The new Super 15 format is kind of bullshit..

[Shaggy]

It's unfair for new zealand because all our top players are spread throughout each team. unlike most of the south africans top players being in the Bulls. And their weaker teams being absolutely weak. And this is why it's going to be unfair on new zealand, the teams who finish 1st in their conference move onto the finals, and the other three teams are picked on the highest total points at the end of the conference.
With all the New Zealand teams being close to equal, their total points tally aren't going to be that much different, whereas in the Australian and South African conferences, their total points tally have got a chance of being totally high, so with that said, whoever comes second in the New Zealand conference face a risk of not being included in the finals because the South African or Australian 2nd and third squads have potential to gain more total points than that of the new zealand teams

Hey Dizzy, I get all of that, but I don't think in SA case that there's that great a gap between the top players of the Bull's etc, and those of the other sides ... I think that local rivalries generally produce good close matches, with the favoured team, not always the winner.

Same applies for the Australian teams - the four teams that they had, quite often produced upset results, and their new franchises always did better than what people thought they would in their first years.

I'm predicting that there won't be too many easy games in any of the conferences.

It can also be argued that if you have tougher opposition through the conference games, if you finish top of your conference, you'll be more match hardened for the finals.

 

[ranger]

ranger, don't change into a crying baby now. It might be true that Australia and South Africa were the ones voting for this idea and maybe NZ voted against but still... If you kiwi's were as good as some people make you guys out to be, how is it possible you only won once in 4 years? If someone would complain about this new idea being a disadvantage it would be the Bulls

Anyway... This new format gives the Aussies more matches to play and a, sort of, domnestic league, provides the SA teams a competition with less travelling and gives the NZ teams more domnestic matches to finally fill those enormous stadiums.

I actually said NZ probably voted for it anyway.. seen as they are primarily interested in making money and there is more in the South African and Australian game than here. Sort of why they are reducing the ITM cup to accommodate them, its a purely monetary based decision ..
There is no way more matches will lead to increased attendance here as well unless they do some drastic price slashing.. More product doesn't mean more demand, its usually the other way around.

Also, i didn't exactly say NZ was so great they should win every year, i said that they spread their player talent out more evenly. There is a difference.. They may have only won once in the last four years, but when was the last time an NZ side came last? The NZ sides are more even and the system disadvantages conferences that are more even, thats the point.

 

[Dizzy]

I actually said NZ probably voted for it anyway.. seen as they are primarily interested in making money and there is more in the South African and Australian game than here. Sort of why they are reducing the ITM cup to accommodate them, its a purely monetary based decision ..
There is no way more matches will lead to increased attendance here as well unless they do some drastic price slashing.. More product doesn't mean more demand, its usually the other way around.

Also, i didn't exactly say NZ was so great they should win every year, i said that they spread their player talent out more evenly. There is a difference.. They may have only won once in the last four years, but when was the last time an NZ side came last? The NZ sides are more even and the system disadvantages conferences that are more even, thats the point.[/QUOTE]

is basicly what I tried to say

 

[Wally]

I agree that the competition is somewhat unfair. However my belief that this new format is the best thing for rugby counteracts this negativity. I will say though that I think the top two teams from every conference should go through to the finals, because while the New Zealand conference will most likely be the stronger the South African and most likely Australian conferences will be considerably weaker.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Well, I am happy SANZAR is not like UEFA which changes the format of their competitions to make the strongest teams even stronger.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Well, I am happy SANZAR is not like UEFA which changes the format of their competitions to make the strongest teams even stronger.

Really? Even after they structured the champions league draw so that countires from weaken nations may qualify? Hmmm

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Not saying I like the new format but it is what it is and probably will be for the next 2 to 3 years. Bloody Aussies and their unwillingness in developing a domestic comp...

Anyway, it's a pissy thing to be crying about.

Also, I think it can be argued that SA derbies are the most physical for a couple of reasons and our players are at the most risk of injury and this is a long tournament.

 

[Shaggy]

Not saying I like the new format but it is what it is and probably will be for the next 2 to 3 years. Bloody Aussies and their unwillingness in developing a domestic comp...

Yep, it's a shame the impact it will have on the Currie & ITM cups


Anyway, it's a pissy thing to be crying about. - Totally agree ... it's interesting that while some think it's not fair that some teams don't have to play the harder teams ... Bulls etc, the Aussie coaches have been saying it's a disadvantage not to have played a team in the finals if you haven't played them previously

Also, I think it can be argued that SA derbies are the most physical for a couple of reasons and our players are at the most risk of injury and this is a long tournament.

Not to sure about that having seen the Aussie teams play each other ... particularly the Reds and the Waratahs ... while Australia's depth is better than it has been, I still think they are the most vulnerable to player loss due to injuries

 

[Feicarsinn]

Not saying I like the new format but it is what it is and probably will be for the next 2 to 3 years. Bloody Aussies and their unwillingness in developing a domestic comp...

Anyway, it's a pissy thing to be crying about.

Also, I think it can be argued that SA derbies are the most physical for a couple of reasons and our players are at the most risk of injury and this is a long tournament.

Well it's not all that long. Admittedly 19 games to win it is alot more than there has been in Super rugby in the past, but in France you'd have to play 28 games with Heineken Cup on top.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

That is true but the European competitions are a whole season (september - april/may). They should sync the playing calendars between SH and NH. It will be a massive change for the SH competitions but it would make it easier for players to represent their country despite of them playing overseas.

 

[Charles]

That is true but the European competitions are a whole season (september - april/may). They should sync the playing calendars between SH and NH. It will be a massive change for the SH competitions but it would make it easier for players to represent their country despite of them playing overseas.

It's not possible because of the T14 which is too long. the guys running it are a bunch of money grabbing idiots, but you can all thank them because if the french team had as much rest, connditionning and training time as the SH teams we'd be wayyyy better. Right now, a french international will play between 30 and 36 games a season (T14+HCup+ Intl), which is ******* insane...

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Ehm... A South African plays 13 matches in Super14, 16 matches in the Currie Cup and a couple of international matches. Which is roughly the same amount as you French tossers

 

[Charles]

Ehm... A South African plays 13 matches in Super14, 16 matches in the Currie Cup and a couple of international matches. Which is roughly the same amount as you French tossers

South African players play in the Currie Cup and the Tri Nations at the same time? How is that possible?

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

We have EOYT you know. And even if they miss out on some Currie Cup matches, they still play 8 to 10 matches in the Currie Cup after the Tri Nations ends which results in 16 matches (Currie Cup/TN) from July to October, 13 to 15 matches in the Super14 (Stormers and Blue Bulls made it to the finals) and some tests at the end of the year.

In my calculation that results in 30 or more matches in 1 year

 

[Charles]

We have EOYT you know. And even if they miss out on some Currie Cup matches, they still play 8 to 10 matches in the Currie Cup after the Tri Nations ends which results in 16 matches (Currie Cup/TN) from July to October, 13 to 15 matches in the Super14 (Stormers and Blue Bulls made it to the finals) and some tests at the end of the year.

In my calculation that results in 30 or more matches in 1 year

I see. I'm talking about 36 games a season, not a year. That is, 26 regular rounds of Top14 plus potentially 3 play-off games. Then you have 6 Hcup pool games plus potentially 3 play off games, plus 5 Six nations games, plus the Autumn and June Internationals. Obviously not all the players play that many games but a fair amount do. In the 2009-2010 season (August to June), T Dusautoir (Toulouse and france captain) played 37 games. 18 T14 games, plus 9 Hcup games, plus 10 France games. That's insane...

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

What is the difference between September till June (10 months) and February till November (10 months)?

 

[Charles]

I thought you were talking about a full year (12 months). Anyway back on topic, the T14 is really long and is blocking the synchronisation of the hemis seasons...

 

[durbutter]

Would not playing on hard ground in the summer lead to more injuries though?

 

[Seaton]

The Cheetahs may have finished ahead of the Highlanders and Cheifs, but as i said the rules have all been changed around to help those teams out. What has changed to make the Cheetahs and Lions more effective?

I still dont think the Cheetahs are a great team

As for the Lions? they were horrible last year. pure and simple. I cannot see how that disgrace of a team could improve a meaningful amount in one year. Their points differential was in the negative 300 region!
.

Didn't say anything about something making them more effective, just basically said that they were/are in a bit of a rut in 2010, and you must remember that the Cheetahs were only intorduced in 2006 in the S14, and did not have immediate acces to the players or money that Western Force had, so they have had to use local Bloemfontein born and bred players.

Never said they were a great team, simply said they are not as shite as some would have you believe

Lastly, do you have access to Currie Cup games? If so, I suggest you watch the Lions team under John Mitchell, which, despite the low average age, is much better than 6 months ago. I think you will be rather unpleasantly surprised come next year. And they have the bulk of their new shining 'stars' on 2-3 year contracts, meaning there will at last be a look of familairity come 2013

 

[ranger]

Didn't say anything about something making them more effective, just basically said that they were/are in a bit of a rut in 2010, and you must remember that the Cheetahs were only intorduced in 2006 in the S14, and did not have immediate acces to the players or money that Western Force had, so they have had to use local Bloemfontein born and bred players.

Never said they were a great team, simply said they are not as shite as some would have you believe

Lastly, do you have access to Currie Cup games? If so, I suggest you watch the Lions team under Drew Mitchell, which, despite the low average age, is much better than 6 months ago. I think you will be rather unpleasantly surprised come next year. And they have the bulk of their new shining 'stars' on 2-3 year contracts, meaning there will at last be a look of familairity come 2013

All teams have their issues, I just don't believe that the Cheetahs and Lions are anywhere near the quality of the Stormers and Bulls. There may be reasons for this (injuries, time in the league, etc etc) but they still aren't as good regardless of why. Why i asked about something making them more effective is because they have been pretty horrible, what has changed to make them a better side?
I also assume you mean John Mitchell, the useless idiot who ended Christian Cullens career and replaced him with Ben fcking Blair! But in all honestly i appreciate that hes a pretty good coach at this level, i will say however that Currie Cup form and Super rugby form are two entirely different matters that don't necessarily translate.. Its the same with the ITM cup, Southland have been ruthlessly awesome for the past couple of seasons but that hasn't translated over to the Highlanders..