2015/16 EPCR draw, Wednesday 17 June 1:15pm Irish time

sydthebeat

Riskymove wrote: »

I don't get this

why would having an Italian time increase your chances of winning a group? wouldn't it usually just mean the other 3 teams beat them twice

it would still come down to games against the other teams?

I think the Italian team gave you more chance of being a higher placed runner up under the old system all right as both qualifying team should have high points

Also there are now only 5 groups with at least 3 and possible 4 Irish teams meaning the chances of (one of the Irish teams) getting an Italian team are not that bad...indeed Treviso are in Munster's Group

its not that it increases your chance of winning your group, you still have to do it the hard way... it does however increases your chances of obtaining 10 valuable points on the way to being top group winner.

for example, for the last 3 years the winners of the group the italian team was in ended up as top group winners

2015 racing metro
2014 ulster
2013 harlequins

the group winners are seeded from the highest points to lowest.

take the likes of leinsters pool this season, a very high chance all teams will take points somewhere off each other

similarly very high chance treviso will end up on 'nul point'

awec

I am confused.

ulster_Beef

sydthebeat wrote: »

for example, for the last 3 years the winners of the group the italian team was in ended up as top group winners

2015 racing metro
2014 ulster
2013 harlequins

Aaaaaah, when Ulster were actually top seeds..... Beating Montpeiler away, bonus point wins... beating Leicester Tigers away etc... Those really were the days

RuggieBear

does this mean been seeded 3 and 4 will get you a home quarter but you are guaranteed an away semi if you win it?

Pudsy33

RuggieBear wrote: »

does this mean been seeded 3 and 4 will get you a home quarter but you are guaranteed an away semi if you win it?

Yeah, it appears that seeds 3 and 4 have no hope of a home semi

molloyjh

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Yeah, it appears that seeds 3 and 4 have no hope of a home semi

Well that's bloody harsh. I'm not sure they've really thought this one through.

ulster_Beef

Looks wonderful. It wont last long enough sadly.

thomond2006

ulster_Beef wrote: »

Looks wonderful. It wont last long enough sadly.

That should read Toulon's sponsors, not Mourad! The sponsors pay for the club these days.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

Well that's bloody harsh. I'm not sure they've really thought this one through.

Ha.

It avoids any team getting two home games as much as possible, and where that is unavoidable it gives home advantage to seeds 1 or 2. Seeds 3 and 4 are guaranteed home games in the quarter finals, the rest are all away in the quarters and will get their home game in the semis if they win. It removes the dice roll, which has always been too influential.

The only argument against it would be from people who believe the semi-final venue should also be decided by seeding, but that's been successfully dismissed many times in the past. I can't think of a better system myself, although would be happy to hear a better alternative. Pre-arranged venues doesn't really work.

CatFromHue

It's still imperfect but less imperfect than the last system.

Last season it was
1) Racing
2) Toulon
3) Clermont
4) Leinster
5) Bath
6) Northampton
7) Wasps
8) Saracens

With Toulon (2), Clermont (3), Leinster (4), and Saracens (8) winning

It would have had

SF 1: Saracens v Leinster
SF 2: Toulon v Clermont

Instead of

Semi-final 1: Toulon/Wasps v LEINSTER/Bath

Semi-final 2: Clermont Auvergne/Northampton Saints v Racing Metro 92/Saracens

I think!

vienne86

I must say the randomness of home/away draws for the semis has always annoyed me, and this new system is trying to address that.

Riskymove

vienne86 wrote: »

I must say the randomness of home/away draws for the semis has always annoyed me, and this new system is trying to address that.

why not just have home advantage to the highest placed?

In this system it appears that the teams placed 3rd and 4th cannot get home advantage in the semis? so despite being group winners they are excluded

it is possible for a team to come 3rd or 4th each year and therefore never get a home semi?

I cannot see the reasoning for the system

ArmaniJeanss

Riskymove wrote: »

why not just have home advantage to the highest placed?

Its a valid suggestion (and similar to that used in NFL).

But clearly they want to (as much as possible) limit teams having a H&H or A&A path to the final, and this is the solution.

So your question is effectively saying "why don't they do something which would cause the opposite of what they are trying to achieve?".

errlloyd

So 2nd seed or 5th seed is probably the best position to be in at the end of the quarters? 2nd has two key advantages over first. YAY, GAME THEORY.

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

So 2nd seed or 5th seed is probably the best position to be in at the end of the quarters? 2nd has two key advantages over first. YAY, GAME THEORY.

5th seed would be away from home in the quarter finals. You cant really just remove the quarter-finals from the equation given how rare an away winner is at that stage.

1st and 2nd seed will only get a 2nd home game if they're playing against the 3rd and 4th seeds in the semis.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

5th seed would be away from home in the quarter finals. You cant really just remove the quarter-finals from the equation given how rare an away winner is at that stage.

1st and 2nd seed will only get a 2nd home game if they're playing against the 3rd and 4th seeds in the semis.

Second seed won't meet another group winner (away) until the final which is pretty handy. They're also more likely to have a home semi than first. So we're all gravy on second.

So now it's just 5th v 4th for which is better. I guess, imagine it's week 6, last game and Lesinter are playing. They have 3 tries, it's the 70th minute and they're ahead by 22 points. They have the choice to go for BP or take the penalty. A BP makes them 4th on PD, a normal win they go 5th.

So we here we have a pretty believable scenario where a team could choose between 4th and 5th.

If Leinster are aiming to get to the final (which they always are) they have two games to play. Their first game is against the other team in 4th or 5th (it'll be the same team no matter what, Leinster just choose home or away). The second game is likely to be against the team in 1st. Assuming the rest of the rankings are in some way logical, the team in 1st is better than the team in 4th/5th.

Obviously in this case it makes sense to have the easier game away and the harder game at home. And Leinster very much have the choice. So they would kick for goal and aim to come 5th.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

5th seed would be away from home in the quarter finals. You cant really just remove the quarter-finals from the equation given how rare an away winner is at that stage.

1st and 2nd seed will only get a 2nd home game if they're playing against the 3rd and 4th seeds in the semis.

One of the higher 2 seeds will almost certainly come from a group with the Italian team. So they get that benefit. They then play the lower ranked teams in the QF, who will likely be teams who are poorer than the other QF sides as they didn't top their groups. Another benefit. They then have a good chance of a home SF.

If you're 3rd seed you've probably had a tougher pool. You'll almost certainly have tougher QF opposition and you have absolutely no chance at all of a home SF.

Just like you can't take the QF out of consideration you can't take the pool stages out either. After all they dictate QF seeding. If you do well in a tough pool you get less reward than if you do well in an easy one. If you go on to win your QF you'll probably end up away to the seed 1 or 2 side.

Riskymove

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

But clearly they want to (as much as possible) limit teams having a H&H or A&A path to the final, and this is the solution.

So your question is effectively saying "why don't they do something which would cause the opposite of what they are trying to achieve?".

actually then I'd say my question is why this would be?
"clearly they want to (as much as possible) limit teams having a H&H or A&A path to the final, and this is the solution"

the current system doesn't guarantee home, home QF and SF

it is a draw.

ArmaniJeanss

Riskymove wrote: »

the current system doesn't guarantee home, home QF and SF

it is a draw.

But the current system does actually guarantee (pre quarter final) that two teams in the top 4 seeds have a H&H route to the final. OK it takes the draw to decide which two of the top 4 that it applies to, and they may not win the home quarter final. But still they have a H&H route mapped our for them.

Under this new system no-one is guaranteed a home semi final except Seed5 and Seed6, but they do have an away 1/4final. Everyone else could be either home or away in the semi.
So to answer your 'why' question, its because its marginally fairer in someones opinion.

I'm not necessarily sold on it yet by the way, still musing it.

former total

If nothing else, it will prevent the annual muppetry of people claiming the semi-final draw is fixed in favour of the French teams.

On that basis, I'm all for it.

Riskymove

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

But the current system does actually guarantee (pre quarter final) that two teams in the top 4 seeds have a H&H route to the final.

does it guarantee that?

e.g.

last season

Toulon or Wasps VS Leinster or Bath
Clermont Auvergne/Northampton v Racing Metro/Saracens


If WASPS beat Toulon they would be at home in semi etc

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

One of the higher 2 seeds will almost certainly come from a group with the Italian team. So they get that benefit. They then play the lower ranked teams in the QF, who will likely be teams who are poorer than the other QF sides as they didn't top their groups. Another benefit. They then have a good chance of a home SF.

If you're 3rd seed you've probably had a tougher pool. You'll almost certainly have tougher QF opposition and you have absolutely no chance at all of a home SF.

Just like you can't take the QF out of consideration you can't take the pool stages out either. After all they dictate QF seeding. If you do well in a tough pool you get less reward than if you do well in an easy one. If you go on to win your QF you'll probably end up away to the seed 1 or 2 side.

So a better system would be...?

former total

molloyjh wrote: »

One of the higher 2 seeds will almost certainly come from a group with the Italian team. So they get that benefit.

This year, Munster, Stade and Leicester were drawn with Treviso. I think those 3 are going to take points off each other so it may not pan out that way this year.

I think Clermont have one of the top two spots sewn up (Exeter, Scarlets, Bordeaux) but the other could go anywhere.

ArmaniJeanss

Riskymove wrote: »

does it guarantee that?

e.g.

last season

Toulon or Wasps VS Leinster or Bath
Clermont Auvergne/Northampton v Racing Metro/Saracens


If WASPS beat Toulon they would be at home in semi etc

Yes, it guaranteed Toulon and Clermont H&H routes. I did say that obviously they would have to win the 1/4 finals.
Now no-one will be able to look at the quarter final pairings and be guaranteed such a path.

Riskymove

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Yes, it guaranteed Toulon and Clermont H&H routes. I did say that obviously they would have to win the 1/4 finals.
Now no-one will be able to look at the quarter final pairings and be guaranteed such a path.

I really don't get the point here sorry

Is your point simply that a team won't know if they are at home until they know who wins the other QF?

irishbucsfan

Riskymove wrote: »

I really don't get the point here sorry

Is your point simply that a team won't know if they are at home until they know who wins the other QF?

Do you see that the point of the system is to limit as much as possible the scenario where a team gets two home fixtures in the knockout stages, and where that is unavoidable only allow it for the very top seeds?

I don't really understand the problem with that approach and still see noone attempting to offer a superior alternative.

Riskymove

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Do you see that the point of the system is to limit as much as possible the scenario where a team gets two home fixtures in the knockout stages, and where that is unavoidable only allow it for the very top seeds?

I don't really understand the problem with that approach and still see noone attempting to offer a superior alternative.

I do understand what the system is setting out to do

my question is why and the relative fairness of it compared to the old system

why shouldn't teams have the opportunity to get a home QF and SF? What is the issue?

The resultant change means two teams are automatically excluded from a home semi while previously they had a chance in an open draw

irishbucsfan

Riskymove wrote: »

I do understand what the system is setting out to do

my question is why and the relative fairness of it compared to the old system

why shouldn't teams have the opportunity to get a home QF and SF? What is the issue?

The resultant change means two teams are automatically excluded from a home semi while previously they had a chance in an open draw

Home advantage is huge in these knockout competitions. Historically the draw has had too much influence and it's based on nothing but a coin flip.

This change means that where possible noone will have both games at home. And where unavoidable it becomes at leat meritocratic rather than based on the luck of a draw.

Riskymove

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't really understand the problem with that approach and still see noone attempting to offer a superior alternative.

I am not aware of any other sport or competition which sets out to limit home advantage in knock out stages. It seems to be a particular issue with this competition.


Until recently the pro12 gave home advantage to top seeds right to the final and both Munster and Leinster have benefitted

Irish teams have also benefitted from home QF/SF routes to success in the European Cup.....I remember little criticism of that

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Home advantage is huge in these knockout competitions. Historically the draw has had too much influence and it's based on nothing but a coin flip.

This change means that where possible noone will have both games at home. And where unavoidable it becomes at leat meritocratic rather than based on the luck of a draw.

What exactly is wrong with that?

Surely the most unbiased and fairest way to allocate a fixture venue is random?