Bismark Du Plesis bags Oz Conference

[Bullrush]

If the Reds were No.1 in the Australian conference but were say 4th or 5th in the overall points then I'd be worried about the format but the Reds have beaten almost everyone they've played so it's not as if they're getting into the finals because they had more 'easy' games to top their conference.

I can understand why Jamie Joseph and Du Plesis have made comments about it because they are basically in a race with the Tahs to make the finals. That's probably where the Tahs have had a slight advantage because the 3 other teams they get to play twice this year just happen to also be 3 of the worst teams in the comp. And they are right - surely your chances of getting more points than your competition are better when you play the worst teams more often?

In saying that, there is no point in complaining about it. Everyone knew what they had to do to get thru to the finals when the competition started and both the Highlanders and Sharks have probably dropped games this year they should have won (losing to the Lions at home for example). However, if the Highlanders beat the Tahs in the last week and they and the Sharks still miss the finals but the Tahs make it, it will a hard pill to swallow for those guys.

But then again - you should have beaten the Lions......

 

[liquor box]

surely your chances of getting more points than your competition are better when you play the worst teams more often?

The Rebels and Force also have to play the best team in the comp twice more than most teams and two lucky teams dont even have to play the best team.

I think it goes in cycles, Australia is at the bottom of the cycle at the moment and SA are closer to the top in overall performance. It will even out with time.

If the guys who write these comments want to be listened to and respected then they should show where they printed similar comments about SA rugby when the Lions and Cheetahs were basically a bye.

 

[JJJ]

Going by last year's super rugby the Aussie conference was looking ok. Reds, Tahs and Brumbies finished pretty well and the Force were good enough to beat the Crusaders and Stormers, despite a horror run with injuries. The Rebels didn't poach any stars from those teams, so you wouldn't think they'd affect the core strength of the Aussie conference. What couldn't be foreseen was the shocking underperformance this season of the brumbies. "Implosion" might be a better word for it.

Combined with the unexpected strength of the Cheetahs and the Highlanders, the Aussie conference is indeed the weakest this season. Once the brumbies start playing close to their potential and the Rebels have improved a bit (as they're bound to do, this being only their first season and Macqueen's reintroduction to top flight rugby) there won't be much in it again.

Kiwi sides have more of a right to feel aggrieved at the strength of their conference than the saffers. Where are their easybeats? I haven't heard them whinging though.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It's a pretty simple equation in most sports and certainly in Super rugby: win your games, make the finals. Simple as that. The draw has swings and roundabouts, but there won't be any teams playing in the finals who won't deserve to be there. Furthermore, there definitely won't be an undeserving winner, history has shown that in abundance. It's a tough comp where you have to be switched on every week.

 

[TheNextBigThing]

The conference system is always going to favor the best teams in a bad conference. The system isn't in place to be fair it's intended to extend the season in the most lucrative way. My personal opinion is that SANZAR should never have allowed a competition format in which not every team played each other at least once.

That said as of 6 this evening, the reds could have played derbies against Linfield under 9s and they'd still indisputably be the strongest team, the schedule doesn't crown a team the minor premiers, beating all your rivals does.

 

[Ruggo]

Ditch the conference system and let's just play eachother twice. Then nobody has anything to whinge about. It wan't stop people finding something to whinge though. This whole Australia, NZ, and SA thing is bullshit but the current system promotes it. The competition is 15 franchises playing eachother and it should be geared that way. I love having extra rugby to watch but I ame no fan of the conference system. Reality is that it is a piss poor attempt to accomodate all three SANZAR Nations interests. Bizmark, the same conference system has you avoiding playing first on the ladder, don't forget that fella.

BTW if I remember a couple of weeks back the conference system was the only thing a SA side in the top three as the Saders had more points than the Stormers and under a logical system would have rightfully third.

 

[Gnostic]

Won't happen Ruggo, 30 games per season then the 4N (with the Argies next year). Just too many games. I would go so far as to suggest that when we see another expansion in a few years teams outside of conferences will missing playing probably three or four of the other sides. Its just the way it is.

I personally don't want a 12 month season like the Frogs do and basically write off Test Rugby.

 

[TheNextBigThing]

Then nobody has anything to whinge about.

Except for the players. The attrition rate this season is bad enough.

I personally would welcome a 52 week season.

 

[cyclopath]

Play everyone once, alternate the home and aways, each team gets 7 home, 7 away. Much better. No "weak team" talk, no "didn't play the mighty Reds / Crusaders / Stormers etc" stuff. 2 byes each team, no points for byes.

 

[Ruggo]

Won't happen Ruggo, 30 games per season then the 4N (with the Argies next year). Just too many games. I would go so far as to suggest that when we see another expansion in a few years teams outside of conferences will missing playing probably three or four of the other sides. Its just the way it is.

I personally don't want a 12 month season like the Frogs do and basically write off Test Rugby.

I would be just happy to see the end of all the pissing and moaning.

 

[qwerty51]

Someone pointed out I was wrong but I was sure that this nonsense of not playing 2 teams is only in WC years and everyone will play everyone next year? Can't find anything on this but does anyone know if I'm right or wrong.

If it's the norm to miss two opponents then this competition is a joke.

 

[Gnostic]

I personally like the conference system. We have seen some great games it has been an engrossing competition for a new venture. Give it a couple of years, I seem to recall a lot of whinging about the Super 12 as well simply because a draw could really favour a side with who they got on tour and at home. This way tours favour sides much less and the cream will rise to the surface. I don't think anybody can dispute the best sides are at the top now. For his whining Du Plesis' side is where it should be as is the Bulls. They have been poor up to this point though the Bulls are improving. In the NZ conference the Canes pack has been terrible, the Chiefs (who knows - as usual) and the Highlanders while having a great start are tiring and lack a lot without Thompson.

Nobody in Oz can argue that the standings should be anything else than what they are. Overall I think the competition standings reflect the reality of the teams performances, something the old system didn't always do.

 

[Ruggo]

One other point worth mentioning is that this is only the first year and it is hardly a large enough data set to base assumptions and conclusions on. I would be concearned if regular trends occured after a few years but we are not at that stage yet.

 

[REDinCPT]

it's pretty obvious that bdp is a bit of a plonker and an extremely easy player to hate unless he's on your team. that's his personality and it's good to have big personalities and villains in the game.

i agree with ruggo that a home and away would be the best way to go in promoting a truly fair competition but i do not think this is achievable with a 15 team competition. i'd like to drop it back to 12 teams which would also go a long way to strengthening the weaker teams that remain. some argue that that having 5 aus teams is beneficial to aus rugby with more players being exposed to super rugby and providing a greater player base for the national team. i'm not so sure about this as i think it may just result in there being 1 (or 2) aus super rugby teams without any wallabies due to the fact that they always lose.

 

[Blue]

Ditch the conference system and let's just play eachother twice. Then nobody has anything to whinge about. It wan't stop people finding something to whinge though. This whole Australia, NZ, and SA thing is bullshit but the current system promotes it. The competition is 15 franchises playing eachother and it should be geared that way. I love having extra rugby to watch but I ame no fan of the conference system. Reality is that it is a piss poor attempt to accomodate all three SANZAR Nations interests. Bizmark, the same conference system has you avoiding playing first on the ladder, don't forget that fella.

BTW if I remember a couple of weeks back the conference system was the only thing a SA side in the top three as the Saders had more points than the Stormers and under a logical system would have rightfully third.

Please, no more games. If anything, each country ditch a team, everyone play each other once in a Super 12.

 

[RedsHappy]

Some of you might find this interview with the S15 CEO of interest....notably his statements that the core S15 format is largely hard cemented in via the lengthy deals with the S15 broadcasters:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10728912

 

[Richo]

The conference system will take some time to develop a culture, both within the player group but also among fans. A similar system is very successful in the NFL. It's simply a case of swings and roundabouts: some years one conference will be weaker, other years another. This year it's the Aussie conference thanks to an expansion team and the Brumbies implosion. Next year it might be the Saffers.

One conference has to the weakest each year. That's just the way it is.

 

[RedsHappy]

The conference system will take some time to develop a culture, both within the player group but also among fans. A similar system is very successful in the NFL. It's simply a case of swings and roundabouts: some years one conference will be weaker, other years another. This year it's the Aussie conference thanks to an expansion team and the Brumbies implosion. Next year it might be the Saffers.....One conference has to the weakest each year. That's just the way it is.

Yes indeed Richo, and even if we accepted there was a problem of 'weak conferences getting more easy points' etc, what would be the viable antidote? What, we'd appoint a Panel of Esteemed Experts to Assess Weak S15 Teams in Advance...and each S15 Weak Team played against would only yield 75% of normal points?

There will never be an S15 system that will be optimal in all ways, and generate no latter day whingers. For me, this year's S15 format, and the top 6 etc, looks like being far more exciting and productive than the S14's.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I've said before that I like the conference system and I still do. Once the Rebels get on their feet, it will be even more competitive. The Force and Brumbies have some work to do, however.

 

[whatty]

I just don't like that Team one from SA plays the two best teams from NZ/AUS and team two plays the two worst teams from NZ/AUS.

What is fair about that?