Heineken Cup: Do we have an unfair advantage?

Pisco Sour

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Ok slice it up like this so

If Leinster, Ulster or Munster had to worry about finishing in the top 7 this year to qualify for next year do you think any of them would have failed??

Didnt Munster finish way down the league table in about 6th or 7th place in 2008 when they won the Heineken Cup? Or was it in 2007, in which case under such new rules they wouldn't have qualified for the following year?

smurphy29

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If Ulster had to worry about it would they have sent their B&I Cup side to Leinster in December? Would they have sent a b team to Connacht? They sent weaker teams out before all their big Heineken Cup games. Maybe if they had to qualify (which they nearly wouldn't have) they would not have been able to do this. They quite probably wouldn't have gotten out of their group.

Precisely, thank you. Whether they'd have qualified or not is not relevant! They'd all have qualified, but they'd have been made to qualify. The process of getting there would have been quite different, especially as the final weeks of the season would have been a bunfight over the last few spots. They'd have had to put more resources into it, and maybe not been quite as box-fresh for the Cup.

rrpc

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If Ulster had to worry about it would they have sent their B&I Cup side to Leinster in December? Would they have sent a b team to Connacht? They sent weaker teams out before all their big Heineken Cup games. Maybe if they had to qualify (which they nearly wouldn't have) they would not have been able to do this. They quite probably wouldn't have gotten out of their group.

We've seen similar things happen in the pool stages of the HEC when a no-hoper decides to send a weakened team to an away pool match because it's a dead rubber for them.

Should we kick them out of the Heineken Cup too?

smurphy29

04072511 wrote: »

Didnt Munster finish way down the league table in about 6th or 7th place in 2008 when they won the Heineken Cup? Or was it in 2007, in which case under such new rules they wouldn't have qualified for the following year?

By the by, if Irish teams have so little to worry about qualifying whay are we so afraidd of merit-based qualification?

Fishooks12

smurphy29 wrote: »

By the by, if Irish teams have so little to worry about qualifying whay are we so afraidd of merit-based qualification?

I don't think anyone is afraid

I'd nearly advocate the process just so it will shut up the English moaners complaining of an "unfair advantage"

irishbucsfan

rrpc wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If Ulster had to worry about it would they have sent their B&I Cup side to Leinster in December? Would they have sent a b team to Connacht? They sent weaker teams out before all their big Heineken Cup games. Maybe if they had to qualify (which they nearly wouldn't have) they would not have been able to do this. They quite probably wouldn't have gotten out of their group.

We've seen similar things happen in the pool stages of the HEC when a no-hoper decides to send a weakened team to an away pool match because it's a dead rubber for them.

Should we kick them out of the Heineken Cup too?

Eh? What is your point here? Noone is getting kicked out of the Rabo for sending weaker teams

LeinsterDub

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There is nothing to prevent the Anglo-French cup being formed in 2014, let's not forget.

Lets hope it's half as exciting as the Anglo-Welsh cup

rrpc

smurphy29 wrote: »

By the by, if Irish teams have so little to worry about qualifying whay are we so afraidd of merit-based qualification?

I'm not argiuing the toss on this because I'm 'afraid' Leinster won't get through, or for that matter Munster or Ulster. The reality of the HEC is that you have to be competitive in your league if you want to have any chance of success in the Cup.

Edinburgh being the exception . And they really were an exception as they had a piss poor pool.

The issue here is the already dominant position of two of the six nations having half the slots and looking to gobble up more of the slots from the weaker ones (and I'm thinking of Scotland and Italy here).

I don't even think they merit the six slots each that they get. People laugh at Connacht, but they had an equal number of pool wins to London Irish, Castres, Racing Metro and Montpellier.

Did these giants of the game throw in the towel after losing a couple of pool games? Do they deserve to be there on that basis?

CatFromHue

I personally would like Rabo finishing position to be the decider for HEC qualification. Nothing to do with what the French or English think but it would make our league more competitive. At the moment the top 3 Irish and Welsh teams qualify as well as both the Scots and Italians meaning 10 teams from the Rabo qualify. There is no real incentive to do well in the Rabo, sure even the WRU scheduled a Wales match for a weekend of this seasons Rabo.

One thing for me that should never be changed is the number of teams in the HEC. Six pools of four teams makes the competition so good as you really have to go hard to qualify. Finishing second is is just not good enough 66% of the time.

If the numbers of pools were to be reduced it would really take away from the competition as it would make it easier to qualify for the QF's. For example if there were 5 pools then the majority of second place teams would qualify for the QF's.

IrishBuccsfan mentioned the top 7 from each of the Rabo, Aviva, and Top 14 which makes sense to me but I'd have the other 3 teams coming from the Amlin Finalists and the HEC winner or team from their country.

That would of course put 5 Rabo teams into the Amlin as well 7 from the Aviva and 7 from the Top 14. From this 19 teams you'd lose three to the HEC depending on results from the previous season (i.e. Amlin finalists and HEC winner). So the extra 4 teams would go to Romania, Spain, and two from Italy.

You'd still fulfill the ERC goal of having European rugby in Italy, Spain, and Romania and also make the Amlin and Rabo more competitive competitions.

rrpc

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Eh? What is your point here? Noone is getting kicked out of the Rabo for sending weaker teams

Nope, did I mention the Rabo?

You said they shouldn't by rights be in the HEC because they 'threw' a Rabo league match to Connacht and so on merit would not qualify.

If that were the criterion.

But it's not. And you've yet to acknowledge what actually is the criteria. You keep rabbitting on about the Rabo as if HEC qualification was based on the input from three leagues.

It's not. As I've pointed out. Ad nauseum.

irishbucsfan

rrpc wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Eh? What is your point here? Noone is getting kicked out of the Rabo for sending weaker teams

Nope, did I mention the Rabo?

You said they shouldn't by rights be in the HEC because they 'threw' a Rabo league match to Connacht and so on merit would not qualify.

If that were the criterion.

But it's not. And you've yet to acknowledge what actually is the criteria. You keep rabbitting on about the Rabo as if HEC qualification was based on the input from three leagues.

It's not. As I've pointed out. Ad nauseum.

I'm fully aware of the criteria. You're just not listening to my points and I don't have time to hold your hand through each paragraph.

I'm giving an opinion on what I think would be the fairest criteria for EVERYONE involved in the competition. The current criteria is unsustainable.

smurphy29

rrpc wrote: »

I'm not argiuing the toss on this because I'm 'afraid' Leinster won't get through, or for that matter Munster or Ulster. The reality of the HEC is that you have to be competitive in your league if you want to have any chance of success in the Cup.

Edinburgh being the exception . And they really were an exception as they had a piss poor pool.

The issue here is the already dominant position of two of the six nations having half the slots and looking to gobble up more of the slots from the weaker ones (and I'm thinking of Scotland and Italy here).

I don't even think they merit the six slots each that they get. People laugh at Connacht, but they had an equal number of pool wins to London Irish, Castres, Racing Metro and Montpellier.

Did these giants of the game throw in the towel after losing a couple of pool games? Do they deserve to be there on that basis?

That's not the reality at all, it never has been. Edinburgh aren't the exception, they're the model of the flaws in the current method. You can throw the league and still do well in the Cup. Poor group or no, they were able to get to within spitting distance of the final because they didn't even try in the League. They finished below Dragons, Connacht and Treviso. Effectively, they played eight matches this year. Ulster didn't particularly light up the league either.

As for England and France 'dominating' the numbers, but each of them have two pro leagues with over 20 professional teams, six of which make the HEC. Scotland have two regional sides, both of which get in.

JustinDee

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm giving an opinion on what I think would be the fairest criteria for EVERYONE involved in the competition. The current criteria is unsustainable.

It most certainly is not unsustainable. It is working now and will continue to do so. The only reason you give for it not working is some participants not being happy.
The respective unions have the final say in the competition they run. Not certain franchise owners or one or two moaners in selected media.
The priority is the game. Not some short-to-mid-term plaything investment.

rrpc

CatFromHue wrote: »

IrishBuccsfan mentioned the top 7 from each of the Rabo, Aviva, and Top 14 which makes sense to me but I'd have the other 4 teams coming from the Amlin Finalists and the HEC winner or team from their country.

Why would you give more slots in the HEC to French and English clubs?

Three of the six French clubs this season won one pool match each. Castres, Montpellier and Racing Metro finished 4th, 5th and 6th in the T14 and just won one match?

The same as Connacht and Treviso? Who actually put their hearts into it.

If I was sitting at the ERC boardroiom table and the FFR came in with a request for more slots in the HEC, I'd have trouble keeping a straight face. When more than Toulouse, Biarritz, Clermont and maybe Toulon and Paris make a bit of an effort I'd be more receptive, but that performance this year was pathetic.

At least to be fair to the Premiership, they made a discernible effort (with the exception of LI). Saints, Bath and Quins did their best and Leicester were as always fully involved.

But there's no evidence that anything other than pure financial self-interest would be served by adding more to the mix. And the cost to European Rugby would be far more obvious.

ray jay

The fact is that if you use a meritocratic qualifying system in the Rabo, Scottish and Italian rugby is going to suffer disproportionately. These are the two countries that need the most help to promote the sport (both at club and international level), and cutting their HEC slots is stealing from the poor to feed the rich.

CatFromHue

rrpc wrote: »

Why would you give more slots in the HEC to French and English clubs?

For maths reasons.

I want to make the Rabo more competitive and reducing the qualification places from 10 to 8 doesn't do enough but reducing it to 7 does.

You need 24 teams to make up the HEC.

3 x 7 = 21
Plus the previous seasons Amlin finalists and the HEC winner or team from the HEC winners league/country.

smurphy29

JustinDee wrote: »

It most certainly is not unsustainable. It is working now and will continue to do so. The only reason you give for it not working is some participants not being happy.
The respective unions have the final say in the competition they run. Not certain franchise owners or one or two moaners in selected media.
The priority is the game. Not some short-to-mid-term plaything investment.

JustinDee, can I just ask one question. Do you not think the Edinburgh fiasco this season did the League a massive disservice? I don't think that sort of situation should be allowed to continue.

It's all well and good saying the competition's main aim is to grow the game, but the competition has to have integrity.

I love the Heineken Cup, I think it's brilliant but I think it would be enhanced rather than diminished by having the same qualification rules across the three leagues.

irishbucsfan

Competition is unfair on the French. French teams decide to concentrate on a competition that is fairer on them. French performances suffer. People point at the performances as a reason not to make things fairer...

ray jay

smurphy29 wrote: »

Do you not think the Edinburgh fiasco this season did the League a massive disservice?

Northampton got to the HEC semi the same year they were relegated from the Premiership so maybe you shouldn't be so worried about the occasional freak result.

ray jay

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Competition is unfair on the French. French teams decide to concentrate on a competition that is fairer on them. French performances suffer. People point at the performances as a reason not to make things fairer...

French teams have larger budgets and can afford more players and so shouldn't have trouble maintaining performance with proper squad rotation.

irishbucsfan

ray jay wrote: »

The fact is that if you use a meritocratic qualifying system in the Rabo, Scottish and Italian rugby is going to suffer disproportionately. These are the two countries that need the most help to promote the sport (both at club and international level), and cutting their HEC slots is stealing from the poor to feed the rich.

If we guarranteed participation for one team from each country it really wouldnt be so bad. And it would improve the quality of the competition.

smurphy29

ray jay wrote: »

Northampton got to the HEC semi the same year they were relegated from the Premiership so maybe you shouldn't be so worried about the occasional freak result.

Yeah, but there were consequences. They didn't just roll back into the comp next year. It's not the freakishness I'm worried about, it's the integrity!

rrpc

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Competition is unfair on the French. French teams decide to concentrate on a competition that is fairer on them. French performances suffer. People point at the performances as a reason not to make things fairer...

Racing Metro had Cardiff, Edinburgh and London Irish in their pool. It just wasn't fair.

:rolleyes:

Pisco Sour

The difference of opinion is coming from the fact that some are looking at this from the perspective of 6 countries each being allocated places, while some of us are looking at it from the point of view of 3 LEAGUES being allocated places. The Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italians agreed to join together to form a league so IMO they don't deserve to keep independant allocations. This just makes the Pro 12 a farce of a competition.

I've come up with a solution that still ensures representation of all 4 Pro 12 Nations, but at the same time rewards league position regardless of nationality:

Top Irish, Top Welsh, Top Scottish, Top Italian, then next best 3.

That keeps the league interesting going into the last few rounds, and also means that the Pro 12 teams actually have to go and do the business with regards HEC qualification, rather than just talk about how they would qualify anyway, and field weakened teams at the same time.

CatFromHue

ray jay wrote: »

The fact is that if you use a meritocratic qualifying system in the Rabo, Scottish and Italian rugby is going to suffer disproportionately. These are the two countries that need the most help to promote the sport (both at club and international level), and cutting their HEC slots is stealing from the poor to feed the rich.

Glasgow would qualify for next seasons HEC if qualification was done on the Rabo position.

The Italian teams lets be honest are doing rubbish in the HEC. If they were to play in the Amlin they'd still come up against top quality teams (Stade Francais, Perpignan, Toulon, Wasps, Sale, Exeter all were in it this season Gloucester, Harlequins, Brive, and Stade Francais were in it the season before) but would in theory their chances of doing well would improve.

Which do you think is better for the Italian teams winning a few games in Europe and possible getting into a European QF or SF or winning 1 game from 12 each season in Europe?

smurphy29

Plenty of good points in the last two posts. The structure proposed by 04072511 is exactly what I had in mind.

It would do the likes of Whoever Replaces Aironi no harm whatsoever to play in the Amlin.

Also, it is probalby going to be lost here, but the French & English proposal also includes a third tier bringing more peripheral clubs from Spain, Russia and Georgia into the mix, which is a terrific idea. The French might be money-grabbing, drop-gaoaling, scrummage-obsessed moaners, but they have generally been good neighbours to the likes of Italy, Romania, Georgia etc.

irishbucsfan

rrpc wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Competition is unfair on the French. French teams decide to concentrate on a competition that is fairer on them. French performances suffer. People point at the performances as a reason not to make things fairer...

Racing Metro had Cardiff, Edinburgh and London Irish in their pool. It just wasn't fair.

:rolleyes:

Do you understand what were saying at all? Do you understand our point? Do you see why Cardiff and Edinburgh finished top of that pool?

JustinDee

smurphy29 wrote: »

JustinDee, can I just ask one question. Do you not think the Edinburgh fiasco this season did the League a massive disservice? I don't think that sort of situation should be allowed to continue.

It's all well and good saying the competition's main aim is to grow the game, but the competition has to have integrity.

I love the Heineken Cup, I think it's brilliant but I think it would be enhanced rather than diminished by having the same qualification rules across the three leagues.

What fiasco?? There was an huge buzz in Edinburgh before that semi-final. It was absolutely vital. The team earned also as well as being crucial big-game experience for the players not inducted to that level or higher.

Again, think less of the team disgruntled for losing but more of the effects on the game in region concerned. If the competition didn't have integrity, there would be no surprise results and an obvious few would walk it to semi-final stage.

DeDoc

People quoting the example of Edinburgh this season - well what about Saints making the semis a few years back while getting themselves relegated in domestic fare? It might be more pertinent to have a closer look at Edinburghs results. Their winning margins in their group were 1, 1, -17, 7, 3 and 23 (against a LI team who were already gone). They could just as easily have been going into that game 0/5 rather than 4/5. They rode their luck to get their (and more power to them) and caught Toulouse on the hop. It doesn't mean they blew off the league to concentrate on the cup - I think it rather means that they just aren't very good and were in a very weak pool.

If you look at their league results - they got 4 Losing bonus points and a draw

Their average per game results were 20.6 points and 1.9 tries scored and 26.7 points and 2.9 tries conceded.

In the HEC, the results were 24.3 points and 2.4 tries scored and 21.8 points and 1.6 tries conceded.

If you have a look at the euro-rankings here (not perfect, but not bad)

http://www.eurorugby.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Rugger&file=latest

you'll see that Embra are ranked a lowly 24th. Their opponents were 17th, 23rd and 32nd. The average ranking of Rabo teams is 54.7, for the Aviva it is 52.2 and 56.4 for the T14. If you take the average strength of Embras opponents in the Rabo it is 55.4, while in the HEC it was 55.5 if you take all their games and 48.0 if you just take their pool games.

I'd argue that in fact their HEC performances were perfectly consistent with their Rabo form - they just got lucky to be in a very weak group where they just finished on the right side of a few results.

DeDoc

smurphy29 wrote: »

Also, it is probalby going to be lost here, but the French & English proposal also includes a third tier bringing more peripheral clubs from Spain, Russia and Georgia into the mix, which is a terrific idea. The French might be money-grabbing, drop-gaoaling, scrummage-obsessed moaners, but they have generally been good neighbours to the likes of Italy, Romania, Georgia etc.

And you swallowed it hook line and sinker. :eek:

The FFR were good neighbours to Italy and Romania in particular, during the end of the amateur era and into the early pro era. The French and English CLUBS (and that is what we're talking about here) have done what exactly?
The third tier competition they are proposing is a nonsense, a non-starter, and only they to disguise some of their more unpalatable demands with some sugar. There is already a Spanish side in the challenge cup. When would this tournament run? Who would fund the (pretty large) costs involved in shifting teams those distances. How would the likes of the Georgians and Russians play home games during the December/January period when the Amlin group stages happen? Would it even be safe to let players at that level play the likes of Wasps, Stade Francais etc