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.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- bonus points, bonus points in super 14, Crusaders, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Waratahs
May 20th 2009 @ 8:37am
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
May 20th 2009 @ 8:38am
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!!
May 20th 2009 @ 8:46am
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.
May 20th 2009 @ 9:00am
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
May 20th 2009 @ 9:04am
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.
May 20th 2009 @ 9:07am
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.
May 20th 2009 @ 9:11am
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.
May 20th 2009 @ 9:34am
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
May 20th 2009 @ 9:49am
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.
May 20th 2009 @ 9:52am
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!