The English are at it again.....

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

I'm in two minds on this btw. I completely agree that there are a higher percentage of good fixtures. And that the system is possibly more meritocratic at the top (but still far from perfect).

On the flip side, I don't like that 20 teams has allowed teams to get out of their group on three wins. I think it devalues the competition if a team can get out of their group without having to win away in the pool stage.

It has always been possible to get out of your group with 3 wins.

But it’s still extremely difficult and you need at least 4 to guarantee it and even then you’re not sure of it if you aren’t getting bonus points.

However given the objective was to make the groups more even it’s been a success. 4 groups of 4 would probably be far more boring, albeit easier on the maths!

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It has always been possible to get out of your group with 3 wins.

But it’s still extremely difficult and you need at least 4 to guarantee it and even then you’re not sure of it if you aren’t getting bonus points.

However given the objective was to make the groups more even it’s been a success. 4 groups of 4 would probably be far more boring, albeit easier on the maths!

I mean, Saracens, Toulon and Toulose have all done it. Albeit, two of those with the benefit of a draw. So we've average 1 per year since the new system when it didn't happen once in 18 years of the old system.

The old system really didn't allow you to slip up at all in the pool stage, every game had way more riding on it. I was sort of sickened when Toulon escaped their pool in 2016-2017. They lost at home and away to Saracens, lost away to Scarlets. Scraped a win against Sale away. Scraped a 79th minute BP against Sale at home. And finished their game with Saracens on a bit of a weird 10-3 when that result suited both of them.

Basically all I am saying is if we had enough quality to return to 24 teams without having to compromise too much on quality I'd do it in a heartbeat. I preferred 6 groups. Arguably meritocratic qualification we have now would already fix that.

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

I mean, Saracens, Toulon and Toulose have all done it. Albeit, two of those with the benefit of a draw. So we've average 1 per year since the new system when it didn't happen once in 18 years of the old system.

The old system really didn't allow you to slip up at all in the pool stage, every game had way more riding on it. I was sort of sickened when Toulon escaped their pool in 2016-2017. They lost at home and away to Saracens, lost away to Scarlets. Scraped a win against Sale away. Scraped a 79th minute BP against Sale at home. And finished their game with Saracens on a bit of a weird 10-3 when that result suited both of them.

Basically all I am saying is if we had enough quality to return to 24 teams without having to compromise too much on quality I'd do it in a heartbeat. I preferred 6 groups. Arguably meritocratic qualification we have now would already fix that.

Ah I mean Exeter did it in the new system in a group where every single team won and lost 3 games. That is totally unavoidable and would have happened under any system! Impossible to design a system where it’s not possible if the group winner has to qualify.

There aren’t 24 quality teams. There’s barely 20. Hence the reduction. There’s too much of a drop off in quality there in all the leagues. It’s also increased quality of teams in the Challenge Cup even if that’s still not been as good as people would surely hope (mostly due to shoddy marketing imo).

Former Former

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/45490184

The clubs have rejected the offer. They're open to outside investment but want to maintain majority control. Sounds reasonable.

TBH, I think the OP owes them and English people in general an apology.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ah I mean Exeter did it in the new system in a group where every single team won and lost 3 games. That is totally unavoidable and would have happened under any system! Impossible to design a system where it’s not possible if the group winner has to qualify..

I hadn't even included Exeter! Only included best runners up. Forgot about Morgan Parra having the biggest melt moment in rugby history.

I think you get my point though. For me 24 is closer to ideal than 20, but I generally agree 20 is better in the short term

Dave_The_Sheep

So they've rejected it ... for now. Let's see if another higher offer comes in.

Larbre34

Former Former wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/45490184

The clubs have rejected the offer. They're open to outside investment but want to maintain majority control. Sounds reasonable.

TBH, I think the OP owes them and English people in general an apology.

From his cold, dead hand....may I suggest

thebaz

all a bit sad and greed driven -

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/i-do-not-want-to-be-an-accomplice-to-rugbys-ruin-world-rugby-chief-warns-that-they-have-12-months-to-save-the-sport-37311887.html

Profesionalism really doent seam to care for players welfare , with the never-ending schedule and constant stream of early retirements.

twinytwo

thebaz wrote: »

all a bit sad and greed driven -

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/i-do-not-want-to-be-an-accomplice-to-rugbys-ruin-world-rugby-chief-warns-that-they-have-12-months-to-save-the-sport-37311887.html

Profesionalism really doent seam to care for players welfare , with the never-ending schedule and constant stream of early retirements.

Unfortunately this is what happens with private investment. We are very lucky in Ireland that the IRFU can manage the game time of our internationals.

In France and England the players get flogged to death. This badly cost saracens last season. International level players are being expected to 30 games a year... something has to give at some point

Former Former

In fairness, the IRFU are sending the internationals to the USA to play an utterly meaningless game against Italy, purely for the cash. Did we NEED to play three tests in Australia at the end of a long season?

If we're serious about cutting back on games and the burden on players, then the unions need to get on board too.

Elvisjuice

Hardly a meaningless game the irfu are trying to expand the game to USA and elsewhere which is working very well , the line up of rugby that day is great . Didn't hear anyone complain when we played NZ over there , rugby snobbery needs to move on.

Neil3030

Former Former wrote: »

In fairness, the IRFU are sending the internationals to the USA to play an utterly meaningless game against Italy, purely for the cash. Did we NEED to play three tests in Australia at the end of a long season?

If we're serious about cutting back on games and the burden on players, then the unions need to get on board too.

The risk/reward on these "utterly meaningless friendlies" is very much in our favour though. It's a single game, which will largely feature the second string, and put involved parties off their schedule for a week, maybe two max?

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

In fairness, the IRFU are sending the internationals to the USA to play an utterly meaningless game against Italy, purely for the cash. Did we NEED to play three tests in Australia at the end of a long season?

If we're serious about cutting back on games and the burden on players, then the unions need to get on board too.

They want 12 international weeks per season.

That’s a reduction on what they currently do.

I’d be fine with that, I assume the reduction comes from losing a 6 Nations rest week rather than a summer/autumn test. I’d probably prefer one less summer/autumn test to bring it down to 10/11 weeks but no major concern. Ideally I’d like to see the 6 Nations moved entirely to May for multiple reasons but it’ll never happen.

How that then fits into the club season is a big discussion. Obviously the clubs don’t want to lose a big chunk of their season for nothing and theyre going to push their own interests. If only the Unions could get the clubs back on side... If only there was a stake in the Top 14 and Premiership up for sale...

irishbucsfan

Neil3030 wrote: »

The risk/reward on these "utterly meaningless friendlies" is very much in our favour though. It's a single game, which will largely feature the second string, and put involved parties off their schedule for a week, maybe two max?

Will there not be a commitment to play first team players as we’ve seen in previous games there? Is this not being run by a similar 3rd party crowd?

Former Former

Neil3030 wrote: »

The risk/reward on these "utterly meaningless friendlies" is very much in our favour though. It's a single game, which will largely feature the second string, and put involved parties off their schedule for a week, maybe two max?

Yeah as noted by IBF I'd be surprised if we're not contracted to go full strength. The guys running this can't sell tickets on the basis of Ireland and end up with glorified Wolfhounds.

The other side of it is that previously, we would rest the internationals the week before the first November test. Except now the internationals have to miss an extra round of Pro14 and that devalues it further.

Finally, this will be the first of three games against Italy in the next 12 months. Are the fans crying out for so much rugby against a team we should beat by 30 points every time?

It's a cash-in by IRFU, let's not pretend otherwise.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Will there not be a commitment to play first team players as we’ve seen in previous games there? Is this not being run by a similar 3rd party crowd?

Wales played a pretty ****ty team in the game against South Africa IIRC

Wales: Hallam Amos; Tom Prydie, George North, Owen Watkin, Steff Evans; Gareth Anscombe, Tomos Williams; Nicky Smith, Elliot Dee, Dillon Lewis; Cory Hill, Bradley Davies; Seb Davies, Ellis Jenkins (capt), Ross Moriarty.

Replacements: Ryan Elias, Wyn Jones, Rhodri Jones, Adam Beard, Aaron Wainwright, Aled Davies, Rhys Patchell, Hadleigh Parkes.

South Africa: Curwin Bosch; Travis Ismaiel, Jesse Kriel, Andre Esterhuizen, Makazole Mapimpi; Elton Jantjies, Ivan van Zyl; Ox Nche, Chiliboy Ralepelle, Wilco Louw, Jason Jenkins, Pieter-Steph du Toit (capt), Kwagga Smith, Oupa Mohoje, Dan du Preez

Replacements: Akker van der Merwe, Steven Kitshoff, Thomas du Toit, Marvin Orie, Sikhumbuzo Notshe, Embrose Papier, Robert du Preez, Warrick Gelant