Eliminate the Jags/Wolves and a dismal picture emerges

Boundless optimism erupts in the land, we are ahead of the Aussie teams, NZ is in our sights. All we have to do is make die Leeuwe almal Bokke. But wait a moment, what happens if you eliminate the local contests and see how we are doing against foreign teams.
Well happily we have won 19 and lost 19. Not so bad you say, but 10 of those wins have come against the Jags/Wolves....oops.
And for the rest against NZ/Oz we are a dismal 9 won/17 lost. Still surely we are ahead of the terrible Aussie teams. Nope we have won 5 they have won 7.....and NZ crushes us 4 to 10.
So sadly there is nothing happening in the S15 to feel that good about. It's pretty much the same old thing disguised by the Jags/Wolves gift and even that gift the Saffa teams haven't fully embraced. We have lost 2 to them and drawn 1.
But surely the Lions are in the plus column, our leading team....poster children for the new running game. Nope despite having a 3 to 2 edge in home games....they are in fact 2 won/ 3 lost against NZ opposition. And one of those wins was against the imperfect Blues.
Which pretty much leaves us the Sharks win over the Canes and the Lions win over the Chiefs to cherish, even though some might suspect the Chiefs never really came to play in that game. 
Where are the old Bools when we need them.

 That is one way of looking at the situation and not a very rugby-scientific way either.  Lets start with where we were last year.   Last year was a dismal situation without the Sunwolves and the Jaguares and there are a number of issues here that needs clarification.
It is difficult to make a realistic assessment of that issue since the dismal and bankrupt Kings came into the picture.   The above evaluation conveniently throw the Kings into the configuration to prove what?

The situation last year
Because of the Conference system the only SA team that was in the play-offs last year was the Stormers.   They were badly beaten by the Brumbies in the play-offs.   In fact that play-off game was a disgrace.   The same happened in 2014 when the Sharks were for the same reason was in the play-offs and similarly disgraced.
Was there any signs of a change in 2016 from the situation in the previous two years?
The issue should rather be did the SA teams show a decline or improvement on the performances in 2014 and 2015.   This issue is complicated - since the system changed and unlike in 2014 and 2015 the teams did not play all or most of the NZ and Aussie teams involved.  Africa Group 1 played only against Australian teams and Group 2 only NZ teams.
This issue is complicated.   Most SA teams lost a lot of senior players either through retirement or taking up contracts in NH countries,   This let to disaster forecasts about how on Super Rugby level the SA teams will be negatively affected by the departures.
In some individual cases - such as Vermeulen in the case of the Stormers, which weakened the Stormers loosie situation to a farcical level - there was a negative impact, but for the rest the teams were not really weakened by the relevant departures.   Fact is most teams had to bring in very inexperienced youngsters - lowering the average age of players to below 25 years of age. 
The other issue of note is the fact that in the case of three of the five real Super Rugby teams representing SA in Super Rugby - and for obvious reasons I leave out the dismal Kings in this case - new Chief Coaches were appointed.   The real reason was that the three teams involved were going nowhere  other than down  because of usage of a dismal game plan and of poor utilization of player resources.   
What is of importance are two issues -
*  the departure of the experienced reputation players from the scene had with extremely rare exceptions did not have a negative impact on the performance of teams; and
*   the improved playing styles by the now coaches showed signs of improved rugby played by the Bulls and the Sharks.
No realistic person can expect that the youngsters now making up the vast majority in the SA teams will come out and be champions in their first year but at least a sound foundation is being laid for future growth.    
  
    

'The issue is complicated", sure if you want to BS. But quite simple if you want to gather a few facts.
In 2016 we have won 9 and lost 17 against Oz/NZ teams...a win ratio of 34.6%
In 2015 we won19 and lost 21 against Oz/NZ teams....a win ratio of 47.5%.

You may very well think it's complicated, I'm sure the world is confusing to you. But actually it's pretty simple. The move to expansive rugby, and every team claims to be going in that direction, has dramatically worsened our results.

 Mozart
Your assessment is not based on realistic comparisons - purely because of the fact that you brought in the Kings into your equation, as well as the format changes as spelled out above.   Your assessment is therefore real BS not worthy of any thinking person. 
The world is not confusing me - your rugby stupidity is.    
 

Simply fixed. Lets eliminate the Kings from the South African teams......they lost 4 matches against NZ teams poor buggers. 
That leaves our Oz/NZ record ......won 9/ lost 13....win ratio of 40.9%
Versus last year ....won 19/ lost 21.....win ratio of 47.5%

And thats best case, because while the Kings lose, they extend tours and contribute to travelling injuries....making games for the remaining teams easier.
Its undeniable, despite all the hoopla, presenting the best case possible our Super Rugby performance has slipped significantly.

 You are really idiotic.  There is no way you can compare the system last year with this year.  The performances did n ot slip - your mind has.; 

The performance slipped. This is not synchronized swimming, it's rugby. You win or you lose. We have won less against last year's opposition, than we did in 2015....gone backwards.
What's your next lie?  

Of course there is a simple way of dealing with this aberrant data point...ignore it. That's the modern way, if the facts don't square with your theory, just ignore the facts.
The news is grim. Coetzee ignores all the BS and plays to our strengths and then gets vilified if we don't beat NZ, never mind its our only chance to win. Or second he feeds the mob think and we lose big and he is vilified ultimately because it's never the players' fault, always the coach.
Life with moronic fans is tough, and we really have the stupidest fans and press. Everybody on this Board is walking around thinking our Super rugby is vastly improved. Much of the blame has to rest with the rugby press. Stupid buggers never even thought of doing a simple like for like analysis 2015 to 2016....all they do is repeat their beer laden emotional wisdom.
As long as we get our information from drones like Mallett, Mark Andrews, Gavin R ich, Jan de Kooning, Biltongbek and others.....we will continue to be poorly informed. 

 Mozart there is a norm that in statistical evaluations "apples must be compared with apples" or at least an effort should be made in the relevant regard.   However, in view of the format changes in Super Rugby what you are trying to do is to compare apples with fruit salad and then you come up with comparisons that is no worth anything - since it is not supported by comparative data.
The issue raised by you of "we must play to our strengths"  has been frequently discussed on this site. There are serious reservations about whether our so-called strengths have not been undermined by PREDICTABILITY.   We slipped in our world ranking - at one stage to number 6 and our losses can be traced back to a number of factors all based on our strengths,  You have been a strong supporter of Meyer - but most people has recognized that he managed to turn our strengths have through predictability turned to our weaknesses - even Japan had to benefit from that.
You have never noticed or never seems to notice that the following detrimental issues became the norm in our rugby:-
*   The reduction of a Tight 5 to a Tight 4 because of crap selection of of the physically-deficient Matfield
*   the selection of loosies who due to pace deficiencies could not keep up with the game with s serious detrimental impact on both attacking and defending play.
*   the continuous kicking away of balls - 99% of which was aimless and inaccurate = representing handing over to the opposition;
*   the chronic inability of the Springboks to score tries because of a mindless and repetitive game plan.
I am all for playing to our strengths but their needs to be a game plan allowing for variation of play - predictability must be avoided at all costs.  Nobody is for the Springboks to play like the AB's - what is said unlike what happened under Meyer - who unknowningly destroyed out strengths based on reputation players - that should be replaced with a system of thinking rugby with real utilization of all 15 players on the fie ld of play.    
 
      

So now we are supposed to eliminate the Cheetahs as well. Then how about NZ eliminating the Blues and Oz eliminating the Rebels and the  Force?  
Nonsense of course. It's an honest analysis, we leave out the Kings and do worse than last year by a lot. Hell if any team is guilty of stupid expansive rugby it's the Cheetahs

Okay so let's eliminate the Cheetahs, just for fun. The poor buggers have lost to virtually every  Aussie team, 4 in all. 
Wipe it away, it doesn't exist. That makes our record 9 won, 9 lost against the whole Oz/NZ complex, including the abysmal Blues, Rebels and Force. Not good.

But it gets worse, we have to eliminate the Cheetahs from 2015 of course. The Cheetahs actually won a few last year....three in all, but they lost six. So eliminate the Cheetahs and our record becomes 16 won and 15 lost.
So hilariously even doing what dumb Mike and bigoted Dave want.....eliminating the Kings and eliminating the 0 for 4 in 2016 Cheetahs . Our record is still better in 2015.

Eliminating our new team....the record is better in 2015
Eliminating our next worse team who were better in 2015, the Cheetahs, we are still better in 2015.
Handicapping the Oz/NZ complex with the Force, Blues, Rebels and removing the Kings we are worse than the complex. We only get to even if we also, for no logical reason eliminate our next worse team.
It a wipe-out. And nobody has even figured out its happening.

 As honest as prejudice would allow you to be.  Crap rea soning on your part of course.  

 

Why we are in sight of the Kiwi sides and ahead of the Oz sides

Forget the Cheetahs and Kings, they are crap......nothing to debate there

Sides as they rank

Chiefs played 11 won 9 drawn 0 lost 2

Crusaders p 11 w 9 d 0 L 2

Lions p 11 w 8 d 0 L 3

Highlanders p 11 w 8 d 0 L 3

Bulls p 11 w 7 d 1 L 3

Sharks p 12 w 7 d 1 L 4

Canes p 11 w 7 d 0 L 4

Brumbies p 11 w 7 d 0 L 4

Stormers p 11 w 6 d 1 L 4

Tahs p 11 w 6 d 0 L 5

Rebels p 11 w 5 d 0 L 6

Reds p 12 w 3 d 1 L 8

There is little in it from the Brumbies up......with 2 more wins to the Chiefs than the Brumbies and 2 more losses to the Brumbies versus the Chiefs.....the margin gets closer the higher you move up my table.

With 4 rounds left, anything can happen

Confirms yet again how pathetically negative Moz is and more than anything confirms what utter crap he talks

There is no doubt our top 4 sides are featuring better than in the past, thanks to youthful squads and new and better coaches.

 

You go on about our overall record. That's  because our top teams are playing two games against the Cheetahs, Wolves, Kings and Jaguares. Man you are a plank. 
Ten of our foreign wins, 10 out of 19 come from the Jags and the Wolves. Of the remaining 9 wins ....5 have come off the Blues, Reds, Force and Rebels. Leaving only 4 significant wins by SA teams against foreign teams.
It's a joke. A rigged system to get international exposure in the playoffs, which dumb buggers have interpreted as improved South African performance.

At your peril Moz... youre too immediate  or lack future foresight....they will be there with their potential...rugby power will change....there are physical barriers that easily be burst by training and pride...rugby like any challenge can be improved or built on and improved especially with athletic nations...Russia, Japan and China are able to knock the the order...the Olympics will chan ge this

I accept that completely. I have always maintained any Bok team we have fielded in the last four years could have beaten the ABs. But unlike the ABs we are beaten between our ears before we start.
The success of the Lions, modest success I should say, is more about team than tactics. Sure they have the game plan down, but their success comes from expecting to win. And when that expectation was shattered against the Canes they imploded.
You can go very far on will to win, trouble is we don't really expect to beat the All Blacks.

We did not beat the AB's largly because we had to lose ith the game plan and selections of Meyer.  Tests are won by teams capable of scoring tries and defending well,  We lost two tests in Johanneburg because of deficient flyhalfs and in Wellington because of Matfield when he botched a line-out 5 meters out which should have resulted in a rolling maul.
The WC semi last yer we could never ever wi n because of a BS game plan.     

 Mike surely you even bore yourself. Seek a new idea, it will solve your problem with dumping.

 Mozart
May I offer you some free advice.   If  you want to make a salient comment on comparative strengths between 2015 and 2016 of  SA Rugby teams 9  you must compare the actual scores of the teams who played each other last year compared to this year.   Once that comparison has been evaluated you will be 20% nearer to th mark
To date all you wrote is garbage without any sensible and salient base to support it.  

The only fucking plank here is you you stupid pessimistic prick.....The top Kiwi sides play the likes of the Blues, Force, Rebels and Reds.....have you seen their sides and records this year you fucking ignorant twat? But best of all dumb prick......some get to play the Jags and Wolves as well....helloooooo. Idiot. Oh but it does not stop there for the Kiwi sides played the Kings as well......how stupid do you feel old man? What was that about a rigged comp? 
Your argument falls flat on its face....as I point out our top 4 sides are well placed which effectively makes your pathetic pessimistic take on the state of SA rugby look as out of touch as it is.
You are so fucking pathetic getting off on being so anti SA rugby.....is that because 90% of the players are under 25 and we dont have conservative twats in your mould coaching them like Meyer, Ludeke, Drotske and Coetzee. Why do you bother supporting SA rugby you lying pathetic prick?

 Mozart will never follow up on my suggestion - above - so I will provide one example.  Take for instance the Bulls in their games against Aussie teams (they did not play the Waratahs last year - so that one is left out):-
Reds    -   W  43-22  -  PD +21Force   -   W  25-24  -  PD +  1Brumbies - L   16-22  -  PD -  6Rebels    - L    20-21 -  PD -  1
The total point difference was +15
This year the 4 results were as follows:- 
Reds    -   W  41-22  -  PD +19Force   -   W  40-22  -  PD +18  Brumbies - L    23-6   -  PD -17 Rebels    - W  45-25  -  PD +20
The total point difference is +40  
Now Mozart can prove to us all that 2 wins and 2 losses is better than 3 wins and 1 loss.   He can also obviously prove that a point difference of +40 is worse than a point difference of +15 .  Great logic is always his forte.  

 Geez Tok it seems to me you have cocked up again....the data is exactly the same in both cases. How can one possibly take you seriously you handicapped clown?

 My computer is playing up ever since I installed windows 10 - the computer stalls so I have to update postings regularly otherwise I lose what I have written already.   I have updated the scores and you can now prove to us how seriously the Bulls deteriorated from last year to this year as per your earlier statements.   

Two simple points ...my findings are based on all our teams, not one team. And my findings are based on win/loss records not point differentials. If you want to do all the point differentials that's fine....but if you do all the teams you also do all the results. So you would include the 23 point loss to the Tahs you have excluded.

 Mozart
So why do you not take all teams and compare all their results on the basis suggested by me to see what you come up with?   You tried to make a point that misfired - and I am suggesting a way forward to handle it.  Now prove your point please.
By the way the Bulls did not play the Waratahs last year - so there is not comparative stats available.   There is nothing to compare with last year - but that would obviously not bother you.
Logic has gone seriously missing again - I am afraid.  


         

No need Tokkie, win/loss is how we normally decide things. As for the Tahs issue if we compare all teams....the comparison set is between all games played against NZ/OZ opposition in 2015 vs 2016. The  data set is never exactly the same eg home vs away. If that's too hard to understand don't let it bother you,

 Miozart
You are talking utter BS again.  You cannot make a general statement when the format of the competition has been changed.   The only way real comparisons can be made is to look at how the team did against the same teams they played against last year.   That is a real comparison - the rest is all crap.   And point difference is important - every rugby statistician will tell you that.  
In any event - if you only talk about games one and lost - how come the 2 wins and 2 losses last year are better than the 3 wins and 1 loss this year?
Mozart - it is very easy for you to find artificial reasons to support your points - but that proves nothing without detailed evaluation and that is what is missing in this case.      
 

Let me repeat,  our teams who played last year, which excludes the Kings,  won 19 out of 40 games against NZ /Australian opposition,  a 47.5% win record.
The same teams this year won 9 out of 22 games against the same NZ/Oz teams a 40% win ratio.
Case closed.

 Mozart
One cannot discuss anything logical with you.  The total change in the tournament format makes a mockery of your comparisons.  There are two few comparable games to arrive at a logical conclusion.  To arrive at such a conclusion the only way is to look at individual games and see how the comparable info is then to be used.
This type of statem ent by you is in fact ridiculous and you are definitely not stupid - so one must accept that it is done to convey your normal prejudiced viewpoint.       

I presented the results for all our teams, you objected saying the Kings made 2016 worse. I eliminated the Kings. Then Dave wanted the Cheetahs gone, same result.
Three different comparisons with 40 data points in one case, 22 in the other, show the same thing.....a worsening of our performance.
I'm satisfied that it's statistically significant. 

 Mozart
How do you for instance know how the Stormers would have done against the  NZ teams or the Sharks against the Aussie teams?   That type of thing makes your so-called  comparisons impossible and you should know it.
I suggested a direct impact approach where teams are rated in the games they played last year against the same teams they played this year to determine whether their was a change that could indicate whether the relevant teams improved or weakened as against their relevant performance last year against the same teams.   
That is  much more accurate approach than a conglomeration of irrelevant game because of format change.
Sorry - you made a statement that the SA conference teams are weaker than they were last year - but in the case of one team only the comparisons indicated otherwise - so what is the case with the other teams?   It can either prove or disprove your statement.
Your statistics are not comparing apples with apples - but turned statistics into a fruit salad making no sense at all - any logical person would tell you that.             
 

Go ahead...compare the individual team against themselves by year....the aggregate of those individual team comparisons  is the same as the aggregate of all team comparisons subtracting one year from another.
Take it this way:

(A16-A15)+ (B16-B15)+(C!6-C15)+(D16-D15)=(A16+B16+C16+D16)-(A15+B15+C15+D15)
In other words it makes no difference if you compare individual pairings and aggregate them....or if you aggregate all teams and subtract 2016 from 2015. You get exactly the same result.

 Your theory can never be proved statistically as you use generalized info on all teams to deal with specific information on each of the teams individually.  Anyone would tell you that it is a crap approach you are using.   The same result on specific teams have not been proven - prove your statement iro individual teams or it is game, set and match.    

 34 posts in this thread including mine ... of which 29  were made by Mike and Mozart ... going back and forth ... and as usual ... getting nowhere ...
Thread after thread ... spoilt by these two frustrated fcukers ... 


 

 cc
Mozart made an totally unfounded statement on the Super Rugby teams have been weakened because of the departure of the has-beens and never-has-beens he supported in the pas t from the scene.   He tried to use partial statistics to ptove his point and is too deluded to realize that h is wrong and cn only prove hi statement by evaluting game results involving the SA teams who played this year  and the same teams thy played last year.   He is way too rock-headed to realize that he is talking crap - hence the argument.     

That's how you get into the "Hall of Fame" 29 out of 34...CC we have a long way to go.

Mike and Moz keep this forum going...without them Saffex and Rooinek will go into hibernation and fall asleep.

Beeno and Dr Win are very quiet....probably either too much valium from Borado or conferences and secret agent duties

Now CC be fair. I have made a perfectly valid observation. And one which needs to be made because it pops a generally but incorrectly held belief. You can argue extenuating circumstances, but the simple calculation should be accessible to even a moron....then Clevermike came along and proved nothing can be made simple enough for the truly stupid among us.

 CC
Be fair - Mozart made a totally unproved statement and tried to justify it by quoting totally inappropriate stats to support his pet theory.  It should even be clear to everybody that the moron is not even remotely interested in facts -  but that is to be expected from him.  .  

 Admit it Mike even your mother called you stupid.