SARrugby.com

If you look at the log you would notice that the Reds are sitting in 3rd place even though they should be sitting in 6th. What this new format has done is to ensure the Aussies get an extra game and a home game to boot. If this was a league format then these guys should have been in 6th position playing the Crusaders this weekend but what it has done is that two teams that are stronger than them have to both lose out on a home game and to add on top of that,  travel half way around globe. 

If we had a rugby administration with a spine we would have have seen the Bulls vs Sharks this weekend and Crusaders vs Reds. 

For the Semis it would have been Stormers vs Sharks / Bulls and Chiefs  vs Crusaders / Reds. 

The team that beat either the reds or crusaders will have to fly all the way back to SA for a semi.

If the Crusaders and Reds win then the Stormers have to play the Crusaders when the Reds were clearly the weaker team.

the league system is way beter than this utter rubbish conference system. this ensures that the weaker teams can sneak into a better placement for the play offs and semis. the fact that teams score 4 points for a bye is in my view also rubbish and its even worse seeing that some teams dont even play against each other in the normal season. so how can one really be the top team if you somehow skipped the other teams. the aussie rugby administrators pulled a fast one on the rest of sanzar but we can stuck with the rubbish format for a while. in my view the top 6 should go through regardsless of where these teams come from and then the playoffs and semis should be concluded from there on in. hopefully with the extension of the comp they will change it

Once again a violation of the merit principle leads to diatisfaction and a sense of injustice.

However some folk think it has been great.

Ex supersport

Say what you want about Super Rugby’s new format, but warts and all – and for the second year running - it has given us a gripping finale to its regular season.

Last year it was the addition of two extra playoff spots that added the needed spice to the last match of the league phase between the Bulls and the Sharks. This year it was the Reds edging out the Brumbies for conference honours that had fans reaching for their calculators and the remaining teams scrambling for bonus points (or, perhaps, regrettably scoring them).

For now the bulk of the permutation fixation is gone. We know who will play who in the first round of the fancily named Finals Series (yes, there are two Ss in the middle), and we know who will do the hosting in the round after that.

The only thing all of us have left to do this week is the rather risky business of predicting which of the four teams in action this weekend will go through to the semifinals. And, perhaps, what will happen thereafter.

And if that is what you’ve been doing, you’ve come to the right place, haven’t you?

Like the professional fans we are here at the SuperWrap desk, we decided to have a look at the playoff records of the six teams still in contention. There must surely be some trends to have emerged from the 16 previous editions of this competition that could help us help you in this regard.

And the good news is that there was. There are definitely some historical trends in Super Rugby playoffs that will come to the fore once more this year. The bad news is that none of those trends are good news to us.

But decide for yourself. Here are the playoff records of this year’s top six:

Stormers: Played five, won one (0/2 away)
Chiefs: Played three, won one (0/2 away)
Reds: Played five, won two (0/1 away)
Crusaders: Played 24, won 19 (2/7 away)
Bulls: Played nine, won six (1/4 away)
Sharks: Played ten, won three (1/7 away)

(History though is history oaks so dont get carried away with this analysis)

The first thing that springs to mind when reading that list is that the top two teams are probably pretty relieved that they’re sitting out this first round of knockout action (So would anyonebe actually!!!) They’ve shown us this year that they know how to collect log points throughout a season, but quite evidently they’ve done so before. The real question for both of them is: what now? (Well watch the other other teams battle it out for the honour of playing them. Note their points of weakness etc)

The second thing that catches the eye is this: if upsets are your thing, then you couldn’t have asked for a better bottom half. The only teams on our list to have ever won playoff matches away from home are, as luck would have it, the three qualifiers that are likely to travel the most between now and the final.

In fact, if you have some money lying around, things are pretty clear-cut. The Reds will beat the Chiefs in Hamilton in two weeks' time, while the Crusaders will do exactly what they did last year and beat the Stormers at Newlands. Neatly, as only in a statistician’s world, we’ll have a repeat of last year’s final.(Hahahhahahahaha let this serve as a warning to all our budding staticians!!) 

Except for this. If historical team stats had anything to do with it, the Reds had no business winning the title last year, did they? In fact, this time last year they’d never won a single playoff game!  (Hahahahhaha the oak saves himslef at the last minute)

Same goes for the Bulls. Before the miracle of ’07, they’ve only known knockout misery. How come they’ve never lost a playoff game since then?

Well, here’s the thing: team stats are tied to teams, and teams tend to change. New personnel, new ways of thinking, new circumstances. Team stats count for nothing.

The trend that does count is this: it is almost impossible to win a playoff away from home. That has nothing to do with who is playing for you and what it is you’re thinking about. It has everything to do with travelling across more time zones than you’ll ever have the energy to count and then, without proper preparation, take on a team that has been performing better than you all season. (Hoor Hoor)

From the four away wins listed above one was in the same country, one was in the same year the game turned professional, one was a one-point miracle in Canberra and the other -- well, the other one was the Stormers inexplicably losing yet another a home playoff.

Once again it looks all done and dusted. And it probably is.

Except for this: there is another way of looking at these stats.

The one time the Sharks did manage an away playoff win, it was against Queensland in Brisbane. Surely that’s an omen?

Also, the Bulls and the Crusaders have met in four playoff matches previously, and three times it was the South Africans that came out on top. It has to count for something?

Yes, we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel, but like you, we refuse to believe there’ll be nothing worth watching this weekend.

The Bulls and the Sharks will know that the stats aren’t backing them this weekend. But hopefully they will also know that all of us will be. And that nothing in this world is set in stone.  (Is this guy quoting Beeno!!!)

I still think on  balance of probability it will be the sharkies and Crusites who win.

Any one think other wise?

the qaulity of the games or die matches has nothing to do with the conference system. they teams are all highly skilled and thus the level of rugby will always be high just as it was pre super 15. that has never changed. that being said the conference system rewards not the teams but the countries involved. if NZ of sa has 4 teams that are better in terms of rugby then they should be rewarded for there efforts. i do agree the playoff concept is working because now the are 2 slots extra for teams to quality for the knockouts but the conference system is a major major major failure of promoting strength vs strength. that is what competition is al about at the end of the day. i promise you this will happen more and more as time progresses some countries goes through on and off patches so its important that they promote on performance and not mere tokenism in selecting the tope teams.

i also feel there should be a lower tier because the quality is being down graded with all the newer teams not being able to compete with the bigger teams and it serves not purpose to see the likes of the force rebels or lions losing week in and week out. there is nothing super about these types of teams. less teams and no conference system will only help and aid the comp in the long run. seeing that SA also has about 65 odd % of the viewers i feel we are entitled to a much bigger cut of the commercial profits.

Beeno

I wrote extensively only about this years performances.   History is fine and there can be repetition - after all people believe in the syaing - HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF - and so do I.

However. looking at the team performances - the hard-headed bookmakers share my viewpoint on the Crusaders winning that one and I believe the Crusaders changes of beating th Bulls is 65% - provided the Bulls do not wear their pink outfit :) and the Crusaders do not repeat their mishap against the Rebels.

Insofar as the Sharks-Reds game is concerned - I sincerely believe the Sharks - despite the travelling issue - has a 70% chance on winning that one.   I am going to take a small double on that one.   

this format is a complete joke no doubt about it and while all three rugby boards had a say in the new format, it was SARU who strongly insisted that the leader of every conference be granted an automatic top 3 spot which would be ranked according to who had the most competition points. if tied, then it would be settled with best points after for and against, most wins, then most tries, then overall try difference.

no body to blame but SARU for the reds sitting 3rd, but i guess everything in hindsight aye?

yeah the problem is SARU makes a lot of rather stupid decisions sometimes. i cant for the love of me understand how they can agree to something like this. maybe they felt that SA rugby wont be strong enough to compete with the other nations. i just dont know to be honest. that being said the best should always be at the top and if not then its up to the unions to make there team into winners. the fact that this conference system is a epic fail is a testament to rugby admin to change it

it the comp gets expanded what i think it will then the conf system will get scraped seeing that the amount of teams that are involved is lobsided in any case

Kingkorn, I have been biatching and moaning about this exact thing all year. And now the worst case scenario has happened, and an unworthy team is getting an easy ride. Just not fair.

i agree bluebok but i am sure it wont last for long. they will need to change it if there is any new teams being added to it.

 I'm not sure that it was SARU that wanted the conference system, I'm sure I read it from O'neill that came up with it. The battle between the unions have always been about who get the extra team. Australia wanted a 5th and SA wanted a 6th (Kings / Spears). Both of them must have realised that with a new union their teams would get diluted as the new team would always recruit players from other unions with good offers. 

That said, looks like Ausie rugby in terms of Fans are growing but their quality has been extremely poor. The brumbies is a mid tier team and the Waratahs has always been one of the hardest teams int he comp only to become a bottom dweller. 

I'm not against the idea off a play-off but logistically it just doesn't make sense. How can any team compete when they have to fly half way around the world. 

I would prefer that we go back to 12 teams where each team can beat each other. Perhaps make the currie cup part of the Super rugby as a qualifier where the top teams go into the Super 12 A division and the bottom teams go into a B deivision. At the end of the league have a cup play-off to win the over all title. 

4 teams from the A division qualify for home ground advantage to play against the top 4 teams from the B division until the reach the final.

Anyway, in a nutshell it should go back to the Super 12, each country can have four teams and their franchises qualify is up to them. 

the format is rubbish and there is way to many under strength teams in the super rugby comp. i feel it needs to be cut down and there should be a second tier of super rugby with a promotion relegation concept brought into the system. these whipping boys need to get there house in order and be competitve

@kingcorn,
no bro, i didnt say that SARU came up with the whole conference format, i said it we SARU who insisted that the leaders of every conference be automatically give one of the top 3 spots, which is why the reds who are really 6th, are sitting pretty in 3rd.

i have als been arguing about the merits or lack of of this format and IMO it really hurt NZ more then SA and especially more then OZ.

entering rnd 16 there were 9 teams all playing for a finals spot, 4 from NZ, 3 form SA and 2 from OZ. they are also the same 9 teams to have scored 50pts or more and NZ teams got to play each other twice??? would have loved for some more easy beat teams, but at least NZ rugby will only be stronger as a whole from the brutal death traps known as the NZ conference.
SA conference is not so bad, but the cheetahs and lions are not on the same level as the rest IMO and dont even get me started about the aussie conference, wekaest by far and only a fully fit reds team is a top tier team, the other 4 are nothing but a bunch of easy beats.

 I hate to admit it but NZ does have a very tough group. The highlanders came out firing at the beginning of the season and the season been shorter, could have taken top spot. But don't write the cheetahs and lions off. They play their best rugby against SA teams and are extremely hard to beat. The sharks came unstuck against a determined Lions team. It's a different contest when to SA teams tackle each other. It almost all about the colusion rather than playing for points.