Trinats2 says...

cuw3100:

Crusaders only had McCaw and Carter out at the beginning of the season and look how poor they were. Blues had a lot of injuries and finished 13th, but not as many as the Waratahs (most in the comp) they used 46+ players this year. Even the Rebels (who beat the Crusaders) lost Beale and O'Connor (and someone went back to England)

It was the manner in which the Reds lost players, and suspensions!! Reds lost two fly-halves in two games or fly-half and a 12 (Stormers game first couple of minutes) - they had to use academy players to fill holes or players out of position. 5 weeks out for Ioane, yet other players get a week for a worse tackle.

So if the Crusaders lost their captain (McCaw), Carter, then their next fly-half, then the next, then the next and then the next... in the meantime Ellis moves to 10, Todd and Read are out injured, their hooker, a prop and a 5-week suspension to Guilford, another winger out from the start of season and a couple of covering centers out. They would be hard getting a team out, let alone compete.

Posted 12:45 24th July 2012

cuw3100 says...

The money aspect has taken over Super Rugby at a very high cost, IMHO. As an Asian who is not from the 3 countries involved it does not matter to me where the games are played. However Am appalled that the powers that be do not see the impact of a prolonged season has on the game from the players side and fans side. from the fans side can someone explain all the empty seats at the C vc B game? from the players side do the moneny men think of all the injured players?

One fan said that the Reds poor early season is due to injured players , but then is it the only team with injured players??? The problem is it seems NZ is the only country that has a deep talent pool to sustain 5 teams even with injuries to players. Both SA and OZ seem to suffer in this aspect. It is not good for the game when out of the 15 on the park half are average players who cannot match very good players of the opposition. Quantity always comes at the price of quality.

People who saw Super 12 may remember how good the matches were; not many one sided thrashings like seen in the S15.even a glnace at points table will show there was a big gap between the top 10 and the next 5.

If there are only 12 teams then the talent pools available to each team becomes bigger so that even with injuries there are equally able replacements; the issue now is once the top30 are injured the next 30 are average.

If teams are equally matched then the competition becomes more close and hard. this year S15 had two halfs and from at early stage it was clear who the top 9 would be.

Also IMHO the glitches experienced by brumbies and chiefs at the last few weeks may be due to a too long season and burnout (although the crusaders seem to be running like the energizer bunny). without dismissing this point , just imagine a season with 11 matches on league basis and then semi and final matches.

cheers

Posted 04:47 22nd July 2012

runnrugby says...

They should change the rules so that each conference winner qualifies for the top 6 but the top six finalists should be placed in order on number of points. Aussie conference way too weak. Reds get to play waratahs, rebels and force twice, each of which have no more than 4 WINS!! what a joke.

Posted 10:49 21st July 2012

MaxPower says...

what everyone is missing is....before super rugby, australia were weak because all they played were other austrailian teams. now with the conference system, australian teams will mostly play other australian teams. i believe this will manifest with australian rugby getting weaker and saffa and kiwi teams getting stronger. already in year 2 this is obvious...

Posted 06:13 21st July 2012

isthatrightref says...

@ Ramage & others... was it not established earlier in the year that SARU wanted the conf winners seeded 1-2-3 for the finals & ARU went along as a thank you for SARU backing the addition of the Rebels? In other words, perhaps possum head O'Neill is only half the snake you paint him to be?

The problem with this outcome isn't that the Rids are there, but that they've been gifted an advantage (80% of playoffs have been won by the home team, I believe) that they didn't earn on the field. Bulls & Sharks meanwhile have to fly halfway acrosss the world & potentially back again should either of them make it through to a Cape Town final.

(As an aside, assuming my Crusaders manage to beat the Stormers in CT & Sharks somehow knock over both the Rids & Chiefs, could Crusaders give up home advantage in favour of playing the Final in SA - not Durban, obviously, but say PE? Wouldn't go down well with the fans - although I note tickets for the Bulls game are selling slowly - but is there anything in the rules to stop it? Surely if they can take a league match to Twickers, the Final can be anywhere they choose?)

Conf winners should defo make the playoffs regardless of where they finish but then seeded according to comp points/ wins/ points differential etc.

Posted 00:20 21st July 2012

Ramage says...

Whether we like it or not those are the rules and we all have to abide by them. Once again the snake O'Neill has pulled another one over the weak administrators from SA and NZ who seem to allow him to do this too often. Thank goodness he is on his way out this time for good. Sorry Trinuts the conference system is only there to prop up the finances of the ARFU as they cant mount a successful National tournament of their own. O"Neill successfully argued the case to save them going under and losing the Australian interest if no Australian team could make the finals, which was quite often. While I can accept the presence of an Australian team in the final 6, I expect that team to be of an equal footing and only earn the right of having a home semi if their points are better tan the other 3. Imagine the outcry if the 5 Australian or any other countries' teams were the last teams in the competition. It would mean one of those failures could not only get a place in the final 6 but also get a home game not because of merit but geography. This is patently wrong and though I congratulate the Reds on making the finals, there it should have ended, as they were below every other of the 6 and should not have been given a home game.

Crusaders Vs Reds in Christchurch, Bulls Vs Sharks in Pretoria is how the draw should have been this year. Imagine if the Reds beat the Sharks and the Chiefs and the Crusaders or Bulls beat the Stormers then the final will be played in Brisbane and this is not the way any competition should be run.

Trinuts what happened last year is irrelevant to any argument as teams are different from one year to another and so your argument is flawed, A competition is based on a current year to compare last years Chief's team with this year's is so far out its patently laughable. This year there is the possibility that the two top teams may not even play each other.

Posted 12:21 20th July 2012

bokbevok says...

@jonesy2 you are clearly deluded and probably a league supporter and a oneil fan who if had his way would no contested scrums.

Oz conference is sub standard to kiwi and sa by a margin at that to. I think that you need more players from Nz and SA in your teams to bring that physical edge to your game.

Only down side is that soon the oz national team will be like the poms - made up of foreign players.

Posted 08:11 20th July 2012

jonesy2 says...

ok ladies here is the bottom line. the reds are a far better team than the stormers, bulls and sharks. there. case dismissed

Posted 07:08 20th July 2012

Waz4before says...

@ TheTruthHurts - to follow your logic of "fairness" if each side only plays each other once in a season as you advocate surely it would only be "fair" to play games on neutral grounds and in neutral countries .. surely it would not be "fair" for one team to play the Crusaders away while another plays them at home???

there's some utter nonsense being written on this blog and it all started with the journalist who penned the piece ...! Hopefully the move to conferences continues an increase in the number of sides competing (surely SA can have a 6th team) and eventually provides a platform for the Pacific Nations players and stops their hemorrhaging in to RL to find a paid place!

Posted 02:35 20th July 2012

ruckingkiwi says...

Trinats2, it was partially the Saffa travel problem, partially the need to have a definite Australian presence in the play-offs (because let's get real here, they weren't featuring in the 4 team play-off system), partially because Aussie public are losing interest and partially because NZ crowds were losing interest and demand would be seen to increase in our countries with local derbys.

I dont agree with your ascertation that because the Crusaders got an extra losing bonus point then it's a flaw? All teams have the same access to winning and losing bonus points, they are consistent across the whole system, and have been for many years.. although I'm not a great believer in bonus points, they are not the primary flaw.

The flaw is that a team can qualify from a final position 6th or even outside the top 6 and still have a home semi. This isn't a slight against the Reds as it may work in another teams favour in the future.

In fact, it's even possible for a team to finish 11th (for example the 5 NZ teams finish 11th, 12, etc 15th) and still have a home semi is laughable. What kind of competition allows this anomoly?

Ideal result would be going back to S12 (5 Kiwi, 4 SA & 3 Oz) , all countries were competitive then.

As I said on another thread.. on the flip side NZ rugby is only set to improve with our players playing more matches amongst ourselves, tougher matches means better players.

Posted 01:54 20th July 2012