Champions Cup 2019/20

sydthebeat · 15-12-2019 11:10pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

maybe but it completely disadvantages one side in every game. It doesnt allow for real meritocracy in that way.
It completely ignores the role one side can play in a game. A side who loses can never get 2 match points. I dont see why that is better either

Yeah you need to watch it in action over a whole league season, because its pretty much the opposite of what you've posted above.

molloyjh · 15-12-2019 11:19pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

Yeah you need to watch it in action over a whole league season, because its pretty much the opposite of what you've posted above.

Even in a league scenario, if you're Cheetahs playing Leinster tomorrow then you're not playing them to top the conference, you're playing them to get into the playoffs and Europe. You want points, you dont care if you deny Leinster points or not.

If you're playing Glasgow then what's the difference in Glasgow winning the game 4-0 or 5-1? Glasgow still get 4 points more, but Cheetahs would be a point closer to Ulster. Surely that would be preferable? Denying a point only affects your position vs that single opponent. Gaining a point affects your position vs everyone.

sydthebeat · 16-12-2019 12:00am

molloyjh wrote: »

Even in a league scenario, if you're Cheetahs playing Leinster tomorrow then you're not playing them to top the conference, you're playing them to get into the playoffs and Europe. You want points, you dont care if you deny Leinster points or not.

If you're playing Glasgow then what's the difference in Glasgow winning the game 4-0 or 5-1? Glasgow still get 4 points more, but Cheetahs would be a point closer to Ulster. Surely that would be preferable? Denying a point only affects your position vs that single opponent. Gaining a point affects your position vs everyone.

we complain every year about the disparity between teams... knowing the pro14 is just a procession for leinster. Last year leinster were qualified for a home semi with what, 5? games to go?? thats down to the fact that they get so far ahead in the other part of the season through amassing TBPs
they lost 2 and drew one in their last 3 games..... results that arguably affected the league situation. This affects the integrity of the competition.. leinster can rest players for their closing games and pull back the rested big guns for the semi and final.

in the last super rugby season with the standard bonus system, there were 64 TBPs awarded (16 rounds).

in the 4 super rugby seasons since, in which the french system has been in place... the highest number of TBPs has been 54, with 40 and 44 over the last 2 seasons (16 rounds) so thats on average 2.625 TBPs per round over the last 2 seasons.

the pro 14 had on average 4.9 TBPs per round last year....... so almost double.

you would be foolish to think that, over the course of a season, this degree of amassing of TBPs doesnt distort the league ... and only serves to widen the gap between the good and not so good teams.

and as a follower of SRXV i can certainly attest that the standard of games improved immensely from the previous system. You still get hammerings as you would, but you also get games where a last minute try for the opposition can serious affect your play off chances.

Ardillaun · 16-12-2019 1:31am

Zebo was less than ideally positioned for two of Ospreys’ tries.

molloyjh · 16-12-2019 9:57am

sydthebeat wrote: »

we complain every year about the disparity between teams... knowing the pro14 is just a procession for leinster. Last year leinster were qualified for a home semi with what, 5? games to go?? thats down to the fact that they get so far ahead in the other part of the season through amassing TBPs
they lost 2 and drew one in their last 3 games..... results that arguably affected the league situation. This affects the integrity of the competition.. leinster can rest players for their closing games and pull back the rested big guns for the semi and final.

in the last super rugby season with the standard bonus system, there were 64 TBPs awarded (16 rounds).

in the 4 super rugby seasons since, in which the french system has been in place... the highest number of TBPs has been 54, with 40 and 44 over the last 2 seasons (16 rounds) so thats on average 2.625 TBPs per round over the last 2 seasons.

the pro 14 had on average 4.9 TBPs per round last year....... so almost double.

you would be foolish to think that, over the course of a season, this degree of amassing of TBPs doesnt distort the league ... and only serves to widen the gap between the good and not so good teams.

and as a follower of SRXV i can certainly attest that the standard of games improved immensely from the previous system. You still get hammerings as you would, but you also get games where a last minute try for the opposition can serious affect your play off chances.

How many of the TBPs that you are counting there went to the winning team, and how many to the losing team? Is the analysis comparing like with like?

Last season Leinster won 17 games. Even without any BPs at all that's 68 points. Ulster with all of their BPs got 67. So Leinster had top spot secured regardless of BPs.

When you're competing in any league I would assume earning points for yourselves that benefit you vs all other opponents is far more preferable to denying another team a point that may have little or no impact on your overall league position. That works doubly so for leagues set up as conferences. In the event of Leinster having 4 tries and a healthy lead, why would Munster care about denying Leinster a TBP? Surely they would look to play for the full 80 to get an extra point for themselves under the current rules, but be far less likely to play for the 80 if there was nothing in it for them to do so under the French rules?

The more I think about it the less convinced I am by the French rules. As I said before, what's the difference between 5-1 and 4-0 other than the fact that both teams end up on less points in the latter scenario? They still end up on the same relative to each other, but less relative to everyone else. Neither team actually benefit from that, in fact both lose out. So how does that encourage teams?

Maybe a better solution is to have a tiered BP system. Lose by 7 or less and get a LBP. Lose by, let's say, 10 or less and get 4 tries and get a TBP. That way the TBP isnt available to teams who get thumped, but you're still offering rewards for sides to remain competitive????

sydthebeat · 16-12-2019 10:32am

Less points being available throughout the season equals a more competitive league.

Is that not what we want?

Its just a shift in mind set.
If all team can see the value in denying their opposition a TBP then everyone puts equal weight to it.... You get better games, the competition lasting for longer into the game.

You don't get teams taking the foot off the pedal after 40 mins and the opposition running in late tries after being hammered.

Those losing TBPs distort the meritocracy of the games, and therefore the league.

Is the goal not to make the Pro14 a better spectacle and a more competitive league?

Dubinusa · 16-12-2019 2:01pm

Rewatched the Leinster match and heard the commentator suggest the English sides are at a disadvantage? This has been a story that's been going around for a while! He was commenting on the IRFU and the international players. I assume. His grievance was about the pro 14, no relegation and the welfare program for the international lads!
So, what can the English sides do? Obviously, raise the salary cap! Why wouldn't they? If they wish to be competitive, they should raise it!
Almost every side in the premiership is loaded with international mercenaries. Sale is becoming Shangri la for Boks, like Munster. Lol. Every team has an all black or Aussie or P.I representation. More so than pro 14 sides.
They talk about a B and I league. But what's the cost? Will the provinces go for a league with relegation? Could we instil a salary cap? Would that constrain the provinces. It's ridiculous imo, that the English union with vastly more resources are whinging about unfairness?

awec · 16-12-2019 2:05pm

Dubinusa wrote: »

Rewatched the Leinster match and heard the commentator suggest the English sides are at a disadvantage? This has been a story that's been going around for a while! He was commenting on the IRFU and the international players. I assume. His grievance was about the pro 14, no relegation and the welfare program for the international lads!
So, what can the English sides do? Obviously, raise the salary cap! Why wouldn't they? If they wish to be competitive, they should raise it!
Almost every side in the premiership is loaded with international mercenaries. Sale is becoming Shangri la for Boks, like Munster. Lol. Every team has an all black or Aussie or P.I representation. More so than pro 14 sides.
They talk about a B and I league. But what's the cost? Will the provinces go for a league with relegation? Could we instil a salary cap? Would that constrain the provinces. It's ridiculous imo, that the English union with vastly more resources are whinging about unfairness?

Some of the complaints are entirely valid. We just don’t like to hear it.

prawnsambo · 16-12-2019 2:05pm

Dubinusa wrote: »

Rewatched the Leinster match and heard the commentator suggest the English sides are at a disadvantage? This has been a story that's been going around for a while! He was commenting on the IRFU and the international players. I assume. His grievance was about the pro 14, no relegation and the welfare program for the international lads!
So, what can the English sides do? Obviously, raise the salary cap! Why wouldn't they? If they wish to be competitive, they should raise it!
Almost every side in the premiership is loaded with international mercenaries. Sale is becoming Shangri la for Boks, like Munster. Lol. Every team has an all black or Aussie or P.I representation. More so than pro 14 sides.
They talk about a B and I league. But what's the cost? Will the provinces go for a league with relegation? Could we instil a salary cap? Would that constrain the provinces. It's ridiculous imo, that the English union with vastly more resources are whinging about unfairness?

The reason for the salary cap and the problem with raising it is that clubs will go bust. Afaik, only one club in the Premiership made money last year (or perhaps it was the year before). In any case, it was Exeter with Leicester making a small loss. The rest made losses, some of them eye-watering and it's only the existence of the Nigel Wrays of this world that are keeping them going.

awec · 16-12-2019 2:32pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

The reason for the salary cap and the problem with raising it is that clubs will go bust. Afaik, only one club in the Premiership made money last year (or perhaps it was the year before). In any case, it was Exeter with Leicester making a small loss. The rest made losses, some of them eye-watering and it's only the existence of the Nigel Wrays of this world that are keeping them going.

The provinces would all be loss making too if money wasn't pumped in by the IRFU.

I do not know much about the story in France, do their clubs stay in the black?

MarinersBlues · 16-12-2019 2:34pm

Dubinusa wrote: »

Rewatched the Leinster match and heard the commentator suggest the English sides are at a disadvantage? This has been a story that's been going around for a while! He was commenting on the IRFU and the international players. I assume. His grievance was about the pro 14, no relegation and the welfare program for the international lads!
So, what can the English sides do? Obviously, raise the salary cap! Why wouldn't they? If they wish to be competitive, they should raise it!
Almost every side in the premiership is loaded with international mercenaries. Sale is becoming Shangri la for Boks, like Munster. Lol. Every team has an all black or Aussie or P.I representation. More so than pro 14 sides.
They talk about a B and I league. But what's the cost? Will the provinces go for a league with relegation? Could we instil a salary cap? Would that constrain the provinces. It's ridiculous imo, that the English union with vastly more resources are whinging about unfairness?

They had the same spiel before Gloucester v Connacht on BT.
Warburton was the one pushing it - focusing on the lack of relegation as the main advantage. The only Pro14 team in the Champions Cup who currently benefit from a lack of relegation are Ospreys and they aren't exactly making hay in Europe!
Pat Lam was getting in on the act as well, which was a bit disappointing.

awec · 16-12-2019 2:37pm

MarinersBlues wrote: »

They had the same spiel before Gloucester v Connacht on BT.
Warburton was the one pushing it - focusing on the lack of relegation as the main advantage. The only Pro14 team in the Champions Cup who currently benefit from a lack of relegation are Ospreys and they aren't exactly making hay in Europe!
Pat Lam was getting in on the act as well, which was a bit disappointing.

Or maybe indicative that there is actually real merit in what is being said, when a guy who has coached in both setups is saying the same thing?

We like to dismiss this stuff out of hand as whinging etc because it doesn't suit our narrative that the Pro14 system is great and fair and the privately-owned system is bad and unfair.

Interested Observer · 16-12-2019 2:37pm

awec wrote: »

The provinces would all be loss making too if money wasn't pumped in by the IRFU.

I do not know much about the story in France, do their clubs stay in the black?

This is not a good comparison for all sorts of reasons. The IRFU, which the provinces are part of, lives within its means.

awec · 16-12-2019 2:40pm

Interested Observer wrote: »

This is not a good comparison for all sorts of reasons. The IRFU, which the provinces are part of, lives within its means.

IMO it's a fair comparison.

What is the difference between money being pumped in from Nigel Wray, and money being pumped in from the IRFU? In both cases, it is money being put in to keep the lights on. For some reason, we've decided one scenario is good and the other bad.

sydthebeat · 16-12-2019 2:45pm

awec wrote: »

IMO it's a fair comparison.

What is the difference between money being pumped in from Nigel Wray, and money being pumped in from the IRFU? In both cases, it is money being put in to keep the lights on. For some reason, we've decided one scenario is good and the other bad.

because the IRFU still has to be profit making from the business of rugby.

Nigel Wray is funnelling funds from his activities outside of rugby to artificially inflate the value of the english premiership.

Interested Observer · 16-12-2019 2:47pm

awec wrote: »

IMO it's a fair comparison.

What is the difference between money being pumped in from Nigel Wray, and money being pumped in from the IRFU? In both cases, it is money being put in to keep the lights on. For some reason, we've decided one scenario is good and the other bad.

You're talking about the provinces as if they aren't part of the IRFU. It's all one organisation and again, it is set up to live within its means. Every player at every province is ultimately an IRFU employee. The national team generates the majority of money in the pro game here with players that develop at the provinces. If Caelin Doris or Ronan Kelleher get capped this year it's because the Leinster academy have done their job. One of the main reasosns the IRFU exists is to promote the professional game in Ireland and it allocates its resources accordingly.

MarinersBlues · 16-12-2019 2:48pm

awec wrote: »

IMO it's a fair comparison.

What is the difference between money being pumped in from Nigel Wray, and money being pumped in from the IRFU? In both cases, it is money being put in to keep the lights on. For some reason, we've decided one scenario is good and the other bad.

The sole focus of the Irish system is to promote the sport in Ireland. The focus of the Aviva seems to be to facilitate TV companies making money for tv companies.

The Irish system prolongs careers and invests in the community. The English/French system imports people from poor parts if the world and runs them into the ground

The Irish system is proven to be sustainable the French/ English system is proven to not be sustainable.

awec · 16-12-2019 2:54pm

MarinersBlues wrote: »

The sole focus of the Irish system is to promote the sport in Ireland. The focus of the Aviva seems to be to facilitate TV companies making money for tv companies.

The Irish system prolongs careers and invests in the community. The English/French system imports people from poor parts if the world and runs them into the ground

The Irish system is proven to be sustainable the French/ English system is proven to not be sustainable.

Does it? Do you have data to back this up?

Again, this is something we like to say, but as far as I am aware there is no evidence whatsoever that Irish players have longer careers than their English or French counterparts. There is not a shred of evidence that the system does anything at all.

I am not so sure our system has proven to be sustainable, nor has theirs proven to be unsustainable. Again, this is something we've just decided.

Our league is a joke, and this is a product of the system.

Podge_irl · 16-12-2019 2:57pm

awec wrote: »

Or maybe indicative that there is actually real merit in what is being said, when a guy who has coached in both setups is saying the same thing?

We like to dismiss this stuff out of hand as whinging etc because it doesn't suit our narrative that the Pro14 system is great and fair and the privately-owned system is bad and unfair.

I think the funding argument is valid, but they could relegate half the Pro14 every year and Leinster still wouldn't care.

awec · 16-12-2019 2:59pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

I think the funding argument is valid, but they could relegate half the Pro14 every year and Leinster still wouldn't care.

Agreed, I think the relegation thing specifically is a bit of a red herring, it's not as if there are any other teams worth promoting to replace them.

The fact that you have a league where 14 teams are owned by just 5 owners is the underlying problem. There is a reason that this sort of setup is generally not permitted by most, if not all serious sporting leagues.

Not that I expect anything to change, but some of their complaints are definitely entirely valid. I don't think the current rugby setups are going to last long term to be honest.

molloyjh · 16-12-2019 3:07pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

Less points being available throughout the season equals a more competitive league.

Is that not what we want?

Its just a shift in mind set.
If all team can see the value in denying their opposition a TBP then everyone puts equal weight to it.... You get better games, the competition lasting for longer into the game.

You don't get teams taking the foot off the pedal after 40 mins and the opposition running in late tries after being hammered.

Those losing TBPs distort the meritocracy of the games, and therefore the league.

Is the goal not to make the Pro14 a better spectacle and a more competitive league?

Was the original point not just about what goes on in games, i.e. that teams on the end of a hockeying should never get anything from the game?

Less points may mean a more competitive league, but less points on offer in games would make less competitive matches. As I said, why would a team from conference A care a jot about denying a BP to a team from conference A? Why would 5th place care about denying 1st place a TBP? In those scenarios surely the losing team would be inclined to hang on in games more when there is something on offer for them?

And why exactly does less points mean more competition? I'm sure at times it does and at other times it doesnt. Points are at more of a premium, sure, but the more teams can get from games the more they have to fight for each week and the more they could catch up with others in the league. Meaning those teams they are in direct competition with need to consider that and look to maximise their points as a result. This reduces the margin for error in tight battles in the tables.

prawnsambo · 16-12-2019 3:14pm

awec wrote: »

The provinces would all be loss making too if money wasn't pumped in by the IRFU.

I do not know much about the story in France, do their clubs stay in the black?

I'm not sure all the provinces would be loss making. Leinster for example, would be close enough with the payouts from the EPCR and getting paydays from matches in Lansdowne. Presumably sponsorship would be significant as well. But it's apples and oranges comparing the IRFU's support of the provinces with the 'sugar daddies' supporting Premiership clubs. The IRFU can't walk away, rugby is its business and the provinces are a vital part of its player development programme.

There's never much (if any) talk of French clubs under pressure financially. Gate receipts would form a big part of their income and then there's also the 'sugar daddy' factor. They've always had massive budgets, so something has to be keeping that money flowing in.

molloyjh · 16-12-2019 3:18pm

awec wrote: »

IMO it's a fair comparison.

What is the difference between money being pumped in from Nigel Wray, and money being pumped in from the IRFU? In both cases, it is money being put in to keep the lights on. For some reason, we've decided one scenario is good and the other bad.

I wouldnt call one good and the other bad. I would call one clearly more sustainable and therefore more stable. But the fundamental difference in the 2 countries means what works for one may not work for the other. Could the RFU manage a dozen clubs the way the IRFU manages 4? Probably not. Do they need the same level of control? Probably not.

Ultimately it's the individual clubs where we will see the differences. In England their fortunes may vary as private backers come and go over time where as in Ireland we should be able to be more consistent. Again, this has pros and cons. The chances of Connacht winning the HEC are pretty slim. They'll never get a sugar daddy to invest to the point that they'll see a huge improvement in a short time. But similarly they'll never have to face closure or move 100 miles because that's where the money is bringing them.

Trying to equate 2 completely different set ups like this is a fools errand tbh.

awec · 16-12-2019 3:18pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not sure all the provinces would be loss making. Leinster for example, would be close enough with the payouts from the EPCR and getting paydays from matches in Lansdowne. Presumably sponsorship would be significant as well. But it's apples and oranges comparing the IRFU's support of the provinces with the 'sugar daddies' supporting Premiership clubs. The IRFU can't walk away, rugby is its business and the provinces are a vital part of its player development programme.

There's never much (if any) talk of French clubs under pressure financially. Gate receipts would form a big part of their income and then there's also the 'sugar daddy' factor. They've always had massive budgets, so something has to be keeping that money flowing in.

They can't?

Ask Connacht fans.

Interested Observer · 16-12-2019 3:22pm

awec wrote: »

Agreed, I think the relegation thing specifically is a bit of a red herring, it's not as if there are any other teams worth promoting to replace them.

The fact that you have a league where 14 teams are owned by just 5 owners is the underlying problem. There is a reason that this sort of setup is generally not permitted by most, if not all serious sporting leagues.

Not that I expect anything to change, but some of their complaints are definitely entirely valid. I don't think the current rugby setups are going to last long term to be honest.

Why is this a problem? Because the English like to whinge about it?

sydthebeat · 16-12-2019 3:30pm

molloyjh wrote: »

Less points may mean a more competitive league, but less points on offer in games would make less competitive matches. As I said, why would a team from conference A care a jot about denying a BP to a team from conference A? Why would 5th place care about denying 1st place a TBP? In those scenarios surely the losing team would be inclined to hang on in games more when there is something on offer for them?.

and like ive said already.... over the course of a whole season its generally levels out. youre saying "why would.....?" and im saying that it already happens... theres no hypothetical here.

watch super rugby next year, and watch teams that are ahead continue to push on, for fear of the opposition getting within 3 tries.

the losing team will still continue to push on with a LBP the goal.
the leading team continue to push on to stay at least 3 tries ahead.

i suppose in super rugby there is the advantage of only 3 teams being seeded for the play off, with 5 places left for the wild cards... after all the conferences joining up in an overall league.

pro 14 only has 6 teams involved in the end of season, with 2 already through to the semis. i think this is a mistake and a poor ending to a league.

if pro 14 had the same system last year (and assuming the same 1st v 8th etc desceding system) we would have seen the same 3 weeks of games.. .but with 2 extra games.

QFs
glasgow v blues
munster v benneton
leinster v ospreys
Ulster v connach

SFs
Glasgow v Ulster
Munster v Leinster

Final
Glasgow v Munster?

this would have meant that (a) had results went the same way, leinster would have travelled away for their semi or (b) would have ensured results in the last
few rounds to ensure a home semi.

would blues / edinburg / cheetahs / scarlets etc try harder in games to ensure their play off rivals dont get easy TBPs?? of course they would.

anyway, the point being that less TBPs equals a more competitive league, and less chance of the league being artificially effected by early qualifications and / or teams out of the running for those valuable 6 playoff places

awec · 16-12-2019 3:30pm

Interested Observer wrote: »

Why is this a problem? Because the English like to whinge about it?

Why is it a problem to have multiple clubs owned by a single owner?

Because sporting integrity is tarnished. This is why it is not allowed in pretty much every other sport. How can you have a serious league if the clubs are not independent entities?

It is incredibly convenient for the IRFU, for example, that their 4 teams happen to be playing each other for the next three weeks, which conveniently happens to be right before another pair of euro fixtures. So, very conveniently, the IRFU will be able to instruct all their teams to take it handy for the next few weeks and will go into these euro games nice and fresh, but not having cost them anything in the league since they all got to trade a few points among each other.

If the pro14 weren't so weird, and the IRFU only owned 1 team, then they could of course tell that team to rest their players, but there would be absolutely nothing to prevent the opposition going full strength and putting 50+ points on them. There wouldn't be these convenient runs of fixtures, placed at nice little times during the season.

This is one of the English (and French) issues. They don't have periods in their season where they are guaranteed to play soft fixtures, because the guy who owns Leicester has absolutely no influence over the guy who owns Saracens. This is how it's supposed to be.

The setup of the Pro14 is nonsense, which is absolutely one of the reasons why interest in it lags behind England and France, and why it struggles to attract any serious media interest. The only time you see teams go at each other full tilt is during the playoffs at the end of the year.

prawnsambo · 16-12-2019 3:32pm

awec wrote: »

They can't?

Ask Connacht fans.

The threat there was ending professionalism in Connacht. Not closing it down. But you clearly knew that.

But to be fair, there's always the danger of that happening if things go pear shaped. However it's the IRFU we're talking about, not the FAI.

molloyjh · 16-12-2019 3:34pm

awec wrote: »

Why is it a problem to have multiple clubs owned by a single owner?

Because sporting integrity is tarnished. This is why it is not allowed in pretty much every other sport. How can you have a serious league if the clubs are not independent entities?

It is incredibly convenient for the IRFU, for example, that their 4 teams happen to be playing each other for the next three weeks, which conveniently happens to be right before another pair of euro fixtures. So, very conveniently, the IRFU will be able to instruct all their teams to take it handy for the next few weeks and will go into these euro games nice and fresh, but not having cost them anything in the league since they all got to trade a few points among each other.

If the pro14 weren't so weird, and the IRFU only owned 1 team, then they could of course tell that team to rest their players, but there would be absolutely nothing to prevent the opposition going full strength and putting 50+ points on them. There wouldn't be these convenient runs of fixtures, placed at nice little times during the season.

This is one of the English (and French) issues. They don't have periods in their season where they are guaranteed to play soft fixtures, because the guy who owns Leicester has absolutely no influence over the guy who owns Saracens. This is how it's supposed to be.

The setup of the Pro14 is nonsense, which is absolutely one of the reasons why interest in it lags behind England and France, and why it struggles to attract any serious media interest. The only time you see teams go at each other full tilt is during the playoffs at the end of the year.

For as long as I remember French sides have been sending weakened teams on the road more than not. It's odd how that is conveniently forgotten when this argument comes up all the time.

awec · 16-12-2019 3:36pm

molloyjh wrote: »

For as long as I remember French sides have been sending weakened teams on the road more than not. It's odd how that is conveniently forgotten when this argument comes up all the time.

But that's not the same thing at all, that's why it never comes up.

A French team could send a full team away any time they wanted. Every French side can prioritise whatever fixture it wants, to suit itself, because they are all independent.

Champions Cup 2019/20

Comments