How badly will the Lions (Super Rugby) be disadvantaged by not playing NZ sides?
Out of all the other teams in the competition, I think the Lions and the Hurricanes were the least expected to make the final. The Lions were almost unknown apart from some upsets last year, and the Canes were effectively destroyed by the Brumbies 52-10, from which a performance the Canes were disowned and the Brumbies were hailed already as the competition winners. The Lions surprised many by beating the Chiefs in Hamilton, and despite losing the following week against the Landers, continued to impress the entire season, dominating other South African sides, and being very competitive with other NZ sides (apart from a 50-17 loss to the Canes) and almost finishing top of the overall standings if it weren't for a second string side losing in Argentina, who were sent to rest the better players for the playoffs. Many bookies said the Crusaders would beat the Lions at Ellis Park, but the Lions proved too hot to handle and the Saders simply couldn't handle them, as the Lions were victorious by 42-25. Even then, many said that they didn't have enough to down the defending champs, the Highlanders, but they dominated for large parts of the match, winning 42-30, after leading by 42-16 at one stage. They were unable to down the Canes in Wellington, but still had to return home with their heads held up high for what they had achieved this season. Looking at the performances of the South African teams, one has to notice that the Lions and Sharks, the 2 best sides from Africa 2, performed better than the 2 best sides in Africa 1, the Stormers and Bulls. The Stormers and the Bulls had dream draws, both having to not play New Zealand sides, if it weren't for a shocking 17-17 draw with the Sunwolves and many other disappointing performances from the Stormers, they could have finished top of the overall standing, and while the Stormers had more victories and points than the Sharks, they lost at home to the Sharks 18-13. The Sharks also, of their 3 losses to New Zealand sides, all of them were lost by less than 5 or less points, they beat a 14 man Highlanders side 15-14 and also thumped the eventual champions the Hurricanes 32-15 in a dominating display. Ironically, the South African team's which faced New Zealand sides, were billed as having better chances of progressing further in the playoffs. While both the Sharks and Stormers lost by 40 points to New Zealand sides in the playoffs, arguably losing 41-0 away to best New Zealand team, the Hurricanes sounds better than losing 21-60 at home to the 3rd ranked New Zealand team, the Chiefs. Before the playoffs, no team had really given the Sharks a beating, apart from the Lions. They beat 2 New Zealand sides, and never lost by more than 5 points to the others, their losses to the Lions were by 15 and 27 points, and the only other match they lost badly was the quarter-final against the Hurricanes. The Stormers looked as if they were gaining some dominance, when their forwards were making ground, and Vincent Koch powered over the line, but for the rest of the match, simply couldn't handle the intensity of the Chiefs. Both Schalk Burger and Robbie Fleck (Stormers coach) said they were disadvantaged by not playing New Zealand sides. With that being said, they will get to play New Zealand sides next year, along with the Bulls, Cheetahs and Sunwolves. On the flip side, the Lions and Sharks will play Australian sides. The Lions and Sharks were the only South African teams that looked like they could beat a New Zealand, the Sharks season was a mixed bag, but they still looked like a team that could beat a New Zealand team on any given day. The Lions, had a season where they didn't lose against another South African side, and beat 4 out of 5 New Zealand teams, and finished runners-up. Both these teams won't have the opportunity to play New Zealand teams next year. Not that the Waratahs and Brumbies can't be competitive or even beat the Lions or Sharks on a given day, but this year in Super Rugby, New Zealand sides won 21 of the 25 encounters against Australian sides, with 13 of those victories by more than 13 points, with the Blues as well, effectively New Zealand's "worst team", defeated the Brumbies 40-15 and Waratahs 34-28, Australia's top 2 teams. How badly will the Sharks be disadvantaged, and even more so the Lions, a team that are than capable of winning this competition within the coming years? Sanzaar really needs to review their system, and even if they are stern about keeping the format, they should at least make sure that all South African teams play against New Zealand sides.
Out of all the other teams in the competition, I think the Lions and the Hurricanes were the least expected to make the final. The Lions were almost unknown apart from some upsets last year, and the Canes were effectively destroyed by the Brumbies 52-10, from which a performance the Canes were disowned and the Brumbies were hailed already as the competition winners. The Lions surprised many by beating the Chiefs in Hamilton, and despite losing the following week against the Landers, continued to impress the entire season, dominating other South African sides, and being very competitive with other NZ sides (apart from a 50-17 loss to the Canes) and almost finishing top of the overall standings if it weren't for a second string side losing in Argentina, who were sent to rest the better players for the playoffs. Many bookies said the Crusaders would beat the Lions at Ellis Park, but the Lions proved too hot to handle and the Saders simply couldn't handle them, as the Lions were victorious by 42-25. Even then, many said that they didn't have enough to down the defending champs, the Highlanders, but they dominated for large parts of the match, winning 42-30, after leading by 42-16 at one stage. They were unable to down the Canes in Wellington, but still had to return home with their heads held up high for what they had achieved this season. Looking at the performances of the South African teams, one has to notice that the Lions and Sharks, the 2 best sides from Africa 2, performed better than the 2 best sides in Africa 1, the Stormers and Bulls. The Stormers and the Bulls had dream draws, both having to not play New Zealand sides, if it weren't for a shocking 17-17 draw with the Sunwolves and many other disappointing performances from the Stormers, they could have finished top of the overall standing, and while the Stormers had more victories and points than the Sharks, they lost at home to the Sharks 18-13. The Sharks also, of their 3 losses to New Zealand sides, all of them were lost by less than 5 or less points, they beat a 14 man Highlanders side 15-14 and also thumped the eventual champions the Hurricanes 32-15 in a dominating display. Ironically, the South African team's which faced New Zealand sides, were billed as having better chances of progressing further in the playoffs. While both the Sharks and Stormers lost by 40 points to New Zealand sides in the playoffs, arguably losing 41-0 away to best New Zealand team, the Hurricanes sounds better than losing 21-60 at home to the 3rd ranked New Zealand team, the Chiefs. Before the playoffs, no team had really given the Sharks a beating, apart from the Lions. They beat 2 New Zealand sides, and never lost by more than 5 points to the others, their losses to the Lions were by 15 and 27 points, and the only other match they lost badly was the quarter-final against the Hurricanes. The Stormers looked as if they were gaining some dominance, when their forwards were making ground, and Vincent Koch powered over the line, but for the rest of the match, simply couldn't handle the intensity of the Chiefs. Both Schalk Burger and Robbie Fleck (Stormers coach) said they were disadvantaged by not playing New Zealand sides. With that being said, they will get to play New Zealand sides next year, along with the Bulls, Cheetahs and Sunwolves. On the flip side, the Lions and Sharks will play Australian sides. The Lions and Sharks were the only South African teams that looked like they could beat a New Zealand, the Sharks season was a mixed bag, but they still looked like a team that could beat a New Zealand team on any given day. The Lions, had a season where they didn't lose against another South African side, and beat 4 out of 5 New Zealand teams, and finished runners-up. Both these teams won't have the opportunity to play New Zealand teams next year. Not that the Waratahs and Brumbies can't be competitive or even beat the Lions or Sharks on a given day, but this year in Super Rugby, New Zealand sides won 21 of the 25 encounters against Australian sides, with 13 of those victories by more than 13 points, with the Blues as well, effectively New Zealand's "worst team", defeated the Brumbies 40-15 and Waratahs 34-28, Australia's top 2 teams. How badly will the Sharks be disadvantaged, and even more so the Lions, a team that are than capable of winning this competition within the coming years? Sanzaar really needs to review their system, and even if they are stern about keeping the format, they should at least make sure that all South African teams play against New Zealand sides.
Last edited:
