Cream always finds its way to the top
By Brett McKay, 24 Jul 2012 Brett McKay is a Roar Expert
224 Have your say
Crusaders Sean Maitland makes a break against the Waratahs. AAP Image/Ross Setford
Related coverage
Ultimately, the best four teams in the competition have made it through to the Super Rugby Semi-Finals. This may or may not settle the on-again debate about the merits of the conference system and guaranteed home finals.
The Crusaders are thanking the Sharks like they’ve never thanked anyone before, for sparing them what would’ve been required to get them to Cape Town in a reasonable timeframe. Instead, they’ll now grin like schoolboys as they leisurely make their way up to Hamilton later in the week.
Crusaders relish Bulls battle before semi
The Sharks’ magnificent win in Brisbane has set themselves up for a potentially horrific travel schedule, though. They were straight back to Durban on Sunday and will head to Cape Town this week. And should they win again, they’re straight back on a plane to New Zealand for the final.
A nice problem to have, should it eventuate.
In Christchurch on Saturday evening, things played out pretty well exactly as I expected. The Crusaders simply dominated the Bulls in just about every facet from the moment the match kicked off. 28-13 was absolutely a true reflection of the game.
The Crusaders’ scrum, which has had more than a few moments of worry of its own this season, was too strong and too good. Even the Bulls’ revered lineout was shown up when they could least afford it.
The Bulls’ discipline was ordinary, too. They conceeded 13 penalties while the Crusaders gave only seven back. Dan Carter duly obliged the Bulls’ generosity, kicking six penalty goals from eight attempts while Morne Steyn landed just the one three-pointer for the night.
This was a game where the stats really do tell the story, as if the score didn’t make it obvious enough.
The Crusaders claimed possession overall (including 70% in the first half), won the breakdown numbers, conceded less turnovers, missed less tackles, made more line breaks and offloads, and won more scrums and stole more lineout ball.
Though the Bulls had the territory advantage, and spent more time in the Crusaders’ 22, they just couldn’t convert that into points, and indeed showed little inclination to pressure the Crusaders defence. Carter’s kick-pass-run numbers (9-22-4) which dwarfed those of Steyn (8-9-2), confirm just how one-way the attack was.
The Bulls also showed a strange tendency to kick the ball straight back to the Crusaders when what they really needed to do was try and play some rugby. It was as if they were going to vehemently stick to their midfield bomb plan, or be damned. And it wasn’t just that they kicked everything, it was that they kicked aimlessly for most of the game.
And there could be no better example than with about ten minutes remaining, and still trailing 22-8, Steyn launched yet another midfield bomb from just outside his 22, which came down around halfway to no contest. From this, the Crusaders set off on yet another attacking snipe into Bulls territory.
He was hooked only a minute later.
I don’t know whether the Bulls had a stopover en route to Christchurch, but their poor showing from the boot was as if they’d borrowed some blue jerseys in Sydney.
Perhaps what was most disappointing was that it was the Bulls big names, like Steyn, and Pierre Spies that went missing. Whereas for the Crusaders it was the largely unheralded players like Wyatt Crockett and George Whitelock and Ryan Crotty who really stood up. Crotty, especially, was excellent in midfield and must just about be the most underrated inside centre in New Zealand.
It was similarly one-way traffic in Brisbane later that night, but just not the way Australian supporters wanted it to be. After miraculously jagging a home final, the Reds entered the game minus Quade Cooper, but with enough confidence gained from most of their wins in 2012 coming without the suspended flyhalf.
While I hate the word ‘ambush’ being used in sports reporting, it’s hard to imagine the Reds saw the first forty minutes of the game playing out like it did. With the first half of the match done, the Reds were down 20-10, and the Australian flyhalf curse had hit them for the fourth time this season. They were in a world of trouble.
The Sharks played this game, or at the very least the first half of this game, pretty much ideally. They didn’t commit big numbers to the breakdown, they made the most of their mobile pack to create the turnovers when presented, and as a team, their counter-attack and offload game was superb.
When you consider that both the Reds’ tries came at the end of each half, 30-17 completely flatters the home side, and says nothing for the domination of the Sharks.
But neither do the stats. In complete contrast to the Crusaders-Bulls numbers, Ruckin’ Good Stats show the Reds had 67% of overall possession (and 78% in the second half), and 73% of territory (83% after halftime). They went into three times as many rucks and spent more than four times as long in the Sharks 22 as the Sharks did in theirs.
On stats alone, it’s a struggle to see how the Reds lost the game.
And yes, it would be very easy to point the finger squarely at referee Jonathan Kaplan, but to do that would take away from the outstanding defensive effort from the Sharks.
There is still good reason to be confused about how Liam Gill’s try wasn’t awarded, don’t get me wrong, and yes, the Sharks probably should’ve lost a man to the sin bin before the 81st minute, considering they conceded at least half a dozen penalties in their own 22 in the second half. But still, the Reds could not break their line when it truly mattered.
The decision to move Will Genia to flyhalf, further compounded by the 5-2 bench split, were the fatal mistakes. I know Ewen McKenzie has rationalised it by suggesting the Reds had trained this way all year for such a scenario, but it reeked of weakening a strength to plug a hole. There was any number of combinations available to the Reds at that point, all of which would’ve left Genia at the base of the scrum where he belongs.
It’s all academic now, of course, as we move to the Semi-Final stage. While coming into the Qualifying Finals I felt there were two clear favourites, I don’t think that’s the case this coming weekend. We could just as likely get a Stormers-Chiefs Final in Cape Town on August 4 as we could wind up in Christchurch watching a Crusaders-Sharks decider.
Any of the four will be worthy finalists, and even better, any of them will be a worthy Champion.
Cream always finds its way to the top in the end.
All Qualifying Final stats courtesy of www.ruckingoodstats.com
Brett McKay is a former non-tackling scrumhalf and not-quite-1st Grade middle order stalwart. A rugby and cricket expert for The Roar since July 2009 (having joined in Sept 2008), Brett has written for Inside Rugby and Cricket Australia, and is also PLAY Canberra's rugby correspondent. He tweets from @BMcSport
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
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.
- Explore:
- Canterbury Crusaders, Queensland Reds, Rugby Union, Sharks, Super Rugby, Will Genia



July 24th 2012 @ 12:16am
SamClench said | July 24th 2012 @ 12:16am | Report comment
It’s true that some of the unheralded Crusaders stood up on Saturday. But the old stagers were outstanding as well. Carter and McCaw both had storming games.
July 24th 2012 @ 5:59am
mania said | July 24th 2012 @ 5:59am | Report comment
agree sam – mccaws workload was awesome. carter was sublime. the old guard has still got it. thought even though mccaw was playing 8 he still had a better 7 game than todd.
July 24th 2012 @ 11:10am
WQ said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Well said SamClench, I think the reason these points go unnoticed by the media is due to the fact they are expected. The two guys you have just mentioned generally only get attention if they have a less than super human game.
July 24th 2012 @ 1:23pm
SamClench said | July 24th 2012 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Agreed. Whereas if an unheralded rookie had played like Carter or McCaw the other night, the media would be raving about his talent.
July 24th 2012 @ 12:31am
Johnno said | July 24th 2012 @ 12:31am | Report comment
- Best teams at finals time. Final 4 weekend.
-I still very much believe in the conference system, and also in the finals format.
- Sharks have a horror finals campaign travel wise if they are to win super rugby title this year.
-But that is the thing i believe in . Inequality in sports comps and rewards for coming 1st in regular season.
-It motivate the players when they are tired mid year to push there body harder knowing , they will avoid a tough finals campign travel wise if they come 1st or 2nd even in there conference.
-You have to reward coming 1st by home semi finals. and less travel.
-The NRL does not rewards the minor premiers enough, with stadium policies for example sending home matches away from suburban grounds etc. You have to reward success and the conference system reward success big time if you top your conference, as you will then have the lucky of less travel, and if you top the comp regular season and win your finals, you will as in the stormers case if they win get a home grand final. Big time rewards for hard work, and tough defence all year.
-AFL and NRL should do the same i think, reward the minor premiers or the highest grand final place getter with a home grand final. Like super rugby and the A-league.
-So love the format and think stormers and chiefs will win this weekend. And stormers grand final win at Newlands in 2 weeks.
July 24th 2012 @ 6:22am
Jeff said | July 24th 2012 @ 6:22am | Report comment
“You have to reward coming 1st by home semi finals. and less travel.”
“I still very much believe in the conference system, and also in the finals format”
So how do you equate these statements with the 6th placed team getting home advantage merely because they won their conference.
July 24th 2012 @ 6:47am
sheek said | July 24th 2012 @ 6:47am | Report comment
Jeff,
Let it go, the Reds played like the 6th ranked team anyway, & paid for it.
July 24th 2012 @ 7:07am
Red Kev said | July 24th 2012 @ 7:07am | Report comment
How about because in any other competition in the world they would have finished 4th not 6th owing to number of wins?
Don’t get me wrong, I like the bonus point system – it makes the table interesting. I also like the conference system, it makes sense logistically; I also consider it an added bonus that it annoys the NZers and SAns so damn much.
July 24th 2012 @ 7:16am
Jeff said | July 24th 2012 @ 7:16am | Report comment
I am an Australian and still dislike the conference system as it exists Fiine to have a representative of each conference in the play offs.but home advantage should be on points only.
I don’t believe it is a matter of letting it go.
If we don’t kep up the pressure on Sanzar these anomalies will persist.
Just as I will keep harping on about neutral referees in the play offs, semis and finals.
I don’t believe neutral referees would have made a diffrence to any of last Saturdays matches but that is not the point.
At some stage if we don’t get this ridiculous policy changed it will.
July 24th 2012 @ 7:53am
moaman said | July 24th 2012 @ 7:53am | Report comment
I agree Jeff;If people don’t agitate for change then the status quo (and ‘Old Boys’ Club) will remain in place.
Last season the Crusaders dealt pretty well with a severe travel schedule.I think the Sharks have what it takes to topple the home side at Cape Town but there is no doubt they will be disadvantaged by flitting back and forwards across the Indian Ocean.
July 24th 2012 @ 8:34am
Red Kev said | July 24th 2012 @ 8:34am | Report comment
If you two think posting here is agitating for change and putting pressure on SANZAR then I have a castle I’d like to sell you, and a cousin in Nigeria that needs your help, and a rare unicorn you can have for a small fee…
If you really want change then get in the ear of your ARU/NZRU/SARU board members regarding the system. And you’d better used reasoned logic and talk about costs, because if you don’t it will be ignored.
The simple fact is the conference system costs less and generates more revenue.
July 24th 2012 @ 9:18am
Brett McKay said | July 24th 2012 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Jeff, I reckon you could pressure SANZAR until you’re blue in the face and you won’t get the change you desire. Pure and simple, more local derbies and conference winners playing home finals equals top dollar from the three broadcasters.
What you see as ridiculous, they see as paying the bills…
July 24th 2012 @ 9:51am
Elisha Pearce said | July 24th 2012 @ 9:51am | Report comment
You can only run something obviously flawed for so long before people stop watching or paying to turn up, Brett. Look at the field rugby is up against, I don’t think any other sport in Australia uses such a flawed system to determine it’s champion. It’s not much better than the ol College Footbal ‘vote’ for the National Champion at the moment.
But you’re right that the cream rose to the top. I think these have been the best teams all year. Can’t say anything about that.
One question from your piece though – What confusion do you see on the Liam Gill try? I thought a guy lying in a ruck wasn’t allowed to use his hands? Let alone score a try.
July 24th 2012 @ 10:09am
Brett McKay said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
It’s not just about Australia though, Elisha. Even if the ARU wanted to change the format – which I doubt they would – they could quite easily be voted down. It’s how SANZAR works.
ON the Gill try, see comments below, my confusion is waning. Though Lyndon Bray’s supposed comments today don’t help anything…
July 24th 2012 @ 10:25am
Elisha Pearce said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Brett, you’re right that it’s not just Australia. I’m not having a dig at you. I just don’t think this competition sparks the imagination of the average bloke and then having many of the converstions based around something like the injustice of the finals makes it harder. I can’t get some of the blokes at work hooked, as hard as I try. And I am fairly good at presenting an opinion/argument.
I keep seeing the low viewer numbers of Super Rugby compared to our other bigs sports. All Super Rugby does is show the glaring need for a truly Australian rugby competition that can be fair, followed week-in and week-out, suit our countries unique needs and develop exciting players while allowing for another rung of professional contracts.
As for the try, the announcement by the head ref really does throw things into disarray.
Can’t believe the inconsistency in refereeing this sport. It’s astounding. I remember blogging the game and initially believing a try would be awared, not due to the rules saying so but because the last 3-4 weeks have seen a fair few similar tries given. When it was no try I could handle it because I’ve read the rule book a couple of times and don’t think it was legal. Now Bray comes out and confirms that no one has any idea at all, really.
July 24th 2012 @ 10:07am
sheek said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Jeff,
The current set-up has been explained ad nauseam. It is designed to give something of commercial & personal value to each conference. Or more specifically, each country.
When you have 15 provinces from 3 countries spread across the entire southern hemisphere, you have to have a ‘duty of care’ as much as I hate that phrase.
For me, as pointed out by Darwin Stubbie, the travel arrangements can be horribly lop-sided, & some thought must be given to making this aspect better.
But Brett is also right – the top 4 teams have emerged, irrespective of the structure.
July 24th 2012 @ 10:36am
soapit said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:36am | Report comment
jeff, i doubt there is a single representative from the sanzar nations or broadcasters that would want to get rid of the guaranteed home semi. it will not a big enough problem often enough for rabble rousing become strong enough to overcome the opinion of those who run and pay for the game.
July 24th 2012 @ 10:39am
mania said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:39am | Report comment
i was hoping that the final would’ve been an all kiwi (or saffa) affair as this would’ve made a mockery of the conference system, but reds let me down
July 24th 2012 @ 10:50am
soapit said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:50am | Report comment
but you’d need it to consistently happen for a true problem to be identified (and change initiated). the odds of that happening for more than the occasional year here and there are not enough. plus you’ve got a large portion of the public which doesnt really see it as a big deal
July 24th 2012 @ 12:34am
James said | July 24th 2012 @ 12:34am | Report comment
If the Sharks beat the Stormers-a NZ side will win the title.
If the Sharks lose, most likely the Stormers will win if they play the Chiefs. Saders are the only team capable of beating the Stormers at home
July 24th 2012 @ 5:02pm
AWCMONREF said | July 24th 2012 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
James AGREE, but still anyones trophy anyone of these finalists deserve it……….
July 24th 2012 @ 1:56am
murph73 said | July 24th 2012 @ 1:56am | Report comment
Yes. It is hard to see how the reds lost with that kind of possession. That stat doesn’t remotely reconcile with the prevailing view that the Reds were outmuscled. Quite the contrary.
I suppose cynical infringements near your own tryline, including simply walking over to the other side of the ruck and picking the ball up, are an “oustanding defensive effort”. Particularly if a nudge and a wink from your home town ref means that you’re not going to get a yellow until the fat lady has well and truly sung.
July 24th 2012 @ 2:27am
biltongbek said | July 24th 2012 @ 2:27am | Report comment
possession means nothing, I can attest to that.
July 24th 2012 @ 7:08am
Red Kev said | July 24th 2012 @ 7:08am | Report comment
I’d like to see the gain line stat – I think the Reds had very little go-forward despite all that possession.
July 24th 2012 @ 7:58am
moaman said | July 24th 2012 @ 7:58am | Report comment
I agree RK; Doesn’t matter if you have majority of ball if it’s static and there is nobody crossing the gain-line with it.I noticed in earlier Reds’ games how content Genia was to delay distribution until all his bottles were lined up neatly;NZ sides like to use whatever player is on hand to clear the ball immediately and catch defenses backpedalling.Makes a big difference imo.
July 24th 2012 @ 8:51am
moaman said | July 24th 2012 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Hey Red Kev……I would love to see that unicorn…….
July 24th 2012 @ 10:18am
Nico'larse said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:18am | Report comment
If I had to point to the major difference between NZ rugby and everybody else, its that Moaman. You guys create so much pressure on a defensive line by quick play of the ball at the back of the ruck. It’s either being picked up by a foward for a p&d, or short passed from the half back to a forward running with at least some depth and momentum and usually with 1-2 others in support (for offloads or to win the ensuing ruck) or its being spread wide. Whatever the choice, its all about maintaining possession (instead of kicking it away like we tend to do so often) and asking big questions of defensive lines constantly due to quick recycling of phase ball.
I’m no coach, but therein lies the principle strategy in how to beat the improved defense that we see in the modern game. And the kiwis do it better than anyone else… Because they are all on the same page from 1-15.
Simple, but VERY effective!!
Now, I reckon I’m ready to coach the Tahs how to play rugby effectively
July 24th 2012 @ 10:33am
mania said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:33am | Report comment
sorry Nico’larse, your over qualified to coach tahs.
July 24th 2012 @ 10:39am
soapit said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:39am | Report comment
but its also the willingness and ability to pass the ball from that forward.
9 times out of 10 an aussie forward gets the ball he’ll be the one who gets tackled with it.
July 24th 2012 @ 12:12pm
jeznez said | July 24th 2012 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Soapit, that is better than the 10/10 times an Aussie centre gets tackled with it.
Pat and Rob – I’m looking at you!
July 24th 2012 @ 4:35pm
The Other Steve - and All Black fan said | July 24th 2012 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
this is an Australian webiste, and I hate to point this out, but if I had to pick one failing of Australian rugby it is that Australian forwards do not have the same level of ball-handling skills as the NZ forwards. Or quite the same instincts for attacking with turn-over ball.
July 24th 2012 @ 5:43pm
soapit said | July 24th 2012 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
mate if you make points that stick to the facts and are as respectfully put across as that i cant see you having many problems on here even if you say something negative about aus rugby.
i do agree. in aus theres a seems to be a much more distinct line between what decisions the forwards do and what the backs do in all situations in the game (turnovers, quick hands along the line etc).
at least if theres a threat of a pass it stops them lining you up so much
July 25th 2012 @ 5:48am
mania said | July 25th 2012 @ 5:48am | Report comment
soapit – starts in the age grades. i noticed as i rose higher in rugby circles that the basics just arent taught enough. a few of my early coaches , not all , never got stuck in the mindset that a forward shouldnt kick or a back should ruck or maul. these were the coaches that opened up my mind and made me realise that basically i could learn how to do any aspect of rugby if i just put my hand up and asked someone and practise what i was taught.
i reckon the forwards in aus have a bit of stigma in that the general (uneducated) public think being a forward is for the slow dumb guys, esp the front row. which is silly as being a forward is the most technical to learn and you have to be amongst the fittest on the field. in NZ a natural front row is treasured and they’re lining up to scrummage against each other to become dominant.
i dont see that with aus tight5 forwards,e sp the front row
July 24th 2012 @ 9:24am
Brett McKay said | July 24th 2012 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Kev, no a gain line stat directly, but RGS’s chart for the second half has the Reds beating 11 tacklers in the Sharks half, but only 4 inside the Sharks 22, so that would seem to support your theory. And this is with nearly 80% possession for the half..
July 24th 2012 @ 11:16am
WQ said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Good point Red Kev, having control of the ball does not automatically convert into control of the score if you are doing nothing with it.
July 24th 2012 @ 2:09am
The Werewolf said | July 24th 2012 @ 2:09am | Report comment
For mine the Sharks won the game with the ability to counter attack by spreading wide from turnover and then off loading in the tackle. it was great to see this attack instead of the kick from turnover ball.
July 24th 2012 @ 3:31am
Expat in Mongolia said | July 24th 2012 @ 3:31am | Report comment
Good article. The best teams by far are in the top four and deserve to be there. It will be a great weekend of rugby. There has been enough analysis of the rights and wrongs of last weekends games so lets move on. My prediction is Sharks – Chiefs final with Chiefs the winners.
July 24th 2012 @ 4:46am
Gerrard said | July 24th 2012 @ 4:46am | Report comment
” Instead, they’ll now grin like schoolboys as they leisurely make their way up to Hamilton later in the week” This might be BUT, it’s revenge time.
July 24th 2012 @ 3:15pm
AndyS said | July 24th 2012 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
While the Chiefs have no-one to blame but themselves…
July 24th 2012 @ 5:57am
mania said | July 24th 2012 @ 5:57am | Report comment
totally agree bout crotty. he showed fruean up big time. fruean was luggage and this is why he’ll never make the AB’s.
totally disagree bout gills try. one of the camera angles shows gill ripping the ball off ioane, at no stage is gill on his feet. he’s sandwiched between 2 players. hands in the ruck, penalty to sharks.
i also cant understand why you would move your world class halfback into 1st5. brain explosion.
July 24th 2012 @ 8:29am
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | July 24th 2012 @ 8:29am | Report comment
In adition Mania there is no actual footage of him putting the ball on the ground beyond the try line…..he may have, or he may have dropped it, or a Sharks player may have grounded it….we will never know for sure.
July 24th 2012 @ 8:42am
mania said | July 24th 2012 @ 8:42am | Report comment
and another very valid point ilikedahoodoogurusingha. so why is their such an uproar that it wasnt awarded? imo kaplan asked the right question in only asking the tmo to check the first grounding by ioane. surprised that kaplan after watching all that footage awarded a scrum instead giving sharks the penalty for gills hands in the ruck
July 24th 2012 @ 9:19am
Harry said | July 24th 2012 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Mania and others, read today’s Australian and you will find that the not-so-secret Kiwi rugby agent Lyndon Bray called Reds coach McKenzie to apologise for the decision and say that was clearly an incorrect call and a fair try had been scored by Gill.
End of argument. The Sharks got the benefit fo a crucial, incorrect call and once again we have a graphic demonstration of Kaplan’s incompetence and unsuitability to referee high level games. I really hope that is the last time we see him in Australia but I doubt it.
Note the gracious response by McKenzie.
This Reds fan thinks that the Sharks would still have won.
Sums up the Reds 2012 season. Nothing much went their way this year with refs calls (the absolute worst was the incredibly display of biased incompetence by Bryce Lawrence in the Saders game in Christchurch), untimely injuries to key players (Horwill was really missed on Saturday) and ridiculous judiciary decisions (Digby’s 5 week ban and Quade’s ban last week) all going against them.
In contrast in 2011 everything went right for them.
July 24th 2012 @ 9:26am
mania said | July 24th 2012 @ 9:26am | Report comment
harry – wheres this article? i find it hard to believe that it was a fair try but i’m only going on rugby laws
bryceLawrence just doesnt ruin reds rugby, he ruins every game he’s involved with. he awarded 2 tries to the canes vs the saders. so quit griping that its only the reds that suffer from his officiating.
are injuries ever timely? saders started off without carter and mccaw. every team has suffered. reds injuries dont stand out as above and beyond as the worst hit.
digby deserved his suspension. it was stupid and players have to realise to not lift a player. its not only dangerous but takes more energy and leaves you vulnerable to getting into the judiciaries cross hairs.
July 24th 2012 @ 9:44am
Harry said | July 24th 2012 @ 9:44am | Report comment
We aren’t allowed to post links but the heading is “Refs boss admits error denied Reds vital try” and some relevant phrases “Bray conceded was a fair try”; Kaplan had “overcomplicated the process” and “Bray telephoned Reds coach and confirmed to him that the officials had got the crucial decision wrong.”
I love the way Kiwi’s say yes Bryce Lawrence is incompetent but he does that to all teams therefore its OK and he’s not biased. I thought he was disgrace in the Reds/Saders game this year and made the biggest and most important contribution to the Saders win. Yet you guys (with some justification) squealed loud and long about Dickinson last year.
To repeat – last year things generally fell the Reds way. This year they didn’t. As I say below I believe the 4 best teams made this year’s semi’s.
July 24th 2012 @ 10:12am
mania said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:12am | Report comment
harry – couldnt find the article in google.
your line “I love the way Kiwi’s say yes Bryce Lawrence is incompetent but he does that to all teams therefore its OK and he’s not biased” who ever said it was OK? in order for bryce to be biased he’d have to be consistent and the only thing he’s consistent at is being crap.
what i am saying harry is that bryce ruins every game he officiates. i’m not saying its ok, i’m saying if your gonna complain then get in line behind all the other ppl who have issues with him. i havent seen him officiate one game without ruining it and turning it into a lottery. he was tmo for one game and he still screwd up, tho cant remember which one now.
yes bryce is a disgrace but he does it to every game not just the reds. he’s deplorable and i cant believe how he has carried on reffing for so long. i will admit tho as bad as dickinson was bryce is easily worse, in fact bryce is worse than mattGoddard ever was.
July 24th 2012 @ 10:30am
Riccardo said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Thanks for that Harry although I cannot find it – perhaps given your vehement stance it may be worthwhile copying at least the relevant bits onto a post? Who was the author?
For what it’s worth Harry, Mania is correct about Bryce. His incompetence at this level astounds me but I believe his officiating mistakes are not limited to the Reds. Where I do agree with you is that the level of officiating does not seem to be improving in important areas: the breakdown and 1st tackler role in particular, the joke that setting & resetting the scrum has become, off-side policing…
It is appropriate that you ameliorate your stance somewhat with the concession that the best Teams made the semis as this is not only true but the glaring mistake you have yet to prove would not have made an iota of difference to the outcome.
The Sharks monstered the Reds.
End of argument.
July 24th 2012 @ 11:25am
moaman said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/rugby-union/refs-boss-lyndon-bray-admits-brumbies-robbed-by-stone-cold-mistake/story-e6frg7o6-1226339243086
July 24th 2012 @ 11:31am
mania said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:31am | Report comment
moaman and harry – this article is about the brumbies bulls game and dated the 27th April
July 24th 2012 @ 12:46pm
Riccardo said | July 24th 2012 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Harry, you scurrilous bugger!
July 24th 2012 @ 4:44pm
Harry said | July 24th 2012 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
Mania, Riccardo, Moaman, Kuriki, Red Kev,
Have now taken the trouble to get this article scanned and have emailed it to The Roar for verifcation and investigation.
July 24th 2012 @ 11:21am
Demon Dez said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:21am | Report comment
I have read all the rugby stories in today’s Australian and all rugby stories since the Reds got beaten by a good Sharks team playing an effective game-plan… there is no such article Harry!!!! Are you sure you didn’t read it in a Marvel comic?
July 24th 2012 @ 11:32am
moaman said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:32am | Report comment
OOOPs–was in such a rush to post it I didn’t read it properly -until now.MY bad.
July 24th 2012 @ 11:34am
mania said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:34am | Report comment
all good moaman, still waiting on harry to find it then
July 24th 2012 @ 11:37am
Red Kev said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:37am | Report comment
This may be the best troll ever if the article doesn’t exist.
July 24th 2012 @ 11:43am
Harry said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:43am | Report comment
Pag 35 of today’s Australian gents.
Unless as I ahve said elsewhere, my newspaper is its very own Truman Show.
July 24th 2012 @ 12:24pm
Red Kev said | July 24th 2012 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
Looking at p35 of both today’s and yesterday’s Australian right now, complete fabrication.
Nice troll though.
July 24th 2012 @ 2:52pm
Kuruki said | July 24th 2012 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Hahahahaha Harry mate you got busted. I always want to win an argument but i have never thought up fabricating an article to try and get the points. That’s a red card mate – game over.
July 25th 2012 @ 7:02am
p.Tah said | July 25th 2012 @ 7:02am | Report comment
LOL. I couldn’t find the article either but the Courier Mail has this this morning:
“Despite admitting the Reds were robbed of a try in their loss to the Sharks, SANZAR referees boss Lyndon Bray has claimed the bad call did not matter anyway.”
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/rugby-gold/nice-try-but-no-excuse-as-sanzar-admits-blunder/story-fn8t7efs-1226434245665
July 25th 2012 @ 4:20pm
Tristan Rayner said | July 25th 2012 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
Hi all – here’s the article:
Can’t be found online, it seems, paywall or no paywall!
July 24th 2012 @ 12:42pm
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | July 24th 2012 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
Exactly…surely the only way a Reds scrum could have been awarded is if he thought the Sharks grounded the ball behind the line?
July 24th 2012 @ 5:51pm
Jerry said | July 24th 2012 @ 5:51pm | Report comment
Uh….no.
Ball unplayable in the ruck (not over the line) = Reds scrum.
Ball held up over the line = Reds scrum.
July 24th 2012 @ 6:55pm
Cantab said | July 24th 2012 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
Or sharks knock on…
Or what I think happend…..
Ref wasn’t sure what happened so went the ‘safe option’ and gave the attacking team a scrum.
July 24th 2012 @ 6:04am
Darwin Stubbie said | July 24th 2012 @ 6:04am | Report comment
There are many things that are flawed about SR and the finals just highlights it even more ….
If SANZAR were serious about providing a high quality competition they would look at trying to level out the finals … The travel component is crazy – Crusaders last year – Sharks (potentially) this year … and at some stage altitude games will get thrown in there as well ..
Other competitions often thrown up an enthralling GF – SR normally doesn’t … The sharks have no chance of winning this competition – the crusaders were thrown a potential lifeline by the Brisbane result, otherwise they would have faced a similar travel schedule to try and win the thing – which would have just meant the same result as last year …. A week off prior to the final would be the best answer but that empty week would need to be filled – perhaps by non finals sides playing qualifying games for cross conference match ups for the following season
July 24th 2012 @ 6:12am
biltongbek said | July 24th 2012 @ 6:12am | Report comment
Darwin, I don’t see another solution, we are thousands of miles apart, someone has to travel, in my view they should just remove the 5th and 6th placed qualifiers, take away the guarantee of a seminfinal for the conference winners, let the best 4 teams qualify and there will not be this crazy potential travelling schedule
July 24th 2012 @ 6:32am
Darwin Stubbie said | July 24th 2012 @ 6:32am | Report comment
Honestly mate I don’t either …. The 6 team system (esp with the guaranteed finals) is always going to throw this up … As I say only good fortune has meant an altitude game hasn’t come into play – but it will at some stage …. we had similar problems with 4 teams but at least the travel was less and teams now are proving they can actually travel and win in a week so that is a better solution (not for the money men though and that’s what SR is all about) …. But as we know 6 is here to stay so if they are serious about providing a top quality competition then they really need to try and level the final
July 24th 2012 @ 6:54am
sheek said | July 24th 2012 @ 6:54am | Report comment
Darwin,
Your observations are not without merit. But as Biltongbek points out, SR will always have to deal with the tyranny of distance.
My ultimate solution is still to truncate the SR by turning it into a HC style format, & bring forward the domestic comps to share the centre stage with SR.
This would solve the travel problem by reducing the number of matches provinces/clubs have to play offshore, & bring greater emphassis to domestic comps, which I suspect would please most fans particularly.
I still relish watching the Aussie teams play each, even though what they currently dish up is mostly rubbish.
My consolation is that I would still be able to watch the NZ & SA teams go at ech other in their parallel comps.
July 24th 2012 @ 6:57am
kingplaymaker said | July 24th 2012 @ 6:57am | Report comment
Except that removing the teams that failed to qualify from the HC phase would destroy them financially and remove the interest of an international competition where everyone was involved.
European models are not always the best…
July 24th 2012 @ 7:01am
mania said | July 24th 2012 @ 7:01am | Report comment
KPM – biltongbek had a brilliant suggestion for that. the teams that are relegated could play for a plate as they do in 7′s.
July 24th 2012 @ 7:16am
kingplaymaker said | July 24th 2012 @ 7:16am | Report comment
mania that would annihilate the teams concerned that did not qualify for the international phase.
Super rugby has enough problems attracting fans as it is. NO ONE would go and see a pointless second tier competition. The cost of this competition with no fans and no TV viewers would probably bring down Super rugby as a whole.
It’s also totally unnecessary and based on a profound misunderstanding of the Heineken Cup.
In the Heineken Cup when a country has between 2 and 4 pro teams as they do in Italy and Ireland for example, ALL the teams qualify for the international phase. Ireland has 4 teams. Wales 4. Scotland 2. Italy 2. They ALL take part in the Heineken Cup.
The reason only a limited number of English and French teams take part in the Heineken Cup is that there are simply too many to do so. There are 12 English teams and a colossal 14 French teams. They can’t all take part.
However, the English and French want more and more of their teams to join in: 8 or so.
Therefore the idea that only some Super rugby teams should join the international phase because that’s the way two countries do it in Europe is misguided. The reason this happens is that they can’t fit all their teams in to it.
If Super rugby had more than 8 teams per conference then there might be some argument but even then another system such as a pool system would be better.
A further point is that in Europe the English and French clubs can afford to leave teams out who therefore don’t make money because there is masses in the game from private owners, TV rights, and costs are low with short distances. In Super rugby however the clubs are cash-strapped, the distances and resulting costs huge, the TV rights less, and so clubs which lost the crucial international phase would simply go under.
What’s more the charm of Super rugby is that it involves a huge scale and all teams potentially playing each other. The adoration of anything European lies behind the idea that a Heineken Cup format simply must be better: it would be worse.
The current system is fine although it lacks teams and a domestic competition feel and structure within each conference.
Designs to turn it into a Heineken Cup out of Euro-worship without considering the different circumstances or even why the European system is the way it is are not convincing.
July 24th 2012 @ 11:02am
Pot Hale said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:02am | Report comment
“It’s also totally unnecessary and based on a profound misunderstanding of the Heineken Cup.”
Not sure your understanding of the Heineken CUp is profound either, KPM.
“In the Heineken Cup when a country has between 2 and 4 pro teams as they do in Italy and Ireland for example, ALL the teams qualify for the international phase. Ireland has 4 teams. Wales 4. Scotland 2. Italy 2. They ALL take part in the Heineken Cup.”
Eh no, they ALL don’t. What international phase is there in the Heineken Cup? There are no phases. Pool stages and then quarters, semis and final. Teams are drawn at random from every union into the pools. The Heineken and Challenge Cup are played in parallel with the league seasons across the Pro 12, Premiership and Top 14 – which are competitions in their own rights.
Under the current agreement which runs to 2014, there are 24 teams in the H Cup. Each team is picked according to how each union wants its teams selected. Ireland gets three automatic team spots, as does Wales, and Scotland and Italy have two each. These four unions pick their teams based on highest placings in the Pro 12 league in which they play. England and France have 6 picks each and primarily use highest placings in their respective leagues to determine who participates. 2 final places are reserved for the winners of the European Cup and Challenge Cup from the previous season.
Teams not picked/placed for the H Cup automatically play in the European Challenge Cup which has 20 spots. Along with teams from Romania, and sometimes, Spain and Portugal. Some 3rd and 4th placed teams from the Heineken Cup pool stages drop down into the Challenge Cup later in the competition – similar to the UEFA Cup in soccer.
“The reason only a limited number of English and French teams take part in the Heineken Cup is that there are simply too many to do so. There are 12 English teams and a colossal 14 French teams. They can’t all take part. However, the English and French want more and more of their teams to join in: 8 or so.”
That’s not accurate either. The English and French clubs have formally announced their intention to withdraw from the competition in 2014, unless changes are made to the structure, qualification systems and (most importantly) share out of monies.
One proposal from English clubs being mooted is that the number of teams is reduced to 20. The top 6 in each league, regardless of which union/country they represent would be picked, along with the current cup holders. The second-tier competition, the Challenge Cup, would accommodate the remaining dropped teams from the European Cup. And then a third-tier competition would be developed to take in the likes of Georgia, Portugal, Spain and Russia.
“A further point is that in Europe the English and French clubs can afford to leave teams out who therefore don’t make money because there is masses in the game from private owners, TV rights, and costs are low with short distances. In Super rugby however the clubs are cash-strapped, the distances and resulting costs huge, the TV rights less, and so clubs which lost the crucial international phase would simply go under.”
Eh, you haven’t been paying attention to clubs in France recently, or to London Wasps near financial extinction in the season just finished, despite them winning the league and Heineken Cup only a few years ago. Some clubs have rich benefactors, many others do not, and others are sustained from central funding similar to Australian and NZ models.
The way forward in European rugby is a form of streaming – the big clubs – Toulouse, Leicester, Saracens, Munster, Leinster, Ulster, Clermont, etc will move further ahead, and the second and third streams will play at their own levels. They’ll all play European competitions, just at a lower level. Top-level talent will be concentrated in a smaller number of teams. And then they’ll start making eyes at South African clubs, and then…….etc, etc….
July 24th 2012 @ 11:19am
kingplaymaker said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:19am | Report comment
A barrage of stuff there all missing the point but never mind.
There are many private owners and a lot more money for each club in Europe, much shorter travelling distances (Cape town/Auckland vs EdinburghLondon), more money from TV rights, more revenue from more games and so basically more money. So the weaker ones can cope better with not being in the Heineken Cup. That’s one point.
When I said ‘phase’ I was referring to the entire structure of European club rugby: ‘part’ or separate constituent of a larger whole being simply the assembly of competitions if you want to be exact.
The other point is that you need a lot of teams before they can be cut down: it’s not that they wouldn’t like more teams if they could have them.
My point on the English and French clubs is accurate. They don’t have that many teams because they couldn’t fit them all in. They want more and more and fewer of the Celtic/Italian teams. They feel they should have more teams at the expense of the Italians for example because they think their teams are better.
The general point is that what works in Europe doesn’t necessarily work in the south, something that as a Irishman probably doesn’t worry you too much.
July 24th 2012 @ 12:00pm
Pot Hale said | July 24th 2012 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
My barrage of stuff does not miss the point.
“They feel they should have more teams at the expense of the Italians for example because they think their teams are better.”
You mistakenly believe that English and French clubs want more and more teams participating in the H Cup. They don’t – they want less – they have said so. They currently have 6 teams each in the comp – sometimes going to 7 depending on who wins the H CUp and Challenge Cup.
Under their new proposals, they will still have 6 teams each. How can that be an increase?
The point is they want the number of European games reduced, that the top Pro 12 teams have to qualify by placing, and therefore flog their top players more, and – most importantly, that they get more monies with reduced numbers of teams. They want to break the principle of selection by country which is also linked to the pro-rata share-out of European TV deals. Instead, they will look for qualification from league placing only, and share-out by team, population size, TV audience, etc.
You misunderstand the parlous nature of European rugby if you think clubs can survive without having the benefit of European Cup monies – that’s the whole point – the top clubs can’t, so the weaker ones are in dire straits – witness the state of Welsh, Scottish and some English and French clubs.
However, they can’t all play at the top level. It’s too unwieldy and not enough money. There are two European level competitions currently, and possibly moving to three in the future, depending on the outcome of the upcoming negotiations
And of course, there are more teams, since there are more unions involved in European Rugby – this is stating the obvious. It’s the number of teams that can be sustained within one union is the issue. And the problem is that the current European system isn’t working as far as English and French clubs are concerned, so they want numbers at the top level to be reduced.
“he general point is that what works in Europe doesn’t necessarily work in the south, something that as a Irishman probably doesn’t worry you too much.”
Is this intended to be dismissive in some way? It’s just plain rude. I don’t ask or question your nationality when judging or debating your comments. How about attempting to play the ball, not the man?
July 24th 2012 @ 12:46pm
kingplaymaker said | July 24th 2012 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
The English and French clubs over the last months have repeatedly asked for more teams. The idea of reduction whereby they would only have six each is a recent development.
Whether the Heineken Cup should change and reduce or what it should do is not the point of my original post-I didn’t say anything about that either.
You’re one of the rudest posters here so don’t be a hypocrite.
Your views are not being dismissed they just miss the point which is that the Heineken Cup format cannot be usefully compared to Super rugby as they are the same. You show not the slightest interest in the question being investigated as to whether Super rugby should evolve towards the Heineken Cup but just bang on about the Heineken Cup and post as if you’re a northern hemisphere rugby supporter interested in northern issues: your post had essentially nothing to do with the southern hemisphere question which was what was under discussion.
July 24th 2012 @ 4:02pm
biltongbek said | July 24th 2012 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
KPM, I don’t get why you beleive it will be a pointless exercise to have the bottom teams play for a plate competition whilst the top nine teams play for the trophy.
In SA we watch Vodacom cup, Currie Cup and enjoy them all. Are fans that fickle that they are only interested in seeing the best teams play?
you want to tell me the cheetahs supporters will not be interested in seeing them fight for a realistic chance of winning the plate?
There is no more “fair” option than to have the franchises play their pool rounds (which can double for the currie Cup) to see who are the best teams.
Once each Conference have established that and the top three qualify for a single round robin, there can be no dispute as to who deserves to be in a semi final.
July 24th 2012 @ 4:18pm
AndyS said | July 24th 2012 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
Sorry biltongbek, but I agree with KPM. A plate comp would be meaningless – it is playing for the title of least worst loser. Only a few months ago this forum was full of people observing what an anticlimax and waste of time 3v4 was at the RWC. A plate comp like this would be like the losing quarterfinalists playing it out to decide who came 5th to 8th. Once you are out, no-one cares any more…better the players drop back into CC/ITM/suburban rugby and play for something completely else.
July 24th 2012 @ 11:50pm
kingplaymaker said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:50pm | Report comment
Biltong not only that but the Super clubs only survive financially by the skin of their teeth in a first choice competition, let alone a second choice one. If there are problems filling stadiums for a first choice competition how many of the dwindling crowds would go to a second choice one? Who would pay for the huge international costs of shipping the Force to play the Lions for a match no one wanted to see?
In any case as now every team takes part in a first choice competition why put half of them into a second choice one?
July 25th 2012 @ 5:37am
mania said | July 25th 2012 @ 5:37am | Report comment
sorry KPM and AndyS i agree with biltongbek . i reckon u guys are guessing as to how the market will react to a tier 1 & 2 comp. works in 7′s . as the games will be run in parallel to the tier 1 it runs the same length. in fact i reckon we should go back to having curtain raisers and the tier2 games can be played before a tier 1 game.
i dont watch tahs, lions, rebels, blues, force because the games are one sided and 90% of the time a foregone conclusion. no one wants to watch a whitewash. if there were a plate round robin then at least in theory it’d be more competitive. if my canes were in that comp i would fully watch it
andyS a few months ago there were also people here in roar advocating a plate round robin for the worldCup, the most valid argument of those posts was that every one agreed they wanted to see a samoa tonga game played.
the point of the plate strcture is 3 fold. one to keep upper tier competitive and of a high quality and two the tier 2 teams cannot be allowed to slip away into obscurity and need to be kept in the forefront of fans minds. there will need to be some marketing to make sure that tier 2is always visable and heard. and third those teams need the game time to keep improving.
July 25th 2012 @ 12:23pm
AndyS said | July 25th 2012 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
It works at the sevens because everyone is already there and it is only 20 minutes out of your life. It would be interesting to see how many people would hang around if they played the cup final first. It is certainly a whole lot different from asking people to go out and pay for it as a stand-alone event.
It obviously would run in parallel with the Tier 1 matches. But having them as curtain raisers would be a colossal loser – all the costs, with absolutely no financial reward. Or would the plan be that 30% of the gate from a Reds v Crusaders clash would be handed over to the Brumbies as they play their “home” match before it?
Interesting observation about the matches you don’t watch. Are you saying you did tune in for the Force v Lions or Waratahs v Rebels then – they should have been pretty even, after all?
As for the World Cup, you are quite right…I had forgotten about the clamour for everyone outside the top eight to keep playing. But I also remember the best counter argument. As far as the IRB and organisers are concerned, the World Cup is about money first, second and in pretty much every other place down to about 57. If there was any way, any way at all, that a plate comp could make even a tiny bit of money they would be all over it like a fat kid on a smartie. But they are not, and that is at the elite level with all the best players in the world playing. For the also ran Super teams at the development end of the competition…?
Sure, some of the die-hard fans might show up. But no-one will be watching because they’d be playing for 10th place. Far more likely then, it wouldn’t be international because the whole point of the conference system is to keep travel costs down. So what it would actually be is the teams that didn’t get out of the conference playing on in another pointless round robin of domestic games. Imagine the Currie Cup or ITM cup, if at the halfway mark they took out the top half of the teams and told the rest to play on because now they can win the comp….
July 24th 2012 @ 7:26am
Darwin Stubbie said | July 24th 2012 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Have you given thought though to the long term problem that could arise …. When the conference system with more home derby games first came in I wondered how this would ultimately effect Aust rugby …
Aust rugby has benefited massively by regularly exposure to NZ and SA teams the more that is diluted the more Aust rugby will regress … Some on here bang on about continued expansion – that will ultimately just led to less and less exposure to NZ and SA sides ….
The Aust games over the years have on the whole been dour, error ridden affairs – more of that wont benefit Aust rugby, the wallabies or increase SR viewer numbers …. On a purely playing front SA and NZ can survive and thrive on just playing themselves given their teams are basically elite squads from their domestic competitions – but I’d argue we’re already seeing Aust sides slipping given the increased exposure of more games against their own teams ….
I agree distance has always been a massive factor – but why the AFL and NRL grand finals are normally blockbusting affairs is down to the 2 sides being as close to 100% as possible – SR should try and replicate that …. Mostly it hasn’t
July 24th 2012 @ 4:06pm
biltongbek said | July 24th 2012 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
Darwin, if the Conferences fight it out in a Round 1 to establish the top three, before the international cross conference matches begin it doesn’t matter how big each conference is.
Assume SA goes to six teams and NZ chooses to stay with five teams and OZ decides to stay on five.
The conferences compete in round one and establish their three qualifiers who then goes to a super 9′s round robin.
The rest of the teams compete in a plate.
This way each country can grow their conference to the number of teams they are comfortable with in time.
Obviously there should be a maximum number of franchises per conference.
This way there is no pressure on OZ, they can develop at their own pace.
July 24th 2012 @ 5:04pm
AndyS said | July 24th 2012 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
I think the conference/top 3 format is precisely where we are heading, because you can already see the outlines forming. But there are two things you can take to the bank with that format:
1. The broadcasters will insist that all the best players will need to be in the international portion, otherwise it is not worth the money; and
2. The nine teams will be the Reds, Waratahs, Crusaders, Blues, Stormers, Bulls and one other from each country, most probably/often the Rebels, Hurricanes and Sharks.
It will be those teams for exactly the same reason the CC has the same 5 teams top the table and the same UK/French teams fight out the HC every year – they will have all the international players and money. That won’t be negotiable: it’ll be necessary to ensure the first requirement is met, the Unions simply couldn’t take the risk that those teams might be excluded and so many supporters alienated, and they couldn’t risk that half their internationals weren’t getting proper match time. The winner won’t be pre-determined, but the top three will be.
So where are we now in the process….well, how many test players are there in the Lions/Cheetahs these days, or the Force, or the Highlanders? Even the Brumbies – good result, can’t help but wonder how long they’ll keep the player group together…
July 24th 2012 @ 8:12am
Coconut said | July 24th 2012 @ 8:12am | Report comment
I thought the whole point of the conference winner guaranteed to go through was engineered (by O’Neill, and obviously agreed by the other two) to help keep interest and therefore money, strong in Australia… who this year would not have had any one close to qualifying?
July 24th 2012 @ 9:30am
Brett McKay said | July 24th 2012 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Coconut, Aus and NZ wanted more local derbies, but guaranteed finals for the conference winners was actually a SARU request. The whole reason that S14 never went to a top 6 in its last two years was because SARU wanted a South African team guaranteed a home final regardless of finishing position..
July 24th 2012 @ 9:52am
Coconut said | July 24th 2012 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Cheers Brett,
I stand corrected. I’d grown so accustomed to laying blame at O’Neills feet all these years (actually – after the hatchet-job he did on NZ co-hosting rights – but not to rake that over the coals again) that I wrongly assumed he was behind this one!
July 24th 2012 @ 9:22am
Rusty said | July 24th 2012 @ 9:22am | Report comment
I would say lets change it the other way
Finals are 1-8. No country wild cards. 1-4 get home advantage playing 5-8. Winners advance through to semis with highest ranked getting home advantage and likewise the final. so using this years log
1. Stormers v Canes
2. Chiefs v Brumbies
3. Crusaders v Reds
4. Bulls v Sharks
July 24th 2012 @ 9:36am
Brett McKay said | July 24th 2012 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Rusty, I wouldn’t want more than half the comp playing finals..
July 24th 2012 @ 10:16am
Ryan said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:16am | Report comment
I don’t want to see engineered finals either Brett (guaranteed home final for conference winner).
July 24th 2012 @ 1:42pm
Brett McKay said | July 24th 2012 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
so you keep saying Ryan..
July 24th 2012 @ 2:07pm
Ryan said | July 24th 2012 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
As you and others keep saying that the finals and conference system is fine.
Why is it ok to keep repeating your own stance but I can not repeat mine?
July 24th 2012 @ 2:33pm
Brett McKay said | July 24th 2012 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
I haven’t actually said it’s fine at all Ryan, I’ve said it is what it is and I can live with it. And you can repeat yourself as much as you like, I’m merely acknowledging that I know your position on this..
July 24th 2012 @ 6:58pm
Cantab said | July 24th 2012 @ 6:58pm | Report comment
I think Saffa sides should always play away, this way I would get heaps more sleep.
July 24th 2012 @ 2:55pm
Kuruki said | July 24th 2012 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
I really don’t think SANZAR will come to the party at the expense of cold hard cash in their pockets. The world cup draws have been a farce year upon year, but money always wins over the integrity of the competition. That’s life in the professional era.
July 24th 2012 @ 6:25am
kingplaymaker said | July 24th 2012 @ 6:25am | Report comment
I said a week or two are ago that Quade Cooper IS the Reds and this seems to me to prove it.
Unfortunately Quade Cooper also IS the Wallabies.
July 24th 2012 @ 10:31am
SamClench said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:31am | Report comment
If that’s the case, it isn’t really a good sign for the Wallabies. Cooper is one of those brilliant players who can go to pieces every now and then in a test match. Not an ideal talisman if you’re after consistency.
July 24th 2012 @ 10:46am
Riccardo said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:46am | Report comment
God help them then
July 24th 2012 @ 11:20am
WQ said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Then God help them KPM!
July 24th 2012 @ 2:58pm
Kuruki said | July 24th 2012 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Not exactly correct KPM. If Quade played and Genia did not they still would have lost. The Quade Cooper- Genia combination is the money.