Superxv format for 2012

Taking a point made by Emack2 (the final result regardless here as I do not want to start an excuse thread) both Kia and Biltong and some others mentioned the new format strongly favoured the nations with relatively weaker sides- I didnt comment on it at the time as I hadnt looked at the format that closely.

Both mentioned at the time that these were probably Oz and SA, particularly with Oz this year with the new but unheralded Rebels franchise joining the tournament.

Their expected position (the usual case for new entrants to the tournament) at last was realised as was the fact that of the 3 NZ have across the 5 the strongest franchises with none finishing lower than 10th.

The NZ 5 have remained the same teams since the inauguration of the super series and all 5 have made a superxv final over that time, all proving at some point they belong in the competition.

This automatically gives them a disdvantage in that the 5 bottom teams are not as competitive with their equivalent Oz and SA counterparts pushing much of the bottom table points towards their senior countrymen at the top of the table.

Less of this happens with the NZ sides making the overseas results more crucial for NZ teams to gain parity.

The fact that 2 NZ teams made the semis this year I thought clouded the issue but it does raise another supporting the fact.

This year was a bit of a learning year but for next year at least one thing can be introduced. For the away matches each team should be required to have the two of their non playing matches against both a top half and bottom half side based on the finishing table of this year.

ie- no team should have the Reds and Crusaders as the byes and no team should have the Lions and Rebels as the byes.

This year the Saders had the Lions and Rebels but no one at the time knew with any evidence that this would be the case so thats just the way it went. For next year there is a guide and is the fairest of any.

I don't know what to do about the uneven-ness at the bottom of each conference. As a worst case scenario there is potential for bottom teams to start dropping matches to the top sides within their conference for two reasons. It assists the chances of their countrymen filling up to 3 of the 6 positions available in the finals, and, preserves their top line players for international duty.

Not a likely scenario but with any competition it is a possibility and with this particular one, the country taking out the title is almost as important as the franchise taking it out so fans of one franchise usually get in behind others when theirs is out.

Who's to say that wont exist amongst the teams- if even at a subconcious level and I dont know what good that will do for the development of the lower teams if they are unduly pressured into this sort of thing.

As I have said this is not about this year and applies to any country that happens to have the strongest or weakest franchises. It is about the longietivity of this tournament in its current format. The introduction of the Southern Kings must be a huge motivating factor if this formula remains true as the introduction of a weaker team must assist the home conference with up to 10 points up for grabs for each team (5 for the overseas teams).

Or should it just be accepted that if a nation has the stronger teams across the board they each have more chance of making the finals and this year 2 NZ teams were in the top 4. Thats an understandable argument for the current format as well, but certainly if everyone is not playing everyone, who they play should be based on something, and the best way is by the previous years table- hopefully we can agree on that at least.

So for you Oz and SA fans, if you found you had 5 strong teams with the other nations having relatively weak 3,4 and 5 teams would the current format be acceptable?

In all honesty, other than making the non playing matches more fair I'm not altogether sure. Its not there yet but what if a country had in effect a reds reds, rebels, rebels, rebels setup as the 5. Wouldnt it guarantee 2 sides in tghe top 6 and disadvantage others?

My thoughts were.

Change the format:
set 8 teams for a knockout tournement, top 2 from each country after pool play and 2 others.
set the post pool agames in one conutry and rotate each year (i.e. one year in Aus, one year in NZ, one year in SA.
the two additional teams come from outside the country being represented (i.e. if in NZ, then 3rd placed Australian and SA teams), replace these with Argentinian teams over time.

The existing format doesn't really work, although it could if/when the Australian, and South African to a lesser extent, depth increases. This will happen.

First the realitys,it isn`t going to change because on e it generates a lot of money.Two none of the suits is going to admit that they got it wrong.
As to expanding it they should be looking at contracting it,most years recently .
Two sides in SA franchise[always the same ones],two Australian sides [always one]but not the other,and a NZ side[until this year always the same one]
In my contention Australia does not warrant 5 sides and can at best support 3.In Eddie Jones opinion 2, SA and NZ could easily lose one.
The addition of Barbarian style sides runs contrary to the ethos of the tournament viz a layer of teams whose players are contracted too and available for selection to the national side.
Secondly they have provided cheap pointsto the teams that played them.
Most years there is a scrap between 3 NZ,3 SA,and 2 Aus sides and it goes to the wire for qualifying for the knock out stages.
This year and in a RWC year at that injuries have been horrendous,but has allowed lesser known players to shine through giving a glimpse of the future.
Again reality says,these will be shunted back in line as injured come back,and become part of the Japan /NH brain drain for cash.
Or hopefully will replace departing players post RWC.one things for sure if you are going to have the current format atleast a 40 man squad will be needed.

Trouble with a 40 man squad is the whole qualifying gets based on injury tolls.
No team is going to risk throwing points away by using lesser squad members as staying top 3 with the travel requirements literally means winning or losing.

Dunno. This year the Reds not only beat their lower teams but they also beat the two NZ teams during pool play and knockout so deserved their place at the top.

My opinion at the beginning of the season was that the away matches, rather than the home conferences would make the difference.

It seems its a hybrid of both. Reds did well in both so got top spot.

Havnt done a table of the away only results for all teams but I dont think that will throw anything odd up.

It just may be that the argument re weak teams versus away matches generally evens things up, in that although NZ might have to tough the points out between themselves at home- they also get the bonus of having a go at the weaker conference teams from SA and Oz.

So as long as the non playing matches are evenly drawn it should be ok. With two go's at their bottom teams OZ SA may have a bit of an advantage but with stronger teams across the board we have more chances of getting winning teams through.

Given that I think its worth another look at and probably too late to change anything anyway.

It's a relevant topic, but you've enclosed it within so much 'SA and oz owe NZ' context that I have zero interest in discussing it with you.

Only from the view point that nz were in the position this year. It may not always be that way but fair enough. I dont know the answers. I dont even know if its a problem.

Irrispective of which country has the most depth this is supposed to be a SUPER TOURNAMENT with the SUPER PLAYERS of the three TOP COUNTRIES, it no longer is.

It is now just an international provincial competition, none of these countries can say that their top players is playing for their best three teams as these players are spread amongst 5 teams.

This has become a provincial competition with too many teams, too long and has now overtaken the calender to such an extent that local provincial competitions in SA and NZ is suffering because of it.

The encounters are no longer special because of the frequency it is played at.

If the primary goal was to actually create a core group of 90 world classs players and remain at the top of world rugby, it is failing miserably. At least in the case of SA and OZ, if you look at SA specifically and the calender of the tough physical Super XV, then inbetween test and injuries the attrition of Currie Cup, our results in recent end of year tours have been dissappointing, not only in results but also in the poor performances.

This is all resultant because of the money carrot being thrown about for the wrong reason, quantity over quality.

If someone at SANZAR does not get a brainwave and realise this soon, quality of the competitions and players will drop due to too many injuries and fatigue. There has already been made mention of bigger squads. Are we then going to still believe that 200 players in 5 squads of 40 is providing us with the same quality as 90 players in 3 squads of 30?

boomeranga wrote:It's a relevant topic, but you've enclosed it within so much 'SA and oz owe NZ' context that I have zero interest in discussing it with you.

Yawn.

I think the championship should just be awarded to a NZ team every year without any games played. They could rotate it.

It would give a lot of people a lot of peace and quiet.

Thanks for your input Rob, but then, I suppose there are bigger issues for Oz rugby at the moment, the Superxv suddenly...feeling....so.....long........ago...

Robb B,and Boomerang I take it you are Australian supporters and think this thread is sniping at the way the Reds won and you.
In correct in many ways it re iterates the comments of two people who know far more about Super Rugby than I or Taylorman
Grant Fox and Eddie Jones,they think it needs reducing in size,Eddie Jones has gone on record as saying as sayin there are only two sides in Australia
an exaggeration true.
BUT unless things have changed only Queensland,NSW and Nsw Country/ACT were Rugby Union territories,Western Australia being AFL or league territory.back in the days of the Super 6 Australian sides ruled.
From memory you may know better the original idea was Australian.
Over the last say 10 years as an average,Crusaders,Hurricanes,Blues,Bulls,Stormers,Sharks,Waratahs,Brumbies have been the most successful sides.With Chiefs and Reds occurring in more recent times.
The tournament itself for practical terms has been between 8 or 9 sides and places like Sun corp,Loftus,Capetown.Jade,Eden Park have been fortresses.
The change of formats and gradual increase S6/10/12/14/5 have caused anomalies in the programs to advantage or other of All the franchises.
Home advantage means nearly every thing the sides who have travelled best have won.Just as an Example no SA side has beaten a Crusaders side at home since 1996.
The inclusion of a Barbarians style cash side in the SA franchise is both an anathema to the ethos of tournament and weakens the overall strength of depth in the Australian franchises.
Unlike SA and NZ there is no equivalent to ITM or Currie Cup,for them to fall back on.
As Biltong bek correctly states more is not better,a 9 team Home plus Away would be better.
Because it is a cash cow it will continue to expand to the point on e of to things will occur either there will only be the Super series and 4 Ns,with no tests versus touring sides.in july ?november or players will have to be released to test sides and Currie Cup./ITM willnever see there test stars.

Taylorman wrote:Thanks for your input Rob, but then, I suppose there are bigger issues for Oz rugby at the moment, the Superxv suddenly...feeling....so.....long........ago...

Err, not really - still celebrating! Can't see a lot of connection between the Reds side and the side that played on Sat actually.

But I can see the benefits of this thread - it is good therapy for you.

Yeah fair enough. I put it down to Deans again as much as anything. Im amazed that his ability to throw away matches isnt beating Australians down.

This had him written all over it. Poor selection, poor preparation in terms of what the Samoans might offer, no gameplan, no grunt up front to match the ferocity of the Samoans.

Now all the pressure goes on the Reds players to back this up.

Don't know about you Rob but at what point is it not just about the players he has to work with?

Anyway, all the best for next week. Hope things work out better for them. At least lacking for motivation wont be a factor.

I have been a fan of Deans, maybe because he came with an incredible track record and he has allowed talent a free hand which has suited them. In a way I understand his desire to rest key players - a theme being used by SA and no doubt ABs. Not sure that Deans has the luxury of depth of the other 3ns to get away with it - Sunday told us he does not, but you wonder why he didn't already have that evidence. It was arrogant. But he went with it and after resting players and with the injuries they still have (Palu, Barnes, Slipper, TPN, JOC, Pocock, Mitchell, Robinson, which is half of the run on team) there is not a lot of talent left except having to pick Brumbies who were awful this year, except when the played the Reds.

But what got me the most was how the leadership went about the game. It was a test match but Rocky spurned 3 opportunities for penalty goals in the first 20 mins. 9-3 or 9-10 would have had them better placed psychologically. The way they went about it you'd think they were playing USA.

By saying he wanted to use the Reds momentum, all he has done is undo all of that momentum - it is now wasted.

Come this week I am not expecting to see a sea of Red in the team - Deans is stubborn with his selections and his loyalties. There might only be Horwill, Genia, Cooper coming in. Hardly a Reds inspired side.

Yeah fair comment. I just saw it as an ambush. Deans was a bit used to seeing these AB Island affairs first up go to the usual 40 50 point thrashings which used to always happen and maybe got a bit too slack. Unfortunately that Samoan team looks better than any Ive ever seen and with so many playing in the NH theyve a professional edge to them.

But the slackness was also reflected by Elsoms decisions not to take the kicks as you say. If either took the test seriously that discussion would have taken place, or if it did it was along the lines of "run everything at them at pace and see what happens" sort of thing. Either way, not very good leadership I agree.

now that the dust has settled on the S.15 and i look back, i am not convinced that the extension of the comp to 15 has achieved anything. i am not convinced that by changing the format that the amount of travel has been all that much reduced,even though some South Africans may have an opposing opinion on that.
with the talent of each countries playing "stock"spread across an extra franchise I felt the standard of play for the most part was lower compared to the days when only 12 teams were in the comp,by that I mean that during the round robin stages very few teams played 80 mins of accurate rugby, instead teams appeared to stumble through patches...
Preference for me was when it was 12 teams ,each team played each other over 2 seasons home and away.
the conference formats are more applicable to the NBA or NFL,but 3 nations rugby just isnt that big no matter how much we may like to think it is...

Aucklandlaurie, most South Africans agree with you.

I said it earlier in this thread, the super xv is no longer Super.

I just don´t understand the need for two conference games. Less travel time and more national rivalry doesn´t wash it with me. That´s why we have domestic competitions, at least in SA and NZ. This juggernaut goes from February to July! How is that proportionate to the rest of the rugby calendar in the SH?

This shouldn´t be seen as an attack on the Reds. They are deserving winners. But the Wallabies have their own injury concerns from this tournament. It just seemed to go on too long and the Wallabies probably felt compelled to play their side against Samoa as the 3N and later the RWC are so close together because of this crazily long tournament.

perhaps the guys at SANZA are trying to copy the Heineken model,which starts before the Autumn Internationals and finishes after the 6 Nations.

Fundamentally the format changed was at the request of SA who wanted more local derbies, hence play each other twice within the one conference.

And was it not also that Australia wanted another franchise?

aucklandlaurie wrote: And was it not also that Australia wanted another franchise?

Yes, they must have realised that competing on a domestic level only against AFL, cricket etc. would not draw enough crowds. So they wanted a international spice to as many teams for them possible to draw the bums on seats.

Thus creating their own Conference or "domestic" competition within the super XV, which has now evolved into just another competition.

They wanted a 5th franchise like everyone else. That did not drive the current conference system format. They could easily have kept it at one game each like previous years whether s12,14,15. The conundrum was the request for more local derbies.

Hang on, with the ITM and the Currie Cup New Zealand and South Africa already had/have loacal derbies the only country that didnt was Australia..

Let's be clear, the current format of playing each other twice in a conference was a direct response to SA threat to leave s14 (at least, its most recent threat to leave it) unless it could get more local derbies within the Super Rugby format. More local games amoung the top 5 SA sides = more crowds= better TV deals = more $$$.

Well anyway regardless of who's fault it is the competition is toobig and it is sacrificing quality for quantity..

I am South African and I really can't remember reading about this in the papers. I remember we wanted a the Kings or Spears or whatever in, but I also remember that we didn't want the competition longer because that would infringe with our Currie Cup.

The only teams I would go watch are the Stormers vs Bulls, Bulls vs Sharks or Sharks vs Stormers clashes. And the way the Sharks and Bulls play, to a lesser extent the Stormers, those clashes will almost always result in injuries. With the new conference system, those clashes comes to 4 times per year per clash, I really can't see how SARU will be happy with this.