Remarks made by Jon Plumtree, the coach of the Sharks, back in August that the Australian conference is the weakest in the Super Rugby competition certainly seem to be correct.
Only the Reds had made it through to the finals and the Waratahs, Force and Rebels were busy propping up the table. Add to that recent losses by the Wallabies in the Bledisloe Cup, and scrappy wins against the Springboks and Pumas, it certainly does seem like Australian Rugby is struggling.
But, like many things in life, just because it looks so, doesn’t mean it necessarily is. So to explore whether there is any credibility to this idea I turned to an idea in sports economics called competitive balance.
There are a number of ways in which competitive balance can be measured, but in essence this usually happens either within the season (i.e. the Chiefs and Stormers at the top and the Force and Lions on the bottom) or across seasons (i.e. the Crusaders and Bulls always tend to do well).
For balance in the former, you’d like to see not much difference in points between first and last on the ladder and for the later you’d like to see different teams at the top and bottom of the ladder each year, much like the reversals in fortunes of the Waratahs and Reds in recent times.
A big problem with applying these measures to Super Rugby is that they need stable competitions, with generally the same number of teams and everyone playing each other the same number of times.
Obviously this is not the case in Super Rugby, so alternatives must be found. One way to get around this is to strip out the national derby matches, and only look at matches against a foreign opposition.
For example, during the 20 matches Australian teams played against New Zealand opposition in the 2012 regular season, the Australian teams had a win-loss ratio of 35%. This dropped to 25% for the matches against the South Africans.
This isn’t to say that the South African and New Zealand conferences are equal. Even though the Australians were being beaten up by everyone, the South African teams were also being beaten up by the Kiwis, with a win-loss ratio of only 35% (exactly the same as the Australians).
However, if you extend this analysis back to 2006 and the start of the Super 14 competition, a slightly more nuanced story emerges.
The Kiwis are definitely the pick of the litter, winning 59% of their matches against any foreign opposition. The Australians and South Africans are a long way back, but actually very even, with Australian teams winning 45% of their matches and South African teams winning 46% of their matches against foreign opposition.
So yes, the Australian conference is weaker, at least at the moment. Historically though, the Australians aren’t that different to the South African teams.
The Kiwis though, with the exception of 2010, are very much in a different league when it comes to continued Super Rugby dominance.
Ryan
Guest
next year the Blues who were NZs poorest team miss playing both the Kings and the Rebels how is that fair?
Ryan
Guest
Losing Steven Donald really hurt NZ by allowing the unveiling of players like Beauden Barrett, Ihaia West etc
Ryan
Guest
The thing is teams shouldn't have to "Get found out" Teams should be there on merit not some poor quota system to make fans feel good about themselves.
Ryan
Guest
Jerry he has obviously worded his comment wrong as Woodward is going to the Rebels not the Force like Richard has stated. Alby Mathewson is going to the Force in 2013 and Alby is also originally from Wellington. So a little confusion all round
stillmatic1
Guest
worst 700 bucks i ever spent, jiggles. after 20 minutes the night wasnt worth the money!! got a 2 game package, but at least the abs won the next suncorp game. thankyou sir richie for the tackle on gerrard to save our bacon!!
Mike
Guest
he he he, thanks mate!
You guys shouldn't worry too much about being percieved as the weakest conference. Next year SA has the Kings who will provide enough controversy on its own. They are currently headhunting anything that moves and are slowly becoming a team full of mercenaries, but inspite of their recruitment drive, I would expect the other SA team to gain some handy "handicap" points from them.
Aussie
Guest
Th Brumbies came second in the conference and got most thier points playing the poorer teams while losing to most of the good teams. The Australian conference was the weakest last year of that there is no doubt.
Mantis
Roar Guru
We were the weakest conference this year, yes, no denying that. We'll keep improving over the next few years
allblackfan
Guest
Losing Alby won't hurt NZ, Johnno. There's already a couple of halfbacks running around the TM Cup, fresh out of school, who look the goods -- Hohaia West, for one (from the u20s ABs), and Nathan George (?) for Manawatu.
Jerry
Guest
I still think it's the Waratahs - with all their resources, their record is appalling.
bennalong
Guest
Who gives a shoot if we're the weakest conference. ??? That will change next year The Tahs will be back on top under Cheika with a dominant and fit set of forewards, and a 'galloping greens' inspired backline!
Johnno
Guest
But at ITM cup level mcalister would of been handy for sure mate, his experience would of been useful.
Jiggles
Roar Guru
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qklF-J_GTY8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcRHYmPpZdM and my personal favourite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qQr5p-MnTs&feature=related
The Grafter
Guest
When have Australia beaten SA well??? I would suggest the last time is 92.
The Grafter
Guest
MacAllistar was the MOST overrarted player in NZ mate. Its now been taken over by Victor Vtio but Im sure when Charlies boy decides the money in the NH has run out again (like Dad), he will be back to 'grab' his mantle.
The Grafter
Guest
As a Wellington bloke, we are THE major underachievers in Super rugby. In fact our only final (06) those supporters who couldnt make it to Christchuch still couldnt see the game (infamous fog final)
The Grafter
Guest
That has all been discussed last week RR.
Johnno
Guest
chuck ia gee there sure is a lot of mana and talant, and the ITM cup has impressed me a lot. But now without he NRL big $1 billion dollar deal plus some mopper emissions out of NZ, and the millions now being pumped into the warriors, NZ only has 4.5 million people, it doesn't have unlimited depth. -And losing men like steve donald do hurt the program. And as nations catch up they will those losses like a steve donald or a carl hayman more. Think about someone like Mcalister or steve donald if there not in the ab squad could be offering invaluable experience to the ITM cup rookies. Gone all that experience gone. And SBW is hard to replace as well. For me it is the middle of the road AB'S like steve donald that are hard to replace as they will eb the ones playing ITM cup chuck and there experience is hurt in my opinion.
RebelRanger
Guest
How is Australia going to increase its number of 'quality' players without a proper 3rd tier competition? Without an avenue to hone their skills they are like greenboys going up against trained soldiers..