2013 Super XV: Fixtures, Results & Table

ChequeredJersey wrote:What's your view on having a home venue vs a neutral one for the Super 15 final?

Completely against it...who would watch it? Half interested fans of a side or even country who is already out, or those lucky enough to afford the time and money to travel to it?

Neutral in this case would be to play it in say Jo'Burg? Really? half interested fans to perhaps quarter fill the stadium ahead of hard Chiefs fans who would fight over the tickets for the small ground at Hamilton. If the game isnt about those who watch it out of pure love for the game and their team then I think we've really lost the plot. To support them all year then not be able to be there for a chance at the crowning moment is just wrong.

Cruden said himself this ones for family and friends and I go along with that.

Yes, I agree with what you say Tayloman, but it goes further than that.

Home advantage is something thats earned by performing right throughout the enirety of the competition.

I dont know if the Heineken cup tournament has ever tried it.

HEC makes more sense not to as the final will sell out anyway and the journeys for fans are much much shorter. Also with 6 Pools, a home final would be a little hard to work out who deserved it as well as unfair as the match ups and routes would be so so different as the strengths of pools varies a huge amount

Yeah the nature of the tournament either lends or doesnt lend itself to a neutral venue. The sxv is probably the most extreme example of why a neutral venue wouldnt work- what other club tournament every year in any sport covers as much distance?

Thats what makes getting top spot soooo important- to be able to play at home finals time is sufficient reward for topping the pool- unlike most tournaments topping a group doesnt have tangible rewards- the sxv has it in spades.

I think no sport in the world is like the Super XV. This is one reason why the Sharks run to the final was so intriguing last season. In my opinion if they had won that final, it would have been the most remarkable run of any sports team in recent years.

perhaps doc but the Saders were in a worse position the year before...playing every single match away from home, playing their home games vs the canes in Wellington type of thing, playing as far away as twickers, over 100,000 km of travel alone to and from matches, yet still making the final and just falling short away in Brisbane...and through all that having the added stress of ongoing earthquakes around friends and family back at home, the likes of which are still continuing today- though we in Wellington are copping them as well lately.

True,
The Crusaders went through hell. And kept their poise and quality throughout.

Unbelievable by the Brumbies. White is a master tactician. Just came up short. Chiefs held their nerve and found another way to come back from halftime. You have to salute their composure but pretty nerve wrecking stuff. LLF is quite the find for Australia. If he kicks goals and makes the 12 position his the Wallaby backline is going to be a handful. Will McKenzie be able to get out of the Wallabies what White has extracted from the Brumbies?

LLF = Kiwi

Have to raise my cap to White. He has taken the brumbies from a middle ranked side to as close to the title as you can come without winning it.

He took a near bunch of nobody's and turned them into a very good side... when you win away at the Versfeld you are a good team no matter what.

Undoubtedly fa0019. But it's interesting that from a neutral perspective the Brumbies didn't gain the fans that the Sharks or the Hurricanes did last year. They played very effective rugby but it didn't win over many, if any, neutral hearts. You cannot overlook that achievement at Loftus like you say. It's easy to say that they went for a very basic gameplan and moulded the players into playing that kind of game but it's far from easy to pull off. And yet with all that said and all they achieved this season, I'm glad they didn't win and not just because a NZ side won instead. Call me a romantic but I'd much rather root for a team like the Sharks or the Cheetahs making their run through the knockouts than a team like the Brumbies.

Its an interesting one Kia.

They took a lot off the stormers game plan, not great to watch but effective.

But I think victories and success is more important then attractive rugby. Give a team success over a period of years and it brings in sponsors, better players and that brings in the fans... its a more long term approach.

The stormers play terrible rugby most of the time but continue to bring in the fans.... although in loyalty is very high in Cape Town.

Look at the Jo'burg Lions for instance.. they played some great rugby in their final 2 years under Mitchell... but attendances just died as whilst it was nice attacking rugby nobody wants to go week in week out to watch their side get smashed.

The boks played some nice rugby under white in 04... then tightened up when thye got closer to the RWC. Hopefully White will see that tactical rugby in SR will seems to get yourself so far.. it often gets you close but it never gets your the trophy.

Don't get me wrong, he didn't have that much stock to have grand ambitions. You can't fault a man for working with what he had. Success brings in the players and Pocock would be a welcome addition to the franchise.

Jamie Joseph was another to catch the eye before his team died a violent death this year. Playing the way the Brumbies did will win you a few tight games. The problem is when you get behind on the scoreboard, you don't know how to get back into the game. My personal stance is that sound defence can be accompanied with sound attack. There's no need to choose one over the other.

The sharks on their run to the final last year were superb. They managed to outplay the Reds and Stormers completely in those two matches, they had great balance in attack and tactical nous.

The Brumbies played like SA in the 2007 RWC, great against weaker teams, and pragmatic against stronger teams.