- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Do league tables under the new conference system in Super Rugby accurately rank teams from strongest to weakest? Under the new system, the difficulty of a team’s schedule is influenced by the conference that it is in and the draw for intra-conference matches.
Comparing strength measures that account for schedule difficulty can be used to objectively evaluate the impact of the conference system on league standings.
One approach is to determine rating values for each team that maximise prediction accuracy when rating values are used to predict match results.
The procedure generates ratings that sum to zero, so a rating greater than zero indicates a stronger than average team and a rating less than zero a weaker than average team. Differences between ratings for any two teams provides an estimate of the score difference if the teams played at a neutral venue.
Ratings accounting for schedule difficulty are presented in the table below. The Crusaders, with 12.5 rating points, were the strongest followed by the Stormers (7.4) and the Reds (7.0).
The main driver of ranking changes relative to the league table is that, as discussed below, the New Zealand and South African conferences are stronger than the Australian conference. At the other end of the scale, the weakest teams were the Lions ( 6.1), the Brumbies (-8.3), and the Rebels (-17.5).
The Crusaders did not play either the Lions or the Rebels, further highlighting the difficulty of the Crusaders schedule.
Super Rugby rankings accounting for schedule difficultly:
Rank Team Rating Rank Team Rating
1 Crusaders 12.5
2 Stormers 7.4
3 Reds 7.0
4 Waratahs 5.5
5 Blues 4.6
6 Sharks 4.2
7 Bulls 3.4
8 Cheetahs 1.9
9 Chiefs -0.2
10 Highlanders -2.7
11 Force -5.8
12 Hurricanes -5.9
13 Lions -6.1
14 Brumbies -8.3
15 Rebels -17.5
Conferences can be compared by averaging ratings across teams in each conference. The South African conference (2.1 rating points) was marginal stronger than the New Zealand conference (1.7).
The numbers also confirm the common opinion that the Australian conference (-3.8) was by far by the weakest.
On average, a New Zealand or South African team is predicted to beat an Australian team by about six points. While these results confirm Jamie Joseph’s comments concerning the Australian conference, variations from the average are possible and predictions are sometimes incorrect (as most schoolboys know).
Although league standings under the conference system can result in weaker teams outranking stronger teams, this does not necessarily indicate that a conference system is undesirable.
Supporters enjoy seeing underdogs punching above their weight and “luck of the draw” variations under the conference system enhance this possibility.
Also, ratings that account for schedule difficulty can rank a team with less wins above a team with more wins, which may cause greater controversy than inequities resulting from the conference system.
However, if one conference persistently offers an easier road to the playoffs, this matter may need to be addressed.
Niven Winchester is a Environmental Economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Senior Lecturer at the University of Otago. He has an unhealthy interest in sports gambling.
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.