What a great contest the HC really is

First topic message reminder :

Upsets, turnarounds, some great games. Anyone can beat anyone - away wins galore.
What a great competition

well sorry TJ, but it's just not unequivocally a great contest. there are some great matches. but there are also a lot of very forgettable ones. on the back of a few great matches should we say that this is "good enough"? or should we be aiming for more great matches, more closely contested groups, larger attendances, etc, etc. these comments are completely 100% appropriate on a thread entitled as this one.

I do think the Heineken Cup is a special competition and I agree this is proved practically every week it's on. Only the 6N comes close to the excitement I experience as a fan. I always look forward to HC weekends as that is what they are - weekends. While the 6N has 3 matches on the same day, the HC has a full weekend of high-level rugby where 7 matches can be watched. In rugby, no other competition compares, not even the World Cup IMO.

quinsforever wrote:well sorry TJ, but it's just not unequivocally a great contest. there are some great matches. but there are also a lot of very forgettable ones. on the back of a few great matches should we say that this is "good enough"? or should we be aiming for more great matches, more closely contested groups, larger attendances, etc, etc. these comments are completely 100% appropriate on a thread entitled as this one.

It absolutely is unequivocally a great contest  

This season there are still a number of teams still in with a shout of qualification for the q/fs after round 4. And more who can contend for an Amlin q/f.

There have been some tense finishes for sure, and the away wins have opened up a number of pools.

It may yet be a classic year.

Although my team are not in it, and given the ERC/LNR/PRL farce, won't be next year, the HC does hold the attention of the majority of NH fans.

And it is the fans who really make the competition. Travelling in large numbers across Europe to add colour and atmosphere at games.

You don't get that anywhere else in the world.

That's groovy. But not everyone needs to have the same opinion. In my mind there are some good games, some boring games, much like any competition. It doesn't rate much higher than the premiership, mainly because my main interest is the English teams (who get knocked out quickly ). It's nice to play some different sides.

I'm also not allowed to watch 7 games a weekend (the wife gets annoyed) and I dropped Sky for BT as it's not worth it (for me).

Got to agree that pretty much any competition with these teams in it would be pretty much the same. Also it was interesting that the Amlin seemed to get more interest (on here) when Leinster dropped down into it (may be due to the seeming relatively high number of Irish posters on here). Perhaps the Amlin could be better with a few more Rabo teams in it. Them there could be two good competitions.

Agreed on strengthening the Amlin by having more Pro12 teams in it, Hammer. You may get a couple of tight pools, but it's largely a stroll for the Prem sides and St. Francais (Irish are giving them a run this time though).

Also you get to go to some really nice places. Especially the smaller Italian clubs, who are so welcoming. As a travelling fan you know that you are also contributing the finances of those clubs by buying beer, food and souvenier merchandise at the ground. It's their biggest pay day of their season and they really appreciate it.

The downside with the Amlin is the Thursday night away games, which Wasps invariably end up with.

Actually I wonder if having seperate broadcasters WOULD be a good thing. At the moment Sky have them all and pretty much televise them all. So the Amlin gets shoved out of the way. If Sky only had about 1/2 of all HEC and ACC games and BT had the other 1/2 then perhaps the Amlin could fit into the weekend easier (and get more coverage in general).

quinsforever wrote:well sorry TJ, but it's just not unequivocally a great contest. there are some great matches. but there are also a lot of very forgettable ones. on the back of a few great matches should we say that this is "good enough"? or should we be aiming for more great matches, more closely contested groups, larger attendances, etc, etc. these comments are completely 100% appropriate on a thread entitled as this one.

Well said. TJ doesn't seem to understand that not everyone shares his opinion.

I look at my own team - two crushing defeats of Zebre in the double header. Was that exciting? No not really, so one sided it was embarrassing. To be fair Zebre kept on fighting but the gulf in quality was there for all to see.

Even though Connacht did give Sarries a shock in the first round they still aren't a particularly big draw. It's still Toulouse vs Sarries which will decide the pool.

That's why the seedings should be taken over the previous (qualifying) season over both League and European competition.

And I agree with both quins and 'shocked on this matter. Well said both.

Thanks portnoy's complaint.  You mean like looking at the unofficial european rankings? I wouldn't mind that at all.

Going from the current top 8 it would be:

1.Leinster
2.Clermont
3.Saracens
4.Toulon
5.Saints
6.Munster
7.Tigers
8.Ulster

Not a bad top 8 is it?

I am one of these people who doesn't want to see massive changes. Just a few tweaks here and there.

I agree in that it's been a few years in a row Connacht and Zebre have been lumped in the same pool together which is a bit ridiculous... Seeding definitely needs revamped and I think most Scots agree on here that having one of our teams in the Heinekin and one in the Amlin is no bad thing - as long as we get the same amount of money as before otherwise we won't be able to support our pro teams

beshocked wrote:

quinsforever wrote:well sorry TJ, but it's just not unequivocally a great contest. there are some great matches. but there are also a lot of very forgettable ones. on the back of a few great matches should we say that this is "good enough"? or should we be aiming for more great matches, more closely contested groups, larger attendances, etc, etc. these comments are completely 100% appropriate on a thread entitled as this one.

Well said. TJ doesn't seem to understand that not everyone shares his opinion.

I look at my own team - two crushing defeats of Zebre in the double header. Was that exciting? No not really, so one sided it was embarrassing. To be fair Zebre kept on fighting but the gulf in quality was there for all to see.

Even though Connacht did give Sarries a shock in the first round they still aren't a particularly big draw. It's still Toulouse vs Sarries which will decide the pool.

Therein lies the problem,look at the competition as a whole,that's what this post is about not just your club.

quinsforever wrote:well sorry TJ, but it's just not unequivocally a great contest. there are some great matches. but there are also a lot of very forgettable ones. on the back of a few great matches should we say that this is "good enough"? or should we be aiming for more great matches, more closely contested groups, larger attendances, etc, etc. these comments are completely 100% appropriate on a thread entitled as this one.

You seem to want an unrealistic level of competition,you were on another thread defending the Top 14 despite it not being anywhere near the competition that the HC has proven itself to be.Why the double standard?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

beshocked wrote:

quinsforever wrote:well sorry TJ, but it's just not unequivocally a great contest. there are some great matches. but there are also a lot of very forgettable ones. on the back of a few great matches should we say that this is "good enough"? or should we be aiming for more great matches, more closely contested groups, larger attendances, etc, etc. these comments are completely 100% appropriate on a thread entitled as this one.

Well said. TJ doesn't seem to understand that not everyone shares his opinion.

I look at my own team - two crushing defeats of Zebre in the double header. Was that exciting? No not really, so one sided it was embarrassing. To be fair Zebre kept on fighting but the gulf in quality was there for all to see.

Even though Connacht did give Sarries a shock in the first round they still aren't a particularly big draw. It's still Toulouse vs Sarries which will decide the pool.

Therein lies the problem,look at the competition as a whole,that's what this post is about not just your club.

Surely everyone looks at their own team first and foremost? This heavily one sided double header does effect the competition as a whole. It means that whoever gets Zebre has a much better chance of being a best runners up. It's a problem. I don't think it's fair on other sides in the competition.

It does seem that people want to have all the teams exactly the same strength and then let the have the 'exciting' matches where no team is 'weaker'

Not really realistic

I tell you what, why not just have a final from the two best teams, as all the rest are not good enough

I don't entirely disagree with what your saying beshocked but consider this. 

The top two in that group will take 10 points off zebre most likely
The top two in ulsters group will (strong possibility) take 9 points off Montpellier.

Should we can Montpellier? I saw someone had a stat that there are 86% home wins in the top14 while the HEC is something like 57%. That's not bad competition. 

It can probably be improved and I'm not against the two tiered approach in theory but it has to be implemented properly. The reality is that all competitions will suffer from differing levels of talent

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

quinsforever wrote:well sorry TJ, but it's just not unequivocally a great contest. there are some great matches. but there are also a lot of very forgettable ones. on the back of a few great matches should we say that this is "good enough"? or should we be aiming for more great matches, more closely contested groups, larger attendances, etc, etc. these comments are completely 100% appropriate on a thread entitled as this one.

You seem to want an unrealistic level of competition,you were on another thread defending the Top 14 despite it not being anywhere near the competition that the HC has proven itself to be.Why the double standard?

yes. top14 clearly works for french clubs, french fans, players in france, and french broadcasters. works spectacularly well i would say if the attendances, money and rumoured EUR100m tv deal are objective measures of its success. and far more of the top14 matches are close-fought matches and sold out, than HC pool stages.

where is the double standard? looks to me like the level of competition (measured by closeness of matches) in top14 and AP are pretty high. HC pool stages on average far less so.

Shifty wrote:Bloody Munster, Leinster, and Ulster leading their 3 pools again!

Kick them out of Europe their just too good for everyone else!     

Thats only because there is no relegation in the Rabo.

if you actually cared about the Rabo, then maybe you wouldnt be so defensive about any changes to the HC which hurt your teams' chances?

pretty revealing actually how unimportant the Rabo is in your thinking.

quinsforever wrote:if you actually cared about the Rabo, then maybe you wouldnt be so defensive about any changes to the HC which hurt your teams' chances?

pretty revealing actually how unimportant the Rabo is in your thinking.

Maybe, just maybe we like the HC because it is the best club comp around

Most of us Celts were happy with the changes demanded by the French and English unions - and agreed to them all (Qualification, money etc) but then the French and English turned around and changed the goal posts (again), then started in fighting and back stabbing each other and has now left us all in a complete mess

riskysports depends what you want an European club competition to consist of. I think there needs to be some sort of quality control. More Pro12 sides need to be in the Amlin.


standulsterman Montpellier don't automatically qualify for the HC. They have to earn their place in the competition. Montpellier were also quarter finalists last season.

You talk about how competitive the HC is but it isn't really. There are many teams in the pool stages that might pick up a win or two but rarely look like being able to top the pool.

There might be some shock results but the quarter finalists spots look to be quite predictable.

Changes in the Hcup have no bearing on Leinsters chances in the Hcup they affect primarily Italy and Scotland’s chances in the Hcup and the Six nations. Its not that difficult to understand really.

GunsGerms wrote:Changes in the Hcup have no bearing on Leinsters chances in the Hcup they affect primarily Italy and Scotland’s chances in the Hcup and the Six nations. Its not that difficult to understand really.

so why all the shrill protest?

beshocked wrote:riskysports depends what you want an European club competition to consist of. I think there needs to be some sort of quality control. More Pro12 sides need to be in the Amlin.


standulsterman Montpellier don't automatically qualify for the HC. They have to earn their place in the competition. Montpellier were also quarter finalists last season.

You talk about how competitive the HC is but it isn't really. There are many teams in the pool stages that might pick up a win or two but rarely look like being able to top the pool.

There might be some shock results but the quarter finalists spots look to be quite predictable.

Point 1 - And that was agreed - would be the top 6 teams, with at least one from each country (which is a bit of a bodge I agree).

Point 2 - Of course there are - name any comp that every team has a chance to top a pool - it does not exist - as some teams are stronger - this utopia is not possible and sadly some teams are better than others and that is life - the only option is just to have 4 top teams enter and have a semi and final - (although the teams that lose the semi are not good enough, so should be kicked out)

Beshocked

That's where you have a point but everyone agreed on qualification. My point is whipping boys are whipping boys in spite of nationality. You're group would be as likely over had one of them not dumped Toulouse on their home patch. 

The HEC is competitive. Clermont are there but have to win away at quins. Ulster are there but will have to win away at Leicester. Sarries are there but have to win away at Toulouse. That's not to say every game is and this is where I do see the benefit of two tiers. I agree with you on the likes of Zebre being in a comp where they might rack up some wins. 

The format that has been proposed is good (with the exception of the playoff).

quinsforever wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Changes in the Hcup have no bearing on Leinsters chances in the Hcup they affect primarily Italy and Scotland’s chances in the Hcup and the Six nations. Its not that difficult to understand really.

so why all the shrill protest?

A few reasons:

-England and France already have the most Hcup entrants and now they want more.
-the proposed changes are driven by greed and justified by a nonsensical "meritocracy" arguement.
-because the tournament is the best run and most popular club tournament in the world.
-because if Italy and Scotland suffer the six nations will suffer. That is the most important tournament in world rugby.

beshocked wrote:
There might be some shock results but the quarter finalists spots look to be quite predictable.

The top 4 in the Aviva looks pretty predictable to me too so is that competition not competitive either?

I thought the issue for the English teams was that the odds were unfairly stacked towards the Rabo teams? - now the tournament is too easy so more Rabo teams should drop to the amlin to make it more competitive? Which is it?

Riskysports I agree not every team has a chance to top the pool but the problem is that many of the worst sides automatically qualify for the HC and continue to perform badly.

It's the lack of qualification and the feeling of entitlement to a place in Europe's premier club competition without trying that causes resentment.

Sides from England and France must go through a tough qualifying process. For the Pro12 sides with qualification all but guaranteed for most, it is much easier for them to prioritise the HC.

beshocked wrote:Riskysports I agree not every team has a chance to top the pool but the problem is that many of the worst sides automatically qualify for the HC and continue to perform badly.

It's the lack of qualification and the feeling of entitlement to a place in Europe's premier club competition without trying that causes resentment.

Sides from England and France must go through a tough qualifying process. For the Pro12 sides with qualification all but guaranteed for most, it is much easier for them to prioritise the HC.

So the whole debate really is the Rapo is not very good

Ah I get it

beshocked wrote:Riskysports I agree not every team has a chance to top the pool but the problem is that many of the worst sides automatically qualify for the HC and continue to perform badly.

It's the lack of qualification and the feeling of entitlement to a place in Europe's premier club competition without trying that causes resentment.

Sides from England and France must go through a tough qualifying process. For the Pro12 sides with qualification all but guaranteed for most, it is much easier for them to prioritise the HC.

There is nothing stoping the PRL reducing the AP to 6 teams and therefore allowing them all to automatically qualify for the tournament. They would still have more teams than Italy, Scotland, Ireland or Wales in the Hcup. Why give them more?

What the Rabo does with their league isnt of any concern to the PRL.

beshocked wrote:Sides from England and France must go through a tough qualifying process.

No they don't - Leicester, Sarries, Quins, Northampton walk it because they are a country mile ahead of the rest of the premiership.

Same for Toulon and Clermont.

These are average leagues with a huge gulf between the have's and have not's. Heino qualification is not tough at all.

I think it is unfair that each of the AP teams have a larger spending budget than the Scottish ones, so gives them an unfair advantage in the HC

Lets all storm off and cry about it

LIFE IS NOT FAIR - get over it

Standulsterman I disagree. The Connacht result means instead of Sarries needing to beat Toulouse by 8 points they just need a win in Toulouse.

Gunsgerms we don't want more entrances. Meritocracy is not nonsensical. As you're team has aways been in the HC you don't seem to understand why qualification is so important.

Will Italy and Scotland suffer in some of their club sides play in a competition that is more appropriate for them? Must be great for Zebre getting repeatedly destroyed in the HC? No?

rodders wouldn't say it is that predictable with the emergence of Bath as a top 4 competitor, you also have Exeter too.


Yes things are stacked in favour of the Pro12 sides, yet only the top 3 Irish sides have seemed to exploit these. The other Pro12 sides have poorly utilised the advantages they have.

If the Pro12 sides didn't have auto qualification then there would be no argument because it would mean the weaker Pro12 sides wouldn't be in the HC and one of the excuses for the Irish doing well would be gone.

It's obvious - if you take part in a competition 17 times in a row you should have a better chance winning than one who has only taken part in it 7 times sporadically.

rodders wrote:

beshocked wrote:Sides from England and France must go through a tough qualifying process.

No they don't - Leicester, Sarries, Quins, Northampton walk it because they are a country mile ahead of the rest of the premiership.

Same for Toulon and Clermont.

These are average leagues with a huge gulf between the have's and have not's. Heino qualification is not tough at all.

You don't get it do you? Those top sides you mention Leicester,Sarries,Quins,Northampton must fight on three fronts. Their players make up the bulk of the English national side. In contrast their fellow AP rivals have full strength sides during IWs. This is why for example Leicester have struggled early in the season because they have missed many of their players. Pro12 does not have the same problem because most sides are depleted throughout the IWs.

riskysports what is the Scottish playing budget? At least you get auto qualification for the HC and a nice fat money bonus every season for being in the competition.

Oh and I am not crying. My team regularly beats Pro12 teams.

beshocked wrote:rodders wouldn't say it is that predictable with the emergence of Bath as a top 4 competitor, you also have Exeter too.


Yes things are stacked in favour of the Pro12 sides, yet only the top 3 Irish sides have seemed to exploit these. The other Pro12 sides have poorly utilised the advantages they have.

If the Pro12 sides didn't have auto qualification then there would be no argument because it would mean the weaker Pro12 sides would be in the HC and one of the excuses for the Irish doing well would be gone.

It's obvious - if you take part in a competition 17 times in a row you should have a better chance winning than one who has only taken part in it 7 times sporadically.

Bath are one of the old guard, same with Gloucester. Exeter are a good side but aren't genuine HEC contenders any more than Connacht or Scarlets are .

Do you think the Welsh regions or Treviso have advantages over the French or English sides? That's nonsense if think so.

The Irish sides do well because we are able to retain our top players and attract high quality imports via the support of the IRFU. This allows us to compete on both fronts. By contrast the Regions can't compete with the financial muscle of the top 14 and 5/6 top English sides.

You say the Rabo teams have the advantage, well I say the top English and French teams have bought there way in and are no more deserving of a place than Treviso or Glasgow or anyone else and have no cause for the moral high ground. Exeter would be the exception.

beshocked wrote:
You don't get it do you? Those top sides you mention Leicester,Sarries,Quins,Northampton must fight on three fronts. Their players make up the bulk of the English national side. In contrast their fellow AP rivals have full strength sides during IWs.

So basically Sarries,Tigers, Bath, Quins, Saints have all managed to end up at the top of the table despite missing their key players for prolonged periods whereas their AP rivals have had full strength sides?

Thanks for confirming how weak and uncompetitive your league is beshocked. We'll have no more of this tough qualification process nonsense then thanks.

rodders but the different with Exeter is they actually qualify through their own merits.

Don't know what you mean by Bath and Gloucester being old guard.

Treviso has auto qualification for the HC every season. No relegation. They have that safety net there.

Welsh regions do have to qualify to be fair but getting ahead of Gwent Dragons has not been a huge challenge.

Bought there way in? Ha ha, English sides have a salary cap closer to the Pro12 sides than the French but we don't have auto qualification. It's not as simple as buying wins - if that was the case why are Racing Metro so poor? You need good team work, good club ethos, canny coaches and good players to perform.

You can have money but if you don't utilise it properly it's useless.

beshocked wrote: You need good team work, good club ethos, canny coaches and good players to perform.

You can have money but if you don't utilise it properly it's useless.

I agree totally but the same applies to the Rabo teams as much as the top14 or AP teams. Every team has a budget, a squad and their seasons goals, domestically and in Europe.

rodders wrote:

beshocked wrote:
You don't get it do you? Those top sides you mention Leicester,Sarries,Quins,Northampton must fight on three fronts. Their players make up the bulk of the English national side. In contrast their fellow AP rivals have full strength sides during IWs.

So basically Sarries,Tigers, Bath, Quins, Saints have all managed to end up at the top of the table despite missing their key players for prolonged periods whereas their AP rivals have had full strength sides?

Thanks for confirming how weak and uncompetitive your league is beshocked. We'll have no more of this tough qualification process nonsense then thanks.

Uncompetitive? Wouldn't say so. There are 8 teams that will feel they have a realistic shot at top 4. Leicester aren't in the top 4 at the moment.

When was the last time Leicester didn't make the play-offs beshocked?

rodders wrote:

beshocked wrote: You need good team work, good club ethos, canny coaches and good players to perform.

You can have money but if you don't utilise it properly it's useless.

I agree totally but the same applies to the Rabo teams as much as the top14 or AP teams. Every team has a budget, a squad and their seasons goals, domestically and in Europe.

rodders yes I understand that but you would think that the likes of Edinburgh would use their resources more effectively. I am not convinced by the argument that the likes of the Welsh regions and Scottish clubs are too poor. I just think they are poorly run. Case in point - the mess in Wales. They say that they have no money in Welsh rugby yet the Welsh rugby union makes record profits.

In contrast the Irish regions are well run hence successful.

quinsforever wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

quinsforever wrote:well sorry TJ, but it's just not unequivocally a great contest. there are some great matches. but there are also a lot of very forgettable ones. on the back of a few great matches should we say that this is "good enough"? or should we be aiming for more great matches, more closely contested groups, larger attendances, etc, etc. these comments are completely 100% appropriate on a thread entitled as this one.

You seem to want an unrealistic level of competition,you were on another thread defending the Top 14 despite it not being anywhere near the competition that the HC has proven itself to be.Why the double standard?

yes. top14 clearly works for french clubs, french fans, players in france, and french broadcasters. works spectacularly well i would say if the attendances, money and rumoured EUR100m tv deal are objective measures of its success. and far more of the top14 matches are close-fought matches and sold out, than HC pool stages.

where is the double standard? looks to me like the level of competition (measured by closeness of matches) in top14 and AP are pretty high. HC pool stages on average far less so.

This jumps out as obviously wrong,someone has already posted that 87% of home matches are won in the Top 14 compared to 57% in the HC so far this season.In the Top14 teams often rest their best players for the away matches,where's the competition in that?

I was responding to your comment that it was not a great contest and comparing that with your defense of the Top 14 as a contest,that's the double standard.Show me how you can claim that one comp where the home team wins with boring regularity and teams rest their top players constantly can compare with the HC where the away team wins regularly,you have upsets like Connacht beating Toulouse away,Northampton coming back from a spanking to beat up Leinster in Dublin.You also have Leicester and Munster getting last minute wins in France,Quins winning home and away versus moneybags Metro,Edinburgh recovering from losing at home to beat Gloucester,Cardiff beating Toulon.

You won't find those kind of results in the Top 14,you can point to Oyannax (spelling?) and Grenoble winning against the big temas but when you look closely you'll see the big teams didn't actually play their best players so the competition is compromised and the results tainted.

I don't understand the people who defend the Top14. It's a very bloated competition and that results in more games of a generally lower quality.

Thats true of all the NH leagues, really, but especially the Top14. There's a quantity/quality argument. You can't have 30 games of Test match intensity a year. The more you increase the number of games, the more you dilute the quality of those games. It is inevitable.

The reason the Heineken Cup leads to the best rugby is the number of games. Every game is like a Cup Final you dare not lose and even good teams can be caught cold if they don't peak at the right time in the Heineken Cup like Toulouse and Northampton in Round 3, or Munster in Round 2.

rodders wrote:When was the last time Leicester didn't make the play-offs beshocked?

Tigers are the exception not the rule. They are so consistent. I could ask the same question of Leinster. When have they not been in the top 4.

beshocked wrote:

rodders wrote:When was the last time Leicester didn't make the play-offs beshocked?

Tigers are the exception not the rule. They are so consistent. I could ask the same question of Leinster. When have they not been in the top 4.

In 2002(or 03?) Leinster finished behind Connacht in the league. The IRFU decided to put Leinster forward to the Hcup ahead of Connacht as they were the better prospect.

Funnily enough Notch I don't defend the Top 14. As has been mentioned sometimes French teams don't take the HC very seriously which is not good - on the other hand they have qualified through their own merits. The Top 14 has too many games and teams in my opinion.

asoreleftshoulder oh and btw Toulouse rested players vs Connacht when they lost.

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:

rodders wrote:When was the last time Leicester didn't make the play-offs beshocked?

Tigers are the exception not the rule. They are so consistent. I could ask the same question of Leinster. When have they not been in the top 4.

In 2002(or 03?) Leinster finished behind Connacht in the league. The IRFU decided to put Leinster forward to the Hcup ahead of Connacht as they were the better prospect.

Okay fair enough but that's still 10-11 years ago...

beshocked wrote:Funnily enough Notch I don't defend the Top 14. As has been mentioned sometimes French teams don't take the HC very seriously which is not good - on the other hand they have qualified through their own merits. The Top 14 has too many games and teams in my opinion.

asoreleftshoulder oh and btw Toulouse rested players vs Connacht when they lost.

Fair point.

beshocked wrote:

rodders wrote:

beshocked wrote: You need good team work, good club ethos, canny coaches and good players to perform.

You can have money but if you don't utilise it properly it's useless.

I agree totally but the same applies to the Rabo teams as much as the top14 or AP teams. Every team has a budget, a squad and their seasons goals, domestically and in Europe.

rodders yes I understand that but you would think that the likes of Edinburgh would use their resources more effectively. I am not convinced by the argument that the likes of the Welsh regions and Scottish clubs are too poor. I just think they are poorly run. Case in point - the mess in Wales. They say that they have no money in Welsh rugby yet the Welsh rugby union makes record profits.

In contrast the Irish regions are well run hence successful.

Yes and all that is true but where you and I fundamentally differ is that you seem to think there is some connection between the above issues and the format of both the Rabo and Heino, whereas I am saying these are totally separate issues.

Just as the format of the Top 14 is in no way related to the fact that Racing Metro are pants or Munster doing the double over Perpignan. Every league has their own challenges and each team their own within that. Come the HEC, its a KO tournament and every side has an even playing field once the whistle blows....unless they're playing away in Ireland or Clermont were 99% of the refs decisions will go against them....

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

quinsforever wrote:well sorry TJ, but it's just not unequivocally a great contest. there are some great matches. but there are also a lot of very forgettable ones. on the back of a few great matches should we say that this is "good enough"? or should we be aiming for more great matches, more closely contested groups, larger attendances, etc, etc. these comments are completely 100% appropriate on a thread entitled as this one.

You seem to want an unrealistic level of competition,you were on another thread defending the Top 14 despite it not being anywhere near the competition that the HC has proven itself to be.Why the double standard?

yes. top14 clearly works for french clubs, french fans, players in france, and french broadcasters. works spectacularly well i would say if the attendances, money and rumoured EUR100m tv deal are objective measures of its success. and far more of the top14 matches are close-fought matches and sold out, than HC pool stages.

where is the double standard? looks to me like the level of competition (measured by closeness of matches) in top14 and AP are pretty high. HC pool stages on average far less so.

This jumps out as obviously wrong,someone has already posted that 87% of home matches are won in the Top 14 compared to 57% in the HC so far this season.In the Top14 teams often rest their best players for the away matches,where's the competition in that?

I was responding to your comment that it was not a great contest and comparing that with your defense of the Top 14 as a contest,that's the double standard.Show me how you can claim that one comp where the home team wins with boring regularity and teams rest their top players constantly can compare with the HC where the away team wins regularly,you have upsets like Connacht beating Toulouse away,Northampton coming back from a spanking to beat up Leinster in Dublin.You also have Leicester and Munster getting last minute wins in France,Quins winning home and away versus moneybags Metro,Edinburgh recovering from losing at home to beat Gloucester,Cardiff beating Toulon.

You won't find those kind of results in the Top 14,you can point to Oyannax (spelling?) and Grenoble winning against the big temas but when you look closely you'll see the big teams didn't actually play their best players so the competition is compromised and the results tainted.

this. will always be true in HC group stages which is LESS competitive. The weakest teams will be lucky to get a single, maybe ever two wins out of 6 matches. if half the teams won all their matches, and half the teams lost all their matches, the %of away wins would be 50%, and yet you think that is an indication of a better overall measure of how close the teams are? it means absolutely nothing.