Some inter-conference stats

[donmcdazzle]

try and tell a blues fan NZ sides have had a good year for injuries more than 13 All Blacks in the squad? and at times they only had 2-3 on the park..

the Rebels should improve in Aussie but at what cost? Looks to me like the force and Tahs are going down and I think losing Scott will really hurt the Reds, he has been massive for them.

NZ suffer from this conference system. From having basically 5 strong sides, I include the blues because on paper they should be a top 4 side and proved they cab neat anyone. Just been a nightmare year for injuries and poor coaching for them.

you can see the reason why the chiefs miss top spot and the Canes missa playoff spot all together:

Combined Bottom two teams each table (Comp Points/wins):

SA: 63/8
AUS: 59/7
NZ: 82/13

I think this is really important shows a massive power gap. No easy games in NZ - the points spread more evenly - means NZ teams are hindered when it comes to the final table and qualifying positions.

What it means is that a SA or Aussie side will more often than not be top qualifier. Which I think goes a long way to actually winning the silverware.

I think if this season was played under the old conditions where each team plays each other once. We may have seen a situation where 4 NZ teams make the finals, 2 SA and 0 Aussie. basically because NZ teams don't get to play teams like the Force/Cheetahs/ Rebels/ Lions twise infact you can add the Tah's to that list as well they have had an awful year.

This is true man, I wonder if we are ever going to have a home final in NZ ever again under the current system. The good SA teams have it easier (which those aboe stats support). Getting the home final is a massive advantage too so I can't see many NZ teams winning it all as it is at the moment.

 

[Shovenose]

This is true man, I wonder if we are ever going to have a home final in NZ ever again under the current system. The good SA teams have it easier (which those aboe stats support). Getting the home final is a massive advantage too so I can't see many NZ teams winning it all as it is at the moment.

What made it easier? If the NZ teams win their home home away game its a all NZ final. What makes it easier for a SA team to play the Saders in their own back yard or the Chiefs at home? Do you think the NZ teams are better than all the other teams in the competition and because of the conference system the Hurricanes, Highlanders, Blues missed out? Saders winning the competition numerous times doesn't make the NZ conference automatically stronger. Didn't the Crusaders lose to the Force? The Lions beat the Sharks. +1 for other conferences. Chiefs were smashed by the Reds. SA teams made their points and made the playoffs by winning away games in NZ and Australia. Although they miss out on the so called easy teams which are 2 they miss out on the 3 stronger teams which meant they would have ended up with even less points

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Just to add the last two rounds and complete these stats for the regular season. Aus teams struggling in the latter stages with the Rebels falling to both Lions and Stormers and in the last week the Blues and Crusaders beating the Brumbies and Force respectively with the Reds beating the Highlanders by 6 the only positive inter-conference match for Aus during the last 2 weeks.

Inter-conference points exchange
NZ 186
SA 82
AUS -268



NZ wins against other conferences
SA 13
Aus 13
26 total inter-conference wins and 14 losses


SA wins against other conferences
NZ 7
Aus 15
22 total inter-conference wins and 18 losses


AUS wins against other conferences
NZ 7
SA 5
12 total inter-conference wins and 28 losses

 

[Shovenose]

The Blues lost all their games vs NZ competition. That is 8 points per team minimum. None of the other conferences had a team that donated 32 points + to them like the Blues injected into the NZ conference.

 

[Icemn]

try and tell a blues fan NZ sides have had a good year for injuries more than 13 All Blacks in the squad? and at times they only had 2-3 on the park..

the Rebels should improve in Aussie but at what cost? Looks to me like the force and Tahs are going down and I think losing Scott will really hurt the Reds, he has been massive for them.

NZ suffer from this conference system. From having basically 5 strong sides, I include the blues because on paper they should be a top 4 side and proved they cab neat anyone. Just been a nightmare year for injuries and poor coaching for them.

you can see the reason why the chiefs miss top spot and the Canes missa playoff spot all together:

Combined Bottom two teams each table (Comp Points/wins):

SA: 63/8
AUS: 59/7
NZ: 82/13

I think this is really important shows a massive power gap. No easy games in NZ - the points spread more evenly - means NZ teams are hindered when it comes to the final table and qualifying positions.

What it means is that a SA or Aussie side will more often than not be top qualifier. Which I think goes a long way to actually winning the silverware.

I think if this season was played under the old conditions where each team plays each other once. We may have seen a situation where 4 NZ teams make the finals, 2 SA and 0 Aussie. basically because NZ teams don't get to play teams like the Force/Cheetahs/ Rebels/ Lions twise infact you can add the Tah's to that list as well they have had an awful year.

give that man a f**** bells!!!

that is what i've been telling people... NZ conference is very difficult...luckily for us the blues were not firing early on.. so it was a given 4 or 5 points... next year, it wont be the case...
all the other conferences have 2 or 3 teams you can get given points againts.. now SA want to enter a new team "kings" meaning 5 given points to the top SA teams on 2 occations and bigger margin in points diff... the system is really crap... you play 8 games vs your own conference teams.... and 8 vs the other 2 conferences.... if you in NZ, points are not a given, your best bet is to play the other conference and HOPE you get a weaker team to make up for lost ground... all the teams don't play each other... the stormers did not meet the chiefs in the round of 16... where i think everyone elsed faced them... the NZ teams took out the chiefs doing the stormers a favour...

my buddy told me "the log don't lie"... he is right... its talking bullsh!t...

 

[donmcdazzle]

What made it easier? If the NZ teams win their home home away game its a all NZ final. What makes it easier for a SA team to play the Saders in their own back yard or the Chiefs at home? Do you think the NZ teams are better than all the other teams in the competition and because of the conference system the Hurricanes, Highlanders, Blues missed out? Saders winning the competition numerous times doesn't make the NZ conference automatically stronger. Didn't the Crusaders lose to the Force? The Lions beat the Sharks. +1 for other conferences. Chiefs were smashed by the Reds. SA teams made their points and made the playoffs by winning away games in NZ and Australia. Although they miss out on the so called easy teams which are 2 they miss out on the 3 stronger teams which meant they would have ended up with even less points

NZ has 4 good teams this year, SA has 3. Look at all the inter conference stats and it is obvious that the NZ conference is the strongest and therefore the hardest to come out of.

 

[tenpm]

Games won by the top three teams in the conference against the bottom two:

SA
Stormers: 4/4
Sharks: 3/4
Bulls: 4/4
Total: 11/12 (92%)

NZ
Chiefs: 3/4
Crusaders: 3/4
Hurricanes: 3/4
Total: 9/12 (75%)

AU
Reds: 3/4
Brumbies: 4/4
Waratahs: 3/4
Total: 10/12 (83%)

Games won by the top two teams against the bottom three:

SA
Stormers: 6/6
Sharks: 4/6
Total: 10/12 (83%)

NZ
Chiefs: 4/6
Crusaders: 4/6
Total: 8/12 (67%)

AU
Reds: 5/6
Brumbies: 6/6
Total: 11/12 (92%)



Games won by the conference leader against the other four:

SA
7/8 (88%)

NZ
5/8 (63%)

AU
7/8 (88%)


It appears that NZ top teams do have it harder, but not by much.
Edit: added percentage for clarity.

 

[Larksea]

The interesting thing is that next year if the blues can pick things up and play closer to their potential NZ will have 5 genuine strong sides. and to me it looks like Aussie will have 2 maybe 3 at a push and SA will have 3 again, that seems to be their number.

 

[Larksea]

Games won by the top three teams in the conference against the bottom two:

SA
Stormers: 4
Sharks: 3
Bulls: 4
Total: 11

NZ
Chiefs: 3
Crusaders: 3
Hurricanes: 3
Total: 9

AU
Reds: 3
Brumbies: 4
Waratahs: 3
Total: 10

Games won by the top two teams against the bottom three:

SA
Stormers: 6
Sharks: 4
Total: 10

NZ
Chiefs: 4
Crusaders: 4
Total: 8

AU
Reds: 5
Brumbies: 6
Total: 11



Games won by the conference leader against the other four:

SA
8

NZ
5

AU
7


It appears that NZ top teams do have it harder, but not by much.

it's actually a lot, the difference between the chiefs having a home final and an away final is one win. the difference between the hurricanes making the playoffs and not making the playoffs is one win, just 3 comp points - which is the difference between winning and getting a losing bonus point.

 

[tenpm]

The Blues lost all their games vs NZ competition. That is 8 points per team minimum. None of the other conferences had a team that donated 32 points + to them like the Blues injected into the NZ conference.

While the Blues have lost every game they played against NZ opposition, the other four teams have the exact same number of games won against NZ opposition (five out of eight), from the 4th-in-the-conference Highlanders to the conference leader Chiefs. They all won both games against the Blues and won one match and lost the other against each of the other three.

 

[Shaggy]

The tv numbers.

Those stats don't really say anything other than NZ player pool is devided evenly and they did not have a lot of injuries.

Maybe you should have a look at the injury list the blues had this year ... most of them are long term injuries too

I wouldn't expect those New Zealand TV stats to get much better either ... the numbers through the gates and watching live on TV are both the best they've been for many years (2007 or 2008 I think, were the last time they were that high)

... We all know it's the Canadian viewing audience that carries the competition financially anyway

 

[LittleGuy]

Maybe you should have a look at the injury list the blues had this year ... most of them are long term injuries too

I wouldn't expect those New Zealand TV stats to get much better either ... the numbers through the gates and watching live on TV are both the best they've been for many years (2007 or 2008 I think, were the last time they were that high)

... We all know it's the Canadian viewing audience that carries the competition financially anyway

Absolutely, you and I are practically paying for Dan Carter's entire future Shags!!!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Games won by the top three teams in the conference against the bottom two:

SA
Stormers: 4/4
Sharks: 3/4
Bulls: 4/4
Total: 11/12 (92%)

NZ
Chiefs: 3/4
Crusaders: 3/4
Hurricanes: 3/4
Total: 9/12 (75%)

AU
Reds: 3/4
Brumbies: 4/4
Waratahs: 3/4
Total: 10/12 (83%)

Games won by the top two teams against the bottom three:

SA
Stormers: 6/6
Sharks: 4/6
Total: 10/12 (83%)

NZ
Chiefs: 4/6
Crusaders: 4/6
Total: 8/12 (67%)

AU
Reds: 5/6
Brumbies: 6/6
Total: 11/12 (92%)



Games won by the conference leader against the other four:

SA
7/8 (88%)

NZ
5/8 (63%)

AU
7/8 (88%)


It appears that NZ top teams do have it harder, but not by much.
Edit: added percentage for clarity.

The Stormers being the most consistent team in the competition does mean that these stats are open to interpretations just as any other. Just remember that the 'weaker' SA sides can be thrown into the same category as the Blues IMO. They are teams more than capable of upsetting bigger teams. The Lions played with a team the whole season missing 1/2 to 2/3 of the team that won the Currie Cup last year and struggled with off-field BS. The Cheetahs had to play the 2nd half of their season without their main playmaker. They beat the Hurricanes which tells me that they are a team that can beat big teams and they have done so over the years and can be considered unlucky not to have taken more scalps this year. Just ask the Reds what one or two key players missing can mean for your season if you maybe don't have the depth.

give that man a f**** bells!!!

that is what i've been telling people... NZ conference is very difficult...luckily for us the blues were not firing early on.. so it was a given 4 or 5 points... next year, it wont be the case...
all the other conferences have 2 or 3 teams you can get given points againts.. now SA want to enter a new team "kings" meaning 5 given points to the top SA teams on 2 occations and bigger margin in points diff... the system is really crap... you play 8 games vs your own conference teams.... and 8 vs the other 2 conferences.... if you in NZ, points are not a given, your best bet is to play the other conference and HOPE you get a weaker team to make up for lost ground... all the teams don't play each other... the stormers did not meet the chiefs in the round of 16... where i think everyone elsed faced them... the NZ teams took out the chiefs doing the stormers a favour...

my buddy told me "the log don't lie"... he is right... its talking bullsh!t...

Yeah the Chiefs were very lucky to have missed the Stormers this year.

 

[tenpm]

Yes, that's why I added the "but not by much" bit at the end - even when it looks like there's a significant difference, the thing about statistics is that it all depends on which factors you take into account and how the 50/50 situations turn out. However, I think the effect of Cheetahs/Lions struggling this season is cancelled out by the effect of the shocking Blues season, which (as Shovenose pointed out earlier in this thread) saw them lose all their games against NZ opposition.

 

[Shovenose]

Maybe you should have a look at the injury list the blues had this year ... most of them are long term injuries too

I wouldn't expect those New Zealand TV stats to get much better either ... the numbers through the gates and watching live on TV are both the best they've been for many years (2007 or 2008 I think, were the last time they were that high)

... We all know it's the Canadian viewing audience that carries the competition financially anyway

You are confusing injuries with player suspensions.

Someone said NZ have something like 4 strong teams. Saders, Chiefs, Highlanders and who is the 4th one? The Canes who were run of their feet by the Cheetahs? You think a SA derby is easy? A hundred years of provincial rivalry is poured into a derb. They go out to destroy each other. Its like having 30 Bakkies Botha's on the field

 

[Dizzy]

You are confusing injuries with player suspensions.

Someone said NZ have something like 4 strong teams. Saders, Chiefs, Highlanders and who is the 4th one? The Canes who were run of their feet by the Cheetahs? You think a SA derby is easy? A hundred years of provincial rivalry is poured into a derb. They go out to destroy each other. Its like having 30 Bakkies Botha's on the field

They were hardly run off their feet.
They were well in the lead and I beleive they got too casual with the game and it bit them in the ass, but that doesn't mean they weren't a strong team.

The Rebels toppled the Crusaders but does that make them a strong team?? No it doesn't.
The Blues beat the Bulls,
The Lions beat the Sharks,
The Bulls THRASHED the Reds,
The Hurricanes beat the Crusaders, Reds, Sharks and Chiefs who are all in the play-offs.

As of last week the Canes were still in contention of making the playoffs which is more you can say about 7 other teams.

And correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Blues were the least penalised team of the tournament so you're the only one confusing suspension with injury... Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Toeava had a season ending injury, Ranger was constantly injured, Boric season ending, Mealamu most of the season, Kaino season ending injury, and it's a pretty big list, but the players mentioned are vital to the team and were all ruled out by injury. So, your point is quite invalid.

 

[Shaggy]

You are confusing injuries with player suspensions.

Someone said NZ have something like 4 strong teams. Saders, Chiefs, Highlanders and who is the 4th one? The Canes who were run of their feet by the Cheetahs? You think a SA derby is easy? A hundred years of provincial rivalry is poured into a derb. They go out to destroy each other. Its like having 30 Bakkies Botha's on the field

... I think your the one that may be confused ... Blues long term injuries include Anthony Boric, Jerome Kaino, Isaia Toeava, Brad Mika, Benson Stanley, Gareth Anscombe, Ali Williams and David Raikuna ... that's Six current or former All Blacks plus their first choice goal kicker. Add to that, they were with out Keven Mealamu and Tony Woodcock for quite a few games as well ... tell me which South African side was without six + Springboks and their main goal kicker again?

As for the relative strengths of the sides, it's not really a huge upset if one of the New Zealand sides knocks over a more favoured one theses days (even the Blues weren't losing to the other sides by much at the start of the season/pre-Injuries)

... South Africa aren't the only ones with the 100 plus years of provincial rivalry either, and the games seem to be harder in the local derbies across all conferences.

I guess where the comparison of how hard the conferences are (although I don't necessarily agree), is that you can look at the South African and Australian conferences, and predict pre-season with some confidence, which are going to be the top 3 sides in those conferences, where as it's a lot harder to predict for the New Zealand conference

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

To be fair, the Sharks had to miss Mtawarira, Kankowski, Deysel, Hargreaves, Alberts, Ludik, Viljoen and Lambie for more than just a couple of matches this season. That's 6 Springboks, including our no. 1 goalkicker Lambie

Anyway, just ignore him. He just keeps on blabbing crap until he gets his way. He reminds me of my nephew, but without the ability to be nice.

 

[Darwin]

You are confusing injuries with player suspensions.

Someone said NZ have something like 4 strong teams. Saders, Chiefs, Highlanders and who is the 4th one? The Canes who were run of their feet by the Cheetahs? You think a SA derby is easy? A hundred years of provincial rivalry is poured into a derb. They go out to destroy each other. Its like having 30 Bakkies Botha's on the field

No, you are confusing knowledge with ignorance if you think the Blues weren't badly affected by injuries this season

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Just to get a good picture...


Blues: 20 (10)
Brumbies: 10 (3)
Bulls: 20 (6)
Cheetahs: 5 (5)
Chiefs: 14 (6)
Crusaders: 12 (2)
Force: 18 (6)
Highlanders: 19 (10)
Hurricanes: 11 (4)
Lions: 13 (2)
Rebels: 21 (6)
Reds: 21 (7)
Sharks: 18 (7)
Stormers: 14 (5)
Waratahs: 19 (9)


Number of injuries and in brackets the number of serious injuries (more than 6 weeks)