European rankings

Just for Poopie and grins, I thought I'd run a quick comparison of the current ERC (Heino/Amlin) club rankings versus the EuroRankings Euro Table. The former is based solely on European performance and is calculated on a 4-year look back period, whereas the latter considers all games but only the most recent 30. I've sorted clubs based on the difference in ranking, with those that would stand to gain most from a EuroRanking versus and ERC ranking towards the top, and vice-versa. I've highlighted the 4 clubs that are still involved in this year's Heino and Amlin.

ERC Rank	EuroRank	Difference	Team
30	8	+22	Montpellier
34	18	+16	Exeter Chiefs
20	7	+13	Saracens
28	16	+12	Castres Olympique
29	17	+12	Racing Métro 92
19	10	+9	Glasgow Warriors
8	2	+6	Leicester Tigers
12	6	+6	Toulon
14	9	+5	Ospreys
7	3	+4	Clermont Auvergne
18	15	+3	Scarlets
32	30	+2	Newcastle Falcons
36	34	+2	Worcester Warriors
1	1	+0	Leinster
11	12	-1	Harlequins
2	4	-2	Toulouse
3	5	-2	Munster
31	33	-2	Newport Gwent Dragons
25	28	-3	Sale Sharks
10	14	-4	Ulster
37	41	-4	Viadana
38	42	-4	Montauban
39	43	-4	Calvisano
21	26	-5	Brive
22	27	-5	Gloucester
33	38	-5	Aironi
35	40	-5	La Rochelle
16	22	-6	Perpignan
4	11	-7	Biarritz
6	13	-7	Northampton Saints
24	31	-7	Connacht
17	25	-8	Bath
27	35	-8	Treviso
23	32	-9	London Irish
9	19	-10	Stade Français
13	24	-11	Edinburgh
26	39	-13	Bourgoin
5	23	-18	Cardiff Blues
15	37	-22	London Wasps

What do you think? Which would be a better way to organise European rankings?

No system is ideal but I think that the ERC ranking is the most fair method. I just think the timeframe should be reduced from 4 years to 2. 4 years is a very long time in this game, weren’t London Irish in the semi in 08?

Assuming Toulon win the Amlin I come up with the following seeding based on 2 years only

1st seeds - Leisnter, Ulster, Toulouse, Clermont, Toulon, Northampton
2nd seeds - Stade, Munster, Harlequins, Edinburgh, Saracens, Cardiff
3rd seeds - Leicester, Glasgow, Scarlets, Exeter, Ospreys, Castres
4th seeds - Racing, Sale, Treviso, Connacht, Montpellier, 2nd Italian side

Any fairer ??

As much as it sticks in my throat, geoff, I think Exe benefit massively from your system and Montpellier seem to be far behind where i would expect them

Geoff is that correct? Leicester as a 3rd seed? I think swap Leicester with Edinburgh and it's virtually spot on.

Looks fairer though.

Leicester have picked up 6 points in the last 2 years - same as Saracens and Cardiff.

However Saracens and Cardiff have picked up more this year and therefore would be above them.

Finishing 3rd in your group is a real body blow if only 2 years qualify

I think 2 years is actually better.

4 years is too long. Just look at Wasps.

As a point of clarifcation my seedings are based on the teams likely to play in next years HC.

Biarritz, Perpignan, Brieve, Wasps, Bath, L.Irish are all in the top 24 but will not, or are unlikely to, play in next years HC.

Al lthe teams in my listed 4th seeds were not in the top 24.

The problem with two years is it can overly reward having a "weak" group.

The eurorankings however are obviously flawed as no way are Tigers the second best team in Europe.

I am reasonably happy with the current arrangement, but...


If the purpose of the rankings is to separate the best teams, then how about something like the rankings system that IRB uses for international teams. Double points for european competitions but one change no deduction of points for losing in the KO stages - not right that a team should suffer for making the knockouts more than a team who failed to.

It makes you realise that there are plenty of Groups of Death waiting to happen - e.g. Leinster, Edinburgh, Leicester, Racing or Toulouse, Munster, Ospreys, Sale.

Please could we have Clermont, Quins, Scarlets. Treviso next season? ;-)

LondonTiger who got the weak group this season in your opinion?

Sale and Edinburgh - groups of death seriously?

Poorfour why would you want Clermont?

I don't care which seeding Leicester get.

Their HEC group ended up as
1 Clermont Auvergne 6 4 0 2 215 69 4 20
2 Ulster 6 4 0 2 158 87 4 20
3 Leicester 6 4 0 2 123 117 1 17
4 Aironi 6 0 0 6 51 274 0 0

in an exceedingly bad year for injuries they matched everyone on the W D L counts.

It's fine as it is. Once you start to bring in people's OPINION you are focked.

Nothing will be perfect.

2 years is a bit harsh on teams who get 1 hard group and don't qualify.

4 years is hard on a team who are serious contenders only very recently.

I would be totally against bringing in League form. Why should the result of Leinster v Aironi or Saracens V Newcastle have any bearing on European comps?

At the end of the day people will favour the system that brings their team up a level.

So fans of teams who have just improved in the last 2 years will favour that system and fans of teams who have dis-improved in the last 2 years will favour the 4 year system.

I can declare myself neutral in this debate as none of the proposed systems can dislodge my team from 1st place never mind first seeds.

(Now where's that smug ba$tard icon?)

Ulster have had their fair share of injuries - all of the following have missed HC matches this year:

Wallace, Cave, Pienaer, Terblanche, Afoa, Henry, Court

You learn to deal with it + Ferris has played most games less than fully fit.

Also Clermont have been missing front row players all season.

So none of the top 3 were at full strength through the group stages.

Give seeding the chop altogether. So what you might get one extremely tough group one year or one soft group another year, your long term position won't be affected because quite simply there is no long term position.

If you do happen to get Leinster, Leicester, Clermont and Ospreys in a group, so what? You get a tight group with 12 cracking games of rugby in the HC pool stages. And if you get Treviso, Glasgow, Exeter and Connacht then you will get another tight group and you'll get to see a new face in the sharp end of the competition, but the good point is the 4th placed team in the tough group is no worse off than the quarter-final qualifier from what could be termed a lighter group when it comes to next year's seeding because there is none.

Two strong teams and two weak teams in a group is far worse than the possibility of having one weak team in a group, as the top two would be guaranteed to qualify. Therefore there has to be seeding to be fair on the rest of the groups.

I actually think that an interesting way to do this is on a declining balance basis, so that you get less credit for older results, e.g.

Last year 100%
Year- 1 75%
Year -2 50%
Year -3 25%

Then more recent results get more weighting. Haven't run the numbers though.

Your wish is my command:

1st seeds - Leinster, Ulster, Toulouse, Clermont, Toulon, Munster
2nd seeds - Stade, Northampton, Harlequins, Edinburgh, Leicester, Cardiff
3rd seeds - Saracens, Glasgow, Scarlets, Exeter, Ospreys, Sale
4th seeds - Racing, Castres, Treviso, Connacht, Montpellier, 2nd Italian side

People have suggested doing a IRB ranking type thing.

What would be up keep of it like and would you give extra points for euro games.

Because the Eurorankings only do the 30 games newcastle were higher as they finished both seasons strong.

In the champions league they use the country rating aswell so could add that to the rating or is it just more complicated

geoff998rugby wrote:Your wish is my command:

1st seeds - Leinster, Ulster, Toulouse, Clermont, Toulon, Munster
2nd seeds - Stade, Northampton, Harlequins, Edinburgh, Leicester, Cardiff
3rd seeds - Saracens, Glasgow, Scarlets, Exeter, Ospreys, Sale
4th seeds - Racing, Castres, Treviso, Connacht, Montpellier, 2nd Italian side

That looks slightly more balanced than the actual seedings to me.

Thanks. J S