New Heineken Cup Seeding System

bleg

Original story: http://www.planetrugby.com/Story/0,18259,3551_3353787,00.html

Next year's Heineken Cup will have a new seeding system designed to iron out the flaws in the current system that sees Pools of vastly differing strengths.

Up to this season, ERC has based the seeding system for the Pool draw on the winners of the respective leagues, meaning that Glasgow has been seeded as the highest-ranked Scottish team despite finishing fourth from bottom.

Under the new system - which will be counted back retrospectively - clubs/regions earn four points for winnig their Pool, three for finishing runners-up, two for finishing third, and one for fourth.

Quarter-finalists also get a point, semi-finalists three extra points, losing finalists five, and the winners seven.

That means the current top 20 in Heineken ranking are: 1, Biarritz (28pts); 2, Toulouse (28); 3, Wasps (27); 4, Munster (27); 5, Leicester (23); 6, Stade Français (22); 7, Leinster (19); 8, Llanelli (16); 9, Bath (15); 10, Northampton (14); 11, Gloucester (14); 12, Perpignan (13); 13, Sale (12); 14, Clermont Auvergne (10); 15, Ospreys (8); 16, Ulster (8); 17, Newcastle (8); 18, Saracens (7); 19, Cardiff (7); 20, Edinburgh (7).

Those positions will change after the quarter-finals next weekend however.



Sounds good to me.

zAbbo

About time, seems fair.

bugler

Long overdue, in the interests of common sense.

marco_polo

A step in the right direction. However I have a couple of issues with it. Firstly it takes no account of finishing position in domestic leagues whatsoever and as a result I would worry that could further erode the competitiveness of the Magners league. Secondly I see they are awarding the same amount of points for performance in the Challenge cup as the HEC itself WTF is that all about. Thirdly the more recent years should have a higher rating than previous years, to have Biarritz at the top is a bit wide of the mark.

Depite all this I must admit the ranking look reasonbly accurate.

Tim Robbins

marco_polo wrote: »

A step in the right direction. However I have a couple of issues with it. Firstly it takes no account of finishing position in domestic leagues whatsoever and as a result I would worry that could further erode the competitiveness of the Magners league. Secondly I see they are awarding the same amount of points for performance in the Challenge cup as the HEC itself WTF is that all about. Thirdly the more recent years should have a higher rating than previous years, to have Biarritz at the top is a bit wide of the mark.

Depite all this I must admit the ranking look reasonbly accurate.

This system degrade domestic leagues. They have different sponsors so I reckon this is why Heineken went for this system.

zAbbo

While on that subject, the ML would benefit from a 4 team playoff and HC qualification awarded to the top teams, regardless of what country they're from.

bleg

Munster top European rankings
Thursday, 27 March 2008 13:11

Munster are the best team in Europe, according to new ERC rankings published today.

Declan Kidney's men are on 25 points, with Toulouse and Biarritz in second and third on 24 points. Leinster are ranked seventh, Ulster are 21st and Connacht at 33rd.

The draw for future Heineken Cup Pools will be based on the new merit based ranking structure, where points are awarded based on European performance.

Teams can earn between one and 11 points each season in the Heineken Cup, and up to five points in the European Challenge Cup, which will go towards their four season roll-over ERC European ranking.


from rte. very confusing.

marco_polo

bleg wrote: »

Munster top European rankings
Thursday, 27 March 2008 13:11

Munster are the best team in Europe, according to new ERC rankings published today.

Declan Kidney's men are on 25 points, with Toulouse and Biarritz in second and third on 24 points. Leinster are ranked seventh, Ulster are 21st and Connacht at 33rd.

The draw for future Heineken Cup Pools will be based on the new merit based ranking structure, where points are awarded based on European performance.

Teams can earn between one and 11 points each season in the Heineken Cup, and up to five points in the European Challenge Cup, which will go towards their four season roll-over ERC European ranking.


from rte. very confusing.

At at guess they are probably discarding the 2004 competition and including this years results so far instead of them?


On the humble pie end of things looks like I was wrong about the Challenge cup points being equal

Tim Robbins

zAbbo wrote: »

While on that subject, the ML would benefit from a 4 team playoff and HC qualification awarded to the top teams, regardless of what country they're from.

No need for play off. Seed the teams based on ML finishing position.

Current situation is a farce. Munster top team in Europe according to those seedings, but they can't dominate their own domestic league. In Football parlance they'd be a cup team, turn it on the big day but not on windy nights against less glamourous opposition. Similar to Liverpool.

But in Rugby speak, they just don't take the ML seriously because it's not a serious competition. It's as if it's tag rugby or something.

Akula

Ah those jealous of Munster are out in force...

1. In Rugby the HC is far more important/prestigious than the league unlike football.
2. The HC has a group phase, which Munster have been far the most consitant team at getting out of, so you really can't question their consistancy.

The issue is that because Munster have been doing well in the HC they aren't putting as much effort into the ML. The ML is all the likes of Leinster have left to play for at this stage.

Tim Robbins

Akula wrote: »

Ah those jealous of Munster are out in force...

I'd have no problem with Munster being top Celtic / Irish seed if they were the top Celtic / Irish team in their domestic leage, but they are not.

1. In Rugby the HC is far more important/prestigious than the league unlike football.

But how do you determine that? If Munster don't do well in a tournment it's just some meaningless thing? Sounds like arrogance to me.

Inquitus

The ML is crap and worthless, anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. The HC is where it's at. All one needs to do in the ML is ensure one qualifies for the HC in the next year.

Inqui

Tim Robbins

Inquitus wrote: »

The ML is crap and worthless, anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. The HC is where it's at. All one needs to do in the ML is ensure one qualifies for the HC in the next year.

Inqui

I won't buy that troll.

bleg

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I'd have no problem with Munster being top Celtic / Irish seed if they were the top Celtic / Irish team in their domestic leage, but they are not.

do you acknowledge that the way the HEC pools are assembled this year was a farce? 4 teams more than capable of getting to the QFs in munster's group and 3 in leinster's. bit of a joke in fairness. what would you like them to do? give ranking points according to where you stand in your domestic league? how do they do that? the french and english leagues have more quality not to mention more teams. do we give their clubs extra points to account for this?

this seeding structure is the fairest, simplest way of addressing the current seeding system.

only 2 of the current top 10 seeds above are in this year's QF. does that make sense?

bleg

marco_polo wrote: »

At at guess they are probably discarding the 2004 competition and including this years results so far instead of them?

yup. thought they were just seeing through red tinted glasses:D

Rank Team Name Total Points Pts 2007-2008 Pts 2006-2007 Pts 2005-2006 Pts 2004-2005
1 Munster 25 5 4 11 5
2 Toulouse 24 5 3 5 11
3 Biarritz Olympique 24 3 5 9 7
4 Leicester Tigers 23 3 9 5 6
5 Stade Francais 20 3 5 3 9
6 London Wasps 18 2 11 3 2
7 Leinster 18 2 5 6 5
8 Gloucester Rugby 15 5 2 5 3
9 Perpignan 15 4 3 5 3
10 Bath Rugby 14 1 3 7 3
11 Llanelli Scarlets 12 1 7 2 2
12 Sale Sharks 12 1 2 4 5
13 Saracens 11 5 2 3 1
14 Ospreys 11 4 3 2 2
15 Northampton Saints 11 - 6 1 4
16 Cardiff Blues 10 5 2 2 1
17 ASM Clermont Auvergne 10 3 5 1 1
18 London Irish 9 5 1 3 0
19 Newcastle Falcons 9 1 1 2 5
20 Dragons 8 2 2 2 2
21 Ulster 7 1 2 2 2
22 Castres Olympique 7 1 2 1 3
23 Bourgoin 6 2 1 2 1
24 Glasgow Warriors 5 2 1 1 1
25 Benetton Treviso 5 1 1 1 2
26 Brive 5 1 1 1 2
27 Edinburgh Rugby 4 1 1 1 1
28 Leeds Carnegie 4 1 - 3 0
29 SU Agen 4 - 3 0 1
30 Bristol Rugby 3 2 1 0 -
31 Worcester Warriors 3 1 0 2 0
32 Calvisano 3 0 1 1 1
33 Connacht Rugby 3 0 0 1 2
34 Section Paloise 3 - - 0 3
35 Harlequins 2 1 0 - 1
36 Viadana 1 1 0 0 0
37 Montpellier 1 1 0 0 0
38 Overmach Parma 1 0 1 0 0
39 Grenoble 1 - - - 1
40 Bayonne 1 0 0 1 0

Tim Robbins

bleg wrote: »

do you acknowledge that the way the HEC pools are assembled this year was a farce? 4 teams more than capable of getting to the QFs in munster's group and 3 in leinster's. bit of a joke in fairness. what would you like them to do? give ranking points according to where you stand in your domestic league? how do they do that? the french and english leagues have more quality not to mention more teams. do we give their clubs extra points to account for this?

this seeding structure is the fairest, simplest way of addressing the current seeding system.

only 2 of the current top 10 seeds above are in this year's QF. does that make sense?

My suggestion would be to scrap the current system because it only seeds one team from each country, six teams get seeded and the other 18 are wildcards.

Each country can only seed one team. This should have to seed all teams.

So in Ireland case instead of seeding the team that comes 1st in ML and not seeding the other two, they should seed their teams 1, 2, 3.
France seed their teams 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 based on their league. England seed their teams 1,2,3,4,5,6 based on their league etc etc

Get it?

Another option would be to seed the Celtic Teams 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 based on ML. This would mean all ML teams would have something to play for. At the moment, unless you are in the hunt for winning the Celtic League there's nothing to play for come the end of the season. Teams that are usually not in this position then just deride it.

The current system will favour Munster greatly. They are guarenteed an easy group next season and just forget about the ML. Then they likely qualify again because they are in an easy group and hence again remain a top seed. It quickly becomes a closed shop.

Tim Robbins

bleg wrote: »

only 2 of the current top 10 seeds above are in this year's QF. does that make sense?

Well Stade Francais didn't have a tough group this year, nor did Biaritz. They just weren't interested. Should they be top seeds?
Clermont A arguably the good bet at the beginning of the season, could have got of their group if they played a few 1st team players against Munster but again weren't interested. The tournment is far from perfect that's for sure.

bleg

Tim Robbins wrote: »

My suggestion would be to scrap the current system because it only seeds one team from each country, six teams get seeded and the other 18 are wildcards.

nope. 4 tiers of 6 teams. tier 1 is the previous winner (if outside top 6) + 1-5 top seeds. if the winner of the previous year is in the top 6 then tier 1 is comprised of the top 6 teams. tier 2 is 7-12 etc... (leinster are in this) munster will be in the top tier next year and so will be placed in a group along with the 5 other best teams. one team from tier 2 will be chosen randomly and assigned to each of the pools. when it comes to assign a team from tier 2, leinster will be removed from the possible selection and a non irish club from tier 2 randomly assgined. it will continue down along this for all 6 pools so that each pool contains:

1 team from tier 1
1 team from tier 2
1 team from tier 3
1 team from tier 4

sounds good to me.

Tim Robbins

bleg wrote: »

nope.

What do you mean nope? I was taking about the current system, no the system for next year.

4 tiers of 6 teams. tier 1 is the previous winner (if outside top 6) + 1-5 top seeds. if the winner of the previous year is in the top 6 then tier 1 is comprised of the top 6 teams. tier 2 is 7-12 etc... (leinster are in this) munster will be in the top tier next year and so will be placed in a group along with the 5 other best teams. one team from tier 2 will be chosen randomly and assigned to each of the pools. when it comes to assign a team from tier 2, leinster will be removed from the possible selection and a non irish club from tier 2 randomly assgined. it will continue down along this for all 6 pools so that each pool contains:

1 team from tier 1
1 team from tier 2
1 team from tier 3
1 team from tier 4

sounds good to me.

Yes I know how it works, and I don't agree with how they decide Tier 1, Tier2 , Tier3 and Tier 4 if you have read any of my posts.

bleg

oh right. we'll just have to agree to disagree then. i was just explaining the same thing to people over on the munsterfans forum.

i think it's the fairest system. as you quite rightly pointed out SF CA, biarittz and to some extent toulouse didn't really take the HC very seriously this year. therefore for SF CA and Biarittz will fall down the rankings if they continue to do so and therefore will not be top seeds. thus they need to concentrate on the HC to ensure good positioning for the following HC seasons.

however under your system, if they ignore the HC and win the french championship either of the 3 could still be top seeds for the following HC. how does that make sense? don't know how anybody could argue that it does to be honest...

Tim Robbins

bleg wrote: »

oh right. we'll just have to agree to disagree then. i was just explaining the same thing to people over on the munsterfans forum.

i think it's the fairest system. as you quite rightly pointed out SF CA, biarittz and to some extent toulouse didn't really take the HC very seriously this year. therefore for SF CA and Biarittz will fall down the rankings if they continue to do so and therefore will not be top seeds. thus they need to concentrate on the HC to ensure good positioning for the following HC seasons.

however under your system, if they ignore the HC and win the french championship either of the 3 could still be top seeds for the following HC. how does that make sense? don't know how anybody could argue that it does to be honest...

I think domestic competitions and leagues that run a season are more important than a Cup that only provide 6 - 9 games a season.

But I take your point. Perhaps a compromise would be a system like the one the IRB uses for countries, which would rank teams based on all competitive matches i.e. ML and HC would be they way to go.

suppafly

very glad that have brought in this new seeding system. It was really getting ridiculous

bleg

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think domestic competitions and leagues that run a season are more important than a Cup that only provide 6 - 9 games a season.

just have to agree to disagree.

Tim Robbins

bleg wrote: »

just have to agree to disagree.

If you read my second paragraph, you'll see I actually agreed with you in part.

bleg

yea i know. however i place more importance on the heineken cup than the ML thtat's why i only quoted that half of your post. (that's where we'll have to agree to disagree.)

i'm being very very pedantic.


anyway, i just think the HC produces better quality and more exiting rugby than any of the domestic leagues. granted i see limited premiership rugby (only the big matches) and very little french rugby (very best of the highlights on youtube)

Sherifu

About time tbh.

zAbbo

The point I was making about ML was that if the top X teams qualified for HC, with the top 4 going into a playoff to win the ML (like the GP) it would add some interest.

Munster don't have to take the ML seriously, as qualification to HC is almost guaranteed.

Tim Robbins

bleg wrote: »

yea i know. however i place more importance on the heineken cup than the ML thtat's why i only quoted that half of your post. (that's where we'll have to agree to disagree.)

ML is far better than Premiership. As for how it compares with the HC it doesn't have the winners takes all or the big day out excitement of it, but the Rugby is arguably better because teams will run the ball a bit more. Cup Rugby can be dull as it makes teams risk adverse. The same happens in school rugby (cup rugby) and the world cup.

Up the jumper rugby, Munster style may be exciting when you are in a one score game on a big day. But from a Rugby perspective it's very dull and boring. You'd see better passing and lines of running in a game of tag.

i'm being very very pedantic.

I don't think you are. You haven't even said why you prefer HL or why you don't rate ML?

Right now I am assuming it's because you like the big day out. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not pedantic.

phog

zAbbo wrote: »

The point I was making about ML was that if the top X teams qualified for HC, with the top 4 going into a playoff to win the ML (like the GP) it would add some interest.

Munster don't have to take the ML seriously, as qualification to HC is almost guaranteed.

What clubs do? Munster have as much success in the ML as most other clubs, I think Ulster and Ospreys are the only club to win it twice.

I agree with your first comment about the top clubs making it through to the HC and the Top 4 in a playoff. The big problem for the ML is the start, stop start again type schedule.

WRT to Seeding for HEC it's about time as the old system of seeding only one club from each country was a farce - god be with the days when the IRFU decided on the Irish seeding on a make it up as we go on basis.

marco_polo

A point off second place with a game in hand isn't bad for a team that are only taking the mickey. Doesn't say much for the rest of the league if that is the case.

Personally I think that Munster have put in a much improved effort this year and if they had held on in Cardiff a few weeks ago then the title would be a very real possibility.

Tim Robbins

marco_polo wrote: »

A point off second place with a game in hand isn't bad for a team that are only taking the mickey. Doesn't say much for the rest of the league if that is the case.

Personally I think that Munster have put in a much improved effort this year and if they had held on in Cardiff a few weeks ago then the title would be a very real possibility.

It's probably more their fans that don't it seriously compared to the Heineken Cup. If you compare the ratio of attendances and demand for tickets between ML and HC, that ratio would have to greatest for Munster fans.

They could bring 40K to a HC game and probably 4K to a ML game.
Leinster, Ulster and of the Welsh, Scots sides wouldn't have anything close to this ration. Leinster can being 17K to a HC game but can bring 10 - 14 to ML game. Dito Ulster.

The French teams just don't go to HC cups if they are away from home.

Stev_o

Tim i disagree you with whether the ML is better then the Premiership i watch both every week and i always find the Premiership much more entertaining. Also the fact that there is a huge end to the Premiership in the form of a final is brilliant. Look at it now and there is something like 7 or so teams chasing to get into the playoff's making every game very competitive where as the ML you see the opposite. Last years ML "final" match was Ospreys vs Borders now how anyone can find that a great spectacular end i dont know.

komodosp

No need for play off. Seed the teams based on ML finishing position.

They should have play-offs anyway... It would give a more exciting climax to the tournament... And raise the "importance"...

I think the CL also suffers from having only one division... Although I suppose there aren't enough teams for more than that...

marco_polo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's probably more their fans that don't it seriously compared to the Heineken Cup. If you compare the ratio of attendances and demand for tickets between ML and HC, that ratio would have to greatest for Munster fans.

They could bring 40K to a HC game and probably 4K to a ML game.
Leinster, Ulster and of the Welsh, Scots sides wouldn't have anything close to this ration. Leinster can being 17K to a HC game but can bring 10 - 14 to ML game. Dito Ulster.

The French teams just don't go to HC cups if they are away from home.

Musgrave park has been selling out for the entire season (7,000 ish?), but there is no denying that leinster/Ulter gets much higher great crowds in the RDS and Ravenhill.

In making the comparison though it would be unfair to overlook the two hour drive between Cork and Limerick that essentially splits the fanbase in half. While you could agrue that real fans should go to every game it is not that easy to get to all the league games, especially ones a Friday night.

I have no doubt that many fans who get HEC tickets for Munster wouldn't cross the road to go to a ML game, but that is a universal fact of life in all sports.

phog

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's probably more their fans that don't it seriously compared to the Heineken Cup. If you compare the ratio of attendances and demand for tickets between ML and HC, that ratio would have to greatest for Munster fans.

You're not comparing like with like as Munster are probably unique in that they play in two different grounds for their home matches (60 odd miles apart) so it's difficult for fans to get to home matches - e.g. I'm based on the Clare side of Limerick and have to take a half day off work to go to Cork for a Friday evening match. You'll also find Munster have a lot of supporters that are based away from their home so travelling to a home match is usally confined to the HEC or one or two ML matches that will suit their visits home. I think all teams have supporters that prefer the the "big day" where are the 40K+ that attended the "last stand" in Lansdowne Road?

Of course the HEC is the bigger occasion you have the best of 6 Countries competing as opposed to the best of 4 competing during gaps in the Internationals, HEC and the EDF Cup Schedules.

Crash

Just thought some of you may find this interesting (or cannon fodder, i'm not sure if i'm helping or throwing fuel on the fire here ) but here are the attendances for the last few ML games:

Glasgow Warriors 16 - 18 Dragons Firhill Arena 1,798
Leinster 26 - 15 Ospreys Royal Dublin Society 13,385
Llanelli Scarlets 30 - 7 Glasgow Warriors Stradey Park 6,190
Edinburgh Rugby 7 - 11 Munster Murrayfield 4,100
Ulster 38 - 13 Dragons Ravenhill 9,246
Ospreys 37 - 7 Connacht Rugby Liberty Stadium 7,396
Leinster 24 - 17 Cardiff Blues Royal Dublin Society 14,322
Dragons 10 - 10 Edinburgh Rugby Rodney Parade 4,734
Connacht Rugby 10 - 16 Leinster Sportsground 3,851
Glasgow Warriors 9 - 6 Ospreys Firhill Arena 2,058
Ulster 20 - 8 Llanelli Scarlets Ravenhill 8,869
Cardiff Blues 25 - 22 Munster Arms Park 11,269
Llanelli Scarlets 35 - 17 Cardiff Blues Stradey Park 8,045
Edinburgh Rugby 38 - 8 Connacht Rugby Murrayfield 2,506
Leinster 34 - 18 Glasgow Warriors Royal Dublin Society 11,730
Munster 42 - 6 Ulster Musgrave Park 7,500

themont85

Those figures above show Leinster for all its faults in fairness pull consistant gates. There must be few quid lying around the Branch office.

About the changes to the seeds, anything imo which stops teams getting easy passages to the qfs is a good thing. Although I have noticed that the teams who come through the tougher groups tend to do better than the others qualifiers in the latter stages.

Spaceman Spiff

çrash_000 wrote: »

Just thought some of you may find this interesting (or cannon fodder, i'm not sure if i'm helping or throwing fuel on the fire here ) but here are the attendances for the last few ML games:

Boy do Scotland have problems.

phog

çrash_000 wrote: »

Just thought some of you may find this interesting (or cannon fodder, i'm not sure if i'm helping or throwing fuel on the fire here ) but here are the attendances for the last few ML games:

and your point is?

dc69

Tim Robbins wrote: »

ML is far better than Premiership. .

go home,shows you dont have a clue!

the premiership is a superior league with better players and teams.

Tim Robbins

dc69 wrote: »

go home,shows you dont have a clue!

the premiership is a superior league with better players and teams.

That's an intelligent argument.

Tim Robbins

phog wrote: »

Of course the HEC is the bigger occasion you have the best of 6 Countries competing as opposed to the best of 4 competing during gaps in the Internationals, HEC and the EDF Cup Schedules.

We certainly didn't see the best of French Rugby this year, in it.

Tim Robbins

Stev_o wrote: »

Tim i disagree you with whether the ML is better then the Premiership i watch both every week and i always find the Premiership much more entertaining. Also the fact that there is a huge end to the Premiership in the form of a final is brilliant. Look at it now and there is something like 7 or so teams chasing to get into the playoff's making every game very competitive where as the ML you see the opposite. Last years ML "final" match was Ospreys vs Borders now how anyone can find that a great spectacular end i dont know.

1. The Premiership is hyped up by Sky Sports as if its the best league in the world. It simple is not. A couple of times I have watched tries of the month and rarely the 3/4's get the ball. It's more bang / smash Rugby if you ask me.

2. Unlike the ML which stops during VI nations, Premiership does not. It has way more games so the argument about ML not playing their first 15 - well the ML play their first 15 far more than Premiership teams do.

3. Sure look at the Irish lads who can't get a game at a province, where do they go - yes that's right the Premiership.

4. An Osprey's team basically beat England in Twickenham this year.

bleg

ospreys team basically beat ireland...

Tim Robbins

bleg wrote: »

ospreys team basically beat ireland...

Team versue Ireland was:

L Byrne (Ospreys); M Jones (Llanelli), T Shanklin (Cardiff), G Henson (Ospreys), S Williams (Ospreys); S Jones (Llanelli), M Phillips (Ospreys); G Jenkins (Cardiff), M Rees (Llanelli), A Jones (Ospreys), I Gough (Ospreys), A Wyn-Jones (Ospreys), J Thomas (Ospreys), M Williams (Cardiff), R Jones (Ospreys, capt).

Nine Ospreys players.

Team versus England was:

L Byrne (Ospreys); S Williams (Ospreys), S Parker (Ospreys), G Henson (Ospreys), M Jones (Llanelli Scarlets); J Hook (Ospreys), M Phillips (Ospreys); D Jones (Ospreys), H Bennett (Ospreys), A Jones (Ospreys), I Gough (Ospreys), AW Jones (Ospreys), J Thomas (Ospreys), M Williams (Cardiff Blues), R Jones (Ospreys, capt).

Thirteen Osprey players.

Bit of a difference me thinks.

dc69

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's an intelligent argument.

what you said was unintelligent enough,I dont have to provide any argument,the idea of someone saying the Irish teams are beter than the english teams on a week by week basis is laughable.if Every magners league team was in the premiership,they would achieve a 5th place max.

as a leinster fan,I was delighted and surpised to beat leicester at home in the rds,Leinster are currently leading the magners league and leicester are 3rd in the premiership,thats says it all really!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

1. The Premiership is hyped up by Sky Sports as if its the best league in the world. It simple is not. A couple of times I have watched tries of the month and rarely the 3/4's get the ball. It's more bang / smash Rugby if you ask me.

no one says its the best league in the world but it is superior to the magners league,you clearly do not watch it week in and out,as you have just said "a couple of times I have watched the tries of the month" exactly,you have watched highlights a couple of times.


I can tell you as someone who watches it frequently it is a superior league,with superior players.I dont see where you are going with this argument.You are wrong and I dont see how you can asses a league when all the viewing you see is highlights.

just because the rugby played isnt the way you like rugby to be played,does not mean the league is inferior to the magners league!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

2. Unlike the ML which stops during VI nations, Premiership does not. It has way more games so the argument about ML not playing their first 15 - well the ML play their first 15 far more than Premiership teams do.

this is because they attract the some of the best players from around the world and have such strenght in depth that they are able to play without their 6 nations players,We cannot do this in the magners league as we have no strenght in depth.


your argument about the ospreys beating England is ridiculous,England like Ireland have no self confidence.Wales had a new coach and rejuvinated confidence and got a fluky win over England.

Also the BEST players in the premiershop are not English so that defeat means absolutely nothing to evaluating the strenght of a league.The English national teams suffer because of the superb imports coming into the premiership,taking the English players places.

Tim Robbins

dc69 wrote: »

what you said was unintelligent enough,I dont have to provide any argument,the idea of someone saying the Irish teams are beter than the english teams on a week by week basis is laughable.
p

I said ML was better than Premiership.

if Every magners league team was in the premiership,they would achieve a 5th place max.

An Ospreys team beat England away from home this year!

no one says its the best league in the world but it is superior to the magners league,you clearly do not watch it week in and out,as you have just said "a couple of times I have watched the tries of the month" exactly,you have watched highlights a couple of times.

I watched it a lot last season and it was rubbish. Very boring and over hyped Rugby. Give me ML anyday.

just because the rugby played isnt the way you like rugby to be played,does not mean the league is inferior to the magners league!

Of course it does not. But just because you think its superior does not mean its superior. you make a point about Leiceister who have players like Frank Murphy and Jonny Murphy who couldn't make any of the Irish provinces. Your analysis is one - eyed.

this is because they attract the some of the best players from around the world and have such strenght in depth that they are able to play without their 6 nations players,We cannot do this in the magners league as we have no strenght in depth.

A load of rubbish. They field nobody teams to fans who fall for for hype.

your argument about the ospreys beating England is ridiculous,England like Ireland have no self confidence.Wales had a new coach and rejuvinated confidence and got a fluky win over England.

Not bad for team that made the world cup final and beat France this year.

Also the BEST players in the premiershop are not English so that defeat means absolutely nothing to evaluating the strenght of a league.The English national teams suffer because of the superb imports coming into the premiership,taking the English players places.

They get dud imports. They Irish ones are our worst professional players. The Southern Hemisphere players are just looking for their retirment paycheck.

dc69

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They get dud imports. They Irish ones are our worst professional players. The Southern Hemisphere players are just looking for their retirment paycheck.

heymans,chabal,mcalister,tualangi to name but a few

Spaceman Spiff

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Of course it does not. But just because you think its superior does not mean its superior. you make a point about Leiceister who have players like Frank Murphy and Jonny Murphy who couldn't make any of the Irish provinces. Your analysis is one - eyed.

The difference here is that most Irish players would probably rather leave the ML than switch provinces. Geordan would start for every team in Ireland now, so would Reddan. The difference between the Prem and ML is that in the Prem if you're stuck behind somebody better, you just switch clubs, in the ML, you really just sit there. Using the Leicester example, do you think John Hayes would have ever been a starter there? When would Paul O'Connell have usurped Martin Johnson? Would Jamie Heaslip be starting over Martin Corry? Hell, would Girvan Dempsey be starting over Geordan Murphy?

Not bad for team that made the world cup final and beat France this year.

And Ireland was a try away from winning the Six Nations last year, things change pretty quickly. Wales did pretty good considering they didn't make it out of the group stages of that same World Cup.

They get dud imports. They Irish ones are our worst professional players. The Southern Hemisphere players are just looking for their retirment paycheck.

So the Premiership has a monopoly on duds and players looking to save for their retirement?

quillson86

All these non munster supporters seem to find it hard to believe that they got the first seed in this new system. First of all they ARE the deserved first team. They play the most consistent rugby and its always been the way. There is no team in europe that performs as consistently as munster.

The arguement that they dont perform in the ML is simply because its not worth it. It is for the teams such as edinburgh, scarlets and dare I say as an Irish man, Leinster. These are teams that can play fantastic rugby but not on the big stage. Comparing munster to liverpool in soccer is outrageous because the premier league is worth a lot more than a very uncompetitive ML. If munster had an interest in the ML they would win it.

At the end of the day the HEC is the creme-de-la-creme and munster have consistently performed in it. Therefore they are deservidly number one seed.

dc69

quillson86 wrote: »

All these non munster supporters seem to find it hard to believe that they got the first seed in this new system. First of all they ARE the deserved first team. They play the most consistent rugby and its always been the way. There is no team in europe that performs as consistently as munster.

The arguement that they dont perform in the ML is simply because its not worth it. It is for the teams such as edinburgh, scarlets and dare I say as an Irish man, Leinster. These are teams that can play fantastic rugby but not on the big stage. Comparing munster to liverpool in soccer is outrageous because the premier league is worth a lot more than a very uncompetitive ML. If munster had an interest in the ML they would win it.

At the end of the day the HEC is the creme-de-la-creme and munster have consistently performed in it. Therefore they are deservidly number one seed.

I dont agree.at the end of the day,munster focus all their efforts on the H-cup at the expence of their magners league position.I also think the magners league is very competitive,pity munster dont give it a shot alongside their european aspirations.

also you cant compare Edinburgh to Leinster.your not in a different league,we beat you only a few months ago,in your back yard.You turn it on for the big occasion and then do nothing in the league

I like Munster and will be supporting them in the H cup and I think they deserve to be their but I think the arrogance of some of you Munster fans is outragous,who do you think you are? Toulouse

Think of it this way if you were in our group I dont think you would have qualified either.So take the chip off your shoulder and we can all live in harmony and hope every Irish provence do well.Im sure their is nothing a munster or Leinster supporter could want more than a Heineken cup final against each other:)

about this seeding thing,I couldnt care who is number 1,Munster are not the numer 1 team in Europe so it clearly is flawed imo