2017 SUPER RUGBY DRAW

[waiopehu oldboy]

If you thought this year's draw was hard to follow, check out what the Lions tour of NZ is likely to do to it next year:

Super Rugby disruption 2017. How it's expected to work:

Weekend of June 3:

South African conferences start month break

New Zealand and Australia teams play each other

Lions start their tour in Whangarei

Weekend of June 10:

Australia teams start break

Chiefs play the Highlanders

Crusaders, Blues, Hurricanes on bye

Blues play Lions at Eden Park

Weekend of July 1:

South African teams resume for three rounds

Weekend of July 8:

Australian teams return for two rounds

Weekend of July 15:

Kiwi teams comeback for one round


http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...nal-June-break-as-a-result-of-2017-Lions-tour

Gonna make those "The Road Home" pieces hard going..........

 

[The torpedo]

If you thought this year's draw was hard to follow, check out what the Lions tour of NZ is likely to do to it next year:

Super Rugby disruption 2017. How it's expected to work:

Weekend of June 3:

South African conferences start month break

New Zealand and Australia teams play each other

Lions start their tour in Whangarei

Weekend of June 10:

Australia teams start break

Chiefs play the Highlanders

Crusaders, Blues, Hurricanes on bye

Blues play Lions at Eden Park

Weekend of July 1:

South African teams resume for three rounds

Weekend of July 8:

Australian teams return for two rounds

Weekend of July 15:

Kiwi teams comeback for one round


http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...nal-June-break-as-a-result-of-2017-Lions-tour

Gonna make those "The Road Home" pieces hard going....

This is why I always insist that they should play the mid-year tests after the super rugby final

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

OK, so now it's official:

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/2017-super-rugby-schedule-announced1/

@RugbyReg did a click-worthy blog piece on it:

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/2017-super-rugby-draw-release/#disqus_thread

Lots of good stuff both in the article & the comments.

Someone's done a " Strength of Schedule" analysis:

https://infogr.am/1a63b4d7-cf6b-4596-b78e-0e5705859334

Short version: the four teams with the easiest draw are the ones who don't have to play any NZ teams during the regular season. I know! I was shocked, too!

So all the talk from e.g. Hurricanes, Crusaders & Waratahs CEO's about the need for things to change & how they'd be pushing for change turned out to be just talk. I know! I'm shocked, too!

I can kinda understand why they haven't tinkered with the format after year one 'cos it's kinda a two year rotational draw but if they don't at least get rid of the abomination that is a guaranteed HOME quarter final for all four conference winners after next year, I'm probably out & im pretty sure I won't be alone.

 

[Braveheart81]

Maybe there will be a change to the structure in 2018 but it shows that in 2016 the Waratahs/Brumbies/Reds shouldn't have all played home and away games against each other.

If the Tahs had only played one of them home and away in 2016 then they'd have the other one home and away in 2017 rather than Rebels and Force twice.

The strength of schedule stuff was somewhat interesting but the reality is that every matchup was already determined based on who played who in 2016.

It's not a surprise at all that the South African conference playing the Aussie teams in 2017 has a really easy schedule.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Starting to see reports that the breakdown ELV won't be adopted by World Rugby & SANZAAR:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11726970

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...e-the-back-of-the-experimental-breakdown-laws

Very happy about that, hopefully NZRU drop them for next year's domestic comps as well.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Playoffs format has been revised slightly:

"Regarding the qualification process for the finals, as in 2016 the teams winning places in the quarter-finals will be: the four Conference winners – who will host quarter-final matches; and four wildcard teams – determined by the tournament rules and final conference positions.

The teams will be ranked 1-8 based on the final number of competition points attained and the following order.

Rank 1-4: Conference winners determined by final number competition points
Rank 5-8: Wildcards determined by final number competition points

The quarter-final draw will be:

Quarter-final 1: 1 v 8
Quarter-final 2: 2 v 7
Quarter-final 3: 3 v 6
Quarter-final 4: 4 v 5

However, in a change from 2016 the semi-final draw will be pre-determined as shown below. The semi-final host teams will be the highest ranked winners from the respective quarter-finals.

Semi-final 1: Winner QF 1 v Winner QF 4
Semi-final 2: Winner QF 2 v Winner QF 3"

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/tweak-to-super-rugby-knockouts/

Until they address the abomination that is guaranteeing all four Conference winners a home QF, this is just window dressing IMO.

 

[dru]

Until they address the abomination that is guaranteeing all four Conference winners a home QF, this is just window dressing IMO.

Amy specific issues? This revised system would allow NZ to have all 5 teams in the finals, based on points.

We have three major Nations coming together in the comp, a hard written team in the finals for each doesnt seem unexpected.

The actual anomination is the disparity of the draw. Differences between Nations have to be accomodated to an extent, but SA having twin conferences is out of proportion when we compare comparitive strengths. Sun Wolves and Jaguars are a longer term play, but with them and the Kings added to SA the strengths of the conferences are out of kilt.

Unless all team play each other (and probably home and away) the points system doesnt guarantee the best teams through either.

I'd suggest the draw needs work before we remove winner to each conference as a Finalist.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

African Group still gets a wildcard so max four NZ (or Strayan) teams in playoffs.

I don't have a problem with the four Conference winners being guaranteed a playoffs place, but with home advantage counting for ~80% in playoff matches you should have to earn it on the field e.g. last year Highlanders finished nine points clear of Brumbies but still had to travel to Canberra for their QF.

Four Conference winners plus next-best African & three next-best Australasian teams, seeded by total points is the fairest way IMO. 1 v 8, 2 v 7 etc then two highest teams left get home SF, highest finalist gets home ground. That at least puts the better-performed teams in the box seat c.f. those with fewer points but who happened to be the best of what may have been a very poor bunch.

I get the counter-argument that you should be rewarded for winning your Conference, I just think that being in the QF even if you finished ninth is reward enough, anything more than that has to be earned not gifted.

 

[kiap]

African Group still gets a wildcard so max four NZ (or Strayan) teams in playoffs.

You Keewees should be happy there is a draw to whinge about.

Super Rugby is like the Wellington Sevens.

It's not dead yet but it won't be long.

The comp, with its trans-continental regular season, is past the use-by-date.

 

[dru]

African Group still gets a wildcard so max four NZ (or Strayan) teams in playoffs.

That's interesting - I couldn't find it in the SAANZAR media.

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/sanzaar-confirms-super-rugby-fixtures-finals-format/

I don't have a problem with the four Conference winners being guaranteed a playoffs place, but with home advantage counting for ~80% in playoff matches you should have to earn it on the field e.g. last year Highlanders finished nine points clear of Brumbies but still had to travel to Canberra for their QF.

The problem is that if you swapped the draw for the best Aus team and the best SA conference (that doesnt meet NZ till the finals) - would they have been 9 points behind then?

Four Conference winners plus next-best African & three next-best Australasian teams, seeded by total points is the fairest way IMO. 1 v 8, 2 v 7 etc then two highest teams left get home SF, highest finalist gets home ground. That at least puts the better-performed teams in the box seat c.f. those with fewer points but who happened to be the best of what may have been a very poor bunch.

I don't doubt that Brumbies were the best of a very poor bunch in 2016. I had predicted 4 NZ teams in the finals before the season started - and it may well be just as bad in 2017.

I get the counter-argument that you should be rewarded for winning your Conference, I just think that being in the QF even if you finished ninth is reward enough, anything more than that has to be earned not gifted.

In effect it's a simple matter of commerce. Three nations negotiate around how they hold this thing together. NZ and Aus have given massive ground to SARU. This seems muchly to have been with NZ support with a desire to keep SA in the comp. From an Australian perspective, we've allowed SA extra teams and twin guaranteed finals. Why would we be willing to give away more?

If we want to address the matter, then let's do it. But if all that is being proposed is to continue whittling away at the Australian position I wouldn't look for too much support.

 

[Strewthcobber]

This years schedule (Sydney time)

• 2 games on Thursdays evening
• 17 games on Friday afternoon, 8 games Friday evening
• 2 games Sat lunch, 10 games at 3pm, 15 at 5:45, 16 at 8pm, 15 late games
• 37 early games on Sunday, 4 Sunday arvo, 1 Sunday late

Happily, they seem to have got rid of most of the Friday arvo games out west, without the east coast lead-in which were ratings disasters, but there are going to be a lot of rugby free Friday evenings this year

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

African Group still gets a wildcard so max four NZ (or Strayan) teams in playoffs.

"How to qualify for finals

* Win Conference – 4 conference winners (will host quarter-final)
* Earn a wildcard place – 4 wildcards places available

Wildcard spots:
* Best placed runner-up team (based on tournament points) from either Africa 1 or Africa 2 Conference
* Three next best teams (based on tournament points) from either the New Zealand or Australian Conferences"

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/about-super-rugby/

It's been updated to incorporate the new QF-->SF format so unless there's another change yet to be announced it's status quo in terms of wildcards.

 

[Forcefield]

Maybe New Zealand needs to add a new team or two to dilute your depth. At present you are streets ahead of Aus, RSA and the other two. How is that good for an international competition? You can complain that it is Australia and South Africa's fault for adding teams in Melbourne and Eastern Prov, but that makes expansion a majority interest and the minority interest (NZ) is detracting from the competitiveness of the competition by concentrating talent. Some people will say that more teams dilutes talent and creates a poorer quality product. I tend to disagree- a lop-sided competition is a poor quality product- diluted talent is perfectly capable of being thrilling (I really enjoy watching the NRC).

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^ so because SA & Straya each have a Super Rugby side too many NZ should do the same? Yeah nah, bro!

Besides, it's a small enough pie split five ways: try splitting it six ways & the talent won't so much be diluted as evaporate, we lose enough players to NH now without wilfully driving any more away.

There's also the small matter of where to put a hypothetical sixth team. Tauranga recently overtook Dunedin as NZ's fifth-largest city & with Rotorua not far away that's a decent chunk of people but you'd be taking ~1/3rd of the Chiefs catchment in doing it. Likewise Napier-Hastings & Palmy North are reasonably close with a sizeable combined population but they also represent at least 1/4 of the Hurricanes catchment since Taranaki jumped ship.

Just not viable on several levels, you other blokes either need to catch up or wait for the inevitable down-swing (you could be waiting a while, tho ).

 

[Twoilms]

Maybe New Zealand needs to add a new team or two to dilute your depth. At present you are streets ahead of Aus, RSA and the other two. How is that good for an international competition? You can complain that it is Australia and South Africa's fault for adding teams in Melbourne and Eastern Prov, but that makes expansion a majority interest and the minority interest (NZ) is detracting from the competitiveness of the competition by concentrating talent. Some people will say that more teams dilutes talent and creates a poorer quality product. I tend to disagree- a lop-sided competition is a poor quality product- diluted talent is perfectly capable of being thrilling (I really enjoy watching the NRC).

The competition in it's current form is already unwieldy. It's bloated, too many teams and too many logistical challenges to run smoothly. Fans can't follow the conference system because it's overly complicated to accommodate too many teams. Adding further teams would be madness.

You could either expand all of the competitions and create a League -> Champions League structure. Or, more sensibly, you cut teams in South Africa and Australia to sensible and serviceable numbers, allow NZ to continue with five because they are the only country that can service that many and open the competition to other geographically sensible nations.

Edit: sensible numbers being 3 in each of SA and Aus.

 

[Jagman]

Here's a list of the last ten years (season only) results from Super Rugby trans-tasman derbies. It goes Aus W/ NZ W/ Draw

2007: 6/14/0
2008: 9/11/0
2009: 9/10/1
2010: 10/10/0
2011: 9/10/1
2012: 7/13/0
2013: 12/8/0
2014: 9/11/0
2015: 8/12/0
2016: 3/21/1

As you can see it more or less stays the same and for the most part the Aus teams are far more competitive than you would think until you get to last year which was just soul-destroyingly pathetic. Will they be that bad again? History would suggest no unless something has drastically tipped the scales. The important thing is that going to 5 teams (for the first 5 years at least) made little to no obvious difference.

 

[kiap]

Yeah nah, bro!

Besides, it's a small enough pie split five ways

Yep, even though NZ (unlike Aus, and probably also SA) actually do have the player base for an extra squad that would be competitive against the existing 18 teams.

But New Zealand is already rugby saturated. In terms of TV, a sixth side would add extra content to bring in a few extra dollars (which is good). But it won't add too many new viewers … more a case of only a slightly bigger pie having to be cut six ways instead of five.

It could be workable if the format is changed to a regular season league (all matches at watchable times) followed by a condensed Champions League.

But just expanding the current model to 20, 22 or 24 globe-trotting sides is not going to work IMO. Not for NZ teams, not for any SANZJAAR teams.

 

[dru]

As you can see it more or less stays the same and for the most part the Aus teams are far more competitive than you would think until you get to last year which was just soul-destroyingly pathetic. Will they be that bad again? History would suggest no unless something has drastically tipped the scales.

Very interesting.

Perhaps though there IS a change in play. Post RWC 2015 saw a massive departure of top level talent from all three major southern hemisphere sides. NZ has had the depth to cover it. Australia does not.

Might not be the issue, but I don't feel very good about it.

 

[Forcefield]

That reminds me of how dire things looked back in 2007 and then capped off by a QF RWC exit at the hands of England. I think the Tahs went from second worst team in 2007 to losing finalists in 2008. Fingers crossed we see that kind of turn around amongst the Aussie Super Rugby sides. Looking at the five squads, I would wager it will be the Reds and the Tahs leading that charge.

 

[Brumby Runner]

FF (Folau Fainga'a), Brumbies in 2011 finished only in front of Lions and Rebels. In 2012 improved to finish 7th, one point out of the semis, after being in the top 6 (top 3 for most of the season) right up until their loss in the last round.

Plenty of evidence that teams can turn around a bad season and have success the next. I'm hoping a similar story can be told of the Force in the current season, and with a new coaching team it is possible.

I'm not sure that both the Reds and Tahs will finish at the top of the Aussie conference. The Reds have suffered from coaching woes for some years, like the Force, and there will be questions about the ability of the new coaching team in both franchises to turn things around so dramatically. The Tahs on the other hand have lost a lot of their players and I have to say the coaching looks to have dropped off somewhat after the time in charge by Michael Cheika.

In other words, there are questions yet to be answered about both franchises, as there are about the other Aus teams as well, and it might be a bit premature calling the leading sides at this stage. I'd rather the Brumbies and Force fight out the conference, but I'm not calling that right now.