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

First topic message reminder :

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 Great Aukster wrote: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!

Well I think we need run a competition for about 8 years with just the top 6 from each league. That should allow us to do some statistical analysis that's a better reflection

"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."

statistics cannot be invalid. they are just statistics. it is the conclusions people draw from them, or uses to which they put them, that could be invalid.

obviously you dont like the statistic i produced, because it is not very flattering. but then neither is HC performance of the weakest rabo sides. every year. i have no problem with comparing the top 6 from each league, but then you have already conceded the point that that is what the actual format should be.

Mickado 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.

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...

and maybe you should try removing you foot from your mouth before posting?

for the life of me i have absolutely no idea what point you are making. are you saying that the rabo league will be closer to 2.5 because it has more teams in? except it's not. or are you just pointing out that the average is 2.5? if so, thank you.

Mickado 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.

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...

I think we can assume that statistics is likely to be beyond anyone who has trouble with basic arithmetic.

  

quinsforever wrote:

Mickado 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.

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...

and maybe you should try removing you foot from your mouth before posting?

for the life of me i have absolutely no idea what point you are making. are you saying that the rabo league will be closer to 2.5 because it has more teams in? except it's not. or are you just pointing out that the average is 2.5? if so, thank you.

I'm making the point that your inferences are invalid. "that was still not enough to avoid the rabo being by far the weakest HC participant on average" is not something that you can infer based on the "calculations" you made.

Here's the thing about averages when you link them to a competition run between three leagues and auto entries from six nations:

Firstly (one of the BIG issues about HEC itself!) is the fact that Pro12 have more 'auto' entries.  This suggests that the quality of the batch they send to HEC will be more diverse than the other two Leagues.  Some good sides (top tablers) and some bad sides (bottom feeders)

So, yes, you might agree that on average the Pro12 league performs worse than the other two Leagues in HEC overall.  BUT - who expects a different result?  Most especially, the people who complain about sub-standard Pro12 sides turning up in the first place shouldn't be surprised.  

It's a natural - but we're not complaining, because we belive that it's a European event of involvement, not standards.  Winners will still emerge, but not all the participants will reach the standards.

Now onward.  So, because of the diversity of standards applying to Pro12 entries, the overall average of that League is weak in relation to the other two when comparing performance in HEC.

Does that suggest the other two Leagues are on average of a higher standard? (HEC play-off standard)?

No, not a bit of it, as in order to come to a determination of the average quality of the other two leagues, you have to determine what they're fighting against in the HEC.  A good few of those PRO12 sides that they face are the sub-standard Pro12 sides.  Averages for AP and TOP14 are artifically raised by the low standards of the opposition they meet.
Pro12 sides on the other hand, only meet top quality AP and Top14 sides (top six from each).  And some of the lesser Pro12 sides have done particularly well at times against them.  If you introduced an appreciation of League ability V HEC ability, those present League averages would change.

In brief!!!!, - if Pro12 gave the HEC competition its top six teams (top six in the League itself) then I'm certain the trip through HEC would not be so easy for some of the AP sides or the Top14 sides.  Their averages would suffer as a result and Pro12 averages would rise dangerously!

We all know that statistics can be manipulated to show anything you want. This (and previous) governments have been doing this for years.

So this case, this too-ing and fro-ing reminds me of kids squabbling, and as such I feel I need to put a parental firmness to this argument...

The RABO is a better league than the AP, just BECAUSE IT IS.. now accept it and go to your bedrooms.  

Mickado wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Mickado 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.

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...

and maybe you should try removing you foot from your mouth before posting?

for the life of me i have absolutely no idea what point you are making. are you saying that the rabo league will be closer to 2.5 because it has more teams in? except it's not. or are you just pointing out that the average is 2.5? if so, thank you.

I'm making the point that your inferences are invalid. "that was still not enough to avoid the rabo being by far the weakest HC participant on average" is not something that you can infer based on the "calculations" you made.

yes it is actually. the clue was the word average. which is what the numbers are.

And all of this doesnt even begin to estimate the impact of a "rabo 6" in the HC having to qualify? what impact on player tiredness, injuries, performance, etc of having to compete to qualify from the rabo league?

i welcome the development, as it will strengthen the HC overall, and put clubs on a more even footing in terms of balancing domestic and international club competitions.

MrsP wrote:

Mickado 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.

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...

I think we can assume that statistics is likely to be beyond anyone who has trouble with basic arithmetic.

  

Mrs P. what is a single point between friends?

especially whether it is 1 point, 2 or 3, the difference is still a single score?

quinsforever wrote:And all of this doesnt even begin to estimate the impact of a "rabo 6" in the HC having to qualify? what impact on player tiredness, injuries, performance, etc of having to compete to qualify from the rabo league?

i welcome the development, as it will strengthen the HC overall, and put clubs on a more even footing in terms of balancing domestic and international club competitions.

Well the impact is zero actually because any of rabo teams which made the QF finished in the top 6 of the Rabo.

its a bit more subtle than that rodders.

it's about the effort involved in getting those qualifying spots.

How does one quantify effort then?

quinsforever wrote:its a bit more subtle than that rodders.

it's about the effort involved in getting those qualifying spots.

Well it's easier for the big AP teams to finish in the top 6,they can play their strongest team all the time whereas we lose our top players to the player welfare program.The Irish teams also work under far more restrictive rules regarding foreign players so we're at a double disadvantage yet still finish in the top places regularly.

rodders wrote:How does one quantify effort then?

impossible to quantify i agree. but it will have an impact.

if everyone is talking about level playing fields, then the rabo needs to be competitive for HC spots.

your player welfare program is currently an advantage for HC not enjoyed by everyone else. having a more competitive Rabo will force the provinces into the same situation everyone else is in. they have to make tough choices about player selection/resting.

maybe it will make the average rabo teams much stronger? if so, then great. that's exactly the kick up the backside that might be needed by some of the welsh and scots sides.

quinsforever wrote:

rodders wrote:How does one quantify effort then?

impossible to quantify i agree. but it will have an impact.

if everyone is talking about level playing fields, then the rabo needs to be competitive for HC spots.

your player welfare program is currently an advantage for HC not enjoyed by everyone else. having a more competitive Rabo will force the provinces into the same situation everyone else is in. they have to make tough choices about player selection/resting.

maybe it will make the average rabo teams much stronger? if so, then great. that's exactly the kick up the backside that might be needed by some of the welsh and scots sides.

Pie in the sky comments,all speculation with nothing to base it on.

I could just as easily say

if everyone is talking about level playing fields, then the AP needs to be ringfenced for HC spots.

your lack of a player welfare program is currently an advantage when qualifying for the HC not enjoyed by everyone else. having a ringfenced AP will force the clubs into the same situation everyone else is in. they have to make tough choices about player selection/resting.

maybe it will make the top AP teams much stronger? if so, then great. that's exactly the kick up the backside that might be needed.

quinsforever wrote:And all of this doesnt even begin to estimate the impact of a "rabo 6" in the HC having to qualify? what impact on player tiredness, injuries, performance, etc of having to compete to qualify from the rabo league?

i welcome the development, as it will strengthen the HC overall, and put clubs on a more even footing in terms of balancing domestic and international club competitions.

There is no development...you again, once more, in hope, foretell the future, when nobody seems to have signed any dotted lines yet. Certainly, they haven't been telling the media about it yet if they have.

And back to the QUALIFYING issue. Look at the Pro12 - you'll see the same faces at the top of Pro12 as do pretty okay in HEC. No extra effort, no more bruises than usual, still able to 'train' the young uns in certain games, still able to plot and plan a year to more wisely choose each team to suit each day of the season (whether it be Pro12 or HEC)

You see, you're back to money and I'm back to what I've said in this and other posts - winning is what matters - at anything you enter in sport. Trying to win! Not trying to tick over mid table in Pro12, to wait for the HEC.

the "development" was agreed by all 6 nations in November, and the 5 nations who met without the RFU put out a statement reiterating their agreement with the Nov financials and qualification formats. ink hasn't dried yet but that's clearly the price of french participation.

i'm not back to money. i'm back to reality. bury your head in the sand if you like SF, but the welsh regions problems are about money. the provinces dont have to worry about money as they are not businesses, but the IRFU treasurer worries very much about money.

the fact it is always, and only, the irish arguing these points is pretty revealing in terms of who currently benefits most from the status quo.

quinsforever wrote:the "development" was agreed by all 6 nations in November, and the 5 nations who met without the RFU put out a statement reiterating their agreement with the Nov financials and qualification formats. ink hasn't dried yet but that's clearly the price of french participation.

i'm not back to money. i'm back to reality. bury your head in the sand if you like SF, but the welsh regions problems are about money. the provinces dont have to worry about money as they are not businesses, but the IRFU treasurer worries very much about money.

the fact it is always, and only, the irish arguing these points is pretty revealing in terms of who currently benefits most from the status quo.

I'd argue the Scots point of view, but I'm sorry I just cannot be arsed anymore   

Think of it this way:

What’s the best result that English teams could conceivably get? 6 wins right, so an average score of 1 using your system.

What’s the best result the Pro12 teams could conceivably get? 6 pool wins and 5 runners up places, so an average of… 1.45

So from the beginning you’re figures are offset in favour of AP teams, the best that the Rabo teams can do is 45% worse than the best that the AP teams can do! But if you add the Mickado conversion factor you’ll come out with:

Rabo 2.73

Top14 2.76

AP 3.15

Which is obviously spot on…

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

rodders wrote:How does one quantify effort then?

impossible to quantify i agree. but it will have an impact.

if everyone is talking about level playing fields, then the rabo needs to be competitive for HC spots.

your player welfare program is currently an advantage for HC not enjoyed by everyone else. having a more competitive Rabo will force the provinces into the same situation everyone else is in. they have to make tough choices about player selection/resting.

maybe it will make the average rabo teams much stronger? if so, then great. that's exactly the kick up the backside that might be needed by some of the welsh and scots sides.

Pie in the sky comments,all speculation with nothing to base it on.

I could just as easily say

if everyone is talking about level playing fields, then the AP needs to be ringfenced for HC spots. [are you talking about relegation/promotion? didnt realise that was on the table for rabo. top14 and AP have to deal with this every year]

your lack of a player welfare program is currently an advantage when qualifying for the HC not enjoyed by everyone else. having a ringfenced AP will force the clubs into the same situation everyone else is in. they have to make tough choices about player selection/resting. [having a ringfenced AP will actually allow more focus on HC, as the downside in the domestic league will be limited]

maybe it will make the top AP teams much stronger? if so, then great. that's exactly the kick up the backside that might be needed.

either i am misunderstanding your points, or you didnt think them through. i am talking about qualification and you introduce ringfencing (no promotion/relegation). which i agree is another advantage enjoyed in the rabo league, but not one that prl of lnr are seeking to change as far as i am aware.

Mickado wrote:Think of it this way:

What’s the best result that English teams could conceivably get? 6 wins right, so an average score of 1 using your system.

What’s the best result the Pro12 teams could conceivably get? 6 pool wins and 5 runners up places, so an average of… 1.45

So from the beginning you’re figures are offset in favour of AP teams, the best that the Rabo teams can do is 45% worse than the best that the AP teams can do! But if you add the Mickado conversion factor you’ll come out with:

Rabo 2.73

Top14 2.76

AP 3.15

Which is obviously spot on…

oops. the glaring error in this post is that the same applies in reverse. the worst that english teams could do is bottom in every group, so average of 4. and the worst the rabo could do is 3.55.

trust me, the numbers dont lie.

quinsforever wrote:

rodders wrote:How does one quantify effort then?

impossible to quantify i agree. but it will have an impact.

if everyone is talking about level playing fields, then the rabo needs to be competitive for HC spots.

No it doesn't.  Why does Pro12 have to conform to this weak cover-story idea from English rugby that a level playing field needs to be adopted.

No it doesn't or else go talk to France and its loaded chequebooks and Harlem Globetrotting squads.  Anyone interested in talking to them?  

No?  

Then nobody needs to be calling around to our door either.  Professionalism doesn't require a level playing field - isn't that the gag on that story?  Professionalism is just survival of the fittest and richest.  Sign of the times.  Move with the times.  That's the story I'm hearing on other threads.  Right?  You agree?

Now on to AP and their version of a level-playing field.  The PRL, representing 12 sides - not one side - 12 sides.  The PRL - representing 12 sides, wants six of its sides - six sides - that will share Euro monies between them and so benefit from each others participation, whoever happens to make the 6 auto position - six of its side to still have a rightful place in the Premiere European Rugby Event - by right, each and every year - and at the same time it wants to reduce other present participants to potentially nil

No lectures from English PRL about a level playing field please.  They don't want one - they're business men - a loaded dice is what they're after.  

Nobody needs to come calling to our door (Pro12) asking for a level playing field.  You know it, I know it, McCafferty knows it.

quinsforever wrote:

Mickado wrote:Think of it this way:

What’s the best result that English teams could conceivably get? 6 wins right, so an average score of 1 using your system.

What’s the best result the Pro12 teams could conceivably get? 6 pool wins and 5 runners up places, so an average of… 1.45

So from the beginning you’re figures are offset in favour of AP teams, the best that the Rabo teams can do is 45% worse than the best that the AP teams can do! But if you add the Mickado conversion factor you’ll come out with:

Rabo 2.73

Top14 2.76

AP 3.15

Which is obviously spot on…

oops. the glaring error in this post is that the same applies in reverse. the worst that english teams could do is bottom in every group, so average of 4. and the worst the rabo could do is 3.55.

trust me, the numbers dont lie.

Obviously my "Mickado conversion factor" didn't register as the classic joke that it was in my head, but that's no problem.

How can your numbers be worth making inferences from if one league can't, under the limits of your own system, score as well, or as poorly, as another league?

i agree with most of that SF. but if the rabo need AP and LNR more, and the playing field is viewed as uneven by AP and LNR, then the AP/LNR are going to try to do something about it.

which is why we are where we are.

and most celtic posters are very much talking about level playing fields in terms of money, and bemoaning the imbalance, especially of france's new tv deal.

Mickado wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Mickado wrote:Think of it this way:

What’s the best result that English teams could conceivably get? 6 wins right, so an average score of 1 using your system.

What’s the best result the Pro12 teams could conceivably get? 6 pool wins and 5 runners up places, so an average of… 1.45

So from the beginning you’re figures are offset in favour of AP teams, the best that the Rabo teams can do is 45% worse than the best that the AP teams can do! But if you add the Mickado conversion factor you’ll come out with:

Rabo 2.73

Top14 2.76

AP 3.15

Which is obviously spot on…

oops. the glaring error in this post is that the same applies in reverse. the worst that english teams could do is bottom in every group, so average of 4. and the worst the rabo could do is 3.55.

trust me, the numbers dont lie.

Obviously my "Mickado conversion factor" didn't register as the classic joke that it was in my head, but that's no problem.

How can your numbers be worth making inferences from if one league can't, under the limits of your own system, score as well, or as poorly, as another league?

averages are precisely used for comparing samples of different size.

where it stands up statistically is that AP sides compete against rabo sides in each pool. so even though the max-min rabo average is 3.55-1.45, if they on average were better than the AP sides, they would, on average, finish above them. arguably the rabo benefit more from having 3rd and 4th place finishers in terms of buttressing the averages than 1st and 2nd place finishers

But the Pro 12 is made up from 4 Nations - Surely a more accurate measure would be to apply the same principle but divide them out on Nations basis. England and France therefore enter more sides than the other nations and are likely to have a better ratio on games played.

I would expect to see the Irish at the very top of the performance tree in that respect. I would imagine by contrast the Welsh and Italians would be making up the foot of the table.

I guess it all boils down too what a European tournament should include. In my eyes it should be merit based across the board. Ireland for example shouldn't be penalised by having less teams in the competition. Granted that shouldn't mean us Welsh sides automatically get in either.

Personally I would only like to see a only the very best get in automatically as we already have seen how 3 of the 6 automatic places England and France couldn't be bothered to qualify. The French champions for example (Castres), where woeful.

The only way that can happen is if everyone qualifies for preliminary knock out rugby that end up with the 16 remaining teams (at group stage) representing whichever teams make it there. Granted that will probably end any participation of Welsh & Italian representation but it will also put to an end the amount of teams who coast through the group stage as they have already picked up the big participation pay day and never had any designs on winning the HC.

You would never get the English agree to this though as potentially this could result in none of their entrants making it to the last 16 and qualify for the cash aspect of the tournament.

Personally though that is the only real way to have an elite tournament for Europe's best and also a fair distribution of funds to teams that actually deserve the money for their performances.

i enjoyed your conversion factor

Welshmushroom wrote:But the Pro 12 is made up from 4 Nations - Surely a more accurate measure would be to apply the same principle but divide them out on Nations basis.  England and France therefore enter more sides than the other nations and are likely to have a better ratio on games played.

I would expect to see the Irish at the very top of the performance tree in that respect.  I would imagine by contrast the Welsh and Italians would be making up the foot of the table.  

I guess it all boils down too what a European tournament should include.  In my eyes it should be merit based across the board.  Ireland for example shouldn't be penalised by having less teams in the competition.  Granted that shouldn't mean us Welsh sides automatically get in either.  

Personally I would only like to see a only the very best get in automatically as we already have seen how 3 of the 6 automatic places England and France couldn't be bothered to qualify.  The French champions for example (Castres), where woeful.  

The only way that can happen is if everyone qualifies for preliminary knock out rugby that end up with the 16 remaining teams (at group stage) representing whichever teams make it there.  Granted that will probably end any participation of Welsh & Italian representation but it will also put to an end the amount of teams who coast through the group stage as they have already picked up the big participation pay day and never had any designs on winning the HC.  

You would never get the English agree to this though as potentially this could result in none of their entrants making it to the last 16 and qualify for the cash aspect of the tournament.  

Personally though that is the only real way to have an elite tournament for Europe's best and also a fair distribution of funds to teams that actually deserve the money for their performances.

Notch did this on the first page

I'd also add that they could have a seed system that for example the top 4 from each league secure home fixtures for the first round knock out. That then would also give a league incentive.

quinsforever wrote:the "development" was agreed by all 6 nations in November, and the 5 nations who met without the RFU put out a statement reiterating their agreement with the Nov financials and qualification formats. ink hasn't dried yet but that's clearly the price of french participation.

i'm not back to money. i'm back to reality. bury your head in the sand if you like SF, but the welsh regions problems are about money. the provinces dont have to worry about money as they are not businesses, but the IRFU treasurer worries very much about money.

the fact it is always, and only, the irish arguing these points is pretty revealing in terms of who currently benefits most from the status quo.

We "benefit" because our players in three out of our four Provinces play well enough to win. Simple equation.

Not because they are better paid or have nicer gyms.  They benefit because they play well enough to be there or thereabout in the competitions they enter.  No shame in that.  No shame in declaring that. And you won't word any response to it that will shame me into retracting it, quins.

Facts are facts.  Money is your obsession - perhaps because you work in the field.  Money isn't doing anything for the teams that try hardest in Pro12, AP, Top14 or HEC.  Playing rugby on the field - with the desire to win things is what constructs each League and HEC tables and Pools.

The agreement for the new European rugby event was proposed - PRL/RFUs response was waited for.  It came quickly.  No show, not enough concessions to the righteous demands of McCafferty and crew.  New competition with less sides now has to be decided.  It can't be the same format as the one put forward on the dates you mentioned unless PRL come back in with less demands.  That's likely not going to happen - as McCafferty has a hard-man reputation to uphold now.  He created the hero figure - now he's compelled to stand by it or be considered weak.

quinsforever wrote:i agree with most of that SF. but if the rabo need AP and LNR more, and the playing field is viewed as uneven by AP and LNR, then the AP/LNR are going to try to do something about it.

which is why we are where we are.

and most celtic posters are very much talking about level playing fields in terms of money, and bemoaning the imbalance, especially of france's new tv deal.

I couldn't give a schit about the money as long as IRFU are happy. I do care about participation numbers. Participation numbers afford teams the Chance to win - not the gurantee of a win, the chance. And if AP and Top14 horde 12 of those auto chances between them, then no, I'm not going to be too hot on the idea that Irish sides get auto ONE or even two. Three is fine with me

Besides - it's PRL and Welsh regions that are the buddy buddy act now, not the PRL/LNR alliance. That fell apart.

quinsforever wrote:"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."

statistics cannot be invalid. they are just statistics. it is the conclusions people draw from them, or uses to which they put them, that could be invalid.

obviously you dont like the statistic i produced, because it is not very flattering. but then neither is HC performance of the weakest rabo sides. every year.

I take it you're addressing me, or are you reticent about quoting me directly as you still haven't either proved I'm 'lying' (as you claimed), or offered an apology (as I suggested). I just quoted statistics the same as you, yet somehow I'm being untruthful? I'll keep waiting in case you have any substance, but in the meantime I'll respond for the benefit of the rational members to decide if either or indeed any system sheds light on the thread title.

There is no argument or emotion over the statistics at all - 2.17 is indeed the average of the positions attained by AP teams this year, it is also the average of 2.16 and 2.18 (just to present another statistic) and the mode for the AP positions is "2". Last year the average position of an AP team in the HEC pools was 2.00, and the mode "1", does that mean the AP is getting worse, or are they about the same? It is your conclusions that are under scrutiny and your "average" system to interpret the data lacks validity because it isn't comparing like with like.

With such a limited sample, if comparison is to be drawn between two leagues then any measure of superiority should be how they perform head to head. It's called sport - my team scores more than your team therefore they're better kind of thing. The head to head match points of the teams in equivalent positions is the most obvious and intuitive way to do that irrespective of which league that promotes.

For completeness here is the performance of the AP teams against the lower 5 teams of the P12 in the HEC this year:
Home 21 - 5
Away 2 -22
So AP 43 - Pro12 7

A logical conclusion from that is that the top 6 in the AP are way better than the lower 5 of the Rabo. It also suggests that if the lower Rabo teams weren't there points would be much harder to come by.

quinsforever wrote:i have no problem with comparing the top 6 from each league, but then you have already conceded the point that that is what the actual format should be.

Eh... who's talking about format?

Mickado wrote:Think of it this way:

What’s the best result that English teams could conceivably get? 6 wins right, so an average score of 1 using your system.

What’s the best result the Pro12 teams could conceivably get? 6 pool wins and 5 runners up places, so an average of… 1.45

So from the beginning you’re figures are offset in favour of AP teams, the best that the Rabo teams can do is 45% worse than the best that the AP teams can do! But if you add the Mickado conversion factor (TM) you’ll come out with:

Rabo 2.73

Top14 2.76

AP 3.15

Which is obviously spot on…

Fixed that for you, Mick

The Great Aukster wrote:

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!

Why adjust it to the top 6 teams in each league? There are 11 Pro12 sides in the HC. The stats reflect that.

Plus if you talk about top 6 teams in each league - surely Bath would be in that yet they are not in the HC this season.

My point is that the Pro12 as a whole is -48 tries.

Very poor in comparison to the AP and Top 14.

Taking out games as you suggest would be foolish as we are talking about the HC - all 24 teams taking part.

beshocked wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

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!

Why adjust it to the top 6 teams in each league? There are 11 Pro12 sides in the HC. The stats reflect that.

Plus if you talk about top 6 teams in each league - surely Bath would be in that yet they are not in the HC this season.

My point is that the Pro12 as a whole is -48 tries.

Very poor in comparison to the AP and Top 14.

Taking out games as you suggest would be foolish as we are talking about the HC - all 24 teams taking part.

I was thinking exactly the same, you can't just cherry pick the numbers that consolidates your argument you have to include EVERYONE in the competition

wayne wrote:you have to include EVERYONE in the competition

Not EVERYONE agrees with you on that score, wayne. One group of them being the AP itself.

you're mixing up past and future SF

Secretfly wayne means in terms of stats.

Though I don't see many pleas from the Pro12 to see more sides from the likes of Germany,Spain,Belgium etc taking part in European competitions.

I'm cherry picking...

beshocked wrote:Secretfly wayne means in terms of stats.

Though I don't see many pleas from the Pro12 to see more sides from the likes of Germany,Spain,Belgium etc taking part in European competitions.

Of course I mean STATS

beshocked wrote:Secretfly wayne means in terms of stats.

Though I don't see many pleas from the Pro12 to see more sides from the likes of Germany,Spain,Belgium etc taking part in European competitions.

You don't see many pleas because there wasn't any pleas coming from us, beshocked.  We were content.  
AP were writing the 'pleas' pamphlets and promising Armagedden if their voice of reason and logic wasn't listened to.  "Some must sacrifice themselves on the altar for the greater good of more successful AP sides in Europe! - it is written that it shall be minnows from Pro12!  *Thunderstike*

BTW, did you answer that question I put to you yet on another thread?

Yes just answered it.

Of course you're content. If I was a supporter of the Pro12 I would too.

Look I don't know the whole situation. If the AP are asking for too much they should tone it down.

I do want to see an European competition involving English clubs but it must be genuinely European (not just the 6 nations) with more to be done for the likes of Belgium,Germany etc if it can be done.

My stance has changed somewhat - I now see the French as the biggest threat. They have more money than the English and will continue to get stronger till they dominate.

Reminds me of a game of risk with 6 players. The two strongest players decide to join forces to wipe out the rest. The 4 other countries start attacking player 1. Player 2 then turns on Player 1 and attacks them too.

The other 4 countries don't realise by destroying player 1 they are allowing player 2 to win who after dispatching player 1 picks off the others one by one.

Player 1 is portrayed as the "bad" guy yet it's player 2 who will win in the end.

And player 5 (let's call it Scotland) is wiped out altogether - what a shame neither player 1 nor player 2 bothered to think about that before they started their silly games!

Pages and Pages of Argument and Counter Argument to prove what exactly?

The PRO12 is crap (because it has a lower average posistion)
or
The PRO12 is good (3 QF's to the AP's 2 and 2 top seeds to the AP none)

What is the Point?

We all know that the bottom half of the Pro12 have f**k all chance in the Heineken cup (I'm guessing that was the REAL point of the OP to back up his argument that they shouldn't be in it) and the top PRO12 sides (3 Irish sides if we area being brutally honest) are outperforming the AP teams and are more likely to win it over the last 6 years

The rest is just Pedantics  

True alasbut100ofus - you can interpret it that way but then again you could argue that there should be more players on the board than just 6.

Just an analogy - that could be one way to interpret the current situation.

Would Scotland be wiped out if they lose 1 HC space in your opinion?

andyi wrote:Pages and Pages of Argument and Counter Argument to prove what exactly?

The PRO12 is crap (because it has a lower average posistion)
or
The PRO12 is good (3 QF's to the AP's 2 and 2 top seeds to the AP none)

What is the Point?

We all know that the bottom half of the Pro12 have f**k all chance in the Heineken cup (I'm guessing that was the REAL point of the OP to back up his argument that they shouldn't be in it) and the top PRO12 sides (3 Irish sides if we area being brutally honest) are outperforming the AP teams and are more likely to win it over the last 6 years

The rest is just Pedantics  

  

beshocked wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

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!

Why adjust it to the top 6 teams in each league? There are 11 Pro12 sides in the HC. The stats reflect that.

Plus if you talk about top 6 teams in each league - surely Bath would be in that yet they are not in the HC this season.

My point is that the Pro12 as a whole is -48 tries.

Very poor in comparison to the AP and Top 14.

Taking out games as you suggest would be foolish as we are talking about the HC - all 24 teams taking part.

Why restrict it to the top 6 teams?
1. It would be an honest attempt to discuss the relative strength of each league's entrants.
2. The top six teams are based on last year's league position so why would Bath be in the HEC?
3. Your tries system is obviously fundamentally flawed if you consider more than the top six teams.

The Pro12 have 11 teams so two teams in most pools. They have to play each other. In your system the same tries scored for also count in the tries against in matches solely involving the P12 teams. So in pool 5 for example Ulster scored 7 tries to nil against Treviso at home and 4 tries to nil away. This counts in your system as 11 for the P12 and 11 against i.e. zero. OTOH Leicester scored 4-0 at home to Treviso and 4-1 away so in your system counts as 8 tries for the AP and 1 against.
Comparable teams in the P12 and AP against the same opposition should read +11 v +7 rather than -7 v +7.

Here is my little take.

Toulon lost to Cardiff
Clermount lost to Monpel....
Toulouse lost to Connacht
Leinster lost to Saints
Munster lost to Edinburgh
Ulster lost to no one.

These are the best teams who each lost once and beat the team well in the other match.  These 6 are the benchmark for everyone else.  It does not matter who finished outside these spots (expect maybe Sarries) they are well below and need to do better.

Also as ulster have done better in Europe they have also done better in the league.  I wonder if they could be related in anyway.

Clermount have shown that the best teams are not held back by rankings but have gone from 4th to 1st quickly while being held back by Leinster (the best at the time)

quinsforever, are you the poster who statistically "proved" that England are the most successful international football team in history? I remember that post fondly.