Brumbies Gene fairbanks ducks the tackle from Bulls Wynand Olivier in the Super 14 rugby match at Canberra Stadium, Friday, April 17, 2009. The Brumbies won the match 32-31. (AAP Image/Alan Porritt)
What to write for a readership that knows so much about rugby? That has been an overwhelming thought while trawling the articles and comments on The Roar this week.
For example, I was going to write about the statistical anomalies of the Super 14 season of the Waratahs. However, I find that many of the following facts have already been mentioned this week:
1. NSW have become only the second team to win nine games in a season and not make the semi-finals (the first? See below!).
2. NSW join the 2008 Stormers in becoming only the second team to earn 41 points and not make the semis.
3. NSW have become the first Australian team to win 3 out of 3 in South Africa, and yet somehow they didn’t make the semis.
(Incidentally, the Australian media reports this one as “first Australasian team”, the New Zealand media as “first Australian team”, thereby implying that a New Zealand team has achieved it – anyone know where the truth lies?)
4. First team to win 4 out of 5 against New Zealand franchises, but not make the semis.
5. First team to win 5 out of 6 away from home, but not make the semis.
Actually, I’ve made up that points 4 and 5 are firsts, but they are so historically rare – given the way New Zealand has dominated the competition and the way teams perform much better at home – that it seems safe to assume they are firsts (correct?)
One set of statistics I haven’t seen mentioned this week are the winning percentages of teams from each country: New Zealand 54.6%, Australia 51.0%, South Africa 44.6%.
This statistic becomes more graphic, and arguably more meaningful, if one factors out “derbies” (which must give a win and a loss for the locals), and instead one looks at winning percentages against teams from other countries: New Zealand 56.7%, Australia 51.3%, South Africa 42.2%.
For 2008 this statistic was: New Zealand 61.1%, Australia 50.0%, South Africa 38.9%.
There may be some debate about whether Australia has the playing strength for an extra Super Rugby franchise, but one thing is for sure from these numbers: South Africa does not.
Another aspect of the new Super 15 competition announced this week is that every country is guaranteed at least one team in the finals.
This is not quite what John O’Neill wanted for this year: finals with the top 6. Did the ARU boss have a premonition about what was coming in 2009, with Australia’s top 2 teams finishing just outside the top 4?
Speaking of which, the comment boxes on The Roar have been going crazy this week on the topic of whether the Waratahs should be in the top 4.
The villain of the piece is bonus points, without which NSW would have finished 4th ahead of the Crusaders.
This isn’t the first time this has happened, with the Crusaders also being usurpers of an Australian team in 2007: the Brumbies finished 5th with 9 wins (see point 1 above), whereas the Crusaders finished 3rd with 8 wins.
It was with this sort of scenario in mind that three weeks ago I wrote an article “Should bonus points be booted?”
The predominantly Australian readers of the The Roar were strongly in favour of retaining bonus points (BPs), because they encourage positive play. This even despite the fact that BPs clearly work against Australian teams.
At the same time, the majority opinion on talkback radio in New Zealand has been that bonus points are unfair, this despite the fact that evidently they advantage New Zealand teams.
Go figure. Is there some sort of reverse psychology at work here in the differing responses of each country?
Despite having deep respect for the opinions of Roarers, I cannot escape from the fact that the Crusaders “earned” a BP for their loss in the most boring match of Super Rugby ever played, a 0-6 thriller in Dunedin. Ultimately that BP has put them in the semis ahead of the Waratahs. It beats me how it can be argued that this system gives deserved rewards for positive rugby.
Another point I made in my article is that for-and-against largely does the same job as BPs. For example, the top 3 this year would still be Bulls, Chiefs, Hurricanes in that order if one had the simple system (as in most sports, e.g. the NRL) of wins as the first criterion for table position, for-and-against as the second. So why have bonus points?
Having said all the above, I do note that the Crusaders beat every team in the top 6 this year except for the Hurricanes. From this perspective they are deserving of their trip to Pretoria.
How did the Crusaders achieve this with so many injuries, so many departures from last year, and a novice coaching staff? One wonders if they are like the Australian cricket team, which surprised people by not collapsing after all the departures at the end of 2006-7, including that of coach Buchanan (analogous to Robbie Deans).
Perhaps some great teams decline slowly, even after massive changes of personnel? That is what has happened to the Australian cricket team; the Crusaders too?
And so to my article two weeks ago, “Tipping the finalists in this year’s Super 14”. The only thing I was wrong about was the finishing order of the Chiefs and Hurricanes, which I had the other way around.
I admit I had a wimp’s tip for 4th, saying it would be either the Crusaders or the Waratahs or the Sharks – hardly profound.
And certainly as nothing compared with the New Zealand punter who is now $70,000 richer, having last week put $50 on all the victors from last weekend, each to win by 12 points or less.
What did this person know that I for one didn’t? Week-14 games in recent years have included blowouts like Cheetahs 20 Bulls 60 (2008), Bulls 92 Reds 3 (2007), Crusaders 30 Brumbies 3 (2006), and so on.
I find it unusual how close all the matches were last weekend – heck, even the cash-register Reds managed to hang in there with the ‘Canes. GIven this, I wonder whether we are in for a season of cliffhangers in the Trinations.
My tips from here? Well I do not think that the Bulls are the best team in the tournament, but it takes a brave man to bet against them when they are at home against a recently arrived team from 10 time-zones away. And that scenario repeats if they beat the Crusaders.
Finally, who is your player of the tournament?
Mine is Matt Giteau, for his week-in, week-out brilliance.
A close second, and the New Zealand player of the tournament, is Ma’a Nonu for me.
I don’t watch the South African teams as much – see that point about time-zones! – but my stab in the dark for their player of the tournament would be Pierre Spies.
Ivan
Guest
I think that the most consistently good teams this season were the Bulls and the Chiefs. The bulls may not play the expansive entertaining brand we all love, but they are effective and the record books will say that they are in the finals. Like it or not. The Chiefs are consistently good. The rest were not as good, especailly the Tahs who were pathetically boring. My 5 cents...
sheek
Guest
Hemjay, I'm not bowing down..... I'm just not as fussed about this as you obviously are. You can call me a lot of things..... but a shrinking violet ain't one of them!
Hemjay
Guest
Rusty I totally concur. I'm not saying the Bulls are a bad team far from it. I just don't think anyteam was a cut above the rest. The final weekend of matches is testament to that on how close these teams are in the top 6
Hemjay
Guest
Sheek, You are right in your summations of the finals but what you are missing is that a team that rightfully finishes second should not have to be put into a situation where they finish outside of the top four. Which in essence is a real possibility should they miss out. If you ask me because the tournament seems hell bent on making money before the actual respect of the game we may as well play an eight team finals series. why should teams get a break simply for topping their conference. Considering we all know too well some conference s and one inparticular will be of a higher standard than others Sheek i strongly disagree with your bow down and take it approach. because I can guarantee it will be fans like yourself who will be screaming foul when the situations actually arise. Basically I along with many others have the total opposite way of thinking to your justifications of the finals series so we will leave it at that shall we. As for Bulls Greg having potentcy sorry thats highly exaggerated they finished one game ahead yet only one pt ahead. Also the Bulls had more points scored against them than the chiefs who are in 2nd place and who also scored the same amount of points while losing one more game and accruing more bonus pts tells me that the Chiefs are a better performing team to some degree after losing three straight they turned it on when it was needed. Which in turn brings me to the below point with Sam where I dispute the controversial game against the Hurricanes Sam as for the reffing yes your right but never in the history of super 12/14 has a ref been suspended due to such an appalling display if SANZAR didn't think it had affected the game in anyway they would not have suspended him. I'm not saying that the Bulls wouldn't have still won it what I am saying is that it is far from bread and butter as is being made out. It would have to be the most appalling display of officiating I have ever seen in a rugby match. I rate the Bulls I just don't think they are ahead of the other teams as much as has been made out. The only advantage and a huge one that they have is that they have home ground. If the final were not in SA they would be very hard pressed to win.
Rusty
Guest
Hemjay, A wins a win but agree on the Canes v Bulls game in Wellington - the officiating was the worst ever seen. Even though the Bulls won, you got the impression in the latter stages that the Canes were about to break through at any minute. That said, its hard to know what would have happened as neither team managed to establish any form of attacking rhythm under Goddards whistle. Been a couple of aweful refereeing moments this season, no great advertisements for the merit system thats for sure
sheek
Guest
Hemjay, No doubt you know the format of the new final 6 playoffs as well as anyone. Week 1: Top two conference winners get a bye. Remaining (bottom) conference winner plays lowest performed (bottom) wildcard. Remaining two wildcards play each other. Week 2: Top conference winner plays lower ranked winner from week 1. Second conference winner plays higher ranked winner from week 1. Week 3: Both semi-finalists winners from week 2 meet in final. You feel the team that finishes 2nd in a particular pool, but with a better record than the other two conference winners, will be disadvantaged. Well, perhaps. However, that particular team will get a home game in week 1. But after that, if that team is good enough it will win through. Getting a bye is not always an advantage. In the old days of the 70s & 80s, in both AFL & NRL, under the final 5 system, the minor premiers always had a bye in the first week of finals. Sometimes they would get beaten the following week. Generally when finals come around, teams like to be playing every week, in order to build momentum & continuity. I've always seen finals as a bit like a staying horse race. Whoever is leading into the straight, or in the top 4-5, is less relevant than the horse building momentum, & timing its run at the right moment. And so it is with finals. Where you finish in 1-4, or 1-6, or 1-8, or have home finals, is less important than having momentum, continuity & timing at the right end of the season. That's why I'm not as fussed as you about the new format. The best team will win through, whatever the format.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
Sam is correct - I was NOT having a whinge about NSW missing out on the semis. I certainly didn't write this anywhere in the article, and I don't believe I even implied this at any point (but implications are often in the eye of the beholder!). I fully agree that the competition rules are the competition rules, and that everyone knows them in advance. This was actually a point I made in my article on BPs three weeks ago. At that time I went on to write "But this is no reason to persist with a system, year after year, if it is not working." So as far as I am concerned, there is no discussion about Crusaders vs Waratahs for 4th spot: the Crusaders got it, end of story. Rather, the discussion concerns: what is best for the future? This is clearly a matter of opinion ... ... as is whether the Bulls are the best team in the competition. I must admit that Rusty's arguments have potency. Incidentally, one of the most powerful principles in philosophy and science is Ockham's razor, which states that things should be kept as simple as is possible, within reason. Are bonus points a necessary complication or can one get much the same result without them?
Sam Taulelei
Roar Guru
Hemjay Name one year when a refereeing decision hasn't had an adverse impact on the outcome of a game and affected a teams season. I remember a real howler against the Bulls when the SA TMO incorrectly ruled out a legitimate try after Matfield kicked the ball in goal for it to be forced by Ndungane I think. Regardless of how the wins were achieved or their manner, Rusty's stats hold up his view that the Bulls are the best performed team in the competition. Now will they win it this year???? Go the Canes.
sheek
Guest
Hemjay, I would like to say I'm not one of those Aussie fans (as opposed to Waratahs fans) whinging about the Tahs missing out. When Tahs captain Phil Waugh first made the suggestion (that the team with most wins ought to go through) many people, myself included, thought he was merely whinging. However, on reflection, I felt his suggestion had merit worth pursuing. I'm a supporter of bonus points, but like others, I've come around to the view that, when teams are on equal points, the team with most wins should get precedence, & after that, go with for & against. You're right of course. Everyone knew the system going into the tournament. But that doesn't mean we can't continue to explore better ways to do things. Now with the new final 6 system in place, who knows, we might have to deal with your concerns a few years down the track. At which point, you can bellow from the top of your voice, "I told you all so"!
Hemjay
Guest
Rusty, You can't argue the fact in Wellington it was a dead cert rip off by Goddard towards the Canes and the bulls could count themselves very lucky. As for at home yes they had a great record but do remember they only just scraped past a Chiefs side missing many of their stars. While winning the most games this year and one largely due to a very controversial performance by a referee who in turn was suspended does however bring the bulls back to the pack. If anything it was the Sharks and Tahs who stood out early season then in some ways the Bulls. the Hurricanes and Chiefs then came to the party and how can we forget the Crusaders. No team has really stood out and demanded top billing in my own opinion. Not only has this season proven to be one of the most even it has also turned out to have thrown up some of the most drama and controversy we have seen in a long time
Hemjay
Guest
The french threw a forward pass???????????? James I agree with you. Greg the whole point of the argument seems to me to be a little bit of sour grapes and a bit of boo who from where I'm sitting. The Waratahs and there supporters knew all to well that bonus pts are and were on offer for the various reasons. they had just as much chance to collect them as did any other team. You can argue that the Tahs won more well so what they lost just as many as the Crusaders also. and as you pointed out the Crusaders beat everyone inside the top 6 bar the Canes. The Crusaders even beat the Tahs at home in Sydney, They tahs knew the possible outcome before the final round even started how come their was no toy throwing then? Was it because they actually believed in themselves that much and their style of play they would qualify. Certainly seems like it to me. Well hello what a rude wake up call for the Tahs as for your points on talk back can't say I've heard anything like you are claiming. This system while not perfect surely has to be better than what is coming our way under the new structure, I can't wait to see the almighty dummy spit when two teams from the same conference qualify 1st and 2nd overall and the 2nd placed team having to relinquish not only second place and a guaranteed finals berth but also having to relinquish 3rd place and at the same time drawing a higher ranked finals opponent in a sudden death match, all of which to accomodate the winners of the other two conferences in what i term pity placements. South Africa has got their way and now with the tampering of finals and all the conferences not being quite so even nor the teams playing everybody there is going to be much more drama and hissy fits than we have seen this year.
Keith
Guest
James, the French WERE offside (grabs coat on way out).
Rusty
Guest
Greg, I think we already know the Kiwis have the best quality per depth ratio of all the regions. Looking at the winners is fine, but its not really an indication of overall quality and depth if one team wins and its countrymen come last. That just means you have a concentration of your quality players in one team. As I mentioned I dont think this just applies to Australia, South Africa have also consistently had some good teams and lots of bad ones. Just that since expansion they have conversely had more better teams as evident by finals appearances than Australia. Lastly - Im not normally a fan of their play but the Bulls are the best team in the comp for the following reasons a) they finished 1st on the log - through the most wins and third lowest BPs b) they had a tough schedule that was only better than the Stormers and Cheetahs respectively. Dont believe me then how is this? 1 = beat Reds at home 2 = beat Blues at home 3 = beat Lions away 4 = beat Stormers at home 5 = bye 6 = beat Hurricanes away 7 = lost to Highlander away 8 = lost to Crusaders away 9 = beat Tahs away 10 = lost to Brumbies away 11 = beat Chiefs at home 12 = beat Force at home 13 = beat Sharks away So of the top 6 teams this year. They played 4 of them away from home and beat all expect the Saders. If that isnt the hallmark of the top team I dont know. Ok, you could argue they were given a leg up by Goddard in Wellington but they got the opposite down in Canberra. c) They are also unbeaten at home this year and posses the tournaments top point scorer showing they dont just grind out close wins. ladies and gentlemen - the defence rests and is going for a lunchtime sherbert!
Sam Taulelei
Roar Guru
Hi James I've re-read the opening paragraphs to Greg's article and admit I don't intepret his presentation of the statistical anomalies for the Waratahs as being an accusation that they were robbed of a spot in the semis. But that's my take on it anyway.
James Mortimer
Guest
Greg, it would be a great article if you didn't open with the seems like a continuing slant that the Tahs were robbed. God, if a kiwi was to harp on about such things......... (the french were offside anyone???)
Sam Taulelei
Roar Guru
Actually it's more accurate to say the Hurricanes were the first team to win all their matches in the republic as the Blues in 1997 drew their first match against Northern Transvaal and then beat Natal. The draw was their only blot on an otherwise undefeated season. The Crusaders were the first team and only team to win every game in 1992.
Sam Taulelei
Roar Guru
Greg, yes sorry you're right they only played two matches but they were the first team to go unbeaten in the Republic.
Rusty
Guest
ref of the Tournament - as the kiwis call him "The Australian Matt Goddard" hahaha
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
Thanks for the very interesting feedback on player(s) of the tournament - may there be more to come! Sam - are you sure the 'Canes played 3 matches in SAf in those years? The scheduling in those days (of 4 SAf teams) always had 2-match tours of the republic, as far as I recall. 3-match tours only started in 2006 (with the introduction of a 5th SAf team), and even then only half the teams do 3 matches (the other half do 2 + 1 in Perth). Rusty - the sample space for statistics should not selected arbitrarily. Why not go the whole hog and say that only winning the tournament counts? Then one would have only NZ teams (10 wins), and kick out both Australia (2) and SAf (1) for being understrength. BPs - they are an opinion. Sheek and Sam are two pretty good props to have alongside of me in support, but there may be some good opposition front-rows out there! Loftus and others - I agree that "I do not think that the Bulls are the best team in the tournament" is pure, unadulterated opinion, nothing more. However: a. One should not think that "top of the log" necessarily means "best team". Few would deny that the great Canberra Raiders rugby league team of 1989-1994 was the best of that era (Meninga, Daley, Clyde, Stuart, Lazarus, Mullins, etc.). How many minor premierships did they win to go with their 3 premierships? Just one, which they shared with Brisbane in 1990. So if one goes on "top of the log" only, there was nothing special about them. But they were special! b. Nor should one think that S14-final results reflect absolute merit, because the conditions are often very unequal, as for example this year, when the Bulls have things so much in their favour. But hey, I congratulate the Bulls on winning the log, and I'll be the first to congratulate them if they win the final.
van der Merwe
Guest
Agree with you there, Rusty. Pienaar has been pretty awful in the few games he's played this year and Morne has quietly delivered time after time. On the other hand, it is very risky to blood an uncapped player against the Lions. Just ask Montgomery. This talk about not having enough depth for a sixth team, regardless of whether true or not, is irrelevant because the "Southern Kings" would be a super quota team bent on "competing" rather than actually winning anything.