New Zealand dominance

[delport500]

I Can't help but wonder how South Africa managed to get SANZAR to agree to six South African teams? They are hardly good enough with 2 or 3 teams.
The only way to get the real best teams are to let each team play against ALL the other teams. The Stormers are in number 2 on the leaderboard only because they managed to beat all the other poor South African teams. Only good win was against the Brumbies.
Please get a new format for Super Rugby as the current one till - 2019 is a disgrace.

 

[SomeOke]

I Can't help but wonder how South Africa managed to get SANZAR to agree to six South African teams? They are hardly good enough with 2 or 3 teams.
The only way to get the real best teams are to let each team play against ALL the other teams. The Stormers are in number 2 on the leaderboard only because they managed to beat all the other poor South African teams. Only good win was against the Brumbies.
Please get a new format for Super Rugby as the current one till - 2019 is a disgrace.

What a revolutionary view point, someone alert SANZAR asap. The powers that be need to here this!

 

[TRF_heineken]

Wondering if Icemn all of a sudden created a new profile... also, it's SANZAAR not SANZAR...

 

[delport500]

Still doesn't change the facts. How many South African teams you want? 7?

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Icemn got bored that everyone ignores him it seems or another WUM wannabe stumbled across TRF. I can't even be bothered to check

 

[TRF_heineken]

Icemn got bored that everyone ignores him it seems or another WUM wannabe stumbled across TRF. I can't even be bothered to check

I checked... not him... maybe a cousin, they have so many...

Definately a WUM. maybe close the thread??

 

[delport500]

Still no sensible reply from you two?
Look at what I'm saying and please try to respond with a sensible answer ...
Do you think all the teams have a equal chance with the current format?

 

[TRF_heineken]

Still no sensible reply from you two?
Look at what I'm saying and please try to respond with a sensible answer ...
Do you think all the teams have a equal chance with the current format?

no... The Kings and Sunwolves haven't got a snowball's chance in hell...

 

[delport500]

Maybe SANZAAR should change the format again to improve their chances as well don't you think?

Give me your views on the current format.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Maybe SANZAAR should change the format again to improve their chances as well don't you think?

Give me your views on the current format.

Perhaps it would be wise for you as a new member to browse the other threads before starting a thread on something that has been discussed at length.

 

[delport500]

Thank you. I will do so.

 

[saulan]

The Stormers are in number 2 on the leaderboard only because they managed to beat all the other poor South African teams. Only good win was against the Brumbies.

Played 6 games:
Games against South African teams: 3 (Bulls, Cheetahs and Sharks) won 2 lost 1 bonus point 1 (losing within 7)
Games against non-South African teams: 3 ( Sunwolves, Brumbies and Jaguares) won 3 - bonus points 2
Technically speaking we are getting more points from non-South African teams. We also lost to the Sharks which I think you may consider a poor SA team? Either way, your facts aren't correct.

Secondly, as fans we would mostly all prefer the format where we play against everyone at least once, but this format makes SANZAAR more money so that's what they went for.

 

[delport500]

My current order in the African Conferences would be:
1. Lions
2. Stormers
3. Sharks
4. Bulls
5. Jaguares
6. Cheetahs
7. Sunwolves
6. Sarfu (Kings)

No, the Sharks are a good team in the African Conference.
I feel the Stormers had success against weaker opponents from the African groups with exception against the Brumbies.

 

[TRF_heineken]

My current order in the African Conferences would be:
1. Lions
2. Stormers
3. Sharks
4. Bulls
5. Jaguares
6. Cheetahs
7. Sunwolves
6. Sarfu (Kings)

No, the Sharks are a good team in the African Conference.
I feel the Stormers had success against weaker opponents from the African groups with exception against the Brumbies.

WTF is SARFU?? how old are you??

It's clear you are just trying to get us riled up. How can you have the Sunwolves ahead of the Kings?? The Kings beat the Sunwolves, and is higher on the log than them...

 

[delport500]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and this is mine.
SARFU - SARU
I'm not trying to get you riled up. You are doing it to yourself.
The Kings are 1 Point ahead on the log. I Believe that will change.

 

[SomeOke]

Yes the format is unfair.
Yes South Africa can't support six franchises (especially with so many of our players overseas).
Yes it would be better if every team played each other.

But because of politics and money we have the format as it stands. Honestly this topic is stone dead.

Also leave the Kings alone, it's not the players fault they got a raw deal. Just be a loyal South African and... Oh wait nevermind.

 

[smartcooky]

Sorry to butt in on this "all South African" thread" while y'all are doing so well refuting the OP's comments, but how has this discussion about the Super Rugby format and the number of South African teams therein got anything to do with the OP's thread ***le, "New Zealand Dominance"?

FWIW IMO, as Conference systems go, they had the competition format right when it was S15. They just should have left it at that and added the sixth SA team to the SA conference, added the Sunwolves to the Australian conference and the Jaguares to the NZ conference... top two in each conference to the QF, joined by the two wild-cards (best third placed teams). all seeded in order from 1 to 8

 

[FNS]

Jaguares in NZ is too far. Players would travel a lot more. Now going to SA to most of the matches is half the distance.

PS. Jaguares in 3 years will be championship contenders mark my words.:lol::lol::lol:

 

[nickdnz]

Jaguares in NZ is too far. Players would travel a lot more. Now going to SA to most of the matches is half the distance.

It isn't too far if you organized the tours as first half home and second half away.

 

[smartcooky]

Travel is nothing nowadays. International teams used to go on 30 - 40 match tours lasting months at a time. In 1963, Wilson Whineray's All Blacks went on a four-month, 38 match tour of UK and France playing two matches each week. They flew to England in a series of short hops starting with a 5½ hour flight to Sydney in one of these...

...and then making five connecting flights to Brisbane, Singapore (overnight stay), Bahrain, Frankfurt and London...two and a half days, at a total of about 35 hours flying time and NO Business Class.

Now, that is a tough travel schedule!!

Jaguares in the NZ Conference would have worked fine.

One way would be to start with five home games against NZL Conference opposition, then travel to NZ and play the five away games. Back home for the four home matches against AUS and SAF teams then travel to SAF for two away games, and on to Australia for two more games.

Another way would be to start in NZ where they could arrive well ahead of time. Play the five NZ conference matches and then hop across to Australia to play either one or both their AUS away games if they are on the East coast (or just one of the games if the other is against the Force or the Sunwolves. Then home for five home games to NZL teams, and the two home games each against AUS and SAF teams, then away to SAF for the two away games and finish there unless their second away AUS game is the Force or the Sunwolves, in which case they finish there.

This is no more difficult than what they are already doing, better in fact.

Sports scheduling is not exactly rocket science!!