Rugby - Crouch and Hold!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Bearcat
I'd like to see the Blues or Highlanders win, provided they make the semi-finals. I'm not avidly fond of the Crusaders. I'd also like to see the Bulls make the semi-finals but not at the Highlanders expense.

The Blues, the Crusaders and the Hurricanes are definitely in the semi-finals. They can't miss out now. After the weekend's results, with the wins by the Waratahs and the Brumbies, the fourth spot is the only one up for grabs, and the contenders are the Brumbies, the Highlanders and the Waratahs. The Bulls are theoretical contenders - they can get there mathematically - but their chances are extremely remote. If they do manage to make it, it will have to be at the Highlanders' expense because the Highlanders are contending for the same spot.

Well we have minor league teams in baseball and hockey that are tied to the major league teams. The professional teams send their draft picks and prospects down to the minor league teams to develop, hence they are called farm teams. But they will never be promoted to the pro leagues.

Yes, that's the difference. We - well, England and France, et al - have divisions below the top division rather than just minor leagues/feeder clubs. I suppose the major difference is that, under the promotion/relegation system, you don't end up with the same easy-beat cellar-dweller team year after year. They get relegated, someone else comes up to replace them. The only problem with the promotion/relegation system comes when there's a quantifiable difference in standard between the top and second divisions and the promoted team only stays for one season before it's relegated again. But that, itself, is part of the challenge the system offers - it's one thing to be promoted, it's another to stay up there. It really puts the onus on a team to develop its standards.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin




Thanks for the explanation Finbar, I like this kind of anecdotes.

It's a classic example of Australian verbal ingenuity. If we can pinch or adapt something and apply it to something else, we will. Just a pity we're not as enlightened in other areas.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin


Finbar, you have very well summed up the advantage of the Relegation/Promotion system, it really adds some spice to many games. In the top division, many teams would not have any interest in fully playing some games as soon as they know they don't stand any chance to qualify for the play-off... I think it could seriously distort the end of a season.

I just wish we had enough players, and therefore teams, to operate a promotion/relegation system!

[finbar]

London Irish 20 -d- Leicester 19

At Welford Road. Mmmmmm. Looks like the comp named after the writing implement for the Tigers next season.

And Rod Kafer is off to Saracens.

[Bearcat]

Originally posted by finbar
The Blues, the Crusaders and the Hurricanes are definitely in the semi-finals. They can't miss out now.

Good for the Blues and Hurricanes. Those are two teams I guarantee you people would never have picked to make the semis this year. Somehow I think that the Crusaders are the LA Lakers of the Super 12 though.

After the weekend's results, with the wins by the Waratahs and the Brumbies, the fourth spot is the only one up for grabs, and the contenders are the Brumbies, the Highlanders and the Waratahs. The Bulls are theoretical contenders - they can get there mathematically - but their chances are extremely remote. If they do manage to make it, it will have to be at the Highlanders' expense because the Highlanders are contending for the same spot.

Meh, I'll have to a look at the table and schedule, but it would be a terrible tragedy for the Brumbies to make it over the Highlanders.

Yes, that's the difference. We - well, England and France, et al - have divisions below the top division rather than just minor leagues/feeder clubs. I suppose the major difference is that, under the promotion/relegation system, you don't end up with the same easy-beat cellar-dweller team year after year. They get relegated, someone else comes up to replace them. The only problem with the promotion/relegation system comes when there's a quantifiable difference in standard between the top and second divisions and the promoted team only stays for one season before it's relegated again. But that, itself, is part of the challenge the system offers - it's one thing to be promoted, it's another to stay up there. It really puts the onus on a team to develop its standards.

Our leagues are too business oriented to go in for something like that. Besides, I don't know how well American fans would or could adapt to such a system.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Bearcat

Good for the Blues and Hurricanes. Those are two teams I guarantee you people would never have picked to make the semis this year. Somehow I think that the Crusaders are the LA Lakers of the Super 12 though.

I suspect the Hurricanes are the surprise. The Blues have usually been around the place at semi-final time, even if their performances this year have been a surprise. Last year was the Crusaders' LA Lakers-year. This year it's a bit more open.

Meh, I'll have to a look at the table and schedule, but it would be a terrible tragedy for the Brumbies to make it over the Highlanders.

It's going to be a very, very interesting last round of matches. Essentially, the Highlanders will have to win and pick up a bonus point against the Reds, hope the Brumbies lose to the Crusaders without picking up a bonus point, and hope the Waratahs lose to the Chiefs.

Our leagues are too business oriented to go in for something like that.

Yes, and I think that's possibly the fundamental difference. Your teams are franchises in a restricted competition. The only real way out is to go bankrupt. While that can happen in the other competitions we're talking about - and the threat is becoming very real with the increased costs of "professionalism" - the other competitions are firmly rooted in a traditional concept of clubs representing particular cities or towns or areas competing against each other. It started out tribal, and, in a lot of cases, remains that way. Look at Havak's jaundiced view of the inhabitants of certain other parts of England. Not to mention the inhabitants of certain other parts of the island he occupies!

I don't know a lot about American sport history, but I suspect your competitions probably also started out in the same tribal way. I'd be interested to know. Somewhere along the line, the current unique concept emerged and developed as it did. That it's so enormously popular means it obviously works.

[LDiCesare]

Our leagues are too business oriented to go in for something like that.

I don't think this has anything to do with it. Soccer for instance works with relegation system in France and is very professional. The most wealthy clubs tend to buy the best players, so they stay on top, even if they can't always be champions, they are quite sure not to be relegated. There's about one club in France that may be atypical in the sense it doesn't have a lot of money but manages to do well, but again, this is a business decision, since said club has a good schools, breeds players and sells them to richer clubs...
In French rugby (enough talk about s***), the relegation system has had an effect of heightening the level of play: Clubs which couldn't pay their players saw them leave, and plummetted. The best example of that is Toulon, whose players include many internationals like Delaigue (now at Toulouse), Dominici, Moni and Comba (Stade Francais), Mignoni (Beziers last time I checked), and many other good players. The club couldn't follow the likes of Toulouse in finances, and they were replaced by other clubs better able to manage their finances. It's a bit of a pity since the club has a great history, and there are many such great clubs in France, but it's always been that way. Even with relegation etc., clubs like Peyrehorade have always fed players to Dax and Mont de Marsan, who then fed them to Toulouse...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar


Will they be? I thought there was England talk of resting some of the key players. I recall Wilkinson wanting to play but Woodward telling him he had to rest.

I'm only going by this story at rugbyheaven.

http://rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/29/1051381949110.html

Have you heard otherwise?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar
It's going to be a very, very interesting last round of matches. Essentially, the Highlanders will have to win and pick up a bonus point against the Reds, hope the Brumbies lose to the Crusaders without picking up a bonus point, and hope the Waratahs lose to the Chiefs.

I can't see the Chiefs beating the Waratahs in Sydney, and I also think it's unlikely that the Brumbies will lose to the Crusaders without picking up at least one bonus point. The Highlanders should beat the Reds, so I think it'll be the result of the Brumbies/Crusaders game that's the most crucial. If the Brumbies win, even without bonus points, they will definitely take the #4 spot.

Of course, another possible scenario is a three-way tie. If all three teams end up with 32 points, how will it be decided?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Bearcat
I'd like to see the Blues or Highlanders win, provided they make the semi-finals. I'm not avidly fond of the Crusaders. I'd also like to see the Bulls make the semi-finals but not at the Highlanders expense.

So you tend to favor New Zealand teams? Which team do you usually support in the Tri-nations?

[Tamerlin]

Stade Toulousain 58 - Section Paloise 23

Toulouse is now one win (out of two games with one at home against Biarritz next week) away from a qualification for the semi-finals.



Saturday's game was a curious and rather dull game illuminated by some brilliant actions (Toulouse's tries and counterattacks ) but marred with an awful referee (Mr Dartigeas) unable to act consistently and always taking the wrong decision.... I would say that refereeing is one of the major sicknesses (if not THE major one) of the French rugby...

[Tamerlin]

Sorry, double post...

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia


I'm only going by this story at rugbyheaven.

http://rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/29/1051381949110.html

Have you heard otherwise?

I recall Havak telling us that Wilkinson wanted to play and Woodward wanting him to rest. But that was several weeks ago. I suppose we'll know the truth closer to the occasion.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I can't see the Chiefs beating the Waratahs in Sydney, and I also think it's unlikely that the Brumbies will lose to the Crusaders without picking up at least one bonus point. The Highlanders should beat the Reds, so I think it'll be the result of the Brumbies/Crusaders game that's the most crucial. If the Brumbies win, even without bonus points, they will definitely take the #4 spot.

I think you're right. And if they don't win, they don't deserve to make the finals. The Crusaders are going to have injury problems this week, which won't help the cause. And perhaps the biggest influence on the Brumbies performance on the weekend was the return of Owen Finnegan from injury for his first match since last season. He came off the bench but made a big impact driving the ball forward. His reappearance and his results only underlined how much they'd missed him.

Of course, another possible scenario is a three-way tie. If all three teams end up with 32 points, how will it be decided?

Equal points brings For and Against into the equation. The team with the biggest differential goes through.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Stade Toulousain 58 - Section Paloise 23

Leeds 30 -d- Gloucester 23