Super Rugby Trans-Tasman is due to commence on May 14.
It looks set to be a belter, with Super Rugby teams from either side of the ditch battling for supremacy in the quick-fire competition.
There is, however, something off-putting about the way the fixtures have been designed.
Instead of the typical round-robin tournament, all the Australian sides will play all the New Zealand sides, but will not play their fellow Aussie sides.
This means that the Super teams from the nation with the largest collective playing strength (New Zealand) will have a disproportionate advantage over the Australian teams. This is because the Australian sides will not be able to play their relatively weaker counterparts.
Essentially, the tournament is designed so that the strongest team will not necessarily win.
(Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images)
For example, let’s say Australia has the single strongest team across both nations, but the other four Aussie teams are far and away the weakest across the two nations.
The strong Australian team should be in the box seat to win Super Rugby Trans-Tasman, naturally, as it is the strongest team.
However, the five New Zealand teams would have a massive leg up as they have an opportunity to accrue easy wins against the weak Australian teams.
This in turn would allow them a higher likelihood of bonus points and a higher points differential, potentially lifting the New Zealand teams above the highest Australian team, despite the Australian team playing at the highest level.
This whole issue could have been bypassed using the classic round-robin format, where all ten teams play each other once. This would completely level the playing field, fairly.
This does not necessarily mean that more games should be squeezed into the season, however.
The second round of Super Rugby Australia and Aotearoa could simply have been included in the Trans-Tasman comp. This would have extra importance and drama as the Super Rugby Australia and Aotearoa campaigns reach their climax.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
The top two teams are the only ones scheduled to progress in the Trans-Tasman comp, playing each other in the grand final.
It would be a massive disservice if the strongest team does not get first place despite playing at the highest level, which would result in them playing an away grand final.
It has to be said, I am a Queensland Reds fan, and they are the team that looks most likely to get pushed further down the ladder than deserved, so perhaps there is an element of bias in my claim of injustice.
Despite this, it still seems clear to me the second round of Super Rugby Australia and Aotearoa should have been included in Super Rugby Trans-Tasman.
Fox
Roar Guru
Almost yes, but not quite....I think Australians complaining about an unfair competition system is just a bit rich...considering all the unfairness to kiwi sides in previous set up. Suck it up - we had to for years!
Chiraag
Guest
I think you're on the right track Reilly, but perhaps the more fair thing to do is to half the points accrued (and all other items on the ladder such as points difference) by each team in their local competition, so effectively averaging out the home and away fixtures. That seems a bit more fair than just using points from the second half of each competition and effectively creates scoring similar to a round robin competition when added to the Trans Tasman fixtures. Bonus point scoring seems to align between both competitions, so I think this would produce a more fair and meaningful competition as you've suggested.
AndyS
Guest
If everyone plays everyone once, there are no conferences. Finals should just be based on position alone.
AndyS
Guest
Question being, would that make the Crusaders the strongest team? They've lost two of their last four matches, including their game against the Chiefs. If they were to lose to them again this weekend, but then beat them at the end of TT when both after both go undefeated against only the Australian teams, does that make the Crusaders the strongest team in Aus/NZ?
mark
Guest
I think you are confusing not very good with even
Mark
Guest
I am hoping your plan is basically what happens next year Two 6 team conferences where we all play each other once and the top 2 from each conference play off
Mark
Guest
What do you mean the strongest team wont win The Crusaders will win the comp. - prob. easily And the Blues will continue to embarras us
Perthstayer
Roar Rookie
Rhys, ARU and NZR announced eye watering $ losses. Rugby needed this comp more so than the teams did a level playing field. The next few years could be challenging and expensive for both unions. This year has provided the framework to manage that as best they can. Best example is Stan/FTA formula worked a treat. They'll be locked in and possibly tapped for more $.
Fracktobunt
Roar Rookie
It’s possible that the Crusaders, Chiefs and Blues go through the comp undefeated and bonus points will be needed to decide the finalists and who gets home ground advantage. It’s a potentially messy situation (an undefeated team missing the final) that would have been avoided if they included round 2 results.
fiwiboy7042
Roar Rookie
no. The "trans" is short for "transverse" as in spreading across or bridging. Super Rugby Aust is a stand-alone comp as is SRNZ. What happened in Super Aus and Super NZ has no bearing on the TT competition.
Blues finished on 20
Reilly
Roar Rookie
I think it’s extremely plausible for the strongest team to not win all their games, especially if it’s an Australian team (a doubtful scenario but just for arguments sake). The Springboks couldn’t even top their pool and they won the 2019 RWC, for example.
HAHA Ok so you dont watch then eh!
Reilly
Roar Rookie
Cheers Rhys
gigs20
Guest
Just commenting on a single statement Exile "If Au cops a flogging in the TT comp does the concept of less than 5 Au teams come up again?" Whenever the Tahs or the Reds need some big argument to deflect attention away from something they don't want to talk about.
Blue
Guest
So basically what you want is a handicap system?
Gigs20
Guest
It is illogical to suggest that the strongest team won't make the final, regardless of the relative strength of the conferences. "The strongest team in the comp" should win all 5 of their games. They only need to have a better performance than "the second strongest team in the weakest conference" who, following the logic that you have proposed can only win a maximum of four games (since they have to play "the strongest team in the comp" once) Coincidentally, the "the strongest team in the strongest conference" is a victim of the same mathematics. That would mean that the best result "the second strongest team in the strongest conference" could get would be 4 wins and 5 bonus points (one losing bonus point against "the strongest team in the comp") 4 wins and 5 bonus points is a total of 21 points, which would be the best possible performance of either of "the strongest teams in the strongest conference" 5 wins would be the starting point for "the strongest team in the comp" that is 20 points. Add in a bonus point here or there, or make sure you win the critical matches by more than 7 and "the strongest team in the comp" can't be kept out of the finals regardless of the performance of the other teams. I mean a single bonus point would take it to points differential which will mean that "the strongest team in the comp" will make it, since they've finished every game with more points than their opposition including both of "the strongest teams in the strongest conference" If you're suggesting that "the strongest team in the comp" will not win their 5 games, I would be interested for you to elaborate on the metric that you use to determine "the strongest team in the comp"
Terry Tavita
Roar Pro
I do..some of them are not very good..blues, canes, chiefs and highlanders..
Lux Interior
Roar Rookie
I agree. It's getting ridiculous.
Lux Interior
Roar Rookie
Exactly Fiwi. People still aren't getting the consequences of living in a global pandemic. Freedom of movement is no longer a given so it's a minimalist comp for that reason. Nothing logically wrong with the article but whinging about how unfair the format is at this point in time?