Analysis of Strength of Conference Tables.

[FrankLind]

I acknowledged that NZ is a stronger Rugby nation and has the stronger sides. No question. But that was an upset pure and simple and carries the same significance as the Rebels beating the Crusaders.

This thread was all about NZ teams being allegedly disadvantaged. My question to FrankLind stands. Do the Canes and the Highlanders deserve to be in the top 6? And if so, at the expense of who?

I'd say, for this particular year, at full strength, and taking home advantage out of the equation (which I believe is worth 10 to 15 points), the Reds, Brumbies, Canes, Highlanders, Bulls, and Sharks are roughly equal.

The Stormers and Crusaders are the strongest sides at full strength IMO.

But this is all subjective - which is why I tried to count non-conference wins in the first place to get a more objective view.

 

[Karl]

If you have a tough conference you'll kill it against the other conferences teams then won't you? Get BPs and everything.

The answer is more games so every team plays every other team home and away. Then the relative strength of the conferences is irrelevant.

 

[gel]

I'd say, for this particular year, at full strength, and taking home advantage out of the equation (which I believe is worth 10 to 15 points), the Reds, Brumbies, Canes, Highlanders, Bulls, and Sharks are roughly equal.

The Stormers and Crusaders are the strongest sides at full strength IMO.

But this is all subjective - which is why I tried to count non-conference wins in the first place to get a more objective view.

That's eight teams - which are the 6 that should be there? Or are you advocating a 8 teams finals series?

 

[liquor box]

There are simply too many factors to come up with a clear winner, what about traveling times and directions (effect of jet lag)?

Some teams have a clear advantage based on their home grounds, a quick drying surface of a high quality should allow for more tries, and more BP's. An indoor or very well protected stadium will help kicking, so penalties will be more of a factor and lastly the Altitude has a massive effect.

I would hazzard a guess that teams like the Bulls are great teams, but due to their home ground altitude they could actually get away with some wins based on altitude and their aclimitisation. Even when the bulls are at 70% of their normal strengthe they are very very hard at home.

 

[PaarlBok]

Stormers show the way, win first!

 

[Scoey]

No its not, the Blues beat the Brumbies AT home with absolute nothing but proud to play for. There is a massive differense.

PB, you're either a fool or you're winding me up. You're generally not a fool but either way I've no interest in discussing this further. That's a real long bow you've got there! ;-)

 

[Scoey]

S

I'd say, for this particular year, at full strength, and taking home advantage out of the equation (which I believe is worth 10 to 15 points), the Reds, Brumbies, Canes, Highlanders, Bulls, and Sharks are roughly equal.

The Stormers and Crusaders are the strongest sides at full strength IMO.

But this is all subjective - which is why I tried to count non-conference wins in the first place to get a more objective view.

You haven't mentioned the Chiefs but since they are a NZ team then obviously they deserve to be there so that's 9 teams you think deserve a spot in the top six? Still dodging the question.

 

[Roundawhile]

A different analysis.

The following is a table of the season with points allocated according to the strength of the teams you beat (based on the final ladder ranking).

For example, if you win against the stormers you get 1 point if you win against the reds you get 3 points and if you win against the cheetahs you get 10 points. A loss is worth 16, as is a bye.

Obviously the lower the better.

..................1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Total
1. Stormers 8 6 16 12 15 5 9 16 3 14 16 10 11 16 5 15 10 13 200
2. Chiefs 16 12 4 7 16 11 14 10 6 8 15 16 16 5 12 9 16 16 209
3. Reds 11 14 13 16 16 16 7 16 16 12 16 2 15 7 16 13 9 11 226
4. Crusaders 12 16 16 16 10 15 16 1 8 11 3 16 12 16 9 16 2 14 209
5. Bulls 6 10 16 16 9 16 4 15 7 16 13 11 16 16 16 10 16 15 228
6. Sharks 16 16 15 3 16 7 16 12 16 16 9 14 10 1 16 16 5 10 214
7. Brumbies 14 16 10 16 9 16 16 13 16 15 11 16 8 16 13 14 11 16 246
8. Hurricanes 16 15 14 16 12 16 6 16 16 16 12 9 16 13 11 4 16 2 226
9. Highlanders 2 4 11 8 16 13 16 16 12 10 16 16 5 12 16 16 16 16 221
10. Cheetahs 16 16 16 13 16 8 15 16 16 16 14 16 16 11 16 16 16 16 269
11. Waratahs 16 13 16 16 6 16 16 14 13 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 270
12. Blues 16 16 5 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 16 16 16 16 14 7 265
13. Rebels 16 16 16 16 14 16 12 16 16 16 16 4 14 16 16 16 16 16 268
14. Force 16 16 16 11 16 3 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 16 16 16 16 269
15. Lions 10 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 6 16 13 16 269

So the final result is as follows :-

Team Points
1. Stormers.................200
2. Chiefs..................... 209
3. Crusaders.............. 209
4. Sharks ....................214
5. Highlanders.......... 221
6. Reds........................ 226
7. Hurricanes............ 226
8. Bulls....................... 228
9. Brumbies............... 246
10. Blues.................... 265
11. Rebels.................. 268
12. Cheetahs............. 269
13. Force................... 269
14. Lions................... 269
15. Waratahs........... 270

So the only team in the finals to have an "easy" run is the bulls, but only just.
The Highlanders performed better against more difficult teams than the final ranking showed.
The Tahs four wins were mainly against the lowest ranked teams.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Really the only solution is for everyone to play each other twice. That's not going to happen though is it? Too many games and it leaves less room for the test season and tours. We could always go back to everyone playing each other once, but then people will complain about not playing some teams at home, others away blah blah blah.

The draw is what it is, good teams will still make the finals, poor ones won't. Can anyone reasonably say that the top six this year aren't deserving of being there? Australia has the weakest conference according to many (and the analysis does bear that out to a large degree), so we only got one team in the finals. What could be fairer than that?

 

[ACR]

What could be fairer than that?

Giving home semi finals to teams that earn them. Fix that and I can live with it. Whoever thinks each country needs a home final is a nonce, it's like giving ribbons to professional sportsmen.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Giving home semi finals to teams that earn them. Fix that and I can live with it. Whoever thinks each country needs a home final is a nonce, it's like giving ribbons to professional sportsmen.

I have some sympathy for that argument.

 

[ACR]

I have some sympathy for that argument.

And I understand the best teams should make the finals regardless. I have no problem with the Highlanders or Hurricanes missing out because they are mid table sides anyway. If only home ground advantage didn't make such a difference.

 

[ChargerWA]

Yep, the conference system is unfair, no argument from me. Got problems with it, call NZRU, they are the ones who signed you up for it.

Ear bashing the opposition fans with self evident truthes is kinda pointless.

 

[Scoey]

Giving home semi finals to teams that earn them. Fix that and I can live with it. Whoever thinks each country needs a home final is a nonce, it's like giving ribbons to professional sportsmen.

Which team/s earned a home semi that didn't get one, and which team/s got a home semi, but aren't deserving?

 

[PaarlBok]

Which team/s earned a home semi that didn't get one, and which team/s got a home semi, but aren't deserving?

According to the overall log Reds should travel to Crusaders and Sharks to Loftus.

 

[liquor box]

Giving home semi finals to teams that earn them. Fix that and I can live with it. Whoever thinks each country needs a home final is a nonce, it's like giving ribbons to professional sportsmen.

I guess if you comply by the rules set out at the start of the tournament then you are earning your final at home. The Reds are not to blame, the system is.

 

[liquor box]

Really the only solution is for everyone to play each other twice. That's not going to happen though is it? Too many games and it leaves less room for the test season and tours. We could always go back to everyone playing each other once, but then people will complain about not playing some teams at home, others away blah blah blah.

The draw is what it is, good teams will still make the finals, poor ones won't. Can anyone reasonably say that the top six this year aren't deserving of being there? Australia has the weakest conference according to many (and the analysis does bear that out to a large degree), so we only got one team in the finals. What could be fairer than that?

I would like to know how the teams you dont play are determined, are they the same each year? Does it revolve on a 5 yearly basis? How can it be made fairer?

 

[Sluggy]

Well the Blues beat the top Aus team at home in the last match. That show there is some way between the strength of the Aus and the NZ conference.

Yet the Crusaders lost to a 'weak' Oz team. I don't think its that simple PB.

 

[Muttonbird]

Which team/s earned a home semi that didn't get one, and which team/s got a home semi, but aren't deserving?

The Bulls, and the Reds, respectively.

 

[Scoey]

According to the overall log Reds should travel to Crusaders and Sharks to Loftus.

That doesn't make them more deserving.

The Bulls, and the Reds, respectively.

On what basis are the Bulls more deserving than the Reds of a home semi? They came a distant second in the conference that had the most 4 try BP's in the derbies and they had less wins than the Reds. If anything, thier position on the log has been inflated already.