Super dooper semis

[Stephen]

I fail to see the logic in how a team in an easy conference finishes above
teams who actually score more points. I really hope the Reds get smashed
next week.

--
Cheers
Stephen

[lord shineything]

On Jul 15, 9:26 am, Stephen <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote:
> I fail to see the logic in how a team in an easy conference finishes above
> teams who actually score more points. I really hope the Reds get smashed
> next week.
>

If the final turns out to be a repeat of last year, the Reds will get
to host it - despite finishing 3 points behind the Crusaders.

To be fair though, Lord Shiney feels compelled to point out that the
Reds won the same number of games as the Crusaders, and more than the
Bulls and Sharks.

[Stephen]

Yeah, but against the Rebels n Force, c'mon...

--
Cheers
Stephen

[alvey]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:26:15 +0000 (UTC), Stephen wrote:

> I fail to see the logic in how a team in an easy conference finishes above
> teams who actually score more points.

Would this "easy conference" be the same conference that produced the
winner of the comp last year?



as

[Two Dogs]

I seem to remember the New Zealand conference producing the winner of
the comp last year..

http://tinyurl.com/dyqm42t

Two Dogs

[caspar milquetoast]

On 15/07/2012 5:26 AM, Stephen wrote:
> I fail to see the logic in how a team in an easy conference finishes above
> teams who actually score more points. I really hope the Reds get smashed
> next week.

I'm sure you know why really.

So that Australia and South Africa will get more teams in the finals.

[Dave]

SA? - But SA have not been advantaged by being in 3rd place.
Last year the Crusaders were in 3rd place but the rule did not impact
the order.

This year the Reds should have been in 6th place.

But that is not the biggest issue with. The format
a) home/away conference games sucks - but also the reason why they
have to give a free ride to top conference team.

b) Who do the sides avoid should be in parentheses next to the teams
position on the log.
Let's face it avoiding the Lions, Force, blues, rebels or waratahs is
a bonus. Whilst getting the stormers, crusaders or chiefs is not
lucky. Sharks avoided crusaders and Rebels. But one could be double
lucky or double unlucky.

Round robin. Play everyone once. Top 4 in semis period.

[Stephen]

I know that, but it still fucks me off.
--
Cheers
Stephen

[Dave]

On Jul 15, 9:12 am, Stephen <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote:

So crusaders coming 3rd last year?

It sucks I agree but over yourselves.
Use real arguments

[lord shineything]

On Jul 15, 2:06 pm, Stephen <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote:

Lord Shiney seems to remember the Crusaders losing to the Rebels.

While he agrees that the way it's panned out is a bit off-key, Lord
Shiney thinks it's worth remembering that the current rule also
protects teams from a conference that's a lot tougher than the other
two - which otherwise might get at most one team in the top 6, and
probably only somewhere in positions 4-6.

[Brent Hadley]

All sort of the same point though isn't it. The schedule is skewed.
If you have a weak conference with two good teams and three bad (Oz),
the two good teams will feast on the three bad teams and rack up
wins. If you have a strong conference with 4 good teams and one bad,
the good teams cannibalise each other, and depress the overall win
totals (which finally caught up with the Chiefs in the last two
games).

I wonder the results are when the various teams go out of conference.

Cheers

Brent

[Brent Hadley]

The answers are unsurprising but probably instructive.

Australian teams went 12-28 against non-Australian foes. No team from
Australia went better than 4-4 against foreign teams. Worth noting
however that the Reds that finished the season are substantially
better than the Reds that started the season due to injury.

NZ went 26-14 against foreign teams. No team from NZ had a record of
less than 4-4 (in other words, the Blues went went 4-4 against
overseas teams, and 0-8 against NZ teams). The Chiefs went 7-1, the
Crusaders 6-2, the Hurricanes 5-3.

SA went 22-18 against foreign teams. The Stormers were the class of
the conference going 7-1. Both the Bulls and Sharks went 5-3. The
only truly bad team by this measure was the Lions (1-7). The Cheetahs
appear better by this measure, partly one suspects because they toured
before Goosen was injured.

It's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw that the Hurricanes might
well have made the playoffs without the skewed schedule of the
conference system. They're the only 5-3 team not in the playoffs. On
the other hand, the Hurricanes had it within their gift to do so -
thinking in particular of the 47-38 loss to the Cheetahs, and 37-25
loss to the Brumbies, both at home, where they held large leads and
blew them.

Cheers

Brent

[JohnO]

Amen, brother Dave.

[Andrew Dunford]

"Brent Hadley" <the1a...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:d5d086f1-4d82-4700...@x21g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

The other factor that skews the table, and indeed undermines the analysis of
each team's record against non-conference opponents, is each team dodging
one opponent from each other conference.

Look at the Reds and Brumbies, for example. Same number of points, but the
Reds missed playing two opponents (Cheetahs, Hurricanes) who finished
beneath them whilst the Brumbies dodged two (Stormers and Crusaders) who
finished above them.

Andrew

[Dave]

Agreed in the main

I don't argue that the Canes came close,
They had a similar season to my sharks.
The Sharks lost 4 of their 6 losses by less than 7points including
narrow losses away to the stormers and bulls.
The canes only had 1 losing BP from their 6 losses.
They only had 1 more try BP than the sharks.

Turns out my sharks caught the lions on their good day and lost away.
(no BP)
Within a conference the sharks won all their home games including good
victories against the stormers and bulls.
They only won one SA away game against the mid table cheetahs.
The big bugger up for the sharks was losing away to the tahs after
they were better for most of the game.

The canes on the other hand lost at home to the cheetahs, then beat
the sharks well at home the next week.

Intra conference is certainly not the reason why the sharks edged the
canes.
sharks were more consistent and did not let their opposition get away
from them.

Still don't like the conference system.

[Uncle Dave]

On 14/07/2012 22:26, Stephen wrote:
> I fail to see the logic in how a team in an easy conference finishes above
> teams who actually score more points.
>

That's democracy for you.

UD

[earldu...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Sunday, July 15, 2012 5:46:32 PM UTC+1, Uncle Dave wrote:
> On 14/07/2012 22:26, Stephen wrote:

> &gt; I fail to see the logic in how a team in an easy conference finishes above
> &gt; teams who actually score more points.
> &gt;
> That&#39;s democracy for you.
>
> UD

That's what happens when you create a system no one wants.

[Sir Leslie Bottocks]

"Dave" <david.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a3b8721-38a7-4154...@x21g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

hahaha! there's little chance of that, I'm afraid to say. It's leading the
sports news here, how the undeserving Reds finish above the mighty
Crusaders. It pains me to say, but some Kiwis are acting like
jumped-up-little-wankers over this one. I like the system, if keeps interest
in all 3 countries, and is less open to manipulation., which has to be good
given some of the partisan refereeing and incomprehensible TMO decisions of
the last round.

[Uncle Dave]

I thought that's what I said...

UD

[Calvin]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 07:26:15 +1000, Stephen <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote:

> I fail to see the logic in how a team in an easy conference finishes
> above
> teams who actually score more points.

I fail to see how a team winning more games can be below another on the
ladder.

> I really hope the Reds get smashed
> next week.

Good for you.

--
cheers,
calvin

[alvey]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:44:10 +1000, Calvin wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 07:26:15 +1000, Stephen <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> I fail to see the logic in how a team in an easy conference finishes
>> above
>> teams who actually score more points.
>
> I fail to see how a team winning more games can be below another on the
> ladder.

I'm enjoying the spectacle here.

You have a system that rewards teams for coming a close 2nd and also
rewards teams for playing a style of play that's totally foreign to the way
it's played in internationals, yet there's angst about 'Oo killed who'.
Comedy gold!



alvey

[Andrew Dunford]

"alvey" <al...@atattat.com> wrote in message
news:14pd7es1z8w42.n8bea82575eb$.dlg@40tude.net...

Results against teams from other conferences:

NZ 26-14
SA 22-18
Aus 12-28

Even the Reds finishing unbeaten and 20 points clear of the second team
wouldn't change the fact there were three Australian teams in the bottom
five.

The 'logic' of this system is that every conference gets to host at least
one play-off match.

Andrew

[Andrew Dunford]

"lord shineything" <shine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9285b79d-e3e7-4f12...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 15, 9:26 am, Stephen <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote:
>> I fail to see the logic in how a team in an easy conference finishes
>> above
>> teams who actually score more points. I really hope the Reds get smashed
>> next week.
>>
>
> If the final turns out to be a repeat of last year, the Reds will get
> to host it - despite finishing 3 points behind the Crusaders.

Sure, but this is balanced out by the Crusaders starting a try or two up
thanks to the TMO.

<snip>

Andrew

[Stephen]

So, as usual it's all about the money, fuck all about the rugby.

"Sanzar's argument is based on delivering a balanced broadcasting coverage
for the finals' series which traverses New Zealand, Australia and South
Africa."

Bring on the NPC, or whatever its fucking called now,I say.
--
Cheers
Stephen
Feeling curmudgeonly.

[lord shineything]

On Jul 16, 11:57 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
> "lord shineything" <shineyth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Yes, but Lord Shiney struggles to see how Dagg's non-try (which seemed
obvious even to Lord Shiney seated about 100m away on the other side
of the field) actually got the Crusaders any more competition points.
So his original point stands.

[Andrew Dunford]

"Stephen" <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1744350951364082506.963...@news.eternal-september.org...

Morrissey is of course listening to the voices in his head - Rugby Heaven
doesn't feature any articles about this on its front page so presumably
"leading the sports news" means he's been caught listening to Newstalk ZB
again.

It's not really NZ who suffer anyway, at least not initially. If the actual
points table were used, the Bulls and Sharks would both be playing (against
one another) in South Africa, whereas now they each have long road trips.

Andrew

[Andrew Dunford]

"lord shineything" <shine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:09eed3e3-bcad-4e8a...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Granted.

If SANZAR think it important that all three countries get to host at least
one play-off match, they should still revert to finishing places after week
one i.e. the sixth placed team does not get to host the final, which is
ridiculous.

Andrew

[Calvin]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:06:52 +1000, Andrew Dunford <adun...@artifax.net>
wrote:

> If SANZAR think it important that all three countries get to host at
> least one play-off match, they should still revert to finishing places
> after week one i.e. the sixth placed team does not get to host the
> final, which is ridiculous.

It's equally ridiculous to rank the Reds below the Sharks and Bulls when
they (the Reds) won more games.


--
cheers,
calvin

[Dave]

On Jul 16, 7:46 am, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:06:52 +1000, Andrew Dunford <adunf...@artifax.net>

> wrote:
>
> > If SANZAR think it important that all three countries get to host at
> > least one play-off match, they should still revert to finishing places
> > after week one i.e. the sixth placed team does not get to host the
> > final, which is ridiculous.
>
> It's equally ridiculous to rank the Reds below the Sharks and Bulls when
> they (the Reds) won more games.
>
> --
> cheers,
> calvin

More games but less points and a worse PD.
The Sharks got 4 Losing BPs and 7, 5 try BPs

So you could can BPs?

[Andrew Dunford]

"Calvin" <cal...@phlegm.com> wrote in message
news:op.whiya...@04233-26jz62s.staff.ad.bond.edu.au...

Your 17-year campaign against bonus points has been waged very quietly.

Not that I disagree. Bonus points could go tomorrow as far as I'm
concerned.

Andrew

[Calvin]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:05:35 +1000, Andrew Dunford <adun...@artifax.net>

wrote:

>
>
> "Calvin" <cal...@phlegm.com> wrote in message
> news:op.whiya...@04233-26jz62s.staff.ad.bond.edu.au...
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:06:52 +1000, Andrew Dunford
>> <adun...@artifax.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If SANZAR think it important that all three countries get to host at
>>> least one play-off match, they should still revert to finishing places
>>> after week one i.e. the sixth placed team does not get to host the
>>> final, which is ridiculous.
>>
>> It's equally ridiculous to rank the Reds below the Sharks and Bulls
>> when they (the Reds) won more games.
>
> Your 17-year campaign against bonus points has been waged very quietly.

Indeed :-) My point is that everyone knew the playing field was not level
from the beginnging, so there' slittle point in complaining about it now.

> Not that I disagree. Bonus points could go tomorrow as far as I'm
> concerned.

I don't think they add anything, but if they must be kept then I'd like to
see two changes:

* 4 try BP only available to teams than win (or draw I suppose). It's
ludicrous that a losing team can get two BPs.

* 6 for a win and 3 for a draw.


--
cheers,
calvin

[Stex]

On Jul 17, 8:04 am, Calvin <cal...@phlegm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:05:35 +1000, Andrew Dunford <adunf...@artifax.net>

I'd like to see them cancel out. Winning team gets the BP if they win
by more than 7 otherwise losing team gets it. 1 bp for 4 trys but is
cancelled out if you let in 4 trys.

I remember a blues brumbies game from years ago that almost had an
impact on the semi's where the blues were thrashing the brumbies and
then let off allowing the Brumbies 2 bp's when they were for all
intents and purposes completely thrashed.

Stex

[Calvin]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:37:07 +1000, Stex <stex...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'd like to see them cancel out. Winning team gets the BP if they win
> by more than 7 otherwise losing team gets it.

Liking that.

--
cheers,
calvin

[Sir Leslie Bottocks]

"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:a6hlnn...@mid.individual.net...

My apologies Andrew, I stand corrected then. It's only the leading story in
the Herald sports section for two days in a row now, it's only leading the
sports bulletin on the most watched evening news broadcasts, and it is only
the main topic of conversation on radiosport talkback. Apart from that, it's
hardly got a mention. I have clearly over-reacted. Silly melodramatic me,
eh?

[Sir Leslie Bottocks]

"lord shineything" <shine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:09eed3e3-bcad-4e8a...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Yup, those 2 gift tries were a wasted bonus for the mighty Crusaders as
they'd have won anyway. But a two-try head start against the lowly rebels,
now that would have come in handy, eh?

[Sir Leslie Bottocks]

"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message

news:a6hlre...@mid.individual.net...

I don't see what the big deal is. Given the nature of the conference style
competition, you can't really compare points, given the different
cross-section of teams each side might face. I would note that the top team
from the Aus conference did in fact defeat the top team in the NZ
conference. If the Reds do get a home final then they would be deserving,
given that to do so would require them to make the final in the first place,
and would also mean both other conference winners have been eliminated.

[lord shineything]

On Jul 17, 1:17 pm, "Sir Leslie Bottocks"

<Ernest_the_Sh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "lord shineything" <shineyth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:09eed3e3-bcad-4e8a...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 11:57 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "lord shineything" <shineyth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:9285b79d-e3e7-4f12...@nw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jul 15, 9:26 am, Stephen <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote:
> > >> I fail to see the logic in how a team in an easy conference finishes
> > >> above
> > >> teams who actually score more points. I really hope the Reds get
> > >> smashed
> > >> next week.
>
> > > If the final turns out to be a repeat of last year, the Reds will get
> > > to host it - despite finishing 3 points behind the Crusaders.
>
> > Sure, but this is balanced out by the Crusaders starting a try or two up
> > thanks to the TMO.
>
> Yes, but Lord Shiney struggles to see how Dagg's non-try (which seemed
> obvious even to Lord Shiney seated about 100m away on the other side
> of the field) actually got the Crusaders any more competition points.
> So his original point stands.
>
> Yup, those 2 gift tries were a wasted bonus for the mighty Crusaders as
> they'd have won anyway. But a two-try head start against the lowly rebels,
> now that would have come in handy, eh?

Very much so. But they didn't happen, so Lord Shiney isn't quite sure
what point you're trying to make.

[Sir Leslie Bottocks]

"lord shineything" <shine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:32868567-e387-4b17...@f9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

maybe this will help?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hrLj8QEAgI

[Andrew Dunford]

"Calvin" <cal...@phlegm.com> wrote in message
news:op.whiya...@04233-26jz62s.staff.ad.bond.edu.au...

I'm going to do a bit of an about-face on this one. Given the depths
plumbed by the Reds in mid-season, winning eleven matches is an excellent
result. The only match they lost in their final eight fixtures was away to
the Crusaders - this was the one in which it appeared Bryce Lawrence was
just going to continue awarding penalties to the Crusaders until they'd won
the match. Therefore if the Reds were to end up hosting the final against
the Crusaders this might represent some sort of poetic justice.

Andrew

[Brent Hadley]

On Jul 20, 12:23 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
> "Calvin" <cal...@phlegm.com> wrote in message
>
> news:op.whiya...@04233-26jz62s.staff.ad.bond.edu.au...
>

> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:06:52 +1000, Andrew Dunford <adunf...@artifax.net>

> > wrote:
>
> >> If SANZAR think it important that all three countries get to host at
> >> least one play-off match, they should still revert to finishing places
> >> after week one i.e. the sixth placed team does not get to host the
> >> final, which is ridiculous.
>
> > It's equally ridiculous to rank the Reds below the Sharks and Bulls when
> > they (the Reds) won more games.
>
> I'm going to do a bit of an about-face on this one.  Given the depths
> plumbed by the Reds in mid-season, winning eleven matches is an excellent
> result.  The only match they lost in their final eight fixtures was away to
> the Crusaders - this was the one in which it appeared Bryce Lawrence was
> just going to continue awarding penalties to the Crusaders until they'd won
> the match.  Therefore if the Reds were to end up hosting the final against
> the Crusaders this might represent some sort of poetic justice.

Yeah if the Brumbies had made it into the playoffs it might be another
story, but the Reds are fairly obviously a legit team who had major
injury problems.

Cheers

Brent