By Spiro Zavos
May 20th 2009 @ 6:04am
Related coverage
Were the Waratahs cheated out of a Super 14 semi-final spot?
It is history now that the NSW Waratahs missed out on making the 2009 Super 14 finals because the Canterbury Crusaders had a 5 point better points differential than they did.
Both teams recorded 41 points for the tournament. The Waratahs (9) won more games in the tournament than the Crusaders (8 and a draw). But the Crusaders made up for their draw by scoring more bonus points.
A senior lecturer in the Department of Economics at the University of Otago, Niven Winchester, has issued a press release with the arresting title: Waratahs cheated out of semi-final spot by inaccurate scoring system.
The case Winchester makes to support his contention is very strong. It is supported by a study published in the ‘Journal of Quantitive Analysis in Sport‘ that uses mathematical optimisation to show that the bonus points system used in the Super 14 does not ensure an accurate ranking of teams from best to worst.
The research shows, according to Winchester, that it is too easy for weak teams to earn a four-try bonus point, especially after a dominant team has established a significant lead. The Reds loss of 26 – 50 to the Chiefs, Winchester argues, confirms this argument.
It is also too easy, according to the research, for teams to score bonus points for narrow losses. The seven-point bonus point margin allows a team to pick up a point even though they could not win or draw the match by the end of it.
Winchester argues that his research shows that to get the most accurate rating of the teams at the end of the round robin part of the tournament to establish the four strongest sides, the bonus points system should be changed in two ways.
First: bonus points should be awarded for scoring two tries or more NET tries, that is tries minus tries conceded.
Second: bonus points should be awarded by losing by 5 points or fewer.
These two changes, Winchester argues, would produce a more accurate and fairer outcome than the present system. Sides would be rewarded for attacking and defensive qualities, rather than just their attacking ability as happens now.
Under the Winchester System this year, the Waratahs would have earned 6 bonus points and the Crusaders two. This would have meant the Waratahs having a place in the finals and the Crusaders dropping back to a sixth place on the table.
‘Ultimately, the Waratahs should be playing at Pretoria next week,’ Winchester asserts, ‘while the Crusaders prepare for next season.’
To my mind, there is a lot of merit in this analysis.
The press release is below.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(72)
Knives Out said | May 20th 2009 @ 6:50am | Report comment
Has the bonus point system been challenged every single year or just recently, conveniently coinciding with a near miss by the Waratahs?
Wally James said | May 20th 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Spiro
That sounds like a better system to me. It would appear odd that the Crusaders get in when NSW who won more games, does not – seems unfair.
Yet that is a possible result even the NSW management could have foreseen at the beginning of the season. With all that talent in the backline, NSW should not have to worry about lack of bouns points. Unfortunately the great pretenders have lived up to their reputation yet again.
To say that they have been cheated is a bit of a long bow to draw though do you think?. No-one did anything with the specific intent of taking away their semi-finals chances. The bonus point system was in at the beginning of the year. Few, let alone the pundits south of the Tweed, could have foreseen the NSW demise brought about through lack of adventure in the backs. The were’t cheated, just marginally not good enough.
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
KO,
No, there’s always been some unhappy camper who missed the semis on bonus points, who would complain about the bonus points system.
Spiro,
I think the article has merit. If nothing else, Waugh has a point. Where two teams finish on same total comp points, the team with more wins should advance.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 7:41am | Report comment
Spiro,
I know you didn’t write the article saying the Waratahs were cheated but i can’t help that you are pushing the agenda for reasons I’m not so sure.
What are the makes Winchesters argument any more valid than yours mine or the next person?
Quite simply put it doesn’t and isn’t any more valid.
This is all getting a little ridiculous and painting some columnists such as yourself to be very disgruntled.
Why weren,t the Waratahs and there vocalists screaming foul play before the game?
Is it because they rated themselves so highly and believed they would blow the Lions away and win on pts differential?
Did they think the Crusaders weren’t a good enough team to make the finals?
Do they really think they are better than the Hurricanes, Bull and Chiefs?
The best thing by not making the finals is that they will save themselves the humiliation that the aforementioned teams would’ve dished out to them. While the tahs may have beat the Chiefs and Canes do remember it was the begining of the season when they were finding their feet. Where the Tahs have become stagnant the Kiwi teams have improved dramatically and would wipe the floor with them. If any team from Australia is worthy of being in the finals it would be the Brumbies, and I don’t say that lightly as most brumbies fans know all too well I don’t rate their team and haven’t all season and not afraid to say so.
The whole what if scenario is a joke just like this argument is.
The Waratahs and the rugby public have known all too well what could possibly happen come the finals make up for years now. Its a case of sour grapes to me. If the Cleats were on the other foot you could guarantee Phil Waugh and co wouldn’t be saying boo and they would be singing the praises of the bonus point system.
All we are hearing is Wah wah wah from the Waratahs and their disgruntled supporters.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
Well lets put it into another scenario,
The Crusaders beat the waratahs and they beat them at home in Sydney maybe it should come down to who beat who.
Not to mention thaqt the crusaders draw was with a team who also beat the Tahs at home. Out of the top five teams the Crusaders beat the Bulls, Chiefs, Waratahs only losing to the Hurricanes.
Waratahs beat the Chiefs and Hurricanes
Both teams lost to the Brumbies yet they both beat the Sharks
I personally believe the best team has got through really there is stuff all to seperate them after all they both lost four games apiece. the only difference being the draw.
First and formost it should be who beat who then pts differential.
Craig said | May 20th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Hemjay,
The fact the Professor is backed up by published scientific suggestes that his argument is more valid than yours, mine or Spiro’s. I don’t hink the article had anything in tehre about who would go on to win the comp… Maybe I missed something. Your assertion that the Canes and Chiefs would have wiped the floor with the Tahs is ridiculous. The Tahs do have the forward packto win finals, knock-out style games.
They article just argues that the points system as it currently stands does not accurately determine the top 4 teams in the competition. I suggest the Professor put the “the Tah were cheated” title just to draw some publicity.
Now I’m not a tah fan, in fact they give me the irrits, but your rants against all things Oz is growing a little tiriing. I think the Crusaders will be the best chance NZ have of winning the comp. The Canes and CHiefs dont have the mental toughness to get close to the Bulls. The CHiefs nearly lost to that joke of sub district standard team called the Brumbies….
Knives Out said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment
‘The research shows, according to Winchester, that it is too easy for weak teams to earn a four-try bonus point, especially after a dominant team has established a significant lead. The Reds loss of 26 – 50 to the Chiefs, Winchester argues, confirms this argument.’
I think the suggested system does have merit but I would contend the above piece of ‘logic’. Specifically, how is it easy for weak teams to score bonus points? Also, why would a mathematical organisation make claims about something that is allegedly a psychological response – i.e. slacking off having constructed a healthy lead? Champion teams consolidate champion positions. I would suggest that the Chiefs versus Reds would always be high scoring due to the motivation of each team to throw the ball about.
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
Blame SKN! Anyone who rates this bloke needs his head read. Good riddance to overseas I say, whoever got him – you are paying way too much!
Just watching the Tahs – Lions replay and in the space of 5 minutes he coughs up the ball 20m out for a try, took a man out in the air for 3 more points and then tried to take the outside and got put into touch. What a gun!!!
pothale said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:20am | Report comment
I was going to challenge it by Round Four, and figured I’d be seen as a hidebound, sniping, NH no-gooder. The try-scoring frenzy and the lack of defensive play has led to some astonishing scorelines in this season’s – a scoring tendency lauded by many on here as a result of the ELVs. ‘The ELVs are working was the catch-cry as the try-fest unfolded. Is the biter now bit, perhaps?
However leaving that aside, the article is of interest, because I have some question-marks about the bonus point system used in S14, Magners and Premiership.
It is strange that Mr Winchester’s article comes to its conclusion with the only two teams to be affected by his proposed change in bonus point values. Spiro says in his article that: “It is also too easy, according to the research, for teams to score bonus points for narrow losses. The seven-point bonus point margin allows a team to pick up a point even though they could not win or draw the match by the end of it.”
I wasn’t able to read the research on the Berkely site cos you have to be a member, but this doesn’t make sense to me. If you lose by seven points or less, surely the point is that you could win or draw the match by the end of it. So it you keep within a maximun score i.e. a converted try, then you win a bonus point. Perhaps Spiro could explain what he means by this, or his summary of the research anyway.
Secondly, Mr Winchester argues that the 7 point margin should be reduced to 5 points or less. On what basis does he arrive at this conclusion or point of view? 5 points means the other team is within a try of leveling the game, and if converted, winning it. Or they might score two penalties, but that’s taking things too far into conjecture land. I don’t see what’s gained in shifting to this value. How does two points difference better reward attacking or defensive capabilities?
I’d agree with the net tries point – it might bring back some of the more defensive arts into the S14 game. However, why pick a net two as opposed to a net three tries?
Anyway them’s my initial thoughts?
Spiro?
pothale said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Craig
“The fact the Professor is backed up by published scientific suggestes that his argument is more valid than yours, mine or Spiro’s.”
Just cos someone has got Professor in front of his name, doesn’t mean he’s right. Winchester’s article is based on his own published research, in case you weren’t aware.
If you read his article reprinted above by Spiro – as opposed to his study which is not easily accessible – it is inconsistent, if not flawed. Read the sections about the losing bonus point and see if they make sense to you. They don’t to me.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Oh Craig here you go again,
Now your accussing me of ranting against all things Aus thats just utter nonsense. I think you and Matt must be smoking from the same crack pipe thats for sure.
I have been critical of the Brumbies all season yes but I have been justified in my critics. Sadly its people like you who expect me to walk around on eggshells and not say it how I see it for fear of hurting your/their feelings what a joke.
It seems Craig you and your mate Matt are on some personaal crusade to discredit me and paint me out to be something that I am not just a figment of your imaginations. Maybe you see me as an easy way out for your frustrations. Its ludicrous to say the least.
I have given valid reasons why I believe the Warathas should not be in the top four on the current points systems. Also Craig if you actually read through other threads in here you will see I have rated the Wallabies team to be a very strong contender come the Tri-nations I have thrown my support behind Melbourne getting the extra team I have always backed the Force who just didn’t quite get it right again this year yet beat their fellow countrymen.
You will also notice Craig that I too have questioned the validity of the Bonus point system. But while we are stuck with it I have offered my reasoning for picking the finalists.
maybe before you jump on the attack Hemjay bandwagon to let out your obvious insecurities maybe you actually might want to read through various threads and make an informed decision instead of being a keyboard hero.
As I said I have not been a great fan of the Brumbies this year and I do say it how I see it. Maybe I am wrong in my summations but after all this is a opinion blog is it not?
Also just because someone has a university degree or PHD does not make their opinion any more valid. If anything Winchesters study is just a hypothesis of how he sees it.
While yes it has merits it is far from fool proof. They best way to rank teams would be like the NRL 2pts for a win and 1 for a draw nothing for a loss. Then this is self defeating as it would encourage teams to slack off once the game is out of reach and then also could discourage teams actually scoring alot of tries and result in larger kickfests than what we are seeing now.
So in summation Craig,
Before flying off on a tangent go and have a look through at the threads before accusing me of hating all things Australians.
Also instead of attacking me how about you offer up some rugby talk or some suggestions on how you would decide finalists. After all the Crusaders got through in maybe not the ideal scenario they did take full advatage of the system that was available to 13 other teams. Should they be chastisized for that?
Maybe also Craig you might want to have a chat with another poster Keith a Kiwi he and I have had many debates about his Auckland blues team and they have been a lot more intense than some of the critics I have given the Brumbies or the Waratahs
Hammer said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Yep let’s have the net tries and see what teams will do to win by 2 or 4 net tries to get the bonus point. They’ve scoored two, we’ve scored two now we need another 2/4 for the bonus!!
pothale said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
About the current system he says:
“After all a loss by seven or fewer points enables a losing team to gain such a bonus even though they required a converted try just to tie the game.”
then he says about his proposed new bonus system of 5 points or less:
“a team is required to be within a converted try or two penalties of winning to earn this bonus point.”
If they score a try and don’t convert and draw the game they get a point under his new system. As well as the points for a draw. Surely the winning margin should be 4 or less if he wants tight margins.
Darwin Stubby said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
“The case Winchester makes …. is supported by a study published in the ‘Journal of Quantitive Analysis in Sport‘ that uses mathematical optimisation to show that the bonus points system used in the Super 14 does not ensure an accurate ranking of teams from best to worst.”
… says it all really – the games played on grass and not on the pages of some Journal …. and this is merely a lazy attempt from Zavos to garner 130+ blogs repeating exactly the same arguments written elsewhere since Monday …
They’re not there – Waratah fans need to deal with it not have these endless “we waz robbed articles” …. they weren’t robbed in fact they possibly over achieved
However there is light at the end of the tunnel from 2011 courtesy of a weak conference pool and an absurd decision to reward potential mediocrity – the waratahs should qualify for the finals series annually
Niven said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
I am the author of the research in question. To answer some of the questions poised on this thread.
(1) There is a typo in the original article. The criticism of the narrow loss bonus should read: a loss by seven points suggests that a team was close to drawing (but not winning) the game.
(2) It can be too easy for a weak team to pick up a four-try bonus when that team gives away a big lead relatively early in the game, leading to sloppy finish were several tries are scored by both sides. Contrast such a situation with a not-so-weak team playing the same opponent. The not-so-weak team is always within 10-15 points, so the game remains tight, and the losing team doesn’t pick up a try bonus. Although optimisation techniques don’t measure this psychological effect, they do reveal that earning a four-try bonus is not a good indication of strength. The psychological effect is one way of explaining why the four-try bonus isn’t significant.
(3) Optimal partitions for bonuses (losing by five or fewer points or scoring two or more net tries) are determined using mathematical optimisation. Essentially the analysis postulates a number of alternative partitions and asks the model to determine which partitions provide the measure of strength. In short, partitions are objectively rather than subjectively chosen.
I am not a Waratahs supporter, but every year there is one or two teams that miss on the semi-finals due to bonuses. This year the Waratahs were unlucky, next year it could be the Sharks, or the Brumbies or the Highlanders. If SANZAR wishes to have bonuses, the research shows a way to include them that results in a more accurate ranking of teams at the end of the season than what is currently used.
The research in question can be downloaded for free from http://www.bepress.com/jqas/vol4/iss4/1. You don’t need to sign up but you do need to enter an email address.
Ben C said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
The Crusaders got a bonus point for scoring zero in a 6-0 loss to the Highlanders. I am not sure how that the bonus point rewarded them for anything in that game. On the other hand, the Crusaders did beat the Waratahs in their round match.
Swings and roundabouts. The Waratahs knew the bonus point system rewarded scoring many tries before the season kicked off so they have no one to blame but themselves.
Harry said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
The good professor must have realised that using the word “cheat” in a headline appeals to base emotions and immediately devalues his subsequent supposedly scientific analysis. Still all gist to the rugby discussion mill, and as Hemjay reminds us in his usual robust/obnoxious manner, its all Australian supporters have in the next few weeks is to find excuses for the failure of our teams to get into the S14 final and watch the semi’s (I for one am very much looking forward to seeing the Canes v Chiefs).
For what its worth, my opinion is 1) the current system works just fine and 2) the Tahs were a buit unlucky, BUT since they couldn’t beat the Crusdaers playing at home, they realyy don’t have a basis to whinge and have only themselves to blame for missing out.
I actually think the Tahs slightly outperformed this year, you don’t lose two world class forwards, and have a 21 year old tighthead for quite a few games (who did very well and is a great prospect for the future) and automatically expect to make the final four. They also had to contend with the waning powers of their number one strike back Lote and of course there 5/8th uncertainties, so all up not a bad outcome and better than the underachieving Brumbies, unlucky (but again only themselves to blame for that horrible collapse against the Canes) Force and the truly woeful Reds.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Harry,
I’ll try my best to sugarcoat everything for you as not to upset you
While you may see my posts as obnoxious I see yours as pure sissy boy whinging deal with it.
I am not here to make friends but to give opinions on how I see it after all this is an opinion column. I don’t care if you don’t like the way I say things like you should not care how I or others interpret the way you write your opinions.
What a joke
Rusty said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
This is all just a bit of an attempt for sensationalism. It can raise discussion on the scoring going forward but to actually say a team was cheated is a bit much. Each team had the same opportunities and knowledge of what it takes to make it to the finals and that is wins and BP. The fact a certain team couldnt play to this hardly means they were cheated, if anything they only cheated themselves and their supporters with this belief of being hard done by. As for Mr Winchester I would say, cut the sensationalism and stick to economics – it clearly needs more analysis than the scoring system in a rugby competition.
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Am I missing something here – What benefit does a weak team derive from securing bonus points for scoring 4 tries in a match?
They’re not going to be in the frame anyway, if they don’t win sufficient matches. Win any match & you get 4 points. Lose a match but score 4 tries, & you only get one point. So are winners being dudded? Or losers advantaged? I don’t think so.
Exhibit A – Auckland Blues.
They accumulated a whopping 12 bonus points, virtually one bonus point per match. 8 were for scoring 4 tries, & 4 were secured for losing by 7 points or less. But they only won 5 out of 13 matches, & that’s what killed them off.
So at the end of the day, winning is still your best option. Bonus points are just that – a bonus!
Harry said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Hi Hemjay,
Since you wish to personalise it, harden up sonny. You are perfectly entitled to write whatever you want and cast disparagement- indeed I encourage you to do so as I find your opinions quite entertaining and not too wide of the mark.
Bruce Ross said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Niven Winchester wants to have it both ways. He uses his status as a published academic to give himself enhanced credibility, then in the press release promoting his article, “Shifting the ‘Goal Posts’: Optimizing the Allocation of Competition Points for Sporting Contests,” uses the words, “cheated” and “inaccurate.”
The only way he can justify such emotive language is to proceed from his assumption that “the sole intention of bonuses is to rank teams according to strength.” No it is not and never has been. The two reasons advanced for the introduction of the bonus system were to reward the scoring of tries and to encourage teams to keep trying throughout a match even if they couldn’t win it.
Let’s look at the potential impact of his “two or more net tries” system. Team A scores two early tries then, as often happens in soccer matches, goes into defensive mode to prevent Team B from scoring tries. If it is successful and can restrict the number of goals scored against it, it earns the maximum five points. Niven Winchester is happy because the stronger team won; the paying customers may be less so unless they are addicted to trench warfare.
He cites “the Red’s [sic] round seven 26-50 loss to the Chiefs” as an unworthy four-try bonus for the losers. In that game the winners scored six tries and the losers four. Using Winchester scoring the Reds would have realised fairly early on in the game that they were unlikely to win and still less likely to score two more tries than the Chiefs; so they would have had little incentive to keep trying. As it was, they scored a couple of very well-crafted tries and also won four of the contests-within-a-contest, i.e, when they were trying to score a try and the Chiefs were trying to prevent them.
Most of us go to rugby games to see a contest. Personally I enjoy very much watching a team that is out-gunned trying to salvage something from the game by trying to keep scoring, particularly when they are striving to craft tries.
My team, The Waratahs, was not cheated nor was the scoring system inaccurate. The rules were known in advance. And the fact that they don’t conform to the assumptions used for Winchester’s mathematical modelling does not enable any valid conclusion to be drawn as to their accuracy.
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Yep Sheek has summed it up. Bonus points are exactly that – a bonus i.e awarded for achieving a result and not effort. It should only be awarded to the winning team and no points awarded for losing within seven or five points. It’s a more accurate and fairer system and doesn’t require a degree to understand or publish.
stuff happens said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Any scoring system will produce advantages/ disadvantages for individual teams during a season.Perhaps the current system needs to be refined, but I would suggest that it will still produce arguments if your team ( in Spiro’s case the Waratahs) loses out.
By the way on the subject of the Waratahs; they arrive in SA knowing that BP’s are vital for them and in their first game against the Cheetahs, the bottom team in the comp ,they struggle to win at all and scored only two tries.The Waratahs are exactly where they deserve to be.
‘Good night’ and see you next season – oh and it’s called alignment and passing the ball along the backline – ask Matty Burke, he was a master at it.
CronullaKiwi said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
look it does seem a little unfair I will give you that, but the fact remains that the Crusaders beat the Tah’s.
pete said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Rugby has a lot more wrong with it than just the bonus point system which could be easily rectified by doing away with it, the other codes don’t need it. The whole scoring system in rugby is wrong, when two field goals, or penalties, against a strong defense, are worth more than a try. The team that scores the most tries should have far & away the best chance of winning the game
PC said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Winning is the biggest reason for playing rugby. If teams finish on equal points, the team with the most wins should advance.If they have the same number of wins, then a points differential works. This is not just an issue in S14, it occurs regularly in the Sydney Club competition and I assume in others as well. Defence is just as important as attack in modern rugby, teams should be rewarded for both. I see no reason for being “rewarded’ if you are beaten by 30 points, just because the winning team may have relaxed and let you score a few tries.
By rewarding the winning team more, we may see a return to the hard edged winning attitude that typified the Wallabies in the 90’s and early 2000’s (Eales teams). My suspicion is the bonus system has ingrained an attitude to relax when winning which has negated a great strength of the Australian attitude – foot on the throat and don’t take it off.
It’s not just about the Tahs, it is happening throughout rugy in Australia.
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Just a quick comment on Crusaders advancing because they beat the Waratahs in the round robin match.
I don’t buy this argument. Firstly, where the game was played may advantage the home team. Secondly, some teams just perform better against certain opponents, irrespective of their overall ability & talents.
What happens when 3 teams finish on the same number of points? Team A beat Team B; Team B beat Team C; & Team C beat A?
So I find this particular argument to be very weak.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Reds fan
http://www.lassen.co.nz/s14tab.php#hrh
try this link
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:54am | Report comment
In fourteen years of super rugby there has only been three season 96,01,06 where NZ has not had three teams inside the top six and only once where we have not had a team feature in the finals altogether. In 2007 on the ill fated world cup campaign 3 NZ franchises still managed to sneak into the top 6 when the ABs players were rested for the first half of the tournament
I just personaly think that it is NZ who stands to lose the most when it comes to finals make ups.
With the conferences I can see many possible flaws but like I have said earlier we will have to wait and see how it all pans out in 2011.
I think people are just voiceing concerns rather than the saying it won’t work
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Ignore those lads sorry was meant to write in another thread
Ben said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
I’m thinking if the Waratahs played better rugby consistently throughout the season – and didn’t complain about playing 9 games in a row before having the bye they would have earned at least more than the 1 point required to get through to the finals. Possibly would have won a couple more games – Force and Crusaders which would have put them at the top of the table with a home final.
No sympathy for them at the moment – it’s their own fault – or more specifically the coaches fault. Out of his depth, out manouvered and out-strategised by many opponents. Plus, how can a coach allow their skipper to complain at the end of 2 games that they’re feeling flat – time for a kick up the arse in this case.
Bring on next year. I’m sure we’ll find something else ridiculous the Waratahs will do or say that stops them from winning the title once again!!!
Bulldog said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Geez you Waratah boys love clutching at straws. They were not good enough based on the current rules… get over it.
I am sure that Kiwi professor is sitting at home having a great chuckle as you guys pick up the story and run around squarking like a bunch of headless chooks. Great bait from the professor – now he is just reeling in the suckers.
Niven said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Great to see the bonus points being debated. It is usually difficult to get academic work discussed in a public forum, so I went for the most emotive title possible and targeted Sydney media (for obvious reasons). I agree that I may have overplayed my hand, but many press releases from universities don’t receive much (or any) interest.
I think the narrow-loss bonus is included to reward strength, as a team that loses narrowly is stronger than a team that loses by a large margin. Also, if a team is good enough to get within seven points they should be good enough to have a chance of winning, so a narrow-loss bonus isn’t need to encourage them to keep trying. However, I do agree that the four-try bonus point was introduced to encourage teams to play attacking rugby rather than to reward strength.
Regardless of the motivation for including bonus points, SANZAR might like to know how bonuses influence the accuracy of league standings; and the analysis is able to determine the allocation that maximises accuracy. Of course, as discussed in the published paper, SANZAR may be willing to trade-off accuracy for entertainment, and the analysis can help inform such tradeoffs.
The analysis shows that the four-try bonus is uncorrelated with team strength (i.e., the number of four-try bonuses accumulated by a team is not a good indicator of strength once the number of win and narrow losses are controlled for). In other words, the four-try bonus encourages a style of play that does not increase the probability of a team winning. The four-try bonus may reduce “trench warfare”, but it does so at a cost. Whether or not the cost is greater than the benefit of watching attacking rugby is a matter for debate.
Hammer said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Hoy
I’m really glad you picked up on this…Gate/offside issue. I have been told many reasons to have the “gate” one was to make forwards come around thus slowing their involvement in the breakdown. This allows any player on their feet over the ball to get hands on it and progress the game. Another is that it promotes better body position and preparation for engagement and another is that it stops players diving in from anywhere.
I’m not advocating no offside at the breakdown. Just no need for the gate. The offside line should be the ball. So any player on his side of the ball can attack possession. I don’t care if a player is half a meter onside he should be able to contest ownership (as long as he is on his feet).
Rucks have been consigned to history. Even players that come through the gate and bind can’t truly drive thru a ruck without stepping on all those that have already dived off their feet. Counter rucking (A term I hate with a passion) is just plain rucking and a skill fast disappearing because we don’t need it at the tackle. Diving practice is the call. Sprint to the Breakdown and dive through the gate and kill the game.
Unfortunately I am one of those disaffected coaches that still believe speed and tries are not the only elements that make rugby great. The heart of rugby is the continual contest for possession and territory, The gate, lifting in LO’s, incorrect scrum feed, loss of rucking, loss of mauling, general play kicking, ball retention, all of these skills are disappearing from our game. I am no conspiracy theorist but it appears that in the last 8-10 years out game has constantly been de-skilled.
The introduction of the gate is one small facet that has led to many negative aspects.
Off side should be where the ball is not the last feet. If you are on-side (your side of the ball) and it’s a tackle and you are not the tackler you should be able to attack possession.
Hammer said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
oops sorry wrong post!
craig said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Hemjay,
The artcile in question argues that the current bonus point system is flawed. Your first response highlights are below:
Why weren,t the Waratahs and there vocalists screaming foul play before the game?
Did they think the Crusaders weren’t a good enough team to make the finals?
Do they really think they are better than the Hurricanes, Bull and Chiefs?
The best thing by not making the finals is that they will save themselves the humiliation that the aforementioned teams would’ve dished out to them. While the tahs may have beat the Chiefs and Canes do remember it was the begining of the season when they were finding their feet. Where the Tahs have become stagnant the Kiwi teams have improved dramatically and would wipe the floor with them.
All we are hearing is Wah wah wah from the Waratahs and their disgruntled supporters.
Where does any of this relate to the article? As far as I can see it is you trying to be the keyboard hero. You have NO IDEA what a game between the Canes or Chiefs vs the Tahs would have turned out like and neither do I. Your esposed opinion has NO relation to the article and adds nothing. Feel free to call it as you see it, just stick to the subject mate!
Pothale,
I agree a professorship does not make him right in any sense. The fact he has published this however, does mean it will be held up to scrutiny by his peers. As a result he would check in his biases and opinion and just work with facts. I wish we all could do that.
I personally don’t agree with a team on less wins should be rated higher that one with more, but as you say that is the system we have used the beginning and it is no point crying about it know. I don’t think the Tahs or anyone else commisioned this report!
retiredrucker said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
The only one cheating(which needs to be respected on a rugby field) was Phil Waugh, the problem is he got caught a few too many times this year, he might be geting slower like Lote!
Who Needs Melon said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
I think this is a crock.
What does the “most accurate rating of the teams at the end of the round robin” mean?
The point of THIS competition is to earn more competition points than the other teams in the round robin and then win the following knock-out finals. The most accurate rating at the end of the round robin is who has earned the most competition points.
Next are we going to argue that the rating isn’t “accurate” because a team had played without a star player for half the season but, now that player is back, they are a lot “better” than the team above them?
Rules are rules. They were very well known to all before the comp began. Nothing could be fairer. No-one has been “cheated”. I for one am happy with the rules.
Same applies to World Cups. Does the top “rated” team win the World Cup? Does the “best” team win the World Cup?
Campbell Watts said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Bottom line is they all know the scoring system – it hasn’t changed!
Any “what ifs” and “buts” are just plain old excusses – the Tahs knew the equations to make the semis and weren’t able to come through with the required points
Quit your gripping Tahs fans – they just weren’t good enough!
Bob McGregor said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Here we go again down the same old path.
I’m a Tahs supporter and have held a life membership of the NSW Rugby Union since 1987.
Yet again we are dealing with if, but and maybe. Every franchise knew the rules that applied to the competition and failure to comply with them to maximise final points is no excuse.
Attitude of mind is probably reason Tahs failed. Not positive enough at critical times. Such decisions usually come from coaching policy/game plan and it’s implemetation on the field by the players and Captain. Poor decisions on the field usually results in failure.
Late last year it was bleeding obvious the Tahs could finish top of the table if they scored a bonus point win. This would ensure a home semi and final IF successful in the semi. An additional try was required. So what did Waugh do when they were confronted with this impasse? Kicked for goal instead of going for the final try. Bet NSW Union loved that decision and possibility of staging the final. We have never heard whether that was Waugh’s or the Coach’s game plan.
I rest my case. NOT POSITIVE ENOUGH!
I’m certainly not going into the blame game such as signaling out certain mistakes by players as there are too many to mention over the season.
Bill said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
I like the EPL points system.
3 points for a win
1 point for a draw
0 points for a loss
The current system where you can accumulate 3 points -> 2 points for a draw + 1 point for scoring 4 or more tries is out of whack.
ohtani's jacket said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
Hang on a second.
In that Reds/Chiefs game, the Reds scored two first half tries. At that time, the score was 19-12. The Chiefs then rattled off 18 points to take a 37-12 lead into half time. The Reds effectively *won* the second half, 14-13. They outscored the Chiefs by two tries to one. The game may have been over by half time, but there’s still 40 minutes to play
The Waratahs of all teams should know how important the second 40 minutes are, because it was their second half against the Lions that cost them a spot in the semis.
It’s a bad example if you ask me. It’s not like the Reds scored three late tries in the final quarter.
Mungehead said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
Bruce Ross said: “Personally I enjoy very much watching a team that is out-gunned trying to salvage something from the game by trying to keep scoring, particularly when they are striving to craft tries.”
My thoughts exactly. The research here is not wrong, but it’s irrelevant because the purpose of having bonus points is not to reflect teams’ strengths in the final order – otherwise there would be a fine argument for scrapping bonus points altogether. The four try bonus point rule encourages teams to continue to attempt to score tries, even when they’re losing or have the game in the bag, and that is the point. I don’t know whether or not it’s been fully effective, but it does please me to have the teams that score lots of tries rewarded so I’m all in favour of keeping the rule.
The seven point margin was also chosen for other reasons than ordering teams by their strengths at the competition’s end. All teams strive to win, but when the possibility of winning looks like it’s slipping away it’s desirable IMHO to offer some benefit in continuing to struggle. The reason why seven points looks to be the correct value is that, in the situation where the losing team is more than seven points but less than fifteen points adrift of the winning team, and scoring twice in the time remaining is becoming an impossibility, there is something still left to strive for (most notably even after the siren has sounded). If the margin was five then we would be giving teams who are over five points and under thirteen adrift instead something to continue to play for – but teams who are a mere six or seven points adrift are within a converted try of a draw anyway so simply don’t need that encouragement! Therefore all that reducing the margin to five would do for the competition would be to remove a reason to continue striving for teams that were thirteen and fourteen points shy of their competitors, thereby reducing the impact of keeping the bonus point at all.
One related issue I’d like to mention is that teams that draw are actually disadvantaged over those that don’t. A team that beats another by a single point gets four points (plus a four try bonus if applicable), and the loser gets one (plus a four try bonus if applicable), for a base total of five points to share between the two teams. However a draw ensures that each team gets two points (plus four try bonuses if applicable) for a base total of four between the two teams. Basically that means a team that drew twice during the competition would end up a point behind another team that had a narrow win and a narrow loss instead, all other things being equal. For this reason it seems to me that 2.5 points would be a fairer result. There isn’t any reason why we couldn’t award half points if we wanted to is there? If we had done this in this competition the Crusaders would have scraped over the Tahs by a half a point and points differentials would not have needed to be considered. OTOH it’s not all about fairness and perhaps we do want to slightly penalise teams that draw! I’m interested in hearing others’ views on this.
Finally, and while on the subject of draws, a lot has been made of the fact that the Tahs got one more win than the Saders and that perhaps they are more deserving of a semi-final place because of it. I think it’s worth remembering that that difference was only one point in the Saders/Force game. The bottom line is that their results were very very close and the Saders took the split above the Tahs only by a hair, with the extra bonus points they won offsetting that sole draw. Obviously you Tahs fans wanted the Tahs to win and were unlucky this time, but don’t you also want them to play more attacking rugby (BP1) and put up a good fight even when they lose (BP2)? Just my 2c.
Bruce Ross said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
A good reply from Niven which, perhaps not surprisingly, focusses on the subject of the original post. It answers some of my criticism of his press release.
Most of the other comments have wandered off in other directions.
Mungehead said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
Bill, if you’re rueing a 3 point draw with bonus point, you need to be comparing it to a 5 point win and a 2 point (narrow) loss. Meaning that the fairest result for a draw would be (5+2)/2 = 3.5 points, or 2.5 plus the bonus point. I just covered that above. It’s the EPL system that’s out of whack.
ohtani's jacket said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
pothale,
There have always been blowout scores in Super rugby. This dates back to the first season.
Random example — Round 3, 1996
Brumbies/Blues 40-34
Hurricanes/Transvaal 32-16
Highlanders/Western Province 52-25
Northern Transvaal/Waratahs 32-29
Reds/Crusaders 52-16
Natal/Chiefs 63-25
Mungehead said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
>thereby reducing the impact of keeping the bonus point at all.
I meant merit, not impact.
brad said | May 20th 2009 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
when teams are on the same log points they should first use the head to head system, in this case the waratahs did in fact lose to the Crusaders in the round robin stages and therefore the better team has gone through. If the teams had a draw in the round robin and they are on the same log points then it should come down to wins and losses if that is the same then points difference, then tries scored, yellow cards/red cards and then a coin toss.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
Craig,
I wonder if you ever think or read anything before you fly off the handle with your rants and your obvious disdain towards me. Your posts are nothing but unsubstantiated drivel towards me and once again you try to twist the facts to suit your argument and somehow turn me out to be a bad person.
Everytbing I put in that first post is valid and has to do with the subject. I’m trying to establish a rationale for why people like you and the Professor think your way his way is the right way and only way?
Something it seems you fail to do.
Also I see other posters have similar views and also have questioned the Professor yet you don’t seem to be taking them to task. Please explain. Or are you just hell bent on trying to discredit anything I say and paint me out to be an Aussie basher?
I thought there were some ignorant people in other blogs but you certainly rank uo there with them.
Niven said | May 20th 2009 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
It may be useful for me to provide more information about how the analysis works. The analysis determines the allocation of bonuses that is best at revealing strong teams by using competition points to construct strength measures and choosing competition points to maximise prediction accuracy. As predictions using strength measures built on bonuses that are not good at revealing strong teams will be less accurate than predictions using bonuses that are good at identifying strong teams, choosing bonuses to maximise prediction accuracy essentially selects bonuses that provide the best measure of team strength.
To use an example, predictions based on a model where, in each contest, the team with the best mascot is awarded a bonus are likely to be less accurate than predictions based on a model where a bonus is awarded to the team that scores the most tries. So, we would conclude that awarding a bonus to the team with the best mascot is not good at revealing strong teams.
The analysis works at finer level than the example above. Specifically, we compare predictions when a narrow-loss bonus is awarded for, say, losing by seven or fewer points to predictions when a bonus is awarded for losing by, say, six or fewer points. If predictions under the six-or-fewer bonus are more accurate than predictions using a seven-or-fewer bonus, we conclude that a bonus for losing by six or fewer points is better at revealing strong teams than a bonus for losing by seven or fewer points. By varying the bonus threshold and making multiple comparisons, the analysis is able to determine the narrow-loss bonus that is best at revealing strong teams.
kick to kick said | May 20th 2009 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
This is silly. All sport results involve factors that distort absolute fairness – imprudent rules, the bounce of the ball, wind, weather, luck. Couldhavebeens and shouldhavebeens are currency for all passionate sports fans, but make no difference whatever once an outcome is official. The last seconds of the Waratah’s season underscored the point. The Lions scored a winning try that was disallowed for a forward pass which did not look forward. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t – but many referees would have let it go. The Waratahs got lucky, just not lucky enough when it came to the full season’s tally. But how many other alternative decisions by players and officials in hours of football could have created an alternative universe in which the Waratah’s make the top four and go on to win the title? Frankly , real champions perform beyond the vagaries of luck and leave no doubt about the result.
Photon said | May 20th 2009 @ 6:36pm | Report comment
I’m so sick of this moaning about how the some great travesty me justice has been committed and the tahs deserve a semi final place. If you enter a competition say the super 14 and you know that if you lose by 7 points or score four tries, you get a bonus point, you gonna look at the situation and work out a strategy. If the rules change to as suggested you adjust your strategy. Maybe you don’t throw that fifty pass in the hope me scoring a try to get a bonus point, you know the one nathan sharpe threw and habana intercepted and scored a try from. So the point is it’s all very well to say if the rules where different the tahs would have made it, but people if the rules where different then maybe the other teams would have played it a little differently and the result would have changed. It’s like those who say bush would have lost if the american public was better educated, but what they don’t get is that if the american public was better educated he would probably have devised a different strategy to suite those rules, you need to devise a strategy that is most likely to ensure success within the agreed perimeters, the crusaders did this and the tahs didn’t, that’s why the tahs are out and the crusaders made it, caus they played the game more intelligently ! Hahaha
Glenn Condell said | May 20th 2009 @ 7:06pm | Report comment
‘The fact the Professor is backed up by published scientific suggestes that his argument is more valid than yours’
Oh I don’t know. If there is one group of academics nowadays whose analyses ought to be taken with a large dose of salt, it’s economists. They like to think of themselves as scientists, but they’re not. It’s partly the fairy stories they’ve been teaching for the last 30 or 40 years (market equilibrium, rational actors, the focus on inflation rather than debt, et al) that have landed us in the GFC.
Present company excepted of course Niven! I do think your system warrants consideration. It does seem silly for teams to advance with less wins than others.
pothale said | May 20th 2009 @ 7:24pm | Report comment
Niven
Thanks for that last post (and the previous ones). It explains the analysis you used in your research. One query.
I don’t know how all of the matches in the S14 progressed to their final scoreline. So did the team that went ahead first in the meatch, remain ahead? Or was there a context where the lead was exchanged one or more times? And in a tight game, where a team lost by seven points or less, did they lose, because they were overtaken by a final score? I ask this because in your writing and your posts, you posit the losing team as being in the position of playing catch-up, when in reality this might not be the case.
And one final request, since other leagues operate on the same bonus point system e.g. Magners League, could your analysis/methodology be simply be applied to the final table, or would it need some tweaking to take account of other factors?
Cutter said | May 20th 2009 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
If the waratahs were good enough to be in the finals they wouldnt have had to rely on winning with a bonus point and for 2 out of the Brumbies, Crusaders and Sharks to lose.
sportym said | May 20th 2009 @ 7:49pm | Report comment
Everyone started the season under the same rules. The tahs game plan was not based on securing 4 try bonus points, and it cost them a place in the final. Frankly they also had a dream draw. I believe the Draw has a huge impact on the outcome of the season. And mathematically you could prove that the tahs had a much better chance of making the finals this year based on their draw.
At the end of the day, you need a scoring system that is simple and to the point. Sure the current one is not the most accurate, but fans do not want to have to open up an excel spreadsheet to work out which team is leading week in and week out. Fans have enough trouble with the refs. Lets worry about fixing the reffing first.
The Tahs were not cheated, they failed to make the finals under the same rules as everyone else was playing. They blew it against the lions.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:05pm | Report comment
sportym. Got it all in one watch out though some posters wont stand for you saying their team failed. You might be accused of Waratah bashing
Craig said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:42pm | Report comment
Hemjey:
“I thought there were some ignorant people in other blogs but you certainly rank uo there with them.”
Right back at you mate! Again the post is about aflawed system, NOT ABOUT THE TAHS!! THEY WERE JUST USED TO PUBLICISE IT!!! I agree that the teams you have mentioned do not deserve to be in the finals under the system in play. I disagree that your precious and soon to be beaten kiwi teams would have wiped the floor with them as you put it.
ruckingisfun said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:57pm | Report comment
Craig
I think you’re being too harsh on Hemjay
The system has been in place and unchanged for 13 years – it looks like the Aussies are all complaining because for once the system doesnt suit them
Tahriffc said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
Unfortunately i have to agree with rucking and Hemjay – this would never have been an issue – unless the tahs had started whinging about the system (at the end of the season – not the start.
Very disappointed with that attitude – I think they need a break – and come back next year with their heads right
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
Glen C – you stick to your guns!
James Mortimer said | May 21st 2009 @ 2:16am | Report comment
My lord, what a load of tripe. Lets start disputing the colour of the sky……..
pothale said | May 21st 2009 @ 5:21am | Report comment
Why don’t you write us one of your articles about it, James?
Bonza said | May 21st 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
I heard Ewen McKenzie discussing the French competition on Ruggamatrix and he made the point that the Top 14 in France uses a different bonus system whereby you get a bonus for 3 tries but you only keep the bonus if you remain three tries ahead of your opponent. So there is an obligation to keep defending and attacking against good teams. One of the issues this year was that in some games the bonus was in the bag after 20 mins in Super 14, the winning of the game was still in the balance but there was some comfort. This comfort does not exist in the Top 14 and you need to keep playing and your opponents can still deny you if for instance you throw all your replacements on at the end and lose momentum and combinations – if the opposition score you may lose your bonus point at the death.
PC said | May 21st 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Let’s get away from the Tahs for a while. The real issue is whether the system rewards teams correctly.It should reward substance over style. If the Chiefs had attained one more bonus point, they would have topped the table and played the final at home, if they made it. If they were to play the Bulls,this would be unfair to the Bulls as they won more games than any other team in the comp and should deserve to host the final based on that,in my opinion. The Chiefs are a great side to watch no doubt but you also have to admire the Bulls for their superb confrontational style of play. Is one style better than the other?? On the basis of wins it can be argued that the Bulls are the better side as they defeated more opponents.
We need a system that rewards winning heavily while encouraging both teams to continue to play positively for 80 mins.
Maxxy said | May 21st 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
PC – I think Bonza just suggested one that is already in use in France today
Mark said | May 21st 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Get Over It ! The Crusaders nearly lost their last game through an incompetent TMO. They made the semis despite having the worst goal kicking stats of any team until McDonald took over. They lost their best attacking back (Casey) early in the season, & have an almost no name team with the exception of #’s 4/7/15, but they still made it !
Sore losers springs to mind – & yes I’m coming on a bit strong but I’ve been reading this rubbish all week. For the Waratah supporters who’re complaining – toughen up princess !
Matthew Alvarez said | May 21st 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
I have held a view for some time that there was not enough incentive, aside from the four try bonus point, for a team to put its opposition to the sword. I would have throught that a bonus point for winning by 20-plus, and then for each subsequent 20 points would be a great incentive. As too would be an incentive for another four tries once the first goal of four is reached. Teams might find themselves compelled to stop ’shutting up shop’, a tactic that was very evident in the recent Crusaders v Reds match. Ahead by 32 points with 20 minutes left the Crusaders made wholesale changes to their side, the momentum they had was lost, and the Reds grabbed two late tries. Had there been those additional bonus points up for grabs the Crusaders might have continued with the rout. I have little doubt it would have made for a better spectacle than what we saw which was a match that withered on the vine in the final quarter.
As for the Waratahs, well, it is unfortunate and perhaps even cruel that they went 9-4 and didn’t make it BUT they were the architects of their own destiny. Had they not spent games 2 through 10 (ex-the Blues) playing a bland, uninspiring (ex-defence), indecisive style of footy they would have cantered into the finals. Basic skills went missing. With the four point for-and-against differential in mind it may be somewhat ironic to look back at the Crusaders ‘home’ game that they butchered. In isolation Sam Norton-Knight’s woeful behind-the-man pass to an unmarked Lachie Turner for what would / could have meant a semi-final spot effectively summed up their season – a glaring opportunity missed. The Waratahs failed to get themselves into the finals. It had nothing to do with the structure of the bonus point system.
stuff happens said | May 21st 2009 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Once more with feeling ( as an Australian):
1. I couldn’t care less about the Waratahs; they only have themselves to blame for missing the finals.Many of their players will make the Wallaby squad.How many of the Cheetahs & the Lions will make the ‘Boks – not too many ( the excellent Juan Smith excepted).Says it all to me.
2.It’s and embarassing and pathetic that Australia does not have one team good enough to make the S14 finals.
3.Whatever bonus system is in place will produce arguments at the end of the season with what ifs & if only.
4.Forget it.You either win a match or you don’t. Full stop.The rest is bollocks.
Loftus said | May 22nd 2009 @ 6:08am | Report comment
I like the idea of getting a bonus point after 3 or even 4 tries and then having to protect it.Thus,losing the bonus point if the opposition scores another try – the ‘net try’ effect. It gets used in France and it s much better than the S14 system. This way it will test and reward a team ’s attacking AND defensive capabilities. I ve seen many games this year where the winning team is 20 or 25 points ahead ,already have the 4 tries, and bring on 3 or 4 replacements.They then lose momentum and don t play with the same conviction and commitment and let in 1 or 2 easy tries,which give the losing team a bonuspoint for scoring 4 tries. I really think this system used in France should be looked at because it will make the game more of a spectacle. Good luck to all the teams for this weekend.Go the Bulls!!!
Gary said | May 22nd 2009 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Get over it. The Tahs lost because they played their own way instead of playing to rules of the competition they are in. If they had used their backline more and scored tries they’d be in the finals.
If you want to improve things get your coaching staff to understand that Super Rugby is not just about forwards battering the hell out each other and that continually kicking away posession is not a good idea.