Super Rugby finals system benefits Aussies
By warrenj, 25 Apr 2012 warrenj is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- ACT Brumbies, Bulls, Highlanders, NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds, Rugby Union, Stormers, Super Rugby
198 Have your say
Queensland Reds player Luke Morahan looks for support. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
Related coverage
- Highlanders news
- Cape Town Stormers news
- Blue Bulls news
- Rugby Union news
- Super Rugby news
- 2013 Wallabies squad news
Now nine rounds of the Super Rugby season have been completed, the contenders are beginning to rise to the top and the ‘also ran’ teams are sinking.
The competition is fierce and there are no easy games on the schedule, but the difference between the champion contenders and the hopefuls boils down to what team make the least mistakes and how they finish off a game.
Every team has lost at least one game and most teams have accumulated bonus points for four tries, which now gives us a clear indication of what the table leaders should look like.
In traditional style, the table should read as follows: (1) Chiefs, (2) Stormers, (3) Bulls, (4) Highlanders, (5) Crusaders, (6) Brumbies, (7) Waratahs and so on.
By looking at this table as it stands, the finalists would be two teams from South Africa and two from New Zealand with Australia not getting a showing.
This makes for simple logic, the best teams after the round-robin competition get a chance to slog it out to determine a winner.
This simple logic all changed at the beginning of last season when SANZAR implemented a new table and conference system.
Simply put, the top team from each country gets a chance in the play off rounds while the next best three, regardless of country, get wild card slots.
This allows for all the countries to have a representative to compete for the grand trophy.
This all came about from a member union of SANZAR, and to a high degree, the broadcasters, complaining that their supporters and audience were left without a team to support come finals time.
When last did an Australian team win the Super Rugby pre-2011? 2004 Brumbies, if you were wondering.
This led to SANZAR agreeing that every country should have a representative in the finals, so that all parties involved, including broadcasters, don’t have reason to whinge.
This maybe a pity-type structure, allowing overall underperforming teams a chance, but it disadvantages a better team.
Looking now at the current table/conference system after nine rounds it can be seen that the Brumbies leap frog into third position from sixth (in the old system).
This now puts pressure onto the Bulls, Highlanders and Crusaders to perform better to retain a spot in the play offs, while the Brumbies just have to worry about staying on top of the Australian Conference, no matter if they win or lose against statistically better teams.
In the end, when all things are said and done, the best team should lift the grand trophy, and the underperforming conference leaders are dumped efficiently as they simply haven’t played well enough throughout the season and got their place in the finals due to a technical scoring system.
This still does not help the teams that are performing well, but just not well enough to top their conference and have to fight for a wild card placement.
The question then becomes, is this conference system fair to the teams playing well, or is it simply dictated by the broadcasters to allow a team from their respective nations to compete so that they can sell more commercial time?
The bottom line comes down to advertising money and how much of it can a broadcaster make. The various broadcasters (Super Sport, Fox Sports and Sky Sports) have a direct impact on the outcome of finals, so it matters not if a team is disadvantaged by a scoring system, the all mighty chosen monetary currency rules all.
Who is the winner of the conference system then? Of course the team that plays well, makes the least mistakes, shuts out their opponents and finishes off a game, but they did get a bit of help from outside influences.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
![]()
Passionate about your union? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily union email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Where is Deans in the pecking order of rugby coaches? (319)
- Wallabies squad announced: Folau in, no Quade Cooper – yet (267)
- Deans: Should he stay or should he go? (245)
- SPIRO’s Lions Diary: Deans goes for experience, plus Folau (242)
- Wallabies 25-man Lions squad: analysis (214)
- Quade Cooper misses Wallaby squad selection (209)
- Quade shouldn’t be fly half against the Lions (184)
- Could Matt Lucas be a Wallaby bolter? (90)
- Australia, time to get behind the Wallabies (228)
- Who can still win the Super Rugby title? (44)
- Deans must forgive Quade: Slack (131)
- SPIRO: Super Rugby TMOs are making too many mistakes (112)
- Rebels’ O’Connor stays on sidelines (15)
- ‘Lucky 29′ journey into despair (part one) (9)
- Australia, time to get behind the Wallabies (228)
- Who can still win the Super Rugby title? (44)
- ‘Lucky 29′ journey into despair (part one) (9)
- My open letter to the ARU (20)
- Super Rugby teams will skin the Lions (116)
- Super B to the rescue for rugby? (53)
- Picking your ‘First V’ for the Wallabies (68)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- ACT Brumbies, Bulls, Highlanders, NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds, Rugby Union, Stormers, Super Rugby


April 25th 2012 @ 1:56am
Johnno said | April 25th 2012 @ 1:56am | Report comment
I thought it helps the Saffas becoz of there precious currie cup, and the NZ NPC ITM cup. All to do with scheduling around those competitions.
April 26th 2012 @ 10:13am
mania said | April 26th 2012 @ 10:13am | Report comment
johnno – how can either the cc or tim benefit when SR takes up so much of the rugby calendar? itm has survived despite SR
April 25th 2012 @ 1:56am
kingplaymaker said | April 25th 2012 @ 1:56am | Report comment
South Africa actually wanted the system whereby each conference is guaranteed one finalist, and if Australia benefits because its derbies are easier than New Zealand’s, then South Africa benefits because its derbies are easier than New Zealand’s too. So South Africa not only brought about the current changes but also benefit significantly from them. So according to the logic of this article it should be ‘Super rugby finals system benefits South Africa and Aussies’.
It also benefits New Zealand in more general ways. A conference system maximises the number of local derbies which generate the most money for New Zealand as well as the other conferences, which is why they agreed to it. A conference system is the only way too that more radical expansion into Japan, the U.S. can occur, which is necessary to provide money for desperately cash-stapped unions such as Australia and much more New Zealand. Now guess who is pioneering expansion to Japan and the U.S. ? New Zealand, to relieve their financial problems. So guess who wanted the conference system in order to expand to make money? New Zealand.
So all three countries wanted the conference system for different motives: South Africa so they could be guaranteed a finals place and New Zealand to expand and make money to halt their disastrous financial decline. So the conference system benefits all three and all three wanted it.
So none should complain about what they asked for.
April 25th 2012 @ 2:11am
Loftus said | April 25th 2012 @ 2:11am | Report comment
Maybe you should read the article again,slowly. The fact of the matter is that the Brumbies are placed 3rd and the teams in position 4,5 and 6 can’t do anything to get into 3rd place,while already having more log points.This is an unfair competition.
April 25th 2012 @ 6:25am
sportym said | April 25th 2012 @ 6:25am | Report comment
ummmm its a conference system and not a ladder. KPM outlined the benefits of the system. IF the OZ teams suck, what the problem, the wildcards will knock them out!
April 25th 2012 @ 9:20am
Justin said | April 25th 2012 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Correct
April 25th 2012 @ 7:25am
Lippy said | April 25th 2012 @ 7:25am | Report comment
KPM I think you’ll find Fox Sports and ARU were big backers off the conference system.
Australia brings the least to the table in terms of talent and money
April 25th 2012 @ 7:56am
kingplaymaker said | April 25th 2012 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Lippy whatever it brings the other two countries wanted the conference format so they can’t complain once they get it.
April 25th 2012 @ 8:51am
Lippy said | April 25th 2012 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Australia can not pass the buck like you are trying to. They benefit the most from the conference system.
I’ve never been a supporter of the system as it makes a mockery of the arguably toughest tournament in world rugby outside of internationals. Especially on situations where the best teams are not rewarded for their seasons efforts.
If the competition were to end on current overall standings the Brumbies should not be awarded nor do they deserve a home final over and above the Bulls, Highlanders or Crusaders.
Hell if a nation can not qualify a team in the top six they do not warrant representation nor should they feel aggrieved over missed revenue.
April 25th 2012 @ 9:07am
kingplaymaker said | April 25th 2012 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Lippy whether that’s true or not both South Africa and New Zealand wanted it, and it benefits New Zealand and Australia financially as they have big financial problems, so what would be the alternative? Bankruptcy for the NZRU and ARU? Loss of popularity in Super rugby because no country had enough local derbies? I think you’ll find New Zealand, South Africa and Australia created the current system for good, indeed necessary reasons.
April 25th 2012 @ 9:38am
Justin said | April 25th 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
It was a unanimous decision, like all at SANZAR. Blaming once country over another is completely ridiculous.
SA teams now have less travel than they had under the old system and get to play more matches closer to home. So they get a benefit there. Currently AUS has a weaker conference so if they have a standout team like 2011 this will provide an advantage. Will this always be the case? Highly doubtful. NZ get more home derbies which is great for the bottom line (as it is for all countries).
No system is perfect unless you have full home and away and that just isnt possible for rugby in the SH. There were anomalies in the previous version too.
If anyone thinks SA and NZ would vote for this and knew they would be disadvantaged then you need your head read. SA were as keen if not keener than anyone to have a system that ensured at least one finalist from each country. If SA/NZ didn’t want this system it would have been blocked. End of story.
April 25th 2012 @ 2:34pm
AndyS said | April 25th 2012 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
I’d have to disagree Lippy – Australia would have benefitted most by a continuation of the structure that preceded it where everyone played everyone else. More games, more money and it doesn’t interfere with anything here. It was all about not interfering with domestic comps, so while the conference system may suck – it was observed that it would the moment it was proposed – it certainly wasn’t Australia’s idea or preference. They would have gone for the extra games every time.
April 25th 2012 @ 6:52am
sportym said | April 25th 2012 @ 6:52am | Report comment
People have to get their heads around the conference system. Its designed so that every country in the competition gets a team into the finals. Its not about the best teams in the competitions, its about representation.
For reference take http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League the champions league in Europe, 32 teams get entry, and geez they are not the best 32 teams in Europe at the time by FAR! So if you think The NZ teams get screwed with this system, stay away from the barclays premier league!
The argument that the Aussie teams are getting an easy entry is getting boring frankly, it just shows people cannot grasp the concept of the system.
Lets face it, the NZ teams have an Advantage this year cause they get to play the Blues more, and that is like having a bye and getting free points! And that is robbing the SA/OZ teams of getting points! NOW THAT IS UNFAIR! Even the rebels from the pathetic Oz conference got 4 free points. So how about all the NZ teams give back 4-5 points they are getting this time around.
April 25th 2012 @ 8:09am
peeeko said | April 25th 2012 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Very good point, every world cup has easy and hard groups. In the USA, the big 4 sports all have conferences. Sure the Australian conference is weak this year but won’t always be the case
April 25th 2012 @ 9:28am
nickoldschool said | April 25th 2012 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Sportym, qualifying for the Champions League and SR are 2 completely different things. In the UCL, winners, runner-ups (+3 and 4th of the main leagues) qualify for the pool stages. Then of course there is a draw with seeded teams based on their past results in the comp’. True you can then get lucky or not but i do think the current SR is much more biased to be honest.
April 25th 2012 @ 9:41am
Moaman said | April 25th 2012 @ 9:41am | Report comment
We best wait and see how easily the Reds take points off the Blues this weekend eh?
April 25th 2012 @ 9:54am
Justin said | April 25th 2012 @ 9:54am | Report comment
I’m wrapt in Auckland – we grabbed the points against them
April 26th 2012 @ 6:02am
mania said | April 26th 2012 @ 6:02am | Report comment
sportym – sure as long as aus gives its points back for rebels, force and the way its looking at the moment qld
April 25th 2012 @ 7:48am
Sailosi said | April 25th 2012 @ 7:48am | Report comment
It’s a wonderful system. Let’s just wait until the end of the season until we pass judgement. I’ve got a feeling that things will change quite a bit.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
April 25th 2012 @ 8:06am
kingplaymaker said | April 25th 2012 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Sailosi it is a very good system because neither Super rugby before nor the Rabo prodirect 12 now offers enough local matches to satisfy fans. Now they are closer to doing so, although I would still like to see a final within each conference as well.
April 27th 2012 @ 3:15am
Ben S said | April 27th 2012 @ 3:15am | Report comment
How do you know that the the Celtic league doesn’t offer enough local matches?
April 25th 2012 @ 8:28am
warrenj said | April 25th 2012 @ 8:28am | Report comment
These comments are actually very interesting when compared with what the South African supporters have had to say. I’ve posted this blog on South African sites and Australian sites, but not New Zealand sites. South Africans have the general opinion that the Australians benefit from the conference system and Australians generally think that Kiwis and Saffas benefit. I wonder what the New Zealand opinion would be?
I do state in the article that an underperforming team will be dealt with in the play offs, even if they are conference leaders. In fact, the last time that an Australian team were in the final playoffs pre-2011 was 2010 when the Waratahs were beaten in the semifinals, so all countries have had a team make it to the finals recently.
The title of my blog was “Conference System – Who is the winner?” but The Roar editors changed it to reflect how Australian teams are disadvantaged. This is bias and untrue. The blog is meant to outline that broadcasters and their money influence how teams would make it into the finals. It has nothing to do with what country brings more or less to the table. I did use the fact that the last time and Australian team won the competition, before the Reds, were the Brumbies, but this was to reinforce the fact that it has been a while since Australia won the title before the conference system and that the first year of the new system, an Australian team won it, which may lead to a favourable coincidence. But again, I say that broadcasters seem to be the puppet masters.
The Currie Cup and NPC are not taken into consideration when the Super Rugby is scheduled hence sports channels having more than one channel, so that domestic matches can be broadcast live even if there is a Super Rugby match.
Please read a little further into the article before complaining that the conference system benefits one country over another – the best team has always won the tournament, regardless of what teams they had to beat in the play offs. There has never been a controversial winner or a team riding on the coat tails of technicality to raise the winner’s trophy.
April 25th 2012 @ 8:54am
sportym said | April 25th 2012 @ 8:54am | Report comment
This is not the first time i have seen this happen, why do The Roar Editors change the title of posts? This is a pet peeve of mine, and sensational journalism, I get enough of the crap from the SUN etc in the UK. Though creating controversy where its does not exist does lead to page impressions, and and ad driven site is dependent on that.
Good points in you article warren, though i must admit that I was drawn to it by the title which is misleading.
April 25th 2012 @ 9:06am
Lippy said | April 25th 2012 @ 9:06am | Report comment
You are wrong there no matter what you or I think the Reds Champions of 2011 there has never been a more controversial winner. This conference system throws up too many anomalies I.e not every team playing each other. The debatable weaknesses in conferences the perceived advantage the Reds had by playing all the top teams at home bar the Stormers. Hell this year the two front runners do not play each other unless they both make the finals series.
Of course you won’t get much debate here at the roar re the Reds win however there is much debate around the world re Super Rugby 2011 not just over the eventual winners but also the complexity and fairness of the draw as a whole.
April 25th 2012 @ 9:20am
nickoldschool said | April 25th 2012 @ 9:20am | Report comment
I agree with you Lippy; with the current system, it’s not necessarily the best team that wins the comp’. The system does favor different teams or different countries depending on the year but the point is, it’s not partial and fair to all teams at the same time.
April 25th 2012 @ 9:39am
Justin said | April 25th 2012 @ 9:39am | Report comment
When has it been nick?
April 25th 2012 @ 9:53am
nickoldschool said | April 25th 2012 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Am not saying it has or has not been the best team Justin, am using the term ‘necessarily’. It may or may not. I am a firm believer of the simple home/away games against everyone system . Thing is, i understand it’s not feasible with SH current calendar, distances etc… I think we could at least play everyone else over 2 years (home then away).
I just dont like the fact that you can win a championship like the S15(RWC or Cups are different) without playing every other teams. Were the Reds the best team last year, i cant answer that and noone can as they didnt play the same teams than other contenders, and thats the issue. Not saying they didnt deserve it but there is always a big ‘what if’ with this kind of system.
April 25th 2012 @ 10:09am
Justin said | April 25th 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
As long as that what if is applied to all winners Nick. Somehow I dont think it will be… I agree we would love h@A but it just isnt possible.
What the system provides is excellent revenues, more fans at the ground, less travel (better for payers and the bottom line for franchises).
I’d prefer to see the top 2 teams get a double chance at finals time. Having a stellar season and losing one match and you are out is tough. You may need 4 weeks of finals though…
April 25th 2012 @ 9:55am
sportym said | April 25th 2012 @ 9:55am | Report comment
The Reds won the SR last year just like the All blacks won the RWC without playing SA., or SA were not worthy winners in 2007?? Frankly if people are debating the SR comp over and over, they are just whiners, There are much tougher comps out there, and the fans do not complain over and over.
The 6 Nations is bloody tough depending on the draw you get each year, as you only play each other once, the fans do not whine about it, they just get involved and its a damn tough comp to win.
People need to deal with the fact a team of nobodys is leading the Oz conference, while of team of super stars in the blues is completely sucking. The blues is the real injustice in this comp! As is stated earlier why should the NZ team benefit from playing them an extra time and get free points???
This is sport, turning up is not enough, win all your games and you will be champ, loosers whine about how fair/unfair the conditition/system is.
April 25th 2012 @ 2:54pm
Spencer said | April 25th 2012 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Well said, sir!
April 25th 2012 @ 3:15pm
PeterK said | April 25th 2012 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
lippy – So the whole ‘UNFAIRNESS’ that reds won but did not deserve to revolves around having a good draw where they played most of the other strong teams at home? Under the old system it would of been ENTIRELY possible to have the SAME draw ie play Crusaders and Blues at home and other NZ teams away, play Bulls at home and Stormers away, IN FACT they could of got to play both Bulls and Stormers at home.
So there is material difference. They could of got the same easy draw under the old system.
I think the main people compalining are kiwis who find it really hard to accpet a no name (at the time) aussie team beat the best AB laden teams like Crusaders and Blues twice. It just could not be possible unless they cheated somehow , the system had to be unfair.
The kiwis could take the bulls winning since they had a lot of stars AND they had the distinct advantage of playing at altitude.
They could take the brumbies winning since they had 12 or so wallaby starting xv in their team, not just mediocre wallabies.
The reds played the best rugby through the year. They beat the best multiple times. They were deserved winners and the best team. Sure aided by a lucky draw but bulls and crusaders have had lucky draws in their time as well.
April 25th 2012 @ 4:13pm
Lippy said | April 25th 2012 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
Where have I ever said the Reds did not deserve their win?
April 25th 2012 @ 5:52pm
PeterK said | April 25th 2012 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
you state “the perceived advantage the Reds had by playing all the top teams at home bar the Stormers”
as you have many a time, but ignore the fact the old system had exactly the anomoly since you did not play every team home and away.
April 25th 2012 @ 6:24pm
Lippy said | April 25th 2012 @ 6:24pm | Report comment
Did I say I believed that they had a perceived advantage?
I was highlighting points as to why people may see their title as controversial.
Once again you manipulate what I said to suit your argument.
I never said the Reds did not deserve their title that is something you have made up.
April 25th 2012 @ 6:08pm
mikeylives said | April 25th 2012 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
Then stop whining about the conference system.
The Reds were the entertainers of the comp last year. They were minor premiers and beat all the top teams.
Sheesh, in comps all over the world with finals systems an underperforming team can scrape into the finals and then peak to win.
April 26th 2012 @ 5:01am
TheWanting said | April 26th 2012 @ 5:01am | Report comment
They beat all the top teams… with the home advantage and the advantage of less travel and more preparation. This is the reason why the Reds will never get the respect their supporters believe they deserve from supporters of other teams.
Consider the following:
1. It is widely considered that the Australian Conference was the weakest of the three. This afforded the Reds the advantage of accruing enough points to secure a home semi final by playing weak opposition.
2. Their primary opponents, the Crusaders, were heavily disadvantaged by the Christchurch earthquake, which a) cost them a game against the Hurricanes and b) forced them to play without a home game for the rest of the year.
3. Because of the above, the final was played between a team at home, that was settled and not obliged to do much travelling, and a team that had had to jet to South Africa and back within a two week period.
None of this was the fault of the Reds. It was simply that all the circumstances contrived to give them the perfect opportunity to win the competition. They got the win, but it takes more than getting a win to win respect.
April 26th 2012 @ 4:23pm
PeterK said | April 26th 2012 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
crusaders played plenty of home games. As constantly reminded they represent a wider area than cantabury. The games at nelson etc are valid home games, with home team fans, conditions etc, the other team had to travel a lot further.
Thats like saying waratahs playing at newcastle or wollongong or even anz stadium are not home games since they are not at their usual venue the SFS.
April 26th 2012 @ 5:13pm
Jarmen said | April 26th 2012 @ 5:13pm | Report comment
Can someone tell me where exactly this Lippy guy said the Reds did not deserve their title?
From all accounts that I have read here he has not said anything of the sort.
April 25th 2012 @ 4:08pm
west said | April 25th 2012 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
at long last some sense. thank the heavens.
April 25th 2012 @ 4:20pm
ohtani's jacket said | April 25th 2012 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
It’s annoying that the Roar editors do this. If you want people to submit articles stop misrepresenting their work. Please.
April 26th 2012 @ 4:22pm
Justin said | April 26th 2012 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
Warren – at no stage in 2012 (not sure about previous years) is Super Rugby on while either the Currie Cup or ITM Cup are on.
Super Rugby Grand Final is on 4 August. CC starts 11 August and ITM a few weeks later.
S15 does in fact take into consideration these tournaments. Neither NZ or SA (particularly SA) wanted any over lap or shortening of their domestic season. So as a compromise S15 has a draw where not all teams play each other, essentially canceling out 2 matches so those domestic competitions can be played without being over shadowed.
As an aside the CC has just 6 teams in 1st Div. and 4 make the finals. WTF? I would have thought just top 2 straight into the final would make more sense or top 3 with minor premier getting first week off. But again its all about the money…
April 26th 2012 @ 4:27pm
Nicksa said | April 26th 2012 @ 4:27pm | Report comment
warren j
i have to disagree, i personally dont like the crusaders because i think they play very cynical rugby BUT last year they were by far the best team in the tournament. The reds although very good would have lost to the crusaders at home and the only reason they won was because they got a home semi-final due to their very very weak conference. This format probably benefits all the countries financially but when it come to results it will def favour the weakest conference which at the moment is the aus one . The bottom line is every year we will have teams that miss the play offs due to this unfair system and it also means that the best team will not always win the tournament.
April 26th 2012 @ 4:44pm
Justin said | April 26th 2012 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
“they were by far the best team in the tournament”
Wow we could get this thread to hit 250 if I could be bothered debating that one
April 26th 2012 @ 6:36pm
PeterK said | April 26th 2012 @ 6:36pm | Report comment
nicksa – So the crusaders would have beaten the reds at home AND thats what makes them the best team by far.
But the reds beating the crusaders at home (twice) does NOT make them the best team, not even by a little bit.
Well go figure, that sounds very logical …….
April 26th 2012 @ 8:50pm
The Bush said | April 26th 2012 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
You have to wonder sometimes hey Peter…
April 25th 2012 @ 8:42am
kingplaymaker said | April 25th 2012 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Fair enough Warrenj.
What really interests the ARU and NZRU in forming a Super system is not what advantage they can get in terms of winning it, but how much money they can get from broadcasters, how popular it will be to TV and live fans. Both countries have very little money and desperately need more, and both need to make sure both TV and live viewers are interested in the spectacle they watch. Whether one of their teams can win it is a long way down the list of priorities.
April 25th 2012 @ 9:14am
darwin stubby said | April 25th 2012 @ 9:14am | Report comment
there is a simple adjustment don’t guarantee a top 3 spot to conference winners … but overall the whole thing is flawed in many ways – the travel component during the finals has been ramped up considerably from the previous system is another example … SR is nothing more than a revenue generator – SANZAR have done zero to iron out the obvious problems to convince anything different
April 25th 2012 @ 9:17am
sixo_clock said | April 25th 2012 @ 9:17am | Report comment
The current system is unfair on third, fourth and fifth place teams within any conference. I am sure there are Saffa and Kiwi dreamers who could envisage a finals system with all their teams in the mix. However unlikely that is to happen it is a mathematical chance that the purist nerds comfort themselves. The fact remains that the best team should ultimately get the siverware.
We in Australia are fighting very hard to keep Rugby relevant to the general public. The conference system has helped from both the local derby and the appearance in the finals aspect. Sometimes Rugby has to help out an opposing team, I am sure many of you, as I have, have donned an opponents guersey and played a game; I was always a loose forward so they put me at 10 and I almost put the their 12 into hospital, spent the rest of the game on the wing. I like to help out.
Super Rugby is a product which as Sheek(?) once noted “was not borne of tradition”, it is a marketing strategy designed to make money for all the Sanzar Unions and it is doing a fine job. Let it go.
April 25th 2012 @ 9:45am
awcmonref said | April 25th 2012 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Well personally I don’t like this system, because I wanted our Kiwi teams to win it every year and with the old system we came pretty damn close. lol. No seriously that could have turned Super Rugby into a snorefest, people predicting each year who the finalist were going to be and who was going to win, sorry Aus. but most opinions were on a South African or New Zealand winner and those predictions were again pretty damn close. Sure it hurt when the Crusaders lost the final last year but in all honesty Australia needed that win much more then we did, Rugby in Australia needed a lift and that tends to help us all, in reality I’m not a fan of this system I prefer a black and white system where those teams with the most wins and/or points are at the top of the table, but the bigger picture is keeping rugby as a whole a competitive on the world sporting stage and to that I say ( remember I’m a Kiwi ) the New Zealand and South African teams are doing a great job. Hold it Aus.,just teasing was a huge fan of the Brumbies team of old and was enthralled with the game v Bulls last weekend, Jake’s doing a fantastic job and they played a damn good game, but I have a question ” Why under Ewen & co. and the callibre of players they had, did the Warratahs not win a final”? and do not give the answer I usually give, which is a cheeky they had to play against the rugby Gods from Canterbury.
April 25th 2012 @ 3:03pm
Spencer said | April 25th 2012 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
Do you know how Australia is so dependent on New Zealand for Rugby survival…. Well thats pretty much the opposite for every other element of the relationship between the two countries. Patronizing much??
April 25th 2012 @ 7:44pm
awcmonref said | April 25th 2012 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
Spencer, Spencer, Spencer appreciate all the “elements” Australia has given us but isn’t this a rugby forum, don’t take it heart mate like I said just teasing, you helped us in Rugby League and we help you in Rugby Union. Guess what, just to make you happy I’m going to suggest you lot have done a much better job, considering who’s got the weakest conference.
Now that’s patronizing, New Zealand apple anyone……………
April 25th 2012 @ 8:07pm
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | April 25th 2012 @ 8:07pm | Report comment
Fire Blight anyone……..LOL
April 25th 2012 @ 3:21pm
PeterK said | April 25th 2012 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
the waratahs have never had the best team measured by the calibre of players. Take ANY team in any year. Merge it with the either finalists and see how many waratahs would be chosen, less than the other team. So they have never had the team with the most number of high calibre players.
April 25th 2012 @ 7:49pm
awcmonref said | April 25th 2012 @ 7:49pm | Report comment
Never suggested the most, but they did have high callibre players and were consistent finalists.
April 25th 2012 @ 7:56pm
jeznez said | April 25th 2012 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
awcmonref – great moniker. I seem to spend half of every game calling for you but you never show!
April 26th 2012 @ 5:48pm
awcmonref said | April 26th 2012 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
Well you know, everytime you hear the phrase “AW COME ON REF” on the field it’s one of our fellow country men…..
April 26th 2012 @ 6:19pm
jeznez said | April 26th 2012 @ 6:19pm | Report comment
You know everytime someone says it – somewhere a referee dies.
April 26th 2012 @ 6:37pm
Jarmen said | April 26th 2012 @ 6:37pm | Report comment
Surely it would be one of the most uttered phrases in the world across all sports
April 25th 2012 @ 10:36pm
PeterK said | April 25th 2012 @ 10:36pm | Report comment
you asked why the tahs have never won a final. I gave you the reason, they have never had the strongest team , the teams that beat them in the finals had more stars.