Agreed. Apart from a small 7 fold multi (I.e all my tips) I've stayed away from the Stormers v Tahs one. Tahs are on the improve though so it's not a silly bet by you in a smaller bet. Yeah it was, Brumbies should have scored way more but the Landers defence was bloody strong. Didn't help with the rain.
Lions were too good for yer Stormers. I reckon the tahs will go ok. What do you make of Karmichael Hunt?
What do you make of having 18 teams now that the season is half over [MENTION=2357]Rego[/MENTION] and [MENTION=168]Fiery[/MENTION].
Canes have literally got better and better each game from the start of the season. Very impressed, some top notch defence from us too. Massive ups to us at the breakdown.
Also Tahs can thank the ref for their win. There is no way in hell that's a red card - I wouldn't even say yellow. He had his eye on the ball the whole time and had he not slipped it'd be an equal challenge.
TAB account at $80 now So many of those games could have gone either way. Definitely won't be getting cocky and making big bets.
Just quietly there are some decent "transformational" players knocking around in SA rugby, both Jantges (Spelling?) and the Sharks 1st 5 would make for decent international players and help fill the quota at the same time. There seems to be a lack of loosies and second rowers however who are transformational.
Very nice, always good to have a good first week to build the bankroll up. 14 out of 19 of my bets got home in the weekend, the 5 that lost were all small but high reward bets so generally speaking all the main bets won - profit wise, still not my best week so far but it's up there. I wouldn't advise going past 2% of your bankroll for your bet size but because earlier on when your bankroll is small that's sfa, you can take that up to 5% ($4 bets in your case) or in some cases 10%. Fwiw my average bet size is about $20 and I see steady profits. Don't feel like you need to go big to get to big money. Common mistake is people want to get to big amounts fast and just end up losing it all.
I love Jantjies' playing style. He could very well see himself finally back in the SA team but tbf he was terrible against the Canes. Just an off night for the whole team really.
Just a shoulder injury which isn't 100% yet, don't think it's too serious. Will probably see him back for the Landers.
Ok so my proper answer: I'm all for developing rugby in other countries (Argentina and Japan) and for that fact having the Jaguares and the Sunwolves is a good thing. However I'm not all for having a weakened competition. Both these teams can't compete, I have faith that the Jaguares should be more dominant in seasons to come but really see the Sunwolves continuing to struggle. This is where the Kings come in. Completely an unnecessary addition to the competition. Like the Sunwolves they're weak and will probably never really be that dominant (the depth in SA just doesn't warrant a 6th team). The competition has been further weakened by having these teams because of the format we now have. The format was pretty shit in previous seasons too but this season it's even worse. SA/Arg/Jap are in 2 divisions of 4 each. 3 Teams are guaranteed a playoff spot. This doesn't really work when you have 4 noncompetitive teams (3 additions + Cheetahs) in these conferences because it's essentially a 4 man battle for 3 spots and easy points against the noncompetitive teams. The weakness is starting to shine of this system within the Australasian conferences where we see the NZ teams well ahead of the Aussie teams. You kinda feel that the Blues will be the ones that get affected and miss out on a playoff spot (yes even the Blues theoretically are doing better than the best Aussie team). That aside you're going to see teams with more points having to play away for probably the whole playoff run just because of this shitty system. In fact I feel sorry for the teams that have to travel to SA. The NZ teams get shafted. Don't even get me started on the fact that not all the SA teams play the NZ teams (the undeniably strongest conference). Just an idea on how bad it is, the top 8 based on points looks like this atm: 1. Chiefs 2. Crusaders 3. Hurricanes 4. Stormers 5. Bulls 6. Highlanders 7. Lions 8. Rebels Playoffs would be: Chiefs v Rebels Crusaders v Lions Hurricanes v Landers Stormers v Bulls Under the current system: 1. Chiefs = 2. Stormers +2 3. Lions +4 4. Rebels +4 5. Crusaders -3 6. Hurricanes -3 7. Bulls -2 8. Highlanders -2 Playoffs Chiefs v Highlanders Stormers v Bulls Lions v Hurricanes Rebels v Crusaders Crusaders and Hurricanes lose their home playoffs. The Canes miss out big time as they have to travel to SA. Chiefs lose out as they don't get to play the worst team. It's honestly shit because finishing higher up may not actually work in your advantage (i.e may end up having to travel to SA). All this system does is weaken the playoffs and benefit Aus/ SA. SA teams get an easy run to the playoffs with a pisstake conference whereas, NZ arguably has to play the toughest schedule (all the NZ teams, plus 2 of them twice) and misses out on rightful playoff spots. The funny thing is the NZ teams despite having to play each other are still doing better. Now I know this isn't all about the new teams but the worsening of the conference system has been a direct result of these new teams. The only way I see this competition working moving forward is every team playing each other once with the best 8 through to play offs. If 17 games can't be played then reduce it down to 15 (just like we have atm) and that would still be ok. I love the NZ derby matches and the conferences mean we see more of those but really it's at the expense of vital competition points both teams probably deserve.
Good post, I DWTA with your points about how the leaders of the SA and Aus conference get seeded higher just because, We can't have this tournament being dominated by Kiwi teams all the time or it will fold. I cringe inside when the final comes down to two nz teams, I wish we had a Saffer in the thread. There is a lot of history behind the number of SA teams in Super Rugby. Whenever they leave out the Kings there is plenty of political pressure for them to be included. Normally I would stop my post there but I will continue a bit longer to make conversation. Ideally NZ would have 5 teams, Australia would have 4 teams (the force are crass), SA would have 4 teams. And the Jaguarres and Japanese would both be given trials for 4 years. Thats back to a Super XV. The Japanese would have to join Australia. Suck it up Australia. And the Agentinians would join the Saffers. I do like divisional play. Right now the inter new zealand matches are the only thing the competition has going for it. 15 team with top 8 in playoffs like it worked last year. Didn't Australia have to pay mega dollars to prop up the Force last year as well. Who are you tipping this weekend. I don't feel confident to make any bets other than $1 multis Most games could go either way. Except for the blatantly obvious ones but those have terrible odds.
I agree we can't have NZ dominance but I also don't think we should be held back just because of others. Haven't 100% decided tipping wise but will by tomorrow. ATM I'd say: Crusaders Brumbies Force Highlanders Tahs Canes Blues Some games definitely stay away from a winner and opt for handicaps. I'm predicting a Highlander win over the Chiefs. Massive value there and if you don't want to support it then the handicap is a really good option. The Chiefs have been getting worse and worse (and getting more and more injuries) - the Highlanders have one of the best defences in the comp. Chiefs run ends here IMO.
