Were the Waratahs cheated out of a Super 14 semi-final spot?
Columnist
By Spiro Zavos, 20 May 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
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.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (4)
- Nathan Sharpe to retire at end of 2012 (3)
- Queensland ready for Super challenge (2)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (51)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack (2)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (64)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (26)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- bonus points, bonus points in super 14, Crusaders, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Waratahs
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.