How to win a ‘legitimate’ Super Rugby title
Roar Rookie Wednesday’s column by my good friend and sparring partner Paul Cully titled “The Reds and their fight for legitimacy” certainly got the crowd roaring!
The Reds’ Super Rugby title is illegitimate they cried! No more muttering it over a cold glass of Tooheys, Steinlager or Castle. No, it now appears to be the accepted and orthodox view of southern hemisphere rugby fans.
As a Reds supporter I was obviously peeved by these claims when I first heard them sometime near the tenth round of last year’s competition.
The theory being espoused essentially lumped us with title winners such as Ben Johnson and Lance Armstrong (just joking cyclists!) I was outraged! However I’ve since started to think a little more about this.
And the question I keep coming back to is this: If the Reds title is in fact illegitimate, what conditions must be met for future titles to be considered legitimate?
Apparently it centres on the draw. I have been able to identify three facets to the theory according to those conferring ‘legitimacy’ status.
The first is that the Reds didn’t play every team. More precisely, they didn’t play every team that mattered. So which teams need to be beaten for a title to be legitimate?
Secondly, they played the Bulls and Crusaders at Suncorp. So to ensure a title is legitimate, the competition winner must beat these two teams away from home. Are there any other teams that are in this rarefied air?
Thirdly, the Australian conference is the weakest. This one is easy. A legitimate title can only be won by a South African or New Zealand team.
Are there any other conditions that must be met for a Super Rugby title to be considered legitimate? Roar away!
- Explore:
- Queensland Reds, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
April 6th 2012 @ 8:50am
Justin said | April 6th 2012 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Lets not go there rf….
April 6th 2012 @ 9:03am
El Gamba said | April 6th 2012 @ 9:03am | Report comment
I like it!
A legitimate team must beat the Crusaders at Twickenham. The Sharks had a chance last year and let it slip.
April 6th 2012 @ 9:14am
Justin said | April 6th 2012 @ 9:14am | Report comment
The sharks got beat at home by the stormers, nearly lost to the Rebels, lost both NZ matches and some claim the Reds cant lay claim to the title because they didnt play them. What a laugh…
April 6th 2012 @ 9:24am
Hoy said | April 6th 2012 @ 9:24am | Report comment
I like that rule. Tough one to fullfill. Basically nullifies everyone except the Crusaders as legitimate winners. Of course we know they were the best team to grace the Super comp since it’s inception, and really they are the true title holders from last year of course…
April 6th 2012 @ 9:34am
stillmatic1 said | April 6th 2012 @ 9:34am | Report comment
the reds won based on results, pretty simple. they had a “natural” advantage playing slightly weaker teams more often, but switched it on when needed against the other contenders, got their slice of luck ( forward passes galore, running behind refs etc) and got the trophy.
i think its a gripe against the weakness of a conference system more than anything personal against the reds. aswell as a much beloved NZ team having to do something that hadnt been experienced before and creating a bit more angst amongst the fans. it could have been a fairy tale for the saders but instead the reds got their own fairy tale, and its been a long while coming, id say.
no point claiming its not legitimate, its just one of those vagaries of time where so many other things were going on all at the same time. memories, oh, memories.
April 6th 2012 @ 10:19am
mikeylives said | April 6th 2012 @ 10:19am | Report comment
No, the crusaders would have to comprehensively beat the crusaders away from home to be legit. I have NEVER seen them do this, therefore can they really be considered legitimate past champs?
April 6th 2012 @ 4:15pm
stillmatic1 said | April 6th 2012 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
mikey, im as ardent a fan as a kiwi team could hope to have, but you must remember that the old format didnt have home and away fixtures each year against the same opposition. so each year, in each match, there was the adavantage to one team only of playing at home, with the other team having to wait until the next year to get that advantage.
where does it end if we start taking away wins due to this reason?
April 6th 2012 @ 7:08pm
mikeylives said | April 6th 2012 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
I agree stillmatic. I enjoy the current format. Hopefully the underperforming Oz teams will get better with time to make everyone happy. The conference system makes sense if the game continues to grow.
April 7th 2012 @ 11:27am
El Gamba said | April 7th 2012 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Mikeylives – The Crusaders haven’t even beaten the Crusaders at home. They must be rubbish.
April 6th 2012 @ 10:07am
ohtani's jacket said | April 6th 2012 @ 10:07am | Report comment
If you want to know what a legitimate winner looks like just download a screensaver of Richard Hugh “Richie” McCaw, All Black.
April 6th 2012 @ 10:38am
Justin said | April 6th 2012 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Oh but OJ according to some they may not be because they didnt beat every team in the comp. You know it makes sense
April 6th 2012 @ 11:02am
Tarragon Fields said | April 6th 2012 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Could he genuinely think himself a winner after all but losing to an inept French side AT HOME in the world cup? One point was the only thing stopping him from being remembered as the biggest loser in the world, captaining the strongest team in world rugby to an early exit, not once, but twice!
April 6th 2012 @ 4:17pm
stillmatic1 said | April 6th 2012 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
but that didnt happen, did it? if mccaw cant think of himself as a winner, then peoples gripes about the reds title last year are also valid! be careful what you write next time.
April 6th 2012 @ 11:06am
Harry said | April 6th 2012 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Great Idea … here’s a good photo for Roarers to use … http://www.stuff.co.nz/4078/McCaw-admits-ABs-were-rattled-font-size-1-font-color-cc0000-b-videos-b-font-font-color-a
April 6th 2012 @ 11:02am
Harry said | April 6th 2012 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Great stuff RF to get things moving on a quiet day!
Here’s another … no Super Rugby titles won during RWC years (99, 03, 07, 11) are legitimate as everyone knows the best players are being rested for the world cup, and if only the provincial teams had their full quota from round one the Saders/Blues/Stormers/Sharks would have romped it in.
Oh hang on, that makes a Saders title illegitimate! Not so sure now, help me out Kiwi’s …
April 6th 2012 @ 11:07am
Justin said | April 6th 2012 @ 11:07am | Report comment
LOL Harry better take off a title from Saders, Blues, Bulls and Reds!
April 6th 2012 @ 11:29am
DC of nz said | April 6th 2012 @ 11:29am | Report comment
I wish we would move on from the Reds deserved to win in 2011 story. They won the title and yes I was going for the Crusaders.
The legitimacy test will hinge on where they finish this year – and it could be well down the ladder.
my money is on the Stormers, Crusaders, Chiefs and Brumbies to be there at the end… Hoping the Hurricanes don’t run out of steam ..
April 6th 2012 @ 11:41am
Justin said | April 6th 2012 @ 11:41am | Report comment
This year and last year are not linked. The legitimacy is where they finished last year, end of story. Did the Crusaders get judged in 2000 on their 10th placed finish the following year?
April 6th 2012 @ 12:32pm
dcnz said | April 6th 2012 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
The Crusaders have won the title enough times, more than any other team, so they have been proven title holders time and time again. The Reds had a brilliant season in 2011 where everything clicked and they took advantage of a great draw and took easy points in Australia. If the Reds finish down the ladder, that’s how most rugby folk will view their spectacular success last year. I would say that consistency does count.
April 6th 2012 @ 12:42pm
Justsaying said | April 6th 2012 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
Crusaders were champs in 1998, 1999 AND 2000. They came 10th in 2001 and then went through 2002 undefeated to win the championship for a 4th time. In legitimacy terms I don’t think the 2011 Reds bear any comparison at all to that Crusaders side…
April 6th 2012 @ 1:01pm
Harry said | April 6th 2012 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Intrigued by what are “legitimacy terms”. Please elaborate and define.
April 6th 2012 @ 1:47pm
Justsaying said | April 6th 2012 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
What I meant is that if you are trying to argue that the 2011 Reds were legitimate champions (and I’m not necessarily arguing that they weren’t), comparing them to the Crusaders teams of the late 90s early 2000s is not the way to do it – the Reds are not in the same universe as those teams.
April 6th 2012 @ 2:54pm
Harry said | April 6th 2012 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Actually the Reds team of 99 were in the same universe as that Saders team but choked badly in the (home, at Ballymore) semi, but yes I get your point and no one is arguing that the Reds of 2011 were the greatest team of the super rugby era.
For what its worth my opinion is that the Saders of 2004 to 2008 were; followed by the Saders of 98 to 02. Auckland 96 and 97, Brumbies 2000 and 2001 and Bulls 09 and 21010 were also very good champion teams (and yes I know the above mentioned teams didn’t all win every years, I’m talking era’s), all ahead of the Reds 2011. Who were however the Super Rugby champions and the best team in the competition last year.
April 6th 2012 @ 12:21pm
ohtani's jacket said | April 6th 2012 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Here’s a few more:
A legitimate winner must pass the ball backwards.
A legitimate winner mustn’t run deliberate obstruction.
A legitimate winner mustn’t cheat at every ruck. (That’s what the Roar has taught me.)
A legitimate winner mustn’t be full of overrated players who fail to win a World Cup.
A legitimate winner mustn’t be reffed by Stuart Dickinson.
A legitimate winner shouldn’t behave like bogans whenever they win a close match.
A legitimate winner mustn’t have a girl play at first five.
A legitimate winner must be coached by Robbie Deans.
And finally, a legitimate winner must have an earthquake devastate their city, have no home ground, travel for every match, beat a South African side on the road in a semi-final and lose in the final.
April 6th 2012 @ 12:58pm
Harry said | April 6th 2012 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Saders are ruled out at 2, let alone 3, and couldn’t even win when they bought their own ref for the final, courtesy of Paddy.
April 6th 2012 @ 6:08pm
Justin said | April 6th 2012 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
And their supporters must be poor losers
April 8th 2012 @ 7:26pm
mattamkII said | April 8th 2012 @ 7:26pm | Report comment
So OJ, what you have just confirmed is you just dont like the current reds crop….
April 9th 2012 @ 6:32pm
ohtani's jacket said | April 9th 2012 @ 6:32pm | Report comment
I thought we were supposed to be having fun with this.
April 10th 2012 @ 1:03am
mattamkII said | April 10th 2012 @ 1:03am | Report comment
we are.
April 6th 2012 @ 1:02pm
nomis said | April 6th 2012 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
On the bright side if you’re a Reds fan, whenever people start belittling Qld, or saying they’re not good enough, that’s when Qld usually make you eat your words
When people started saying they weren’t very good towards the end of last season, and saying they couldn’t do it, that’s when I very quietly started to think that the Red’s might actually go all the way!
April 6th 2012 @ 4:21pm
stillmatic1 said | April 6th 2012 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
thats only in state of origin, nomis. the reds were terrible for a long time, all the while being belittled for it, so no eating ones words there. unless its allowed to take ten years for them to eat their words.
April 6th 2012 @ 4:04pm
Red Block said | April 6th 2012 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Didn’t the Reds beat the Blues and the Crusaders, not once but twice each last year? It’s funny what can happen when a ref has the bollocks to penalize McCaw. Thanks Stuey, Joubert’s refereeing of the ABs in the RWC final was a disgrace. He handed them a World Cup.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
April 6th 2012 @ 4:22pm
stillmatic1 said | April 6th 2012 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
so you didnt see anything else in those games, but a kiwi team getting penalised!! only if it was true, red, only if it was true.
April 6th 2012 @ 4:39pm
nick said | April 6th 2012 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
Gloss over the draw problem if you choose but its a major issue. Every team should play each other, home and away makes no difference, just play them. Its crazy that each team will mis out on playing 2 sides in a 15 side comp!
April 6th 2012 @ 6:01pm
Tacksharp said | April 6th 2012 @ 6:01pm | Report comment
Agreed, Nick. Good on you for cutting through the BS. This is not an argument about the Reds, rather about the system. Although I was gutted that the Saders lost.
April 6th 2012 @ 7:12pm
mattocks said | April 6th 2012 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
I remember years ago an all black coach, forget which one, being asked by an aussie journo what the wallabies had to do to beat the all blacks. His answer was, straightfaced, “score more points” And thats it folks, if you’re good enough you’ll score more points than the other team and any other argument is irrelevant. A good example is Steven Bradbury, he was good enough to be in the final AND stay on his feet hence he was the first guy over the line – gold medal. No arguments.