If I had to guess his reasons, it would be rhe introduction of the conference system instead of round robins, the fact that each conference winner is guaranteed a good playoff position regardless of their relative performance, not every team is guaranteed to play every other team, and Australia gaining an additional team despite the depth of the other teams.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
New Zealand dominance
- Thread starter delport500
- Start date
If I had to guess his reasons, it would be rhe introduction of the conference system instead of round robins, the fact that each conference winner is guaranteed a good playoff position regardless of their relative performance, not every team is guaranteed to play every other team, and Australia gaining an additional team despite the depth of the other teams.
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,708
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
You guessed right. They will be your reasons too I expect
Its because the conference system used (which was for teams within conferences to play each other twice, but for teams in different conferences to play each other only once) is inherently unfair to strong conferences and gives a big advantage to conferences with one or two strong teams and three or four weak teams. The strong teams in the weak conferences get two goes at the weak teams in their conference, just about a guaranteed 8 to 10 points on their table.
Here is the combined table as it currently stands, side by side with a "Merit" table I have drawn up to show where the teams actually sit in terms of their table points
The top four teams will get home quarter finals, but in the current system, those positions are protected by being a Conference winner.
The system I would prefer is the one on the right, where every team is ranked on merit, the top four teams are the top four on the merit table. I would be happy to compromise and accept that a conference winner automatically qualifies for the quarter finals, but their seeding position should not be protected, they should be seeded in order just like the wildcard teams.
Last edited:
Yeah this system would be better than the current one, based on merit is the best, gives teams more to play for.
Thanks for the explanation, @TRF_nickdnz and @smartcooky. I'm not a fan of the current system either.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the current system is poor, but one of the main reasons its not working is because NZ has 5 strong franchises and SA & AU franchises are all a mix of a couple of strong teams and a few weak teams.
its actually getting worse and worse each year. A few years ago it became obvious, it got worse last year and now this year with the introduction of new teams its diabolical.
NZ franchises have been steadily improving overall and they are all very even. All have good player talent and coaching.
SA teams have gradually got worse due to player drain and other factors.
I dont know whats going on in Aussie, seems to me that the administration are intent on upsetting the balance. players tend to all want to gravitate towards the flavor of the month team. Was the Reds, then the Tahs, Then the Brumbies, and then the Rebels got cashed up and big names moved in there. The Force were a respectable team with Sharpe, O'Connor and Pocock now they just seem to be a team of super rugby rogues. Players that want to play super rugby but don't fit in anywhere. Alby Mathewson is a perfect example. Good halfback but i doubt he could get a starting gig in NZ right now. Maybe hes at the force to stay relevant in the hopes that one of the NZ teams (basically the blues) ends up needing him back? Its very obvious he still wants to be an All Black.
Tamati Ellison and Adam Thomson seem to be after the yen more than anything. Playing in a NZ franchise wont allow them to play in Japan as well. sorry, off topic...
one unfortunate need for the conference system is to get playoff games in SA and AU, with a single conference and an even field for the teams there is a risk NZ will dominate the table. And though it rightly should it does hurt the coffers and it is important to make sure there are playoff games in SA & AU for that and to keep the SA & AU fans interested and involved. IF a situation comes up where NZ dominates the finals for 2-3 years in a row serious questions will come up about if the competition is valid at all.
some sort of conference type system is a must unfortunately, I think the draws can be done better. And tell me there isn't anything fishy about the stormers draw? That's BS right there, the conference system is enough without fudging the draw to get them a top 2 spot.
its actually getting worse and worse each year. A few years ago it became obvious, it got worse last year and now this year with the introduction of new teams its diabolical.
NZ franchises have been steadily improving overall and they are all very even. All have good player talent and coaching.
SA teams have gradually got worse due to player drain and other factors.
I dont know whats going on in Aussie, seems to me that the administration are intent on upsetting the balance. players tend to all want to gravitate towards the flavor of the month team. Was the Reds, then the Tahs, Then the Brumbies, and then the Rebels got cashed up and big names moved in there. The Force were a respectable team with Sharpe, O'Connor and Pocock now they just seem to be a team of super rugby rogues. Players that want to play super rugby but don't fit in anywhere. Alby Mathewson is a perfect example. Good halfback but i doubt he could get a starting gig in NZ right now. Maybe hes at the force to stay relevant in the hopes that one of the NZ teams (basically the blues) ends up needing him back? Its very obvious he still wants to be an All Black.
Tamati Ellison and Adam Thomson seem to be after the yen more than anything. Playing in a NZ franchise wont allow them to play in Japan as well. sorry, off topic...
one unfortunate need for the conference system is to get playoff games in SA and AU, with a single conference and an even field for the teams there is a risk NZ will dominate the table. And though it rightly should it does hurt the coffers and it is important to make sure there are playoff games in SA & AU for that and to keep the SA & AU fans interested and involved. IF a situation comes up where NZ dominates the finals for 2-3 years in a row serious questions will come up about if the competition is valid at all.
some sort of conference type system is a must unfortunately, I think the draws can be done better. And tell me there isn't anything fishy about the stormers draw? That's BS right there, the conference system is enough without fudging the draw to get them a top 2 spot.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,708
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
I guess you meant to say AUS here?
Just by way of illustrating your point
2015 NZL teams v AUS teams : 68% - P22 W15
2016 NZL teams v AUS teams : 72% - P11 W8 D1
2015 NZL teams v SAF teams : 70% - P20 W14
2016 NZL teams v SAF teams : 88% - P8 W7
2015 SAF teams v AUS teams : 62% - P21 W13
2016 SAF teams v AUS teams : 75% - P11 W8 D1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2010
- Messages
- 11,758
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
But let's be honest here. Since the inception of the Super Rugby tournament, the NZ teams have been mostly the better performers in the tournament. You get the odd year where an SA or Aus team would win this trophy, but there is a consistency with the NZ teams and ending on the top half of the log.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,326
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
True but we arent helping ourselves and aren't puting as big an onus on SR as we should. The main culprit here is Bok players being allowed from Euro comps. It makes sense all factors included and with the Bokke as main priority but it only makes short term sense and only for that one generation that is in any case now moving on from test rugby slowly but surely. It also only makes sense for the Bokke and puts our SR teams under HUGE pressure so I'm of the opinion we need to reevauate that and look at ways to bolster our ability to compete in SR to make it easier for our top player to transition into test rugby easier. IE I see our picking overseas based players as short term gain only and a bit of a cop out. Taking the Bokke as priority I also think SARU needs to sit with the unions and our top heads and maybe even an outside consultant or two if we are short of ideas and come up with a largely cohesive approach to the game across our teams. Currently al our teams seem to be folowing its own script.
If we had most of our best in SR and our teams reading off the same script
1) we'd know what their form is like and be able to compare apples with apples.
2) we'd have more settled player combinations to chose from since they'll mostly be coming from 4/5 teams rather than the 4/5 SR teams and 5/6 Euro teams.
3) our top players would make it easier for our youngsters coming through to lear the ropes.
4) we'd have more proven depth to chose from
5) our newbies coming in would be more used to the Bok environment and plan of attack
6) SR would be less embarrassing for SA. More success also means more revenue opportunities leading to more success or at least greater potential for more success.
If we had most of our best in SR and our teams reading off the same script
1) we'd know what their form is like and be able to compare apples with apples.
2) we'd have more settled player combinations to chose from since they'll mostly be coming from 4/5 teams rather than the 4/5 SR teams and 5/6 Euro teams.
3) our top players would make it easier for our youngsters coming through to lear the ropes.
4) we'd have more proven depth to chose from
5) our newbies coming in would be more used to the Bok environment and plan of attack
6) SR would be less embarrassing for SA. More success also means more revenue opportunities leading to more success or at least greater potential for more success.
