rugged said:
No New Zealand teams in the top 6 of the super 12? Just 3 Aus teams and 3 South African teams?
Actually South Africa has 4 franchises.
bayrep said:
What counts against us is the 5 teams we tend to knock our selves out of contention.
Not quite true in this case. Only 3 of the the 10 all-NZ S12 matches have been played thus far. Last year's finalists, and this year's favorites, the Blues and the Crusaders, have simply not played well against the much maligned Chiefs, and non-NZ opponants. The primary reason that none NZ teams are in the top 6 is that 2 of the 5 NZ franchises have played only 3 matches, while the rest of the competition has played 4. Assuming that the Chiefs win their next match, thsy will likely enter the top 6. This will even out over time.
rugged said:
Is the draw the same every year as the Reds always seem to have hard games first and the Waratahs always have easy games first.
If I were a Reds fan, I wouldn't complain much. True, based on 2003 resusults, the Reds first 4 opponants placed an average of of 5th commpared to the 'tah 8.75. Given 2004 form, this comparison is 9.25 v. 7.25. Given that both teams have played 3 home matches, and assuming that that the Chiefs continue to play to their 2004 form, the schedules are identical.
If anyone has reason to complain about the schedule, it is my team the Sharks. After a third of the competition, the Sharks harks have yet to play a match in Durban. The average placement of opponents in 2003 is 6th and id 2004 3.75. In spite of this dissadvantage, the Sharks are currently 6th inS12.
