Seeing red: Is the Super Rugby conference system flawed?
The Reds' backdoor entrance into the Super Rugby finals has once again raised the question whether the tournament's conference system is fair game.
By now, Super Rugby followers should know how the conference and play-off format works as it's been an ongoing debate ever since the new system was introduced to last year's expanded competition.
But if you've been stuck in a hole, stay there because we won't be spending half this feature explaining how it all works.
Ok, after getting my typing fingers rapped by my editor's ruler... in a nutshell, this is what happens as far as the play-offs are concerned: The two teams that finish top of their respective conferences with the most points are guaranteed a semi-final, whilst the lowest ranked of the three conference winners face a virtual home quarter-final against a wildcard qualifier that finished in the top six of the overall log.
Last year the final standings failed to show the system's flaws as the Reds, Stormers and Crusaders won their conferences and accumulated the most points. But this time round, the Stormers (66 points) and Chiefs (64) gain automatic entry into the semis, while the Reds (58) host a play-off because they won the Australian conference despite having fewer competition points than the Crusaders (61), Bulls and Sharks (both 59) - who all finished in the top six.
As a result, the Reds host the Sharks in Brisbane and the Crusaders take on the Bulls in Christchurch.
But we'll bet our bottom dollar that the Sharks - albeit relieved to still be in with a shout - won't be at all pleased having to travel to the Sunshine State to face an opponent who ended the regular season with less points but still get hosting rights to a knockout clash.
Where's the logic in that?
Even the head coach of one of the sides in the play-offs is struggling to come to grips with the format.
"No coach is going to be happy with another team not having more points, being ahead of them but whether I agree with it or not, it's not going to change my focus - that'll be for someone else well down the track," said Crusaders boss Todd Blackadder.
The Reds may have won six games on the trot to get where they are but back in the Super 14 days (when the table made sense), Queensland - based on this season's points tally alone - wouldn't even have qualified for the finals as they would have finished sixth. Sixth!
Indeed, that was before ARU chief John O'Neill devised his cunning plan that would allow an Aussie side to qualify no matter how many points they finished the regular season with.
However, last year the Reds didn't need a rule book to cement themselves a place in the play-offs after finishing the regular season as the number one side on the overall log. They then went on to deservedly win the championship.
So why have conferences when Queensland proved teams can still achieve titles without a helping hand by finishing top of their group?
We get that part of the motivation behind the conference system was to allow for more local derbies which leads to more television viewers and larger gate revenue. But do we really want to see the Force battling it out with the Rebels twice in a season? It seems money trumps quality every time.
The current conference system also isn't a fair reflection of the opponents faced by each team, with one of the three conferences lacking depth and quality teams (we won't mention any names). The 2012 table tells the full story. But what it means is that topping the overall table, vital for winning the tournament, is much harder for teams in tougher groups.
To be the best, you have to beat the best and play every team involved. That's no longer the case.
However fairness and credibility have never been organisers' priorities. Revenues are and SANZAR built a revamped competition around that.
By Dave Morris
Comments
turmeric says...
@Trinats2 Great teams can manage through injuries - you only have to look to the recent RWC where NZ were down to their 4th string first five.
I think it's time you came to your senses bro, the Australian conference this year was woeful, stop trying to make excuses!
Posted 04:31 27th July 2012
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
turmeric says...
@jonesy2 and @Trinats2 Hindsight is a wonderful thing but boy were you guys WRONG!! I especially like jonesy2' comments about the "bottom line". I respect your guys passion for Australian rugby but I think you need to consider whether it is blinding your judgement. As Jonesy2 would say. Ladies... Bottom line... 2 NZ teams and 2 SA teams in the finals OZ teams dead and buried....case closed ;)
Posted 21:25 22nd 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
melkdave says...
Ill start by saying i have no problem with conferance winners being in the playoffs.I do however feel that being given home advantage ,when points in the overall league shiow they arnt in the top 2 is wrong .I feel that only the top 2 teams should be given home games,and all the rest should be played at neutral venues .It is true though that the present conferance system was introduced to save the ARFU from going under.Australias lack of a domestic competion is a very serious flaw,and imho really hinders player delvelopment and numbers in Australia the lack of talant in Australia atm is shocking .When compared to NZ ,SA.or England Ireland ect.Australias reliance on a few players really lifing their game ala Genia in 1st test against Wales, this summer will in the long run hurt them badly ,In a few years i just cant see Australia being in the top 3 of the IRB rankings ,and struggling to hold on being in the top 8.Such is the lack of talant comming though atm.Of course they will be importing more NZs and islanders ect to make up the differance as can been seen even now.when at least a third of the national team where born elsewhere
Posted 14:11 21st 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
rugbylover says...
No.
@s15rules. What do you mean 'starting to...........'!?
IQ low 40's. Appalling one-eyed smug arrogance. 1000.
Posted 07:20 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
s15rules says...
Trinats your starting to come accross as a ****!
Maybe just maybe your opinion isnt the right one?
Bokvbok, what do yo mean soon it already is full of foriegn players and coach.
Posted 01:20 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
Trinats2 says...
Ramage:
If 5 Aussie teams finished 11-15th and the top one got a home final there would be no complaints from the team they were playing (they should have no worries with a weak team !!!!). The whinging on here is the fact that the Reds leap frogged the the Brumbies and everyone is worried now the defending Champions are in the finals after been written off half way through the year (because of their injuries and the 5 weeks suspension to the worlds best 11 !!) System is flawed, but if your a Queenslander It doesn't matter where you play they will still win ! Top two teams Chiefs and Stormers, Reds beat them in NZ and SA last year.
Where's the Farm, let me know when your in Brisvegas next !!!
Posted 14:18 20th 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
4rugby says...
@Trinats the Sharks lost to the Lions in the second game. Bulls 9 log points against the Lions and Sharks only 4 log points.
Posted 08:54 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...
oh and so are the brumbies and hurricanes so yeah not sure how there are 3 SA teams in it and not sure how any saffas are wingeing.
Posted 07:11 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
alex_babbler says...
If the results in the last weekend of play had gone differently then there could have been 3 Kiwi 2 Aussie and 1 Saffer team in the play offs and no one would be complaining. Everyone knew this was the set up from the start. True, it is not a great set up, but you can't bitch and moan at the end when those were always the rules. Cut one team (preferably South African, just to annoy Nas Botha and Ashwin Willemse on Super Sport), skrew the Kings and go back to super 14!
Posted 06:51 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
barkerda says...
Most have missed the major argument behind the home final in each country....it actually helps retain interest in rugby union in each country and therefore helps the code.
Unlike NZ and SA where rugby reins supreme, Australia has one of the hardest domestic sporting markets to crack with rugby competing with AFL/league/soccer..if rugby wants to continue to build, its fans need a reason to keep watching and attending - hence the conference system and final in each country....along with associated revenue - a game cannot grow without money muppets.
I agree that Australia has the weakest conference but suggestions that the reds have snuck in through the back door are yes REDiculous...Qld finished 6th therefore according to the rules are in the finals and get a home final because they topped the Australian conference. Simple.
Every team knows the rules, every coach knows that finishing first = home ground advantage...
PR does the game in Australia no favours as it essentially a forum for ongoing suggestions about Qld being fortunate winners in 2011 or its openly outright criticisms of the weak Australian conference...maybe instead of whinging try putting forth something constructive.
Posted 02:24 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