• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Analysis of Strength of Conference Tables.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
The realities being more local derbies which fans enjoy and a fairer system to decide the best team from each country because they get to play each other both home and away?

You might not like it but plenty of people do.
 
M

Muttonbird

Guest
I really wanted to reply to this, but couldn't find something to write that didn't break rule 6.

Did you read it before you pressed "Post Reply"?

Thankyou for not playing the man. I think the Reds vs Sharks at Suncorp is an anomaly which serves commercial sense rather than actual ability, that's all.
 
M

Muttonbird

Guest
This is soooo tiring this argument.

Especially the relativity of so-called easy groups. Overall the internal conference games across all three groups were generally tight games. So its a non agrument.

What about the external conference games? Is it not a surprise that the top placed AUS team ranked sixth in comp points?
 

gel

Ken Catchpole (46)
Yes within, but not overall ladder-wise, because you are not taking into account the inter-conference results which contribute to the standings on the ladder. Teams in a weak conference overall would not gain as many inter-conference points as those from a strong conference, overall.
But the other conferences have all the easy games - and so will have much higher win loss overall - in other words the strong conference has a higher probability of lower ladder position - thus why the home game is awarded to the conference leader.
 
M

Muttonbird

Guest
But the other conferences have all the easy games - and so will have much higher win loss overall - in other words the strong conference has a higher probability of lower ladder position - thus why the home game is awarded to the conference leader.

Let's face it. That's not what's happened. Is it?
 

gel

Ken Catchpole (46)
What about the external conference games? Is it not a surprise that the top placed AUS team ranked sixth in comp points?
What is a suprise is that you are happy to have a team come sixth when the two teams above them have less wins... You are happy to have that situation (because those are the rules), but you are not happy that the reds host a final (because those are the rules).
 

liquor box

Peter Sullivan (51)
If the Reds win the title they would certainly deserve some credit for the necessary two away wins (or, maybe not both away), but you'd have to have an asterisk next to it in the history books due to the Reds game this weekend being played in Brisbane, not Christchurch.

Add another asterix to indicate that the Reds have 3 from their last 4 games (inc trial:)) and also did not allow the Crusaders to score a try at their own home ground. Clearly the Crusaders are quite lucky that they get an easier run in the finals and dont have to play a team that will in all liklyhood beat them
 

Scoey

Tony Shaw (54)
What is a suprise is that you are happy to have a team come sixth when the two teams above them have less wins. You are happy to have that situation (because those are the rules), but you are not happy that the reds host a final (because those are the rules).
They're all just not happy because they thought they would face the Brumbies in the playoffs and now they will face the Reds who are defending champs and are building steam at just the right moment. Logic has no place in any of their arguments.
 

chrisrytlee

Frank Row (1)
As my little sister would say, "I'd love to agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong."

Great effort on the analysis, I'll admit I only read the first page and this one, but your hypothesis of teams in weaker conferences getting gifted points isn't necessarilly correct. To have a chance of determining this you have to look at the spread between the intra-conference teams. Where the spread is consistent, it shows that all the teams in the conference are around the same level - this is what we've seen this year. For a team to be getting an "unfair" advantage from a weaker conference they'd have to be significantly stronger than the other teams and you'd see this in that they would be an outlier on the table. For example, if the Reds were where the Chiefs were, then the conference would be significantly unbalanced.

To further reinforce this is the fact that the Reds, to stick to the example, didn't score a ton of 4 try bonus points. Anyway, I could keep going but it's more of the same - the system isn't perfect, but it's not that bad. I do like the suggestion of going by win/loss first and using bonus points as a differentiatior though.
 

Bowside

Peter Johnson (47)
Fact of the matter is you still have to beat the best to win this comp and no one gives a fuck who came 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc.

You can cry about the reds all you like, but IF they win this weekend they will still have to travel to the home ground of the top ranked teams and play them there if they are to progress. No mean feat.

I really hope the reds get the home final v the saders. Not just because I want to go, but also to see muttonbird have a total melt down.
 

Sandpit Fan

Nev Cottrell (35)
It should be, but they have to travel a lot further. Do you think they'd fancy their chances more at Suncorp, or Loftus?

Well seeing as it's the Sharks we are talking about rather than the Bulls, they would probably fancy Kings Park :)

Anyhow, we can all refer to this thread in coming years and see how people viewpoints change when their team benefits from it. This year the Reds benefited, god forbid the Crusaders might benefit in future years - the 180 degree change in view will be something to see. Don't think any of us Reds fans expected the result, but we will ride it as far as we can. For what it's worth, I don't think it's particularly fair either, but life rarely is.

In the end, if someone feels can come up with a replacement format which could have been sold to broadcasters for $400 million in 2009, and avoids this, have at it and give Greg Peters a call. I'd advise giving the Sanzar financial guys a call for some background on the commercial realities of the situation first though.

Time to stick a fork in this thread mods - it's disappearing up its own arse.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
If my auntie had balls , she'd be my uncle. I'll take you back to the overall log. Reds is in the six position overall and is lucky to get a home play off via a stupid conference method.
If the Reds got to play the Cheetahs and Lions twice like those other SAFFA teams then the Reds would be sitting higher then they are now.. the Australian teams provided stiff competition
 

Tordah

Dave Cowper (27)
If the Reds got to play the Cheetahs and Lions twice like those other SAFFA teams then the Reds would be sitting higher then they are now.. the Australian teams provided stiff competition

The Cheetahs are better than three Australian teams, judging by the table, even though they had to play the Stormers, Bulls and Sharks twice. (instead of the Brumbies, Reds and Waratahs, who are all worse than the three Saffer teams - again judging by the points table).

It's a bit ridiculous how you're bending things, instead of simply acknowledging that the good Australian teams benefitted from the conference system, as they played three of the bottom five teams twice.
 

drewprint

Dick Tooth (41)
What does it matter? The combined, awe-inspiring might of the SA and NZ teams will swiftly crush the lowly Reds anyway, right?
 

Brisbok

Cyril Towers (30)
Interesting article below on the Cheetahs. Why is it that they have been relatively successful when playing Aus or NZ opposition, but really weak within their own conference?

Edit - Don't read the title and instantly get on the defensive, it is not entirely accurate and the article is actually worth reading.

Cheetahs the enigma in riddle of South African dominance


By biltongbek, 19 Jul 2012 biltongbek is a Roar Guru

Quite a few theories are going around as to how South Africa, not deemed the strongest conference in Super Rugby, has been able to provide three teams for the play-offs.

I have previously expressed my opinion that the Conference system is flawed and lacking credibility, so for the purpose of this discussion I am going to look at some facts.

I have run the results of the past two seasons and found interesting if not surprising statistics. There is one team in the competition that is an enigma, and their results are the catalyst for South Africa’s dominance in the play-offs.

Over the past two years these are the log points gained by each team inside their own conferences.
Stormers 60, Reds 56, Crusaders 52, Bulls 51, Waratahs 49, Sharks 45, Brumbies 41, Highlanders 40, Chiefs 38, Hurricanes 35, Blues 33, Force 26, Rebels 21, Lions 20 and Cheetahs 17.

From these results it is clear how competitive the matches have been within the New Zealand Conference. One could argue the consequences one of two ways.

You could consider that the equality between these teams gives them all a fighting chance to qualify by winning their matches against the South African and Australian franchises, or you could argue that it reduces their chances of having more than two teams qualify.

When considering the non-derby matches, these are the log points gained in the last two season by each team.
Sharks 55, Crusaders 54, Stormers 53, Reds 52, Chiefs 50, Hurricanes 48, Bulls 46, Cheetahs 45, Blues 43, Highlanders 39, Brumbies 34, Waratahs 27, Force 22, Rebels 19 and Lions 18.

From these results it shows which teams have been most successful over the past two seasons against the other two nations’ teams. Remember each team plays eight derby matches and eight international matches per season, and when you compare the non-derby statistics, there are six teams who stand out as gaining more log points outside of their conferences than inside.

Teams with a nett positive log point difference outside their conference were: Cheetahs 28, Hurricanes 13, Chiefs 12, Blues 10, Sharks 10 and Crusaders 2.

Now the enigma in this competition is none other than the Cheetahs, bottom dweller when it comes to the South African derbies. Consider that during the past two years they have not had one single victory over the Sharks, Bulls or Stormers, gaining only 17 log points from their own conference. Yet in 2011 they scalped the Waratahs (qualifiers), Crusaders (qualifiers) and Brumbies, and the in 2012 took the Hurricanes and Waratahs, for a total of 45 log points outside their conference.

They are in fact the perfect foil for the South African conference, taking zero points from the big three, yet competing very well with overseas teams.

That in my view is the single most determining factor in the qualifying results for the South African teams.
Some may say it is because of the Lions being bottom dwellers, yet every conference has had one team at least every year that has been disappointing. The Blues this year had no wins in their conference, the Rebels had no wins against the Reds or Brumbies, and the Cheetahs had no wins against the Sharks, Bulls or Stormers.

It’s what those bottom-dwellers do when they play outside their conference that can really make the difference.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/07/19/cheetahs-the-enigma-in-riddle-of-south-african-dominance/
 

Brisbok

Cyril Towers (30)
Well seeing as it's the Sharks we are talking about rather than the Bulls, they would probably fancy Kings Park :)

I made the same mistake upon first reading that and was feverishly typing a response....and then I realised that the Sharks finished 5th overall and the Bulls finished 4th. If there was no guaranteed home final for each conference winner the Sharks would have played the Bulls at Loftus and the Reds would have played the Crusaders in Christchurch. So I guess we have to give Muttonbird the benefit of the doubt there!
 

Dam0

Dave Cowper (27)
I think it was good to get back to the point of this thread, which was originally about the strengths of the conference rather than the playoff qualification rules. I find this paragraph in that article to be particularly revealing:

When considering the non-derby matches, these are the log points gained in the last two season by each team.
Sharks 55, Crusaders 54, Stormers 53, Reds 52, Chiefs 50, Hurricanes 48, Bulls 46, Cheetahs 45, Blues 43, Highlanders 39, Brumbies 34, Waratahs 27, Force 22, Rebels 19 and Lions 18.

4 of the bottom 5 teams in inter-conference games are Australian. That is worse than I thought it was. I hope that there is a gradual evening out over the next few years. Perhaps the ARU needs to liberalise their overseas player restrictions for their weaker teams.
 
M

Muttonbird

Guest
I think it was good to get back to the point of this thread, which was originally about the strengths of the conference rather than the playoff qualification rules. 4 of the bottom 5 teams in inter-conference games are Australian. That is worse than I thought it was. I hope that there is a gradual evening out over the next few years. Perhaps the ARU needs to liberalise their overseas player restrictions for their weaker teams.

Quite. I started a thread about the playoff qualification rules but some fine moderator locked it and directed traffic here. It was certainly not a thread-jack on my part. I think they are two different subjects but clearly some people don't.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Interesting article below on the Cheetahs. Why is it that they have been relatively successful when playing Aus or NZ opposition, but really weak within their own conference?

Edit - Don't read the title and instantly get on the defensive, it is not entirely accurate and the article is actually worth reading.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/07/19/cheetahs-the-enigma-in-riddle-of-south-african-dominance/
Very interesting tendense and thanks for this ammunition. Before the conference format pretty sure it was the other way round with the Cheetahs and when they were the Cats in the good old days. Cheetahs CC form sure show that they are more then competitive and even better then WeePee. There is two reason for that. They only got their academy up and running for the last few years and look like keeping the cure of their squad and young talent nowadays. The other reason is that Naka only start using Griqua players in the last two years. Griquas has always been surprising good with the amount of talent come and go there. Thirdly with Boland demoted you get your young Matie talent going either the Lions or Griqua route. Willie le Roux, Josh Strauss, Grant Hattingh, Callie Visagie, PJ Vermeulen as example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top