Hands up those of you who like the conference system. Now, don’t all of you bowl me over with your enthusiasm at once.
It is pretty clear that conference supporters are less effervescent about their support of the system than detractors are in their criticism of it.
And the supporters seem to be few and far between.
There are some valid criticisms of the conference system that have been aired on the Roar before. I myself am certainly no fan.
But there is at least one criticism of the conference system that is baseless, and that is conference strength.
You see, there is no weak conference. It is a myth. Even if it ever were to exist, it wouldn’t prevent the right team from winning the competition.
I admit that the new format hasn’t been in place long enough to make a conclusive judgment, but if you look at the results from the seasons past, I don’t think there has been a single undeserved finalist wasting space.
It is true that the Australian conference has produced less finalists than the other two. But is that really a good indicator of conference strength?
The conference that has produced the most finalists these past two years has not yet won a Super Rugby premiership. As a matter of fact it has only contributed one grand finalist.
And in both years past a team from this conference has finished in the top two, thereby guaranteeing themselves a week’s rest and a home semi-final.
They have not been held back by a strong conference. The kind of representation that they have enjoyed is evidence enough to repudiate any claim to the contrary.
They have only themselves to blame for poor returns.
It’s not as though a weak conference has worked to the benefit of any team yet, either.
Unsympathetic people like to say that the Reds premiership victory in 2011 was tainted by the relative poor performance of three of the other Australian teams of that year.
What they don’t like to point out is that of the three matches the Reds lost that year, two were to conference counterparts.
Of their six victories over Australian teams they enjoyed that year, four had margins of six points or less. Only two conference matches yielded the Reds a bonus point.
And yet, of their eight cross-conference matches, the Reds lost only one. From those matches, the Reds picked up four bonus points.
Does this indicate a weak conference underpinning their success? No, it does not.
So let’s talk about the present. Right now there are two teams from each conference occupying places in the top six.
The Super Rugby premiership of 2013 is wide open. At this stage there are at least nine teams with a realistic shot of making the finals, and at least four of them are in a good position to secure a top two finish.
This tournament, regardless of any inane banter that suggests otherwise, is going to be won on merit.
Save the nationalist brachiating for the Rugby Championship.
too late, can't edit it now, can you report the post and ask them to remove it, it seems I can't report my own post to request removal. thanks
chris
Guest
Email sent if you want to remove your address Thanks
Chris if you email me your address to biltongbek@gmail.com, I will send you what I have, I have cleaned up the data and only kept the most important, but you are welcome to it.
Hi chris, yes these tables all came out of that analysis. The article was named "Cheetahs the enigma in the room" They have only won 1 interconference match per season in the past two years and 4 matches per season outside the conference. Their win ratio inconference was 12.5% and cross conference 50%
chris
Guest
Hey BB is it possible to have look at your raw data, I have been looking at results and match reports but it is a pretty laborious process to compare teams results.
chris
Guest
BB, you did an interesting analysis last year where you compared the teams win rate in intra conference games with inter conference games. I can't remember the exact details, but recall the cheetahs did far better against foreign opposition than against their fellow SA teams. One must also guard against focusing to much on the success of the weaker teams and ignoring the weaknesses of the stronger teams. With all due respect to the Force, their wins over Reds and Crusaders says more about the weaknesses of the Reds and Crusaders than it does about the quality of the force imo.
Here are the actual number of games played. for the past two years. It reads team, played, derby wins, cross conference wins. Team P W CW CCW Stormers 32 26 14 12 Reds 32 24 13 11 Crusaders 32 22 11 11 Sharks 32 20 11 9 Bulls 32 20 9 11 Chiefs 32 18 6 12 Hurricanes 32 15 7 8 Highlanders 32 17 9 8 Waratahs 32 14 11 3 Blues 32 14 5 9 Brumbies 32 14 8 6 Cheetahs 32 10 2 8 Force 32 8 5 3 Rebels 32 7 6 1 Lions 32 6 3 3 The important one for me is the percentage of wins cross conference, you should win 50% of them or in this case have had 8 wins.
carnivean
Roar Rookie
So the Hurricanes and Cheetahs are the interconference bandits (+13 and +28 compared). The Waratahs, though, have probably had enough of all this playing teams from other countries malarkey (-22).
chris
Guest
No argument from me mate, the lions was an embarrassment and should have been culled a long time ago, but... Their wins since 2011 have been evenly spread between local and foreign teams at 3 each plus a 30 all draw against the Sharks in 2011 that effectively knocked the sharks out of play-off contention. The south african teams (especially my team the stormers) also have an inability to gorge themselves on weaker opposition, meaning that very few of the lions' losses resulted in bonus points Having a weak team in the conference also made South African leg included an easy for half of the teams visiting South Africa. Anyway, as poor as the Lions were and the Kings probably are, qualitatively there isn't much difference between them and the Force and the Rebels. A decent side losing to these teams should feel that they let themselves down and each upset by these cellar dwellers show more of a weakness in the "strong" teams than quality on the part of the underdogs.
Here is the total points gained by each team in the two years of the conference system. It reads, team, total points, interconference points, cross conference points Team PTS DPT CPT Stormers 113 60 53 Reds 108 56 52 Crusaders 106 52 54 Sharks 100 45 55 Bulls 97 51 46 Chiefs 88 38 50 Hurricanes 83 35 48 Highlanders 79 40 39 Waratahs 76 49 27 Blues 76 33 43 Brumbies 75 41 34 Cheetahs 62 17 45 Force 48 26 22 Rebels 40 21 19 Lions 38 20 18
I'll give you some idea of what happened in the last two seasons. 2011 NZ conference Derby wins. Crusaders (6), Blues (5), Highlanders (4), Hurricanes (2), Chiefs (1) - two poor teams 2012 NZ conference Derby Wins, all teams have 5 wins except blues 0 - one poor team 2011 SA conference Derby wins Stormers (7), Sharks (6), Bulls (4), Lions (1), Cheetahs (1) - two poor teams 2012 SA conference Stormer (7), Sharks (5), Bulls (5), Cheetahs (1), Lions (2) - two poor teams 2011 Oz conference Waratahs (7), Reds (6), Brumbies (2), Rebels (2), Force (2), - 3 poor teams 2012 OZ conference Reds (7), Brumbies (6), Waratahs (3), Rebels (2), Force (2)
Jerry
Guest
Hit post too early - also meant to say the Kings appear to be a far more competitive outfit and hopefully the threat of relegation should keep the Lions honest should they come back into the comp. It's inexcusable for them to have been that poor for that long.
Bobby
Guest
The system that you are using is very flawed in the first half of the season. So crusaders will look good from now on as they get form. Why don't people total points gained for each team in games played in inter conference and find how this compares as a ratio to the total points of the same team playing intra-conference teams. That would be telling. I believe while saffa teams look on the ladder it's because of the leg up the top teams get from their own conference.... This gives a misguided perception of strength. Last year I did the ratios and it was in this order NZ, AUS, RSA. Totsl Points won intra conference vs inter conference. There is still some bias here as some teams don't play each for that year and the home and away aspect as well. Interesting the the rugby championship finished in that order.
Bobby
Guest
One has to take into account points gained inter conference and intra conference and who has played who. Get to 3/4 mark and things will be clearer.
I also love the Currie Cup, and would like to see it return to an 8 team competition as I beleive we can have 8 very strong currie Cup temas, the additional teams just need a fairer share of revenue to enabe them to retain their top players.
Jerry
Guest
Ok, so just the Bulls then. The odd one off result doesn't invalidate the overall argument - the Lions win total per season since 2001 is 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 5, 2, 4, 0, 3, 3. They're complete gash and it's a huge advantage for the SA teams to get two cracks at them.
Bobby
Guest
I think intra conference the top RSA teams get a leg up. Inter conference the NZ sides are stronger. Intra conference the Aus sides don't give each other an inch. They are the tougher battles defensively and in attack. Intra conference NZ give each other space so it looks attractive at face value. To determine who is the weakest one has to look at the intra conference competition.... Compare the points gained from these games to what they get playing inter conference matches. If a side gets more points from games played outside their conference compared to points earned playing inter-conference that surely gives you the idea of the strength. That's taking into account they make the playoffs.
chris
Guest
I don't like the conference system as it leaves me with fewer games I actually care about. I try and watch all the games featuring South African sides, but there are seldom more than three games like that on any given weekend, either two derbies and a foreign game or a derby and two foreign games + bye. Under the old system there were on average one more games that I found interesting every week. The competition is also too long at 21 weeks and is crowding out the currie cup which I also love watching.
I don't like the conference system as it works in its current format. It is all good and well to have conferences, but then the qualification process to the play offs should be determined by conference matches only. It doesn't make sense to be in a conference from which you qualify, but you play half your matches outside the conference, if that is the case then you have to play all the teams outside your conference, otherwise it isn't a level playing field. Now yes, I know there are reasons why, too long season blah, blah , blah. Still doesn't make it level.
chris
Guest
This will be the same Lions team that beat the Sharks in round 15, the only team to do so between round 9 and the final?