Trinats2 says...

ruggaluva:

I agree, and same for the tri nations. Because SA are always bottom of the table. (Lions this year in S15) and springboks picking up the wooden spoon yet again.

At least you'd have a chance in the Euro cup !

Posted 15:42 12th August 2012

APV1 says...

@ sandal - how very dare you suggest that Bath's very own (RWC Winning) Mr S Donald wasn't NZ's first choice?! (And I still chuckle at the sight of him trying, but failing, to squeeze his paunch into that ill-fitting jersey.)

;-)

Posted 09:34 10th August 2012

sandal says...

@cuw3100

Hear! Hear! Yes, please let's go back to Super 12. The season is too full, and it should be Super Rugby that gives, not international rugby. As for this business with the conferences, I am more interested in seeing those mysterious foreigners from Australia and South Africa come to my ground than another NZ team that I am already familiar with. I have never lost the thrill of seeing the great players from overseas playing Super Rugby here in NZ.

@Trinats

If the Reds were so great, then losing Cooper shouldn't have been such a handicap. Hell, the All Blacks just won a world cup without Dan Carter, and with his best substitute (Evans) unavailable, his actual substitute injured, and his substitute's substitute injured. So take ruckingkiwi's advice and suck it up.

@JayStarr

I think you're splitting hairs. Last year's Crusaders have my admiration for what they did all season. This year's Sharks have it for what they did in the playoffs. Perhaps the finest hour for both teams was in Cape Town.

I think the Reds got the home quarterfinal as part of the TV deal that funds Super Rugby. Every country had to get a home match to televise. Not very sporting, I agree, but it pays the bills.

@Sharkyzulu

Respect, my friend.

@startledwombat

lol

Posted 14:41 08th August 2012

Jmanngod says...

@Trinuts: Reds were found out this year. Plain and simple.

Posted 20:14 07th August 2012

JayStarr says...

@ ruckingkiwi & sandal: The Crusaders still played their home games in NZ... except for when they decided to go play at Twickenham (which the Sharks had to do too). To still finish in the final was an incredible achievement though and I'm not taking anything away from them. I'm arguing with Richard Anderson who was trying to say the Crusaders proved it could be done, so therefore the Sharks don't have any excuses... Which is nonsense, because the Sharks did exactly what the Crusaders have done - but the Crusaders haven't done what the Sharks couldn't do (which is fly over the Indian Ocean and Australia 3 times and still win). So his argument is poppycock.

As for having another week off before the final: as a Stormers fan, I'm not so sure! A break was the LAST thing they needed after the June Internationals completely robbed them of their momentum. They needed MORE rugby, not less...

Besides, the Sharks should never have had to travel to play the Reds in the first place. Why the hell did the Reds have a home game? They didn't deserve it. If not for this stupid system, the Sharks would not have had to travel so much... But more importantly, if the worst team was actually placed 6th (as they should have been), they would not have had the ability to travel over the ocean twice and beat better teams at home, so we wouldn't have seen such a situation...

If the Sharks played the Bulls at Loftus in their QF and the Crusaders the Reds in Christchurch - as it should have been - the Sharks would have then gone on to play the Stormers (much fresher) and the Crusaders the Chiefs, so the Sharks would have then only had to travel to go play the Chiefs in NZ. But no, Australia must have a play-off game and everyone else must bend over backwards to accommodate them...

Posted 17:45 07th August 2012

Trinats2 says...

ruckingkiwi:

Reds finished top of the log last year, backed it up by winning the finals. Stormers finished top of the log this year.

This year Reds lost their games without Cooper, won most (can't recall if he was playing when Reds trashed the Chiefs ??) when Cooper came back. he was only one of the"Missing"Wallabies for the Reds. So yes as a die hard Reds fan, IF only they had players (even from suspension) they would have been in the final !!!! IMHO !!!

Posted 12:12 07th August 2012

powerplay says...

Sharkyzulu..lol@pass

Posted 10:39 07th August 2012

cuw3100 says...

What is the possibility of going back to a SUPER 12?

If something's proved statistically this year, is that the 15 team conference system is too long and tedious , with no disrespect to the winners.

Too many players suffered injuries, many matches with sparse crowds, many dull matches and many complaints about travelling. Add to that the length of the tournament with International matches squeezed in between!

Many have cast doubts on suitability of at least 2 of the teams being "up there" to challenge the others. Many have stated easy matches that enabled some teams to get into final stage. Many wondered why one team gets a distinct home advcantage or travel advantage.

Posted 09:30 07th August 2012

jonesy2 says...

pieterson player of the tournament? hahahahahaa not even in the top 10 or 20. not even the top south african

Posted 09:17 07th August 2012

Trinats2 says...

hybrid187:

Reds beat the Chiefs and Highlanders (without half their team). Also beat the Crusaders but Bryce Lawtohimself had other plans !!!

Posted 05:14 07th August 2012