Talk:2011 Super Rugby season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Attendance tally[edit]

Would it be possible to set up a table to keep a running tally of attendance averages? I was thinking something similar to the A-League one below. I just have no idea how to set it up...

Team Hosted Average High Low Total
Melbourne Victory 15 15,234 32,321 8,287 228,517
Adelaide United 15 11,552 21,083 7,370 173,286
Brisbane Roar 15 9,279 20,831 3,522 139,182
Perth Glory 15 8,488 16,019 5,576 127,322
Newcastle Jets 15 8,429 13,463 3,114 126,439
Melbourne Heart 15 8,312 25,897 2,754 124,680
Wellington Phoenix 15 7,981 14,108 4,700 119,716
Central Coast Mariners 15 7,713 12,409 5,373 115,695
Sydney FC 15 7,656 12,106 4,012 114,834
North Queensland Fury 15 4,245 7,195 1,003 63,681
Gold Coast United 15 3,434 14,783 1,658 51,505
{{ALeague {{{T12}}}}} 0 0 0 0 0
League total 165 8,393 32,321 1,003 1,384,857

4 phased schedule[edit]

Is there a reference for the schedule to actually have the four phases listed? It is correct in describing which teams will play each other, and how many times, but I have serious doubts about that the playing order will be that strict. I can't find that in any of the descriptions of the new format released by SANZAR or one of the unions. The reason I'm doubting it is that travel has been difficult enough in the past, and I can't see how they can possibly squeeze in all intercontinental games in just a few weeks in the middle. All SA teams will play 4 games in Aus and NZ, at the same time as the teams from there would travel to SA to play 2 games. This is just one less overseas game than with the S14 format, and then they needed the whole season to fit the overseas games properly into the schedule. Also, if the phases are like that, there'd be three teams having bye-rounds each week in phase 1 and 3. That's a lot of byes, meaning the season will take a lot longer. I'm happy to be disproved with a nice reference. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems I was right. shows that the phases are not that distinct in time. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

2011 Super 15 season2011 Super Rugby season — The tournament is called Super Rugby not Super User: 15 10:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Super 15 seems to be the common name, as per previous seasons at 2010 Super 14 season, 2009 Super 14 season etc. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
That was until today, when SANZAR released the new name. Super 14 was the common name because that was the name, but now it seems they have given up changing the numbers every couple of years. So I Support a move! is the official website /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
My bad. It seems that Super Rugby season will be the name from now on. So Support the move as proposed. Previous seasons should remain as they are. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Edit: It seems the move has already taken place, so no further discussion is required! Nouse4aname (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Table or Standings?[edit]

The official Super Rugby website seems to list team standings (related to playoff places) rather than a true table sorted by the usual criteria. As such as of the end of round one, the Highlanders should be in 3rd place as conference leaders, despite their worse points difference over the Brumbies. I sugest wikipedia should also reflect this change in presentation. --Evan Roberts (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I preferred the table as it was previously, with the points column determining the standings. Just because you are a conference leader, doesn't mean you should get bumped up the table. if you have 16 points, you are above someone with 14 points. the colour-coding makes it obvious who is a conference leader. surely someone who finishes on say 14 points shouldn't be credited with finishing "Third in the regular season." (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Official" Website[edit]

Just want to throw this one out there. The official website as stated in the article is The official websites are actually,, and I'm not sure about South Africa. This should be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I removed it for now, the three websites are still linked under External Links. This [1] might be the most official Super Rugby site in South Africa? AIRcorn (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The SA equivalent is Comes.amanuensis (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Byes in Table[edit]

What are the byes in the results table? It seems a "bye" is worth 4 points in the table. Where does this come from? KiwiDave (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A bye is simply when there's no scheduled game for a team during that round. According to the rules, teams will get 4 points for a bye in any round.TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Finals Format[edit]

Official Site stats as follows: (from:


Team Three v Team Six - (QF1)

Also in week 1 the team placed fourth at the end of the regular season will play the fifth placed team.

Team Four v Team Five - (QF2)

The winners of the first week of play offs then go through to face the first and second placed team who had just had the week off in the semi-finals.


Team One v Winner (QF2)

Team Two vs Winner (QF1)

The first placed team from the regular season will play the team who won the match between the fourth and fifth placed teams in week 1 of the play offs..

The second placed team from the regular season plays the team that won the match between the third and sixth placed team. The final will be made up by the teams who won the semi-finals.

Whereas, Wikipedia stats:

In the semi-finals, the #2 conference winner will host the higher surviving seed from the first round, and the #1 conference winner will host the other first-round winner

The SuperXV's bracket is not similar to NFL's.

Is that right ? Can we fix the article ?

Thanks ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Also note that this non-official site mentions the correct (?) structure on its fixtures page,
It's weird that there's so little official information on this. I've been unable to find how teams on the same points should be ranked, for example. (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Full names in the games section[edit]

Does anybody know why, in this article unlike most other related rugby ones, the player names are in full in the games section rather then just surnames? It makes the game reports rather crowded and seems to be against common practice. Calistemon (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bonus Points in Table[edit]

I propose combining BP1 and BP2 to just BP. Either that or include a link in the table that points to the website which uses BP1 and BP2. I tried to update the table and figuring out the bonus point column was too much of a headache. Also I am wondering if including a key for the letters would prove useful, especially for people who aren't familiar with rugby or sports in general. It is not immediately obvious what BP1 and BP2 are referring too (4 tries or <7 points). AIRcorn (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree - I'm looking at fixing that up. One more question - due to byes, it looks at the moment as if some teams have games in hand on other teams (while the points awarded for having byes mean teams are on level footing). Instead of having "Played - Won - Drawn - Lost", can we have something like "Games - Won - Drawn - Lost - Byes", where Games are Games Played plus Byes, so that eg. at the end of Round 7, all teams have completed 7 games?
I personally wouldn't, having a column for rounds does it better. The teams do actually have a game in hand as all teams end up eventually playing the same number of games before the finals. However, it would be good to mention that four points are awarded for a bye in the points breakdown. AIRcorn (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I really like the Rnd column, I think it's the best we can do given the silliness of "4 points for a bye" (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Homepage mention[edit]

Why isn't there any mention of the result of the Final on Wikipedia's Homepage? If the Netball Worlds are on there, then surely the Super Rugby should be there too. Can someone please recitfy this? Thanks. :-) Kiwibeca (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be updated. I was going to do it last night, but got distracted by the Netball one. A paragraph or two under finals and three refs would suffice. I won't have time to do it until tonight so if someone else can that would be great. AIRcorn (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)