Super XV, the past three years.

The Super XV is now three years old, three years since all three countries have the same number of entrants into Super Rugby, over the past three years of the sixteen teams 10 have qualified for the play offs, any argument about the Super XV being a one horse race should be mooted by that point alone.

The other matter is of course that no team has really dominated proceedings, only two teams have qualified for the play offs in all three seasons.

Reds 3
Crusaders 3
Sharks 2
Chiefs 2
Stormers 2
Bulls 2
Waratahs 1
Brumbies 1
Blues 1
Cheetahs 1

The number of qualifying spots per country reads like this, South Africa 7, New Zealand 6 and Australia 5.

Teams with the best success percentage and wins over the three regular seasons (48 matches).
Stormers - 35 wins - 73%
Reds - 34 wins, 2 draws - 73%
Crusaders - 33 wins 1 draw - 70%
Bulls - 32 wins - 67%
Chiefs - 30 wins, 1 draw - 64%
Sharks - 28 wins, 1 draw - 59%
Brumbies - 24 wins, 3 draws - 54%

These are the only teams with a 50% win ratio or better. The Waratahs, Cheetahs, Blues, Hurricanes and Highlanders all have a win ratio between 40% - 50%

Only four teams have a win percentage of less than 30% with the Lions having played in two season and the Kings one season.

Teams with best success rate against their countrymen (24 matches)
Stormers - 79%
Reds - 71%
Crusaders - 67%
Bulls - 67%
Sharks - 63%
Waratahs - 58%
Chiefs - 54%
Brumbies - 54%

These are the only teams with a success rate of more than 50%

Teams with the best success rate against teams from the other countries (24 matches)
Reds - 71%
Crusaders - 71%
Chiefs -71%
Stormers - 67%
Bulls - 67%
Cheetahs - 58%
Sharks - 54%
Hurricanes - 50%

This for me is where the real value of the competition is, how do you compare as a nation against the other two, it is an indication of depth and how well your talent is distributed, or another way to look at it is depth.

The Cheetahs are a total anomaly when you look at these numbers, within their conference they have manage only 6 wins out of 24 matches, yet they have won 14 out of 24 matches against New Zealand and Australian teams.


South Africa
Although the format in itself is flawed in a number of ways, there is a lot to read out of these results over the past three years, when you consider that South Africa have had the most qualifiers for the play offs and have 4 of the eight bets performers between conferences it does suggest that this depth does not translate to their international performances.

Again this year South Africa had four teams in the top 8 places, but yet it is doubtful that this will translate to Heyneke Meyer's selections or success on the field of play.

Of all three countries in this competition the South African Franchises play the most diverse styles at first glance, the Stormers have by far the best defensive record in the competition, their success have been based on a defensive system, yet when they put ball to hand they can be very attractive and dangerous indeed. The Sharks possibly has the best balanced attack in SA rugby, with a good mixture of forward and backline attack. The Bulls, well they are the Bulls, kick and chase anyone? The Cheetahs could likely be seen as the counter attack team in SA, their defensive structures have improved this year, hence their first qualification for the play offs.

Australia
The Reds are by far the top team in Australia, that is if you are looking at consistent performances, the Brumbies under Jake White has turned a leaf, yet, when you compare their statistics with that of the Waratahs, there are distinct similarities, but the Brumbies do have a slightly better success rate, and that is due to them being more successful on the road. There has been an upswing in the Australian conference, they have been very successful against the New Zealand teams this year, when comparing their cross conference matches of 2012 when between tem they only managed to win a handful of games, this year they came close to half. Some suggest the influx of Kiwi players and Pacific Island players are to thank for that, but I think it has a ,lot more to do with attitude.

The Lions series may have been a failure for Australia, but when you look at the Force and the Rebels, their players stood up as well in anticipation of the British and Irish Lions series.

New Zealand.
I might be wrong, but when I categorise the New Zealand teams two stand out for me in the way they play, versus the other three. The Crusaders and Highlanders have a similar style, multiphase possession, patience in attack and building momentum by going wide to wide with the hit up the middle to soften the under belly of opponents. Yes the Crusaders are the most successful and consistent team in New Zealand, but with a bit of luck the Highlanders can threaten any team.

The Chiefs, Hurricanes and Blues are in my view the counter attacking geniuses of New Zealand, they run with pace, power and relentless skills. If it comes off then almost unstoppable, when the skills fail them, not so much. It is individual brilliance that provides the excitement with which these three teams play, but at the end of the day, the reason for the Chiefs success in recent years have been their forwards, something both the Blues and Hurricanes fail at with monotonous regularity.

That pretty much sums up the past three season of regular round robin matches.

Think that the success rate v other countries sums up the problems with Aus teams having an advatage. The top teams are more or less the in both tables except warrata and brumbies.

Do you think this years S15 results for SA is more a sign of them improving or just a good year.

We have had quite a lot of new blood coming through, so I think it is a sign of the new generation's abilities.

Seems like its the first year that NZ haven't had the strongest conference.

Suprised to see Cheatahs with over 50% against other countries over three years.

Whose your tip for the final, can the bulls win at home.

Will meyer reward cheatahs players do you think.

Will the kings beat the lions, to be fair they did better then most thought, dare i say better than the lions.

Good article, Bilts but you really do have a downer on Meyer/his selection policies
I don't know what but the SXV hasn't grabbed me this year- maybe because of the Lions tour? I think that there may be an element of same-ness creeping in here. We did mention this in another thread when trying to explain why so many good SA players head to Europe. What is the atmosphere at for a non-intranet nation game e.g Stormers-v-Chiefs. The lack of travelling support can't add to an atmosphere.

Injured, the thing is Meyer's selection policy is of great concern to me.

The more overseas based players he continues to select the more of of players will accpet overseas contracts as they realise there is no penalty for playing overseas.

Is he that bad a coach or are strings being pulled behind the scenes? With the player pool you have at home, there is still more than enough talent to stay in the top 2 possibly challenged only by England or France

It is his own making, he is only concerned. (Like all SA coaches) about having a respectable win ratio. So he isn't concerned about the next coach, same as PDV weren't, PDV just stuck to the same players Jake White selected, the obly new caps selected by PDV were by default almost all due to injuries.

There is no plan or directive in place to build a team for the next coach, so now we keep on selecting players on experienve and reputation, rather rhan potential and form.

But such is the fickle nature of public opinion that he is only a successful 4N campaign away from being a great coach. If that happened he would then have bought enough time to let him drip feed new blood in.
Sadly we fans are partly responsible for the "we must win the next game" mentality.

I've always liked the Super 15 setup. I'd love if Europe could come up with a similar tournament with English/French/Celtalion conferences, to replace the staggered mish-mash of tournaments we have now.

Good summary of our sides Biltong. The blues are in a rebuild position and continue to lose their abundance in youth to other sports early. The Saders have a side that continue to play to a high standard, even though other than a handful of stars, the culture and environment keeps them a AB similar quality for  the level.

Unfortunately the sxv tends to reflect the actual standard of the players, the RC and other internationals reflecting the standards of selection, coaching, player management etc.

South African rugby has been at its very best at about this point in the last 3 years- as soon as the Internationals between the 3 start, it kind of stays at sxv levels.

Oz have coaching issues as well, and have high hopes in McKenzie- someone with surprisingly more pedigree as player and coach that I'd realised.

You'd have to revisit why he wasnt already competition with Deans initially.

But the sxv winner?

Away usually loses and unless its the Saders thats likely to be the case here- theyre easily the form side and have the only away win in anything super...

The playing at home for the final always seems weird. Yes for semis but the final maybe should be moved to another part of the country.

Whereas I find that concept extraordinary. You have to assume that every franchise starts the season on even. The side that does the best results wise...home and away and then in the knockouts fully deserves to play the final at home. Rugby is essentially about playing for fun, winning, playing in front of friends and family and in this environment a way to make an income for those involved and the community in which they live.

To have supportive fans all year then to play the match off somewhere where these well deserving fans have to travel to or have the match played in front of a crowd that largely dont give a toss to me is ridiculous.

Just as earning the title so is earning the right to play and celebrate the win amongst family and friends. To be honest cant think of anything more natural in this game than that.

I don'thave an issue with where the final is played, I just don't think there should be 6 play off spots.

Out of interest, is there any kind of NFLesque draft whereby the "worst" team in each country gets first dibs at any unsigned talent or is it every man (well, franchise but you know what I mean) for himself?
Bilts - you acknowledge that each of your franchises has different strengths and therefore ways of playing. Surely this must be a hindrance to Meyer as he will be "teaching" three quarters of his team how to play, say, a backs orientated game (just to use that as an example)

Yes but thats perhaps because currently you don't have the same passion for one side that a lot of fans who front week after week for their side do. I don't either other than the Blues and their miles away- both in distance and from a final so I'm in that boat as well. I'm in the 'as long as a NZ side wins' camp largely.

But I strongly support having the final in front of ones own fans where they deserve it. Thats the real heart of the game. Without it it just wouldnt be the same. Professionalism has eroded away at that concept but its still fairly central- even if its largely to satisfy the bean counters.

Totally agree that the team who has played the best deserves to have the benefit of home field advantage. The only downside is that the identity of that team isn't known until the semis are played (obviously) which must reduce the likelihood for a sizeable away support from another country as they just wouldn't know what air tickets to buy.
Would a compromise like the HC work where the location of the final is known yonks in advance giving folk the chance to book flights, hotels etc cheaper rather than have to trawl late booking sites?

InjuredYetAgain wrote:Out of interest, is there any kind of NFLesque draft whereby the "worst" team in each country gets first dibs at any unsigned talent or is it every man (well, franchise but you know what I mean) for himself?
Bilts - you acknowledge that each of your franchises has different strengths and therefore ways of playing. Surely this must be a hindrance to Meyer as he will be "teaching" three quarters of his team how to play, say, a backs orientated game (just to use that as an example)

To a certain extent yes, but the fundamentals remain the same.

Scrums are scrums, line outs are line outs, kicking tactics are kicking tactics, defensiv systems are generally similar.

It is really only the moves from set piece and general approach that differs.

If Meyer selects a ten, he is going to select a ten that fits his gameplay. Breakdowns is fo example one area that Meyer has been focusing that all franchises must smarten up and adopt similar points of view.

Scrums are indeed scrums but, using a recent example, the Lions forwards saw a scrum in a totally different way to the Aussies. We used it as an attacking platform and not just a way to gt the ball back into play.
Conversely, Robbie Deans saw backs as being potential try scores but the Lions used their's in the first two tests as bodies just to make sure we had 15 guys on the pitch.
Just highlighting how the same facet of a game can be seen as a positive by some but a negative by others