Quite a few theories are going around as to how South Africa, not deemed the strongest conference in Super Rugby, has been able to provide three teams for the play-offs.
I have previously expressed my opinion that the Conference system is flawed and lacking credibility, so for the purpose of this discussion I am going to look at some facts.
I have run the results of the past two seasons and found interesting if not surprising statistics. There is one team in the competition that is an enigma, and their results are the catalyst for South Africa’s dominance in the play-offs.
Over the past two years these are the log points gained by each team inside their own conferences.
Stormers 60, Reds 56, Crusaders 52, Bulls 51, Waratahs 49, Sharks 45, Brumbies 41, Highlanders 40, Chiefs 38, Hurricanes 35, Blues 33, Force 26, Rebels 21, Lions 20 and Cheetahs 17.
From these results it is clear how competitive the matches have been within the New Zealand Conference. One could argue the consequences one of two ways.
You could consider that the equality between these teams gives them all a fighting chance to qualify by winning their matches against the South African and Australian franchises, or you could argue that it reduces their chances of having more than two teams qualify.
When considering the non-derby matches, these are the log points gained in the last two season by each team.
Sharks 55, Crusaders 54, Stormers 53, Reds 52, Chiefs 50, Hurricanes 48, Bulls 46, Cheetahs 45, Blues 43, Highlanders 39, Brumbies 34, Waratahs 27, Force 22, Rebels 19 and Lions 18.
From these results it shows which teams have been most successful over the past two seasons against the other two nations’ teams. Remember each team plays eight derby matches and eight international matches per season, and when you compare the non-derby statistics, there are six teams who stand out as gaining more log points outside of their conferences than inside.
Teams with a nett positive log point difference outside their conference were: Cheetahs 28, Hurricanes 13, Chiefs 12, Blues 10, Sharks 10 and Crusaders 2.
Now the enigma in this competition is none other than the Cheetahs, bottom dweller when it comes to the South African derbies. Consider that during the past two years they have not had one single victory over the Sharks, Bulls or Stormers, gaining only 17 log points from their own conference. Yet in 2011 they scalped the Waratahs (qualifiers), Crusaders (qualifiers) and Brumbies, and the in 2012 took the Hurricanes and Waratahs, for a total of 45 log points outside their conference.
They are in fact the perfect foil for the South African conference, taking zero points from the big three, yet competing very well with overseas teams.
That in my view is the single most determining factor in the qualifying results for the South African teams.
Some may say it is because of the Lions being bottom dwellers, yet every conference has had one team at least every year that has been disappointing. The Blues this year had no wins in their conference, the Rebels had no wins against the Reds or Brumbies, and the Cheetahs had no wins against the Sharks, Bulls or Stormers.
It’s what those bottom-dwellers do when they play outside their conference that can really make the difference.
Tubby not blaming them, but this has been going on for a long time, it isn't new. The cheetahs has been losing players to richer franchises for a long time. But as I said they just don't have enough money, that is their biggest challenge.
tubby
Guest
If only the waratahs had some dynamic runners who could follow pretorious when he snipes off a ruck he'd create much more value for them. Not much to be gained having a scrum half create space and confusion in the defence when all you forwards are still in the last ruck, and your 10 is standing 5 metres back waiting to kick it away. You can hardly blame half the cheetahs squad for taking overseas contracts next year, even now we're far from sure wtf is happening with the kings. If it were my paycheck in question, I'd be looking for some certainty if I were at the cheetahs or lions.
chris
Guest
Results between the hurricanes/highlanders and the cheetahs suggest that there wasn't much to choose between them.
Morning boomeranga, good to see you.
ncart
Guest
This is incorrect. The draft system in NZ is designed to ensure that the best players are out on the park playing, not sitting on the bench behind another top player so you don't have a franchise with the top 2 hookers in the country for instance, which would mean the back up All Black hooker wouldn't be getting any game time. Each franchise gets to name a certain number of players from within their catchment (ITM Cup teams) and then those players in the catchment who are not named go into the draft and can be picked up by other franchises. The Crusaders have historically been very good at bringing in draft players this way and developing them. Population wise an area like the Highlanders region (Otago and Southland) is much smaller than Auckland, so if you didn't have a draft then you would end up a lopsided team makeup.
Boomeranga
Guest
Thats a good article Biltong. Good to see you over on this board as well.
Jerry
Guest
Do you have short term memory loss, Werewolf - this was discussed in a fair bit of detail about 1 week ago. That figure for Australia doesn't include high school aged players - unlike the NZRU figure. Here's my post, which you replied to at the time..... "You might want to take a look at the ARU annual report for 2011. Page 69, in particular. The total figure (including golden oldies & women) is 261,431. Now, obviously golden oldies & women should be subtracted which accounts for about 19,500 players. And there is a ‘schools 2″ figure which includes schools who only competed in one off knockout tournaments or gala days. This accounts for 111,063 players. But that still leaves 39,948 senior players, 47,430 junior players and 43,435 school players (this category is for schools that played regularly). Which is a figure of 130,813. So even with removing the schools 2 category, Aus still has comparable numbers to NZ."
Jerry
Guest
Interesting point, but not really that relevant. There's no such thing as perfect equality obviously, but that doesn't mean you should accept an obviously flawed system which leads to the current situation.
Well my suggestion was have the conference matches first, then let the top three of each conference go to a single round robin Super 9's and then have semi finals and finals. Not been too popular with everyone.
justsaying
Guest
Does anyone else think they should separate the domestic and international aspects of the tournament? I would love to see more emphasis placed on the conferences within themselves - until recently I wasn't even sure trophies were awarded for winning conferences. Would it be so difficult to play the intra-conference rounds first, establish the domestic champions, and then play the international rounds after that with finals to follow? I think a structure like that would be so much more interesting...
I absolutely hate the format of the HC draw. That will be a step backwards.
James
Guest
The main reason 3 SA sides have made the top 6 is because NZs top 4 sides (Highlanders, Saders, Hurricanes and Chiefs) were cancelling each other with their local derbies. I'm still baffled with the Reds possible home semi final against the Saders (pending if Saders and Reds win their qualifying games) yet the Crusaders have accumulated more points (3rd overall to the Reds 6th place). I would scrap the conference and adapt a Heineken Cup draw. 3 pools. Pool A , Pool B, Pool C -5 teams each pool Top 3 teams (seeds) from the previous year will be grouped separately into the 3 pools. The rest of the 3 pools will be decided through a ballot draw. Top 2 from each group will qualify for the top 6. Probably more suitable when Super rugby has more than 16 teams and logistics can bee an issue but beats the current conference system.
David
Guest
Excellent article. I knew that the Cheetahs did well on the road relative to their @home performance but I didnt realise it was that radical\ I also didn't realise how good the Sharks have been away from home. I didnt think they would be the best. This year the Sharks shared the points with the Stormers, Lions and Bulls
To be honest I haven't seen him play for so long, I can't really remember his pass. So I'll bow down to your opinion.
Jutsie
Guest
Thats reasonable and tbh I thought that was the way it was organised anyway till i read the roar this week. I also was under the impression till halfway through this season (when it became apparent that the brumbies may end up with less wins than at least 3 teams from the other conferences) that being conference leader gauranteed u a spot in the 6 but not a spot in top 3. I thought if a conference leader finished 4th overall they would go into the finals as the 4th ranked team and if they finished 7th they would leapfrog whoever was in 6th position. I honestly wouldnt mind that method either but i guess giving the conference leader at least one home game provides more revenue for each country and makes the competition more viable.
Student
Guest
Have to disagree with you here about Sarel being a well rounded player. I think he snipes well and is great in broken play, but his passing is weak and can be misdirected. Similar for his box kicks. I figure if Sarel had stayed in SA, he would still be sitting behind Hougaard and Ruan for the 9 spot. I initially thought Sarel would free up Hougaard to play 11 (due to Habana's lack of performance over the last few years) but realised that Sarel's passes wouldn't make it to Morne standing deep in the pocket nor would they give a running flyhalf (should that day ever come) width should the ball be taken flat. Obviously, with Habana's rediscovered form, HM was allowed to play his best passing no. 9 at 9. Sarel's move makes sense as he probably realised he was too far down the pecking order to have a shot at making the Bok no. 9 spot his own. If you can't play for your country, go where the money is. Reason the Waratahs don't play him is the other 'tah players are not as alive to the counter-attack as the Cheetahs are. I noticed in the few games that he played that he would often be isolated on counter-attack with no options for a pass or a quick ruck resulting in turnover ball being turned back to Waratah opponents. I imagine his frustration with the lack of game time will eventually drive him back to the Cheetahs....if they'll have him. As mentioned, the current Cheetah's 9 has had a pretty solid season and he was included in the Bok training squad as part of the 6.
I think you'll have to provide more proof before I am going to entertain that as a possibility.
Will, if anything results have gone against the Cheetahs, look at the match vs the Brumbies. Lynden Bray even admitted after the match the penalty to the Brumbies was incorrectly awarded to them, so I doubt that to be a factor in their results.
Will Lawton
Guest
Interesting analysis and discussion. I do not accept the hypothesis that the Cheatahs. pack is too small to cope with RSA teams but can beat up Kiwi teams. The All Blacks seem to cope with Bokke and the English, ok. A further analysis may suggest another influence on their "foreign" results. The officials who control these games. I am not suggesting dishonesty, but I have noticed a number of suspicious results based on observation of refereeing styles.
Sylvester
Guest
I'd also say many teams see the Cheetahs game as a chance to rest top players (as the Crusaders did when they lost), which gives them more chances to grab an upset. The local teams less likely because their fans wouldn't be impressed.