Thoughts on the S15 season ( structure and teams)

[Hulk Hogan]

Ive enjoyed this layout of the competition, just think that it is a bit unfair in terms of playing your own conference twice, as teams like nz bottem dellers the cheifs had six wins but ended up bottom of the nz conference, i know ill get some remarks from some auzzies but if you put that team in the auzzie conference im sure they would have almost, if not achieved playoffs.

I'm sure they wouldn't have achieved the playoffs in the Australian conference.

 

[Rhyer]

Super Rugby has only THREE extra matches per team over what they had in Super 14, that makes 16 round robin matches. It is short by comparison with the Aviva Premiership and the Magners League (22 rounds + two weeks of playoffs), and the Top 14 (26 rounds plus 3 weeks of playoffs). In top of that, they have between 6 and 9 weeks of Heineken Cup/Amlin Challenge Cup matches as well.

Super rugby is so much more intense than any other competition in the world. The level of skill from the teams is outstanding as well as the physicality and fitness. Just look at a lot of the scores where teams can quite easily get into the 30's. These high scoring games mean you get more fatigued and fatique has a correlation with injury.

 

[Rhyer]

I'm sure they wouldn't have achieved the playoffs in the Australian conference.

They wouldn't but the point is Australia has the easiest conference. Three **** easy weak teams in the form of; Brumbies, Force and Rebels. New Zealand had none with the lowest points being on 40 which all were fairly competitive and SA with the Lions.

Also, all that seperated the Stormers and Crusaders was two points from that draw with the Hurricanes. Same number of wins and BP. So it is rather unforunate that the Crusaders miss out on a game they most definitely would have won when they had a full strength squad and would be in the top 2. But what can you do?

 

[Seaton]

People go on about how the Australian conference is weak. However, consider that the Reds lost three games this year with two defeats being against fellow Australian sides.

<meta charset="utf-8">

Well that's just not true.

You quoted what "I think", therefore you are saying that I am lying/ misinterpreting myself and don't think that Scotland have a better chance of winning the world cup?

And I fail to see how the referencing of one teams proves/ disproves that the Aussies don't/ do have the weakest conference of the three

What somone needs to do, is compile a list of how many BP (4 tries) were earned against the bottom teams in each conference, would that not be a fair indication of conference strength?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Australian conference may be a touch weaker than the others but you'd be mad to think the teams are "**** easy weak"
Even the Rebels pushed Sharks close


I think SA conference is probably on a par with the Australian, both have some good teams and some lacklustre teams

 

[Hulk Hogan]

I think the New Zealand teams are all **** easy, Reds ran through the Blues and the Crusaders two substandard teams, if it wasn't for the unbeatable Hurricanes NZ would be in dire straights.

 

[John101]

I think the New Zealand teams are all **** easy, Reds ran through the Blues and the Crusaders two substandard teams, if it wasn't for the unbeatable Hurricanes NZ would be in dire straights.

Ran through the Blues and Crusaders? I thought that crusaders game had the intensity of a test match, reds only won because of poor ref, but thats another topic. think your wordings a bit strong when you say **** easy woldog.

I would say **** easy should be used when you look at the rebels for and against

 

[Hulk Hogan]

Ran through the Blues and Crusaders? I thought that crusaders game had the intensity of a test match, reds only won because of poor ref, but thats another topic. think your wordings a bit strong when you say **** easy woldog. I would say **** easy should be used when you look at the rebels for and against

You could say we lost some of our games due to poor reffing..... however my post was extremely sarcastic. The point is the Reds are on top because they could beat the best of the other conferences not because they were in an "easy" conference, it's just bloody stupid when you argue about which conference is stronger.... Like arguing about which team is better going of World Cup wins.....

 

[John101]

You could say we lost some of our games due to poor reffing..... however my post was extremely sarcastic. The point is the Reds are on top because they could beat the best of the other conferences not because they were in an "easy" conference, it's just bloody stupid when you argue about which conference is stronger.... Like arguing about which team is better going of World Cup wins.....

Yep i fully agree, i rate the reds this year, if a team deserves to win i think its probably them that deserves to (now that the highlanders are out ) and argueing the conferences being easyier than others, i was just purely stating an opinion about the question asked at the top of the forum.

 

[Boggle]

You're making the mistake that someone is arguing that the Reds don't deserve to be at the top.

Trust me, we all agree the Reds were probably a top of the log team this year, but when you go look at the matches played against -all- other teams this year the Australian conference simply had the worst teams by a mile. The bottom 3 in the Aus conference were all at least 20 points behind the second placed team, because the Force, Brumbies and Rebels were absolutely nowhere.

In the SA conference you had the Lions that were wooden spoon chasers sure, but at the end of the day that was the only team out of their depth. The Cheetahs still gave almost -every- single team they played a good run, hence the 12 bonus points they're sporting, and we all see what a close run thing it became between the Stormers, Sharks and Bulls at the end.

And in the NZ conference, well there's only 20 points separating all 5 teams for goodness sake, that's clearly a tougher conference, and we can say this because we know that the teams they played that aren't from that conference had a hell of a time trying to beat them most of the time.

I'm sorry but getting defensive because you think people are ripping on the Reds because they're in a weak conference is one thing (and we're not, because clearly when you look at the games they played against the other opposition in the tournament they deserve to be where they are), but it's pretty damn clear which conference was the easiest :/

 

[John101]

You're making the mistake that someone is arguing that the Reds don't deserve to be at the top.

Trust me, we all agree the Reds were probably a top of the log team this year, but when you go look at the matches played against -all- other teams this year the Australian conference simply had the worst teams by a mile. The bottom 3 in the Aus conference were all at least 20 points behind the second placed team, because the Force, Brumbies and Rebels were absolutely nowhere.

In the SA conference you had the Lions that were wooden spoon chasers sure, but at the end of the day that was the only team out of their depth. The Cheetahs still gave almost -every- single team they played a good run, hence the 12 bonus points they're sporting, and we all see what a close run thing it became between the Stormers, Sharks and Bulls at the end.

And in the NZ conference, well there's only 20 points separating all 5 teams for goodness sake, that's clearly a tougher conference, and we can say this because we know that the teams they played that aren't from that conference had a hell of a time trying to beat them most of the time.

I'm sorry but getting defensive because you think people are ripping on the Reds because they're in a weak conference is one thing (and we're not, because clearly when you look at the games they played against the other opposition in the tournament they deserve to be where they are), but it's pretty damn clear which conference was the easiest :/

Yip well said.

 

[smartcooky]

You quoted what "I think", therefore you are saying that I am lying/ misinterpreting myself and don't think that Scotland have a better chance of winning the world cup?

And I fail to see how the referencing of one teams proves/ disproves that the Aussies don't/ do have the weakest conference of the three

What somone needs to do, is compile a list of how many BP (4 tries) were earned against the bottom teams in each conference, would that not be a fair indication of conference strength?

Yep, here you go then

TC = Tries conceded
4T = number of matches in which the team conceded a 4 try bonus point
CL = number of close loss bonus points from close losses or draws

[TABLE="class: outer_border"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]ORD[/TD]
[TD]TEAM[/TD]
[TD]TC[/TD]
[TD]4T[/TD]
[TD]CL[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]CHIEFS[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]2/16[/TD]
[TD]6/10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]HIGHLANDERS[/TD]
[TD]34[/TD]
[TD]2/16[/TD]
[TD]3/8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]BULLS[/TD]
[TD]37[/TD]
[TD]2/16[/TD]
[TD]3/6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]HURRICANES[/TD]
[TD]41[/TD]
[TD]4/16[/TD]
[TD]8/11[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]FORCE[/TD]
[TD]48[/TD]
[TD]5/16[/TD]
[TD]7/9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]BRUMBIES[/TD]
[TD]52[/TD]
[TD]5/16[/TD]
[TD]7/13[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]LIONS[/TD]
[TD]49[/TD]
[TD]6/16[/TD]
[TD]8/14[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]CHEETAHS[/TD]
[TD]50[/TD]
[TD]6/16[/TD]
[TD]8/11[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]REBELS[/TD]
[TD]74[/TD]
[TD]12/16[/TD]
[TD]2/13[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]


On the basis of these stats, the NZ Conference was the most difficult.

The three NZ teams that didn't make the playoffs....

1st, 2nd and 4th in least 4 try bonus points conceded
1st 2nd and 4th in least tries conceded.

And if you look at overall points F/A, the best Australian non qualifier, the Force (-83), was worse than the worst NZ Non qualifier, the Hurricanes (-70)

Overall

SAF NQs -82
NZL NQs -133
AUS NQs -495

Clearly the Rebels were 10 points in the bank for each of the Reds and the Waratahs, while two teams, the Crusaders and the Lions never had the benefit of playing them.

 

[Amobokoboko]

Maybe a bit harsh, but I would find it much nicer if every team faces each other at least once, like last season.
I don't mind about facing teams from the same conference twice and I don't see the aim of qualifiers.

 

[smartcooky]

Maybe a bit harsh, but I would find it much nicer if every team faces each other at least once, like last season.
I don't mind about facing teams from the same conference twice and I don't see the aim of qualifiers.

Its the fairest way to have 6 teams in the playoffs without using the McIntyre system, which would be would be totally impractical with teams spread between three countries

 

[Amobokoboko]

True, but if we just would take the 4 top teams, every country would have at least one representative.

 

[smartcooky]

True, but if we just would take the 4 top teams, every country would have at least one representative.

The other thing to consider is, of course, money!!!

Two extra playoff matches = more bums on seats and more TV rights etc.

 

[Amobokoboko]

Also true, but most likely there will be some changes towards next season.

 

[nik]

I would prefer 8 team final series like the NRL Mcintyre System. Finals rugby is the most interesting part of the season. I think SANZAR realised this and went from a 4 team play offs to 6 team (from 2 week playoffs to 3 week). Make it 4 week play offs with 8 teams. Each team plays each other once in a round robin - this means no home and away local derbies. Even though I enjoyed the local derbies, I would rather see an extended play offs series. Travel could be a problem though.

 

[smartcooky]

I would prefer 8 team final series like the NRL Mcintyre System. Finals rugby is the most interesting part of the season. I think SANZAR realised this and went from a 4 team play offs to 6 team (from 2 week playoffs to 3 week). Make it 4 week play offs with 8 teams. Each team plays each other once in a round robin - this means no home and away local derbies. Even though I enjoyed the local derbies, I would rather see an extended play offs series. Travel could be a problem though.

The trouble with having an eight-team McIntyre system is the travel.

Its entirely possible that a team (say, a NZ team) could have the following...

1. their last round robin match in SA.
2 come back to NZ to play a qualifying final.
3. go back to SA for a minor semi-final.
4. come back to NZ or AUS for a major semifinal,
5, go back to SA for the final.
6. come then back to NZ afterwards.

By the time they are finished, they will be baying for the blood of the person who's idea it was to put them through that torture!!

 

[Hulk Hogan]

We should have a heritage round where every team travels by Boat to their destination!