Absolutely taking the urine

by LordDowlais Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:15 pm

First topic message reminder :

So much for this new European utopia we are supposed to be having, so much for the excuse of making the second tier of the European cup more attractive and competitive, none of the French sides put out a first team in the second tier competition, I was watching the Blues game and it was a farce. But of course, who can we complain to, now that this brave new world are run by the clubs ? We cannot go to the ERC to complain as they are not running the competition, where do we go ? This second tier competition is not worth a w@nk, I would have much rather seen the top tier with the likes of Cardiff and Edinburgh in it rather than watching them wiping the floor with the French 3rd choice teams in a take it or leave it for the French second tier comp.

by No 7&1/2 Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:42 pm

1 big comp is hardly going to encourage some of the French teams who have no chance to put out their 1st team either. Starting to sound like all this is so you can get more Pro 12 teams in the top comp!

by LordDowlais Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:55 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:1 big comp is hardly going to encourage some of the French teams who have no chance to put out their 1st team either. Starting to sound like all this is so you can get more Pro 12 teams in the top comp!

I have said earlier on this thread, it does not matter how many teams we have in the top tier, the WRU splits the European money equally between the 4 regions, what I want to see, is what the PRL/LNR promised at the start of it all, a better second tier, one that is a better product, we cannot get that with teams that are not going to take it seriously.

by No 7&1/2 Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:57 pm

So you'd rather scrap it! How is that going to help the teams who do take it a little more seriously. Strange thinking. Rather insular.

by LordDowlais Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:59 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you'd rather scrap it! How is that going to help the teams who do take it a little more seriously. Strange thinking. Rather insular.

Ok then, if we do not scrap it, then if teams do not want to be in it as they regard other competitions more important, then give them an "OPT OUT" option, we can then use the money they are getting from the competition elsewhere.

by No 7&1/2 Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:03 pm

Would that strengthen the comp? Generally as teams progress they'll put out stronger players; added to that how many games are we in to the new comp? Perhaps too early to judge?

by LordDowlais Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:08 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Would that strengthen the comp? Generally as teams progress they'll put out stronger players; added to that how many games are we in to the new comp? Perhaps too early to judge?

.

Lets see what happens this weekend shall we ?

by No 7&1/2 Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:10 pm

Still too early for me. Let's see what happens this season.

by LordDowlais Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:12 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Still too early for me. Let's see what happens this season.

What ever, the second tier is a joke, no matter how you or the rest of the supporters for the PRL dress it.

by No 7&1/2 Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:14 pm

I don't support the PRL. I don't even follow a particular club. Guess it helps when looking at this issue which is clouded to some.

by LordDowlais Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:16 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't support the PRL. I don't even follow a particular club. Guess it helps when looking at this issue which is clouded to some.

I don't care, but my point still stands, the second tier is a joke.

by No 7&1/2 Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:21 pm

And the answer to the problem isn't to make the top tier weaker but how to improve the 2nd tier. To me the answer isn't to remove stronger teams in the 2nd tier but to encourage them to view the comp in a better light. We don't really know how teams will come to view the comp as it's far too early to judge. After a season if the interest isn't there the answer for me would be to talk to team reps.

by HammerofThunor Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:29 pm

But it's (probably, a bit early yet) going to be less of a joke than before. Previous teams put out 2nd teams, thrashed other by 60 points and then didn't progress because the guys who couldn't pregress in the top comptetion were parachuted in. The pool stages really were a joke. The format is better this year. Even if every single team put out 2nd teams in every game.

by LordDowlais Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:49 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:And the answer to the problem isn't to make the top tier weaker but how to improve the 2nd tier. To me the answer isn't to remove stronger teams in the 2nd tier but to encourage them to view the comp in a better light. We don't really know how teams will come to view the comp as it's far too early to judge. After a season if the interest isn't there the answer for me would be to talk to team reps.

And this is what I have been saying since the start of this thread. We need the teams who are putting out 2nd and 3rd team players, to start taking it more seriously. Only then will the second tier competition improve, so now you are seeing my point of view, and are kind of agreeing with me. You say after a season, but apparently this has been happening for years now, and a part of the shake up was to improve the second tier.

by No 7&1/2 Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:50 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:And the answer to the problem isn't to make the top tier weaker but how to improve the 2nd tier. To me the answer isn't to remove stronger teams in the 2nd tier but to encourage them to view the comp in a better light. We don't really know how teams will come to view the comp as it's far too early to judge. After a season if the interest isn't there the answer for me would be to talk to team reps.

And this is what I have been saying since the start of this thread. We need the teams who are putting out 2nd and 3rd team players, to start taking it more seriously. Only then will the second tier competition improve, so now you are seeing my point of view, and are kind of agreeing with me. You say after a season, but apparently this has been happening for years now, and a part of the shake up was to improve the second tier.

After a season see where we are. At the moment you seem to be saying nothing has changed in the 2nd tier whereas now at least the top tier has improved so seem ok at present.

by LordDowlais Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:55 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:And the answer to the problem isn't to make the top tier weaker but how to improve the 2nd tier. To me the answer isn't to remove stronger teams in the 2nd tier but to encourage them to view the comp in a better light. We don't really know how teams will come to view the comp as it's far too early to judge. After a season if the interest isn't there the answer for me would be to talk to team reps.

And this is what I have been saying since the start of this thread. We need the teams who are putting out 2nd and 3rd team players, to start taking it more seriously. Only then will the second tier competition improve, so now you are seeing my point of view, and are kind of agreeing with me. You say after a season, but apparently this has been happening for years now, and a part of the shake up was to improve the second tier.

After a season see where we are. At the moment you seem to be saying nothing has changed in the 2nd tier whereas now at least the top tier has improved so seem ok at present.

I was never concerned with the top tier.

by SecretFly Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:39 pm

I hear some Saracens fan on another thread suggest one of their players for the weekend is being chosen by Lancaster.

Hmmm............. clubs v Union? chin

by HammerofThunor Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:12 pm

Sorry, lost me again. Internal compass must be bostid.

by SecretFly Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:25 pm

Clubs don't belong to Lancaster?
He got no part in their success or lack of it in Europe?
They are aNational (as in asexual)?
They have no National allegiance?
Six English clubs in Europe don't assist the cause of England International?

But, a Saracen's fan thinks Lancaster is 'choosing' one of their players at the weekend. Wants a look at him. Wants him having game time. Wants any number of things...but is interested, has an interest and has influence enough to suggest playing him.

England 6. France 6. Wales 1. Ireland 1. Scotland 1. Italy 1. Advantage to England and France Wink

by Sin é Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:30 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:And the answer to the problem isn't to make the top tier weaker but how to improve the 2nd tier. To me the answer isn't to remove stronger teams in the 2nd tier but to encourage them to view the comp in a better light. We don't really know how teams will come to view the comp as it's far too early to judge. After a season if the interest isn't there the answer for me would be to talk to team reps.

And this is what I have been saying since the start of this thread. We need the teams who are putting out 2nd and 3rd team players, to start taking it more seriously. Only then will the second tier competition improve, so now you are seeing my point of view, and are kind of agreeing with me. You say after a season, but apparently this has been happening for years now, and a part of the shake up was to improve the second tier.

After a season see where we are. At the moment you seem to be saying nothing has changed in the 2nd tier whereas now at least the top tier has improved so seem ok at present.

Has the top Tier improved? Having 3 of the 4 semi-finalists in European rugby in the same group isn't good for knock-out part of the competition as more than likely 2 from this group won't reach the QFs which devalues the competition. The seeding is all wrong. It was better previously (being based on how teams play in Cup rugby and not on league form). The results of the Aviva Premiership suggest that Saracens are good at league rugby and Northampton are better at Cup.

by HammerofThunor Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:31 pm

Sorry, still not getting a point. I don't understand the link between the top bit and the last line.

by SecretFly Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:40 pm

Oh come on Hammer. What bit specifically don't you get?
Champions/supporters of the new contest say it isn't a Union event and therefore that's how they 'justify' downing Welsh, Scottish, Irish and Italian automatic participation to one per year. That's how they seek to justify it... the event isn't about Union and doesn't assist Union. The clubs are Private businesses (some of them!) and look after their own affairs so shouldn't be controlled by a Union agenda.

And yet, Saracen's fan admits he thinks Lancaster is 'choosing' a player for Saracens. Union involvement, union influence, union advantage to England and France over the others Unions with dramatically reduced particpation rights. It's simple. Simple to follow.

by No 7&1/2 Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:53 pm

Lancaster isn't choosing players though is he.

by Cyril Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:10 pm

Sin é wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:And the answer to the problem isn't to make the top tier weaker but how to improve the 2nd tier. To me the answer isn't to remove stronger teams in the 2nd tier but to encourage them to view the comp in a better light. We don't really know how teams will come to view the comp as it's far too early to judge. After a season if the interest isn't there the answer for me would be to talk to team reps.

And this is what I have been saying since the start of this thread. We need the teams who are putting out 2nd and 3rd team players, to start taking it more seriously. Only then will the second tier competition improve, so now you are seeing my point of view, and are kind of agreeing with me. You say after a season, but apparently this has been happening for years now, and a part of the shake up was to improve the second tier.

After a season see where we are. At the moment you seem to be saying nothing has changed in the 2nd tier whereas now at least the top tier has improved so seem ok at present.

Has the top Tier improved? Having 3 of the 4 semi-finalists in European rugby in the same group isn't good for knock-out part of the competition as more than likely 2 from this group won't reach the QFs which devalues the competition. The seeding is all wrong. It was better previously (being based on how teams play in Cup rugby and not on league form). The results of the Aviva Premiership suggest that Saracens are good at league rugby and Northampton are better at Cup.

To be fair, Sarries are pretty good at both.

by ME-109 Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:12 pm

Cyril wrote:
Sin é wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:And the answer to the problem isn't to make the top tier weaker but how to improve the 2nd tier. To me the answer isn't to remove stronger teams in the 2nd tier but to encourage them to view the comp in a better light. We don't really know how teams will come to view the comp as it's far too early to judge. After a season if the interest isn't there the answer for me would be to talk to team reps.

And this is what I have been saying since the start of this thread. We need the teams who are putting out 2nd and 3rd team players, to start taking it more seriously. Only then will the second tier competition improve, so now you are seeing my point of view, and are kind of agreeing with me. You say after a season, but apparently this has been happening for years now, and a part of the shake up was to improve the second tier.

After a season see where we are. At the moment you seem to be saying nothing has changed in the 2nd tier whereas now at least the top tier has improved so seem ok at present.

Has the top Tier improved? Having 3 of the 4 semi-finalists in European rugby in the same group isn't good for knock-out part of the competition as more than likely 2 from this group won't reach the QFs which devalues the competition. The seeding is all wrong. It was better previously (being based on how teams play in Cup rugby and not on league form). The results of the Aviva Premiership suggest that Saracens are good at league rugby and Northampton are better at Cup.
To be fair, Sarries are pretty good at both.

Except when they lose..

by Cyril Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:18 pm

ME-109 wrote:
Cyril wrote:
Sin é wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:And the answer to the problem isn't to make the top tier weaker but how to improve the 2nd tier. To me the answer isn't to remove stronger teams in the 2nd tier but to encourage them to view the comp in a better light. We don't really know how teams will come to view the comp as it's far too early to judge. After a season if the interest isn't there the answer for me would be to talk to team reps.

And this is what I have been saying since the start of this thread. We need the teams who are putting out 2nd and 3rd team players, to start taking it more seriously. Only then will the second tier competition improve, so now you are seeing my point of view, and are kind of agreeing with me. You say after a season, but apparently this has been happening for years now, and a part of the shake up was to improve the second tier.

After a season see where we are. At the moment you seem to be saying nothing has changed in the 2nd tier whereas now at least the top tier has improved so seem ok at present.

Has the top Tier improved? Having 3 of the 4 semi-finalists in European rugby in the same group isn't good for knock-out part of the competition as more than likely 2 from this group won't reach the QFs which devalues the competition. The seeding is all wrong. It was better previously (being based on how teams play in Cup rugby and not on league form). The results of the Aviva Premiership suggest that Saracens are good at league rugby and Northampton are better at Cup.
To be fair, Sarries are pretty good at both.

Except when they lose..

Well, I did say 'pretty good' rather than all-powerful (which is Toulon, I guess). They've been in the mix last few years in the Premiership play-offs and semi-final and final of the last two European cups. I'd say that's 'pretty good'. Puts them in a similar position to Munster. Should be an interesting game!

by TightHEAD Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:18 am

LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:So you'd rather scrap it! How is that going to help the teams who do take it a little more seriously. Strange thinking. Rather insular.

Ok then, if we do not scrap it, then if teams do not want to be in it as they regard other competitions more important, then give them an "OPT OUT" option, we can then use the money they are getting from the competition elsewhere.

Well thats never going to happen.

by Sin é Sat Oct 25, 2014 3:53 am

Cyril wrote:
ME-109 wrote:
Cyril wrote:
Sin é wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:And the answer to the problem isn't to make the top tier weaker but how to improve the 2nd tier. To me the answer isn't to remove stronger teams in the 2nd tier but to encourage them to view the comp in a better light. We don't really know how teams will come to view the comp as it's far too early to judge. After a season if the interest isn't there the answer for me would be to talk to team reps.

And this is what I have been saying since the start of this thread. We need the teams who are putting out 2nd and 3rd team players, to start taking it more seriously. Only then will the second tier competition improve, so now you are seeing my point of view, and are kind of agreeing with me. You say after a season, but apparently this has been happening for years now, and a part of the shake up was to improve the second tier.

After a season see where we are. At the moment you seem to be saying nothing has changed in the 2nd tier whereas now at least the top tier has improved so seem ok at present.

Has the top Tier improved? Having 3 of the 4 semi-finalists in European rugby in the same group isn't good for knock-out part of the competition as more than likely 2 from this group won't reach the QFs which devalues the competition. The seeding is all wrong. It was better previously (being based on how teams play in Cup rugby and not on league form). The results of the Aviva Premiership suggest that Saracens are good at league rugby and Northampton are better at Cup.
To be fair, Sarries are pretty good at both.

Except when they lose..
Well, I did say 'pretty good' rather than all-powerful (which is Toulon, I guess). They've been in the mix last few years in the Premiership play-offs and semi-final and final of the last two European cups. I'd say that's 'pretty good'. Puts them in a similar position to Munster. Should be an interesting game!

No, it doesn't - not until Sarries actually wins the competition. And any time that Munster has topped the PRO12, they have also won the final.

I think its pretty poor if a team wins the league and loses the final having had home advantage.

by HammerofThunor Sat Oct 25, 2014 3:58 am

Sin e, our finals are little bigger than the Pro12 ones, so no home advantage in the final.

Edit: also it'll be 7 years this season since Munster won it. Getting on a bit now. Even Wasps won it just the year before Shocked

by Sin é Sat Oct 25, 2014 4:02 am

HammerofThunor wrote:Sorry, still not getting a point. I don't understand the link between the top bit and the last line.

Sarries won the league last year at a trot (9 pts ahead of Northampton), and lost the final to Northampton. That says to me that Northampton are a very good cup team (as are Munster).

In the Heineken Cup last season, Munster put up a much better challenge in the south of France than Sarries v Toulon did in the final, even though Sarries was playing down the road and the French team was travelling this time.

by HammerofThunor Sat Oct 25, 2014 4:04 am

Sin é wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:Sorry, still not getting a point. I don't understand the link between the top bit and the last line.

Sarries won the league last year at a trot (9 pts ahead of Northampton), and lost the final to Northampton. That says to me that Northampton are a very good cup team (as are Munster).

In the Heineken Cup last season, Munster put up a much better challenge in the south of France than Sarries v Toulon did in the final, even though Sarries was playing down the road and the French team was travelling this time.

I was talking to Fly

by Sin é Sat Oct 25, 2014 4:10 am

HammerofThunor wrote:Sin e, our finals are little bigger than the Pro12 ones, so no home advantage in the final.

Edit: also it'll be 7 years this season since Munster won it. Getting on a bit now. Even Wasps won it just the year before

To get to a final (even one in a neutral venue), its handy if you have a home semi.

Your finals are bigger? What has that got to do with it.

What I'd give to have played our most recent two Heineken Cup semi finals in a neutral venue (i.e., not an hour on the bus down the road).

As for PRO12, not having a neutral venue for the pro12 can also make it very hard for one of the teams Wink

by HammerofThunor Sat Oct 25, 2014 4:30 am

Sin é wrote:To get to a final (even one in a neutral venue), its handy if you have a home semi.

Your finals are bigger? What has that got to do with it.

They're in Twickenham, so no home advantage. I thought I had said that, sorry.

What I'd give to have played our most recent two Heineken Cup semi finals in a neutral venue (i.e., not an hour on the bus down the road).

The ones you lost. Are you saying you'd prefer to play them in a neutral venue rather than against opposition at home? That's obvious isn't it?

As for PRO12, not having a neutral venue for the pro12 can also make it very hard for one of the teams

And easier for the other. Edit: have Munster ever won it without home advantage? I know the Ospreys have.

by Exiledinborders Sat Oct 25, 2014 7:04 am

The Great Aukster wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:Clubs will do what they think is best for them.
The PRL/LNR clubs were not happy with the previous competition(for various reasons, probably money being the biggest as they are business' after all)so gave notice to quit as they were legally allowed to do. They then proposed a competition they were happy with & invited(not forced) others to join. Some people tried to force them into not setting up that competition. Nobody forced the Pro12 teams to join the new competition & they must have thought it in their best interest to join.

Absolutely!

When William Webb Ellis picked up the ball he had no idea that the concept would be also be picked by fast buck opportunists today.

The Amlin always was and always will be a competition for also-rans - who is interested in that? There is no point in thinking teams can be forced to play a certain standard of team if they don't want to - the standard comes from the carrot rather than the stick. It was obvious that the PRL/LNR power grab had nothing to do with rugby just money and so it is proved.

What is sad is that otherwise honest rugby followers in England and France who would have been interested in maintaining the foundations and ethos of the game are now apologists for the self-centered "who cares about rugby as long as my team is alright" approach.
Of course the Amlin was always a competition for also-rans. The unfairness was that Pro12 also-rans did not have to play in it.

It would be a better competition if the winners of the Challenge and Champion's Cups qualified for the next year's Champions's Cup. Unfortunately the Pro12 unions would not accept this. They preferred their seventh placed team to qualify automatically and their eighth and ninth placed teams to go into play-offs. In other words they wanted to keep Champion's Cup places for also-rans.

The Heineken Cup has always had more teams than just league winners (a three team competition wouldn't capture the imagination). It used to have the best two teams from Italy and Scotland, the best three from Ireland and Wales and the best six from England and France - so it's fairly obvious where the 'also-rans' were coming from.

I agree that the Amlim should have an added prize of Heineken qualification, but there is no need to have that extended to the Champions competition.

Yes it is obvious who are the also rans. Over the last three years the bottom places in the pools were as follows:
Pro12 - 12 fourth places
Top14 - 4 fourth places
AP - 2 fourth places

The old competition did include some dreadful teams. It led to home semi-finals being pretty much automatic for any competent team who drew an Italian team in their group. The new competition would be better if it contained the best teams from the Pro12 rather than including poor teams in order to include one from each country. That however is the fault of the Pro12 who resisted a meritocracy.

by nth Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:15 am

Apparently English sides aren't taking the Challenge Cup seriously, yet apart from the worthless organisation that is London Welsh, the English clubs top all their pools after home & away fixtures.

by quinsforever Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:51 am

by The Saint Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:34 am

nth wrote:Apparently English sides aren't taking the Challenge Cup seriously, yet apart from the worthless organisation that is London Welsh, the English clubs top all their pools after home & away fixtures.

Who said no English sides were taking it seriously?

by SecretFly Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:38 am

I think he assumed that by saying 'French' someone obviously meant English.

by The Great Aukster Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:44 am

Exiledinborders wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:Clubs will do what they think is best for them.
The PRL/LNR clubs were not happy with the previous competition(for various reasons, probably money being the biggest as they are business' after all)so gave notice to quit as they were legally allowed to do. They then proposed a competition they were happy with & invited(not forced) others to join. Some people tried to force them into not setting up that competition. Nobody forced the Pro12 teams to join the new competition & they must have thought it in their best interest to join.

Absolutely!

When William Webb Ellis picked up the ball he had no idea that the concept would be also be picked by fast buck opportunists today.

The Amlin always was and always will be a competition for also-rans - who is interested in that? There is no point in thinking teams can be forced to play a certain standard of team if they don't want to - the standard comes from the carrot rather than the stick. It was obvious that the PRL/LNR power grab had nothing to do with rugby just money and so it is proved.

What is sad is that otherwise honest rugby followers in England and France who would have been interested in maintaining the foundations and ethos of the game are now apologists for the self-centered "who cares about rugby as long as my team is alright" approach.
Of course the Amlin was always a competition for also-rans. The unfairness was that Pro12 also-rans did not have to play in it.

It would be a better competition if the winners of the Challenge and Champion's Cups qualified for the next year's Champions's Cup. Unfortunately the Pro12 unions would not accept this. They preferred their seventh placed team to qualify automatically and their eighth and ninth placed teams to go into play-offs. In other words they wanted to keep Champion's Cup places for also-rans.

The Heineken Cup has always had more teams than just league winners (a three team competition wouldn't capture the imagination). It used to have the best two teams from Italy and Scotland, the best three from Ireland and Wales and the best six from England and France - so it's fairly obvious where the 'also-rans' were coming from.

I agree that the Amlim should have an added prize of Heineken qualification, but there is no need to have that extended to the Champions competition.
Yes it is obvious who are the also rans. Over the last three years the bottom places in the pools were as follows:
Pro12 - 12 fourth places
Top14 - 4 fourth places
AP - 2 fourth places

The old competition did include some dreadful teams. It led to home semi-finals being pretty much automatic for any competent team who drew an Italian team in their group. The new competition would be better if it contained the best teams from the Pro12 rather than including poor teams in order to include one from each country. That however is the fault of the Pro12 who resisted a meritocracy.

Not sure how far you go down to define "also rans" but usually it's those who don't win, not those who finish last.

by nth Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:51 am

LordDowlais wrote:it's fact, French and English clubs are not taking it seriously.

by The Saint Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:01 am

I wonder who LD was referring to then.

by Guest Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:09 am

Click a random page, hit Ctrl + F, type in LordDowlais and you'll see plenty. Just a couple here to save you 10 seconds, I'm really that nice.

LordDowlais wrote:there are clubs who STILL do not give it the respect it is needed to make it more of a product, the sides from France that won were against 2nd sides from England, so do not try and pad out your argument with that stat, the mid table English and French clubs with top six aspirations and the bottom of the league French and English sides with avoiding relegation attitudes see the Amlin as a competition they could do without, I have no problem with this, but if they want to treat it as so, then the clubs themselves should be treated as though by who ever is running the damn thing, and perhaps they should not get the money they feel they deserve whilst treating the competition with contempt.

LordDowlais wrote:This is my main worry as well SF, the Pro12 side's will be like everyone else before every one else, are like the Pro12 sides, and the second tier comp will be just an European version of the LV=cup.

LordDowlais wrote: I understand the need to rest players, but I thought that the PRL and the LNR wanted to make the second tier more of a "product". How can this happen if THEIR teams are still putting out 2nd and 3rd choice sides in the competition ?

by SecretFly Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:16 am

Thanks Fuzzy. Wink

I always appreciate the people who go the extra hard yards on the research front. I'm kinda bluntly lazy on that front mostly.

by Guest Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:30 am

nth wrote:Apparently English sides aren't taking the Challenge Cup seriously, yet apart from the worthless organisation that is London Welsh, the English clubs top all their pools after home & away fixtures.

Probably doesn't tell a full story. Certainly in Dragons' group anyway.

by Guest Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:32 am

If it was anyone else I wouldn't have bothered Hug

by LordDowlais Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:18 pm

I did not say ALL English clubs I said certain English clubs, so Fuzzy Dunlop can cherry pick peices of my article's all he likes if he wants to make himself look clever.

by Cyril Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:27 pm

Which English clubs aren't taking it seriously then, Dowlais?

by LordDowlais Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:29 pm

Cyril wrote:Which English clubs aren't taking it seriously then, Dowlais?

Well in their first game Exeter mad a raft of changes to their normal line-up.

by Cyril Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:34 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Cyril wrote:Which English clubs aren't taking it seriously then, Dowlais?

Well in their first game Exeter mad a raft of changes to their normal line-up.

Then they strengthened the side and beat Connacht comfortably (and now top the group).

You sensibly manage your squad across a competition. If they weren't taking it seriously surely they would have continued to rest players.

Exeter will be confident they can win the group but won't necessarily always put out their strongest squad in every game.

Fact is, Exeter won't need to always be firing on full cylinders to progress.

Anybody else? The other sides are all 2/2 (not counting LW - they're not taking anything seriously!) Smile

by LordDowlais Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:39 pm

Cyril wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
Cyril wrote:Which English clubs aren't taking it seriously then, Dowlais?

Well in their first game Exeter mad a raft of changes to their normal line-up.
Then they strengthened the side and beat Connacht comfortably (and now top the group).

You sensibly manage your squad across a competition. If they weren't taking it seriously surely they would have continued to rest players.

Exeter will be confident they can win the group but won't necessarily always put out their strongest squad in every game.

Fact is, Exeter won't need to always be firing on full cylinders to progress.

Anybody else? The other sides are all 2/2 (not counting LW - they're not taking anything seriously!)

I was mainly aiming this thread at the French, but others brought in the English sides by claiming that some French sides won, and I pointed out that the French sides that won were against depleted English sides, if that trail of conversation never came about, I wouldn't even have been talking about the English sides.

by whocares Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:43 pm

was particularly surprised by the strenght of the team that Gloucester sent to Oyonnax. methinks they are taking this competition too seriously Run

by Sponsored content