Doing the maths on the HC pool stages, the following conclusions may (or may not) be able to be drawn

Assigning 1 point for 1st in group, 2 for 2nd in group, 3 for 3rd and 4 for 4th, gives the following averages by league. Lower score is better.

Rabo 2.73

top14 2.42

AP 2.17

So in spite of the irish provinces topping 3 groups, that was still not enough to avoid the rabo being by far the weakest HC participant on average. And surprisingly, the league with the best average showing was the AP.

Make of it what you will. But i got bored of snide remarks from certain posters about how the english sides might as well not have bothered as no-one would miss them, so decided to do the maths.

The maths being 3 quarter finalists from the Rabo, 3 from the Top14 and 2 from the Aviva rather than your ridiculous made up formula?

Not that it matters as posts saying the English might as well not be in the competition are clearly wind ups that have succeeded in catching you hook, line and sinker.

yawn.

just because you dont understand the formula doesnt mean its made up.

how would you like to aggregate ALL the pool results (rather than just the provinces) by league?

i know you think that there are only 3 teams in the rabo worth remembering, but the other 8 teams which ocuupied 4th, 2nd, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th and 3rd respectively in the 6 groups are why the rabo average is the worst.

quinsforever wrote:Assigning 1 point for 1st in group, 2 for 2nd in group, 3 for 3rd and 4 for 4th, gives the following averages by league. Lower score is better.

Rabo 2.73

top14 2.42

AP 2.17

So in spite of the irish provinces topping 3 groups, that was still not enough to avoid the rabo being by far the weakest HC participant on average. And surprisingly, the league with the best average showing was the AP.

Make of it what you will. But i got bored of snide remarks from certain posters about how the english sides might as well not have bothered as no-one would miss them, so decided to do the maths.

    


You come up with this formula just to have a bash at the Rabo    Get over us, quins.


P.s Trying to make out that you're simply responding to others bashing the AP is lame.......

you are clearly struggling to understand the very basic maths above so i'll put it in simpler terms for you:

the average rabo team came 2.73 rd in each group

the average top14 team came 2.43 rd in each group

the average AP team came 2.17 th in each group

how is this having a bash at the rabo? everyone knows the rabo only has 3 teams likely to make the playoffs, and several teams who regularly finish bottom of their groups.

all the unions have agreed to reduce the number of teams in the tournament to 20.

what is controversial about the poor average performance of the rabo?

quinsforever wrote:yawn.

just because you dont understand the formula doesnt mean its made up.

how would you like to aggregate ALL the pool results (rather than just the provinces) by league?

i know you think that there are only 3 teams in the rabo worth remembering, but the other 8 teams which ocuupied 4th, 2nd, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th and 3rd respectively in the 6 groups are why the rabo average is the worst.

Its ironic that you yawn in response to my post as your feeble minded attempts to constantly put down the Rabo is what has become tiresome.  As pointed out above you are now going to the most ridiculous lengths such as this formula in a desperate attempt to establish to other people something which is subjective at best, or in your case quite sad at worst.

I think you showed your true colours in another thread when you described the Rabo as a t*rd and suggested that you can't polish a t*rd.  

Which is also incorrect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI

 

like the video   

seriously though, you come up with a way to aggregate all HC matches played so far. any way you like.

quinsforever wrote:how is this having a bash at the rabo? everyone knows the rabo only has 3 teams likely to make the playoffs, and several teams who regularly finish bottom of their groups.

all the unions have agreed to reduce the number of teams in the tournament to 20.

what is controversial about the poor average performance of the rabo?

Of course it Rabo bashing. You know it, and everyone else, I'm sure, knows it. Nothing controversial at all about someone posting wind ups. Funny, but not controversial   

this is a far more sophisticated ranking system that includes all non-friendly matches.

http://www.eurorugby.com/index.php

the top 20 teams are made up of:
5 Rabo
8 AP
7 top14

HC matches have the biggest weighting on this ranking system.

not surprising therefore that it matches this years average performances within the HC pool stages then.

Why bother aggregating anything?  Which is a better league on average or which is a better league at producing HC quarter finalists and winners?  Its all subjective as I said above with regards to what you think shows which league is performing best in Europe.  Personally I think the Aviva is a great league and I want English sides in the HC..... I don't really feel the need to argue which is better between the Aviva and Rabo.

if you read the OP, the point was that on average the AP performed the best in pool matches, in spite of not winning a group and only having 2 runners-up points qualifiers.

which i thought was interesting. and worth posting.

if you dont aggregate then you never learn anything useful about the quality level beneath the QFs. and this is really important for making the competition as attractive and healthy as possible.

this last weekend was completely rubbish apart from the leics-ulster match. 5 dead rubbers groups, and they didnt even show the exeter match on sky. it's important to slice and dice numbers as many ways as you can to learn as much as one usefully can about ways to improve the tournament.

This is just going to go down to the nations vs leagues debate. Here is the data for both 'views' of European Rugby. I'll use your own system.

Ireland 1.5
England 2.16
France 2.43 (rounded up as opposed to down)
Wales 3
Scotland 3.5
Italy 4

AvPrem 2.16
Top14 2.43
Pro12 2.72

I haven't seen any Irish posters bemoaning the failure of the Welsh, Scottish or Italians any more than I've seen Irish posters bemoaning the failure of Montpellier or Exeter. The other five nations teams are just that- other teams, under the governance of other Unions, with their own national side, in a different country. We've done the best in the Heineken Cup pool stages and god- we're a small nation, thats been a rather poor nation for a lot of its history and its fair to say we haven't had that much to cheer about over the years so the fact we're more successful pound for pound than the cream of the other nations is a matter of considerable national pride. If I wasn't Irish it would put my back-up but it's a natural part of the process of maturing as a country. A win for an Irish province lifts a country which is one of the economic basket cases of Europe. It filters through the entire community. It's massive.

Really we don't care about the strange dichotomy that the most successful nation is part of the weakest league. But we should.

Averages have their own problems don't they. Sport is about the best teams and these averages won't mean much if we get another all-French final. It won't be of massive significance that the french are below the English in this and Montpellier lost their important games if the English teams crash out of the quarter-finals, or vice versa.

Three defeats for the Irish provinces and we'll fall quiet, quickly.

quinsforever wrote:Assigning 1 point for 1st in group, 2 for 2nd in group, 3 for 3rd and 4 for 4th, gives the following averages by league. Lower score is better.

Rabo 2.73

top14 2.42

AP 2.17

So in spite of the irish provinces topping 3 groups, that was still not enough to avoid the rabo being by far the weakest HC participant on average. And surprisingly, the league with the best average showing was the AP.

Make of it what you will. But i got bored of snide remarks from certain posters about how the english sides might as well not have bothered as no-one would miss them, so decided to do the maths.

Pretty impressive that the Rabo is so close to the other leagues when all the teams are involved.The other leagues only have the best 6 teams and aren't that far ahead.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Assigning 1 point for 1st in group, 2 for 2nd in group, 3 for 3rd and 4 for 4th, gives the following averages by league. Lower score is better.

Rabo 2.73

top14 2.42

AP 2.17

So in spite of the irish provinces topping 3 groups, that was still not enough to avoid the rabo being by far the weakest HC participant on average. And surprisingly, the league with the best average showing was the AP.

Make of it what you will. But i got bored of snide remarks from certain posters about how the english sides might as well not have bothered as no-one would miss them, so decided to do the maths.

Pretty impressive that the Rabo is so close to the other leagues when all the teams are involved.The other leagues only have the best 6 teams and aren't that far ahead.

Yep if anything it shows they are almost as good as the other league's top teams, and i would say celtic teams (discarding the Italians) are as good.

Lets face it, apart from Zebre at home against Toulouse, Italian teams have been a disgrace to the rabo, particularly Treviso for not playing their strongest teams at home against Montepellier and Leicester.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Assigning 1 point for 1st in group, 2 for 2nd in group, 3 for 3rd and 4 for 4th, gives the following averages by league. Lower score is better.

Rabo 2.73

top14 2.42

AP 2.17

So in spite of the irish provinces topping 3 groups, that was still not enough to avoid the rabo being by far the weakest HC participant on average. And surprisingly, the league with the best average showing was the AP.

Make of it what you will. But i got bored of snide remarks from certain posters about how the english sides might as well not have bothered as no-one would miss them, so decided to do the maths.

Pretty impressive that the Rabo is so close to the other leagues when all the teams are involved.The other leagues only have the best 6 teams and aren't that far ahead.

True. Taking the scores from Rabo top 6 2012-2013, it would score at 2.33. Still below AP, but above T14   

I don't like the way Gloucester got their 2nd place, playing a totally disinterested Perpignan.

Just one exemple that show it's a flawed analysis.

lots of comments i agree with.

the irish have done incredibly well. and thanks for doing the country averages notch.

but by league is very relevant because it (HC and lets not forget amlin) is a competition that is moving to a qualification-by-league format (albeit not entirely clean).

and with respect notch, while winning is all that pro teams aspire to do, averages tell you very important things about what happens below the winner. i am in no doubt whatsoever that a 20 team HC with proper qualification will significantly improve the group stages, and we wont get the ridiculous last weekend with so many dead rubbers and walkover matches.

and munchkin, top6 from rabo sounds about right.

my ideal format would be top 6 from each, plus winner of previous HC, plus playoff between winner of Amlin and 7th placed team in Rabo.

Notch wrote:This is just going to go down to the nations vs leagues debate. Here is the data for both 'views' of European Rugby. I'll use your own system.

Ireland 1.5
England 2.16
France 2.43 (rounded up as opposed to down)
Wales 3
Scotland 3.5
Italy 4

AvPrem 2.16
Top14 2.43
Pro12 2.72

I haven't seen any Irish posters bemoaning the failure of the Welsh, Scottish or Italians any more than I've seen Irish posters bemoaning the failure of Montpellier or Exeter. The other five nations teams are just that- other teams, under the governance of other Unions, with their own national side, in a different country. We've done the best in the Heineken Cup pool stages and god- we're a small nation, thats been a rather poor nation for a lot of its history and its fair to say we haven't had that much to cheer about over the years so the fact we're more successful pound for pound than the cream of the other nations is a matter of considerable national pride. If I wasn't Irish it would put my back-up but it's a natural part of the process of maturing as a country. A win for an Irish province lifts a country which is one of the economic basket cases of Europe. It filters through the entire community. It's massive.

Really we don't care about the strange dichotomy that the most successful nation is part of the weakest league. But we should.

Averages have their own problems don't they. Sport is about the best teams and these averages won't mean much if we get another all-French final. It won't be of massive significance that the french are below the English in this and Montpellier lost their important games if the English teams crash out of the quarter-finals, or vice versa.

Three defeats for the Irish provinces and we'll fall quiet, quickly.

Notch, this is why I continue with 606v2 - amid the dogma, nationalism, stupidity and ire (from which I do not exclude myself), there are occasional posts of excellence. I salute you.

VinceWLB wrote:I don't like the way Gloucester got their 2nd place, playing a totally disinterested Perpignan.

Just one exemple that show it's a flawed analysis.

perpignan were disinterested all tournament. but everyone can find exceptions they take issue with. averages are the only way to compare. the "we beat them and they beat you so we must be better than you" argument i so often hear in NH/SH debates is complete tosh. either its who wins the groups or competitions, or averages of overall performance that have to be used for analysis. there is no controlling for effort within individual matches. the right thing to do is get the pool format right from the get go!

But wait - You got to enter only your top 6 teams

If you only count our top 6 teams from last years rabo give us an average of 2.3333333

I mean we entered Zebre (12th) Treviso (7th) Edinburgh (10th) Connacht (8th)

Bath, Wasps, Sale Sharks, London Welsh - what would your average be if they were entered?


OH RIGHT! I understand - this sin't a thread about the Rabo being poor - its yet another thread about the european competition format!


oh but here, before i go. One more stat.

0% of English teams won their pool.

whatever. jog on son. the AP is in rude health, and we provided teams to the HC which fought til the end. check out the final weekend's results. that, to me, is a barometer of a healthy rugby culture.

quinsforever wrote:lots of comments i agree with.

the irish have done incredibly well. and thanks for doing the country averages notch.

but by league is very relevant because it (HC and lets not forget amlin) is a competition that is moving to a qualification-by-league format (albeit not entirely clean).

and with respect notch, while winning is all that pro teams aspire to do, averages tell you very important things about what happens below the winner. i am in no doubt whatsoever that a 20 team HC with proper qualification will significantly improve the group stages, and we wont get the ridiculous last weekend with so many dead rubbers and walkover matches.

and munchkin, top6 from rabo sounds about right.

my ideal format would be top 6 from each, plus winner of previous HC, plus playoff between winner of Amlin and 7th placed team in Rabo.

I think that really comes down to what we individually get out of the competition. Personally I believe excluding certain teams would rob the competition of some of the romance. Sometimes those teams least expected to do well cause upsets. Sometimes a team searching for a potentially much needed bonus point is denied - Zebre 6 - 16 Toulouse in round 6. I really don't see the point in downsizing the HEC. Just my opinion, of course.

quinsforever wrote:lots of comments i agree with.

the irish have done incredibly well. and thanks for doing the country averages notch.

but by league is very relevant because it (HC and lets not forget amlin) is a competition that is moving to a qualification-by-league format (albeit not entirely clean).

No its not.  Simply wrong.

 

Win ratio by nation

Ireland 79%
England 56%
France 51%
Scotland 42%
Wales 35%
Italy 0%.

also interesting.

The Italians distort the picture somewhat, so if you calculate the average for the Irish, Scottish and Welsh teams you probably get a more balanced view of the actual Rabo performance. I make that about 2.44, which is not a statistically significant difference from the AP or Top 14.

It's undoubtedly true that the provinces are the outlier within this, and have been consistently excellent over the last several years. They have made the most of an outstanding generation of Irish players (unlike the national side) and have some excellent young talent coming through.

However, it's also clear that they have some definite advantages that in a sport where small margins make a big difference. We will probably never agree on whether the lack of qualification allows the provinces to focus their players on the HEC [1], but it is undeniable that the HEC seeding process rewards appearances. Ulster, Munster and Leinster are guaranteed seeding points every year. A good performance in one year earns more seeding points and a better draw, which in turn increases the chance of more points. It builds. The English sides can't count on that - Northampton made the final but were also relegated and so missed out on the competition altogether for two years, so no chance to build.

Consistent experience in the tournament counts for a lot as well. Of course, the Welsh sides have the same advantages but have failed to make the most of them, which is a bit of a puzzler.

The point I am trying to make is that this direct comparison of performances isn't really valid when the teams aren't starting from the same position.

[1] Though it would be interesting to compare the average number of club games played by internationals in different leagues over the course of their careers - someone on Come All Within pointed out that POC has played fewer than 200 game for Munster in a 12+ year career, while Mike Brown has played over 200 for Quins in only 6. That's too small a sample size - Brown has had few injuries compared to O'Connell, for one thing - but I'd like to see whether it holds out over a larger pool.

Anyone have easy access to the data to analyse it?

If the point of this thread is to compare the three leagues then it should only be those games involving the top six teams in each league that are relevant. Therefore it is only those games involving Ulster, Leinster, Ospreys, Glasgow, Scarlets and Munster that should be considered for the P12 and also excluding games involving Perpignan who finished 7th in the T14.

Looking at total match points (including TBPs and LBPs) the points are:
Home v Away
P12 v AP : 13 v 14
AP v P12 : 7 v 21
so thats a total of 34 for the P12 against a total of 21 for the AP.

P12 v T14 : 15 v 11
T14 v p12 : 16 v 14
Total p12 is 29 and T14 is 27

AP v T14 : 16 v 13
T14 v AP : 18 v 11
Total AP 27 and T14 is 31

Comparing like for like with the top six teams from each league and the matches where they played each other, the Rabo Pro12 league comes out well ahead of the Aviva Prem and a bit ahead of the top 14.

Poorfour,

"Too small a sample size..." doesn't really describe it.

You have merely compared 2 players. That gives us absolutely NO idea what happens across the leagues.

The Great Aukster wrote:If the point of this thread is to compare the three leagues then it should only be those games involving the top six teams in each league that are relevant. Therefore it is only those games involving Ulster, Leinster, Ospreys, Glasgow, Scarlets and Munster that should be considered for the P12 and also excluding games involving Perpignan who finished 7th in the T14.

Looking at total match points (including TBPs and LBPs) the points are:
Home v Away
P12 v AP : 13 v 14
AP v P12 : 7 v 21
so thats a total of 34 for the P12 against a total of 21 for the AP.

P12 v T14 : 15 v 11
T14 v p12 : 16 v 14
Total p12 is 29 and T14 is 27

AP v T14 : 16 v 13
T14 v AP : 18 v 11
Total AP 27 and T14 is 31

Comparing like for like with the top six teams from each league and the matches where they played each other, the Rabo Pro12 league comes out well ahead of the Aviva Prem and a bit ahead of the top 14.

are you kidding?

firstly you want to pick the top 6 rabo teams after you see how they do? yes, i'd like to to do that too if i were comparing leagues. secondly, even allowing you to pick retrospectively, the rabo doesnt come ahead of anyone. you are either lying or rubbish at numbers.

quinsforever wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:If the point of this thread is to compare the three leagues then it should only be those games involving the top six teams in each league that are relevant. Therefore it is only those games involving Ulster, Leinster, Ospreys, Glasgow, Scarlets and Munster that should be considered for the P12 and also excluding games involving Perpignan who finished 7th in the T14.

Looking at total match points (including TBPs and LBPs) the points are:
Home v Away
P12 v AP : 13 v 14
AP v P12 : 7 v 21
so thats a total of 34 for the P12 against a total of 21 for the AP.

P12 v T14 : 15 v 11
T14 v p12 : 16 v 14
Total p12 is 29 and T14 is 27

AP v T14 : 16 v 13
T14 v AP : 18 v 11
Total AP 27 and T14 is 31

Comparing like for like with the top six teams from each league and the matches where they played each other, the Rabo Pro12 league comes out well ahead of the Aviva Prem and a bit ahead of the top 14.

are you kidding?

firstly you want to pick the top 6 rabo teams after you see how they do? yes, i'd like to to do that too if i were comparing leagues. secondly, even allowing you to pick retrospectively, the rabo doesnt come ahead of anyone. you are either lying or rubbish at numbers.

  

bring it mrs p.

i assume that was a challenge?

Poorfour wrote:We will probably never agree on whether the lack of qualification allows the provinces to focus their players on the HEC

I can't actually remember the last time Leinster finished outside the top 2. And looking at the current state of the respective teams the big three Irish sides probably will be walking into the top 6 for the foreseeable future. While adhering to the IRFU limits on test players game time. The Irish do focus on the HC. I have never argued with that. But it's nothing to do with qualification. That's what I don't think the English quite grasp.

The rabo is not a money spinner. There is a much smaller and more fragmented TV audience. And it's not nearly as prestigious. I've always felt the Irish, starting with Munster and followed by the others have brought the GAA attitude to rugby. The league is nice. We can nurture talent and try things out (while still winning). But in our hearts it's all about the major knockout Championship against all comers. We think that shows who's really the best. (I've heard the French genuinely believe the Top 14 winner is the best in Europe but there you go).

The Irish fans and players have fierce pride in their provincial identities and jerseys. The Irish have taken to the HC more than the other nations, and adore it more than anyone else. They define themselves on beating the best in Europe (which has always come from England and France, not the Rabo). The prestige lies in beating the "big boys". And the pride comes from proud ancient identities, not fake made up franchises. They don't just want to give a good account of themselves. They desperately want to win it. Every year. We probably like it too bloody much actually. It's all a potent mix that has little to do with the qualification criteria or tournament structure.

If it was qualification criteria or tournament structure or TV money all the rabo teams would be really good. But most of rabo teams are not particularly brilliant. Some of them seem like they're on life support. And the three really good ones on the European stage all happen to be from one of the four rabo countries only. Actually if it was qualification criteria the Italians and Scottish would be the best.

So I disagree that qualification makes Irish teams focus on the HC. They'd be focussing on it anyway. That's the attitude they bring to it. And like I said, they'll be qualifying anyway. If the rules are changed you may be rid of one of them once in a blue moon. But they'd be back focussing on winning the HC again above all else.

Feckless Rogue wrote:I've always felt the Irish, starting with Munster and followed by the others have brought the GAA attitude to rugby. The league is nice. We can nurture talent and try things out (while still winning). But in our hearts it's all about the major knockout Championship against all comers.

This is a perfect summation of the Irish sporting psyche. One that non-Irish people will not get, how the GAA courses through our veins and the CHAMPIONSHIP is the be all and end all. I am from Mayo. The Irish lads will know what that means. That a thousand league wins don't equal to one All-Ireland. That true sporting greatness is derived from no second chance - knock out after knock out match, tested and won. There is a whole host of reasons why I think the Irish rugby team hasn't replicated that in the 6 nations/world cup. But that is the root of our love of the Heineken Cup. It is the intangible sauce that people like quins will never understand. And that's fair enough, we shouldn't expect them to - but when they try to break it down in equations, well it all becomes a bit silly doesn't it?

quinsforever wrote:you are clearly struggling to understand the very basic maths above so i'll put it in simpler terms for you:

the average rabo team came 2.73 rd in each group

the average top14 team came 2.43 rd in each group

the average AP team came 2.17 th in each group

ultimately the HC isn't about the average finish per cLeague though, is it
.

It is all about the 8 teams that qualify.

Poorfour wrote:The Italians distort the picture somewhat, so if you calculate the average for the Irish, Scottish and Welsh teams you probably get a more balanced view of the actual Rabo performance. I make that about 2.44, which is not a statistically significant difference from the AP or Top 14.

It's undoubtedly true that the provinces are the outlier within this, and have been consistently excellent over the last several years. They have made the most of an outstanding generation of Irish players (unlike the national side) and have some excellent young talent coming through.

However, it's also clear that they have some definite advantages that in a sport where small margins make a big difference. We will probably never agree on whether the lack of qualification allows the provinces to focus their players on the HEC [1], but it is undeniable that the HEC seeding process rewards appearances. Ulster, Munster and Leinster are guaranteed seeding points every year. A good performance in one year earns more seeding points and a better draw, which in turn increases the chance of more points. It builds. The English sides can't count on that - Northampton made the final but were also relegated and so missed out on the competition altogether for two years, so no chance to build.

Consistent experience in the tournament counts for a lot as well. Of course, the Welsh sides have the same advantages but have failed to make the most of them, which is a bit of a puzzler.

The point I am trying to make is that this direct comparison of performances isn't really valid when the teams aren't starting from the same position.

[1] Though it would be interesting to compare the average number of club games played by internationals in different leagues over the course of their careers - someone on Come All Within pointed out that POC has played fewer than 200 game for Munster in a 12+ year career, while Mike Brown has played over 200 for Quins in only 6. That's too small a sample size - Brown has had few injuries compared to O'Connell, for one thing - but I'd like to see whether it holds out over a larger pool.

Anyone have easy access to the data to analyse it?

Spot on!   

quinsforever wrote:Assigning 1 point for 1st in group, 2 for 2nd in group, 3 for 3rd and 4 for 4th, gives the following averages by league. Lower score is better.

Rabo 2.73

top14 2.42

AP 2.17

So in spite of the irish provinces topping 3 groups, that was still not enough to avoid the rabo being by far the weakest HC participant on average. And surprisingly, the league with the best average showing was the AP.

Make of it what you will. But i got bored of snide remarks from certain posters about how the english sides might as well not have bothered as no-one would miss them, so decided to do the maths.

A unique, refreshing, logical post. Not something I see too much of on here.

Appreciate it.

quinsforever wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:If the point of this thread is to compare the three leagues then it should only be those games involving the top six teams in each league that are relevant. Therefore it is only those games involving Ulster, Leinster, Ospreys, Glasgow, Scarlets and Munster that should be considered for the P12 and also excluding games involving Perpignan who finished 7th in the T14.

Looking at total match points (including TBPs and LBPs) the points are:
Home v Away
P12 v AP : 13 v 14
AP v P12 : 7 v 21
so thats a total of 34 for the P12 against a total of 21 for the AP.

P12 v T14 : 15 v 11
T14 v p12 : 16 v 14
Total p12 is 29 and T14 is 27

AP v T14 : 16 v 13
T14 v AP : 18 v 11
Total AP 27 and T14 is 31

Comparing like for like with the top six teams from each league and the matches where they played each other, the Rabo Pro12 league comes out well ahead of the Aviva Prem and a bit ahead of the top 14.

are you kidding?

firstly you want to pick the top 6 rabo teams after you see how they do? yes, i'd like to to do that too if i were comparing leagues. secondly, even allowing you to pick retrospectively, the rabo doesnt come ahead of anyone. you are either lying or rubbish at numbers.

No, just comparing the top 6 teams from all three leagues seems the fairest way to "show the strength of each league's entrants". With regard to the numbers I'll expect either proof that I'm 'lying' or an apology.

quinsforever wrote:Assigning 1 point for 1st in group, 2 for 2nd in group, 3 for 3rd and 4 for 4th, gives the following averages by league. Lower score is better.

Rabo 2.73

top14 2.42

AP 2.17

So in spite of the irish provinces topping 3 groups, that was still not enough to avoid the rabo being by far the weakest HC participant on average. And surprisingly, the league with the best average showing was the AP.

Make of it what you will. But i got bored of snide remarks from certain posters about how the english sides might as well not have bothered as no-one would miss them, so decided to do the maths.

I also decided to do the maths based on the original post which is invalid simply because you are not comparing like with like. Taking an average of a top eleven teams and comparing that to an average of a top six is obviously skewed.
If your “average” system is used to compare the top six qualifiers from each league the figures are:

Rabo 2.33
Top14 2.17
AP 2.17

However far from proving anything this highlights the unfairness of your system because both the Rabo (pool 1) and the Top14 (pool 4) had two of their top 6 league teams competing against each other and therefore the best these leagues could aspire to was 5 x firsts and 1 x second place compared to 6 x firsts for the AP. So looking at such averages proves nothing other than what some might class as a 'rubbish' understanding of numbers.

The Great Aukster wrote:I also decided to do the maths based on the original post which is invalid simply because you are not comparing like with like. Taking an average of a top eleven teams and comparing that to an average of a top six is obviously skewed.
If your “average” system is used to compare the top six qualifiers from each league the figures are:

Rabo 2.33
Top14 2.17
AP 2.17

However far from proving anything this highlights the unfairness of your system because both the Rabo (pool 1) and the Top14 (pool 4) had two of their top 6 league teams competing against each other and therefore the best these leagues could aspire to was 5 x firsts and 1 x second place compared to 6 x firsts for the AP. So looking at such averages proves nothing other than what some might class as a 'rubbish' understanding of numbers.

I may be wrong (I often am) but does your top six still show the Pro12 to be behind the AP and Top14? Or did you change they way you counted up (as in 1 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, etc. so higher number is worse)?

Also, regarding the other bit, are you saying it would be fairer if there were equal numbers of teams from each competition then?

The Great Aukster wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:If the point of this thread is to compare the three leagues then it should only be those games involving the top six teams in each league that are relevant. Therefore it is only those games involving Ulster, Leinster, Ospreys, Glasgow, Scarlets and Munster that should be considered for the P12 and also excluding games involving Perpignan who finished 7th in the T14.

Looking at total match points (including TBPs and LBPs) the points are:
Home v Away
P12 v AP : 13 v 14
AP v P12 : 7 v 21
so thats a total of 34 for the P12 against a total of 21 for the AP.

P12 v T14 : 15 v 11
T14 v p12 : 16 v 14
Total p12 is 29 and T14 is 27

AP v T14 : 16 v 13
T14 v AP : 18 v 11
Total AP 27 and T14 is 31

Comparing like for like with the top six teams from each league and the matches where they played each other, the Rabo Pro12 league comes out well ahead of the Aviva Prem and a bit ahead of the top 14.

are you kidding?

firstly you want to pick the top 6 rabo teams after you see how they do? yes, i'd like to to do that too if i were comparing leagues. secondly, even allowing you to pick retrospectively, the rabo doesnt come ahead of anyone. you are either lying or rubbish at numbers.

No, just comparing the top 6 teams from all three leagues seems the fairest way to "show the strength of each league's entrants". With regard to the numbers I'll expect either proof that I'm 'lying' or an apology.

quinsforever wrote:Assigning 1 point for 1st in group, 2 for 2nd in group, 3 for 3rd and 4 for 4th, gives the following averages by league. Lower score is better.

Rabo 2.73

top14 2.42

AP 2.17

So in spite of the irish provinces topping 3 groups, that was still not enough to avoid the rabo being by far the weakest HC participant on average. And surprisingly, the league with the best average showing was the AP.

Make of it what you will. But i got bored of snide remarks from certain posters about how the english sides might as well not have bothered as no-one would miss them, so decided to do the maths.

I also decided to do the maths based on the original post which is invalid simply because you are not comparing like with like. Taking an average of a top eleven teams and comparing that to an average of a top six is obviously skewed.
If your “average” system is used to compare the top six qualifiers from each league the figures are:

Rabo 2.33
Top14 2.17
AP 2.17

However far from proving anything this highlights the unfairness of your system because both the Rabo (pool 1) and the Top14 (pool 4) had two of their top 6 league teams competing against each other and therefore the best these leagues could aspire to was 5 x firsts and 1 x second place compared to 6 x firsts for the AP. So looking at such averages proves nothing other than what some might class as a 'rubbish' understanding of numbers.

v good understanding of numbers. spot on.   

quinsforever

Another way of doing it.....

Saints 11 tries
Exeter 11 tries
Sarries 29 tries
Quins 12 tries
Leicester 16 tries
Gloucester 13 tries

92 tries for the AP

Tries against

Saints - 10
Exeter - 14
Sarries - 5
Quins - 12
Leicester - 9
Gloucester - 10

60 tries conceded

32 + tries for the AP.


Irish are +22 in tries scored I think

+9 for Leinster
-13 for Connacht
+13 for Ulster
+13 for Munster


Welsh are -19

French are +15 I think

-5 for the Scots

-46 tries for the Italians

If you add the Pro12 all together.......

Pro12 - -48

AP - +32

Top 14 - +15

Biltong wrote:

quinsforever wrote:you are clearly struggling to understand the very basic maths above so i'll put it in simpler terms for you:

the average rabo team came 2.73 rd in each group

the average top14 team came 2.43 rd in each group

the average AP team came 2.17 th in each group

ultimately the HC isn't about the average finish per cLeague though, is it
.

It is all about the 8 teams that qualify.

not quite. if it was just about which 8 teams qualify, why are there teams in it with absolutely zero chance of qualifying? it's more complicated than just who wins Bilt. it's a big money-spinner (especially for italian and scottish sides), and there is currently a gigantic argument going on about how to restructure the competition to make it better and fairer. and in order to do that, we do need to look behind the 8 qualifiers to understand what needs to be changed.

so yes, as far as who wins it, its all about the knockout phase. but HC is more than a winner takes all contest.

Oh goody!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A quiz thread!

quinsforever wrote:

so yes, as far as who wins it, its all about the knockout phase. but HC is more than a winner takes all contest.

Correct.  It's about taking part. And the dream that one day............................

Munster were absolute no hopers in the contest until one day...........................

That's the magic of it...and that's what is under threat - for English and French lesser teams as much as the lowly teams of Pro12.

After reading this thread, I remembered why I stay out of the Euro discussion

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:I also decided to do the maths based on the original post which is invalid simply because you are not comparing like with like. Taking an average of a top eleven teams and comparing that to an average of a top six is obviously skewed.
If your “average” system is used to compare the top six qualifiers from each league the figures are:

Rabo 2.33
Top14 2.17
AP 2.17

However far from proving anything this highlights the unfairness of your system because both the Rabo (pool 1) and the Top14 (pool 4) had two of their top 6 league teams competing against each other and therefore the best these leagues could aspire to was 5 x firsts and 1 x second place compared to 6 x firsts for the AP. So looking at such averages proves nothing other than what some might class as a 'rubbish' understanding of numbers.

I may be wrong (I often am) but does your top six still show the Pro12 to be behind the AP and Top14? Or did you change they way you counted up (as in 1 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, etc. so higher number is worse)?

No you’re not wrong the Rabo number is indeed higher than the AP and T14 numbers so is indeed marginally worse. However the number actually means that the average finishing position of a top 6 Rabo team was second – they can’t finish in position 2.33. Also the average finishing position for a top 6 AP team was second, as indeed it was for a top 6 T14 team.

Quinsforever’s “average” system is statistically invalid because he averages a different number of teams for each league and then compares them. What would the averages be like if the top 11 of the AP were in a competition with the top 6 of the Rabo? It would say nothing about the relative strength of the teams either.

Even using the ‘adjusted’ average system to only consider the pool positions of the top 6 in each league is inherently flawed. It is much easier for two top 6 teams to gain the highest positions when there are two bottom 6 teams in the same group, so pools 3 and 6 were much easier to get into the top two places than pools 1 and 4 that were exclusively top 6 sides.

Statistically every league’s teams should have an equal opportunity to occupy every position for such calculated averages to have meaning, but this obviously isn’t the case with Leinster and Ospreys in Pool 1 and Clermont and Racing in Pool 4.

HammerofThunor wrote:Also, regarding the other bit, are you saying it would be fairer if there were equal numbers of teams from each competition then?

Fairer on whom? As I showed above with the head to head points, the top 6 in the AP would be seriously disadvantaged if they didn’t have the lower reaches of the P12 to plunder some points – don’t know if that’s fair on them!

beshocked wrote:quinsforever

Another way of doing it.....

Saints 11 tries
Exeter 11 tries
Sarries 29 tries
Quins 12 tries
Leicester 16 tries
Gloucester 13 tries

92 tries for the AP

Tries against

Saints - 10
Exeter - 14
Sarries - 5
Quins - 12
Leicester - 9
Gloucester - 10

60 tries conceded

32 + tries for the AP.


Irish are +22 in tries scored I think

+9 for Leinster
-13 for Connacht
+13 for Ulster
+13 for Munster


Welsh are -19

French are +15 I think

-5 for the Scots

-46 tries for the Italians

If you add the Pro12 all together.......

Pro12 -  -48

AP - +32

Top 14 - +15

... and if you adjust the figures to only consider the games between the top 6 teams in each league:

Pro12 - 0
AP - -6
T14 - +6

... explains a lot... er... what was your point again!

quinsforever wrote:Assigning 1 point for 1st in group, 2 for 2nd in group, 3 for 3rd and 4 for 4th, gives the following averages by league. Lower score is better.

Rabo 2.73

top14 2.42

AP 2.17

So in spite of the irish provinces topping 3 groups, that was still not enough to avoid the rabo being by far the weakest HC participant on average. And surprisingly, the league with the best average showing was the AP.

Make of it what you will. But i got bored of snide remarks from certain posters about how the english sides might as well not have bothered as no-one would miss them, so decided to do the maths.

All bar 1 pool had 2 pro 12 teams in in, so that's not an equal measurement.

If you took the average position of all teams in the pool, it would be 2.5, the more teams you take the average of, the more likely the average will be closer to 2.5

You really shouldn't take on statistics before you understand them...