With the resolution of the pool stages of the Super Rugby season for 2011, I thought it an apt moment to review one of the contentious issues this year.
I don’t have an entire lifetime to analyse refereeing, judiciaries, KPIs or playpower. So, I went for the next in line.
That’s the one that’s raised a fair amount of comment and ire around the relative weaknesses and intensity of each conference.
Specifically that the Australian conference is the weakest and that the derby matches have provided an unfair advantage to its finals aspirants. So in schoolboy fashion I decided to do some statistical analysis.
Analysis – Brief
The idea is to get figures around the cannibalising of points from “weaker’ teams in each conference by the leading teams within the same conference and those from other conferences.
Key figures in the weighting will therefore be point difference (PD) and points from matchups between the leaders and numbers across conferences.
The larger the PD the more lopsided the victories. Points gained then gives us an indication of ranking gains independent of landslide victories.
First step: Identify the leading teams. Fortunately due to each conference supplying two teams not only is it truly representative but also balanced from a statistical point of view:
Leaders:
Blues – New Zealand
Sharks – South Africa
Crusaders – New Zealand
Reds – Australia
Stormers – South Africa
Tahs – Australia
The rest then make up the numbers.
Numbers:
Brumbies – Australia
Bulls – South Africa
Cheetahs – South Africa
Chiefs – New Zealand
Force- Australia
Highlanders – New Zealand
Hurricanes – New Zealand
Lions – South Africa
Rebels – Australia
From here on the math is pretty simple:
1. Sum the for and against for each “numbers” team the leader team has played in each conference to derive an overall PD against the weaker teams split out by conf.
2. Sum the points for the above match to put table ranking into the equation
Contender Analysis by Conference:
|
|
|
Conf |
|
|
|
|
|
Team |
Data |
NZ |
OZ |
SA |
Grand |
Average |
|
Blues |
Average |
14 |
8.5 |
8 |
10.17 |
|
|
|
Sum |
6 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
|
|
|
Sum |
22 |
7 |
10 |
39 |
3.9 |
|
Crusaders |
Average |
9 |
27 |
7 |
14.33 |
|
|
|
Sum |
6 |
2 |
2 |
10 |
|
|
|
Sum |
20 |
10 |
4 |
34 |
3.4 |
|
Reds |
Average |
3 |
11.17 |
15.67 |
9.94 |
|
|
|
Sum |
2 |
6 |
3 |
11 |
|
|
|
Sum |
5 |
22 |
14 |
41 |
3.73 |
|
Sharks |
Average |
5 |
15.67 |
6.33 |
9 |
|
|
|
Sum |
2 |
3 |
6 |
11 |
|
|
|
Sum |
6 |
15 |
19 |
40 |
3.64 |
|
Stormers |
Average |
2.5 |
28.33 |
6.67 |
12.5 |
|
|
|
Sum |
2 |
3 |
6 |
11 |
|
|
|
Sum |
5 |
14 |
22 |
41 |
3.73 |
|
Tahs |
Average |
16.5 |
22.67 |
-3 |
12.06 |
|
|
|
Sum |
2 |
6 |
3 |
11 |
|
|
|
Sum |
9 |
27 |
6 |
42 |
3.82 |
|
Total |
8.33 |
18.89 |
6.78 |
11.33 |
|
|
|
Total |
20 |
22 |
22 |
64 |
|
|
|
Total |
67 |
95 |
75 |
237 |
|
|
|
Average |
3.35 |
4.32 |
3.41 |
|
|
|
Key Analysis Notes:
• The Australian conference has resulted in the largest mismatches with the average PD between the leadings teams across all conferences and weaker teams in this conference at 18.89, followed by New Zealand 8.33 and South Africa 6.78 respectfully.
• The Australian conference has also provide the most points to the leaders from each conference with 95 at an average of 4.05 per game, followed by SA 75 at 3.41 and New Zealand 67 at 3.35
• The Reds and Blues are the only teams with higher average PDs against other conferences. SA and New Zealand respectfully.
• The PD flat track bullies in order are Saders, Stormers, Waratahs, Blues, Reds and Sharks.
• The bonus point (BP) flat track bullies per average game are Blues, Waratahs, Reds/Stormers, Sharks and Crusaders. Interesting shift here showing that teams who may run up big scores aren’t getting the maximum and some that get the maximum aren’t that far ahead of their opponents.
• Blues, Crusaders and Waratahs have struggled most against weaker SA sides which is backed up the PD ratio
• Reds, Sharks and Stormers have struggled most against the weaker New Zealand sides.
• Through the imbalance of conference scheduling system the Blues and Saders have played one fewer games against weaker teams than the other contenders.
• The teams most to benefit from playing weaker conference teams Waratahs, Reds/Stormers, Sharks, Blues and Crusaders. I suspect the latter two miss out a little due to playing one game less.
• Intra conference BP average Australia: Waratahs 4.5, Reds 3.67.
• Intra conference BP average New Zealand: Blues 3.67, Crusaders 3.33
• Intra conference BP average South Africa: Stormers 3.67, Sharks 3.17
• Total PD for each conference: Australia -229, New Zealand 100, South Africa 129
Final word:
In summation its pretty clear that the contenders in each conference have severely plundered table points from the Australian conference and in that sense it has been the weakest for opposition with the most lopsided results.
The question is, has this advantaged the Waratahs and Reds? Looking at the points gained and you would say yes.
The median for the Australian contenders is 24.5 points gained versus their counterparts in New Zealand 21 and South Africa 20.5 but its not that clear cut.
The biggest winner from the derby system is not the table leading Reds who accumulated an overall median 22 but the Waratahs who flambéed their weaker opponents for a massive 27 point haul.
It’s the Reds ability to gain points inter conference specifically against SA opponents that has been their strong point.
So with the rest of the teams bar the Sharks (lowest ranked finalist) and ‘Saders (drawn game) well in the median it would show that the matches may be closer in the other conferences but the leaders are gaining equal amounts of points.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Reds back in contention, but Waratahs need a cleanout (287)
- What Hansen’s first squad means for the Wallabies (191)
- ALAN JONES: We have the players, it’s the coaches that are to blame (161)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (158)
- Will Cooper and Mitchell be back in time for Wallaby selection? (156)
- CAMPO: Will Deans change the style of the Wallabies play? (128)
- Tahs out. Brumbies win ugly. And Quade’s back! (124)
- McKenzie or White: who will be the next Wallaby coach? (7)
- Chiefs back on top after downing Bulls (2)
- Rebels know Super improvement needed
- Quade can play way into Wallabies squad (2)
- A Kiwi’s advice to Wallaby supporters (14)
- Confessions of a rugby union traitor (5)
- Reds focus on Brumbies, not finals
- A Kiwi’s advice to Wallaby supporters (14)
- Confessions of a rugby union traitor (5)
- Brumbies vs Reds: a lesson for the other provinces (9)
- Chiefs vs Bulls: Super Rugby live scores, blog (14)
- Hola Argentina, and welcome to the Rugby Championship! (23)
- Irish coaches looking to head Western Force (15)
- Dull Super Rugby coaches equal dull rugby (50)


June 23rd 2011 @ 7:01am
Bayboy said | June 23rd 2011 @ 7:01am | Report comment
3/4 of the bottom placed teams coming from the Australian conference speaks volumes Rusty,
I like the breakdown you have down but it doesn’t take a genius to work it out.
The average or casual rugby fan will clearly see the gap in strengths of the conferences as soon as they look at the table.
June 23rd 2011 @ 10:00am
reds fan said | June 23rd 2011 @ 10:00am | Report comment
fair call but ‘bottom 4′ is an arbitary cut off point. as shown by the fact that the Force who came 12th (4th last) won the same number of games as Cheetahs and Hurricanes.
June 23rd 2011 @ 10:04am
Working Class Rugger said | June 23rd 2011 @ 10:04am | Report comment
The Force were very competitive all season with a number of very tight loses, if a few things had gone their way here and there, their place on the ladder could have been very different. The ladder position can be deceptive.
June 23rd 2011 @ 11:10am
Rusty said | June 23rd 2011 @ 11:10am | Report comment
In the words of the great Ricky Bobby “If you arent in the top six then you are last”
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:13am
Willy said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:13am | Report comment
Love the analysis, Rusty! Great stuff.
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:41am
PeterK said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:41am | Report comment
If you average the intra conference results for playing teams twice or just take the first result the same 6 teams are in the final just in a different order.
So Aust may have had the weaker teams BUT in the final wash up had very little impact on the finals. Bulls still would of missed out.
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:43am
Jerry said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:43am | Report comment
A different order of finishing has a HUGE impact on the finals, Peter.
June 23rd 2011 @ 10:55am
PeterK said | June 23rd 2011 @ 10:55am | Report comment
not in this case since in all scenarios Reds finish first and always get the home game advantage.
June 23rd 2011 @ 11:05am
Jerry said | June 23rd 2011 @ 11:05am | Report comment
And for second place? Third?
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:53am
Rusty said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:53am | Report comment
I dont know how you can really do that if you play a team twice and firstly win 28-0 gaining 5-0 on points and then lose
16-9 then next time for 4-1. How does that really translate to an average where your overall gain is 6 – so 3 points where the only scenario that would happen is a 4 try draw
June 23rd 2011 @ 8:43am
Jiggles said | June 23rd 2011 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Thanks for that Rusty, very good analysis. I really think you have to look at who each team got there results against and how many points 4 or 5 they got from them.
I love doubters who say that the Reds are only benefiting from the conference system, but when you look at their results they have W6 L2 in those 6 Wins they got only 4 points in 4 of those matches.
The Reds sit where they are because the beat all teams from the Republic (that they played) and they beat the two front running NZ teams. The Blues and Tah’s got better results against their respective conferences however they let themselves down through inter conference loses. the Stormers and the Crusaders are similar to the Reds however I think the Stromers will really be disappointed with that Cape town Loss to the Reds and Crusaders alike, while the Crusaders would be upset with the Cheetah’s match.
June 23rd 2011 @ 9:35am
westius said | June 23rd 2011 @ 9:35am | Report comment
This is a really interesting analysis – certainly better than just looking at the table and seeing the Aus teams at the bottom and concluding the Aus conference was the weakest.
What you have actually shown is that the bottom 3 teams in the Aus conference are, as a group, the worst of the bottom 3 teams in any conference. It is a subtle point, but this is not the same as saying Aus is the weakest conference, although perhaps this is some evidence towards that conclusion. If you wanted to rate conference against conference, you’d need to use all the teams, and then it would come down to judgement calls on how to do it given Qld did so well and beat plenty of foreign teams.
Anyway… what this shows, and what is quite clear from the season, is that the Aus conference had the biggest disparity between well performing teams and poorly performing teams. This however may change with the salary cap. It is possible, given the increased numbers of derbies, in a conference where there is a clear difference between good and bad, that the poor teams pick up no points against the local teams and end up near the bottom of the table no matter how they go against the foreign teams. This analysis shows a little more than that by showing that the foreign teams also beat up on the poor Aus teams. So good stuff.
June 23rd 2011 @ 9:43am
Rusty said | June 23rd 2011 @ 9:43am | Report comment
You hit the nail on the head – the analysis was never to say the weakest conference as a whole was the Australian one. its not possible when you consider the performance of the Reds and to a lesser degree the Tahs. The analysis is there to show the gulf between the contenders and the weaker teams in each pool and between pools.
June 23rd 2011 @ 10:10am
B-Rock said | June 23rd 2011 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Rusty – absolutely correct – good to see some real analysis on the roar.
Worth noting that while the bottom three Oz teams are way off the pace, to be fair the Rebels are in their first season and were not expected to be competitive. The brumbies were in the reverse situation where established stars didnt perform due to off field issues. The force are the force and were always expected to be in the bottom third of the table.
I would argue that next season will be quite a different story – the Brumbies will be fired up with Jake White and finally seeing the back of Gits, will still struggle to some extent without AAC while Rocky didnt play this season anyway. The Rebels will clearly be much sronger with KB and JOC. The force will be a bit weaker but given the current low level, cant really detract any further from the Oz conf. The Lions and Cheetahs have shown great progress this year, highlighting it can be done. To some extent we may see this in Oz next year.
June 23rd 2011 @ 12:11pm
Karlos said | June 23rd 2011 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
And how about the mass exodus that will occur, of which i predict the likely effect will felt greatest by, in order, SA, NZ, AUS? (Given that the SA rep teams appear to be made up more of older custodians than their two counterparts).
June 23rd 2011 @ 12:12pm
Karlos said | June 23rd 2011 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Sorry – to clarify i obviously meant player exodus to Northern Hemisphere rugby
June 24th 2011 @ 4:09am
sittingbison said | June 24th 2011 @ 4:09am | Report comment
Complete rubbish
June 23rd 2011 @ 10:27am
mudskipper said | June 23rd 2011 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Definitely the most stretched with the new province starting up… Will next year also but 2013 we will be better for it. It does affect the Wallabies they will be enough solid players to field a mighty team. Some good talent coming through for the RWC this year.
June 23rd 2011 @ 12:06pm
Karlos said | June 23rd 2011 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Rusty – how many franchises have won at least 3 games during their innagural season? And if you’d like, feel free to use wins as a percentage of total games played to compare apples n apples.
June 23rd 2011 @ 12:09pm
Jerry said | June 23rd 2011 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Quite a few in 1996…..
There’s only been 3 genuinely new franchises, so it’s not like it’s a particularly large statistical achievement.
June 23rd 2011 @ 12:13pm
Karlos said | June 23rd 2011 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Well then Jerry – as a starting point how did those 3 fare?
June 23rd 2011 @ 12:25pm
Jerry said | June 23rd 2011 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Force – Played 13, drew 2, won 1
Cheetahs – Played 13, won 5.
Rebels – Played 16, won 3.
Congratulations Rebels, you’re the second best Super Rugby expansion team ever and the best Australian one. A huge achievement given the 3 team, 5 year history of Super Rugby expansion. Unfortunately, you’re also the second worst.
June 23rd 2011 @ 12:30pm
Karlos said | June 23rd 2011 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
It’s just a shame that unlike the Central Cheetahs, they weren’t able to ply their trade in the Currie Cup (est. 1889), nor draw formation from the Free State Cheetahs (est. 1895), The Griffons (est. 1968) and the Griquas (est. 1886).
June 23rd 2011 @ 12:45pm
Jerry said | June 23rd 2011 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
So what? The Cheetahs were a new team. Probably with less Super Rugby experience than the players recruited by the Rebels.
But if you want to exclude the Cheetahs, you’re reducing it to a comparison between only 2 teams, which kind of makes my whole “whoop de f’ing do” tone even more pertinent.
June 23rd 2011 @ 12:34pm
Raffick7 said | June 23rd 2011 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Nice work, Rusty. Is it useful to note that the Austrlian contingent is the only one with the ‘newest’ teams – the Force and, of course, the Rebels. One might presume that as time goes by these teams will build/develop a stronger base of support and tradition that will add to their presence in the comp.
FWIW
June 23rd 2011 @ 12:55pm
Uncle Bob said | June 23rd 2011 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
New Zealand was the weakest conference. Seriously you wouldn’t cross the street to watch their teams in action. Any wonder the All Blacks have done nothing in the professional era.
June 23rd 2011 @ 1:38pm
allblackfan said | June 23rd 2011 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Ever thought about a career in standup comedy, Uncle Bob??
You’re a very funny person!!
June 23rd 2011 @ 2:40pm
School Boy said | June 23rd 2011 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Maybe he can coach the Highlanders. After the comedy that Jamie Joseph sprouted this year, i’m sure they could do with a coach.
June 23rd 2011 @ 3:51pm
Riaan said | June 23rd 2011 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
How about anylising on which conference had the most crowds this year. Rusty? anyone?
June 23rd 2011 @ 3:59pm
Brett McKay said | June 23rd 2011 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
it’d be South Africa by some margin, I’d imagine, Riaan. 3 teams in the top 7, all playing out of 40-50K stadia…
June 23rd 2011 @ 4:03pm
Rusty said | June 23rd 2011 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
I think you will be surprised Brett – I think the overall bums on seats is probably up but I think the averages will be down due to the overall saturation
June 23rd 2011 @ 4:02pm
Rusty said | June 23rd 2011 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
I have tried but several stadia dont list there crowds and dont respond to requests for the information (Cheetahs, Chiefs, Blues – I am looking at you)