Coetze talks down Australian conference. Burger thinks SA's is the hardest.

[Larksea]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...7607/Coetzee-talks-down-Australian-conference

I think there is a lot of truth in this though I think it's clear that it's the NZ conf which is the toughest. NZ teams are strongest overall on the points table.

Total points:
nz 186
SA 171
AU 156

And the chiefs - highlanders game was an example of just how tough and physical the all NZ games can be.

Also dont know what the exact injury numbers are but NZ's seems to be very high. I would be suprised if SA were anywhere near that. And AUS sides seem to be pretty good overall on that front.

 

[JJR]

I Agree that Aussies have it easy playing against each other. South African derbies take a huge physical toll on the players and in New Zealand all 5 teams can beat anyone on their day; SA, well the Lions in general should be a 5 points in the bag everytime. Only The Reds deserve to go through to knockouts from the Aussie Conference.

Blues, Saders, Stormers, Sharks, Reds must go through to Knockouts, 6th spot is still up for grabs, but i am hoping it does not go to an Aussie Side...I think Highlanders will deserve the spot...Bulls have a lot of catching up to do if they want to take that 6th Spot, still possible though.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...7607/Coetzee-talks-down-Australian-conference

I think there is a lot of truth in this though I think it's clear that it's the NZ conf which is the toughest. NZ teams are strongest overall on the points table.

Total points:
nz 186
SA 171
AU 156

And the chiefs - highlanders game was an example of just how tough and physical the all NZ games can be.

Also dont know what the exact injury numbers are but NZ's seems to be very high. I would be suprised if SA were anywhere near that. And AUS sides seem to be pretty good overall on that front.

Certainly the NZ sides are more competitive as a conference with all of them able to trump any team on the day. But then again isn't this what we predicted preseason anyway (except for the Highlanders having taken the spot just outside the top 6 that I would have expected the Hurricanes to occupy)

ITO injuries I find it interesting that SA and Aus had much more injuries at the start of the season than the NZ sides (except for the Highlanders) and have actually been welcoming players back more than the injuries they have incurred over the last month and a half or so.

 

[Amobokoboko]

It are still 5 weeks before the play off start, I reckon most spots are still open.

 

[TNT88]

I had a post on this in the other thread. IIRC,

NZ win 65% of their inter-nation games.
SA 45%
AUS 40%

So basically anyone telling themselves Australia is by far the weakest is just making stuff up. If Australia have it easy, so do SA. All this argument about who has it the easiest is pointless anyway, each country has two stand out teams and lucky for us the system rewards the top two teams from each country. Come back and complain when teams from NZ or SA are winning all their inter-nation games and still not making the finals. What we will find, is that those teams who perform strongest against overseas teams will still make it.

 

[Sam Owen]

I had a post on this in the other thread. IIRC,

NZ win 65% of their inter-nation games.
SA 45%
AUS 40%

So basically anyone telling themselves Australia is by far the weakest is just making stuff up. If Australia have it easy, so do SA. All this argument about who has it the easiest is pointless anyway, each country has two stand out teams and lucky for us the system rewards the top two teams from each country. Come back and complain when teams from NZ or SA are winning all their inter-nation games and still not making the finals. What we will find, is that those teams who perform strongest against overseas teams will still make it.

Dont listen to them brother, we all know Australia is not weak. Australia has magnificent talent and a lot of it, its just that theres 2 other sports that have an oval ball over there (League & Aussie Rules) and the talent is divided. Aussie is not weak in rugby.

On another note according to wikipedia (I know..wikipedia) the All Blacks have won 75% of their games.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_All_Blacks

 

[TNT88]

Dont listen to them brother, we all know Australia is not weak. Australia has magnificent talent and a lot of it, its just that theres 2 other sports that have an oval ball over there (League & Aussie Rules) and the talent is divided. Aussie is not weak in rugby.

On another note according to wikipedia (I know..wikipedia) the All Blacks have won 75% of their games.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_All_Blacks

Sorry, i should have mentioned. I'm talking about super15 games this year (when i say inter-nation games).

To date, when an NZ team plays a SA or AUS team, they win 65% of the time. When Australian teams play others, they only win 40%, and SA, 45%. It's not a great indicator, but it's one to take into consideration when asking what countries are performing strongly in the super15.

I don't take any of it personally I like the discussion, but i think the whole idea of weighing up who has the hardest games is blown out of proportion. Most of the criticisms being thrown around don't seem to be based on anything more than blind guesses.

 

[smartcooky]

....lucky for us the system rewards the top two teams from each country...

Sorry to disappoint you but it doesn't.

The top three qualifying spots are the winners of each Conference.

The next three qualifying spots are "wildcards", which are the next three teams on table points regardless of the conference they are from!

It is entirely possible (thought unlikely) for all three wildcard places to come from the one Conference.... so you could see the top six being the Stormers, Reds, Blues, Crusaders, Highlanders and Chiefs.

 

[TNT88]

Sorry to disappoint you but it doesn't.

The top three qualifying spots are the winners of each Conference.

The next three qualifying spots are "wildcards", which are the next three teams on table points regardless of the conference they are from!

I know how it works, but in response to people saying the system is unfair for various reasons. There happen to be 2 stand out teams

It is entirely possible (thought unlikely) for all three wildcard places to come from the one Conference.... so you could see the top six being the Stormers, Reds, Blues, Crusaders, Highlanders and Chiefs.

I'm not saying the two top teams will get in from each country. But as there seems to be 2 strong clubs from each country, the system of having 6 playoff spots suits the competition quite well. If for example, the Highlanders and the Chiefs end up with more inter-nation wins than the Waratahs and don't make it into the final 6, there will be a problem with the current system.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Well, In SA we have the Sharks, Stormers and Bulls seriously contending the play offs, NZ has the Crusaders, Blues and Highlanders and Australia has the Tahs and Reds. If things turn out different with the Tahs, only 1 Aussie team will be in the play offs (which is not unlikely). Whether it's the Bulls or Highlanders is up to them to decide in the remaining matches

 

[JJR]

No one said Aussies are weak, they just saying South Africa and New Zealand teams as a whole, are stronger.

Don't think Tahs deserve a playoff spot; rather have Highlanders or Bulls take the 6th spot on the overall log.

 

[TNT88]

New Zealand is stronger, don't know how you can come to the conclusion that SA is even close to Nz though, let alone are much stronger than Australia.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Looking at the log again it is highly likely that the Brumbies will end up with the wooden spoon as the 2 teams currently below them both have a certain 4 points from the bye coming up and the only games that the Brumbies are likely to target for a win are the matches against the Force and Rebels which might go either way.

Lions have a tough road with all their remaining fixtures on tour but are garaunteed 4 more points at the end. I'm sure the Lions will pick up a few more points if only bonus points along the way.

Rebels also have a certain 4 points coming up and will probably be looking to bag at least 1 more game against either Cheetahs, Brumbies or Force with the Brumbies probably being the most likely considering the Cheetahs seem to have found another gear and the Force being very competitive in derbies.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

New Zealand is stronger, don't know how you can come to the conclusion that SA is even close to Nz though, let alone are much stronger than Australia.

Maybe because we have 3 teams in the hunt for a play-off spot and 1 mid table while Aus have 2 with the rest pretty much propping up the log.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Well, In SA we have the Sharks, Stormers and Bulls seriously contending the play offs, NZ has the Crusaders, Blues and Highlanders and Australia has the Tahs and Reds. If things turn out different with the Tahs, only 1 Aussie team will be in the play offs (which is not unlikely). Whether it's the Bulls or Highlanders is up to them to decide in the remaining matches

I think it will be the Highlanders that will take 6th spot; Tahs still have a tough task in SA against the Bulls and Sharks as well as a tough game against the Highlanders and a banana peel game in the form of a fired up Lions team this week. Bulls have the 1 match against the Tahs, 2 matches against the Sharks, 1 against the Stormers and 1 against the Cheetahs all very tough. While the Highlanders only have the Tah's game and a match against the Blues that are tough asks.

 

[TNT88]

SA have 1 more finals contender, and they lead Australia 8-6 in head to head games. So they are slightly in front, but that is nothing like the gap between NZ and SA/AUS. Which is why i find the original article a little odd.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

I am getting sick and tired of these debates on which conference is stronger. I don't give a flying **** about what conference brings more to the play offs. It is all about the winner in the end. When we had the Super12, people were rambling on about how good New Zealand was but they did have 5 of the 12 teams in the competition.

What do I care? All I care about is that we have a thrilling competition with 15 teams who can all beat each other. How awesome is that?

 

[Hulk Hogan]

I am getting sick and tired of these debates on which conference is stronger. I don't give a flying **** about what conference brings more to the play offs. It is all about the winner in the end. When we had the Super12, people were rambling on about how good New Zealand was but they did have 5 of the 12 teams in the competition.

What do I care? All I care about is that we have a thrilling competition with 15 teams who can all beat each other. How awesome is that?

^ this.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

SA have 1 more finals contender, and they lead Australia 8-6 in head to head games. So they are slightly in front, but that is nothing like the gap between NZ and SA/AUS. Which is why i find the original article a little odd.

Fair enough.

I am getting sick and tired of these debates on which conference is stronger. I don't give a flying **** about what conference brings more to the play offs. It is all about the winner in the end. When we had the Super12, people were rambling on about how good New Zealand was but they did have 5 of the 12 teams in the competition.

What do I care? All I care about is that we have a thrilling competition with 15 teams who can all beat each other. How awesome is that?

Personally, I love taking a little stab at an Aussie whenever I can. Nothing malicious mind. And at the end of the day I have great respect for them for being as competitive as they are with the limited resources they have considering rugby's (lack of) profile in Aus.

 

[Shaggy]

I am getting sick and tired of these debates on which conference is stronger. I don't give a flying **** about what conference brings more to the play offs. It is all about the winner in the end. When we had the Super12, people were rambling on about how good New Zealand was but they did have 5 of the 12 teams in the competition.

What do I care? All I care about is that we have a thrilling competition with 15 teams who can all beat each other. How awesome is that?

It's not about bragging who has the strongest teams, it's about who has the easiest games to qualify for the final six, and about the relative ease that some teams qualify for home games in the finals. The current log standings have three of the Australian teams in the bottom five on the log. This means that teams like the Waratahs have had the benefit of playing these sides twice to get where they are, where as the NZ and RSA teams have only got to play them once (in some cases they won't play them at all)

Interesting that you bring up the Super 12, where everyone got to play each other once, where the Australian sides had only three sides but were strong.

Former Wallabies and Brumbies coach, Eddie Jones makes exactly these points when interviewed on NZ's Radio Sport yesterday

http://www.radiosport.co.nz/SportsNews/sprug/Detail.aspx?id=196805

I guess you are going to get a mismatch in team strengths in any conference/pool type system, but if you look at the Heineken cup for example, the teams in each pool change from year to year, where as the teams remain the same year to year in Super 15

With the exception of the Reds, none of the sides look completely safe of qualifying to me... the Blues and Crusaders can get tipped up by the other New Zealand sides, the Stormers still have to complete their tour and could still drop at least one game, the Sharks have to face a resurgent Bulls side twice ... many of the front running RSA sides have to play a Cheetahs side that is running into some form.