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

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

nathan wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

nathan wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

nathan wrote:

ME-109 wrote:HC is great and even without the English it has survived and will again. Hopefully retaining its current format ensuring the grubby hands of the prl owners are kept away from ruining a perfectly good competition. Given how poor the English teams have been the last few years its no surprise they are trying to stack things in their favour with the RCC. Smacks of desperation.

lol,

What a silly post.

lol yourself silly man.

it seems pretty clear that one of the reasons is that the poor results of the English teams over the last number of years is part of this. Changing the qualification and giving them a better chance of winning equals more money? Or do you seriously believe they are thinking about the good of the game...  

Attack the post not the poster, if your struggling with that then go and have a read of the rules on here...

Poor results? wasn't an English team in the final only last year?

Your right, if you progress into the knock out stages you will get more money, but this whole thing is about the distribution to begin with.

Lastly, everyone is looking after there own interests. Your pretty blind if you can't see that.

You are correct in saying everyone is looking after their own interests. However there is a subtle but significant difference in that the PRL specifically have only money and control in mind. The unions under the ERC at least are taking a wider view in terms of trying to grow the game in Italy within the top tier. I do agree that money & control are part of this but unfortunately the PRL owners don't give a flying fornication about others. If you support that, that is fine but then you and others are being pretty blind to that fact and the arguments that this is something else are pretty juvenile. Maybe yourself Quins and Mysti et al should stick to soccer it would seem to suit you.

Hammer - 2007 is irrelevant to today. The fact is that the PRL teams have been performing poorly and the growth of the French teams in addition to the usual moaning about the Irish teams not taking the rabo seriously (check the history for that) has seen their take and possibility of winning the competition become harder...therefore they are looking for more of the pie. Again that is fine but please the arguments are beyond childish if you believe otherwise.

Have the English teams been performing badly? personally i think your making that up.  oh right so the ERC are looking after the game of rugby by including Italy in the HC. Wasn't the idea (the idea came from the PRL) of having another tier with countries like Romania etc rubbished by other nations.

Thats hardly the ERC looking at the wider rugby picture is it.

Romania are already in the Amlin and there was never any serious talks about the expansion of the game in Europe as there really isn't anybody ready to step up baring maybe Russia (who have been trying to get a team in the Amlin for some time now) and Georgia but both countries are too far away realistically and Georgia already have their best players tied up in the Top14.

The problem here is that you are attempting to have a reasoned and logical discussion with a group of posters who have decided differently and believe that if they make things up it will appear that the grubby nature of the PRLs attempt to take control of NH club rugby is A ok. Do not engage in any form of argument it is completely pointless and a waste of time.

Brennus wrote:Actually there some interesting points here if you can see through the childish waffle. Meritcoratic qualification does need to be introduced only as long there's a change for all nations(notice I didn't say 'leagues'). Whether some people like it or not, the English teams are not as good as they were in the past so a system should be introduced where spots are allocated on recent performances.

The rabo nations have already AGREED to have qualification system within the league (totally unfair as its made up of 4 NATIONS) also the English and French were allowed to keep 6 places each and have met the demands of the English and French regarding money, within reason of course.

It was all a cover up as the English already had their hands tied with BT.

Me-109

You need to reign it in mate.

Biltong wrote:Me-109

You need to reign it in mate.

What exactly do I need to reign in and why aren't you directing this comment to others?

Wow that escalated quickly. I think ME-109 has made a few good points if I'm honest.

The Saint wrote:Wow that escalated quickly. I think ME-109 has made a few good points if I'm honest.

Bad move...I am toxic apparently and any association can lead to a banning (for no reason than being argumentative on a public discussion forum...who knew   )

stub wrote:

Brennus wrote:Actually there some interesting points here if you can see through the childish waffle. Meritcoratic qualification does need to be introduced only as long there's a change for all nations(notice I didn't say 'leagues'). Whether some people like it or not, the English teams are not as good as they were in the past so a system should be introduced where spots are allocated on recent performances.

This isn't just about the English though is it Bre?

No it's not. That's why I said 'all nations'

ME-109 wrote:

Biltong wrote:Me-109

You need to reign it in mate.

What exactly do I need to reign in and why aren't you directing this comment to others?

Well first up I had to remove some parts of your commemts which were construed as racial.

Then you started going at the posters and not their comments, so I thought a timely warning not to escalate the debate is in order.

The worrying thing is, is that we don't seem to be learning from soccer. The Top 14 is getting a lot like the Priemier league in England. Rich owners buying all the best players, great old traditional clubs going bust or relegated like Biarritz and Bourgoin becuase they can't meet modern day demands of club rugby.

The AP actually did a great thing and brought in a salary cap to give every club a chance to be competitive but that doesn't look sustainable with the way the Top 14 is heading. The IRB must act now with a Euro wide salary cap. Even if its something big like 15 million or so.

Brennus wrote:

stub wrote:

Brennus wrote:Actually there some interesting points here if you can see through the childish waffle. Meritcoratic qualification does need to be introduced only as long there's a change for all nations(notice I didn't say 'leagues'). Whether some people like it or not, the English teams are not as good as they were in the past so a system should be introduced where spots are allocated on recent performances.

This isn't just about the English though is it Bre?

No it's not. That's why I said 'all nations'

But England (English) is the only country you name Bre, hence my comment.

Biltong wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

Biltong wrote:Me-109

You need to reign it in mate.

What exactly do I need to reign in and why aren't you directing this comment to others?

Well first up I had to remove some parts of your commemts which were construed as racial.

Then you started going at the posters and not their comments, so I thought a timely warning not to escalate the debate is in order.

The post concerning a propagandist was related to anothers posts as an apologist for the PRL if that was deemed racial then I apologise. However I ask again why you are not directing this question at other posters concerning other posters who have attacked me. Not that I mind as I don't but I am asking you directly?

ME-109 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

Biltong wrote:Me-109

You need to reign it in mate.

What exactly do I need to reign in and why aren't you directing this comment to others?

Well first up I had to remove some parts of your commemts which were construed as racial.

Then you started going at the posters and not their comments, so I thought a timely warning not to escalate the debate is in order.

The post concerning a propagandist was related to anothers posts as an apologist for the PRL if that was deemed racial then I apologise. However I ask again why you are not directing this question at other posters concerning other posters who have attacked me. Not that I mind as I don't but I am asking you directly?

Well it is really simple, it is after midnight in SA, I acted upon a report, hence I dealt with your actions only as it initiated the antagonism on the thread. It is far too late in the evening for me to start reading through every post.

Anyway, I am off to bed now.

stub wrote:

Brennus wrote:

stub wrote:

Brennus wrote:Actually there some interesting points here if you can see through the childish waffle. Meritcoratic qualification does need to be introduced only as long there's a change for all nations(notice I didn't say 'leagues'). Whether some people like it or not, the English teams are not as good as they were in the past so a system should be introduced where spots are allocated on recent performances.

This isn't just about the English though is it Bre?

No it's not. That's why I said 'all nations'

But England (English)  is the only country you name Bre, hence my comment.

I thought the English example strenghtened my point more so than a French one in that the Rabo should not be the only league where changes for meritocratic qualification should be introduced. At the moment, the system we have is out-of-date so let's have one that is altered every year depending on European Cup performances. If we don't the meritocratic qualification argument will be used every 4/5 years.

Goodnight Bil!

Brennus wrote:

stub wrote:

Brennus wrote:

stub wrote:

Brennus wrote:Actually there some interesting points here if you can see through the childish waffle. Meritcoratic qualification does need to be introduced only as long there's a change for all nations(notice I didn't say 'leagues'). Whether some people like it or not, the English teams are not as good as they were in the past so a system should be introduced where spots are allocated on recent performances.

This isn't just about the English though is it Bre?

No it's not. That's why I said 'all nations'

But England (English)  is the only country you name Bre, hence my comment.

I thought the English example strenghtened my point more so than a French one in that the Rabo should not be the only league where changes for meritocratic qualification should be introduced. At the moment, the system we have is out-of-date so let's have one that is altered every year depending on European Cup performances. If we don't the meritocratic qualification argument will be used every 4/5 years.

Well, I can see that The French have done a bit better than us of late so that makes sense. A few people on here have suggested making teams properly qualify for the HC regardless of nation or league and to me this would be fairest - so, I guess I'm agreeing with you here.   

Biltong wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

Biltong wrote:Me-109

You need to reign it in mate.

What exactly do I need to reign in and why aren't you directing this comment to others?

Well first up I had to remove some parts of your commemts which were construed as racial.

Then you started going at the posters and not their comments, so I thought a timely warning not to escalate the debate is in order.

The post concerning a propagandist was related to anothers posts as an apologist for the PRL if that was deemed racial then I apologise. However I ask again why you are not directing this question at other posters concerning other posters who have attacked me. Not that I mind as I don't but I am asking you directly?

Well it is really simple, it is after midnight in SA, I acted upon a report, hence I dealt with your actions only as it initiated the antagonism on the thread. It is far too late in the evening for me to start reading through every post.

Anyway, I am off to bed now.

How convenient.

Brennus wrote:

stub wrote:

Brennus wrote:

stub wrote:

Brennus wrote:Actually there some interesting points here if you can see through the childish waffle. Meritcoratic qualification does need to be introduced only as long there's a change for all nations(notice I didn't say 'leagues'). Whether some people like it or not, the English teams are not as good as they were in the past so a system should be introduced where spots are allocated on recent performances.

This isn't just about the English though is it Bre?

No it's not. That's why I said 'all nations'

But England (English)  is the only country you name Bre, hence my comment.

I thought the English example strenghtened my point more so than a French one in that the Rabo should not be the only league where changes for meritocratic qualification should be introduced. At the moment, the system we have is out-of-date so let's have one that is altered every year depending on European Cup performances. If we don't the meritocratic qualification argument will be used every 4/5 years.

it's a good idea, but you can't only adjust the qualification. you need to completely re-do the seeding. and the money is going to be a big issue as how will it be divided amongst the leagues who get less and less qualifiers for example? you also can't realistically do it off a single year's performance in the HC, as then what relevance does the domestic league have?

it needs to be more dynamic, but it also needs to be weighted over 2 or 3 seasons of HC performance by League in order to determine the number of qualifying spots per league

Stub, Mysti, QF and Nathan....all spouting from the same hymn sheet and all agreeing with each other....how useful

Come on lads better up the ante....even Fly has got bored of your "pretend" arguments and god knows he has the patience of a saint.

what's your point? do you have one? in actuality or existentially?

ME-109 wrote:Stub, Mysti, QF and Nathan....all spouting from the same hymn sheet and all agreeing with each other....how useful

Come on lads better up the ante....even Fly has got bored of your "pretend" arguments and god knows he has the patience of a saint.

I just say it how I see it... I guess it's possible that 4 posters may have a different view to your own.   

no stub, we must be a single poster because there couldnt be more than 1 person that deluded.

We must have awesome typing skills and MANY devices...

Why bother pretending with all this qualification crap or its about the ERC or we want a fairer competition etc etc. This is a plain money and control grab buy the PRL. Why not stand behind the real reason rather than making things up. It would save a lot of time and effort on your side...just front up and be men and stop this talking out of the side of your mouths...it will feel better believe me.

ME-109 wrote:Why bother pretending with all this qualification crap or its about the ERC or we want a fairer competition etc etc. This is a plain money and control grab buy the PRL. Why not stand behind the real reason rather than making things up. It would save a lot of time and effort on your side...just front up and be men and stop this talking out of the side of your mouths...it will feel better believe me.

I'm saying what I think would be fair - don't actually know the views of PRL/LNR/RRW/unions etc. Don't think anyone does but I guess there is mainly self interest at work...

stub wrote:

ME-109 wrote:Why bother pretending with all this qualification crap or its about the ERC or we want a fairer competition etc etc. This is a plain money and control grab buy the PRL. Why not stand behind the real reason rather than making things up. It would save a lot of time and effort on your side...just front up and be men and stop this talking out of the side of your mouths...it will feel better believe me.

I'm saying what I think would be fair - don't actually know the views of PRL/LNR/RRW/unions etc. Don't think anyone does but I guess there is mainly self interest at work...

That's the past...the door has been opened on what the whole PRL move is about which is mainly control of club rugby in the NH. Fairness has absolutely nothing to do with the mealy mouthed arguments of the PRL or their apologists. Just saying how I see it...is all

apparently they all have a single, unified objective. they are all talking heads controlled by mccafferty. if they weren't they might have their own opinions and motives, and that just can't be true. can it?

lets not get into the fact that this is also all about money and power for the IRFU - money to keep their players in Ireland so that they can control them. pretty simple.

quinsforever wrote:apparently they all have a single, unified objective. they are all talking heads controlled by mccafferty. if they weren't they might have their own opinions and motives, and that just can't be true. can it?

lets not get into the fact that this is also all about money and power for the IRFU - money to keep their players in Ireland so that they can control them. pretty simple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkFP0VwpPRY

Have a good one QF...

I agree, TJ. I think the HC is a great contest.

Who are those guys arguing loudly in the corner?

ME-109 wrote:

stub wrote:

ME-109 wrote:Why bother pretending with all this qualification crap or its about the ERC or we want a fairer competition etc etc. This is a plain money and control grab buy the PRL. Why not stand behind the real reason rather than making things up. It would save a lot of time and effort on your side...just front up and be men and stop this talking out of the side of your mouths...it will feel better believe me.

I'm saying what I think would be fair - don't actually know the views of PRL/LNR/RRW/unions etc. Don't think anyone does but I guess there is mainly self interest at work...

That's the past...the door has been opened on what the whole PRL move is about which is mainly control of club rugby in the NH. Fairness has absolutely nothing to do with the mealy mouthed arguments of the PRL or their apologists. Just saying how I see it...is all

Well yeah, that's great so long as you don't imagine my views are in any way projections of the PRL's or anyone else. We all have our own take on this thing and we all have our ideal outcomes. I'm pretty sure that nobody will end up completely happy come then end - whenever that is. In fact I'm probably showing my ignorance speaking in terms of an actual "end." Anyway Schmidt - I have an early start tomorrow so I'm about done for tonight. I do hope we all end up with top quality European rugby next year with everyone given a crack at it at some level.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2a6l6wM2k

sleep tight

Ah well - I suppose it was too much to ask merely to have a discussion of the rugby and of the upsets and odd results in this series. Enough threads to tediously argue on chaps

I love the heneiken cup   

These double headers have showed that it generates some great cross-boarder rivalries and rugby.

Leinster/Saints was absolutely enthralling.
Blues/Glasgow was excellent (for me anyway! admittedly not a huge amount of quality)
Connaught/Toulouse

It's defnitely an interesting run up to the Qtr finals. Round 5 has some key games in it (as well as quite a few dead rubber games), which will almost certanly factor into the group winners and runners up. I'd imagine the best runner ups are coming from Groups 3 & 5, although there could be an outsider in the run in.

(Group 1) Ospreys vs Northampton - a must win game for the Saints. Ospreys have nothing to play for but at home this wont be easy. Lose this one and its over for the Saints in this years HC.

(Group 2) Toulon vs Cardiff - A win for Toulon should see them on through for a home qtr final. A loss here and the Blues are seriously in with a shout. If they manage that it is likely the winner from this group will probably be playing away from home.

(Group 3) Toulouse vs Saracens - Same story for the french in this pool. Win this match and Toulouse will likely power into a home qtr final. Lose however and I still see both side progressing although the french may be playing an away qtr final instead.

(Pool 4) Harlequins vs Clermont - A must win game for Harlequins. Lose this one and its all over. If I was a betting man, I'd be backing Clermont on this one. They know a win here and its home qtr final time regardless of outcomes elsewhere.

(Pool5) Treviso vs Leicester - Leicester need to win this one if they want to top the group. This pool looks to contain one of the best qualifiers. If Leicester lose this, you are looking at best pool runners up.

(Pool 6) Gloucester vs Munster - Gloucester wont qualify but a defeat here could dent any chances of a Munster home Qtr final.


So looking ahead here is my view on the Qtr's:-

Ulster vs Munster
Toulouse vs Leinster
Clermont vs Saracens
Toulon vs Leicester

Could be a tough ask for some of those away sides to make the qtr's if they have to travel to france to do it.

The EC is a good competition.
Because of its many flaws it can be never be described as anything than good.

i.e. In its current format it could never be described as great.

Welshmushroom wrote:
So looking ahead here is my view on the Qtr's:-

Ulster vs Munster
Toulouse vs Leinster
Clermont vs Saracens
Toulon vs Leicester

Could be a tough ask for some of those away sides to make the qtr's if they have to travel to france to do it.

From that i'd expect all home wins except for Toulouse. If Leinster do make it through I think their home loss to Saints will have stung enough to make them get all the way to the final.

Good write up WelshM it's a shame others can't stop the bickering for a minute and contribute.

quinsforever wrote:

Brennus wrote:

stub wrote:

Brennus wrote:

stub wrote:

Brennus wrote:Actually there some interesting points here if you can see through the childish waffle. Meritcoratic qualification does need to be introduced only as long there's a change for all nations(notice I didn't say 'leagues'). Whether some people like it or not, the English teams are not as good as they were in the past so a system should be introduced where spots are allocated on recent performances.

This isn't just about the English though is it Bre?

No it's not. That's why I said 'all nations'

But England (English)  is the only country you name Bre, hence my comment.

I thought the English example strenghtened my point more so than a French one in that the Rabo should not be the only league where changes for meritocratic qualification should be introduced. At the moment, the system we have is out-of-date so let's have one that is altered every year depending on European Cup performances. If we don't the meritocratic qualification argument will be used every 4/5 years.

it's a good idea, but you can't only adjust the qualification. you need to completely re-do the seeding. and the money is going to be a big issue as how will it be divided amongst the leagues who get less and less qualifiers for example? you also can't realistically do it off a single year's performance in the HC, as then what relevance does the domestic league have?

it needs to be more dynamic, but it also needs to be weighted over 2 or 3 seasons of HC performance by League in order to determine the number of qualifying spots per league

Yep, I didn't mean to portray the understanding that meritocratic qualification should be only based only on the most recent year's performance. Of course it should be on a few years but it should be weighted in favour of most recent. I'm not referring to seeding or money - they are different issues and I can't see the relation. I'm only referring to qualification.

yappysnap wrote:

Good write up WelshM it's a shame others can't stop the bickering for a minute and contribute.

Yup

I will say that a) the home semi finals b) best runners up usually being based on who has the weaker sides in the their pool and c) the fact that cardiff blues were still in the ... 2nd ..? tier this year (for example) all needs re-structuring.

But it's still a GREAT competition. After all, the tournament winners tend to be quite good, the above gets straightened out in the games...

Welshmushroom wrote:It's defnitely an interesting run up to the Qtr finals.  Round 5 has some key games in it (as well as quite a few dead rubber games), which will almost certanly factor into the group winners and runners up.  I'd imagine the best runner ups are coming from Groups 3 & 5, although there could be an outsider in the run in.  

(Group 1) Ospreys vs Northampton - a must win game for the Saints.  Ospreys have nothing to play for but at home this wont be easy.  Lose this one and its over for the Saints in this years HC.  

(Group 2) Toulon vs Cardiff - A win for Toulon should see them on through for a home qtr final.  A loss here and the Blues are seriously in with a shout.  If they manage that it is likely the winner from this group will probably be playing away from home.

(Group 3) Toulouse vs Saracens - Same story for the french in this pool.  Win this match and Toulouse will likely power into a home qtr final.  Lose however and I still see both side progressing although the french may be playing an away qtr final instead.

(Pool 4) Harlequins vs Clermont - A must win game for Harlequins.  Lose this one and its all over.  If I was a betting man, I'd be backing Clermont on this one.  They know a win here and its home qtr final time regardless of outcomes elsewhere.

(Pool5) Treviso vs Leicester - Leicester need to win this one if they want to top the group.  This pool looks to contain one of the best qualifiers.  If Leicester lose this, you are looking at best pool runners up.

(Pool 6) Gloucester vs Munster - Gloucester wont qualify but a defeat here could dent any chances of a Munster home Qtr final.  


So looking ahead here is my view on the Qtr's:-

Ulster vs Munster
Toulouse vs Leinster
Clermont vs Saracens
Toulon vs Leicester

Could be a tough ask for some of those away sides to make the qtr's if they have to travel to france to do it.

Those potential quarter final line ups look impressive albeit tough for the away sides.

It would be interesting to see the outcomes from home and away k-o stages. That would help  (amongst other things) turn a good contest into a great one.

Maybe a few teams' supporters would turn up in respectable numbers if there was the prospect of attending a part of a great contest.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:It would be interesting to see the outcomes from home and away k-o stages. That would help  (amongst other things) turn a good contest into a great one.

Maybe a few teams' supporters would turn up in respectable numbers if there was the prospect of attending a part of a great contest.

There's a lot more flaws in the 6 Nations format but I'd still consider that to be a great competition.

The one thing I fear will weaken it in the long run though as a competition is that sides in the group stages who fail to play will in the opening 2 matches already start fielding weakened sides to focus on qualifying for next years HC. Historically this already in happens in France and England which is why I think the Pro 12 participation was so key to its current success. Rarely have teams from Ireland, Wales, Scotland or Italy ever fielded anything but their best line ups historically after failure to qualify. Its the fact that sides like Edinburgh will still field full strength sides in the latter rounds that still throw in such major upsets. If everyone starts fielding B sides it will decrease the quality of the tournament at that stage of the competition.

You just hit the nail on the head WM. We will never have a perfect competition. At the moment, it's not perfect but it's a lot better than the main alternative where it stated that French/English teams should get home advantage in the playoffs by default just for the fact they're French/English.

Brennus wrote:You just hit the nail on the head WM. We will never have a perfect competition. At the moment, it's not perfect but it's a lot better than the main alternative where it stated that French/English teams should get home advantage in the playoffs by default just for the fact they're French/English.

are you talking about the eng/french home advantage for the playoff for the 20th and final qualifying spot?

that hardly seems to be anyone else's main sticking point in this whole debacle.

if thats what you are referring to i agree it's too contrived. far better just have 6/6/6 and the winner of each competition (assuming there continue to be 2). think you will find though that it was the rabo unions who insisted on 7, and in order to do that they had to concede home advantage for the 20th qualifying spot.

on a lighter note

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=066BFGk6QvA

quinsforever wrote:

Brennus wrote:You just hit the nail on the head WM. We will never have a perfect competition. At the moment, it's not perfect but it's a lot better than the main alternative where it stated that French/English teams should get home advantage in the playoffs by default just for the fact they're French/English.

are you talking about the eng/french home advantage for the playoff for the 20th and final qualifying spot?

that hardly seems to be anyone else's main sticking point in this whole debacle.

if thats what you are referring to i agree it's too contrived. far better just have 6/6/6 and the winner of each competition (assuming there continue to be 2). think you will find though that it was the rabo unions who insisted on 7, and in order to do that they had to concede home advantage for the 20th qualifying spot.

on a lighter note

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=066BFGk6QvA

I think the fact that such an unfair element of the proposal is not the main sticking point just shows how less perfect it is. Indeed fairness of allocation spots does not mean giving the same spots to all leagues but giving spots to leagues that deserve it. In that case I would consider giving 6 spots to the Rabo as grossly unfair.

Well guys thanks for making this thread another bitchfest. Nice one. It was set up to applaud the great competition we are having this year. Not to have another thread to have a bitchfest about

Plonkers

give over TJ. if people disagree with the OP title then are you saying they shouldnt be able to comment?

if you had said instead "what great matches we have had so far in the HC", it might have been left alone. but you left it open-ended. so here we are.

What is unique, and pretty attractive universally I think, about HC is the double header (except it's not unique 'cos Amlin and B&I do it too). There are so many different stories associated with the home and away format, and it grabs me regardless of club or national prejudices.

TJ wrote:Well guys  thanks for making this thread another bitchfest.  Nice one.  It was set up to applaud the great competition we are having this year.  Not to have another thread to have a bitchfest about

Plonkers

relax TJ, a few dozen posters on 606 don't speak for their country,the HC is a great competition imo,visits to the south of france,dublin,cardiff,edinborough etc are all part of the HC.the rugby especially the bussiness end of the group stages onward is always hard tense affairs,it's a grand competition and i love it along with the vast majority of rugby people.  

Quins - get over yourself. Simply no need to turn this thread into another bitchfest. It is a great contest and this years has been particularly good.

I like a nice mass debate as much as anyone - but this thread was for a celebration of great rugby entertainment. Not for another forum mass debate.

comment yes - pointless puerile arguing that has another thead or 3 for it?