Comments on: Why only four semi-finalists in Super 14?

By: Working Class Rugger

Working Class Rugger — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:35:19 +0000

A 6 team Final Series in a 15 team comp is about right. If the S15 grew to the rumoured S18 in 2013 then introduce an 8 team final Series.

By: Sanjay Deva

Sanjay Deva — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:07:49 +0000

What’s the point of a round robin? It’s to find out who deserves to be worthy of winning the competition. Having 50% of the sides still in a competition at the end of 14 weeks rewards mediocrity.

the current system gives teams an incentiv to perform every week. it may not rake in the ost money, but it’s the best way of finding the top side.

By: mtngry

mtngry — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:18:12 +0000

Personally I like the relegation/promotion system. So maybe two divisions of 10 teams each ( get Japan, Pacific or Argentina involved). top four go to finals, bottom four get relegated. Top four of second division get promoted… Who knows.. we may even get some games on free to air.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 05:40:55 +0000

What is wrong with a classic top 5 system?

The top two ranked teams play the Major Semi-Final, with the winner progressing straight to and hosting the Grand Final. On the same weekend, the third and fourth ranked teams contest the Minor Semi-Final, which sees the losing side eliminated whilst the winner plays off against the loser of the Major Semi-Final in the Preliminary Final the following weekend. The winner of this match also progresses to the Grand Final.

By: Donnie Buchanan

Donnie Buchanan — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 00:39:33 +0000

Sheek

I like that finals format you suggested.

I believe 3 games is not near enough and a 50% chance of making the cut could lower the standard (could).

It will be interesting to see what format SANZAR applies for the following years, hopefully some of them are reading this.

By: sheek

sheek — Sat, 31 May 2008 20:32:06 +0000

Donnie Buchanan,

I don’t agree 50% of teams should qualify for the play-offs. However, the 8 team finals system is convenient for both AFL & NRL. Even the RWC has only 8 quarter-finalists out of 20. The FIFAWC has 8 quarter-finalists out of 32.

Nor do I agree that only 4 out of 14 Super teams should contest the play-offs. 6 would be better, rather than your suggestion of 7. Realistically, if you finish 7th or even 6th in a season, you’re just making up the finals numbers.

My suggestion (6 team play-offs), home ground advantage always to highest placed team:

Week 1:

Game A – 3 plays 6
Game B – 4 plays 5

Week 2:

Game C – 1 plays winner Game B
Game D – 2 plays winner Game A

Week 3:

Game E – winner C plays winner Game D

The weakness is whether the teams finishing 1 & 2 would consider having a bye in the first week of olay-offs, an advantage or not. generally, teams prefer to keep playing week in, week out.

Alternately, with the huge travel of Super teams between South Africa & New Zealand via Australia, perhaps they might appreciate the break.

The final 5 system is also good, but requires 6 games over 4 weekends. A team finishing 4 or 5, or the loser of the 2 v 3 game, would require 4 games to win the title. Perhaps that’s one game (& one weekend) too many.

By: Spiro Zavos

Spiro Zavos — Sat, 31 May 2008 11:46:48 +0000

As the final whistle blew on a terrific Super 14 final, son number 2 said to me, ‘what a pity it’s all over, so soon.’ I had the same thought at the same time. Something like the system put forward by Donnie is needed. Next season, please. Is SANZAR listening. Forget about the pleasure it’ll give spectators across the three nations. It will provide SANZAR players with more experience in one-off matches where if you lose you’re out, something that was lacking with the Wallabies and All Blacks in France in the 2007 RWC. Or was it that Robbie Deans wasn’t coaching NZ?

By: Donnie Buchanan

Donnie Buchanan — Sat, 31 May 2008 03:23:23 +0000

Paul
I agreee with the fact that 8th placed and above having an opportunity to win the GF can be a bit of a joke.

Its just that we are running out of $$ to retain our talent and its getting to be just as farcical.

It may be the way we NEED to head, with no obvious choice but a wider revenue raising finals series.

If the ALL Blacks do an ‘inventory analysis’ on turnover rates for players between say 1989- 1998 and another from 1999- 2008 and compare the two, it would probably shock us all.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 31 May 2008 02:19:19 +0000

I agree that it should be expanded, but by one or maybe two teams. The NRL type of finals? In Super 14 it is a HUGE effort to make it into the finals, the idea that you can lose more games than win and still make the finals series in the NRL to me is an absolute joke.

I mean, and this may have happened i dont know, but how many times has a team that has come 8th on the ladder ended up wining the premiership? (happy if someone has an answer to that)

Maybe its a little too hard to make the semis in Super 14 at the moment but its barely a finals series when half the bloody comp is involved

By: mudskipper

mudskipper — Sat, 31 May 2008 01:12:33 +0000

Donnie Buchanan… agreed…the Super 14 needs transformation. It just comes to a sudden end. I would like to see a longer Super 14 season and let the national representatives go do their duties throughout the season. Even have a couple of comp bye weeks would be a possibility…

A Super 14 comp finishing at the end of May is just not enough for this rugby fanatic… Donnie Buchanan… agreed…the Super 14 needs transformation. It just comes to a sudden end. I would like to see a longer Super 14 season and let the national representatives go do their duties throughout the season. Even have a couple of comp bye weeks. A Super 14 comp finishing at the end of May is just not enough for this rugby fanatic…

A Super 14 revolution is required….