The Ruckers Forum

Forum » Rugby » General Stuff » flaws of the rubbish spXV format,,,
Login to reply
 
 
 
3524 Topic: flaws of the rubbish spXV format,,,
sasuke uchiha

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 5824
flaws of the rubbish spXV format,,,
January 27, 2013, 00:56:51

pretty obvious but just wanted to voice my gripes again, lolz.

with the inclusion of the southern kings into the 2013 spXV, its not unrealistic to expect that all teams will walk away from their kings match with a maximum 5pts, though theres still question marks over the stormers and wether they will be able to do any kind of attack that dosent employ tactics which include kicking the ball more times than bafan bafana.

so with the obvious cash cow of points the southern kings are going to provide, SA teams will be reaping the rewards which might be enough toget the bulls into the finals.
were all expecting the stormers and sharks to make the finals, but that possible easy 10pt kings buffet, could help them secure a home finals which is a huge and massive advantage.

meanwhile the blues and the reds are the unlucky ones who wont even get a chance to play the kings in 2013, though the reds are better compenstaed as they get to play the brumbies, waratahs, force and rebels twice.

also the australians on top of having the easiest conference by far, have been given serious consideration in terms of the way the byes are given to the teams. they will be given a bye right before the june test series and right after it.
i imagine this is because the bulk of the wallabies team will be coming from the reds, so an extended break from super rugby thanks to some clever scheduling is a very nice added bonus.

my beef is the All Blacks have a tough test series against the french and while the Boks maybe playing teams of lesser calibre, its still a test match, so why arent they given the same consideration???
this really is the pits, last year the chiefs were beaten by one non NZ team, the reds. meanwhile in NZ the hurricanes, highlanders and crusaders all scored victories over the spXV champs.
the blues who were NZ easiest team, still managed to push a few of the kiwi teams in a season where the toppled SA and australias 2nd best teama, this is all testmant to just how difficult the NZ conference really is.

IMO this format is a huge disadvantage to the NZ spXV franchises and is nothing more than legal match fixing. by all rights NZ shouldnt be winning any spXV titles, let alone participating in 2 grand finals in 2 years.


sasuke uchiha

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 5824
RE: flaws of the rubbish spXV format,,,
January 27, 2013, 01:03:31

on a sidenote regarding the brumbies effort in 2012.

 

brumbies finished 2nd in their conference and were a whiskers breath away from making the finals and all i heard was whata great job they did, especially jake white and some of the star players.

i rate chirstain leilafano who will be the wallabies flyhalf in 2013 and micheal hooper very highly, but other than that, the brumbies are unproven.

 

despite the fact that the brumbies play in the easiest conference with the luxury of playing the rebels, froce and waratahs twice, they were also blessed in 2012 with the fact they didnt have to play the crusaders from NZ and the stormers from SA, both teams were strong favourites to win the comp and with very good reason.

 

it will be interesting to see how they roll in 2013, but IMO they proved nothing in 2012 except that with the deck stacked in their favour, they still sucked.


Sharkbok

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3535
RE: flaws of the rubbish spXV format,,,
January 27, 2013, 02:55:28

 Sasuke, nearly all teams will face the Kings and get the 5 points-South African teams just get to face them twice.

It is unfair but realistically it is just an extra 5 points(given that nearly all OZ/NZ teams will play them once.)  So it will not have a massive effect. 

-

South Africa has allways complained about the travel schedule we get because our teams in the past had to be away from home the longest and therefore have the longest tours. New Zealand teams would typically travel to SA for 2 games then go back home. Then have a short trip to OZ later in the tournament. South African teams would go to OZ play games, then have to fly to NZ and play games. Typically this would be 5 away games on the trot which is very tough for teams. Then get back home and have to play the very next weekend, sometimes to a foreign team that arrived in the country over 2 weeks and has acclimitized to the sleeping pattern of the local time zone.

 

 


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12372
RE: flaws of the rubbish spXV format,,,
January 27, 2013, 03:21:51

Sasue

I agree that the format has real deficiencies and that there are problems with the Conference system, bt it cannot be changed before 2016.   The question is - will it be changed and if so - to what?   I think Zanzar would have to come u with another compromise decision and it will not be a decision that would be supported on the basis applicable prior to the introduction of the Conference System.  

The system has negative side-effects - but was basically introduced to enhance rugby development in Australia on a wider basis and to cater for development more specifically in Western Australia and Victoria.   That perspective will probably be retained in some format or other.

Despite having probably more players than New Zealand - the problem is that in South Africa there seems to be no chance of introducing even four really competitive teams - leave alone five.   I think it has a lot to do with rugby management on high level and also decisions like those based not on rugby - but quasi-political norms and standards - such as the Kings situation.

I cannot see how the inclusion of the Kings should be of benefit to anybody.   Although the Lions was not a team to be feared by many - they often enough was quite competitive and were rarely beaten by excessively wide margins like the Kings will be.  Despite losing a number of their key players - the Lions managed to beat the Cheetahs  easily in the warm-up game and they brought in some exciting youngsters that look very promising even more so than the high-profile players they lost in loan deals to other franchises.

However, to get back to the original ideas expressed by you - yes the presnet system has bad elements that needs urgent attention.   Some of these would be that the present system should in fact be changed to allow for a different approach to play-off games.   The 2012 situation that had a seriously detrimental affect on the Sharks - could be eliminated by a provision that those games should take place in the countries where the number 1 and 2 on the log franchises are situated - especially if - as was the case in 2012  the number 3 tems have less points than the lower teams on the log.

Such an arrangement would have meant that the play-offs in 2012 would have been in Durban and Christchurch and not in Brisbane as was the case.   it woud have had a realistic impact on travelling and not result in the farce that prevailed last year.

However, we are barking up the wrong tree here - it is understood that the IRB and even Zanzar is thibnking of an international system for future development and that would probably take the form of another Conference with up to 10 teams that will play home and away matches against each other and would meet only in the play-offs in the Zanzar draw of the competition.   However, the cost of such a programme will have to be covered by TV and advertsising rights  and the latter could impact on the final format to be adopted.

In essence I think we are in brought agreement that the system is flawed - but can and will it be changed - I think that nobody really have an answer to that one.               


Sharkbok

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3535
RE: flaws of the rubbish spXV format,,,
January 27, 2013, 03:44:45

 Clevermike, That is a valid point I never considered- "Such an arrangement would have meant that the play-offs in 2012 would have been in Durban and Christchurch and not in Brisbane as was the case."

It is about making accomodations and comprising to make to the relationship work. (Not having a country(NZ/OZ/SA- in the qualifying stages would stop the sport from growing).

However the Sharks who were title contendors got beat by the system

If the game had been in Durban(against OZ Queensland, the Sharks would have won comfortably given they won in Australia against the Reds.

Then the Sharks would have won in the semis in Capetown against the Stormers .

This would have allowed the Sharks to travel to New Zealand fresh and could have potentially beaten the Chiefs in the final.

The travel factor has has now been shared out as the Crusaders found out in 2011.

 


sasuke uchiha

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 5824
RE: flaws of the rubbish spXV format,,,
January 29, 2013, 17:27:27

@sharkbok,

while "nearly" all teams get to play the kings, that means jack didly squat to the reds and blues who would have loved nothing more than a crack at the kings. blues even more so as thier fixtures has them playing the likes of the chiefs and crusaders, both who are teams that the sharks and stormers havent beaten in two years.

It is unfair but realistically it is just an extra 5 points(given that nearly all OZ/NZ teams will play them once.)  So it will not have a massive effect.
this comment of urs has me going WTF??? o_O, O_o, O_O,,,, bro u gota be shittin me.
lets put it this way, take the bonus point out of the equation and what are u left with 4 pts. what does 4 points represent in spXV???
1 stormers - 66pts
2 chiefs - 64pts
3 reds - 58pts
4 crusaders 61 pts
5 bulls - 59pts
6 sharks - 59 pts
7 brumbies - 58pts
8 hurricanes - 57 pts

for u to say so casually that realistically it wouldnt have a massive effect is crazy. cos again not even taking the bonus pt into account. 4 pts would have meant the chiefs finish ontop of the table, not the stormers.
4pts would have meant the hurricanes are in the finals not the sharks and the bulls get bumped down to 6, so as u can see saying that it will not have a massive effect is wrong from every single angle that u look at it.
and again, that dosent take into account the fact that no SA team played any NZ team twice in the normal round robbin season, so no sharkbok, 5pts has the potential to have a massive effect.

"South Africa has allways complained about the travel schedule we get because our teams in the past had to be away from home the longest and therefore have the longest tours. New Zealand teams would typically travel to SA for 2 games then go back home. Then have a short trip to OZ later in the tournament.
South African teams would go to OZ play games, then have to fly to NZ and play games. Typically this would be 5 away games on the trot which is very tough for teams."

i see what ur saying, but that is incorrect, or should i say u are wording it in a very onesided way that differs from the actual facts.
super rugby teams from SA and NZ/OZ would routniely alternate the number of games played between the countries. for example take the crusaders and the sharks. the sharks one year would play 3 games in NZ and 2 games in OZ, while the crusaders would play 2 games in SA, the following year the crusaders would play 3 games in SA, while the sharks would play 2 games in NZ and OZ.
i do concede that the sharks have the tougher draw, especially when they had 5 games in OZ/NZ to contend with, but by ur own words,,,
",,,team that arrived in the country over 2 weeks and has acclimitized to the sleeping pattern of the local time zone,,,"
so those teasm should have been use to it. if u know anything about NZ and OZ, u will know that theres almost no difference in terms of time zone between the two countires, two hours differnt to be exact, so travelling to OZ/NZ is like one big trip to SA.

u could then argue that NZ/OZ combined have more teams than SA, but bear in mind that it was australia, force, waraths, brumbies and reds were all kak during this period. so while SA teams have always travelled poorly, they still should have easily have beaten the likes of the aussie teams, especially during the time period which applies to the travelling comments u made.

so mikey, while u may think that the kings dont benefit anybody, from a stormers/cheetahs/bulls/sharks point of view, i beg to differ.


sasuke uchiha

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 5824
RE: flaws of the rubbish spXV format,,,
January 29, 2013, 17:30:42

@mikey & sharkbok,

The 2012 situation that had a seriously detrimental affect on the Sharks - could be eliminated by a provision that those games should take place in the countries where the number 1 and 2 on the log franchises are situated - especially if - as was the case in 2012  the number 3 tems have less points than the lower teams on the log.
Such an arrangement would have meant that the play-offs in 2012 would have been in Durban and Christchurch and not in Brisbane as was the case.   it woud have had a realistic impact on travelling and not result in the farce that prevailed last year.
thats the right line of thought, but either incorrectly conveyed on ur part, or i thats what u meant then i disagree.
bottomline for me the qualifying finals should of been held by who ever was ranked the highest on the ladder at the time, similar to the way the semis have always been done.
this means that in 2012, the first round of qualifying finals would have been
crusaders vs reds in christchurch
bulls vs sharks in loftus
what this translates to is the sharks would never have gotten a single home game, unless the reds won every match leading into the grand final. it does however have a significant impact on the amount of travellling done by the sharks, so the sharks would have eventually faced the chiefs in the finals a lot fresher, but u would have to be pretty one eyed to say the sharks would have beaten that chiefs outfit, especially as the chiefs had already beaten them in durban during the round robbin and kept them tryless at home while scoring 2 tries in their victory.

FYI, in 2010 when the format was being hammered out by the SANZAR delgates, tony johonson on supersport.com and skyport.com and foxsport, revealed some of the details in what went down during the discussions between the SA/NZ/OZ delegates.
in it he revealed that it was SARU who pushed very hard for the leaders of the three conferences to be automatically granted the top 3 positions on the combined conference according to their pts. this was something that the NZRU objected to heavily, and at first so did ARU, but the ARU eventually wised up and wished for that clause as well.
so if i was the sharks, i would thank SARU for nothing.

another intersting TJ revealed fact which relates to my earlier post to sharkbok, before the format of every conference play each other twice was settled upon, the intial talk was for everyone to play each other once. NZRU said that all OZ/NZ teams should play 3 games in SA, while SA play 2 games in NZ/OZ, which would translate to 4 games, similar to what it is now. ARU and SARU both refused, i can understand why the ARU would refuse, cos theyre not stupid, but the PDV incompetence from the SA delgates in charge is very odd.


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12372
RE: flaws of the rubbish spXV format,,,
January 29, 2013, 18:58:45

Sasue

I have written various comments on the Kings issue and said that they would give away 49 points to the other franchises in SA - that is 10 points per opponent.   Any other team would only get 5 points outt of the game against them,   That iis one negative I have stressed before - the other even more important one is the standard and image of the competition that could be adversely affected.

With due respect - I do not believe in ifs and buts - so I accept the log points as per the log for 2012.  LOL.

However, what I do not really think should happen is that a team with less points on the log (The Reds - 58 points) should get a home play-off game against the Sharks (59  points).   That to my mind is also a major discrepency in the system..


sasuke uchiha

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 5824
RE: flaws of the rubbish spXV format,,,
January 29, 2013, 20:03:49

@mikey,

im not a big believer in ifs and buts either TBH, but merely used that as an example to show our friend sharkbok that 5pts in spXV IS important, and not as he so crazily said,
",,,but realistically it is just an extra 5 points.  So it will not have a massive effect."

as for the reds soft home finals advantage, ur preaching to the choir on that one, but we can agree to disagree on wether thats the major discrepency or not, cos IMO playing the chiefs, crusaders (two of three teams to earn 60+ championship pts), as well as the highlanders and hurricanes (who earned 50 or more championship pts) and having to play them twice cos ur a kiwi franchise is the major discrepency.
i would love to have two teams of the calibre that the cheetahs/lions/kings are in, or even better, the No1 holiday resort known as the australian conference, in the NZ conference, LMAO, o_-


Sharkbok

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3535
RE: flaws of the rubbish spXV format,,,
January 29, 2013, 20:23:29

Sasuke, I condede that come finals time- 5 points although it is only a fraction of the points of a qualifying team, when things are close it can make a break a teams position in the top6.

-

On the other areas, whilst you have added some valuable stats, I feel that you have subjectively interpreted them. 

It was not long ago that Australian teams were competive in the tournament. 

When the 4th team got introduced in Australia they weakened, and when the 5th team got introduced it is now only the reds that have a team that can even remotely think of winning the tournament.

-Playing 5 away games in a row in 2 different countries is not easy. 

Sometimes a NewZealand team would come to South Africa and only play two games and then straight back home to their beds.

-

Play some homes games and then go over to Australia(2 hours time difference). for some games then straight back home. 

-

When Australia had strong teams, South African teams had to play these teams and then play New Zealand teams. 

-

So it is no doubt that South African teams have traditionally had the hardest tournament strucure of all. 

With the Australian teams now generally to diluted, this has made life easier. 

So instead of 5 really tough games on the trot, a team from South African will typically get weaker teams in OZ, and then potentially not draw the Crusaders or the 2nd best team at the time in NZ. 

This has contributed to SA teams doing better. New Zealand teams are also benefiting from the week Australian conference as well, but they have allways had short quick tours to Australia anyway.

- Not the grueling travel schedule against the old brumbies, and strong Waratahs side. (Apart from the Reds0 the OZ teams are now also potential points cows- home and away. 

-The Sharks and Stormers often win more games away on tour than they lose, so something has changed

 


sasuke uchiha

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 5824
RE: flaws of the rubbish spXV format,,,
January 30, 2013, 00:36:34

@sharboks,

numbers aside, NZ have always done well in OZ against their teams, even during the australian golden era back when the brumbies were on level peggings with the crusaders for about 3 years.
so this comment of urs,,,,
It was not long ago that Australian teams were competive in the tournament.
When the 4th team got introduced in Australia they weakened, and when the 5th team got introduced it is now only the reds that have a team that can even remotely think of winning the tournament.
-Playing 5 away games in a row in 2 different countries is not easy.
Sometimes a NewZealand team would come to South Africa and only play two games and then straight back home to their beds.

how much would u like to wager on that comment??? as i was reviewing the numbers involved in the post, i made a mental note of all the past fixtures and from first glance, teams that ravelled to SA from NZ/OZ or vice versa had a lot of byes after those tours.
i promise i will look back into it and post the actual numbers on this comment so stay tunedm but its a far cry from what u make it out to be.

the real comment in ths paragraph i want to address is this one,,,
"It was not long ago that Australian teams were competive in the tournament."
so how long ago was it according to u when the aussies were competitve in super rugby??? IMO the aussies were last competitve in 2004 which was the end of the brumbies/wallabies golden era.
since then the australians leading up to the spXV have made the following,,,,
2005 waratahs finalists
2006 waratahs semi finalists
2007 no aussie teams made the finals
2008 waeatahs finalists
2009 no aussie teams made the finals
2010 waratahs semi finalists
so please elaborate on when it was the australians were competitive, cos by my caluculations it was 8 years ago and that to me is is two years short of a decade which is  along time.

"When the 4th team got introduced in Australia they weakened, and when the 5th team got introduced it is now only the reds that have a team that can even remotely think of winning the tournament.
-Playing 5 away games in a row in 2 different countries is not easy."

this is where ur plain wrong bro, cos since australia have had their 5th team, no saffa club what so ever has played 5 away games in 2 different countries. all saffa clubs play a maximum of 4 away games in NZ/OZ, the conference format has seen to that.
also the travel is an issue and i can understand that from a saffa point of view, but no team in the history of spXV has had to travel the way the crusaders did in 2011 where they didnt play a single home game and even transferred one of their home games to twickenham to the sharks benefit. the crusaders hands down racked up more travelling ks than any team in the history of spXV and still mangaed to play a competitve game in the finals against a star studded reds outfit. it also happened in a season where the beat the stormers twice at newlands in one season and the sharks in twickenham and nelson.

as for this comment,,,,
"Sometimes a NewZealand team would come to South Africa and only play two games and then straight back home to their beds.
Play some homes games and then go over to Australia(2 hours time difference). for some games then straight back home."

while i know there have been cases of that, u must be under the impression that playing in SA and then travelling back home to NZ to play a game the following week is easy as pie, LMAO, :oP
i know kiwis in all maters rugby appear all knowing and all powerful, but the reality is they are only human and following up on a game after travelling to SA is hard, only one team has a very high strike rate under those circumstances and no surprises thats the crusaders, the most successful team in super rugby history.

"When Australia had strong teams, South African teams had to play these teams and then play New Zealand teams."
again when exactly was that, cos according to the numbers that was back in 2004, a year after the 3rd last RWC.

"So it is no doubt that South African teams have traditionally had the hardest tournament strucure of all.
With the Australian teams now generally to diluted, this has made life easier.
So instead of 5 really tough games on the trot, a team from South African will typically get weaker teams in OZ, and then potentially not draw the Crusaders or the 2nd best team at the time in NZ."


that is very true and from a travelling point of view i do concede that SA have had the hardest tournament structure in the past, but this current format and the server disadvantge its giving NZ is making up for that and then some.
what SA had was hard in the past, but it wasnt crazy unreasonable hard with the cirucmstances at hand. whats happening now is complete and utter BS.
i do like ur point on the way weaker teams have contributed to SA producing better results,
.last two years SA vs OZ teams in australia,,,
stormers won 4 ftom 4
bulls won 2 from 4
sharks won 4 from 5
cheetahs won 2 from 4
lions won 1 from 4
SA won 12 from 17 matches since spXV began.

This has contributed to SA teams doing better
"-The Sharks and Stormers often win more games away on tour than they lose, so something has changed"
away from SA the stormers and sharks have won the following games,,,

u have a very good point that the diluted OZ conference has helped SA big time, SAs record vs OZ in austalia from 2009-2010 was shocking, 4 from 20 matches a 20% win rate, so i can see how u think that helps.

but that brings me to this comment of urs,,,,
"New Zealand teams are also benefiting from the week Australian conference as well, but they have allways had short quick tours to Australia anyway."

ur right NZ teams like SA are benefiting from the OZ conference too, but unlike SA NZ have ALWAYS done well in OZ, even during that time u say when australia were supposedly competitive. but if its because NZ always had a short trip, then why did SA teams not do better in the past, considering u think that teams are climatised to that regions time zones after two hours??? with those arguments from ur corner, u can have one but not the other.

while we can agree to disagree, end of the day it is more fair for every team to play each other at least once, ideally twcie, but the reality is once and then alternate the following year.
u make some solid points about SA travel schedule in the past, so maybe they are due these breaks they are reciveing now, but what a break theyre getting IMO, i would give anything for the crusaders, chiefs and hurricanes to be in the same conference as the cheetahs and lions/kings.
i like the NZRUs original plan for NZ and OZ teams to play three of their SA games in SA, while SA play 2 of their 5 games in OZ/NZ. this would have made it the most fairest format of all, instead were stuck with what we got and that benefits australia the most and NZ the least.
but while its fair, im beginning to understand why SARU objected to it, especially considering how the format is now.
all in all we will conitnue to think what we like, but i will always think that the biggest false sense of accomplsihment is thinking its good to have three teams in the finals under this format and with the SA confernce.


Leave a reply:

You need to be logged in to leave a reply.
 
 

From The Sideline