Injuries as a predictor of the 2010 TriNations Series

I wrote at the end of the 2010 Super 14 Series about my theories/observations linking injury incidence within Australian provincial teams and their log placement.

Let's apply that to the upcoming 2010 Tri-Nations tournament.

This weekend, following Nathan Sharpe's injury in training, the media reported the entire Australian tight five was down to 2nd choice or lower players.

As a rough observation I believe that at about 12 of the starting 15 positions have been changed/disrupted due to injury. That's about 80% injury rate.

Without have the same knowledge of the Springboks or the All Blacks, it appears to me that the Boks have the choice of playing their starting line up, and the Blacks would not be far from this.

So the injury incidence, at a rough glance, over the last 4 wks, would rank from lowest to highest:

1. Spring Boks (lowest)
2. All Blacks
3. Australia (highest)

Will this be the order of the log at the end of the 2010 Tri-Nations tournament?

SA teams to fade out of Top 4 if....

Here's my calls...

* The Stormers may fade out of the Top 4
* If the Blue Bulls lose too many on the Road they will at best make 3 or 4, and from memory no SA team has won the competition from that position, because unless they play on home soil, the travel over here AGAIN to play in the finals is their undoing
* If the SA teams fade as above, that leaves more spaces for AUS and NZ teams.
* If the playoffs occur in AUS or NZ, it raises the chances of the ANZ teams winning compared to if they were being played in SA
* Unlike last year Aust will have 1 if not 2 teams in the Top 4

The next question is - will this translate into a better performance by Aust in the Tri-Nations?

SA teams weak means more final chances for Australian teams

When SA has two strong teams in the Super competition, it means less Aussie teams make it to the final 4. When SA have say the Sharks and the Bulls firing, that leaves only 2 spots to fit all Aust and NZ teams into. Sounds simplistic, but this was one of the factors that contribed to no Australian teams making the playoffs in 2009. A point I am sure is not lost on the ARU.

In 2010, with the Sharks strong on paper and weak on the field, only the Bulls are left. What about the Stormers you ask? If they were still in the mix at the end of the regular season it would be almost out of character. They have a habit of slipping out of contention as the season moves to an end. As for the winning the championship - that would be really against history.

SA scrums like Samson after a hair cut

Just as South African back lines finally learn to run straight (advancing to switches and other finesse are for another decade) the forward packs loose their power, like Samson after a haircut.

Once the pride of South African rugby and the fear of all other nations, the SA provincial packs are looking like schooboys agasint me.

In Round 3 the Waratahs destroyed the Bull, and in Round 4 the Brumbies destroyed the Cats, as two examples.

Improved Australian scrums or weakened yarpie scrums? Time will tell.

History and winners

A breif summary of winners in Super rugby:

* From 1992, to 2009 - only 6 teams have ever won the competition
* 2 of those so long ago it's a distant memory
* Which leaves us with only 4 winning outfits in the last 10 years
* The NSW Waratahs have not won a thing, in 19 years of Super Rugby. Not the only ones, but as they are the power house financially, politically, demographically and geographically of Australian rugby (and SA and NZ power bases of their times have all produced at least one win), the Australian master plan isn't working - no wonder since they keep basing on the NSW Waratahs....)
* Only 3 of those 6 teams have a 100% win ratio in the big game, the final
* The Brumbies have the poorest win:loss ratio in finals of all teams who have played the finals. even though they deserve credit for going to the finals the second most times of all teans. But no-one remembers who lost....

Super 6

 1992 - Queensland (now the Reds)

Super 10

1993 - Transvaal (then the Cats and now the Lions)
1994 - Queensland (now the Reds)
1995 - Queensland (now the Reds)

Super 12

1996 - Blues
1997 - Blues
1998 - Crusaders
1999 - Crusaders
2000 - Crusaders
2001 - Brumbies
2002 - Crusaders
2003 - Blues
2004 - Brumbies
2005 - Crusaders

Super 14

2006 - Crusaders
2007 - Bulls
2008 - Crusaders
2009 - Bulls
2009 -

Team Wins Runner-up

Team    Won   Runner Up

Crusaders    7      2
Blues           3      1
Brumbies     2     3
Reds            3     0
Bulls           2      0
Lions          1      0

Sharks         0     3
Waratahs     0     2
Highlanders 0    1
Hurricanes   0    1
Chiefs          0    1

Wins by Country

Country         Wins    Runner-up

New Zealand 10         6
Australia        2           5
South Africa  2           3




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_14#Past_winners

Hope for the Cheetahs

The achilles heel of South African rugby the Cheetahs are looking like they may win a few more games this year, with a 1-2 win loss start.

South African Team the most disadvantaged

The South African teams are the most disadvantaged of all teams in the Super 14.  They are on the road longer and travel further. To add to that they excacerbate this with their approach to training. Either way, no wonder their record on the road is dismal. Once they secure a home final however, it is usually a done deal.