After the completion of Super Rugby Round 6 I put out my early-season report card, using three simple subjective ratings: teams that disappointed me to that point, the teams going as I expected them to, and those I considered to be over-achieving.
With only nine rounds of the competition remaining, and with the June internationals and British and Irish Lions Tour of Australia a bit over a month away, it’s time to re-apply those ratings and see how the teams have fared since the last report.
There’s been much movement, for mine, and not a lot of it is in an upward direction.
The Disappointments
The Highlanders led this category for me last time, and they remain at the head of the queue this time, too.
After Round 11 last year, the Highlanders sat in the last wildcard spot on 34 points, with seven wins. The lowly Blues were last on 12 points and one win.
After Round 11 this year, the Highlanders are in worse shape than even the Blues of 2012. Their ten points have come via two byes and two bonus points, and it’s hard to see where their first win will come. Might even be getting worse.
The Rebels are similarly continuing to disappoint me, and it’s actually hard to see how they don’t sit right down with the Highlanders.
The month ahead for the Rebels is full of top-performing teams, too, and I can’t see them providing much more than ‘training run’ value.
How much of it is due to ongoing club issues or inexperience is immaterial; they’re not playing well enough.
The Western Force were tracking ‘as expected’ in the first report, but despite showing some good signs – I gave them a big wrap last week for just that – they remain consistently inconsistent, and thus disappointing overall.
A surprising win over the Crusaders was let down by surprising losses to the Rebels, Hurricanes, and even the Waratahs, and it’s wins over those teams of similar mid-tier stature the Force need to start stringing together.
And that’s without thinking about the flogging to the Brumbies.
Finally, the Stormers and Sharks both sit among the disappointments this time around after I had them both in the ‘as expecteds’ previously.
Two teams that were among the best in the comp last season just don’t look close to their 2012 editions, and now find themselves in that logjam of teams mid-table.
Both are having trouble finding any real sustained form of attack, and have remained where they are on the table on the back of their defensive efforts. The Sharks did well to come back at the Chiefs as they did, and Pat Lambie does look a bigger threat running off Charl McLeod.
They’ll need that threat if they are to repeat their 2012 Finals appearance this year.
The ‘As Expecteds’
A few weeks ago, I might’ve been inclined to list the Southern Kings as over-achievers, but a return to the Republic has brought with it a return to earth with a thud.
Along with the Hurricanes, they remain in this category with no real surprise element likely to boost them in my ratings, and their respective table positioning is a fair reflection.
Similarly, the Chiefs, Crusaders, and Reds remain with the same ranking as last time, and all look on track to feature in the play-offs this season.
The Chiefs keep rolling along and, even despite twin losses to the Waratahs and Reds, remain comfortably atop the New Zealand conference. Only the Crusaders loom as a proper test before the June recess.
The Crusaders started their African tour well with a tough win in Cape Town, and tight losses to the Sharks and Force were evened out by wins over the Highlanders and Rebels since.
Moreover, the cavalry is returning, too, with Israel Dagg back in his preferred position and Daniel Carter back from the bench on Sunday. Kieran Read is thought to be close to returning, too.
They’ll be there or thereabouts, the Crusaders always are.
The Reds are tracking along nicely, too, and have essentially been sitting in the top wildcard spot from the last month. They’ve been through the full range in that time too; too good for the Chiefs, not quite good enough against the Brumbies, and maybe a touch lucky against the Blues.
However, the Reds are going to be a danger side without doubt, and they carry class in several combinations across the park, namely all three rows of the scrum, and the halves. Discount and/or tip against them at your peril.
The Brumbies, Blues, and Bulls round out the ‘as expecteds’, having all been listed as over-achievers last report. That’s not to say that they’ve regressed since, but rather my expectations of them have been adjusted.
They are all literally running as I expect them to now.
The ‘Over-achievers’
Last time around, the Cheetahs headed this list, and this time they’re the lone inhabitants.
Put simply, I cannot be more impressed with the way the Cheetahs have not just stayed on their winning ways, but have actually improved the way they’re playing. They’ve always been worth watching, but now it’s almost a case of them being a ‘must watch’ every weekend.
The big difference from last year to this year is the Cheetahs are winning their conference matches. Where last year they lost seven of eight, this year they’ve already won three of five, including the scalps of the Stormers and Sharks.
They’re only a point off leading the South African conference now, and have two byes and four home games between now and the playoffs. Cheetahs fans, the time to start believing is here.
Still counting teams? Feels like I’ve missed one, doesn’t it?
I’ve actually found it hard to rate the Waratahs using my three-pronged system. They were disappointing last time around, have improved greatly as I expected they would, but still aren’t quite over-achieving due to some lingering inconsistency.
I’ll give them an ‘as expected’-plus.
Last week in comments, I said of Tahs’ Coach Michael Cheika, and his assistants, “…they refused to shy away from their plan when things weren’t looking flash in the opening rounds. He knew his plan would work, and would get the desired results, and he stuck to them. It’s excellent coaching.”
Even with the composure deserting them at times in Pretoria over the weekend, that remains the case.
There wouldn’t be many players in the squad who haven’t improved since the last report, but Bernard Foley, Adam Ashley-Cooper, Michael Hooper, and yes, especially Israel Folau have been the main beacons of progression.
The 2013 playoffs might be too soon, but on this current form, it wouldn’t surprise me to see the Tahs pushing for the post-season next year.
Bunyip
Guest
I don,t plan to watch Foley, I just notice the all too frequent times that he undoes the good most of the rest of the team create. The kicks out on the full, the poor passes etc. I remember the game that he made a number of exciting breaks, but I also remember many mistakes the same game. I suspect this last game was his worst and that is a bad sign, because the trend is not good.( Even QC is improving every game this year. I struggle to remember even one mistake in his last game, while foley had over10) Unfortunately the aru stats sheet doesnt list "poor kicks", "unnecessary kicks that give possession to the other team 15 metres upfield", or" poor passes leading to loss of possession" It is these unlisted stats that tell his true net worth which is well into negative territory. If I hadn,t deleted all the Waratah games on the dvd I would rewatch them and see if my assessment was fair. I suspect you think I am unfair, but it is only what I see. I have an idea. From each game on (assuming he is picked), lets do an analysis of everything he does and see if his positive contributions ouweigh the negative. As an analogy I see BF as one of a number of bricklayers building a house. He gets his wall up faster than most and does a pretty neat job, but every lunch break he keeps backing his ute into the other walls and knocks them down. Thats how I see it.
mania
Guest
puh lease chivas, no way u could wind me up more than the canes already do
mania
Guest
fully agree chivas. this is just real basic skills that are letting the chiefs and other nz teams down. real low brow errors, its frustrating. agree bout the cattle prod.
Nicksa
Guest
To be dead honest, i thought the crusaders were the best team in 2011. Had it been the old system i do believe they would have won. The truth is the best team will not always win in this conference system. You can't fault the teams because they have to play what is in front of them but if we are all honest we can clearly see that the system is far from fair. I suspect in the coming years we are going to see a lot more aussie winners of the super rugby comp.
Sandy, I think goign points per Dollar will be a rather challenging task to complete, you will have to first find someone who will be able to give the the financial models of each Frnachise and then conseder purchase power parity as well. However I do agree with you the cheetahs relative to their financial status will most likely be near the top.
Yeah, you have to look at the economy based around Bloemfontein and also the population. Unfoturnately falls way short of anything the Bulls, Sharks and Stormers can muster. But it has always been the case where Freestaters would move up to Guateng, or elswhere for better employment opportunities even in the amateur era. The bulls during the amateur era was always strong because of you could play rugby you would do your 2 year national service in Pretoria and there for represent the Bulls. I read a stat last year where the Cheetahs lost something like 80 players in the preceding 5 years. It is now worsened due to the european offers from clubs with plenty of money.
Stanley
Guest
I agree. They stay true to their exciting brand of rugby and it would be great to see them stay at the top.
Sandy B
Guest
So, BB and Chivas, we should be comparing teams on a competition points per $. This would be fairer, but unfortunately would not give any guidance to finals qualification. It would however show the teams that have performed well above their resources. I suspect that based on what you say about the SA scene, that the cheetahs would be way out in front..... and the other Tahs would be nearer the tail. This comparison would be similar to the quadrennial comparison of Olympic medals per capita, in which Jamaica and the kiwis usually outperform.
Chivas
Guest
Yes perfectly. You are comparing teams within a conference against teams in other conferences. I came to the same conclusion. If you aren't playing all the same teams it is not a perfect comparison, but as good as it can be. Of this is chartered over a number of seasons and graphed, it would show how they have progressed. Then again with the amount of movement between teams it may also not be a perfect story either. As you say in NZ and Australia the money is more evenly distributed as it is managed by the overall governing body. Does this not happen in SA. I'm not even certain to what degree it happens in Australia, but with the amount of player movement I would suggest a lot more than SA?
Chivas, Sandy took a different approach to me by measuring the strength of each conference on all matches, i usd my measure on the basis of Cross conference (playing other nation's teams) only. For me there is a fallacy in looking inside a conference only as the performances inside a conference only tells you how the talent is spread within the conference. For example, South Africa has a different economic challenge in super rugby than the other two countries, our welath is spread very unevenly between the five teams. the Kings having just started up had not only the finances to contend with (which is coming from SARU) but also little time to prepare a team for this year. The cheetahs don't have anywhere near the money of the sharks, Bulls and Stormers, a few years ago there was a debalce when Lionel Mapoe wanted to leave the cheetahs, at the time the Cheetahs were paying him less than R10 000 per month, which is abou 1000 aussie dollars, he recieved an offer of 10 times that, from the Bulls. So getting back to my point, the cheetahs develop players and struggle to hold on, so the depth of talent in SA is skewed. However when you compare outside the conferences, in other words, SA teams vs Aussie and NZ teams and vice versa, that is in my view the measure of your depth as you have to now compete with the other two nations on the same home and away basis. But it is still not the full picture, becasue we don't all play the same teams. I hope i understood your question correctly.
Chivas
Guest
Interesting approach and thanks. BB if you take Sandy's numbers then weighting them on cross conference makes little sense. I'm not sure about the meaning of cross conference. There are two aspects, travel, ground (high veldt) and crowd. That is not easily included in the cross conference numbers either. My point is that the cross conference is not accurate unless weighted based on these variables is it?
Sandy excellent, I do that on my spreadsheet as well. To make the play offs you had to have 3.2 log points per match in 2011, and 3.1 for 2012, those teams with less than 2 points per match halfway throuh are effectively out as they will need to make more than 4 points per match in the second half of their campaign. The other problem halfway through the competition is the nature of the fixtures, you may have a skewed result as the top teams of one conference have played more cross conference matches than the weaker teams, so any statistical analysis at this point can really only be seen as a good start or a poor start. Only at the end of the regualr pool rounds will we have a fair reflection.
Chivas
Guest
That's funny Jerry. I feel the same about Waikato and the chiefs. We are in a purple patch at the moment.... but in saying that I'm never surprised when the wheels fall off. The Canes will have their day again I'm sure. I actually feel sorry for Highlander supporters right now. My dad was trying to tell me they were doing alright some weeks ago and that the Blues weren't much better. Not sure what he thinks now :-).
Sandy B
Guest
All of this discussion of the relative strength of the conferences made me go and get out a spreadhseet to have a look. I know BB has analysed the interconference ratings. I have just looked at the overall table as a whole. Firstly it must be corrected for the differences in byes taken so far - some sides have had two while the Cheetahs have not had any as yet. so I have taken the points from the byes out. Then you need to allow that the Australian conference started one week early. So I have divided the total non-bye point by the games played. On this basis the Australian conference sides have averaged 2.29 competition points per game, NZ 2.49 and the winner is SA on 2.53 points per game played. Rankings of the teams on this basis is Bru 3.6, Chf 3.44, Red 3.3, Bul 3.11, Cht 3.10, Blu 3.00 thats the top six Cru 2.89, Shr 2.67 Hurr 2.67, Sto 2.50, War 1.89, Reb 1.33, Kin 1.22 For 1.2, Hig 0.25 Overall the Australian conference has a negative 92 points for and against,NZ a positive 92 points F/A and SA is evens. So as a conference, as much as it hurts me to say, the aussies are behind, but because of the wide range of the conference they have two teams in the top 3, and 3 in the bottom 5 on non bye competition points achieved per game.
Worlds Biggest
Guest
Cheers RL, great stuff Kev !
Jerry
Guest
Dude, that last comment was a joke. Chill. I'm a Canes fan, I know all about unfulfilled expectations.
rl
Guest
WB - update: Red Kev is covering it live!!!
Brett McKay
Expert
Bunyip, since you study Foley's play so closely, you can probably tell us if his mistakes have been decreasing, and his “positive inputs” have increased over the last six or so weeks?
Brett McKay
Expert
What's so bad about having an expectation left unfulfilled? We had different opinions, and you want to turn it into who's wrong and right?? I guess, if it's so important to you...
jameswm
Roar Guru
Yep Foley had a bad day, but he did put Hooper into the gap for one try. McKibbin has been the king of momentum changers this year. He's OK for a while and then kills you. Remember when he sliced that kick at the end of the game (Chiefs I think) and nearly lost it for us after the bell? I'd like to know what Grayson Hart has done wrong.