The new Super 15 format is kind of bullshit..

[TRF_Ezequiel]

The travelling-problem of the SA teams has always been a weak spot of the Super 12/Super 14 competition. Even though we've had 3 wins and a total of 5 finalists in the last 4 years it still had an impact on the results.

This is the only thing that has massively changed to the advantage of the South African teams in the new format. I don't see why they couldn't go on with the same format

- 14 matches
- 7 home, 7 away

1 team with a bye every week. I don't see why in the old format there was a bye-rule included anyway but in a competition with an odd number of teams it would be normal.


Saying the NZ teams suffered the biggest loss when it comes to advantages might be true but still... The format is not that strange. Play every domestic team twice, play 4 teams from each other conference (wish we would play all 5. 2 extra matches wouldn't hurt anyone) makes it still a SANZAR competition. I see some people complain they have some teams at home, others away but in the Super 14 format that was also the case. You play 13 matches in a single-round competition. We never played each team home and away.

About the whole play-off qualification I agree that it might have been better including the best 2 of each conference. The problem with that is that you might end up with a team qualifying although winning less points than other teams. Whether we have a point-based qualification or conference-based qualification doesn't really matter. Both options have pros and cons.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

The travelling-problem of the SA teams has always been a weak spot of the Super 12/Super 14 competition. Even though we've had 3 wins and a total of 5 finalists in the last 4 years it still had an impact on the results.

This is the only thing that has massively changed to the advantage of the South African teams in the new format. I don't see why they couldn't go on with the same format

- 14 matches
- 7 home, 7 away

1 team with a bye every week. I don't see why in the old format there was a bye-rule included anyway but in a competition with an odd number of teams it would be normal.


Saying the NZ teams suffered the biggest loss when it comes to advantages might be true but still... The format is not that strange. Play every domestic team twice, play 4 teams from each other conference (wish we would play all 5. 2 extra matches wouldn't hurt anyone) makes it still a SANZAR competition. I see some people complain they have some teams at home, others away but in the Super 14 format that was also the case. You play 13 matches in a single-round competition. We never played each team home and away.

About the whole play-off qualification I agree that it might have been better including the best 2 of each conference. The problem with that is that you might end up with a team qualifying although winning less points than other teams. Whether we have a point-based qualification or conference-based qualification doesn't really matter. Both options have pros and cons.

 

[ranger]

The travelling-problem of the SA teams has always been a weak spot of the Super 12/Super 14 competition. Even though we've had 3 wins and a total of 5 finalists in the last 4 years it still had an impact on the results.

This is the only thing that has massively changed to the advantage of the South African teams in the new format. I don't see why they couldn't go on with the same format

- 14 matches
- 7 home, 7 away

1 team with a bye every week. I don't see why in the old format there was a bye-rule included anyway but in a competition with an odd number of teams it would be normal.


Saying the NZ teams suffered the biggest loss when it comes to advantages might be true but still... The format is not that strange. Play every domestic team twice, play 4 teams from each other conference (wish we would play all 5. 2 extra matches wouldn't hurt anyone) makes it still a SANZAR competition. I see some people complain they have some teams at home, others away but in the Super 14 format that was also the case. You play 13 matches in a single-round competition. We never played each team home and away.

About the whole play-off qualification I agree that it might have been better including the best 2 of each conference. The problem with that is that you might end up with a team qualifying although winning less points than other teams. Whether we have a point-based qualification or conference-based qualification doesn't really matter. Both options have pros and cons.

But even though sides like the Brumbies might have more points, that will probably be down to the fact that they are in a lopsided competition. They get two goes at the force and the rebels, money in the bank. Just because they accumulate more points doesn't necessarily mean that they are a better side than the teams with less points from NZ. It just means that the player talent in that country isn't spread as evenly.
I just think that NZ should be rewarded for making sure all of the teams are roughly equal and can all beat eachother on any given day, not punished for it. Its silly.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

I agree. Despite that, the NZ teams can overrule that statement by beating the Australian teams in the inter-conference matches.

The Crusaders play the Brumbies, Waratahs, Western Force and the Reds. They can win those matches and ensure that the Australian teams collect less log-points.

I don't understand why every team only plays 4 out of 5 teams of other conferences. Can anyone explain that to me? Why not add 2 extra rounds and play all teams?

 

[ranger]

I agree. Despite that, the NZ teams can overrule that statement by beating the Australian teams in the inter-conference matches.

The Crusaders play the Brumbies, Waratahs, Western Force and the Reds. They can win those matches and ensure that the Australian teams collect less log-points.

I don't understand why every team only plays 4 out of 5 teams of other conferences. Can anyone explain that to me? Why not add 2 extra rounds and play all teams?

But even then, beating the Brumbies ill stop them collecting 5 points, but there is nothing they can do about them collecting 20 in their 4 games against the Rebels and Force.
Im pretty sure there are two missing rounds because the Saffas drew a line in the sand on the competition length so it didnt mess up the Currie Cup too badly. They were unwavering in extending this window even by two weeks.
I wish the NZRU had the balls to protect the ITM cup, instead of trying to slash a great competition down to 7 teams just to accommodate Super Rugby

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

It's nice to agree on something but I don't see how 2 extra rounds mess up the Currie Cup. There are about 2 months between both competitions. If it is to close just start the Currie Cup 2 weeks later. Is it true they are decreasing the number of teams in the ITM Cup? That would be an amazing sign of stupidity from NZRU's side

 

[Sker]

Who said something about pity and boring rugby? Didn't the bulls score the most tries?

Wow some people.

 

[ranger]

Who said something about pity and boring rugby? Didn't the bulls score the most tries?

Wow some people.

You bought up the fact that you play that style of rugby, and i was joking anyway.

 

[Sker]

I didn't bring anything up! sis! and I'm joking too, I hate fsking hate the bulls

Like every good South African should (even bulls supporters)

 

[Seaton]

People are being awfully unfair on the Lions and Cheetahs, especially the Cheetahs, and it really is getting annoying.

For all their shiteyness the cheetahs finished ahead of the Highlanders, Chiefs and W. force (the Cheetahs just as bad injury problems as the force)
They beat crusaders and a few other teams, but they fell apart when juan smith abstained from the tour with his father and all that.

The Lions lost several key players at the end of 2009, such as Willem Alberts, Louis ludik, Gerhard Mostert, Jacque fourie and others (such as jano Vermaak who was injured for the first few rounds)
You take the spine out of a team and it falls flat on its arse.

Remember the bulls lost every game in the 2003 season.

If you guys think this benifits SA the most, remember it takes a majority vote to pass these things in SANZAR, and last time I checked SA had one vote, as did NZ and Aus, who would, by the grievances on here, would never had agreed to such a deal

Edited to say that the grammar/speeling errors are the result of a physically challenged keyboard

 

[ranger]

People are being awfully unfair on the Lions and Cheetahs, especially the Cheetahs, and it really is getting annoying.

For all their shiteyness the cheetahs finished ahead of the Highlanders, Chiefs and W. force (the Cheetahs just as bad injury problems as the force)
They beat crusaders and a few other teams, but they fell apart when juan smith abstained from the tour with his father and all that.

The Lions lost several key players at the end of 2009, such as Willem Alberts, Louis ludik, Gerhard Mostert, Jacque fourie and others (such as jano Vermaak who was injured for the first few rounds)
You take the spine out of a team and it falls flat on its arse.

Remember the bulls lost every game in the 2003 season.

If you guys think this benifits SA the most, remember it takes a majority vote to pass these things in SANZAR, and last time I checked SA had one vote, as did NZ and Aus, who would, by the grievances on here, would never had agreed to such a deal

Edited to say that the grammar/speeling errors are the result of a physically challenged keyboard

The Cheetahs may have finished ahead of the Highlanders and Cheifs, but as i said the rules have all been changed around to help those teams out. What has changed to make the Cheetahs and Lions more effective?
The Chiefs also had an absolute horror injury run, they had to pull up a whole lot of guys that weren't even in the extended squad. This isn't an excuse for their poor finish, but the chances of a freak injury tally like that happening 2 years in a row is very slim, the Cheifs will be a whole lot better next year (Although they still have a ***** of a draw..)
I still dont think the Cheetahs are a great team, sure they beat the Crusaders, but last year the Highlanders beat the Bulls, that doesn't mean the Highlanders weren't a crap team. If these sides can't handle losing 5 or so players (or one player in the case of Smith), then they aren't that good..

As for the Lions? they were horrible last year. pure and simple. I cannot see how that disgrace of a team could improve a meaningful amount in one year. Their points differential was in the negative 300 region!

As for the majority vote thing, i think you will find that Australia comes out of this even better off than South Africa. NZ tends to bow down in their decisions anyway because we don't have the population over here to fill up stadiums and make any money. We need to do what SA says to keep the money coming.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

ranger, don't change into a crying baby now. It might be true that Australia and South Africa were the ones voting for this idea and maybe NZ voted against but still... If you kiwi's were as good as some people make you guys out to be, how is it possible you only won once in 4 years? If someone would complain about this new idea being a disadvantage it would be the Bulls

Anyway... This new format gives the Aussies more matches to play and a, sort of, domnestic league, provides the SA teams a competition with less travelling and gives the NZ teams more domnestic matches to finally fill those enormous stadiums.

 

[Shaggy]

ranger, don't change into a crying baby now. It might be true that Australia and South Africa were the ones voting for this idea and maybe NZ voted against but still... If you kiwi's were as good as some people make you guys out to be, how is it possible you only won once in 4 years? If someone would complain about this new idea being a disadvantage it would be the Bulls

Anyway... This new format gives the Aussies more matches to play and a, sort of, domnestic league, provides the SA teams a competition with less travelling and gives the NZ teams more domnestic matches to finally fill those enormous stadiums.

HAHA, nice one Ezequiel ... why only four years, and not the 5 years of Super 14, or better still, include the Super 12 as well ... that would make the NZ teams look much better

In all seriousness though, in terms of fairness to individual super teams, the most relevant stat is the results of the games played between teams from the same country ... I think these are generally closely fought, with the team that is expected to win quite often not winning, so there may not be as many easy points on offer as many people think.

In terms of who plays who, and where, for the overseas matches, it's not possible for it to be completely fair to all teams - if they're disadvantage one year, they'll be advantaged the next year

... On a side issue, does anyone know how the refs will be assigned ... local refs for local games, neutral refs for other games ... or top refs for top games?

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Hehe... I did that on purpose shaggs. Just to step on ranger's toes a bit. I think that for conference matches there will be local referees. Why fly a Aussie referee all the way to SA for a match between the Bulls and Chiefs for instance?

 

[Shaggy]

Hehe... I did that on purpose shaggs. Just to step on ranger's toes a bit. I think that for conference matches there will be local referees. Why fly a Aussie referee all the way to SA for a match between the Bulls and Chiefs for instance?

... I figured as much

Just asked the question about the refs because there was a tendency to use the top ranked refs for the top team matches ... anyway if we can't jet lag your players as much, perhap we can still jet lag your refs

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Hehe... Nice one. The question is if a jetlagged referee will be a good thing or a bad thing for you

 

[Sker]

I like where the Lions are going, history moves in circles and the Lions used to be the top dogs for a while.

 

[Shaggy]

Hehe... Nice one. The question is if a jetlagged referee will be a good thing or a bad thing for you

Hehe ... It doesn't matter if they're jet lagged or don't ... you know that ALL of the refs are on our side

 

[Dizzy]

It's unfair for new zealand because all our top players are spread throughout each team. unlike most of the south africans top players being in the Bulls. And their weaker teams being absolutely weak. And this is why it's going to be unfair on new zealand, the teams who finish 1st in their conference move onto the finals, and the other three teams are picked on the highest total points at the end of the conference.
With all the New Zealand teams being close to equal, their total points tally aren't going to be that much different, whereas in the Australian and South African conferences, their total points tally have got a chance of being totally high, so with that said, whoever comes second in the New Zealand conference face a risk of not being included in the finals because the South African or Australian 2nd and third squads have potential to gain more total points than that of the new zealand teams

 

[Dizzy]

Super Rugby Wins by Country
<TABLE class=wikitable><TBODY><TR><TH>Country</TH><TH>Wins</TH><TH>Runner-up</TH></TR><TR><TD>

New Zealand</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>6</TD></TR><TR><TD>

South Africa</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>7</TD></TR><TR><TD>

Australia</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>5</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I also thought I should include this