Originally Posted by Alison
What more can I say?
At this point in time it is side splittingly hilarious. I ache from laughter at the bemusement the SARU must be suffering.
Maybe next year they will let the team that finishes last play in the finals so that they don't get upset!
A bit like the under 9's not allowed to have a winner! Just ask the kids who won.
May the FORCE be with you!
Snob, everybody knows that under nines every game is a draw, they're only there for fun!
And scoring more tries than the other blokes is fun!
C'mon the
Then again if SARU had completely got their way they'd have 2 teams in the finals instead of 3 and we'd have 2 instead of 1...
The reason for the seeding is purely because their is no such thing as a fair draw with the format the way it is..... Until all teams play each other twice, home and away then you can't say the final table is fair. The only aspect of the table which is fair is the Conference table, hence why its used in the finals placings.
Playing the Bulls, Stormers and Crusaders at their home ground is already a competitive advantage to those teams. The draw is determined by the previous years proceedings, but their are so many variables in their unaccounted for.
The conference system also has it's problems in that if a conference is generally weak, but has 1 or 2 strong teams, they will take maximum points off their local derbies. In a conference where the teams are of equal ability, the local derbies will be split more evenly. This would put the even conference's teams at a disadvantage on the finals ladder and that gives up home field advantage for the finals.
The conference system has it's flaws, but unless you want a 28 week season where everyone plays everyone else home and away, it's the least worst option. An 'undeserving' team may reach the finals, but as they'll still have to play 2 or 3 matches against the best teams to win anyway, you won't get many undeserving teams winning the entire comp.
A winner from each conference will be determined from the results. Each conference will have one winner and therefore Australia, South Africa and New Zealand will each be guaranteed to have one team participating in the finals. Where these teams finish will determine home advantage for the play offs.
In week 1 of the finals the two conference winners with the highest points will be rewarded with a week off. The conference winner with the lowest points or the third placed team will enter a sudden death play off with the sixth placed team.
Also in week 1 the team placed fourth at the end of the regular season will play the fifth placed team. The winners of the first week of play offs then go through to face the first and second placed team who had just had the week off in the semi-finals.
QF1.) Team 3 vs Team 6 (Reds v Sharks Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane)
QF2.) Team 4 vs Team 5 (Crusaders v Bulls AMI Stadium (Addington),Christchurch)
The first placed team from the regular season will play the lowest ranked qualifier in week 1 of the play offs.
The second placed team from the regular season plays the team highest ranked qualifier in week 1 of the play offs.
SF1.) Team 1 (Stormers) vs lowest ranked qualifier.
SF2.) Team 2 (Chiefs) v highest ranked qualifier.
The final will be made up by the teams who won the semi-finals.
Thanks Sheikh and Ecky. Sounds all very complicated!
As a fan, I would love 28 weeks of rugby a year! But I can see it would be a little hard on the players! Particularly given all the travel involved.
This is not against you personally.
The whole way that the Super 15 is played is a joke!
Until as you say home and away games are played it's a lottery.
We try telling the rest of the world how tough this tournament is but it's over in 16 weeks, only 16 games. Look up how many games they play in Europe.
The SA and NZ teams play good home competions! So not to bad. What do we do? If we want to call the Shute shield the same as the Currie cup we are dreaming.
I seem to remember in europe its in the region, if your in one of the top players ie country and club of 40+ games. I know they don't have the same travel distances but I think we have, in some cases, a bunch of softies.
I think both the Kiwisand Saffas are breeding a far fitter and harder player than we are and unless we get a good home completion going,ie 2 tier we are going nowhere.
Last edited by SNOB; 15-07-12 at 22:29. Reason: PISSED
May the FORCE be with you!
I tend to think that the short length of Super Rugby is what makes it so demanding.. Teams can rarely afford to have a slump or lose key players, the finals is a no-nonsense knockout tournament which favours the top team's.
Australia has won more World Cups than all of Europe combined so I don't think we should necessarily be talking about how superior their system is.
While I don't actually have an issue with the conference leaders getting the top three spots for the purposes of the first weeks matches, I think it is wrong that the Reds are gifted third spot for the duration. Even assuming the two home teams win next week, I think it is a bollocks that the Reds continue to be the "highest ranked qualifier" when they finished the season three points behind the Crusaders and beat the lesser of the two losing wildcards. Once the first week of games is over and they've had the benefit of winning the conference, they should revert to actual ranking and be the lowest qualifier for the semis.
Good for the Chiefs though...
Indeed. They might play a lot of games, but most of them are ARC/club level. The Heineken Cup you play three teams home and away and then it's finals time.
I agree. It is a unique comp played over 2 and half continents and played 11 time zones apart.
I think the only way the longer duration comp has been possible is by having the extra local derbies at the expense of the true" play all teams home and away" style. It is tough and demanding because of the travel and the need to been in top form all the time.
Even if the Force are going really bad I'll still go to matches, just to see international players.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote