Sharks and the Bulls won more derby games than the Stormers and the Lions, and they were the ones who qualified for the playoffs. Had the Stormers won that last game against the Sharks at home, then the Stormers would have qualified and not the Sharks. We knock our own teams out...



That I agree wholeheartedly with you. I think the Jaguares have now got a big target on their backs for the next few years and the teams will be gunning for them. I just hope the Jaguares take note of what happened to the Lions. The Lions were in the finals now 3 years in a row, and this year didn't even qualify for the playoffs. That is how brutal this tournament is.



Again, no excuses, just stating my point of view. The Jags have the luxury of not having derby games, so they don't have a the faintest idea of the added pressure it creates on a team.

Let's keep on truckin!

I m o some of the SR sides did field weaker teams against the jags. and there may have been a "if it's not us better be the jags factor"
the wc resting policies also influential.
in the other hand jags traveled the most and had also a big rotation policy. I mean a second string team loosing to a second string jags. al about depth

 

[TRF_heineken]

I m o some of the SR sides did field weaker teams against the jags. and there may have been a "if it's not us better be the jags factor"
the wc resting policies also influential.
in the other hand jags traveled the most and had also a big rotation policy. I mean a second string team loosing to a second string jags. al about depth

All about depth.

Easy when you just have one team and no quota system.

 

[petite]

It's not an excuse. It's embedded in our DNA. We love playing against our fellow Saffas.



Most teams do prioritization. They have a list of must-win, should-win, could-win and then they have a list of games where they might falter. I think all the teams underestimated all their opponents, not just the jaguares. I think the Sunwolves also showed how tight this competition was.

But let's take the Lions as an example. This was the 3rd year in a row where they sent a second string team to Argentina. That is a sign that they didn't consider the Jaguares away game as a serious match for them, and they rather wanted their more experienced players to remain home, and not carry the extra fatigue of travelling to and from Argentina in less than a week.



Derbies matter the most for qualifying. Don't you get that? Because of the conference system, you need to win your derby games in order to qualify. The Sharks and the Bulls won more derby games than the Stormers and the Lions, and they were the ones who qualified for the playoffs. Had the Stormers won that last game against the Sharks at home, then the Stormers would have qualified and not the Sharks. We knock our own teams out...



That I agree wholeheartedly with you. I think the Jaguares have now got a big target on their backs for the next few years and the teams will be gunning for them. I just hope the Jaguares take note of what happened to the Lions. The Lions were in the finals now 3 years in a row, and this year didn't even qualify for the playoffs. That is how brutal this tournament is.



Again, no excuses, just stating my point of view. The Jags have the luxury of not having derby games, so they don't have a the faintest idea of the added pressure it creates on a team.

Let's keep on truckin!

I m o some of the SR sides did field weaker teams against the jags. and there may have been a "if it's not us better be the jags factor"
the wc resting policies also influential.
in the other hand jags traveled the most and had also a big rotation policy. I mean a second string team loosing to a second string jags. al about depth

All about depth.

Easy when you just have one team and no quota system.

yes but it goes the other way when it comes to the pumas or bocks

 

[TRF_heineken]

I m o some of the SR sides did field weaker teams against the jags. and there may have been a "if it's not us better be the jags factor"
the wc resting policies also influential.
in the other hand jags traveled the most and had also a big rotation policy. I mean a second string team loosing to a second string jags. al about depth

yes but it goes the other way when it comes to the pumas or bocks

Travelled more? I think you just had one additional trip to South Africa than the rest of the teams. But I think the Bulls and the Sharks travelled more than the Jags as they had to travel twice and from New Zealand which is a much farther distance.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Winning the Derbies is definitely more important than other games, simply because if you win your conference you go straight in to the playoffs and winning those derbies gives you points and denies your direct competition points. We've seen it before with teams winning their conference but having fewer points than say the third or even fourth placed NZ teams

It's not rocket surgery

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Winning the Derbies is definitely more important than other games, simply because if you win your conference you go straight in to the playoffs and winning those derbies gives you points and denies your direct competition points. We've seen it before with teams winning their conference but having fewer points than say the third or even fourth placed NZ teams

It's not rocket surgery

That's exactly my point. He claims that Jaguares (not a derby) is less important even thou we are in the same conference.
The importance lies in playing your direct competition. That means that what matters is whether your opposition is in the same conference, NOT whether the game is a derby or not.

Your post assumes derby = same conference. That is not true. Some are, but some are not.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Your post assumes derby = same conference. That is not true. Some are, but some are not.

Wut??

Derby = same conference. Your countrymen are your biggest rivals.

The only instance this is not the case is with the Sunwolves and the Jaguares.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Derbies are definitely same conference...

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

But same conference doesnt mean derby. That is, precisely, what make the argument invalid.

 

[TRF_heineken]

But same conference doesnt mean derby. That is, precisely, what make the argument invalid.

I don't think you understand the concept. The derby term in Super Rugby is exactly for the same conference. The only place it doesn't apply is when any of the SA teams play the Jags, or where the Aussie teams play the Sunwolves. All other inter-conference games are Derbies!

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

The derby term in Super Rugby is exactly for the same conference. The only place it doesn't apply is when any of the SA teams play the Jags,

If you dont understand how those two sentences contradict each other, i dont think i can help you, but i will try one last time.
I'll make it idiot proof (not saying/implying you are an idiot, just lingo we use in my line of work).

1) You said that Jaguares had an advantage vs south african teams because we had no debies
2) Jaguares is in the the south african conference
3) I said that mathematically, there was no difference between a derby and a game within the same conference.
4) You said in post #118

Derbies matter the most for qualifying. Don't you get that?

THAT IS NOT TRUE! IT IS A MATHEMATICAL FACT THAT THAT IS NOT TRUE. For qualifying, the Bulls vs the Lions (derby) matters EXACTLY the same as the Bulls vs Jaguares (not a derby).

Tell me which part(s) is not clear. These are all facts or inevitable logical conclusions from those facts.

 

[TRF_heineken]

If you dont understand how those two sentences contradict each other, i dont think i can help you, but i will try one last time.
I'll make it idiot proof (not saying/implying you are an idiot, just lingo we use in my line of work).

1) You said that Jaguares had an advantage vs south african teams because we had no debies
2) Jaguares is in the the south african conference
3) I said that mathematically, there was no difference between a derby and a game within the same conference.
4) You said in post #118


THAT IS NOT TRUE! IT IS A MATHEMATICAL FACT THAT THAT IS NOT TRUE. For qualifying, the Bulls vs the Lions (derby) matters EXACTLY the same as the Bulls vs Jaguares (not a derby).

Tell me which part(s) is not clear. These are all facts or inevitable logical conclusions from those facts.

Oh FFS!

You are looking at this with just one eye!!

I think myself and other have tried our utmost to explain to you the massive difference between a derby match and a regular season match (regardless of the opposition or conference).

When we revert to the old system in 2021, and there is no conferences anymore. There will still be derby matches (albeit they will also be less) but they will always remain part of Super Rugby.

You are looking at it just from a mathematical standpoint of winning: 4+ points or with a bonus point: 5+ points, where your direct opposition gets maybe 0 or 1+ point on the log.

But, and I cannot stress this enough, you are not taking the other factors into consideration such as mental toughness, travel, fatigue etc. And this is where Derby games are just way more important than other games.

 

[smartcooky]

Thanks for the explanation H. Two comments.

First, let me tell you where i am coming from so you can maybe understand my point of view.
I support CASI. Arguably the biggest club derby in the country is CASI vs SIC (both share the same neighborhood, SIC is a spin-off from CASI, expelled members, etc. The lot).
I would never, ever, not even in my most delusional outburst, use that as an excuse when playing against non-derby teams. Never.
I would see it as using history and pedigree as an excuse.

Second, let's assume for the sake of the argument that everything you said is true. Every south African team, because of the derbies, is at a disadvantage vs Jaguares. Granted.
Now, lets be clear about one thing then: that decision, to prioritize those games, is a choice. This is not something imposed, but something that could be changed overnight, without spending a single cent. It needs the will, lots of it, but that's it. I understand if you dont, but again, you have the option.

Now the inevitable question then becomes: at what point do derbies matter more than qualifying to the playoffs? Because that dilemma is kind of an inevitable conclusion given your argument.
If i were a Lions of a Stormers fan (those who missed the playoffs by a point), would i trade one for another?
I know i would.

I could be persuaded to admit a team or two might have underestimated us (bulls in loftus comes to mind), and you could argue that worked to our advantage, fair enough. But that is a card we can only play once, and you did in 2019. You can say we got lucky this time. If it happens again it's on you. You have the choice to adjust.
The choice is yours, but then, so are the consequences of those choices.

There are two kinds of excuses. Those were you could have done something about and didnt, and those where there was nothing you could have done. I dont like either, but i can accept the later. Never the former.
You had your wake up call. If you chose to prioritize derbies, that's on you.
Best of luck next season (no pun int).

OK, so maybe I can explain it this way, and keep in minds these facts

1. The NZ Super Rugby teams are franchises with catchments involving several Provincial Unions, each of whom have their own histories going back, in some cases, 125 years or more. For example the Crusaders include Canterbury and Tasman from the NPC, and South Canterbury, Mid-Canterbury, West Coast and Buller from the Heartland Championship

2. The SAF Super Rugby teams ARE essentially their Currie Cup teams (Lions <~> Transvaal, Sharks <~> Natal, Stormers <~> Western Province, Bulls <~> Northern Transvaal). This Currie Cup teams also have a history that goes back, if anything, slightly longer than NZ teams (1890??)

Those teams have a long and sometimes bitter history. I'll leave it to our Saffa friends to tell you about the South African side of it (although I remember from following the 1970 Springbok tour that I learned early on about the legendary, sometimes savage rivalry between the Northern Transvaal and Western Province.)

In New Zealand, the five key provincial rivalries have been Auckland v Canterbury, Canterbury v Otago, Auckland v Waikato, Wellington v Canterbury and Wellington v Auckland. Those rivalries were especially ferocious when the Ranfurly Shield was involved, and they have been carried over into the franchises and Super Rugby. The matches are often brutal and uncompromising, more so than a NZ v SAF or NZ v AUS clash. They also draw bigger crowds, and a bigger TV audience than NZ v overseas team matches. Having to play these games twice a season takes a toll on the players.

It is also a well known and well understood axiom that winning your home games and your in-country derbies is often the difference between making or not making the playoffs. Just look at the Blues for the last four seasons...(the two drawn matches in 2017 & 2019 left out)

2016 - Won 7 - Lost 1 v Foreign teams but Won 1 - Lost 5 v NZ teams
2017 - Won 7 - Lost 2 v Foreign teams but Won 0 - Lost 5 V NZ teams
2018 - Won 4 - Lost 4 v Foreign teams but Won 0 - Lost 8 v NZ teams
2019 - Won 3 - Lost 4 v Foreign teams but Won 2 - Lost 6 v NZ teams

In the last four seasons the Blues have only won 3 out of 28 local derbies - that's the key reason why they haven't made the playoffs

 

[TRF_heineken]

OK, so maybe I can explain it this way, and keep in minds these facts

1. The NZ Super Rugby teams are franchises with catchments involving several Provincial Unions, each of whom have their own histories going back, in some cases, 125 years or more. For example the Crusaders include Canterbury and Tasman from the NPC, and South Canterbury, Mid-Canterbury, West Coast and Buller from the Heartland Championship

2. The SAF Super Rugby teams ARE essentially their Currie Cup teams (Lions <~> Transvaal, Sharks <~> Natal, Stormers <~> Western Province, Bulls <~> Northern Transvaal). This Currie Cup teams also have a history that goes back, if anything, slightly longer than NZ teams (1890??)

Those teams have a long and sometimes bitter history. I'll leave it to our Saffa friends to tell you about the South African side of it (although I remember from following the 1970 Springbok tour that I learned early on about the legendary, sometimes savage rivalry between the Northern Transvaal and Western Province.)

In New Zealand, the five key provincial rivalries have been Auckland v Canterbury, Canterbury v Otago, Auckland v Waikato, Wellington v Canterbury and Wellington v Auckland. Those rivalries were especially ferocious when the Ranfurly Shield was involved, and they have been carried over into the franchises and Super Rugby. The matches are often brutal and uncompromising, more so than a NZ v SAF or NZ v AUS clash. They also draw bigger crowds, and a bigger TV audience than NZ v overseas team matches. Having to play these games twice a season takes a toll on the players.

Why bother cooky?

It's mathematically not true. No other reasoning would suffice.

No point in explaining history to the new kids on the block that doesn't have similar history.

 

[petite]

Why bother cooky?

It's mathematically not true. No other reasoning would suffice.

No point in explaining history to the new kids on the block that doesn't have similar history.

sory but we do have these derbyes dont forget that UAR is as old, founded 10 April 1899; 120 years ago
and because we ve been isolated doesent mean that we dont have a history and derbys
besides we have these extreme derbys in football where people literally die ! so we know what a derby means and what toll can have among players and fans
cruz is just pointig out that when it comes to the points every game is the same. and i agree with him that having or not having derbies makes little to no difference

 

[petite]

OK, so maybe I can explain it this way, and keep in minds these facts

1. The NZ Super Rugby teams are franchises with catchments involving several Provincial Unions, each of whom have their own histories going back, in some cases, 125 years or more. For example the Crusaders include Canterbury and Tasman from the NPC, and South Canterbury, Mid-Canterbury, West Coast and Buller from the Heartland Championship

2. The SAF Super Rugby teams ARE essentially their Currie Cup teams (Lions <~> Transvaal, Sharks <~> Natal, Stormers <~> Western Province, Bulls <~> Northern Transvaal). This Currie Cup teams also have a history that goes back, if anything, slightly longer than NZ teams (1890??)

Those teams have a long and sometimes bitter history. I'll leave it to our Saffa friends to tell you about the South African side of it (although I remember from following the 1970 Springbok tour that I learned early on about the legendary, sometimes savage rivalry between the Northern Transvaal and Western Province.)

In New Zealand, the five key provincial rivalries have been Auckland v Canterbury, Canterbury v Otago, Auckland v Waikato, Wellington v Canterbury and Wellington v Auckland. Those rivalries were especially ferocious when the Ranfurly Shield was involved, and they have been carried over into the franchises and Super Rugby. The matches are often brutal and uncompromising, more so than a NZ v SAF or NZ v AUS clash. They also draw bigger crowds, and a bigger TV audience than NZ v overseas team matches. Having to play these games twice a season takes a toll on the players.

It is also a well known and well understood axiom that winning your home games and your in-country derbies is often the difference between making or not making the playoffs. Just look at the Blues for the last four seasons...(the two drawn matches in 2017 & 2019 left out)

2016 - Won 7 - Lost 1 v Foreign teams but Won 1 - Lost 5 v NZ teams
2017 - Won 7 - Lost 2 v Foreign teams but Won 0 - Lost 5 V NZ teams
2018 - Won 4 - Lost 4 v Foreign teams but Won 0 - Lost 8 v NZ teams
2019 - Won 3 - Lost 4 v Foreign teams but Won 2 - Lost 6 v NZ teams

In the last four seasons the Blues have only won 3 out of 28 local derbies - that's the key reason why they haven't made the playoffs

the blues lost to the nz teams not because they are derbys but because they are ovbiously better teams than the oz and SA
of course you need to win your conference games including derbies, and for what you say, theres plenty of them there

 

[Kiwiwomble]

the blues lost to the nz teams not because they are derbys but because they are ovbiously better teams than the oz and SA
of course you need to win your conference games including derbies, and for what you say, theres plenty of them there

you have the the wrong way round, the blues didn't make the playoffs because they didnt win their conference games

the points on offer may be the same for all games but winning your conference games is more important for making the playoffs....every game is a "six pointer" as they say in football

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Smartcooky, i dont want to open myself to another flank of arguments in this thread. What you are saying is not what he said. The bitterness i can understand. We can argue about how much, but i get your point. The thing is, that is NOT what he said.
Mathematically, why does a Bulls win over the Lions is better than a bulls win over the Jaguares in terms of qualifying? Because that is, exactly, what he said.

Derbies matter the most for qualifying.

His words, not mine.

No point in explaining history to the new kids on the block that doesn't have similar history.

I wrote three replies and deleted all of them as i could not figure out a way to reply to you in kind without insulting other south africans.
They are obviously not to blame for your sour grapes.
It's sad, borderline pathetic that you need to resort to a "new kids" line of argument. I guess Phil Kearns aint the only one sore about this.

One has to ask, where were all these excuses when we were losing?
Go crawl back under that stone from which you came from.

 

[petite]

you have the the wrong way round, the blues didn't make the playoffs because they didnt win their conference games

the points on offer may be the same for all games but winning your conference games is more important for making the playoffs....every game is a "six pointer" as they say in football

I got it right! I ment conference wins will get you to the finals NO ONE says the opposite. I mean that derby and no derby's within the conference are the same.
and about the blues I said that they lost those games not becouse they where debris but because the are stronger oposition