South African team will win Super Rugby 2011

... And the last word is: Waratahs - 62 points and 1st placed into semis; Final at ANZ v Bulls - Waratahs SupeRugby Champions 2011!

it's not really all that complicated except we are used to a single table. If you were familiar with the way the NFL shows it's tables it'll be very similar. top your conference then after that you get wildcards on win/loss (or in this case points).

Jerry, you are correct, the Boks decline in 2010, can be attributed to a wide range of factors, however I think they will be a different team in the World Cup. It's just a mindset, more than anything. True the improvement of Australia and New Zealand and the new tackle law suiting Australia’s style of play in particular, made a difference. However if you look at the Super 14 last year, the two teams that adapted best to the new change in the tackle law, were both South African. Unfortunately I believe the Super 14 teams are better coached than the Boks, and therein lies the real issue. Regardless I agree with Jason, that a fully fit Fourie Du Preez will make a massive difference. For me, the biggest problem was their defensive system, which was a hybrid of the Stormers and the Bulls, which didn’t work. Factor in Heinrich Brussouw, who had a massive impact in the 2009 Lions tour, and the Boks will be real threat come the World Cup, but time will tell.

He's the sort of thing that gives Quade Cooper nightmares.

I was talking about this guy http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10704381 I don't actuially know alot about him but if the article is to be believed he is an 8 who used to play 10, is still quick, played NZ schoolboys and NZ under 20s and has trimmed down to a svelte 123kg. My thinking is that a team full of these guys will go nowhere but if you bring him on with 20 to go to do a job and he has lots of wise heads around him then these type of players can make an impact.

A great deal of their decline is attributable to the loss of Fourie du Preez - he is that good. His decision making and execution were a cut above other players in his position in 2009. There's life left in Bakkies and Matfield, who will have to be at their best to stave off the challenges of the younger locks. A fit Brussow would also have been a major point of difference. If he was fit in 2010 you can guarantee everybody wouldn't have been talking about only Pocock as a snaffler extraordinaire. The improvements in the All Blacks results were not all of their own making. In a number of tests last year they were actually quite ordinary for extended periods. It certainly helps your chances of victory when you play against two of the best teams in the world with a numerical advantage for a period of time. Admittedly good teams win while playing poorly, but they aren't that far ahead of the competition. The Wallabies? Well they're still playing in fits and starts, but the troughs don't appear to be quite as deep.

Well said Gavin The Blues look settled with outstanding players in key positions. Brent has the talent and is developing the temperament to shine at Super level. Now that they don't have donkeys like Laveatory, the backline just might show how dangerous they can be - especially with Toeava and Ranger. As for the no.8 - are you referring to Peter Saili? I thought he had a great ITM Cup.

A bit simplistic to put all the Boks decline down to FDP's absence rather than also noting the change to the tackle law which greatly blunts the Boks kick and chase tactics, the drop off in form of a number of other Boks, not to mention the fairly obvious improvement of the AB's and Aus.

That's crazy Tissot. It's worth an email to both SANZAR and Setanta to ask them what the heck is going on.

Just remember us up here in Singapore with no coverage yet as SANZAR sold the broadcast rights to Setanta who have not arranged anything for us rugby nuts! In negotiations apparently??

Well, the NZRU desperately want to sell off all the franchises while still maintaining final say over them, much like having your cake and eating it too. The only way I can envision that being successful is if they're sold to offshore investors, which I doubt would sit well with the core rugby public. Last year, they tried to float the idea of the provincial unions becoming shareholders in each of the franchises, but most of them are in the red right now. Still, given the nightmare that is the Highlanders, I'd say there's no way a sixth franchise gets off the ground without private equity.

i like your Blues points. They are a much more settled team than previous years. Frankly I think it is a positive that guys like Nacewa and Lavea have beggered off to leinster and clermont. There have been too many utility players in the Blues backline so someone like brett (though I admit he is still tempramental) is the right KIND of player to have controlling the backs. I also think you need a lot of calm heads and experience to bring out the best of the super talented guys. what i mean here is that with the likes of mealamu, braid, toeva, kaino, williams all now very experienced all blacks I'm hoping they keep it together and allow Ranger and the new no.8 (who has trimmed right down to 123kg and used to play 1st 5) to shine.

Agreed in general. Sth Africa will go to 6 with EP regardless. It is a problem for NZ and Aus to find a 6th team though. Even if talk about adding Argie or PI teams to their conferences I just don't see the logistics and the economics being attractive for NZ in particular.

the counter argument is that a conference system is all about winning your conference which is where you play the majority of your games. look at the heineken cup in the NH where the conference winners are automatic and then two runners up (from six pools) make the quarters.

most pro teams seem to use GPS tracking during training to track distance and speed run etc.

C'mon gentlemen, just because it took you all last season to figure out that Quade missed a few tackles doesn't mean that it was news to all the other super teams. They do their analysis, and would have known from previous seasons what Quade's weakness was. 2010 losses to the Tahs and the Blues both had their genesis in a missed tackle. I have no doubt that he will be better this season than last. I also am really excited abouthte quality and depth of the Reds forward pack, something that I haven't been able to say since, since, god knows. Reds will beat the Tahs this year, no doubt.

I Feel the South African confernece to be the strongest out of the lot......Everyone seems to forget the Sharks are a quality side that won the currie cup beating both the full strength bulls and western provnce (stormers) sides convincingly. Whatever we may argue until the cows come home on which conference isthe strongest however there is no denying that this is the strongest super rugby tournament in years. I m rather excited for the games to begin.

Reds - they've been steady improvers for the past two seasons and, injuries permitting, have lnow got what it takes to be consistent.

In my view, the tournament will be one by the team that realises it's a marathon and not a sprint. It's no good being the front runner in a tournament where sides are probably going to need to draw upon the wider training group to make it through 21 weeks. Sides which figure out what they have to do to win their conference and therefore automatically qualify for the finals willl be at an advantage over those trying to make the cut as wildcards. We don't know yet what the outcome will be of teams playing each other twice; we can assume that the Bulls will beat the Lions both times, etc., but we don't know for sure. This is especially true when you factor in the home and away element instead of the yearly 4-3 split. Champion sides like the Bulls and the Crusaders know how to grind out Super 14 campaigns, but this is new territory even for them. It wouldn't surprise me if at least one top ranked side struggles with the new format in the first year.

There only needs to be one table for the competition. Take a look at American sports standings to get a better idea of what a table should look like -- http://www.nba.com/standings/team_record_comparison/conferenceNew_Std_Div.html You can see in the standings that it includes division record and conference record as extra info. The Super rugby table probably won't look like this because we're living in the dinosaur age when it comes to sports coverage, but if you can clearly see who's leading each conference and who's in second place you should be all right. It's important to remember that it's a conference race first and foremost. The goal is to win your conference now as opposed to the old top four cut-off.