There are quite a few scribes in this forum who maintain that Australian Super Rugby sides have an unfair bonus by playing eight games in the season in local derbies, which are much easier than their overseas counterparts’ local derbies.
Is this true?
I am not a particularly strong maths or stats person, but I can use a spreadsheet and this is what I came up with.
For a start, we can grab the rankings as of the end of the season: Reds first, Stormers second etc. We have to invert the standings by subtracting their position from 16, so the Reds would be 15, Stormers 14 etc.
Then when two teams play we can combine the two inverted standings to give a weight to that contest. Therefore, a Reds versus Stormers match would equal 29, a Lions versus Rebels contest would total three.
Now we are in a position to add the weights of all the games to national totals to get an idea of which conference played the most difficult games.
The results were:
Australia: 1148
New Zealand: 1368.
South Africa: 1270.
The percentage advantage to Australian teams is 19 per cent, to South Africa teams it is eight per cent.
How you wish to interpret that is entirely within your gift. Obviously New Zealand has greater depth and can form more competitive teams.
Alternatively, you could argue that Australia is handicapped by having the youngest teams. Taking into consideration that the Crusaders versus Hurricanes match was canceled, which costs the New Zealand total 40 points, there is considerable weight to the argument that New Zealand is hampered by the system.
Is it important?
The answer is in the decision between: Is the Super Rugby tournament primarily a marketing exercise with rugby as the product, or is it a rugby contest with Fox Sports as an interested observer?
I would suggest that those who do not give the marketing side of the argument more weight than the rugby side have missed the point. We need these partnerships to promote the code. If it is unfair then only to a degree that matters not when compared to the bigger picture.
Since Fox came on board all those years ago we have more rugby, better rugby and the game is thriving. Without these business partners that simply would not be the case.
Your team may have just missed the finals, but the best team will probably win the comp.
fastpoose
Guest
The comp is definitely unfair toward NZ teams and possibly SA teams. Did any NZ team get to play the crappy melbourne side twice... Therefore a good aussie team (this year QLD) gets more points over a season. Then gets home finals... The Super 15 comp this year has proven what a lot of people thought when looking at the layout pre-season. And it came true in the first YEAR!! Easy run for a good aussie side (home finals)...and it happened first time out. It will actually be better for NZ rugby in general (ie playing more tougher games more often), but the layout is biased toward weaker australian rugby. P.S I wonder if the the shocker Stu Dickinson will get to ref the final....anyone see the last Reds v Crus game... Crusaders will eat QLD in the final in Brisbane...
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
Cheers RF, We are a lot better off with this comp than the alternative. I did not want to go into the details of the matches which denied the NZ teams a shot even though they did drop some howlers! In point of fact the last round there was every possibility of three Saffer teams Bulls, Sharks and Stormers and the other half made up of The Blues, Reds and 'Saders. I think that that is more indicative of the overall depth of the entire comp where you have to be on your game against any opponent or your entire season may just go south. Your "not born of tradition" comment was spot on! (wish I'd said that)
reds fan
Guest
Interesting way of looking at it. And I agree that too many people look at super rugby like a "traditional" rugby tournament like the ITM/NPC or Currie Cup. Super Rugby was not born of tradition and the desire to be the best amongst traditional rivals. It was born of a need for something to market to TV so that the emerging rugby professionalism could be funded. many point to the fact that the most money made is still on test matches and that super doesn't make much, but it does the key job of paying wages and keeping southern hemisphere talent in the southern hemisphere. without it god knows where we'd be. it's not perfect, but it still of a brilliant standard. and it means we get to watch our stars more often.