Crazy Table & conferences.

[Larksea]

quick look at the table....

there is a bigger gap between #1 and #2 in the south african conference than there is between the #1 and last place team in the New Zealand conference...

Gap between 1-5 on the table in NZ = 10 points, for Aussie = 22 points

SA have 2 teams in playoff contention (Just, the bulls have played 14 games so they are on the brink and basically even with the Blues who have just 2 less points and an extra game in hand).

AUS have 3 teams in playoff contention which is a very good year for the Aussies.

We are starting to see a trend each year with the Aussie teams starting VERY strong and dropping off during the competition. This is attributed to the fact NZ has ITM cup and SA has curry cup and Aussie don't have an equivalent, it seems Aussie players and teams start the Super competition fresher, better drilled and in better condition?

NZ has all 5 teams still in playoff contention. All five, and the last placed team has a positive F/A!

Overall conference points differential, rough indicator for conference strength.

SA -144
AU -35
NZ +179

NZ conference is an entirely different beast than the other two, the reason the conference system has been harder on NZ teams and made life easier for SA & AU teams. year in year out the AU & SA conferences have two or more weak teams and with it being so close its the reason why a SA team has the top spot and an Aussie team has the #2 spot.

Bottom line is because the NZ conference is so strong its very hard for NZ sides to secure critical home playoffs.

/winge

on the bright side, pretty much indicates the Depth NZ has.

Labor should campaign to legalize cloning so we can create an army of Ben Smiths. They would surely win the election.

Warning: A lot of Wild assumptions were used in the creation of this post.

 

[smartcooky]

NZ conference is an entirely different beast than the other two, the reason the conference system has been harder on NZ teams and made life easier for SA & AU teams. year in year out the AU & SA conferences have two or more weak teams and with it being so close its the reason why a SA team has the top spot and an Aussie team has the #2 spot.

And they want to introduce another weak team, the Kings, to the competition.

Another near guaranteed pair of 5 pointers for every SA team that plays them.

 

[Icemn]

give larksea a bells...

im a firm believer of "where there is no struggle, there is no progress"...

meaning NZ having the more difficult games more often, they are the ones improving the most...

 

[Larksea]

yes there are more better and harder games within the NZ conference that is for sure.

but it is absurdly hard for NZ teams to get 1 or 2 on the overall table because of that, the crusaders losing to the hurricanes this weekend I think just means that the top NZ team will only be 3rd qualifier.

And the fact the Blues had a big win means the NZ table is even tighter and really with only a couple of games to go All 5 NZ teams are in with a chance of making the playoffs.

Fricken crazy, I'm suprised there is not more comment about this.

 

[HemiBro]

You raise some good points Larksea. Interesting when you see the overall conference points differential you pointed out.

I guess one reason why all NZ teams have been good this year and still in the hunt for playoffs is because the talent in this country is pretty well spread out amongst the teams compared with other years making every local derby a real battle and tough to predict.

 

[squirrel]

I think the point you make larksea about the aussie teams starting well then dropping off is probably due to their lack of depth, once injuries happen midseason they don't have quality back up

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Just last year the SA conference had the wood on the others with most wins and log points (inter-conference) so probably keeping just that little bit reserve might be good.

BUT for the most part go ahead, enjoy this year's success, your teams did earn it.

 

[smartcooky]

I've just noticed the table is not updated. Nor sure why, because it did it on Sunday night!

I will have to investigate


EDIT: Fixed (My boo-boo)

 

[Larksea]

Just last year the SA conference had the wood on the others with most wins and log points (inter-conference) so probably keeping just that little bit reserve might be good.

BUT for the most part go ahead, enjoy this year's success, your teams did earn it.

kings, clear last place in 2013 and double the - differential of the next worse team

its true the highladers were poor last year but it wasn't for lack of ability or player strength. They started the season as genuine ***le/playoff contenders but just could not play rugby. Obviously much better this year. NZ has never had a team that was weak year after year. NZ teams only have the odd bad year then bounce back.

SA dominates the wooden spoon, since 2000 SA teams have picked up 10 wooden spoons, Australia have 3 NZ have 0 in fact in 8 of those years there was no NZ team in the bottom 3 and there are a number of years where no NZ team is in the bottom 4-5

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

kings, clear last place in 2013 and double the - differential of the next worse team

its true the highladers were poor last year but it wasn't for lack of ability or player strength. They started the season as genuine ***le/playoff contenders but just could not play rugby. Obviously much better this year. NZ has never had a team that was weak year after year. NZ teams only have the odd bad year then bounce back.

SA dominates the wooden spoon, since 2000 SA teams have picked up 10 wooden spoons, Australia have 3 NZ have 0 in fact in 8 of those years there was no NZ team in the bottom 3 and there are a number of years where no NZ team is in the bottom 4-5

The setup is very different between the 3 nations and setup perfectly for SA to have the wooden spooner every year; In NZ the franchizes as semi-superficial entities don't carry the baggage the SA teams do ITO us traditionally having 3 very strong teams with a massive difference in funds which means the likes of the Cheetahs struggle to compete economically. It's a bit unfair to expect the likes of the Kings and Lions to not be wooden spooners with the way they have been in and out and part of a mix Cats setup and then not. Just the unstability will translate into havey player turn-over and thus little consistency. The SA player drain with literally 3 times the number of SA players in Europe compared to NZ just adds to this and effects all our teams.

My pont was last year even with the Kings at the bottom, looking just at the conferences against each other where the SA sides playing the Kings twice means nothing mathematically, SA were the top conference. And before that, again even with an SA team at the bottom (yes, there is a greater gap between the top 3/4 SA teams and the bottom than say for Aus), the SA sides as a whole has been above the Aus sides as a collecctive every single time. This is the first year SA as a collective has been on the bottom is all I'm saying.

It is worrying, sure, and it seems SARU and unions are doing precious little to help and with quota's coming in we probably aren't going to see overly much be at a level that it could/should. What I am saying is there are comments on this thread making out as if SA are a drag on the competition and it just is not teh case.

 

[smartcooky]

With just two rounds to go, the leading NZ team on 42 points, the bottom NZ team on 36 points, it is still possible for any of the NZ Conf teams to win the conference; its that close.

The setup is very different between the 3 nations and setup perfectly for SA to have the wooden spooner every year;

Disagree with that entirely. Your set-up is exactly the same as everyone else; home+away ties against your own teams, two home and two away ties against teams from each of the other two conferences. Your internal rugby politics might be different, but that is your own problem (not ours) and its up to your rugby authorities to deal with it, not SANZAR's to address.

And if you think South Africa has a mortgage on "baggage" think again, Canterbury v Otago rivalry for one, and the internal ructions in the Blues franchise over the constant bickering between the Auckland Rugby Union (south of the harbour bridge), and North Harbour Rugby Union (which has been going on ever since Harbour broke away from the ARU in 1985) just about wrecked the franchise. Now, Taranaki has left the Hurricanes and is part of the Chiefs. They left over not getting enough SR matches allocated for New Plymouth.


While I agree that South Africa is not a "drag on the competition", the fact is that they traditionally had one weak team when there were four teams, that went to two when they increased to five, and I cant see how they will not end up with three weak teams when they go to six, especially if the ANC is successful in applying quotas, which is bound to weaken the teams even more. It is a definite advantage to have a couple of "easy beats" in your conference, it means that your best team has a couple of near-guaranteed five pointers, which puts them in pole position for home play-off matches, itself a huge advantage.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

With just two rounds to go, the leading NZ team on 42 points, the bottom NZ team on 36 points, it is still possible for any of the NZ Conf teams to win the conference; its that close.

That's magnificent. EDIT; this reads somewhat.. snippy? I don't mean it like that; I really do admire the stability and consistency in the NZ rugby system and think SARU has a great example to look at, just look at the sucess Ireland has achieved adopting the same systems by and large despite some of the issues that hold them back ITO rugby.. though that probably won't happen for SA.

Disagree with that entirely. Your set-up is exactly the same as everyone else; home+away ties against your own teams, two home and two away ties against teams from each of the other two conferences. Your internal rugby politics might be different, but that is your own problem (not ours) and its up to your rugby authorities to deal with it, not SANZAR's to address.

So you disagree entirely with my statement and then in the very next sentence concede that our internal structure is a big factor. Not sure what you mean here. Look, yes, it is our problem and no-one wishes there were better controls and stability over here than me but it's a reality and a factor to consider when talking about SA rugby unfortunately.

And if you think South Africa has a mortgage on "baggage" think again, Canterbury v Otago rivalry for one, and the internal ructions in the Blues franchise over the constant bickering between the Auckland Rugby Union (south of the harbour bridge), and North Harbour Rugby Union (which has been going on ever since Harbour broke away from the ARU in 1985) just about wrecked the franchise. Now, Taranaki has left the Hurricanes and is part of the Chiefs. They left over not getting enough SR matches allocated for New Plymouth.

Fact is NZ rugby is run by and large from the top down and SA from the bottom up. I get what you are syaing but at the end of the day our 'franchizes' aren't franchizes at all but the actual unions themselves so the effects are just much more direct; there just isn't any seperation.

While I agree that South Africa is not a "drag on the competition", the fact is that they traditionally had one weak team when there were four teams, that went to two when they increased to five, and I cant see how they will not end up with three weak teams when they go to six, especially if the ANC is successful in applying quotas, which is bound to weaken the teams even more. It is a definite advantage to have a couple of "easy beats" in your conference, it means that your best team has a couple of near-guaranteed five pointers, which puts them in pole position for home play-off matches, itself a huge advantage.

It is not entirely accurate though; just look at the Lions toppling both the Stormers at the start of the season and the Sharks just before the break while bellying up for foreign teams. Fact is the weaker SA teams reserve their best rugby and biggest efforts for the derbies. On top of that you have to give teams at least 5 years IMO to get settled and competitive. Cheetahs were just that last year up till the point that they decided to cut the budget and get rid of their defensive co-ordinator ffor this year. The fact is the Cheetahs and Lions really only entered the competition in 2007 as seperate entities. The Cheetahs has grown stop-start but are an exceptionally cash strapped union with Bloemfontein an isolated and small city both in terms of population and economically. The Lions and Kings based in Jo'Burg and PE are in very good positions to grow but have not had the opportunity to build with the uncertainty of their position in SR. Just give it time. SA won't go beyond 6. We will now have everyone included and stability and competitiveness will steadily increase even if the next 4/5 years will indeed see 3 strong and 3 weak SA teams with the odd upset rather than actually pushing for a play off spot.

 

[smartcooky]

stormer, I think we are talking at crossed-purposes. When you say "The setup is very different between the 3 nations and setup perfectly for SA to have the wooden spooner every year" I though you meant the set-up of the competition was somehow slanted against SA. My mistake.