H-Cup, First block finished winners and losers.

First topic message reminder :

tables are here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/tables/4776687.stm

Normally its accepted if you lose your first two games your chances are qualifing are over. In those terms it appears that the chances of progressing are already gone for;
Edinburgh
Terviso
Zebre
Glasgow
Exeter
Scarlets
Cardiff Blues

Do any of these supports still hold hope of progress, or is it now a battle to salvage some pride?

Teams that have impressed are Saracens, Ulster, Toulouse, Harlequins, Clermont Auvergne, Leinster and Toulon. All are 2 wins from 2.

I'd say the stand out so far are Clermont Auvergne picking up two BP wins, and Saracens are playing really well in Europe.

Have to say dissapointed in Edinburgh, two big losses and not a point scored, (abeit against two top teams), for last years semi-finalists.

So do the fans of the teams with two loses hold out any hope, and who has impressed/disappointed you?

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:
There were two extra spots in that period (c2003-c2010)

1) Went to the country that got the furthest out of Italy, France and England
2) Went the winning of a Celtic league/Italian league playoff (generally the Dragons unless they lost to the Italian team, it happened at least once).

The list speaks for itself Hammer. France started with three sides...just like Ireland and Wales. And bit by bit, change by change, Ireland stay at 3 and England and France shift up to 6 apiece. France and England haven't been having such a bad time as they'd now have us believe with old HC. Indeed, you might say, if you were being mischevous, that as their numbers have increased their winning ratios have decreased.

Is that because of more lesser quality sides getting through when they are not up too the task?

I don't know Scarlet. It's just something to muse over.

More HC places does of course give the mental impression that those sides have the quality to hold their own in HC. And in a sense that impression perpetuates even more the idea that the nations with most sides in HC are proving their worth and are therefore in a stronger position to suggest more of them should be there at the expence of others.

I just think numbers are numbers. Numbers don't define quality at all - they just improve the odds of the numerically advantaged.

More likely because they're simply not good enough at the moment. Maybe because the PRL has been holding back the 'better' clubs to stop a completely unassailable gap forming. Maybe because they've been poorly managed and developed. Maybe because their players are Poopie.

Why have the numbers of English and French teams involved been increased?

HammerofThunor wrote:More likely because they're simply not good enough at the moment. Maybe because the PRL has been holding back the 'better' clubs to stop a completely unassailable gap forming. Maybe because they've been poorly managed and developed. Maybe because their players are Poopie.

Why have the numbers of English and French teams involved been increased?

I actually think you might have a good point there, Hammer. No, not because I didn't think you ever could have one! Seriously, yeah, I know from listening to English club fans that the bottom of the table is generally very suspicious of the top and that there might be internal pressures in PRL to somehow try to keep everyone reasonably happy at least within the Ap league itself, whatever about the HC.

On the last question. I think power, money and influence (and possibly a little friendly intimidation) might have played a hand. 'We've a lot of clubs and they're feeling left out and if we feel left out too much, the competition halts.'

Rather like the same arguments today actually.

You mentioned fans there Secret and that's one thing the Elite 16 (whomever is in it!) agendaists haven't accounted for; the loss of 8 sets of supporters watching the games, 8 sets of gate receipts for European games (dont even bother suggesting that Amlin or revised Amlin games will fill that gap) and 8 sets of TV audience fans much less interested 6 weekends a season.

Now obviosuly the sad & lonely like us would & do watch most rugy we have available to us, and in theory I'll accept for arguments sake that this new comp will have raised standards across the board and thus be a better "tv product", but most rugby fans are not like us. I know a lot of genuine rugby fans who would get up for a June tests down south involving their country, but dont watch tri nations/rugby championship matches that aren't taking place in SA, due to eamly morning matches (these people dont have the excuse of kids btw) So i find it VERY easy to believe that affected fans across Europe would be less likely to tune in to watch matches not involving their teams.

The likely pool winners after first block of matches has not altered radically from most people's assumptions.

Saracens, Ulster, Clermont, Munster/Saints, Toulon, Toulouse, and maybe Biarritz or Leinster.

Instead of discussing who should make up the last places in the HC why not just reduce the number of teams. Make it a stronger competition, reduce the overall number of games and therefore the bias towards cash rich clubs with larger squads. That would do more to making a level playing field than arguing who should be making up the numbers from the various leagues

The whole European season is a mess. To many competitions and conflicting priorities and interests. I'd scrap all three leagues and the HC and Amlin and combine them into one super league for everyone where everyone has the same priority. To win it. I'd have a maximum of 30 domestic games a year. I've based my plan on the NFL.

Heineken European Super League

Celtic Conference

Irish Divsion Leinster Ulster Munster Connacht

Welsh Division Ospreys Scarlets Blues Dragons

Scotalian Divsion Glasgow Edinburgh Treviso Zebre

Saxon Conference

English Division A Harlequins Sale Gloucester Newcastle

English Division B Leicester Northampton Bath Wasps

English Division C Saracens Exeter Worcester Zebre

Gallic Conference

French Division A Toulouse Castres Stade Bayonne

French Division B Clermont Racing Agen Brive

French Division C Toulon Montpellier Perpignan Biarritz

Play each team in your division 4 times = 12 games
Play each team from the other divisions in your conference once = 8 games
Play 1 team from each other division once = 6 games
Minimum number of games for every team each season = 26

Winner of each Conference gets Celtic/Saxon/Gallic trophy
French & English can still relegate weakest team in conference & promote from lower tier if they want this.
The French/English Divisions could be regional or annually seeded. Seeded would be better I think.

Division winners plus next best in each conference go to playoffs = 12 teams
Playoffs seeded by conference points
Top 4 seeds get buy to quarter finals. Next 8 play to reach quarter finals.
Maximum number of games in a season = 30

Every team from all 6 countries gets top class cross border competition every year.
I'd have a 2nd tier for Russia, Georgia, Romania, Portugal, Spain etc.
And obviously there's scope to add a 4th "European Conference" into the main competition if these teams get good enough in time.

This competition would obviously suffer from the same imbalances that are in NFL and Super 15 have. Some Conferences/Divisions will be strong/harder than others. But that all adds to the variety and fun.

How did Zebre sneak into Saxon league Divisiob C!?

And do you not think you might have given Leicester a tough group there - relative to the other two Saxon divisions?

Feckless,

A totally bizarre mush designed to favour only Ireland and Wales so far as I can see.

Geographically the 'Saxon' and 'Gallic' leagues are scattergun . Paris teams travel, London teams do too and promotion/relegation is not taken into account - which leaves Zebre Oxford likely to be replaced by Newcastle leaving the tasty prospect of their regular encounters with Exeter. Frankly apparently your knowledge of Anglo-French geography is nil.

The Italy/Scotland division could produce some of the worst attendances imaginable in World professional sport. Maybe the their super-wealthy clubs could hire a coach so that the fervent travelling fans could go along with them and split the petrol costs.

The whole concept as you describe it is, (sorry for this) bollix.

greytiger wrote:Feckless,

A totally bizarre mush designed to favour only Ireland and Wales so far as I can see.

Not unlike the current system then really...

Jimpy wrote:

greytiger wrote:Feckless,

A totally bizarre mush designed to favour only Ireland and Wales so far as I can see.

Not unlike the current system then really...

Surely if the Rabo sides are not up to standards (bar Ulster, Munster, Leinster), then that would mean the current system is actually designed to favour the Jeff and T14 teams that get the sub-standard teams in their pool?

I agree SSman.

One of these days soon there will be one hell of a distasteful palaver over getting the balance right .

Just realised Feckless left out London Irish.


The groupings would be more like

"London" clubs

Wasps
Saracens
London Irish
Quins


Midlands/Hodge Podge

Leicester
Oxford Welsh
Saints
Sale

The west

Exeter
Gloucester
Worcester
Bath

You can have Oxford 'shocked. We'll take Quins, thanks.

(in this bad dream)

I hate any system, that isn't fair, like the current Super 15 model, where you play a team once and others play them twice or more, someone gets more home games etc etc.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

greytiger wrote:Feckless,

A totally bizarre mush designed to favour only Ireland and Wales so far as I can see.

Not unlike the current system then really...

Surely if the Rabo sides are not up to standards (bar Ulster, Munster, Leinster), then that would mean the current system is actually designed to favour the Jeff and T14 teams that get the sub-standard teams in their pool?

I agree so far it has helped being drawn with Pro12 sides. Thanks guys. Pesky Leinster and Munster don't listen to the script though. Neither do that very annoying French side Clermont.


Greytiger I can't believe we are fighting over Quins in Feckless' bizarre scenario.

How about Saracens,Quins,Saints and Leicester make up a pool?

Sale,London Irish,Oxford Welsh and Wasps could make up the other.

Kingshu,
That's why I'd prefer a multi-tier European 4-Ns or a Celtic Anglo/French/Italian h/a contest with a big grand final between the conferences.

beshocked wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

greytiger wrote:Feckless,

A totally bizarre mush designed to favour only Ireland and Wales so far as I can see.

Not unlike the current system then really...

Surely if the Rabo sides are not up to standards (bar Ulster, Munster, Leinster), then that would mean the current system is actually designed to favour the Jeff and T14 teams that get the sub-standard teams in their pool?

I agree so far it has helped being drawn with Pro12 sides. Thanks guys. Pesky Leinster and Munster don't listen to the script though. Neither do that very annoying French side Clermont.


Greytiger I can't believe we are fighting over Quins in Feckless' bizarre scenario.

How about Saracens,Quins,Saints and Leicester make up a pool?

Sale,London Irish,Oxford Welsh and Wasps could make up the other.

If Tigers had an away fixture against Sarries, it would be in Chinese Taipai, Mongolia or Mars or somewhere.
(I wish my alarm would go off this dream is getting scary)

why not just have 3 leauge winners (A) and 3 runners up (B).

B1 v B2 winner plays B3 (rotated each year between 3 leagues to who gets B3 team.

A1 v A2 (turn about for leagues to have A2)
and
A3 v B (winner)

Problem solved

Personally I prefer 'my' 8x3 system https://www.606v2.com/t36401-an-8x3-club-side-hec-competition but then I would, wouldn't I?

No automatic entries (including current holders), no lucky losers, no golden tickets.
Just the carve-up of the qualifying leagues' share of the entrants to the starting line.

Which itself promises to be an undignified and unedifying spectacle. (no change there then)

Ok, but you still havent addressed why, given recent (8 farking seasons!) results that AP representation goes from 25% (max 29.17%) to 30%. Please elucidate your reasoning. That is a carve up if ever there were one as the is no loss, in real terms or in percentage terms for the PRL clubs and so of course they will opt for it.

Thanks for the feedback guys. So I'm getting that my plan is pants. Just trying to figure out a more streamlined European season that doesn't exclude any of the 6 nations.

I know the obvious draw back of Super 15/NFL style conferences. Some will have a tougher fixture list than others. But every team meets every other team in 4 year cycles in NFL. This would be the same.

Ah well. I won't be forwarding it on to the erc then.

PS. Constructing tables in bbcode on this forum is really hard. Don't ever try it. But I couldn't stop once I had started. All that effort for nothing.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Thanks for the feedback guys. So I'm getting that my plan is pants. Just trying to figure out a more streamlined European season that doesn't exclude any of the 6 nations.

I know the obvious draw back of Super 15/NFL style conferences. Some will have a tougher fixture list than others. But every team meets every other team in 4 year cycles in NFL. This would be the same.

Ah well. I won't be forwarding it on to the erc then.

PS. Constructing tables in bbcode on this forum is really hard. Don't ever try it. But I couldn't stop once I had started. All that effort for nothing.

You said it.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Thanks for the feedback guys. So I'm getting that my plan is pants. Just trying to figure out a more streamlined European season that doesn't exclude any of the 6 nations.

I know the obvious draw back of Super 15/NFL style conferences. Some will have a tougher fixture list than others. But every team meets every other team in 4 year cycles in NFL. This would be the same.

Ah well. I won't be forwarding it on to the erc then.

PS. Constructing tables in bbcode on this forum is really hard. Don't ever try it. But I couldn't stop once I had started. All that effort for nothing.

The effort was appreciated Feckless.
I can't see a Conference system as satisfying European requirements.
Years back the French had a system which required a system which understandable only people who were adept in mental sudoku. That wasn't popular with the fans.

I note from another article that a compromise system of 16 or 32 was mooted this week in official meetings.
The power of 8 dazzles.

32 seamed pretty good to me, if it was bottom 2 in each league left out.

Just open draw, home and away knock out. Max 9 games.

Pity the French didn't like it, though I suspect the ERC proposial had a group stage.

32 is better than 16 as far as I'm concerned. It addresses the 4 PRO12 nations demands for inclusiveness and addresses the Franglo concern about easier qualification for some. Everyone but the bottom two in each league goes to the HC.

The 6 rubbishest teams from the 3 leagues go to the Amlin to play the minnows.

Of course this doesn't result in a stronger more lucrative Amlin. But I doubt the Amlin can ever draw much interest. It's the Cup for weaker teams. Same as the Europa League in soccer. And it doesn't matter how many times they've rebranded and relaunched that. It just doesn't attract any wide interest.