Wednesday’s column by my good friend and sparring partner Paul Cully titled “The Reds and their fight for legitimacy” certainly got the crowd roaring!
The Reds’ Super Rugby title is illegitimate they cried! No more muttering it over a cold glass of Tooheys, Steinlager or Castle. No, it now appears to be the accepted and orthodox view of southern hemisphere rugby fans.
As a Reds supporter I was obviously peeved by these claims when I first heard them sometime near the tenth round of last year’s competition.
The theory being espoused essentially lumped us with title winners such as Ben Johnson and Lance Armstrong (just joking cyclists!) I was outraged! However I’ve since started to think a little more about this.
And the question I keep coming back to is this: If the Reds title is in fact illegitimate, what conditions must be met for future titles to be considered legitimate?
Apparently it centres on the draw. I have been able to identify three facets to the theory according to those conferring ‘legitimacy’ status.
The first is that the Reds didn’t play every team. More precisely, they didn’t play every team that mattered. So which teams need to be beaten for a title to be legitimate?
Secondly, they played the Bulls and Crusaders at Suncorp. So to ensure a title is legitimate, the competition winner must beat these two teams away from home. Are there any other teams that are in this rarefied air?
Thirdly, the Australian conference is the weakest. This one is easy. A legitimate title can only be won by a South African or New Zealand team.
Are there any other conditions that must be met for a Super Rugby title to be considered legitimate? Roar away!
Tim
Guest
Reds fans miss the obvious point. There was no complaining when the Bulls won their titles in recent years, or when the Brumbies, similarly, triumphed over the Crusaders in past finals. The Reds title has been, and will continue to be, shadowed by the simple fact that they were advantaged by a beneficial draw and a heavily disadvantaged primary opposition. A weak draw conspired to hand them the home advantage for the finals series and a natural disaster forced their strongest rivals to jet around the world all year, including, importantly, robbing them of the potential to play the Hurricanes and score a home semi final. Instead, the circumstances conspired to pit a full strengthed Reds team against a Crusaders team that had less time to acclimatise, prepare and train for the final. And even then, the Reds only just managed a victory. Reds fans attempting to construe the controversy surrounding the Reds' victory as 'jealousy' or the like really ought to get some perspective. No such allegations have been thrown at previous years' champions - and the Bulls, Brumbies, and Crusaders did not do half the things that Reds fans are currently facetiously suggesting are necessary to be universally acclaimed as worthy winners. Just as opposition fans need to accept the fact that the Reds won, Reds fans need to accept the fact that nobody outside of themselves is going to afford them any respect for it.
chuck
Guest
You can keep Quade and won because of him well that's your assumption takes 15 on the field to win the comp and QU/REDS did it so no arguments just that the Crusaders are most successful team to win the the comp do you think Robbie Deans would have been head coach Australian rugby union if his record With Crusaders was the factor that got him the job that was JOHN ONEILS strong point in giving him the job now with the Queensland Reds record do you think they give them the job well they didn't my point is the Crusaders are a bloody good side and Queensland's won the 2011 comp fair & square now they have too chase the record of the crusaders. And to those who think the French should've won BILL well get over it they didn't like the Crusaders 2011 may be if they had Ozzie Ref in both game it might have swung the other way isn't HYPOTHETICAL a great word
James
Guest
The difference is that the smaller towns in NZ do actually have stadiums that are, or are close to, professional standards ie are able to host a match under lights. Plus there would be no worries concerning interest in the game; these are rugby mad cities, like the rest of NZ. Concerning the smaller Australian grounds, do they have the same facilities and would it generate the same interest considering there're 3 other codes to compete with? And I would imagine that most NSW players would come from Sydney, most QLD players from Brisbane, although I could be wrong. The NZ franchises don't have the same geographic relevance and it's basically the top players in the country no matter where they come from, spread out across the 5 teams eg Dagg and Guildford playing for the Crusaders because they couldn't make the Hurricanes team, but they're still Hawke's Bay players come NPC time.
Lippy
Guest
Yet only one team actual specifically refers themselves as a city . Last time i checked the four other teams represented entire states or territories, but are in essence hypocrites as to you they only represent one city, or one city teams as you put it?? This then raises the question why don't NSW and QLD take games to other cities in the "states" they supposedly represent or is it in fact in name only?
James
Guest
The Australian franchises are 1 city teams Lippy.
Sage
Guest
I'm cheery Cous. Why wouldn't I be ? I was just making the observation and suggesting it shouldn't rankle and it doesn't...now. It did at first as I used to believe exactly what you've suggested but that just isn't the way it is unfortunately. You guys love to see us lose or fail in just about anything and will argue incessantly about an "unworthy" win like the Reds or the Wallabies Tri win at Suncorp.
Daniel S
Guest
Our friends across the ditch think quade cooper belongs too them, and the reds only won because of him, maybe that made the red illegitimate
Red Kev
Guest
The Crusaders lost to the Cheetahs. They weren't the best team. The Reds have beaten the Crusaders the last 5 times they've met (2 trials and 3 Super Rugby matches) - I'd call that legitimately being the better team.
Riccardo
Guest
As a loyal (sob) Blues supporter, an absolutelly fanatical AB supporter, but mainly as a Kiwi, I am SSOOO sick of hearing about the Reds' "undeserved" 2011 title! The Reds won. That's it. Over. Finished. The fact of the matter is that they played well. I think some of my overly paroahial countrymen are reacting from 2 things: 1) The Crusaders were on the verge of pulling off something quite remarkable (and emotionally significant given the trials & tribulations they and their fans suffered in 2011) and couldn't in the end & 2) The Conference system is obviously flawed. Nevertheless, it is a poor fan indeed who cannot congratulate Link, Quade & the team for some sublime rugby.
Riccardo
Guest
"By all accounts"? Surely to make such a bold statement without even having watched it would brand the commentator a fool?
mattamkII
Guest
we are.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
I thought we were supposed to be having fun with this.
Tacksharp
Guest
You're right about the script getting thrown out - it would have been a glorious fairy-tale ending - disappointing, but that's life. As to the restt... the attitude towards Oz is not anti-oz, it's passionately NZ. Ozzies are our cousies! Cheer up, cuz! :-)
Sage
Guest
The neverending graceless Kiwi comments regarding the Reds super title shouldn't rankle anyone. If you're not expecting to hear it you should be. If you think you'll change or argue the attitude with logic you won't. You only have to spend time there to understand the depth of the anti aus feeling. The Reds weren't supposed to win, the saders were but the script got thrown out and it will be crying and self righcheous bleating for evermore. Those cheeky aussies. They win somethings sometimes but it's only ever through luck or cheating or circumstance. Love it. Makes the title holding even more enjoyable than a display of mature acceptance.
matthew
Guest
The Reds are more worthy of their Super title than the AB's are of the RWC. By all accounts France should have won the final as they completeley outplayed the All Blacks. The referee Joubert had other ideas in one of the most blatantly biased performacnes in recent history.
mattamkII
Guest
few people here proving more and more of their childlike eyes on Rugby. I am not a reds fan but to suggest they are not worthy winners is so pathetic its hardly worth talking about.
mattamkII
Guest
So OJ, what you have just confirmed is you just dont like the current reds crop....
Lippy
Guest
How many games a year do the Reds, Tahs and Force take to their regions James? Come on seriously do tell me? p.s pre season doesn't count Reality is they don't the play out of the same city every match. The Reds won in 2011 nothing will change that fact but as was raised on Pauls thread their title is the most argued in the history of Super Rugby and unfortunately for Reds fans its something you just have to accept as do those who debate the merits of the Reds championship have to accept the Reds won. Its now 2012 the Reds title is last years fish and chip wrapping its time to rein in.the Stormers who are clearly the best team in 2012
Tacksharp
Guest
The Reds had easier matches than the Crusaders, plus the Saders had the Earthquake stuff to deal (over and over again - more than 10,000 shocks at last count, and believe me, there are lasting effects), plus they had no home games. It's certainly not ridiculous to say that the Saders were more deserving than the Reds, but the Reds won the game that counts. It was disappointing, but I got over it. The World Cup helped.
James
Guest
I'm sick of people saying they didn't play any home games. They in fact played at least 1 game in Nelson and 1 in Timaru, which last time I checked are in the Crusaders region. They could've played more games there too, but they chose to play elsewhere, including in Wellington and Napier. Yes the competition is faulty in that not everyone plays each other at least once, but to say that the Crusaders are more deserving of the title than the Reds is ridiculous.