- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
When the Super Rugby conference system began I had a feeling this format wouldn’t provide the best way to present us with the strongest teams in the Southern Hemisphere showpiece.
When you look at the motivation behind the conference system, some of the justifications made sense. – it would allow for more local derbies, more television viewers and larger gate revenue.
Yet to me this sounded like a cop out, where money was the sole motivator for expansion of the hugely successful Super XIV.
I also wasn’t convinced having six teams qualify for the play offs made any sense.
Why have this? Just to keep all countries more interested in the final weeks of the Super Rugby competition?
Consider this; since 1996 Australia has missed out on the semi finals in 1998, 2007 and 2009. South Africa has missed out in 2002 and 2003. Meanwhile, New Zealand has never missed out on a semi final spot.
But isn’t that the nature of competitive sport? You are either good enough to make it to the top or you are not.
When you consider the current conference system it is clear that in both years all three countries would have been represented in the semi finals anyway.
However my biggest concern with the new system is the fact that teams won’t be playing every other team in the tournament. Not until I started digging up records and results of the past two years did I notice how much of an impact this would make on the tournament.
I took the top nine teams in both years as it proved this year there is a marked difference in the wins gained by the top nine log leaders and the bottom teams (in 2011, however, the separation was after the top eight teams).
I compared the number of matches each of the teams have played against the top nine teams and their results based on that.
2011
Reds – played seven – won five; log points gained from the top nine teams = 23
Crusaders – played 11 – won seven; log points gained from the top nine teams = 36
Blues – played 12 – won seven; log points gained from the top nine teams = 33
Stormers – played seven – won four; log points gained from the top nine teams = 19
Sharks – played eight – won four; log points gained from the top nine teams = 18
Bulls – played nine – won four; log points gained from the top nine teams = 18
Highlanders – played nine – won four; log points gained from the top nine teams = 18
Waratahs – played seven – won two; log points gained from the top nine teams = 13
Hurricanes – played nine – won one; log points gained from the top nine teams = 11
2012
Chiefs – played 10 – won six; log points gained from top nine teams = 27 (Hurricanes result pending)
Stormers – played eight – won six; log points gained from top nine teams = 26
Crusaders – played nine – won five; log points gained from top nine teams = 26
Sharks – played nine – won five; log points gained from top nine teams = 25
Bulls – played nine – won four; log points gained from top nine teams = 21
Reds – played eight – won four; log points gained from top nine teams = 18
Brumbies – played seven – won two; log points gained from top nine teams = 15
Hurricanes – played nine – won three – log points gained from top nine teams = 15 (Chiefs result pending)
Highlanders – played 11 – won four; log points gained from top nine teams = 20
In the years prior to the conference system, every team would play every other team based on alternative years, home and away. This would have meant each team would play eight matches against the other top-nine log leaders.
Looking at the “new and improved” conference system it could be as many as 12 matches and as little as seven matches. That in my view is a farce.
How does one compute the credibility of a system with – for want of a better word – “unfairness”?
The main reason for this is New Zealand has by far the strongest conference. Hence, with four of their teams being part of the top-nine log leaders, they will inevitably play six matches against top teams just in their conference.
South Africa, with three teams, will play four and Australia, with two teams, only 2 matches.
Total matches played by New Zealand teams against top nine teams = 80
Being represented by four teams each year provides an average of 10 per season.
Total matches played by SA teams against top nine teams = 50
Being represented by three teams each year provides an average of 8.25 matches per season.
Total matches played by Australian teams against top nine teams = 29
Being represented by two teams each year provides an average of 7.25 matches per season.
The reality is the conference system is not a fair reflection of the opponents faced by each team.
Some conferences are lacking depth and quality teams.
My conclusion is that Super Rugby may be financially more lucrative, but as a competition it has much less credibility.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.