Aussie conference the weakest? It’s a myth
By wre01, 20 Mar 2012 wre01 is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Brumbies, Highlanders, New Zealand Rugby Union, Rebels, Reds, south african rugby, Super Rugby, Western Force
165 Have your say
Related coverage
An issue that seems to consistently be raised by Kiwis and South Africans alike is the perceived weakness of the Australia conference in Super Rugby.
It seems there are concerted attempts, particularly by Kiwis, to diminish the success of the Reds in 2011 by arguing that the Australian Conference is weak.
They say Australian sides don’t do it as tough, that Australian sides have at least three easy beats in The Force, Brumbies and Rebels. Australian sides can rake up more points. Australian sides get easy home advantage for finals. Australians don’t love rugby like we do. And so it goes on…
The same armchair experts argue that the Reds only won at home, and that they only beat Auckland and Canterbury at Suncorp Stadium. They couldn’t possibly have done that in New Zealand.
Such an argument is a little sour. Is it not like saying that NZ had a home advantage in 2011, but couldn’t have won a Rugby World Cup overseas?
Let’s not forget that the All Blacks didn’t play Wales or South Africa at the 2011 RWC either. They were a little lucky to beat France.
However, no fair minded observers would say that NZ didn’t deserve to be crowned champions. Why is it then that the Reds just don’t get the same go?
It all seems to come back to this conference issue (and a touch of jealousy, particularly in Auckland). Can it really fairly be said that the Aussie conference is the weakest?
The facts don’t suggest the Aussie teams are the weakest. Let’s start with some interesting statistics that reflect the state of play in the decade prior to the conference system.
Between 1999 and 2010, South African franchises finished last 10 out of 12 seasons. Of those ten times, South African sides finished in the bottom two on no fewer than five occasions and even filled the bottom three spots one year.
The Lions were the least successful team of that period. They hold the record for the least number of wins in a season (zero wins in 2010), along with another South African side, the Bulls (zero wins in 2002).
In 2010 the Lions also set the record for the most points conceded (585) and the largest points differential in a season (315). In fact, between May 2009 and March 2011 the Lions lost on 17 consecutive occasions, another unwanted record.
Statistically, over the same period, the next worst side were the Cheetahs (amazingly even as a fledgling franchise, the Force’s record is better).
If you look at the other end of the table, it is clear that New Zealand has a stranglehold on providing winners and finalists. Australia and South Africa have both won the competition 3 times each.
However, Australian teams have finished runners-up more than their South African counterparts. Australian sides have also appeared in more finals than South African sides.
The thrust of the criticism seems to be the weakness of the Rebels and Force in general.
Yet in 2010, the Force won more games than the Lions and Highlanders.
Aside from the fact that they have an entire Wallaby backrow – including one David Pocock and a 101-test lock in NathanSharpe – the Force have very rarely been easy beats. They accounted for the Stormers, Highlanders and Crusaders in 2010.
While the Rebels played their first season in 2011, they beat the Brumbies, Hurricanes and Force while only losing to the Sharks by two (far more successful than the Lions in 2009/2010).
Turning to how the Super 15 has unfolded in the early stages this year, most Australian sides have had a bad start. Yet this hasn’t stopped the “Baby Brumbies” beating the Cheetahs.
The Highlanders, who have now won four on the trot, were pushed furthest at home by the Waratahs, who only lost by a single point. The Brumbies lost to a try after the siren by the Chiefs in Waikato and the Rebels, apparently a second-year scraped-together franchise, went down to an 81st minute Cheetahs’ try.
Then there is the Reds, the most bashed Super Rugby Champion ever.
They went 10 from 13 last year- losing to “easy beats” NSW, the Brumbies and Hurricanes only. They beat the Stormers in South Africa and turned around to defeat the Bulls the week after in Brisbane.
They played Auckland and Canterbury four times and won all four matches. Even at home that is some sort of ‘lucky’ streak.
They’ve beaten three Australian sides in 2012 through hard graft rather than flair. I guess that doesn’t count, though, because they are all “easy beats”. According to the critics, they go to South Africa having only beaten “nobodys”.
Even Rod Kafer said they had no hope in South Africa. Yet they went to Kings Park in Durban without Cooper and were 17-nil up until losing two playmakers/ goal kickers and Digby Ioane to a dubious yellow card.
How many other sides could absorb losing Cooper and then lose their second and third choice flyhalves within 40 minutes. To cap it off, they had no recognised kicker, played Genia at number ten, and lost a man in the bin for 10 minutes. Yet they still pushed the Sharks to within three points at Kings Park.
It seems to me that the weakness of the Aussie conference is a myth.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Wallabies squad announced: Folau in, no Quade Cooper – yet (252)
- Deans: Should he stay or should he go? (243)
- I was dead-set wrong about Folau (237)
- What gives with Israel Folau? (184)
- Deans promises ball in hand rugby for Wallabies against Lions (183)
- Quade shouldn’t be fly half against the Lions (182)
- My Lion tamers for 2013 (167)
- Finals talk taboo for NSW Waratahs (4)
- McKenzie defends omitted Quade Cooper (5)
- Wilkinson named Europe’s best rugby player
- SPIRO’s Lions Diary: Deans goes for experience, plus Folau (74)
- Wallabies 25-man Lions squad: analysis (50)
- Cooper at a crossroad but Deans provides the right motivation (37)
- Inu in trouble as Mason fires up
- Wallabies 25-man Lions squad: analysis (50)
- Wallabies 2013 Lions Tour squad announcement: Live blog (192)
- Picking Quade and Izzy is a no brainer (34)
- Cheetahs vs Reds: Super Rugby live scores, blog (180)
- Michael Hooper in box the seat for Wallabies start (0)
- Waratahs vs Brumbies: Super Rugby live scores, blog (517)
- Wallaby backline options (68)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Brumbies, Highlanders, New Zealand Rugby Union, Rebels, Reds, south african rugby, Super Rugby, Western Force



March 20th 2012 @ 4:11am
nick said | March 20th 2012 @ 4:11am | Report comment
The real thrust behind the bashing of the Reds is because they secured home advantage for the final due to the fact they got to play all the weakest teams including three of the bottom four sides in the comp and two of them twice (because they were aussie teams). This meant they accrued more points and got a home final. Only one side has won an away final in the past (crusaders) so it was a massive boost.
There’s no doubt the aussie conference is weaker than the others. Having two of the bottom 3 sides in the comp as part of your conference and really only one threatening to win the thing suggests that. The top and middle of the table is clogged with kiwi and sa sides. Its no myth
BTW history shows its harder to win a world cup at home than away.
March 20th 2012 @ 4:30am
wre01 said | March 20th 2012 @ 4:30am | Report comment
Nick- I take it you missed much of the middle part of my article? For 10 of the past 12 seasons, South African teams finished last in Super Rugby. The Lions and Cheetahs have been the worst performing sides over the same period. A conference system doesn’t change that over night. Even if it did, the Rebels defeated 3 sides last year, 3 more wins than the Lions in 2010.
Even if it was true that the Aussie Conference was the weakest (and I don’t think the facts support that), 2 new franchises have been created in the space of 5 years. It is great for the game particularly given that the IRB couldn’t care less what NZRU thinks. The NZRU needs the revenue generated by the ARU and SARU to survive.
It is interesting to see the sour grapes from Kiwis though- being in London, I can tell you the buzz surrounding the way the Reds played rugby in 2012 was far greter than on any occasion the Crusaders won a title. Sure there is admiration for McCaw and Carter but they don’t create the same excitement or publicity for the game, even when the Crusaders played a game at Twickenham. Just an observation.
March 20th 2012 @ 9:53am
Nafe said | March 20th 2012 @ 9:53am | Report comment
i don’t think anyone cares who won last year anymore. the Reds played who they were scheduled to play and won the matched they had to, so they were the champions. good on them. all kiwis and saffas aren’t complaining- just the loud ones. seriously though, there is a difference in intensity of the conferences. look at the waratahs v force, and then watch hurricanes v highlanders. i don’t know if it’s the weak teams that make a conference easier, more so the strength of the good teams that make a conference harder. any one of the kiwi teams could conceivably make the finals (except maybe the Blues who are struggling) but can you honestly say the Rebels, Force or Brumbies will make it? The Reds will make the finals almost by default cos everyone else in the Aussie conference is rubbish. Fairest system will always be round robin, although i doubt this will happen.
March 20th 2012 @ 12:06pm
WQ said | March 20th 2012 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Your right wre01, it is just your observation, and I’d suggest a fairly biased one at that!
March 20th 2012 @ 12:05pm
soapit said | March 20th 2012 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
all it really means is there is a larger gap between the good and bad in aus rugby. the rebels and force suffered from having to play the champs twice just as much as the reds benefited from playing poor teams twice.
March 20th 2012 @ 4:57am
Moreton Bait said | March 20th 2012 @ 4:57am | Report comment
I know it’s a silly argument, but the Reds lost to the Sharks by 5 points and Genia (who I’ve never seen attempt goal kicks before) missed a conversion from in front and a penalty – 5 points. Both of which would probably have been kicked by Harris based on his recent goalkicking form. Of course no-one from the Reds would even mention this, let alone complain or even give it a second thought. They’ll just suck it up and move on in their easy, breezy draw and eventually get back to their pushover conference opponents. After all, they have been given such an unfair advantage, they really do need to lose a few more games don’t they, so as to even up the competition so that supporters of other NZ and SA teams, like Nick above, can have a better chance to win the comp. My argument above is obviously, and deliberately, silly, but just as silly as the “weakest comp” myth thrown around by the hard-done-by losers of the 2011 Super comp. Go the REDS!
March 20th 2012 @ 6:05am
mace 22 said | March 20th 2012 @ 6:05am | Report comment
keep on deluding yourself but we all no the truth. Australian conference is the weakest and no amount of chest beating and abuse is going to change that fact.
March 20th 2012 @ 11:09am
emuarse said | March 20th 2012 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Hey Bro – where you learn your English. i don’t no.
March 20th 2012 @ 2:26pm
Cattledog said | March 20th 2012 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
LOL
March 20th 2012 @ 10:37am
Rugbug said | March 20th 2012 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Hahahaha thank you for the best laugh of the day, this forum is full of Reds fans making excuses for their loss against the Sharks on the weekend,
They got beat by a better team short and simple, they could not handle the step up in intensity and are using the excuse of injuries etc.
Only last year Reds fans were screaming others down who dared suggest injuries were a reason for their teams own misfortunes.
But with everything on the roar the rules are different when it comes to assessing the Australian teams.
The Australian Conference is the Weakest it is no perception it is reality and the sooner people like yourself and the author wake up to this fact the better off you will be.
The only MYTH here is that you believe the Australian conference isn’t WEAK!!!
March 20th 2012 @ 11:06am
Justin said | March 20th 2012 @ 11:06am | Report comment
The Reds had as many injuries last year as most teams using 37 players.
They couldnt handle the step up in intensity? They lead 17-0 and lost by 5 with a bloke in the bin for 10 mins away from home. Yes they lost fair and square but RB you carry on like there is a massive gulf between SA and NZ teams v AUS teams that just isnt there.
You say that its the Reds being fortunate to beat the top teams last year due to home ground advatage and thats why they won those matches v the Blues/Crusaders yet when they lose by a small margin away from home they cant handle the ste up in intensity. So which is it? Right now you are just swinging in the wind and not applying the same argument across all teams.
Youd be a pretty harsh judge to say on the weekend they werent just a tad unlucky with injuries but no one I have heard is making excuses for the loss. Just get on with this week and try to beat the Bulls with the players available.
March 20th 2012 @ 11:15am
Rugbug said | March 20th 2012 @ 11:15am | Report comment
No reality is they lost after having a 17-0 lead in my opinion the choked massively end of story.
If they were as great as you and others would like us to believe they would have shored up their defenses and ground out the win but no they didn’t and couldn’t. They were given a cool hard lesson in playing rugby against a decent team away from Suncorp.
As for Digbys sin bin that is no ones fault except his DO NOT even try and use that as some sort of leverage for mitigating the Reds loss.
Stupidity lost them this match and not being able to match the intensity of the Sharks who brought it and brought it hard.
March 20th 2012 @ 12:59pm
Justin said | March 20th 2012 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
I’m just happy that you admitted the Crusaders and Blues couldnt match the intensity of the Reds last year on 2 occasions each
That must have been hard….
March 21st 2012 @ 2:35pm
Nathan of Perth said | March 21st 2012 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
“No reality is they lost after having a 17-0 lead in my opinion the choked massively end of story”
No, not really.
March 20th 2012 @ 6:03pm
rl said | March 20th 2012 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
AND those handbag carriers in the Sharks front row wouldn’t man up for a contested scrum in the last 10 minutes. Even Adam Frier has packed in at prop at a pinch, and he’s 17 inches tall!
March 21st 2012 @ 3:35pm
steve.h said | March 21st 2012 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
one of the reds tries came off a massive forward pass (so there is your five points that went missing), the sharks lost a lot of key players too ( JP Pietersen, Beast, Skeate, Sykes, Hargrieves, Deysel, Kanko, Hoffman – their best scrumhalf by far). The reds really aren’t that good this year, they were the weaker side against the waratahs and will most probably get mauled by the Bulls this weekend. If the Reds coaching staff was to inept to put three backs on the bench that shows that the its not just the players but the coaches that are sub par too.
March 20th 2012 @ 1:36pm
Quakezone said | March 20th 2012 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
If you took the conference system away and reverted back to how it used to be for arguments sake, the REDs would not be in the top five but of course they will get back there when they play the force again and the rebels again, just saying….
March 21st 2012 @ 2:39pm
Nathan of Perth said | March 21st 2012 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Ladder positions five rounds in are like surveys with insufficient sample pool sizes. Subject to randomness that means their conclusions are unhelpful. Give it till round ten and we’ll see the frontrunners and the pack differentiated. Getting to finals easily means nothing, after all, if you cannot produce at crunch time and at the end of last year there was only one team standing and it didn’t play under red stars or rainbow colours.
March 21st 2012 @ 9:59pm
stillmatic1 said | March 21st 2012 @ 9:59pm | Report comment
and you keep trying to hang your hat on that, nathan. hope you remember your posts for when the results revert back to the status quo, and not the anomaly that was last year.
March 20th 2012 @ 5:16am
Photon said | March 20th 2012 @ 5:16am | Report comment
First of all the Super 14 was fundamentally different to the super 15 and because everyone played everyone it didn’t matter who finished last. The Reds had an easier run and the fact that two thirds of the fixtures that Australian sides play are less demanding makes all the difference in the world, when we had a super 14 the reds couldn’t even make the semi’s they came close but they failed? And yes in case you’ve forgotten that was Mackenzies first season. Look I don’t have the energy to do this yet again but at the end of the day things are what they are and until the Aussie player base improves the rest of us will have to deal with it, but please don’t try and tell me the intensity of Aussie derbies is the same as their counterparts cause it just isn’t. The Reds are good but they’d take more hits and more injuries if it was still everyone playing everyone, and it’s also why Mackenzie could never win this competirion in sydney
March 20th 2012 @ 5:27am
Photon said | March 20th 2012 @ 5:27am | Report comment
Sorry what I meant to say is that this year the Reds will get 8 jippo games, the Sharks, Bulls and Stormers will get 4 and the Kiwis none The saffers teams will have longer tours and more travel to go with their easy matches , the Reds will just get a leg up courtesy of the other sides in Australia. That’s why this system favours the Reds, yes they perform well, but because they have more easy games they’re fresher when they meet better opponents, anyway that’s my impression and that’s why I think the comp is skewed, but as I said that’s what we agreed to so the rest of us just have to deal with it and find a way to circumvent the challenges.
March 20th 2012 @ 9:25am
Justin said | March 20th 2012 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Yet last year the Reds lost only one match to a side not in their conference?
March 20th 2012 @ 10:49am
Rugbug said | March 20th 2012 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Yes and last year they played all the top teams at home and did not even play the Sharks.
The fact that so many Reds and Australian fans are quick to discount the huge advantage playing at home brings speaks volumes.
This year they will play all of last years finalists on the road bar the Stormers who they will play at home.
So far they are one and o on the road and I’m picking them to get a pasting against the Bulls, not because they have “injuries” but simply due to the fact I believe they are over rated and were not the best team in the competition the skewered draw favoured them immensely, that being said they did not make the draw but they can be very thankful to those who did.
So I guess I am one of those loud Kiwis but then again I have made no bones about it and my feeling towards the Reds of 2011 and that can be seen throughout the roar as can my predictions that I believe they will struggle on the road.
Here’s a quote from McKenzie in an aritcle in stuff today and you can guarantee this could be used for all of the finalists from last year. playing them at home where it really counts.
“The Bulls are a pretty big challenge in their own backyard at Loftus, so we need to step up,” McKenzie said.
“They’re a very difficult team to get over the top of. We’ve had a good record against them in the last couple of years, but we haven’t beaten them where it counts, which is their home at Loftus.
The Reds have a huge advantage with three of the bottom four last year from the Australian conference and as it is the Tahs are struggling so how this can not give the Reds a significant leg up in the standings is also beyond me. The system is flawed their is no denying that and as Photon mentions above until the Aus conference starts producing quality players the top Team(s) from Australia will always get a head start on their counterparts from the NZ and SA conferences and unless this farcical system changes we will just have to deal with it. Unfortunately it also means the best teams are not necessarily seeded in the right order come finals.
March 20th 2012 @ 11:16am
Jutsie said | March 20th 2012 @ 11:16am | Report comment
actually they played the stormers away last year and won convincingly. So get your facts straight mate.
What happened to the old adage “play whats in front of you”?
Maybe we should use the same argument, that you kiwis like to use to discredit the reds, against the all blacks. They could only win a world cup when it was in their backyard yet the poms, boks and aussies were able to win “away” world cups.
March 20th 2012 @ 11:54am
Rugbug said | March 20th 2012 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Your hysterical Justin is that the only thing you could find to have a go at. The Reds beaten the Stormers at home last year was no great feat the Crusaders did it twice and one of those matches in a high intensity semi final.
There is nothing wrong with the adage but when will people like yourself admit the Reds had it very sweet last year more so than any other team in the competition.
They played what was in front of them but they had a much sweeter hand than anyone else in the competition.
Your argument is flawed you are all pro this pro that but refuse to acknowledge the circumstances that were largely in favour of the Reds!
You can use that argument if you like however history proves that winning a world cup at home is much harder than winning one away hence why only two WC holders have managed to do so at home.
March 20th 2012 @ 12:03pm
Jutsie said | March 20th 2012 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
So your guidelines are only valid if they suit your argument hey Rugbug?
You said the Reds played all the top teams at home, I point out that they played the stormers (who finished 2nd) away so you dismiss that by saying the stormers were not much chop.
So by your logic in super 15 home ground advantage is the be all and end all yet at a RWC its actually a disadvantage is it? how does that work.
Take of your eye patch and stop contradicting yourself just to prove your point.
March 20th 2012 @ 12:08pm
Rugbug said | March 20th 2012 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Not at all Jutsie but it seems you can not stomach someone having a differing opinion to yours and you cut and paste sections of posts to suit your own argument.
The Stormers weren’t much Chop Jutsie and that was quite eveident by the Crusaders doing it twice, case in point a glaringly obvious fact that you choose to omit to suit your argument.
Of all the Super rugby competitions since 1996 only two teams have won away from Home the Crusaders in Brisbane and the Bulls against the Sharks I believe.
Of all the World Cups only three of 7 have been won by the home team so the majority of wins have actually come by away teams. Its simple maths Jutsie you should try it some time. I do not discount home advantage at all and it no doubt helped the ABs in 2011 but it was also a massive weight on their shoulders also.
The Reds played what was in front of them however they were served a much sweeter slice of the pie than anybody else in the competition last year. If they can do it this year whilst facing all the finalist of 2011 on the road bar the Stormers then I will be impressed.
March 20th 2012 @ 3:37pm
bill said | March 20th 2012 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Rugbug, your “simple maths” is fundamentally flawed. In the super rugby finals there are two teams: one home team and one away team. In RWC there are more than two teams. So comparing success rates of home teams in RWC with success rates of home teams in super rugby finals just makes no sense. The home team has made the final in 5 of the 7 world cups. I’d say this illustrates a significant home ground advantage in RWC. Of these 5 non-neutral RWC finals, the home team has won 3 and the away team has won 2. So this stat does support your claim that home advantage is not as great in the RWC, but the home team still has the majority of victories in non-neutral finals.
March 20th 2012 @ 5:17pm
AndyS said | March 20th 2012 @ 5:17pm | Report comment
Sorry Rugbug, but Jutsie is right – there is a gaping flaw in your logic. If the Stormers finished second but were rubbish, then they could similarly only have been there because they played in their conference twice. It follows then that, as the Crusaders could beat them at home twice but not the Reds, the SA conference must have been even more dire than the Aus one.
March 21st 2012 @ 2:45pm
Nathan of Perth said | March 21st 2012 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Honestly, your goal posts are all over the place Rugbug.
You seem to have developed a thesis, that the Australian Conference is not just weakest but on objective terms a very weak conference, and then worked back from there in search of evidence. If you had worked the evidence and then reached the thesis you wouldn’t be having to qualify everything and shift goalposts.
Maybe the Australian conference IS weaker than the others but even if so, it is not by so much as you make out and not by so much that it significantly affects the overall state of play. And anyway, what are you implying? Should the Australian conference be pruned back? Would you be happier with a system where the production line of the Wallabies is hamstrung? Maybe it seems like a good idea at the moment to cut into us at the moment but I tell you this, Rugby will not be the winner of undermining the sport in Australia, nor will South Africa or New Zealand in the long-term.
March 20th 2012 @ 11:53am
Bigbaz said | March 20th 2012 @ 11:53am | Report comment
You seem like a bit of a sook Rugrat.Not like most Kiwis I know.The Reds won last year and nothing you say is going to change that. Get over it.
March 20th 2012 @ 12:03pm
Rugbug said | March 20th 2012 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Oh now resorting to personal insults.
Do you not like other people having an opinion. Nowhere have I said the Reds didn’t deserve to win I just believe as do a lot of other people that they had extremely favourable circumstsances surrounding there win.
If you actually payed attention instead of trying to be a keyboard hero you will see that.
Is it really that hard for you to acknowledge that the Reds had a lot of luck on their side in regards to a sweet draw.
They don’t have that luxury this year and I can guarantee come seasons end should they not win you will be one of the first to use it as an excuse. as is Reds supporters are using injuries as an excuse as well as trying to use Ioanes sin binning for leverage in their loss on the weekend.
It just amazes me that when it comes to Australian teams all excusles are eligible and validated however as soon as someone from outside of the brown continent offeres a far differeing opinion they are subjected to ridiculous taunts like yours here.
I have never made any bones about how I feel towards the Reds and everytime I have given reasons to why I don’t believe they are as good as everyone makes them out to be. I don’t mind being the subject of your loathing as I do not hold your beloved Reds on such a high pedestal at all. I do not think they are as good a team as many try to make them out to be.
Yes they won 2011 that will go down in the history books but so will it be remembered for the first year of a questionable format that still has many people debating its merits not to mention the differences in quality of the conferences. 2011 will also be remembered for the extraordinary circumstances surrounded the Crusaders and their march to the finals with an entire season played on the road away from their home base of Christchurch a team who still managed to make the final after playing one less game and having a questionable decision awarded against them in pool play against the Reds by a hometown official.
If Ewene McKenzie can respect the fact that the true tests comes against playing these top sides away from home I don’t understand how Reds fans can’t.
March 20th 2012 @ 6:07pm
rl said | March 20th 2012 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
You’re right Rugbug. Naughty Queensland Reds, give your trophy back immediately, you are a disgrace and require a public flogging. Similarly, NZ give your RWC back, you didn;t play Wales or the Saffas, so really a pretty shallow victory.
March 21st 2012 @ 2:50pm
Nathan of Perth said | March 21st 2012 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
You know what their 2011 victory will and has gone down in the history books as, Rugbug? In actuality, after all is said and done?
It will go down in history as “2011 Super Rugby Final, Queensland Reds defeated Crusaders”. It will be a line amongst all the other Super Rugby seasons and there won’t be any footnotes. It’s already gone.
It’s time to move on
March 20th 2012 @ 5:30am
kingplaymaker said | March 20th 2012 @ 5:30am | Report comment
A very good article. The South African conference is actually the weakest and will get weaker as they continue to play their outdated kicking style of rugby. It’s hard to conceive of South African teams playing much of a part in the finals for the next few years.
The Australian conference is perfectly fine and would be very strong if the NRL didn’t plunder so many of rugby’s talented teenagers such as Jared Waerea-Hargreaves, Jamal Idriss etc…
March 20th 2012 @ 6:41am
peeeko said | March 20th 2012 @ 6:41am | Report comment
Jamal Idris? pretty sure he played league most of his life the NRL “plunders so many of rugbys talented teenagers” surely it goes both ways and heaps of kids play both codes
March 20th 2012 @ 6:53am
kingplaymaker said | March 20th 2012 @ 6:53am | Report comment
peeeko it’s true that Idriss did both but played NSW under 16s and was certainly someone the ARU could have lured, though admittedly not exactly one of its own like JWH. However, there is an article on this subject two or three down the page so why not look there.
March 20th 2012 @ 8:37am
peeeko said | March 20th 2012 @ 8:37am | Report comment
there is a difference between saying that the ARU could have lured and claiming the NRL plunders rugby teenagers
March 20th 2012 @ 8:40am
kingplaymaker said | March 20th 2012 @ 8:40am | Report comment
peeko as I say have a look at the other new article down the page as I’ve spelled this all out in more detail.
March 20th 2012 @ 5:21pm
Die hard said | March 20th 2012 @ 5:21pm | Report comment
Pity Jared Waerea-Hargreaves doesn’t want to play for Australia anyway. He plays for the Kiwi league team (Why wouldn’t he as they are also world champions). He has publicly stated that he would never play against his family and brothers. He was never Australias to lose. Playing in the U19s was always on the basis of no commitment. He was born in Rotorua like me and came over here at a similar age to me. I am not sure how Jamal Idriss would go in union. I dont know where he would play.
March 20th 2012 @ 11:02pm
kingplaymaker said | March 20th 2012 @ 11:02pm | Report comment
He is still one of Australian rugby’s own, whether he would represent Australia in union or not. He is a potential Australian Super rugby player who was taken away by league.
March 20th 2012 @ 6:12am
mania said | March 20th 2012 @ 6:12am | Report comment
wre01 – for starters this article has a lot of generlisation. eg “It seems there are concerted attempts, particularly by Kiwis” “consistently be raised by Kiwis and South Africans alike” lazy journalism. then you go on and spout a whole bunch of stats that are really meaningless in this context. u sound like a mathemetician trying to explain art.
“They were a little lucky to beat France. ” no, France would’ve been lucky if they’d won
“…NZ had a home advantage in 2011, but couldn’t have won a Rugby World Cup overseas? ” people are saying it already, a lot of them Aussies.
history wont say that Reds won but had an easy go of it. Reds won and beat what was placed in front of them. they had no conrol of the draw and played every game and won all the games they needed to win a title. end of story. dont be precious and let people get to u. reds won, history supports this. who cares what nay sayers say?
is aussie the easy conference? just ask yourself of the 3 which is the easiest? the answer, who cares? imo SA are brutal on each other. physically its the most testing, but your stats isnt talking about brutality its talking about win/lose. whats the true accurate measure? who cares?
March 20th 2012 @ 7:33am
Moaman said | March 20th 2012 @ 7:33am | Report comment
I agree with you Mania.Far too much of the article cites no specific names…just accents overheard slurring in some bar perhaps? If you want to spout generalisations–fine;this site is,after all,a place where we can proffer our uneducated opinions.BUT,if you start to produce statistics to back up your opinion…then you need to do it properly.A thorough analysis of who played whom,home and away,which team was avoided by whom due to the uneven draw etc etc etc
Personally,I have no problem in acknowledging the Reds as worthy 2011 Champions.I think they played well,took their chances when they arose–none more obvious than the opportunist try that Genia created in the Final to douse the Crusaders’ flame.Just as none but the extremely churlish could have begrudged the weary South Islanders another crown had they managed to sneak home in Brisbane.
Please,wre01,don’t lump all “kiwis” and “saffas” into one homogenous blob….”.we are all individuals (and so is my wife)”!!!!
March 20th 2012 @ 10:36am
WQ said | March 20th 2012 @ 10:36am | Report comment
mania and Moaman,
You have taken the words right out of my mouth.
This article is nothing other than a ‘lets try to upset the Kiwis by attempting to devalue their World Cup win by using a little reverse psychology with the Reds win’
wre01, who are the Kiwi’s making these comments about the Reds?
March 20th 2012 @ 12:07pm
Damo said | March 20th 2012 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
Now WQ, I may not be the only one who sees your line of argument as a tad paranoid.
The article makes the valid point that the Reds had some home advantage and some lucky ref call just like another worthy champion team.
But if you are correct about it upsetting Kiwis- some brash Aussie may just keep doing it.
March 20th 2012 @ 6:10pm
WQ said | March 20th 2012 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
Thank you Damo for highlighting my paranoia.
I may have confused the point I was trying to make. I was actually trying to point out that I am not sure of who the supposed Kiwi’s are making the statements claimed in the article?
March 21st 2012 @ 12:13pm
WQ said | March 21st 2012 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Damo and wre01,
After over 100 post’s, still nobody has named the supposed Kiwi’s making the above mentioned statements that you claim.
Surely you were not referring to Bloggers on the Roar?
March 20th 2012 @ 6:38am
Emric said | March 20th 2012 @ 6:38am | Report comment
I agree the reds won the games they needed to win regardless of how the draw fell they are a good side, well coached and playing very well
March 20th 2012 @ 7:56am
Fetus said | March 20th 2012 @ 7:56am | Report comment
The all blacks had no answer to the French in that rugby world cup final. The all blacks were lucky to hang on. Australian and new Zealand teams do massive tours as well and has been the forces down fall on many occasions Australia is a much bigger country and the time difference in Sydney Canberra Melbourne and Brisbane is greater from Perth the. It is from new Zealand. Good article and some of the replies here are consistent with one eyed misconceptions. Have a read of the article properly. The waratahs under strength away from home pushed the highlanders to within one point. That’s closer then the crusaders got in their conference game. Stop your whinging and start letting your rugby do the talking. End of the day if your team is good enough they should be winning home and away. Crusaders have done it for years so to the waratahs who used to win at least two out of three on a south African tour when they were runners up.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
March 20th 2012 @ 12:14pm
WQ said | March 20th 2012 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Fetus, after reading the opening sentence of your blog I knew you have no idea about Rugby!
Anything you may have said after that, well who cares really!
March 20th 2012 @ 1:18pm
Damo said | March 20th 2012 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
No WQ he may have an understanding of rugby. What he may not have is a double black eye patch when watching a game. Your knee jerk insult to Mr Fetus, who may or may not be ignorant looks like an inability to respond logically.
It’s called playing the man, and like tackling without the ball, it’s against the rules.
March 20th 2012 @ 1:59pm
Rugbug said | March 20th 2012 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
Damo where is the same wrath for your fellow countrymen on this very thread who are playing the man not the ball. inparticular bigbaz.
Oh thats right its a different set of rules for Australian posters isn’t it!
March 20th 2012 @ 2:51pm
Justin said | March 20th 2012 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
No one is forcing you to be here…
March 20th 2012 @ 10:12pm
Damo said | March 20th 2012 @ 10:12pm | Report comment
Rugbug that’s not wrath. That was a polite correction of a serial offender.
No one is perfect – not even the mighty All Blacks nor their intelligent and sensitive fans.
March 20th 2012 @ 6:12pm
WQ said | March 20th 2012 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
Now I am getting paranoid Damo!
It seems you are looking to apply rules to me that you do not apply to others?
March 20th 2012 @ 10:04pm
Damo said | March 20th 2012 @ 10:04pm | Report comment
That may be so WQ. I don’t know. I haven’t read all the posts. Yours was engaging enough to respond to.
You could take that as a compliment.
Or you could see it as the biased comment of an Aussie rugby fan.
But seriously though it’s hard to see the errors of your own side when the other side are breaking so many rules so often.
March 21st 2012 @ 9:33am
WQ said | March 21st 2012 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Damo,
I’ll take that as a compliment
March 20th 2012 @ 8:18am
Vincent said | March 20th 2012 @ 8:18am | Report comment
The current situation with Australian Superugby teams has been greatly influenced by the introduction of the Rebels and Force. The dilution of talent, somewhat alleviated by importing players from abroad, has resulted in weaker Aussie squads overall.
In the OP therefore references to historical results are mostly irrelevant to the debate. Looking at the situation currently, Aussie teams are 0-3 vs Kiwi teams and 1-2 against SA teams for a total of 1 win and 5 losses. Let’s revisit this thread a bit further into the season, but from what we have seen so far, it doesn’t look like the head to head win loss stats are going to be evened up.
March 21st 2012 @ 4:03pm
steve.h said | March 21st 2012 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
And Bray stated that the final penalty against the cheetahs was an incorrect call and shouldn’t have been a penalty. So it should have read 6 -0
March 21st 2012 @ 4:13pm
Nathan of Perth said | March 21st 2012 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
“So it should have read 6 -0″ but doesn’t.
Shame about that. Poor Cheetahs.
March 20th 2012 @ 8:43am
sixo_clock said | March 20th 2012 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Utilising facts from the Super 12/14 era does not support the argument. Different environment entirely. The stats from last year support the theory.
The main complaint is that Oz Rugby is not as physically combatative as is Saffer or Kiwi Rugby. However I think it is true to say that is changing with all our packs now establishing themselves as the most critical aspect of Rugby outcomes. That is newish to Oz Rugby with last year only Ewen getting his Reds to muscle up. If all our Super coaches are on the same page we may be in for a couple of good years and dispel this argument. The injury toll is proof.
Q. What do you call people who hang around Rugby players?
A. Backs.