Bit of a vent

[Kiwiwomble]

not going to make this a HUGE thing but it does need to be said

so, the highlanders finish above the chiefs...and yet we're flying to south africa and they're playing in wellington

now, i know they have just come back from south africa....and there was only a point between us on the table in the end....BUT STILL!

 

[Larksea]

yeah it sucks and the chiefs have to come back from SA.

The only way to get an easy run is to win the NZ conference. Going to be a tough week for both these teams.

Hurricanes are sitting pretty and to think it was just a bonus point or so in it. And under the old BP system the chiefs would have been #1!

 

[Ludders93]

Highlanders got a chance in J-Berg or travelling schedule too intense?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Good chance, pretty determined team culture by the looks of it

Just hoping the we and the Chiefs win and we play them in dunners in the final...don't know any to face the canes in the final if we make it

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

The 4 best teams are still in and the best two (so far) are playing at home. I know the system ain't perfect but i honestly don't see the big deal. Yes, the chiefs are playing in NZ but that happens

1) Because of the other team and not because of them
2) They already played away.

The only argument against the current system is that out of the top 8, potentially two got an easier schedule. Both are out and none of them had a realistic chance of winning the thing.

I want a system that gives, within reason (time, travel, etc.) everyone more or less a fair shot AND which's ranking more or less reconciles with the actual skill of the team. Again, it's not perfect but i would say it's not bad at all either.

If you look at the total points and point difference and make the play off's according to that (i.e. disregarding conference winners) this is how the QFs would look like

Canes vs Sharks
Lions vs Brumbies
Highlanders vs Crusaders
Stormers vs Chiefs

Sounds familiar innit? Both Lions and Canes would play at home the semis if they win. The only potential difference would be Crusaders for Highlanders.

Sure, this would still disregard the fact that RSA #1 didn't play RSA but they ended up paying for it eventually.

 

[nzlizard]

The 4 best teams are still in and the best two (so far) are playing at home. I know the system ain't perfect but i honestly don't see the big deal. Yes, the chiefs are playing in NZ but that happens
.

Anyone who watched the Lions play the Chiefs in NZ know the Chiefs were robbed by what could easily be the worst ref performance of the year, swap those 4 points over and the Chiefs finish top, not taking too much away from the Lions as they played pretty well all season but they were handed the Chiefs win on a plate.

As for traveling in the playoffs, that is the way it goes, if you don't win your pool then you travel, the whole system is **** in terms of that, it is really about giving the weaker countries a chance to get playoffs and the commercial benefits around that.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

not going to make this a HUGE thing but it does need to be said

so, the highlanders finish above the chiefs...and yet we're flying to south africa and they're playing in wellington

now, i know they have just come back from south africa....and there was only a point between us on the table in the end....BUT STILL!

The Chiefs playing in NZ and the Highlanders playing overseas would happen under a normal system anyway...

 

[Ali AK9]

Well the Lions finished ahead of the Landers so I don't see the problem there. Either way the whole system is s**t, because if the Stormers beat the Chiefs you would have stayed in NZ, and the reason the Stormers lost was because they weren't used to the intensity on playing NZ sides, due to the s**t format. We should go back to Super 15 and have a Tier 2 competition with the Sunwolves, Jaguars and other team playing a promo/relegation sort of league. If Sanzaar insist on keeping the format, at least make sure that all SA sides play Kiwi AND Aussie sides.And atleast have a system where the top 4 teams host QF, with no.2 having Semi and no.1 having Final aswell

 

[Larksea]

Well the Lions finished ahead of the Landers so I don't see the problem there. Either way the whole system is s**t, because if the Stormers beat the Chiefs you would have stayed in NZ, and the reason the Stormers lost was because they weren't used to the intensity on playing NZ sides, due to the s**t format. We should go back to Super 15 and have a Tier 2 competition with the Sunwolves, Jaguars and other team playing a promo/relegation sort of league. If Sanzaar insist on keeping the format, at least make sure that all SA sides play Kiwi AND Aussie sides.And atleast have a system where the top 4 teams host QF, with no.2 having Semi and no.1 having Final aswell

the only issue is that its not an even playing field because of the conference system the lions had a considerably easier draw than the NZ teams you cant say they finished "ahead of the Landers" because it was a completely "different race". 11-4 record isn't that good when you consider they had 5-6 bank games and had a 2-3 record against NZ teams. None of the NZ teams got to face the Jaguares & kings twise and the cheetahs and sunwoulves as well. The stormers lost to the chiefs because they are just not that good, letting in 60 points at home against a team ravaged by injuries. With the Draw they had if they were any good they should have been at least 12-3 for the season and finished clear top. Its not like they are new to the competition and playing a NZ team was a completely new experience. Why didn't the chiefs struggle because they hadn't played any/many games against typical big physical south African sides? If the stormers were any good they would have been as much of a surprise for the chiefs as the chiefs were for them.

 

[SomeOke]

the only issue is that its not an even playing field because of the conference system the lions had a considerably easier draw than the NZ teams you cant say they finished "ahead of the Landers" because it was a completely "different race". 11-4 record isn't that good when you consider they had 5-6 bank games and had a 2-3 record against NZ teams. None of the NZ teams got to face the Jaguares & kings twise and the cheetahs and sunwoulves as well. The stormers lost to the chiefs because they are just not that good, letting in 60 points at home against a team ravaged by injuries. With the Draw they had if they were any good they should have been at least 12-3 for the season and finished clear top. Its not like they are new to the competition and playing a NZ team was a completely new experience. Why didn't the chiefs struggle because they hadn't played any/many games against typical big physical south African sides? If the stormers were any good they would have been as much of a surprise for the chiefs as the chiefs were for them.

- What do the Stormers have to do with the Lions log position?
- Even without the broken conference system the Highlanders would still be playing the Lions at home next week.
- The Chiefs of course played South African teams.
- The Lions may have had a relatively easy ride but they didn't play; The Rebels, the Force, the Reds, all weak teams this year, even the Brumbies and the Tahs have looked very beatable this year.
- Everyone expected the Jaguares to be considerably better which didn't help matters.

Birds sing, fish swim and rugby fans love to complain (myself included).
In the end despite the conference system, the top four teams on points are through, and are even seeded according to points. Yet there is still an awful lot of disgruntlement out there.

 

[smartcooky]

- What do the Stormers have to do with the Lions log position?
- Even without the broken conference system the Highlanders would still be playing the Lions at home next week.
- The Chiefs of course played South African teams.
- The Lions may have had a relatively easy ride but they didn't play; The Rebels, the Force, the Reds, all weak teams this year, even the Brumbies and the Tahs have looked very beatable this year.
- Everyone expected the Jaguares to be considerably better which didn't help matters.

Birds sing, fish swim and rugby fans love to complain (myself included).
In the end despite the conference system, the top four teams on points are through, and are even seeded according to points. Yet there is still an awful lot of disgruntlement out there.

Yes, and just to clarify, if the table seeding was based on merit, the quarter-final draw would have been

(1) Hurricanes v (8) Sharks (same game, same venue)

(2) Lions v (7) Brumbies

(3) Highlanders v (6) Crusaders

(4) Chiefs v (5) Stormers (same game but venue swapped)

The same game results would be the same, and on current form, I would still expect the Highlanders and Lions to win, so we would end up with exactly the same semi-final draw we have now.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

The Stormers and Brumbies playing away from home would also have resulted in even more one-sided and unappealing contests than under the current setup. The lesson from this for NZ teams is that it is a major deal to win your conference, far more so than topping a conventional log before playoffs. If you do that you've one hand on the trophy. If you don't it's going to take a heroic effort to be champs. There are many problems in Super Rugby but the Conference system won't be the biggest one if the newer teams can get more competitive. Hopefully they'll take inspiration from the Lions going from relegation to Kiwi slayers in a handful of seasons.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

no need to rain on my vent with your logic!

 

[George Ford]

as Schalk put it: Ditch the conference system and let everyone have a jab at each other in a round-robin. I would go further in saying that SA should go back to having only 4 teams competing (i.e. Bulls, Lions, Sharks, Stormers) and ditto for the Aussies (Brumbies, Waratahs, Reds, Force). NZL can stick to their current 5 and add the Sunwolves and Jaguares in a Super 15 format regular league season type of competition where each team plays only 12 games. NZ sides don't face only one of Aus & SA opposition and vice-versa for Aus & SA teams whereas the Sunwolves & Jaguares can juggle for a byes. After regular season the top 2 advance straight through to semis awaiting QF1 & 2 which also provides for wild card spots for 5 & 6. I actually thought this was going to be the way forward.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Anyone who watched the Lions play the Chiefs in NZ know the Chiefs were robbed by what could easily be the worst ref performance of the year, swap those 4 points over and the Chiefs finish top, not taking too much away from the Lions as they played pretty well all season but they were handed the Chiefs win on a plate.

First, sure, you are not being biased at all...

Second, you are comparing apples and oranges.
We are discussing whether or not the tournament's structure, and the tournament's structure alone, changed the potential outcome and evidence suggests it didn't. Refs will make mistakes regardless of the tournament's structure. That is a completely different matter.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i know one of the first reasons for the pool system was so the comp didn't get so long as to encroach on domestic leagues plus obviously a long season.

the thing is...the domestic leagues are already heavily affected, several players dont play in the ITM cup due to AB work or they go to japan to play etc, so as much as i hate it lets just accept domestic leagues are now a feeder comp.

so, the long season, we already use the wider training groups so lets just include them as full squad member, allow for players to be rested etc and accept a longer season with breaks for internationals, 18 game round robbin with a finals series, if we want to add a bit of spice you could create a challenge shield

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Ja, the Curry Cup has now lost all importance. I remember the days the likes of the Cheetahs could field Brussows and Juan Smiths after June for the last stretch of the Currie Cup. Now they don't have that caliber player and the best they have that aren't moving off are playing for the Toyota Verblitz and not the Orange Free State after Super Rugby.

I Personally I don't want overly long seasons. I would want to see 2 tiers. The top tier gets 12 teams. Keep 3 conferences and have 4 from each with promotion and relegation between tiers for each conference.

Top 6 from the top tier and top 2 from the bottom tier into play offs. The reason I want cross tier competition is to keep the bottom tier relevant and to allow for teams that might click to go the distance despite being in the bottom tier. The Lions only came back to SR last year and 2013 the Cheetahs made the playoffs for instance. Imagine the Blues clicking at the right time and upsetting top teams in the playoffs despite being a tier down. It keeps those teams in the picture while keeping regular season fixtures as strength vs strength.

 

[eidde]

Interesting idea @Stormer2010 - do you know of any other competitions being run like that? they go alright?

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Interesting idea @Stormer2010 - do you know of any other competitions being run like that? they go alright?

Not that I can think of but I've always felt that coupling second tier competitions with their top tiers would make them more relavant and likelier to attract TV audiences across tiers. At the end of the day whatever direction the organizers go will have to at least be on a par with the existing ITO revenue generation to be a feasible option. Currently we have 18 teams playing 15 games each for a total of 270 regular season matches spanning 17 weeks (2 byes included). My idea would have 12 teams in the top tier playing a round robin 11 matches home OR away for 132 premier matches and to keep the amout of games even between the tiers the bottom tier aso needs to be 12 teams for another 132 games making for 264 total. I'm hoping including 6 more teams in the bottom tier would open up new markets to make up for the shortfall of those 6 games. We already have Japan as a NH team and Jaguares as an Americas team. I'd move ASAP to include North American sides. We should do this before the Euro comps do and just further increase the gulf between revenue generation.

If we take this year as the qualifying year we'd have a top tier of:
Hurricanes, Lions, Brumbies, Stormers, Highlanders, Chiefs, Crusaders, Sharks, Bulls, Waratahs, Rebels and Reds in the top tier.

Now I know the Blues are a better side than at least the Rebels and Reds but this is where my idea of allowing the top one or two bottom tier teams to enter the play-offs makes up for that disparity in conference strengths. Now one might say the top of the bottom tier will have it easy qualifying but I feel this should cancel out since those teams will play seed 1 and 2 and will be coming in cold like the Stormers against the battle hardened Chiefs this year. If they manage to go furtehr than that then its deserved IMO.

In the bottom tier we'd have;
Blues, Cheetahs, Jaguares, Force, Sunwolves, Kings and 6 new teams between some combination of the USA, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, the PI nations, 2nd teams for Japan or Argentina, China, Singapore?

Maybe even just the top 3 of the top tier and the top team of the bottom tier go into the play-offs to keep the entire season and play-offs to 13 match weeks with only one bye week to mke it 14 weeks total rather than the 20 we currently have to make room for the domestic leagues.

 

[nzlizard]

First, sure, you are not being biased at all...

Not being biased at all, anyone who watched the game will tell you how bad it was.