The End of Super Rugby

[gel]

You can not expect them with that amount of injuries to be more competitive as they were? When the Reds went through a injury crisis last year. How did they do?

They came third in the competition.

 

[Sidbarret]

I think you've put the point better than some of us. For various complicated reasons, we need the 6th team.

It's just frustrating feeling like SA lost out badly on the last round of negotiations, while Australia gained massively, and now that SA need some help we're basically getting told to go screw ourselves. From our so called business partners. If something I said in there is incorrect I would like to know what SA gained from the last change that was proposed by SARU.

If we did away with the conference system, but included the Kings & Lions I think we could end up with a slightly shorter comp overall while helping SA. Australia lose some local derbies which they seem to enjoy and it might be a hard sell to newscorp, so maybe I'm dreaming.

Wait, if I was dreaming we would be going back to the S12 and always have three test tours in the June period.

I don't like negotiations of this sort. We are unhappy therefor you must be equally unhappy is not the way to do these sort of things. I would prefer if the starting point being what is the maximum benefit each partner can get from working together.

That being said, I think this should be a cautionary tale for the ARU. The way I see it Super rugby was never intended as the backbone of the domestic rugby in each country, but after the ARC failed, the ARU saw an opportunity to merge the very healthy South African and New Zealand domestic structures with their own to create a domestic competition to compete with the NRL and AFL.

The problem with doing that though was that the things that made domestic competitions in SA and NZ strong are things that don't fit nicely into Super Rugby. In both SA and NZ there are areas with a strong rugby culture that needs to be nurtured that don't necessarily have the playing or financial strength to maintain a super franchise. For the health of the local game these areas need to have a level they can play at.

The problem now is that Australia's position seems to be that they want to benefits that come with domestic rugby in SA and NZ, but do not want to incur any of problems that come with those benefits.

 

[FrankLind]

They came third in the competition.

Actually, they came 6th but was boosted to 3rd by being the highest finishing Aussie team.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Super_Rugby_season#Final_standings

 

[Dam0]

Interesting set of stats about the results of the three countries since 1996, but it doesn't say much about the effect expansion has on the competition. Since 2006, when the super 12 became the super 14 and then finally the Super 15 there have been marked changed though.

I am too lazy to check semi finalists, but in the seven years since 2006, New Zealand has had 3 winners, SA 3 and Australia one. Of the 14 finalists, New Zealand has had 6, SA 6 and Australia 2.

I did some digging on the effect of the previous expansions and the results are surprising. If one assumes, as you do, that rugby talent in each country is finite, then one would expect results against foreign opposition to have an inverse correlation with the number of teams each country has.

Prior to 2006, New Zealand (5) teams won 58.1% (365 games) against foreign opposition, Australia (3) 56.2% (283 games) and South Africa (4) a pathetic 33.3%.

Since 2006, New Zealand's winning percentage is 56% (361 games), Australia 43.8% (331 games) and South Africa 46.4% (360 games).

These stats suggest that expansion (within each country at least) has an effect on results, but that the effect is different for different countries. Expansion in Australia has had the expected result, a forty percent (2/5) increase of teams has resulted in 22% drop in results (pre 2006 / post 2006), while a 25% increase in teams have improved results by 39%.

I don't want to mischaracterize your argument, but are you suggesting that because adding a team 7 years ago improved your results then adding another team will also improve your results by a similar amount?

 

[Christopher McDonald]

It is just too hard to win the Super 15 without finishing 1st or 2nd on the table. I have looked up the statistics and during the 15 years of having a Top 4 playoff system, only on 1 occasion did a team not finishing 1st or 2nd, actually win the tournament.
Now we are in the 3rd year of having a Top 6 playoff system, which makes it even harder for teams that don't finish 1st or 2nd, to win the tournament. For teams finishing 3rd-6th it implies that you must win 3 knock out games compared to 2 in the old system. If you finish 5th or 6th, you must win all these 3 games away. If you finish 3rd or 4th, you must win 3 games, the final 2 of which are away.
Therefore, considering it was only achieved 1 of 15 times with the old, easier finals system. I think it is safe to say that it will happen even less frequently with the current format. The 1st or 2nd qualifying team wins!

 

[gel]

Actually, they came 6th but was boosted to 3rd by being the highest finishing Aussie team.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Super_Rugby_season#Final_standings

Well, the rules are what they are: therefore 3rd.

I.E. not last.

 

[Braveheart81]

It is just too hard to win the Super 15 without finishing 1st or 2nd on the table. I have looked up the statistics and during the 15 years of having a Top 4 playoff system, only on 1 occasion did a team not finishing 1st or 2nd, actually win the tournament.
Now we are in the 3rd year of having a Top 6 playoff system, which makes it even harder for teams that don't finish 1st or 2nd, to win the tournament. For teams finishing 3rd-6th it implies that you must win 3 knock out games compared to 2 in the old system. If you finish 5th or 6th, you must win all these 3 games away. If you finish 3rd or 4th, you must win 3 games, the final 2 of which are away.
Therefore, considering it was only achieved 1 of 15 times with the old, easier finals system. I think it is safe to say that it will happen even less frequently with the current format. The 1st or 2nd qualifying team wins!

Surely this is as much an indication that the best two teams finish top of the table as it is that it is hard to win the finals series by not finishing first or second.

Personally I think the system in terms of finals is correct as it is. 4 teams out of 14 making the semis was too few. 6 out of 15 is a much better number.

 

[RoffsChoice]

They came third in the competition.

"third"
That is just a good argument for consistency though - the Reds suffered a really bad year injury wise and yet the team structure got them through, the years of working through the teams got them over the line.

That's why the Lions/Kings/Whoever misses out in RSA want to get in and stay in.

 

[Sidbarret]

I apologise, I misinterpreted what your table indicated.

It is still the same though. Your table that you used indicates that the lions have been consistently poor and this suggests that SA does NOT have depth for a 6th team. I think the other reasons are decent points of discussion (by Sidbarret et al)

Less teams means a condensation of the better players into the fewer teams. This makes the competition stronger as the games are played at a higher level.

Hmm, no it doesn't, it indicates the lions have been shit for a very long time. What that means for the depth available to all 5 South African franchises is an inference. And as general rule it is a bad idea to draw an inference from a statistical outlier.

Without checking, I believe that most teams' performance basically average out over the course super rugby. Ignoring the new entrants (Rebels, Cheetahs and Force), only two teams have really bucked that trend, the Lions and the Crusaders.

It is worth considering that the structure in South Africa differs from that employed by Australia and New Zealand who employ certain mechanisms to balance out the strength of the different franchises and uniformity of approach. South Africa uses a far more free market approach where each union/franchise operates completely independently from one another. Through complete fault of their own, the lions found themselves in a negative feedback loop to a point where they are not worthy of further investment (by way of inclusion in Super Rugby). The Lions' troubles say nothing about the other South African franchises.

 

[gel]

"third"
That is just a good argument for consistency though - the Reds suffered a really bad year injury wise and yet the team structure got them through, the years of working through the teams got them over the line.

That's why the Lions/Kings/Whoever misses out in RSA want to get in and stay in.

Not really. The proof is in the history. The Lions were consistently in the competition and they were consistently poor over an extended period. Ergo, they do not have the depth to support another team.

The reason of economics, team viability etc is something that is understandable and has some merit (I hate to see teams die this way). But to claim "SA have the depth for extra teams" is just a fallacy.

 

[gel]

Hmm, no it doesn't, it indicates the lions have been shit for a very long time. What that means for the depth available to all 5 South African franchises is an inference. And as general rule it is a bad idea to draw an inference from a statistical outlier.

Whilst I agree it is an inference, I would also say it is a very strong indicator. The lions didn't fair much better (a bit unfair as they are new, I know). - We will just have to disagree on this point.

I do not think that the Blues and Crusaders historically strong showing is just coincidence, but is also due to their very strong competition over prolonged periods (as well as their administration).

 

[Sidbarret]

I don't want to mischaracterize your argument, but are you suggesting that because adding a team 7 years ago improved your results then adding another team will also improve your results by a similar amount?

Actually I am not sure what the result would of adding further franchises in each country. The stats I quoted doesn't really answer the question one way or the other.

What the stats do indicate is that the relationship between number of franchises and results do not support your contention that diluting talent will automatically lead to worse results. An interesting by product of that is what effect one might expect from inclusion of another NZ franchise.

An argument can be made that New Zealand deserves/can afford another franchise because of their strong results. The stats suggest that it is not as simple to predict the effect as one would expect.

As an aside, I am not really keen on including more South African teams in Super Rugby.

 

[Christopher McDonald]

Surely this is as much an indication that the best two teams finish top of the table as it is that it is hard to win the finals series by not finishing first or second.

Personally I think the system in terms of finals is correct as it is. 4 teams out of 14 making the semis was too few. 6 out of 15 is a much better number.

Yes, possibly, although it doesn't change the fact that, for whatever reason, unless you finish 1st or 2nd, it is virtually impossible to win the competition. This has only been accentuated through the changes to the playoff system. I agree with the number of teams in the playoff series, but I think there must be a better way of organising the matches because the status quo means they are nigh on redundant for all matches apart from the final.
Some people may be completely comfortable knowing that, in terms of your chances of winning the tournament, 3rd-6th is essentially as good as not making the playoffs at all, but I would prefer a series that isn't so heavily biased towards the top 2 teams.

 

[Blue]

May I point out that SA's case for another team is not so much made on a depth argument as it is on an economic one.

SA argues that they can add a franchise that can be viable in its own right. At least that is what I understand.

Depth moves into the "logic" territory. No use going there. You end up running in circles (7 pages this time around, and counting).

 

[terry j]

Some people may be completely comfortable knowing that, in terms of your chances of winning the tournament, 3rd-6th is essentially as good as not making the playoffs at all, but I would prefer a series that isn't so heavily biased towards the top 2 teams.

I have not been following the conversation that closely so forgive me if I blow it (BTW, I have to say I'd hate to lose the SA teams, surely that is part of the strength of this competition?) oops, lost my train of thought. (find it hard to rub my tummy and pat my head hehe heh)

I think I get the gist of your point, but it's kinda unavoidable ain't it? I mean there has to be a reason to 'win' the prelim rounds? Else why bother? I like the balance of numbers that make the finals (what is the point, a la NRL when fully half the competition make the finals? bizarre)

BUT, what you say also has the ring of truth. What made me respond was that your point did resonate on some level with me, and what flashed into my mind was idle speculation I've had in the past regarding things like 'world cups' (rugby, soccer, what have you). It has always seemed to me a major weakness in how they are conducted, that we go thru the round robin early stages and the top two teams go straight into quarters and semis etc.

The more 'logical' (but probably impractical) way to go would be that those successful teams THEN go into a new round of round robin games. Maybe with super rugby there are not as many teams as in a world cup to make that viable, but to go straight from (32??) teams to quarters seems drastic, and the luck of the draw plays a major role, perhaps too much of a role.

Anyway, not suggesting it would work in this case, but along those lines I kinda do get your point. If, as you suggest, if you come any lower than third, and so have little chance of winning, then may as well go straight to a grand final of the two top teams.

Not that I would mind the top six going into a mini round robin, it would also avoid the odd situation (that I think exists now) of the two teams in the final not even having played each other this year.


In all honesty, how is the Super Rugby comp viewed in terms of 'absolute' quality? I ask sincerely, for example I never manage to catch any of the NH games so I don't really know. Not withstanding the answer, my point is that any absolute quality it has stem from it including the SA teams? For the life of me I cannot see the quality increase if the SA teams left.

If I am frank, most of the aussie derbies fall far short of the equivalent kiwi ones so I see it being a major step backwards to have more aussie games.

Pity about the times of the SA games tho, a better showing from foxtel would not hurt in that regard mind.

 

[Dam0]

May I point out that SA's case for another team is not so much made on a depth argument as it is on an economic one.

SA argues that they can add a franchise that can be viable in its own right. At least that is what I understand.

Depth moves into the "logic" territory. No use going there. You end up running in circles (7 pages this time around, and counting).

I agree with that, it's just that one of the contributors was making the argument based upon depth, and so we were shooting him down with some choice stats. I tend to think that whatever the economic arguments, the performance on the park should veto SA getting an extra team compared to the other two SANZAR partners.

 

[RoffsChoice]

Yes, possibly, although it doesn't change the fact that, for whatever reason, unless you finish 1st or 2nd, it is virtually impossible to win the competition. This has only been accentuated through the changes to the playoff system. I agree with the number of teams in the playoff series, but I think there must be a better way of organising the matches because the status quo means they are nigh on redundant for all matches apart from the final.
Some people may be completely comfortable knowing that, in terms of your chances of winning the tournament, 3rd-6th is essentially as good as not making the playoffs at all, but I would prefer a series that isn't so heavily biased towards the top 2 teams.

I don't think it is mathematically possible for one conference to take 4 of the top 6 conferences. If it was, it would be unfair for the top 2 to get the home ground and the week off.
However, seeing as the top 2 will be the best 2 from the round robin, it seems entirely reasonable for them to have such an advantage leading into the finals. It makes finishing 1st on the table more than just it's own reward.

 

[Christopher McDonald]

I have not been following the conversation that closely so forgive me if I blow it (BTW, I have to say I'd hate to lose the SA teams, surely that is part of the strength of this competition?) oops, lost my train of thought. (find it hard to rub my tummy and pat my head hehe heh)

I think I get the gist of your point, but it's kinda unavoidable ain't it? I mean there has to be a reason to 'win' the prelim rounds? Else why bother? I like the balance of numbers that make the finals (what is the point, a la NRL when fully half the competition make the finals? bizarre)

BUT, what you say also has the ring of truth. What made me respond was that your point did resonate on some level with me, and what flashed into my mind was idle speculation I've had in the past regarding things like 'world cups' (rugby, soccer, what have you). It has always seemed to me a major weakness in how they are conducted, that we go thru the round robin early stages and the top two teams go straight into quarters and semis etc.

The more 'logical' (but probably impractical) way to go would be that those successful teams THEN go into a new round of round robin games. Maybe with super rugby there are not as many teams as in a world cup to make that viable, but to go straight from (32??) teams to quarters seems drastic, and the luck of the draw plays a major role, perhaps too much of a role.

Anyway, not suggesting it would work in this case, but along those lines I kinda do get your point. If, as you suggest, if you come any lower than third, and so have little chance of winning, then may as well go straight to a grand final of the two top teams.

Not that I would mind the top six going into a mini round robin, it would also avoid the odd situation (that I think exists now) of the two teams in the final not even having played each other this year.


In all honesty, how is the Super Rugby comp viewed in terms of 'absolute' quality? I ask sincerely, for example I never manage to catch any of the NH games so I don't really know. Not withstanding the answer, my point is that any absolute quality it has stem from it including the SA teams? For the life of me I cannot see the quality increase if the SA teams left.

If I am frank, most of the aussie derbies fall far short of the equivalent kiwi ones so I see it being a major step backwards to have more aussie games.

Pity about the times of the SA games tho, a better showing from foxtel would not hurt in that regard mind.

Yes, I haven't put any thought into a possible, better alternative, although there surely must be one, but it does strike me as particularly biased under the current system. There should certainly be an advantage to those teams that finish higher on the table, no doubt. It is just the extent to which they are advantaged that seems to me to be wrong, to the point where, as I have said, the playoff matches, excluding the grand final, are essentially redundant.
I do agree that the current proportion of 6/15 teams making the playoffs in the Super 15 is perfectly reasonable, probably ideal.

 

[Dam0]

I don't agree with all the pessimism about the lower ranked teams' chances. The Cheetahs were within a kick of beating the Brumbies, the Crusaders started as favourites against the Chiefs and were again within a kick of winning, whilst the Brumbies actually beat the Bulls. The balance between reward for doing well in the regular season and potential to win is about right IMO.

It shouldn't be all that surprising that the team who finishes in the top 2 will almost always win the competition - they are presumably one of the top two teams for the year over the long run, and have the added advantage of playing at home.

I challenge someone to name some years where the best team of the comp didn't win due to having to travel.

 

[Braveheart81]

Look at any sporting league in the world with finals. The teams that are the best all season tend to end up winning the whole thing. They haven't made it to the top of the table by luck.

Teams outside the top couple rarely win because they have to beat teams that have been better than them over the course of the season. When you combine this with home ground advantage, it is likely that at least one of the top 2 teams will win their semi final and host the final.

This season the Chiefs have only lost one home game and the Bulls have lost none. I think the fact that teams facing them in the finals have to travel is only a minor reason why they don't win.