Coetzee complains about away fixtures List for Super 15 in 2014

Ag die donnerse kermgat. That was exactly what the Bulls faced this season. Grow a pair and get over it Allister.

funny i did get the impression myself that some of the fixtures are layed out to make it easier on others we all know rugby is very much an in-gruoup out-group kind of thing. i also though it was unfair to have the boks start first with argentina because the argies dont have the fitness to last a campaign so the boks have to take the physical brunt while they are fresh it makes it easier for australia and new zealand because the boks and argies knock stuffing out of each other. then the argies travel away to aus/nz, then last nz/aus travel to arg so yeah i think theres a fair point there in super rugby and championship rugby.

No Mike

If you’re counting, it turns out that the cumulative change in time zones in Super Rugby is 38 time-zones for South African teams (with 4 to 5 consecutive weeks spent away from home), compared to 20 time-zones and 2 to 3 consecutive weeks away for New Zealand and Australian teams.

The greater time away from home is may be a factor – evidence exists that teams fare worse at the end of a long “road-trip” than at the beginning, but the issue of adapting to a new time-zone may be equally crucial for performance in the first week in particular.

That is why the Aussies and Kiwi's do not want us to have a 6th team as it would even things up for them.

As I said SR is there to feed NZ rugby and to build their own unions. We bring in most of the money and getting fucked over everytime.

Its time we do what India did to the ICC.

He who brings in the money make the rules and have the most say. 

Otherwise we can still go back to the Currie Cup and watch the Kiwi's loose all their playes to overseas clubs and Australia franchises play once a year in a state of origin cup.

We still have our Currie Cup which briongs in the moeny for big network deals. They don't. 

So I say fuck em and put our foot down.

Right now they get the same amount of $$$ than us yet they can't even chalk up 200 000 viewers where a Bulls Stormers match bring in 800 000 viewers from SA alone.

So fuck em. Lets do the CC

Bloebok the only solution is to add a 6th SA team. That would even things up. Until then the Bulls and other altitude based teams are our only hope of winning SR titles

Spoofy you be the one to tell the players that their salaries are to be cut in half .  We will get a 6th team, the Kings even if they dip out next year, will return .... the numbers at their home games are impossible to ignore .

not really mate. the sharks have been to three finals and the stormers have made one, the bulls have made four so thats half to altitude and half to sea level, but two sea level teams making it. im not sure i believe this nonsense of altitude. the bulls have a weaker record v sharks and stormers at home tyhen away at sea level. it just doesnt add up.

@Blowjob I mean blobok

I suggest you stop posting fiction. As 30 percent of the money we get from the deal goes to salaries.

@Ihi

And where was those two finals played at mate?

Only two teams in SA tow in S10 or SR is 

Lions ->1700m above sea level

Bulls ->1300m above sea level

You think the Chiefs got slaughtered cause they were that shit? 

No that happens when you go to Loftus with a mediocre 10 and try to run it from everywhere.

Just ask Australia

And the Stormers and Sharks do not have to travel through time zones to get to Loftus.

Stormers and Sharks yet have to travel through all that time zones to get overseas.

When overseas teams come to SA they just have to adapt to the time zones when facing the Sharks and  Stormers.

But for Bulls they have to adjust to altitude. Which takes more than a week to do it.

Why do you think Jeff Wilson was spilling his guts in the 95 final?

Cause the Kiwi's relaxed in Cape Town and then moved on to JHB to late. In extra time they were breathing tar. SA took control

They came up with a sotry of food poisoning instead of telling the truth. Dehydration side effects are having the shits and players puking all over the place.

Welcome to altitude bitches

Scotland ran in 30 points against you in the quarters due to it yet you did not learn

And for the record the Bulls and the Crusaders have the best home record in Super Rugby.

Look at all the teams that ran out of puff playing at Loftus

The B&I Lions

Australia

Samoa

England

Chiefs

Waratahs

All of them had a shit 10. The Lions were leading then they swopped their 10. Boom

The Crusaders? Aah they are successful there cause they are not the typical style of kiwi team with their tactics. 

The have a great 10 and capatilize on mistakes by the oppositon.

Sounds familiar? 

Oh yes lile SA and its teams are doing. Some call it kick and chase.

 No doubt Spoony - the most historically successful NZ team is the one that plays a style most like that of the South African teams because they have been able to combine the elements of both approaches. The most successful AUS team (Brumbies) this year also plays the same style of rugby. The difference is the finishing in the opponents 22. Brumbies have scored far more tries than the Reds this year yet White is overlooked and McKenzie chosen because White is too "conservative" - the irony. 

The territory and kick and chase game works - its what happens with ball in hand once we are in the opposition half where the Boks are still lacking although signs are promising of an attacking backline resurgence which Meyer has been talking about. If we get that part right combined with our superior rolling maul, good defence and Morne back on track we will be hard to beat.

The noise is getting louder and louder regarding the rolling maul as it relates to offensive obstruction. If it features prominently and successfully in the RC there is no doubt in my mind that there will be a concerted effort to have rules introduced limiting its effectiveness prior to the next World Cup with the excuse that its negative, boring etc etc. This despite the fact its been around for a long time.

@spoony,

bit of an over exaggeration there about NZ and OZ  not wanting a 6th team from SA, u seem to be forgetting just how kak SA lower tier teams have been since for the entire history of super rugby.

here are the bottom three teams for every super rugby tournamnet in the pro era
spXII
1996 - 12 crusaders, 11 western province, 10 transvaal
1997 - 12 highlanders, 11 chiefs, 10 reds
1998 -  12 lions, 11 bulls, 10 brumbies
1999 - 12 bulls, 11 lions, 10 hurricanes
2000 - 12 sharks, 11 bulls, 10 chiefs
2001 - 12 bulls, 11 blues, 10 crusaders
2002 - 12 bulls, 11 lions, 10 sharks
2003 - 12 lions, 11 sharks, chiefs
2004 - 12 lions, hurricanes, reds
2005 - 12 sharks, lions, reds

spXIV
2006 - 14 force, 13 lions, 12 reds
2007 - 14 reds, 13 waratahs, 12 lions
2008 - 14 lions, 13 cheetahs, 12 reds
2009 - 14 cheetahs, 13 reds, 12 lions
2010 - 14 lions, 13 force, 12 highlanders

spXV
2011 - 15 rebels, 14 lions, 13 brumbies
2012 - 15 lions, 14 force, 13 rebels
2013 - 15 kings, 14 highlanders, 13 force

18 superrugby tournamnets and a saffa team has picked up the wooden spoon 14 times.
the SA conference have long supplied bottom of the ladder with their teams, there have been 54 bottom tnree spots since 1996 and saffa teams have occupied 27 of those paces, in other words, in the professional era, SA teams have made up the bottom 3 teams 50% of the time.
and u want SA to have another team as if its their God given right, WTF ??? o_O

as u rightly noted, SA does bring in the most money, but back in 2010 when SANZAR were hammering out the new terms with the spXV and the 15th team, ARU wanted a 5th team (the rebels) and SARU wanted a 6th team (kings), but it was predicted that it would be more financial viable to have the rebels over the kings, as it was expected that SANZAR would have lost around 20 million dollars or over 200 million rand in lost revenue.
SARU threatned to leave SANZAR  and take its super rugby franchises out of super rugby and the Boks out of TriNatsmd john oneil told them fine, and was backed up by steve tew.
NZ and oZ then started planning the rugby future for life after SA and SARU who didnt have the support of either coaches and players then changed their tune and caved in.

neither the ARU nor the NZRU took a backwards step when the SARU tried to flex their muscle, NZRU admitted that their would be a financial loss without SA, but it was forcasted that NZRU would still make a profit.

its stupid to say that NZ dont want another team cos of the "travel factor", SANZAR like any corporation are motivated by cash first and foremost and thats why rebels were chosen over kings, will SA get the 6th team when the new round of talks begin in 2016 i think it is??? i hope so, given that SA have been easily the worst of the three SANZAR teams in super rugby, one can only imagine what happens when a nother team further dilutes SA playing pool, but hey, maybe u can take a page out of australias book and start recruiting NZ players too.

@Sasuke, that is allot of data and you have filtered it to suit a single perspective.

Take a look at more recent years where tours have been changed so that NewZealand also now get to play more games on tour- sometimes from South Africa to Australia and feeling the travel boggie that goes with this.

-

-In 2013, South Africa has got 4 out of the top 8 teams in the SuperXV tournament.

NewZealand has got 2 out of the top 8 teams

Australia has got 2

--

-In 2012, South Africa got 3 out of the top 6. 

NewZealand had 2 teams in the top 6

Australia had 1

-

Since 2007- The Bulls have won the tournament 3 times.

(This is 3 out of 6), with the possibility of making it 4 out of 7 this year.

The Sharks have been runners up twice since 2007.

The Stormers have finished 1st and 2nd on the overall conference table over the past 2 years.-

-

Comparing more recent times South Africa looks pretty good,

actually better than Australia and NewZealand who between them have only won the tournament 3 times out of 6.

South Africa has allways had a shit travel schedule, however with the Super14 and then Super15, both NewZealand and Australia have also experienced a harder tour. 

Sometimes coming to South Africa and getting moered and then having to go to Australia. 

So you guys are getting the feeling of what it is like playing 5 games on tour, and not a piss easy 2 games and then going back home.

Also, I am not really concered who finishes last in the tournament. 

The main reason a NewZealand team does not finish last is due to bonus points.

Typically South African and Australian Derbies are tight affairs.

However the NewZealand ones have very loose defences and losing teams still pick up a bonus point..

The highlanders and Kings won the same amount of games, the difference was the bonus points the Highlanders got.

Many people may think the Kings actually were a harder team to beat than the Highlanders this year.

Imagine the Highlanders having to go on tour over 2 different countries and play back to back games and not having bonus point losses. 

@sharkbok,

if u grapsed the realtion of the thread as a  whole, then u would realise why that data for that particular point was important. spoony made the argument that NZ didnt want SA to have a 6th team, the data i provided have shown quite clearly that there SA is not deserving of a 6th team in spXV, kapish???

as for selctive data, just look at ur arguments, top 8 in 2013, top 6 2012??? not only is that filtered data, its sselective to suit ur purposes.

the argument about SA teams having to travel more is valid, but what is a 6th team going to do to change that??? does anyone here really think the kings and lions are going to provide a serious challenge in the long term???
kings did amazingly well in 2013 surpassing im sure their own expectations, but even if they were to be here next year, i still dont expect them to do much expect cause an upset or two but still end up with the wooden spoon.
dollars to donuts that the 2014 wooden spooners will be the lions or kings, which ever one is playing.

IMO the spXV should have been everyone play each other once, but OZ and NZ teams play three games in SA, and SA play two games in both NZ and OZ.
the travel factor will still be the same for SA as it is at the moment which is an improvement from super rugby tournaments in the past, but the extra match would help balance it out a bit more and lessen the sorry as boohoos that saffas always sing to the worlds smallest violin, :oP
they can then scrap the play everyone in thier own conference twice rule and players get the added bonus of not playing as many games as they do now.
but logic hasnt always been a plenty within SANZAR.

but anyway. that is the core issue with my posts here and why that datd was relevant, kapish???

and BTW, of course ur not concerend with who gets the wooden spoon, SA have 14 of the 18 wooden spoons, if NZ had 14 from 18 wooden spoons, it prob wouldnt be a big deal for me either??? LMAO, :oD

I also liked the format of everyone play everyone, but that would reduce the number of pool games in total to 105 vs the current 120. Which SANZAR I am sure is patting itself on the back for.

Perhaps to even up the travel score in the current format, the schedule is drawn up so that NZ and Aussie teams complete their overseas travel all in a row, ie on their SA tour they go via NZ/Oz.

Just a suggestion.

Spooony & Sharkbok; SA will never get a 6th team as long as they have their 5th team invariably occupying bottom spot on the table. Get real! When ALL your teams finish further up the table then you may have an argument but it's pathetic to suggest otherwise now.

Sharkbok, the only reason SA have improved their positions on the log in the last 2 years is that the NZ teams now have to play each other twice and are not guaranteed 10 points against the worst SA team like before.

So come back with your argument when you get more depth and earn the right for a 6th team and not because you think you bring the big bucks in!

 Your points re the time zone was well put spoony. And the idea of a 6th Team to even out tha tis the answer. The kings were only in their first year and if allowed to continue will get better. Thye have an excellent fan base. The Lions were building nicely before being banned and only did go further becuase of a very bad inhury run.

We can easilty field 6 teams and they will all be strong in time. Solve the time zone inequality - expect nz to fight that tooth and nail.If we could stop the overseas drain we could field 7 treams at least!

Yes we need also to find an alternative as this will help us to sort out the nz and oz. 

Altitude does play a part as many a Bok and ab  etc have said over time.,The only ones denying thsi are the delusional bule fans- not all but some I know from my past. The double whammy of tavel and altitude is defintely beneficial to the bulle.

@Sasuke.

Did NZ deserved a 5th team when we had only 4? Considering we 3 times more players and we are losing them to overseas clubs? NZ and Aus can't field more cause they do not have the players to fill it so you want to hold us back as well? Cmon and fuck you.

And Oh lets put your criteria to Super Rugby

So the Chiefs, Crusaders, Reds, Stormers, Bulls, Highlanders and Brumbies also did not belong in SR cause they finished last as well?

How many winners of the comp there in that list agian?

Consistancy my friend. Lions only started in 2006. They had no consistancy,  Look what Cheetahs did with consistancy. Play off spot. Lions need the same as well. Did any team pummel the Lions with their huge amount of injuries? No they did not, 

And traveling east over 10 time zones you need 8 days to recovers as flying west like Aus and NZ do you need just 3 days to recover as the internal clock sync at only 1 hour per day at most

Look at that numbers. We want to keep our top players just like AUs and NZ did, We did not complain when Aus added more teams or when NZ had one more.

Also you say you say NZ are not really opposing a 6th team yet you went through a lot of effort to try and get a reason why SA couldn't get one.

Just like a SA team did shit every year the same happened to a NZ and Australian team. Shifting your regions every now and then sending a different team to the bottom of the log does not mean only the Lions did shit. If you compare the chokers you will note the Highlanders, Blues and Canes had some quality sides which they played like shit in the end ending near the bottom of the log. The Kings in their first year of SR did not do bad. THey can only improve. And the Lions beat them. SO we have strong enough team to add another.

@Beeno1

When a team bring a altitude rowing machine with them and set it for 3000ft just to prepare for the Loftus test match then one got think that altitude play a big part. The Bulls had over 70 years of fine tuning their style for their home bush. In 2010 they were even clever to rest their team. Then move the game to even higher altitude facing the Stormers with a well rested team. Stormers did not see it coming. Clever trick from the Bulls using it to their advantage

@spoony,

i dont know how someone like u can be so clued up about technical aspects of the game of rugby and then epicly turn into beeno1 aka storminged for matters such as this, i almost think ur trolling cos thats one dumb reply of beeno1 aka storminged proportions.

regarding ur comments,,,

"Did NZ deserved a 5th team when we had only 4?"
has either australia or SA had every single super rugby franchise at least play in a a grand final??? cheetahs in 2013 became the 4th team from SA to just make a finals, but they still havent played in super rugbys grandes stage of them all.
has NZ done the same??? yes, every NZ super rugby team has at one stage played in a grand final, to say nothing of NZs 11 titles from 18 seasons, 12 from 18 after the chiefs bury the brumbies.

"Considering we 3 times more players and we are losing them to overseas clubsNZ and Aus can't field more cause they do not have the players to fill it so you want to hold us back as well??"
first of all i dont know how u think i want u to be held back, so take of those beeno glasses and read my comments as they are, and not how u imagined them to be. i couldnt give two shits if SA have 6 teams in super rugby, its not going to change anything, the level of success that NZ has generated in super rugby is not going to change just cos both the lions and kings are going to be participating at the same time, all im saying now and then is considering how much wooden spoons (14 from 18) and bottom placings the SA teams have monopolised in super rugby (50% of the bottom 3 since super rugby turned pro has been from SA) i just dont think its justfied and ive read plenty of comments from saffas here on that matter.
ur right about NZ and OZ not having enough players to feild another team, but considering every single NZ team has at least played in grand final and 3 from 5 of those clubs have been champions, NZ would have a better chance to do so and in case ur still wearing ur beeno glasses, that dosent mean i want a NZ team in there.

"And Oh lets put your criteria to Super Rugby" (end of year ranking points chart)
"So the Chiefs, Crusaders, Reds, Stormers, Bulls, Highlanders and Brumbies also did not belong in SR cause they finished last as well?
How many winners of the comp there in that list agian?"

WTF???? o_O
first of all that chart is not accurate is the "unofficial" guideline that pick and go uses to rank teams based on the same criteria the IRB uses for rankings. in short it means nothing, its about as useful at telling us who really finshed where in super rugby as a GPS made of bubble gum giving me directions.
cos heres a simple fact u need to wrap ur head around and note u do need to take of those beeno glasses, ur chart does not relfect who came last in super rugby, the list i provided in my original reply to u does.
but taking those teams that u have named, lets see if u can spot the difference between the lions and all of them.
wooden spoons -
lions - 6
crusaders - 1
chiefs - 0
highlanders - 1
bulls - 3
stormers - 0
brumbies - 0
reds - 1

as u can see, the lions have the same number of wooden spoons as all 7 of the teams u named, do u see the differnece??? its not about who won what where, its about the quality of some of the teams, and the lions quality has been kak on roids.

"Look at that numbers. We want to keep our top players just like AUs and NZ did,"
if u want to keep ur top players, then SARU and meyer need to select players only based in SA, that will put a huge dent in players leaving over seas, its worked for NZ and OZ, surely its worth a try for a supposed rugby mad nation like SA and all that depth u saffa boys keep harping on about.

"We did not complain when Aus added more teams or when NZ had one more."
bull shit, SARU threatned to leave SANZAR and take all its teams with them when the rebels preferred over the kings, bvut a unanimous fuck off from the SA players and coaches in the spXV already, plus ARU and NZRU making plans for a comp without SA quickly changed their mind.

"Also you say you say NZ are not really opposing a 6th team yet you went through a lot of effort to try and get a reason why SA couldn't get one."
i dont speak for NZ, but i dont oppose a 6th team but IMO neither does NZ, and it wasnt that much effort quoting facts, the problem is u think its me saying its why SA shouldnt get one, im just saying they dont deserve one, but hey, another SA team of the calibre of the kings and lions??? good news considering they are easy beats, regardless of the kings surpassing expectations in their debvut year.

Eish, if SA so desperately want another team in the Super comp, let them bloody have it.  As long as NZ and Aus teams get to play them too and accrue the easy competition points the whole enterprise will come to sweet fokall for SA'n rugby and their ambitions for Super glory. I dunno but Im getting sick of SARU throwing their weight around like a petulant child. Christ, if they want 10 teams i say give it to them. Anything to shut these whinging prats up once and for all. Shoot, while we're at it, why not give SA'n teams a 10 point headstart for every game they play against NZ and Oz teams. Thats fair? Lets petition the IRB and have SA'n refs officiate all Super games and call a moratorium on drug testing of SA'n players. Lets demand that all games be played in SA at altitude after NZ players have been flown around the world...twice.  Lets ensure future matches are only played in front of feircely parochial and violently obtuse supporters. 50,000 Piet Van Zyls. Lets reward SA's traditional borefest tactics and make a penalty kick worth more than a converted try......say 9 points each and 6 for a droppie. Lets do away with scrums and somehow orchastate a rolling maul to decide the outcome of short arm disputes. Lets do away with the backline altogether and have 14 forwards and one kick-happy first 5.  To prevent the "quota" whinge, lets impose a "5 orientals"  per NZ and Aussie Super team rule. Bearing in mind that its now a 14 man forward pack, NZ and Oz will have to source their own 120 kg chinamen from god knows where. Problem is, even if these "advances" were made, we'd still get whingers complaining that poor ol SA has been dissed once again by the mighty NZers......Pfffft. what an effing joke this shite has become.