Sa team shouldn't be in playoff

andyInBlack · Jun 17, 2015

Stormers had less points than crusaders yet they make it through to the playoffs, and with a home playoff too.......how does this work? This isn't done on merit.....what's sport coming to.
This conference system sucks. Who agrees. The waders were coming into form too, late as usual but were certain to climb their way up in the playoffs and we don't get to see this, cos we need to make compensation for a conference system that helps share the winnings across the countries. What tripe!

TRF_stormer2010 · Jun 17, 2015

I'm not gonna argue with you that the conference system doesn't suck- it does.

But if we are talking fairness here then give the Hurricanes' win over the Stormers to us and the last one over the Sharks where we rested 14 players (which we wouldn't if not for the situation of the game not making any difference) and we end up 2nd and not 3rd. Fixed.

nickdnz · Jun 17, 2015

TRF_stormer2010 said:
I'm not gonna argue with you that the conference system doesn't suck- it does.

But if we are talking fairness here then give the Hurricanes' win over the Stormers to us and the last one over the Sharks where we rested 14 players (which we wouldn't if not for the situation of the game not making any difference) and we end up 2nd and not 3rd. Fixed.

Pffffft.

TRF_stormer2010 · Jun 17, 2015

LOL. But, okay, let me make another argument.

What legitimacy is there really to the bonus point system? So a team losses 12-5 and gets a BP or a team scores 4 tries but oses in an open 52-28 game and gets a BP.. seems pretty arbitrary to me or at least not more legit than the first three places going to conference winners.

Take away the bonus points and the Stormers retain their 3rd place and the Lions also come up into the finals at 6th at the expense of the Brumbies. Should SA really be penalized for playing a different less ball in hand brand or rugby that doesn't fit well with bonus points and what Australians see as entertaining or whatever? That on top of the travel factor and the fact we bring the majority of the cash to the table and have to suffer the inept performances of Aussie referees?

I have to say I am all for SA leaving SANZAR. If anything it might make SA meeting NZ and Aus in test rugby a little more spicy.

TRF_heineken · Jun 17, 2015

TRF_stormer2010 said:
LOL. But, okay, let me make another argument.

What legitimacy is there really to the bonus point system? So a team losses 12-5 and gets a BP or a team scores 4 tries but oses in an open 52-28 game and gets a BP.. seems pretty arbitrary to me or at least not more legit than the first three places going to conference winners.

Take away the bonus points and the Stormers retain their 3rd place and the Lions also come up into the finals at 6th at the expense of the Brumbies. Should SA really be penalized for playing a different less ball in hand brand or rugby that doesn't fit well with bonus points and what Australians see as entertaining or whatever? That on top of the travel factor and the fact we bring the majority of the cash to the table and have to suffer the inept performances of Aussie referees?

I have to say I am all for SA leaving SANZAR. If anything it might make SA meeting NZ and Aus in test rugby a little more spicy.

Plus... SA didn't have a team in the bottom 3 this year, so the other 2 conferences had weaker teams than ours so the other teams had easier games...

TRF_stormer2010 · Jun 17, 2015

Also, we all knew the setup prior to the start of the season (it's been this way for a few years now) and the Crusaders had more than enough chances to get there on their own and didn't. So too a whole lot of teams who did well but not well enough. Cry me a river.

I am praying for this scenario:

QF Stormers beat the Brumbies (again).

SF Stormers beat the Waratahs (again).
SF Chiefs/Highlanders beat the Hurricanes.

Stormers host the final. LOL, how classic would that be for a side that 'shouldn't even be in the play-offs'!?!

That said it might be better to go on from the Waratahs to the Hurricanes and set things straight.

gaston le gaff · Jun 17, 2015

maybe to make it fairer adopt the French system that started last season 5 pts difference for the defending bonus point and the difference of 3 tries eg 4 to 1 or 5 to 2 or just plain ordinary 3 to 0, this season there were a lot less defensive bonus points and the game is always alive to the very end, i personally think this system is excellent and better than the 4 tries, and 7point difference for the defensive bonus point

OhDannyBoy · Jun 17, 2015

heineken said:
Plus... SA didn't have a team in the bottom 3 this year, so the other 2 conferences had weaker teams than ours so the other teams had easier games...

Taking away the bonus points for a moment, the Stormers also won more games than the Crusaders.

andyInBlack · Jun 17, 2015

Wow the French have a good system. I like it. But no I'm all for the bonus point system, agreed it makes fighting to the end really exciting to watch. As for giving stormers the win against the hurricanes, I watched that match, it was fair and square win, and the sharks beat your side 5 tries to none! Dude I watched that game the duplessis brothers finalee' meant the sharks were going to win that regardless of 14 rested men. I'm certain of that....well no one is, its all hear say and opinion. I don't know about the bottom teams being reflective of a weaker conference, but I'm certain that the kiwi conference with 4 teams finishing in top 6 definitely reflects that their conference would've been the hardest to score points in.

Stormers looking an alright side, Good luck with your predictions, but it'll take a lot to topple the canes, let lone highlanders and taahs. De allende is certainly a stand out centre I fear seeing him paired with pollard in the boks, but I have doubts in the sa selection process getting the deserved players in the team.

nickdnz · Jun 18, 2015

Oh yeah, by the way - this thread is stupid. Of course South Africa should have had a team.

There is a lot of people whinging about the conference system (probably fairly), however it has functioned as it was designed to. The South African conference was a very competitive conference this year. The bottom South African team still managed to win five games, two more than the bottom of Australia and New Zealand conference. The total wins from the conferences =

Australia: 34
South Africa: 38
New Zealand: 47

What this tell us is that South African teams won more games against teams outside their own conference than Australia - yet they only have one team rather than two and no guarantee of a semi-final. New Zealand have the strongest overall conference, and so we get three teams. Unfortunately unless we play a round robin this is simply the reality we have to face.

William18 · Jun 18, 2015

TRF_stormer2010 said:
LOL. But, okay, let me make another argument.

What legitimacy is there really to the bonus point system? So a team losses 12-5 and gets a BP or a team scores 4 tries but oses in an open 52-28 game and gets a BP.. seems pretty arbitrary to me or at least not more legit than the first three places going to conference winners.

Take away the bonus points and the Stormers retain their 3rd place and the Lions also come up into the finals at 6th at the expense of the Brumbies. Should SA really be penalized for playing a different less ball in hand brand or rugby that doesn't fit well with bonus points and what Australians see as entertaining or whatever? That on top of the travel factor and the fact we bring the majority of the cash to the table and have to suffer the inept performances of Aussie referees?

I have to say I am all for SA leaving SANZAR. If anything it might make SA meeting NZ and Aus in test rugby a little more spicy.

The BP leads to attacking rugby. There are plenty of games which would be over after 70 minutes but the teams keep playing for that extra point.

smartcooky · Jun 18, 2015

TRF_nickdnz said:
Oh yeah, by the way - this thread is stupid. Of course South Africa should have had a team.

There is a lot of people whinging about the conference system (probably fairly), however it has functioned as it was designed to. The South African conference was a very competitive conference this year. The bottom South African team still managed to win five games, two more than the bottom of Australia and New Zealand conference. The total wins from the conferences =

Australia: 34
South Africa: 38
New Zealand: 47

What this tell us is that South African teams won more games against teams outside their own conference than Australia - yet they only have one team rather than two and no guarantee of a semi-final. New Zealand have the strongest overall conference, and so we get three teams. Unfortunately unless we play a round robin this is simply the reality we have to face.

And here are those stats....

New Zealand teams v South African and Australian teams

South African teams v New Zealand and Australian teams

Australian teams v New Zealand and South African teams

Stats summaries courtesy of Kevin Lassen

Last edited: Jun 18, 2015

L

Larksea

First XV

TRF Legend

Jun 18, 2015

#13

my favorite stats for relative conference strength

total conference competition points

NZ 233
SA 185
AU 176

Total conference combined F/A good indicator of strength because games within conference always = 0

NZ +357
AU -157
SA -200

IMO
Crusaders deserve to be in the finals and they are a better team than the Stormers and Brumbies for sure.
SA is the weakest conference but at least it's evenly contested.
AU conference is also very weak but the majority of their player talent is in the tah's and Brumbies.

when you compare the Blues to the hurricanes on paper in terms of the player talent its actually pretty even the blues have a healthy supply of test players and top shelf talent they just didn't click have coaching and injury issues, but compare the Tah's to the force? The tah's basically have test players/starters everywhere and the force are a team of journeymen and a few fringe test players. I have no idea how it ends up like that? I mean there is a salary cap right?

the reality is the conference system is designed to give AU & SA teams more of a presence in the finals which have traditionally been dominated by NZ teams and I'm ok with that.

What I dont like is the way the Aussie teams are structured. The tahs are basically an "Aussie Dream Team"

TRF_heineken

RIP #J9

Staff member

TRF Legend

TRF Supporter

Jun 19, 2015

#14

You know, I'm actually a bit ticked off by the OP's remarks.

And besides, If the SA sides (and NZ sides for that matter) got more correct referee and TMO calls in their favour against Aussie teams, then the Log would also look dramatically different.

TRF_stormer2010

Moderator

TRF Legend

Jun 19, 2015

#15

Larksea said:
my favorite stats for relative conference strength

total conference competition points

NZ 233
SA 185
AU 176

Total conference combined F/A good indicator of strength because games within conference always = 0

NZ +357
AU -157
SA -200

IMO
Crusaders deserve to be in the finals and they are a better team than the Stormers and Brumbies for sure.
SA is the weakest conference but at least it's evenly contested.
AU conference is also very weak but the majority of their player talent is in the tah's and Brumbies.

when you compare the Blues to the hurricanes on paper in terms of the player talent its actually pretty even the blues have a healthy supply of test players and top shelf talent they just didn't click have coaching and injury issues, but compare the Tah's to the force? The tah's basically have test players/starters everywhere and the force are a team of journeymen and a few fringe test players. I have no idea how it ends up like that? I mean there is a salary cap right?

the reality is the conference system is designed to give AU & SA teams more of a presence in the finals which have traditionally been dominated by NZ teams and I'm ok with that.

What I dont like is the way the Aussie teams are structured. The tahs are basically an "Aussie Dream Team"

I really don't know how you can come to the conclusion that the SA conference is the weakest. I'd say the OP has more legitimacy since the arguments against his are based largely on conjecture and perception.

2015 the NZ conference has dominated the likes of which you have to go some way back. SA clearly some distance behind but just as clearly ahead of the Aus conference as a whole even if the margins aren't as pronounced.

Now 2014 is different. There the SA conference was certainly the weakest performing as a whole but then 2013 the SA conference was the best performing of all three.

The only single stat that backs up your perception is points difference against every other stat that paints a different picture. Also, I'd back wins and log points over points differential which is the easiest one to get distorted by blow-out results. Not that any of this really matters but still.

The good thing for me is that rumors are the Stormers are getting more quality players back than we are losing for next year and the Lions look to reatin their current crop. But we'll have to wait and see. On the other side the bulls and Sharks are set to lose a lot of key players.

TRF_heineken

RIP #J9

Staff member

TRF Legend

TRF Supporter

Jun 19, 2015

#16

TRF_stormer2010 said:
I really don't know how you can come to the conclusion that the SA conference is the weakest. I'd say the OP has more legitimacy since the arguments against his are based largely on conjecture and perception.

2015 the NZ conference has dominated the likes of which you have to go some way back. SA clearly some distance behind but just as clearly ahead of the Aus conference as a whole even if the margins aren't as pronounced.

Now 2014 is different. There the SA conference was certainly the weakest performing as a whole but then 2013 the SA conference was the best performing of all three.

The only single stat that backs up your perception is points difference against every other stat that paints a different picture. Also, I'd back wins and log points over points differential which is the easiest one to get distorted by blow-out results. Not that any of this really matters but still.

The good thing for me is that rumors are the Stormers are getting more quality players back than we are losing for next year and the Lions look to reatin their current crop. But we'll have to wait and see. On the other side the bulls and Sharks are set to lose a lot of key players.

Yup, The Bulls have already confirmed the following list of players that will be leaving:

Flip van der Merwe, Jacques Du Plessis, Pierre Spies (All Leaving for France)
Akona Ndungane and Victor Matfield (Retiring)
JJ Englebrecht, Francois Hougaard (Japan)
Jurgen Visser (Contract not renewed).

Now talks are still ongoing to retain JJ Engelbrecht and Francois Hougaard for the Super Rugby tournament.
Deon Stegmann was also going to retire, but the Bulls convinced him to extend his contract with one more year.

TRF_stormer2010

Moderator

TRF Legend

Jun 19, 2015

#17

heineken said:
Yup, The Bulls have already confirmed the following list of players that will be leaving:

Flip van der Merwe, Jacques Du Plessis, Pierre Spies (All Leaving for France)
Akona Ndungane and Victor Matfield (Retiring)
JJ Englebrecht, Francois Hougaard (Japan)
Jurgen Visser (Contract not renewed).

Now talks are still ongoing to retain JJ Engelbrecht and Francois Hougaard for the Super Rugby tournament.
Deon Stegmann was also going to retire, but the Bulls convinced him to extend his contract with one more year.

I know Matfield is a legend and Spies as well (with Bulls fansat least) but I honestly think you are not as badly off as might seem:

Du Plessis, FvdM, Matfield and Spies all locks or loosies adding to the line-out all leaving in one go is tough, sure but you have exciting young prospects in those positions and TBH I have felt that Spies and Matfield have been blocking up the cnveyor belt and rather than that the Bulls have had 2 years of no experience without them and have guys come through they have almost kept the Bulls back in that sure, their experience was priceless but now you are without them in any case with nothing to show for the last two years really either ITO results (the argument for keeping them on) or youngsters having gained experience in their stead, if anything guys like Willemse, CJ Stander and the other Liebenberg pushing off is the result. That said those positions aren't a Bulls weakness though the depth is now questionable. I'd also call Ndugae, Visser and JJ no real loss. You'll still have (everyone fit):

Nyakane/Strauss/MvdM - a quality front row
Orie/Snyman - certainly unknown but surely up for SR already and showing bags of potential?
Stegmann/Liebenberg/Botha/Labuschagne - nothing close too poor

Hougaard (just stop messing him about)
Pollard
Basson
Odendaal
Serfontein
Ismaiel/Gellant?
Kriel

Under the right coach and with the right plan for the players I see no reason why the Bulls can't be more compeititve next year than this year.

Lions will be the same as this year.
Cheetahs under Smith will be unrecognizable from under Drotske even with 'less' player resources and we've llready seen it really.
Stormers will resemble the team playing in the QF on the weekend and probably better with players coming in. In Carr we have an able replacement for Vermeulen and we've been without halve our backline in any case for most of the year and JdV all year so no big deal. Vermaak and Goosen in is huge even if hey end up 50% of what they were when they left. Big Ifs though. I think Vermaak is a done deal but Goosen I don't think is coming in or we'd probably have heard it from the French media as Racing have finalized their squad for 2015/16 and his name hasn't been dropped as far as I can see.

The Sharks now.. they certainly have the potential but I question the decision making off of the pitch right from the top down to the staff and it shows on the field. They could go either up or down from this year.

Better lest not tal about the Kings though..

Last edited: Jun 19, 2015

L

Larksea

First XV

TRF Legend

Jun 25, 2015

#18

TRF_stormer2010 said:
I really don't know how you can come to the conclusion that the SA conference is the weakest. I'd say the OP has more legitimacy since the arguments against his are based largely on conjecture and perception.

2015 the NZ conference has dominated the likes of which you have to go some way back. SA clearly some distance behind but just as clearly ahead of the Aus conference as a whole even if the margins aren't as pronounced.

Now 2014 is different. There the SA conference was certainly the weakest performing as a whole but then 2013 the SA conference was the best performing of all three.

The only single stat that backs up your perception is points difference against every other stat that paints a different picture. Also, I'd back wins and log points over points differential which is the easiest one to get distorted by blow-out results. Not that any of this really matters but still.

The good thing for me is that rumors are the Stormers are getting more quality players back than we are losing for next year and the Lions look to reatin their current crop. But we'll have to wait and see. On the other side the bulls and Sharks are set to lose a lot of key players.

I came to that conclusion because while the Aus table is lop sided both the Tah's and Brumbies were contenders. And now we have 4 teams left and none are from South Africa I think my conclusion is pretty accurate.

"2013 the SA conference was the best performing of all three"

Really? Sounds very definite. ok lets have a look

Competition points total:
AU 231
NZ 240
SA 239

hmmmmm... not really, slight edge to NZ. lets look at total PD

AU -32
NZ +23
SA +9

no NZ has a slight edge here as well

ok what happened post season?

AU Brumbies 4th reds 5th, brumbies promoted to 3rd because of conference system.
NZ Chiefs qualified top of the table, Crusaders effectively 3rd, so 2 NZ teams in the top 3. Crusaders pushed to 4th because of the conference system.
SA Bulls 2nd Cheetahs 6th

No NZ advantage here as well...

Finals Rugby?
AU won 2 finals games
NZ won 3 finals games
SA won 0 finals games

AU vs NZ final, no SA team

NZ team the chiefs crowned champions....

Conculsion overall, close competition but NZ clearly the strongest conference. not much separating AU & SA, SA slightly better regular season and AU doing better post season thanks to the Brumbies.

Ok WTF are you talking about stormer? I know I am bias at times (ok settle down! lol) but c'mon

Kiwi_

First XV

Jun 26, 2015

#19

Next year is just going to see teams like the Highlanders/Crusader/Chiefs punished even more, having to allow for 2 spots from the SA conferences who will be likely lower points than teams from Australia and New Zealand.

The Crusaders finishing above the Stormers is academic, because the Stormers already knew they had 3rd position secured because the Bulls decided to go on a losing streak while traveling (just like their national team), so played a weaker squad.

But the fact that their effort in the quarter finals was so **** poor really brings to question if they deserved that spot. The answer is no and it highlights them finishing 7th on points even more. Even granted an undeserving home QF and that's what they delivered.

InsaneAsylum

First XV

Jun 26, 2015

#20

Kiwi_ said:
Next year is just going to see teams like the Highlanders/Crusader/Chiefs punished even more, having to allow for 2 spots from the SA conferences who will be likely lower points than teams from Australia and New Zealand.

The Crusaders finishing above the Stormers is academic, because the Stormers already knew they had 3rd position secured because the Bulls decided to go on a losing streak while traveling (just like their national team), so played a weaker squad.

But the fact that their effort in the quarter finals was so **** poor really brings to question if they deserved that spot. The answer is no and it highlights them finishing 7th on points even more. Even granted an undeserving home QF and that's what they delivered.

C'mon mate, nothing you say is untrue, but have a look at it for another angle. let's say instead of the kiwi teams, it was the Stormers, Bulls, Lions finishing top 3, then Tahs, Brumbies and Hurricanes 4, 5 and 6. The Hurricanes get knocked out in the qualifier and suddenly there are no kiwi teams. Would you think the comp is fair, would you still be interested?

One of the things about Super Rugby in any form is it must have some form of fixing to ensure that there is equal representation across the whole competition, unfortunately NZ suffered this year because they have such great depth. At the end of the day, SANZAR are running a business and need to ensure they are profitable, ensuring at least 1 team from each conference is in the finals is a good way to do this, despite some fans feeling emotionally hard done by - we all love our teams and want them to succeed no doubt.

It also has the effect of making NZ rugby stronger, all of a sudden if you have 4 good teams competing for spots, they are going to have to raise the bar in order to compete and it shows this year. Probably the strongest I've seen the NZ teams ever. Remember back in the day when the Blues and Crusaders were really good and the Cheifs, Hurricanes and Highlanders were middle of the road?