- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
There has been a lot written and said about the relative strengths of each conference in this year’s Super Rugby Competition, particularly in relation to Australia.
This poses an interesting question, how do you measure the strength of more than one team over time? There have been many arguments put forward as to why the Australian conference is not as weak as many average punters are saying.
Some of these arguments have ranged from interesting to weird. Spiro Zavos wrote that Australia’s international ranking has some bearing on the Super Rugby strength. This was interesting. John O’Neill claimed that a single weekend of results, including a loss, was evidence the conference was week. That was weird.
So what is the best measure of determining a strong conference? Is it closeness? This would absolutely be the way if the teams only ever play themselves, and the Australian conference has always been relatively close. Is it who wins the overall competition? A relevant example considering the Reds won last year.
Firstly, lets discount the world ranking. The ability to put 15 players on the pitch in an international has nothing to do with how those 15 are then complimented in their local based teams. Currently, these guys only account for three players per team.
A great example of how contrasting country versus province was in 1998. That year New Zealand had three teams in the top four and two teams in the Super final, yet the All Blacks lost five in a row for their worst win loss record since 1970 and the second most losses in a single season.
As for Mr O’Neill his job is to get bums on seats so he is always going to talk up the Aussie teams, but one weekend of results just doesn’t cut it. Citing a loss to a then struggling Crusaders outfit is accepting mediocrity.
Results inside the conference have a massive impact on the finishing position in the ladder. If we use the ‘closeness of the conference’ method, we don’t get an accurate indication of how strong a conference actually is. It is no good having 5 rubbish teams that are all evenly matched.
Which then leads me to my theory, the only way to truly measure conference strength is the results when these teams play outside their own conference. This is where the reading is not good for those who argue that the Australian conference is strong and healthy.
The results from the last two years show Australia is lagging a long way behind their SANZAR partners. Australian Super Rugby Teams when playing teams from either New Zealand or South Africa have won only 33% of the time this compares with 63% and 53% for New Zealand and South Africa respectively. And as the table below shows, it is worse than last year.
2011 2012
NZ 56% 63%
SA 50% 53%
AUS 42% 33%
Is this all because of the expansion and the introduction of another team? Partly.
In 2006 when both South Africa and Australia added an additional team only Australia’s foreign results dropped from 51.7% to 39.0%, whereas South Africa’s teams bizarrely improved from 2005 to 2006 (21.2% to 32.6%). Possibly because they couldn’t have gotten any worse.
In 2011 Australia with the addition of the Rebels results dropped from 56.1% to 41.9%.
On a longer time frame, since the inception of professional rugby, Australian Teams are just ahead with a win ratio of 50.1%, New Zealand 57.4% and SA 39.2%.
Conference strength is not about the best or even the worst performers but how the collective perform. And the only true measure is performances against teams that you are being measured against, in this case the only true comparison of conference strength is performances against other conferences.
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.