Sharks are victims of a flawed format
30 Jul 2012
MARK KEOHANE, in his weekly Business Day column, says Saturday’s Super Rugby final will be a farce instead of a real contest the tournament deserves.
Can the Sharks win in Hamilton and claim a first Super Rugby title?
Of course they can.
Are they good enough, individually and as a unit, to beat the home team?
Of course they are.
Will they win it?
Never.
The competition structure in Super Rugby finals has always been flawed because of the need to cram as much as possible into the year calendar, make the various administrations as much money as possible and give the broadcaster as much product as is possible.
A final should be about a contest and the definition of a contest is that the winner should not be predetermined.
Finals in which one team travels more than 19,300km and is given one training run before the season climax are finals only in name.
You play at home, you win. You play away, you lose. Occasionally a very good side wins away from home in another country in Super Rugby. In the history of the tournament, this was the exclusive right of a very talented and special Crusaders squad.
Officials argue that this is to reward consistency and the team placing top of the league gets all the play-off advantages. Cool, then why have a final? Win the league and you should be the champions.
The moment a play-off structure was introduced, which guaranteed each of the three Sanzar countries a play-off spot, it nullified any justification of rewarding league form.
Australia is the weakest conference. The Reds would have placed sixth on league strength. They won the Australian conference and got third on the overall league.
It is all a lie. From the outset, league form is not rewarded.
There should be three titles: a trophy and cash for the respective conference winner. It is a reward. It is an achievement. You, for example the Stormers, are the best South African team in the conference.
Then there’s the overall league winner and a very huge cash incentive and a big trophy. You are consistently the best team of the season, for example, the Stormers this year.
Now, your winners get a heads-up in the six-team play-offs, which is another tournament within a tournament. The heads-up is you get to host a play-off match which puts you in a position to play in the final, which is at a neutral venue and whose only purpose is revenue for the two respective teams and the competition organisers.
And there is a fortnight break between the play-off and the final. Then you have a tournament, in which there is merit, there is reward and there is logic.
Why have a climax to a tournament in which the format determines the winner? We play at home, we win. We play away, we lose. Why bother?
I have heard all the crazy arguments that if a team is that good they win anywhere. Crap.
The Crusaders’ campaign a year ago had a Hollywood script but a real ending, not that which sells to a dummy audience.
The same applies this coming Saturday. The Chiefs have to win because they are rested, at home and well prepared. The Sharks, in Brisbane a fortnight ago, in Cape Town last week and in Hamilton this weekend, have spent more time travelling than on the field.
Greed is the only motivator of the current system. There is no reward to any player, team or supporter.
Invariably the losing team in the final is lambasted by a disappointed supporter, and before there is time for proper analysis it all gets repeated in a league format at a national level.
Why no final here? The draw again influences the final standings.
The Sharks have confirmed their class in beating the Stormers. They were good enough. And they got the result. The Stormers, given the class of player, overachieved in winning the league and hosting a semi-final through consistently winning and they did not choke. A choke is when there is no way a team should lose. There was always a chance that they could lose because of the limitations within the available match 22 and the lack of try-scoring potency in the game plan.
The Chiefs, in New Zealand, were deserving winners and a Crusaders’ victory would merely have added to the illusion of the brilliance of a Crusaders team that relies on the extraordinary talents of Richie McCaw and Dan Carter and a historical dominance that has long not been a reflection of their rugby in the tournament.
The seven-times tournament champions have now lost five successive semi-finals and that is more relevant than the seven titles won by another generation.
We play at home, we win. You play at home, you win.
If it works for you, cool, but then add a bit of perspective to the illusion and see the tournament as a money spinner and not a representation of a team’s ability.
Both semi-finals were great value for New Zealand and SA respectively. Both national squads will be strong. Both will teams be extremely difficult to beat at home.
Don’t confuse national with regional and provincial. No bloke in Canterbury wants the Chiefs to beat the Sharks because the latter are South African. On the contrary. The same applies here. Unite behind the Sharks? Tell that to the Bulls and Lions supporters, as just two examples. Unite behind the Boks yes, but the Sharks are not a representation of Cape Town or Johannesburg.
National is national. Provincial is provincial. League is league. Knockout is knockout. Cash is all that motivates the administration. If it was about the contest, they wouldn’t force one team to spend 48 hours travelling across the world and then make them play 48 hours after touchdown.
The Sharks and Chiefs are bloody good sides. There is little between the two. It should be the dream final.
Instead it is a farce. It was when the Chiefs travelled to Pretoria a few years ago.
Can the Sharks win?
Of course they can.
Will they win?
They’ve won already if you are judging their rugby.
469 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] Show All
30 Jul 2012, 22:57 pm
@kaksioek-450:
It is not FdP’s kicking game that he is most missing. It is Du Preez’s natural feel for when to pass, who to pass to, whether to go left or right, whether to kick or whether to go for the break.
Hougaard makes the wrong call most of the time, or else he doesn’t know which call to make so just does something that even his team mates aren’t expecting and ends up running into his own man or something.
He is not a scrumhalf.
30 Jul 2012, 22:59 pm
@Tacitus-451: I think it’s because he is not being allowed to do what comes instinctively – he is being told to kick when he would rather pass or run.
30 Jul 2012, 22:59 pm
@kaksioek-449: Yes… as in my post 446. The Sharks were good for the Reds game for a longer period… But they were also excellent in the 3rd quarter against the Stormers… 10 points scored (1 Freddy Drop poke and a JPP knife through butter try). I actually think Bossie was on at that point… May be wrong though.
Look, if Whitehead and Jordaan were both fit then they would start… Other than if Frans was available, that is. But without Whitehead that same centre synergy not there for Jordaan.
30 Jul 2012, 23:01 pm
@kaksioek-452:
But he doesn’t know how to pass or how to read the play to set someone up through the gap.
All he knows is how to run.
And in South Africa where we let our scrumhalves run our backlines as opposed to the Kiwis and Aussies who let their flyhalves do that, we need more than just a good runner with the ball at scrumhalf. We need a general.
30 Jul 2012, 23:06 pm
@Tacitus-454: I think you’re being too hard on him. I think he would flourish in a different team – say the Sharks, for example. But let’s agree to disagree about him. I still admire your honesty about the other players you mentioned. Morne Steyn, for example, is woefully out of form and I will be very unhappy if he starts for the Boks.
30 Jul 2012, 23:09 pm
@kaksioek-455:
Don’t get me wrong. I still like all of these players. I just think they need to get their heads right.
Maybe a case of overplaying or something.
But if their recent performances for the Bulls are anything to go by, they certainly are in the type of form to start for the Boks.
That said, if Heyneke picks them, and his belief translates into great performances by them in the Green jersey, then all is well.
30 Jul 2012, 23:10 pm
@Tacitus-456:
Are not in the type of form to start for the Boks.
30 Jul 2012, 23:11 pm
@kaksioek-455:
Hougaard right now is like a bull being asked to sit still in a china shop.
He is being asked to play a type of 9 that is very different to 9′s in other countries. FDP could, for the same reason that FDP will also be able to play 10. Hougaard could never be a 10. But SA wants their 9′s to be a pseudo 10.
30 Jul 2012, 23:11 pm
@Tacitus-456: I would hope Morne is benched, at the very least.
30 Jul 2012, 23:14 pm
@Johannes Expatinus-458: True, but FdP would have been a very one-dimensional flyhalf. By the time he departed stage left I was sick of the sight of him. And then there was talk of him returning to captain the Boks … good grief. I still wonder who we have to thank for avoiding that disaster.
30 Jul 2012, 23:16 pm
Now I wonder – who would have made the better 10, leaving goal kicking out of the picture…
FDP, or Steyn…mmm
30 Jul 2012, 23:21 pm
Cheers people …
31 Jul 2012, 02:32 am
Shark is on the menu at two Hamilton restaurants this week – and Chiefs supporters will be hoping it stays that way come Saturday night’s Super rugby final against the Sharks.
John Lawrenson, who owns both restaurants, said 7kg of shark had already been ordered for his Keystone and The Abbey restaurants for Thursday night and he was expecting the dish to be a hit with diners not backing the South African team.
31 Jul 2012, 07:43 am
I can’t see the Sharks winning, I’ve just returned fm SE Asia and it has taken a few days to feel mildly ok, besides the time zone adjustmnet – the recycled air in the aircraft makes one sic and weak.
31 Jul 2012, 07:44 am
I agree with the points in this article Keo but it is very badly written and your points aren’t coherrent.
31 Jul 2012, 08:57 am
Ahem.
Pot.
Kettle .
Brains.
Trust.
31 Jul 2012, 11:47 am
My opinion is, expand the tournament to 16 teams. Play 2 groups of 8. The top 2 teams in each group play each other in a semi-final and the winners play each other in a final. The only alternative is to reduce the format back to 10 or 12 teams. The bottom 5 teams were rubbish anyway and not worth spending money on to watch.
1 Aug 2012, 09:13 am
@Robzim-8:
You are damn right there Bob Mugabe. I will NEVER support the stormers. I always say ”If not the Bulls anyone but the tailgunners from Slaapstad”.
So I will support the Sharks on Sat. If the Stormers had any BMT and they were playing the Chiefs, I would not support any team. But I will damn well shout my lungs out for a Stormer loss. Why? Because of the fans they have. Little know it all prima donnas who hates it when other teams win but pretend to support them for the greater good of SA rugby. Bunch of 2 faced bi t ches you are……
Hell, I even find it difficult to support the Boks when they have stormers in the team. I have to force myself.
2 Aug 2012, 10:34 am
Xkreni, that post right there just shows what a complete and utter **** end u are. The Stormers and boks don’t need your support, I suppose u like spies as well?? Dooooos!
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.