Experiencing the changing face of SupeRugby in 2011, when the three country-conference system was introduced, led one to perceive – in real time – that this tournament that began its professional facsimile in 1996 was experiencing a rebirth of competitive-cool, as the results played their way throughout the round robin.
At the time, this was my sense, which has encouraged toward a presupposition needing a test.
You may already be considering whether this context was also true for you? Whatever the case, an appropriate question now becomes can we examine if this is so? I believe we can, but we must come to an appropriate basis for an examination. How do we know what we know? If I say this is a competitive contest, or project that this will be a competitive rugby match; what am I postulating exactly? Also, what defines this reality in practice? Hopefully, a little more dispassionately than this verbosity unplugged.
It is with this all in mind that this scribe came to a plan; a plan that outworked my understanding of what it means for a match and a tournament to qualify as competitive.
Over the previous week, iamjonnyking has been hitting the books – so to speak – peering through pages of Super rugby results, even back to the good old days when the Super equation considered only 12. The results have provided one with a plethora of notation, and some material that may have answered the above presupposition about the season of 2011, while also providing material that will fill this website’s pages for a handful of days.
We will get to some of these numbers in due course. But, as we begin, let me define and affirm the layout of this land of analysis, nailing down the mechanism of means to examine the competitive process.
The Basis of Competitiveness?
In a sporting contest, it is generally understood that winning on the road, or away from home, is the more difficult task to achieve. ’Home ground advantage’ has a distinctive ring to it because we hear the context of this frame of reference very frequently in sporting reflections, and we witness its impact regularly on the field of dreams. As a kiwi, I have been thankful for the full range and implications of this context that has entailed in the 1987 and 2011 Rugby World Cup’s.
Therefore, with this assumption, a competitive test of a given competition can be gauged by analysing how each and every team performs on the road, and away from home. As these are collated, the percentage toward success rises, and with it; so does the sense that any result is possible when two teams meet, no matter the locale. My conviction is the competitiveness of a competition is best exemplified when any and every result is a question mark befitting a contest, no matter what the destination. A growing number, or higher percentage; a good sign that this ‘competitive edge’ is becoming a greater reality.
We will test this theory in SupeRugby.
Also, as part of this analysis, it is not merely who wins and loses in a contest, but also the nature of the battle. A team may win away from home, but if the result is, 0-59, this hasn’t been a contest, but an execution. Therefore, we further analysed the points distance or differential between the two teams in a SupeRugby contest, as a second means of testing the strength or worth of this competitiveness.
While we may able to extrapolate to other ends with these numbers, one must affirm that this does not, as a logical necessity mean that if this number of away wins is high, we are dealing with a good quality competition, as proximity does not axiomatically relate to quality. I will bear this in mind before one begins to bloviate.
To further help one ascertain whether the numbers in 2011 are the exception to the rule; in this piece, we will run the rule over Super Rugby circa 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Let’s begin.
Super 14 – Remember me?
The year is 2009. You could be considered confused as a little condescending, when one reflects on the Super 14 final of the year, as the Blues Bulls from Pretoria ran over the Chiefs, with a smidgen more than a speed-bump. If the match ended after the opening salvo, the Donald would still have been smiling. However, operation bluekrieg eventually went through the gears, dominating the moments at Fortress Loftus, with the final score, 61-17.
Competitive?
While three New Zealand teams would make the Semis – Crusaders, Hurricanes, Chiefs – there wouldn’t be any of the advancing Australian fair, as their play in 2009, did not go off.
Crunching the numbers!
2009
In 2009, the away team in Super 14 won 39.5% of the 91 regular season matches. Or, if you prefer it by the numbers, 36 out of 91 matches, before the playoffs.
The average margin in these 91 matches was 11.7 points, per match.
Like all of life, you may be wanting some greater context or comparison with which to compare these facts. While no two years have been the same, the away teams would win 28.8% of Super 12 matches in 1996 and 37.4% of Super 14 matches in 2006. While there has been the exception; as we will see, there has been gradual progress. To use another rugby context that is referenced in connection with SupeRugby, in the round robin portion of the 2009-2010 Heineken Cup, the away team won 27.7% of such matches. Or, again, if you prefer it with some harder date – 20 of the 72 contests.
The average margin between teams in the earlier years of Super Rugby was also generally larger.
In 1996, the average points differential between sides winning and losing was 15.6. While in the 91 matches of the first season Super 14 in 2006, the margin was 10.8 points. Heading north, in all 72 contests in round robin play in the Heineken Cup in 2009-2010, the points differential would be 13.5 points per match.
Once again, before the natives start to riot, the numbers do not assume quality – as you were.
While the Conference setup would only find life in 2011, this context seems to be going to play a large part in the future of this competition, with these numbers also proving interesting.
As we know, the away side would win 36 of the 91 matches in Super 14, with the country-based numbers as follows in 2009 – NZ teams would have 14 away wins. South African teams 11 away wins, with the Australian’s also winning 11 away from home.
Again, the Conference system would be a little less than an idea at this point in time, but consider the following numbers. New Zealand sides would have 10 of the 14 wins outside of New Zealand. South African sides would have 7 of their 11 wins outside the Republic, while Australian units would have 8 of their 11 wins outside their country of Bling.
2010
The Bulls would make it a double in 20-10, going back to back, this time over their rivals, the Stormers, meaning it all about the Republic in the Final. The Bulls would eventually quell and conquer the men from the coast, defeating the pretty boys, 25-17 in Soweto. Perennially in the playoffs, the Crusaders would again find a trip to the High Veldt, one kingdom too far, with the other semi-finalist found in the Waratahs, making the playoffs a three-part harmony in 2010.
Now for the numbers.
In 2010, the away team would win 34% of their matches in Super 14. This translates into 31 away wins out of the 91 total; meaning, this was 5 less than 2009. Crunching the numbers further by country, each is down, with New Zealand missing the most, descending from 14 away wins in 2009 to 11 away wins in 2010. South Africa and Australia would also move south. However, they would only drop one away win, to finish with 10 away wins each, in 2010.
Will a greater home field dominance also be translated in the points differential in each match? In 2009, the points differential was 11.7 points in each Super 14 match. In 2010, this number rose to 14.7 points in each match.
While each country would win less matches away, the number of these matches won outside of the looming Conferences, would be similar. New Zealand based franchises would win 7 out of their 11 away matches outside their New Zealand Conference. South African based sides would win 6 out their 10 away matches outside their African Conference. While the Australian based sides would win 7 out of their 10 away matches outside their future Australian Conference.
Remember, these numbers provide context for what would happen next in southern hemisphere rugby, which would follow with the introduction of SupeRugby.
There has been much reflection on SupeRugby, with a good deal challenging its existence and impact on the landscape and trajectory of the local rugby experience. Nevertheless, three conferences was now the name of this game, with the emphasis placed on a home and away format with all teams in your country or conference. The hope and plan was that this would increase the tribalism and fervor associated with a rivalry, making SupeRugby a much better product.
While SupeRugby is still very much in its infancy, take a look at the numbers that point toward success, particularly in the presupposition of this piece’s context, competitiveness. One could also say at this point – Stand Up South Africa!
2011
The number of matches would rise with this new context in 2011, taking the total number from 91 in Super 14 to 120 in the 2011 season of SupeRugby. A quarter more matches should realistically impact on the numbers, but what stands out is the impact of a Conference on this context.
In SupeRugby 2011, the away playing side would win, 42.9%, of the 119 matches [Hurricanes v Crusaders abandoned due to the Earthquake]. Considering the Crusaders context, when one considers that they played home matches in London, Napier, and Wellington, this number could easily rise to 45.3%; a growing and impressive total.
Again, if you prefer the detail, this translates into 51 away wins in the 119 matches [54 if you account for the above circumstances]. Remember the numbers in 2009 – 39.5% – and 2010 – 34% – and we have signs of a growing competitive witness in SupeRugby.
While the points differential had mushroomed from 11.7 in 2009 to 14.7 in 2010; this would fall in the 2011 season to 11.9 points differential per match.
However, while these numbers are encouraging, it is what happens next that may prove most illustrative.
In 2011, New Zealand sides would win a total of 15 away matches. An interesting fact is that this number would only rise by one from 2009. However, where the numbers start to get interesting is the fact that Kiwi sides would win 8 of their 15 away matches IN the New Zealand Conference; more than half. Their total of 7 out of conference wins is the same number as 2010, although their overall away wins total has risen by 4.
The South African context is even more definitive; you may even want to say, exciting. In the early years of Super Rugby, there was a good deal of talk about the travel factor for the African sides, who would spend many weeks on the road. It has taken some time, but the 2011 Conference system may have answered, at least some of these concerns.
In 2011, South African based sides would win 21… Up in lights… Yes, 21 away matches. This total is 11 more than the previous year, and is the total number of away wins for both 2009 and 2010. However, while their number of out of conference wins would rise from 6 in 2010 to 9 in 2011, it is the sizable inside centre, in 12, which should mark their season. The South African franchises would win 12 away matches in their own conference, meaning it was all on away from home in 2011 for the Africans.
In light of the greater context, this sheds much positive light on the Conference concept and its push toward a greater competition, even tribalism. South African sides are spending a greater percentage by way of proportion of their matches at home, which should make their collective push for SupeRugby significance more a reality.
While the South African number proves insightful, the Australian’s numbers likely follow suit.
In 2010, the Australian sides would win 10 away matches. However, in 2011, they would take that number and add 5, claiming 15 away wins, the same number as the New Zealand franchises – the first time they have matched the New Zealand total in the whole of Super Rugby history. On the other hand, unlike the New Zealand franchises, the Aussies would win a total of two-thirds of their away matches inside their Australian Conference – 10 out of 15 – with their out of conference total actually dropping; unlike the Africans. In 2010, this number was at 7. In 2011, it would drop to 5.
This final statistic would make little impact on the champion side for 2011 – the Reds – who would come out of this Australian Conference, ending the Blues, and then the gallant Crusaders, into the playoffs. On the back of an increasingly rabid home base, lead by their Captain Horwill and inspired by the man at the base, Will Genia, the Reds would end years of desolation, returning much rugby hope to that land in the West.
Conclusion
The numbers affirm that the 2011 SupeRugby expansion intersected with an increase in the context of competition. You may not best pleased with this reality; not particularly arrested with this development, nor overly inspired by the product; however, the numbers do speak their own witness.
The number of away wins grew from seasons 2009 and 2010, with the differential between two teams at a contest, reasonable, particularly in the larger context.
This is only the first year of its witness, but it is a growing sign into the future.
The 2012 SupeRugby season is now on our doorstep that will provide the next stage and storyline in its development.
Speaking of next; iamjonnyking has not finished with this “competitive” reflection, as we do so on this theme throughout some or much of the coming week, examining some other frames that help this reference.
Speaking of the future
I would like to think that iamjonnyking is one must-stop destination for this Super season, with live commentary from written reflection, part of the flavour of this man. Things will also be changing visually in the coming days to week, so please stay tuned, as we have only just begun this ascent.
What Say You?
Until Next Time
iamjonnyking
Recent Comments