Bismark Du Plesis bags Oz Conference

[Gnostic]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...with-footballers-migraine-20110527-1f8cc.html

Meanwhile, Sharks hooker Bismark du Plessis has rubbished the strength of the Australian conference on the eve of the game.

Joining a growing chorus of dissatisfied South African and New Zealand figures over the workings of the new Super Rugby format, du Plessis said the competition was "not balanced" because the Western Force and Melbourne Rebels are so weak.

"That inequality in the tournament definitely needs attention because as things stand now, the playing field is definitely not level for all the teams," du Plessis told South Africa's Sport24.

"It’s much easier for a team like the Reds to play the Rebels and Force twice than it is for us to play in tough derby matches every week.

"The notion of an easy game simply doesn’t exist when you play against a South African team. It’s even a tough match against the Lions, even if their position on the points table is not good.

"That is why I believe this tournament is not balanced. It’s so much easier for the Australian teams because in their derbies you don’t find the intensity of our derbies and those in New Zealand.

"The other problem is that you don’t play against all the teams. You miss one or two of the teams and if everybody does not play everybody then it can’t be a fair tournament to determine the best side."

This from one of a pair of neanderthal thugs who I wouldn't feed.

This is the first year in the history of Super Rugby (Pro only) that the Cheetahs have been Ok. The Lions are still woefull. How long have those teams been in the comp? The Force contrary to propular belief don't win many of their games but look at how many are very close run. In fact how many times have the Lions, Cheetah's, or Meathead Du Plesis beaten the Crusaders or even given them a close run game. The Force in their very ran them to a draw, and few even got close to the Saders that year.

As for the Rebels given they haven't even been together for 12 months yet I think they have played pretty well and played some good Rugby along the way unlike the Lions who rarely put two decent games together in a whole season.

As for the Ponies in the Oz conference with the internal issues some here predicted exactly what has happened this year, and it has nothing to do with strength of the "players" in playing the game rather their focus on playing politics.

The Tahs are the same as always and I doubt if any team really feels comfortable playing them as they know they will get a very tough game even if they do fail when the going gets tough come finals time.

The Reds are the shining light this year and its due totally to a complete overhaul to the whole organisation.

So Du Plesis should IMO concentrate on his own backyard and get five competitive teams on the paddock from SA before casting stones. If he doesn't like it he could always bugger of and whore himself in Euroland.

 

[Maroon Army]

As a Reds fan I'd like to respond to that knuckle dragging neanderthals comments by saying that I don't think the South African conference is much chop, considering we have won 8 out of our last 9 games against South African sides. Therefore I think it's unfair that South African sides get to play each other twice, considering that the Reds have shown just how inferior those sides really are.


I'm not serious by the way, I'm just using Bismark Du Plesis' logic.

 

[tigerland12]

Uuuhhh the Lions and Cheetahs (untill this season) have been easy beats for many years? The Force are competitive, Brumbies can be if they get their shit together, and the Rebels are new. Lions and Cheetahs will always be average because they lose all their players. Keep your head in the scrum and keep your mouth shut Bismark

 

[Tiger]

He basically says:

"1. The Aus conference is weak based upon the ladder positions of the teams.

2. Playing the Lions is hard, despite their position on the ladder.

3. Therefore, it is fine to judge the difficulty of the Australian games based on ladder position only, however you cannot do that for the South African teams."

Right.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

Let's see his view next year v the PE team. With lions and kings in the SA conference will his view change?

 

[Blue]

The only intense derbies in Aus have been Tahs vs Reds.

The rest have been pretty meek affairs really but for a bit of huff and puff in the first 20.

I think he is out of totally out place to say make this comment but he is the third person to elude to it in the last couple of weeks and I can't help but think there's a bit of truth in there somewhere.

Games involving the Force, Brumbies and Rebels this year have not been physically demanding affairs.

 

[Maroon Army]

"The other problem is that you don’t play against all the teams. You miss one or two of the teams and if everybody does not play everybody then it can’t be a fair tournament to determine the best side."

That's because South Africa wanted a shorter season to protect the CC.

Does he eat gravel for breakfest?

 

[vidiot]

Maybe the australian conference will suddenly look stronger tonight when the tahs beat the shorks and the latter's season turns to dust.

 

[Tordah]

He's got a point, I mean, looking at the table and seeing that of the bottom four there's three Aus sides, it does make you wonder. I mean, playing against lower ranked teams usually means playing against worse opposition. Australian top teams Reds and Tahs play these lower ranked teams more often than SA and NZ teams, who have got other teams less fancied, but they don't have three of the bottom four. I think the Reds thoroughly deserve their top place at the moment, but it's still a fact that they get to play worse teams more often.

The fact that BdP threw in the Lions and said that they were tough opponents didn't help his cause as it gave you guys something to pick on, and rightly so. But still, I tend to agree with him. Doesn't matter when it's finals time, though. So I guess whoever misses out of the Sharks or Bulls (if one of them does, as I reckon), they'll pick up that matter again in the near future and whinge a little bit.

 

[Scarfman]

What an idiot. Up to last w/e, the Oz conference had more points than the SA conference. This is the first week where the SA conference is slightly ahead. Pull your head in, son!

 

[qwerty51]

How about we wait until the end of the competition before we make judgements on the strength of each conference. He may very well have egg on his face. I don't understand these types of comments before games with those involved. eg. Jamie Joseph

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Stuff like that makes me laugh. He's entitled to his opinion and in all likelihood knows more about it than any of us (playing against these teams week in week out), but it does smack of considerable disrespect. I'll laugh my head off if the Tahs beat the Sharks tonight and let's face it, when have that lot from Durban done anything? Sure, they've made a couple of finals, but the Tahs have done that too.

The Tahs have a very tough run home, but their chances are as good as anyone to make the finals. Then it would be 2 teams from each conference and he'd had no argument. Realistically though, without the Cheetahs stringing together a couple of wins and climbing off their perennial last place, his point would be entirely moot.

 

[Bullrush]

You guys are missing the point.

It's not about how 'hard' the games are, it's simply that of the bottom 4 teams in the comp, 3 of them come from Australia. That means they have lost far more games than they have won and are hence, worse teams than the rest of the comp.

Given that the Tahs and the Reds get to play these 3 teams twice in their conference, that's 6 points each that could be perceived as easier to get than in the other two conferences.

Yes, SA has the Lions and NZ has (currently) the Hurricanes but the other 4 teams are pretty competitive. The Chiefs and the Highlanders are tough teams and regularly beat top teams. As are the Cheetahs and (insert whatever SA team you like). For the Force or Rebels to knock off a top team is a pretty big upset and the Brumbies have been poor in 2011.

While the games themselves may be tough in terms of how they are played, the reality is the Tahs and Reds shouldn't be losing to the other three teams right now based on form and history - and they're not. Competition points in the bag.

 

[Jnor]

Did you stop and think that maybe the Brumbies, Force and Rebels are on the bottom of table precisely BECAUSE they play the Reds and the Tahs so often. If they didn't have to play such high quality opposition so often then surely they would have won more games and hence be occupying higher positions on the ladder.

the point is this can be construed any way you like and any argument on the subject is moot at least until the season is over and probably until next season when it's not a shortened version.

 

[Scarfman]

Christ Bullrush. I normally don't respond to your posts, but could you do me a favour and read this one again:

What an idiot. Up to last w/e, the Oz conference had more points than the SA conference. This is the first week where the SA conference is slightly ahead. Pull your head in, son!

 

[ChargerWA]

You guys (SA/NZ) signed the agreement with Australia for the new S15 format so stop fucking whinging about it. Big surprise that the Australian conference is the weakest, we have the smallest number of Rugby players, clubs, supporters etc, despite having a larger population (than NZ anyway), as it is the 4th most popular football code. Based on the S14 results, we were always most likely to have a couple of easy beats.

But this new format is giving more Aussies the chance to play top flight rugby, and in a few years one of your conferences will have a couple of easy beats. It's been one season, how about giving it a chance before you blow (whinge) it out of the water.

 

[Gnostic]

BR that is not what he said at all. He said there are no easy games, even against the Lions regardless of their position on the table. By that statement he is in fact making comment on how good the particular team is and how physical/hard the games are.

 

[Bullrush]

Did you stop and think that maybe the Brumbies, Force and Rebels are on the bottom of table precisely BECAUSE they play the Reds and the Tahs so often. If they didn't have to play such high quality opposition so often then surely they would have won more games and hence be occupying higher positions on the ladder.

the point is this can be construed any way you like and any argument on the subject is moot at least until the season is over and probably until next season when it's not a shortened version.

If this were true then you would expect that the Brumbies, Force and Rebels would have won more games against the other conferences. And that the Tahs would be sitting higher on the table. But no - the reason these teams occupy 3 of the bottom 4 spots is because they lose to almost everybody. That's the truth.

Christ Bullrush. I normally don't respond to your posts, but could you do me a favour and read this one again:

The total amount of points isn't the best way to see how strong the conference is. Wins and losses are. And only the Lions have lost more games (actually, they have the same wins as the Brumbies at the moment). And guess what....the points the Brumbies, Force and Rebels have are from - surprise, surprise - beating each other, the Lions (the only team lower than them) and a couple of Hurricane wins (the worst in the NZ conference).

The more I think about, the more I think Du Plesis is right........but only in 2011. And there was no way of telling it would be like this when the season started. Or how it will pan out next year. But if the Blues' hopes of making the semi's rested on the results of their last 3 games, who would I prefer they play? The Rebels, Brumbies and Force..... the Chiefs, Hurricanes and Highlanders.....or the Stormers, Sharks and Bulls???

Who knows - if Jake White turns the Brumbies around, the Reds keep going like they are and the Force start winning their close games, Australia could be the hardest conference to be in next season. That's the beauty of sport isn't it?

 

[qwerty51]

The more I think about, the more I think Du Plesis is right........but only in 2011. And there was no way of telling it would be like this when the season started. Or how it will pan out next year. But if the Blues' hopes of making the semi's rested on the results of their last 3 games, who would I prefer they play? The Rebels, Brumbies and Force..... the Chiefs, Hurricanes and Highlanders.....or the Stormers, Sharks and Bulls???

Don't get it. You've picked the worst 3 from the Aus and NZ conferences and then the top 3 from the SA conference.

IMO, the Lions are no better than the Rebels and the Cheetahs are no better than the Brumbies and Force. Might not be the case this year but it is historically and will probably be the case next year. The Lions didn't win a game last year ffs. The Saffers should not be complaining just because of one slightly successful seasons for the Cheetahs and Lions.

 

[Bullrush]

Don't get it. You've picked the worst 3 from the Aus and NZ conferences and then the top 3 from the SA conference.

IMO, the Lions are no better than the Rebels and the Cheetahs are no better than the Brumbies and Force. Might not be the case this year but it is historically and will probably be the case next year. The Lions didn't win a game last year ffs. The Saffers should not be complaining just because of one slightly successful seasons for the Cheetahs and Lions.

LOL...yeah sorry....should be Cheetahs, Lions and Bulls........but I'd still prefer to play the bottom Aussie teams.

I agree that there's no pint complaining BTW.....that's just the way the comp has gone this year and you either be better and win more games or lose and handle it.