Heineken & Amlin Cup 2013/14 General Discussion

thomond2006

Rightwing wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that is a tough group simply isn't at the races imho.

*Lack of self-restraint wins out again*

One word to the above: WHY?

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Rightwing wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that is a tough group simply isn't at the races imho.

Sometimes I wonder do the Welsh teams even care. Cardiff Blues a prime example, but at least they managed to get to a semi a few years back, and indeed were unlucky not to get to a final.

Most people here not at the races so? Most of these well respected papers and media outlets not at the races either?

former legend wrote: »

RTE's take:
http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/european/2013/0605/454758-rugby-draws/

Midi Olympique reckon it's the pool of death;
http://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/coupe-d-europe/2012-2013/h-cup-castres-dans-la-poule-de-la-mort-clermont-avec-le-racing_sto3789783/story.shtml

The Guardian reckon it's the most demanding assignment:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jun/05/heineken-cup-draw-english-clubs

I could go on. Leinster have a very tough group.

Rightwing

former legend wrote: »

RTE's take:
http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/european/2013/0605/454758-rugby-draws/

Midi Olympique reckon it's the pool of death;
http://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/coupe-d-europe/2012-2013/h-cup-castres-dans-la-poule-de-la-mort-clermont-avec-le-racing_sto3789783/story.shtml

The Guardian reckon it's the most demanding assignment:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jun/05/heineken-cup-draw-english-clubs

I could go on. Leinster have a very tough group.

The most knowledgeable of all, the bookies, they don't.

Rightwing

thomond2006 wrote: »

*Lack of self-restraint wins out again*

One word to the above: WHY?

What do you mean ?

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Rightwing wrote: »

The most knowledgeable of all, the bookies, they don't.

What bookies have said it's not a tough group?

Rightwing

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

What bookies have said it's not a tough group?

The bookies have
Castres @ 55/1
Ospreys @ 40/1
Saints @ 28/1

If you think any of those teams are doing anything more than making up the numbers fill your boots.

However, I would suggest you don't. Even at those massive odds, it's a complete waste of money imho.

thomond2006

Rightwing wrote: »

The bookies have
Castres @ 55/1
Ospreys @ 40/1
Saints @ 28/1

If you think any of those teams are doing anything more than making up the numbers fill your boots.

However, I would suggest you don't. Even at those massive odds, it's a complete waste of money imho.

Why can't you tell us why you think it's an easy group instead of always referring to odds? That is what is pissing us off. Talk about players, form, past success/failure, signings/departures.

.ak

Rightwing wrote: »

The bookies have
Castres @ 55/1
Ospreys @ 40/1
Saints @ 28/1

If you think any of those teams are doing anything more than making up the numbers fill your boots.

However, I would suggest you don't. Even at those massive odds, it's a complete waste of money imho.

Are those odds to win the competition? If so, it doesn't make your point.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Rightwing wrote: »

The bookies have
Castres @ 55/1
Ospreys @ 40/1
Saints @ 28/1

If you think any of those teams are doing anything more than making up the numbers fill your boots.

However, I would suggest you don't. Even at those massive odds, it's a complete waste of money imho.

You do realis that the big odds for Saints and Ospreys are a direct result of them being in such a hard group?

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

thomond2006 wrote: »

Why can't you tell us why you think it's an easy group instead of always referring to odds? That is what is pissing us off. Talk about players, form, past success/failure, signings/departures.

this, times a million

Rightwing

Rightwing wrote: »

The bookies have
Castres @ 55/1
Ospreys @ 40/1
Saints @ 28/1

If you think any of those teams are doing anything more than making up the numbers fill your boots.

However, I would suggest you don't. Even at those massive odds, it's a complete waste of money imho.

You do realise that the reason their odds are longer are because it's unlikely that there will be more than one qualifier from the group due to the difficulty of that group?

And that the difficulty of the group means it's unlikely that there will be a home quarter finalist from the group?

And that the difficulty in winning a HEC given that you are away in a QF and probably SF is massive?

A far, far , far better measure of how difficult a group is is how short a price the least likely to win the group is.

Castres at 12s to win the group is the shortest price 'worst' team
http://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/heineken-cup

molloyjh

An awful lot of general HEC talk for a Munster forum.....

Oh and we all know about circles right!?

Rightwing

thomond2006 wrote: »

Why can't you tell us why you think it's an easy group instead of always referring to odds? That is what is pissing us off. Talk about players, form, past success/failure, signings/departures.

I've tried.

Castres are like the blackburn rovers of 20 yrs ago, they've won a league, struggle in the H cup, concentrate domestically.
Ospreys have always struggled in this competition.
A limited munster team were able to put 50 points on the saints in 2012....wait for it - away!

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise that the reason their odds are longer are because it's unlikely that there will be more than one qualifier from the group due to the difficulty of that group?

And that the difficulty of the group means it's likely that there will be a home quarter finalist from the group?

And that the difficulty in winning a HEC given that you are away in a QF and probably SF is massive?

A far, far , far better measure of how difficult a group is is how short a price the least likely to win the group is.

Castres at 12s to win the group is the shortest price 'worst' team
http://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/heineken-cup

Yep, Treviso 100/1 to come out in top of a group that rightwing said was a hard group

Rightwing

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise that the reason their odds are longer are because it's unlikely that there will be more than one qualifier from the group due to the difficulty of that group?

And that the difficulty of the group means it's likely that there will be a home quarter finalist from the group?

And that the difficulty in winning a HEC given that you are away in a QF and probably SF is massive?

A far, far , far better measure of how difficult a group is is how short a price the least likely to win the group is.

Castres at 12s to win the group is the shortest price 'worst' team
http://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/heineken-cup[/QUOTE]


Complete and utter nonsene. The odds in Clermont's group proves that.

Buer

Rightwing wrote: »

The most knowledgeable of all, the bookies, they don't.

Going on the bookies odds across the respective pools, that pool is actually deemed to be the second hardest. Now, personally, I wouldn't agree with that but if they're the most knowledgeable of all, then who are we to argue?

Rightwing

Rightwing wrote: »

Complete and utter nonsene. The odds in Clermont's group proves that.

Could you explain how it is nonsense please? Or how on earth Clermont's group proves anything to do with what I've posted?

Hagz

Rightwing wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder do the Welsh teams even care. Cardiff Blues a prime example, but at least they managed to get to a semi a few years back, and indeed were unlucky not to get to a final.

I can see how one might think that, but I think they do care. They simply don't have the money to compete and to compound it, they aren't as lucky as we are in the sense that many welsh players have chosen to take the money in France (which is fair enough).

Focusing on Ospreys, not only have they drawn some of the most difficult opposition in their pools over the last several years (Tigers+Toulouse/Munster+Toulon/Biarritz+Saraces/Clermont+Tigers), but they've also suffered a large outflow of quality players (Shane Williams, Lee Byrne, Mike Phillips, Marty Holah, Paul James, Tommy Bowe, Jerry Collins, James Hook etc.).

Any of the Irish provinces would struggle to get out of such pools, and as we've seen with Munster, losing a heap of top end players is a hard thing to recover from. Putting that all to one side, I still think that they have been competitive throughout the years and visibly invested in the competition.

Rightwing

Buer wrote: »

Going on the bookies odds across the respective pools, that pool is actually deemed to be the second hardest. Now, personally, I wouldn't agree with that but if they're the most knowledgeable of all, then who are we to argue?

There is an element of truth in this. Not many groups stand out as being hard this year, the obvious exception being Clermonts where the bookies think there are a few contenders.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Rightwing wrote: »

I've tried.

Castres are like the blackburn rovers of 20 yrs ago, they've won a league, struggle in the H cup, concentrate domestically.

Football analogy, how original

Ospreys have always struggled in this competition.

They've underachieved. But they always get a very hard group. But even still they've beaten some very big sides at home in the HC and Leinster of all teams will not have wanted to draw them. This all flys in the face of you calling them "complete losers" when in fact they're a very successful club

A limited munster team were able to put 50 points on the saints in 2012....wait for it - away!

You making that sound as if Munster won by 50 points. They only won by 14. And even if they did the Saints of early 2012 are going to be very different to the saints of 13/14 who have secured the services of Corbs and North

Rightwing

Deleted User wrote: »

Could you explain how it is nonsense please? Or how on earth Clermont's group proves anything to do with what I've posted?

Clermont 5/1 v Leinster 13/2
Racing 20/1 v Saints 28/1
Quins 25/1 v Castres 55/1

In each of the above instance, the team from Clermonts group has a shorter price.

Rightwing

Rightwing wrote: »

Clermont 5/1 v Leinster 13/2
Racing 20/1 v Saints 28/1
Quins 25/1 v Castres 55/1

In each of the above instance, the team from Clermonts group has a shorter price.

They are prices to win the competition.

Not to win the group.

Deleted User wrote: »

A far, far , far better measure of how difficult a group is is how short a price the least likely to win the group is.

Castres at 12s to win the group is the shortest price 'worst' team
http://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/heineken-cup

Rightwing

Hagz wrote: »

I can see how one might think that, but I think they do care. They simply don't have the money to compete and to compound it, they aren't as lucky as we are in the sense that many welsh players have chosen to take the money in France (which is fair enough).

Focusing on Ospreys, not only have they drawn some of the most difficult opposition in their pools over the last several years (Tigers+Toulouse/Munster+Toulon/Biarritz+Saraces/Clermont+Tigers), but they've also suffered a large outflow of quality players (Shane Williams, Lee Byrne, Mike Phillips, Marty Holah, Paul James, Tommy Bowe, Jerry Collins, James Hook etc.).

Any of the Irish provinces would struggle to get out of such pools, and as we've seen with Munster, losing a heap of top end players is a hard thing to recover from. Putting that all to one side, I still think that they have been competitive throughout the years and visibly invested in the competition.

Yes, that's a balanced post from both angles.

jamiedav2011

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

the Saints of early 2012 are going to be very different to the saints of 13/14 who have secured the services of Corbs and North

And the second best SH in the world atm.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Rightwing wrote: »

Clermont 5/1 v Leinster 13/2
Racing 20/1 v Saints 28/1
Quins 25/1 v Castres 55/1

In each of the above instance, the team from Clermonts group has a shorter price.

Do that exact same comparison with any other group (with a focus on odds to win the group) and you can see that Leinster's group is the second hardest. It's not an easy group, it's a hard one. Not the hardest group in HC history but a tricky one nonetheless

The papers don't think it's easy, the posters here don't, even the bookies, who you yourself said "are the most knowledgable of all" think it's the second hardest group. So basically the consensus is that it's a hard group, and certainly not an easy one as you claim

molloyjh

jamiedav2011 wrote: »

And the second best SH in the world atm.

If they had a decent fly-half they'd be laughing.....

Rightwing

Deleted User wrote: »

They are prices to win the competition.

Not to win the group.

Therein lies the truth.

The pool winners is even more conclusive. They have Clermont at 1/2. Yet, they still think teams from that group are more likely to win than teams from Leinsters, and Leinster are only 8/13 to win their group.

molloyjh

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Do that exact same comparison with any other group (with a focus on odds to win the group) and you can see that Leinster's group is the second hardest. It's not an easy group, it's a hard one. Not the hardest group in HC history but a tricky one nonetheless

The papers don't think it's easy, the posters here don't, even the bookies, who you yourself said "are the most knowledgable of all" think it's the second hardest group. So basically the consensus is that it's a hard group, and certainly not an easy one as you claim

Guys come on....we've got someone here who, despite having had multiple detailed posts, links to media articles, information on bookies odds etc all pointing to one conclusion, will refuse to even properly discuss the topic never mind contemplate reviewing his position. This whole conversation is going all of nowhere.

Rightwing

Rightwing wrote: »

Therein lies the truth.

The pool winners is even more conclusive. They have Clermont at 1/2. Yet, they still think teams from that group are more likely to win than teams from Leinsters, and Leinster are only 8/13 to win their group.

so basically you have absolutely no idea of what we are talking about.
--

Firstly, I explained that the prices to win the competition were implicitly adjusted to factor in the difficulty that occurs when the group is so tough. A team that can sail to 6 BP victories in an easy group, get a good seeding position and a home QF and SF slot is always going to be more likely to win the competition than a team with the exact same ability, but in a group where the seeding, and home/away QF/SF rules will 'hurt' their chances.

Secondly, I pointed out that a good way to figure out how tough a group was was to look what price the bookie's price the worst team to win that group.

If it's a 100/1 shot, then realistically there's only 3 teams worth talking about in that group. A closer knit distribution of prices about the entire group will always indicate a far tougher group.

Rightwing

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Do that exact same comparison with any other group (with a focus on odds to win the group) and you can see that Leinster's group is the second hardest. It's not an easy group, it's a hard one. Not the hardest group in HC history but a tricky one nonetheless

The papers don't think it's easy, the posters here don't, even the bookies, who you yourself said "are the most knowledgable of all" think it's the second hardest group. So basically the consensus is that it's a hard group, and certainly not an easy one as you claim

No, if you are looking just to win the pool, then Ulster's is deemed the hardest of them all, in fact 2nd seed Leicester are slight favourites.