European rankings and points to defend.

First topic message reminder :

I thought I would mention European rankings and the points to defend as it hasn't been mentioned elsewhere.

As you all probably know there is the bizarre European ranking system. It calculates how far teams get in European competitions in the last 4 seasons. It does not take into account amount of wins or opposition.

This is very important because it affects the seeding.



http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/ranking.php


These were this season's HC cup rankings

Tier 1

Leinster
Toulouse
Munster
Cardiff
Biarritz
Leicester

Tier 2

Saints
Clermont
Ospreys
Bath
Quins
London Irish

Tier 3
Ulster
Saracens
Gloucester
Glasgow
Scarlets
Edinburgh

Tier 4

Connacht
Treviso
Castres
Montpellier
Racing Metro
Aironi


Next season the 2007-8 efforts get chalked off. The biggest losers of points will be Munster (11), Toulouse (9),Saracens and London Irish (7), Bath,Gloucester and Cardiff with 5. Ospreys and Perpignan with 4.


This shouldn't be a problem for Munster and Toulouse who will still keep their tier 1 ranking and look well set to at least notch up some points.

Saracens will need a least a semi final to keep their 3rd tier ranking. Though they look well placed to get a home quarter which would make things much easier. Danger of falling into tier 4 territory.

London Irish are in deep deep trouble. Having lost 3 games already look basically down and out. It could potentially see them moving to Tier 4 territory with the likes of Aironi and Connacht.

Bath's failure in the HC will likely seem at least lose their tier 2 ranking.

Cardiff are well placed to defend their 5 points but any failure could see them losing their tier 1 status.

Gloucester could well drop to 4th tier if they are not careful either.

Ospreys could drop to tier 3.

Perpignan are likely to hold onto tier 2 by the skin of their teeth.



The biggest potential winners are Quins,Ulster and Edinburgh. Even Leinster!

Feckless Rogue wrote:

Poorfour wrote:There's nothing bizarre about the ranking system.

Leinster and Toulouse have an equal number of ranking points. 31 each. If they met in this years final and Toulouse won to become champions, the result would be Leinster moving further ahead of Toulouse in the rankings, because Toulouse did much better than Leinster in 2008!

So you think that one off game should be more important than the massive improvement Leinster have made in the last 4 years? An important part of most decent ranking systems is to remove the importance of one off games.

In the above scenario we have

Leinster: Winner, Semi-final, Winner, Final
Toulouse: Quarter Final, Winner, Semi-Final, Winner

So Leinster would be better. In the year after Toulouse do better then they go top because Leinster's win in 2008 because unimportant. Seems a pretty fair way of doing it.

Quite. The system is set up to reward performance over a number of years, and in particular to encourage teams to compete in every match they play, even if they can't get out of the group.

The fact that a team hangs onto points for a number of years irons out the odd good or bad performance to some degree. If the seeding were just on one years' performance, then you'd have much more random groups, and many more Groups of Death. French and English clubs - who have to qualify for the HEC each year - who missed out one year and qualified the next would regularly be in the 4th seed pool along with the Italians...

It would be very silly to suggest just using the form of the previous year to rank teams for the HEC but that doesn't mean the current system is good.

I just don't think that your performance 4 years ago should be given the same weight as your performance last season.

Surely team ability negates rankings. If a tier 1 side slips to tier 2 or 3 because of a four year record, is it suddenly tier 2 or 3 standard or is it just another Tier 1 side in your group when you're the lowly Tier 4?

I think it's much more simple - you know the sides you don't want to meet and if you do meet one or two or three of them, the HC just got a whole lot harder. Top 2 or even 3 Tiers still have sides that can kill you. All they need is a club/region/provincial name to sound the alarms, they don't need a Tier rating. Simple.

But - if you have any pretensions to be a HC contender. Then it's practically pointless to be always wishing to avoid the big guns. Meeting the big guns allows you to realise just what the HC needs, meeting them hones the skills your players need to compete with them..and meeting them lessens through time the feeling of intimidation they bring with them.

If you want to be a HC giant, you simply have to meet a good number of them along the way, pool or playoffs - it makes no difference when.

Exponential weighting

MrsP wrote:They ranking system really is flawed.

For example, we were in the same group as Bath last season and the seasom before and we beat them home and away each time yet they were ranked the tier above us because they did better than us 4 years ago???

I think they should use some kind of loading of the points to reflect more recent form. ie, use a multiplier for each season.

So for instance, last seasons points could be X 2, the season before X 1.5, then X1 and then half the 4th seasons points.

More complicated but it would allow for a more even playing field.

It would also mean that teams would suffer less dramatic falls like that possible for LI next year.

Is there much difference between this and exponential weighting?

Nope, same formulaic weighing scheme, applying a decay factor to older info

Sooooo....

We actually agree?????

:faints:

Except I didn't feel the need to use a fancy dancy term to describe it.

Do away with seedings altogether? There aren't that many "walkover" teams any more, and we get stronger and weaker pools in the current system anyway.

The real benefit is that if a team gets a weak pool, gets a home quarter-final and then gets to the semis while a "stronger" team gets a much harder pool and gets knocked out at the pool stages, that has no bearing on the next year with seedings and all that comes into it is the respective abilities of the team.

If you've won the Cup twice in 4 years why should that entitle you to an easier ride in the pool stages? If you're really that good you can get out of any pool. Past glories shouldn't count or anything in the current tournament.

It wouldn't be much of a competition though if you got the first four seeds (Leinster, Toulouse, Munster, Cardiff) in the same pool with only 1 emerging from it. No doubt the winner of that pool would win the competition.

robbo277 wrote:Do away with seedings altogether? There aren't that many "walkover" teams any more, and we get stronger and weaker pools in the current system anyway.

The real benefit is that if a team gets a weak pool, gets a home quarter-final and then gets to the semis while a "stronger" team gets a much harder pool and gets knocked out at the pool stages, that has no bearing on the next year with seedings and all that comes into it is the respective abilities of the team.

If you've won the Cup twice in 4 years why should that entitle you to an easier ride in the pool stages? If you're really that good you can get out of any pool. Past glories shouldn't count or anything in the current tournament.

The likelihood of extremely strong or weak pools is increased if there is no seeding. This devalues the competition by promoting the accusation of easy passages to finals as home advantage is such an... er... advantage.

MrsP wrote:Sooooo....

We actually agree?????

:faints:

Except I didn't feel the need to use a fancy dancy term to describe it.

Steady, wouldn't go that far :shock&horror: Something like a 0.9 decay factor would give a reasonably long half-life - should do the trick

I'd like last seasons placing be more heavily weighted than how you did four years ago. Or maybe have a points exchange system like the international rankings. It would allow a team to rise up the rankings rapidly if they beat the best teams. And stop a poor team lingering higher than they should be because of a great season a few years ago. It would also mean that if an English or French team miss out on European rugby all together they'll remain on the same points for the season. Therefore won't be punished in the erc competition for a poor finish in their domestic league, which is entirely different.

I wouldn't mind if it was an open draw at all. It would make it even less predictable. I think it used to be an open draw for pools wasn't it? Seeding was only introduced a few years ago?

SecretFly wrote:Surely team ability negates rankings. If a tier 1 side slips to tier 2 or 3 because of a four year record, is it suddenly tier 2 or 3 standard or is it just another Tier 1 side in your group when you're the lowly Tier 4?

I think it's much more simple - you know the sides you don't want to meet and if you do meet one or two or three of them, the HC just got a whole lot harder. Top 2 or even 3 Tiers still have sides that can kill you. All they need is a club/region/provincial name to sound the alarms, they don't need a Tier rating. Simple.

But - if you have any pretensions to be a HC contender. Then it's practically pointless to be always wishing to avoid the big guns. Meeting the big guns allows you to realise just what the HC needs, meeting them hones the skills your players need to compete with them..and meeting them lessens through time the feeling of intimidation they bring with them.

If you want to be a HC giant, you simply have to meet a good number of them along the way, pool or playoffs - it makes no difference when.

I agree to a certain extent but with tougher sides in your pool it reduces the chance of being able to rack up enough wins for a home quarter. Admittedly Leinster proved it can be done but not every side can do it.

Feckless Rogue I do agree with you mostly but think a poor finish in domestic league should punish you. You have the flawed system where London Irish are ranked above Saracens, Biarritz above Clermont, Bath higher than Ulster etc.

Trust me easier/tougher pools make all the difference. Just look at Saracens last two European seasons - An Amlin group of Saracens,Toulon,Castres and Rugby Rovigo despite winning 5/6 matches Saracens did not qualify and got 0 European ranking points. Clermont,Leinster,Saracens,Racing Metro - One of the toughest HC groups ever.

Yes, beshocked, but my point was that you can win a HC from either Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 - it all comes down to how much you want it and what's in your armoury to achieve it. If you want the title and you wouldn't mind taking it a few times too, then meeting the tough sides is inevitable - at some stage. No rule requires a Tier 1 side to always play like a Tier 1 side, and neither do the rules disallow Tier3 sides from upping their game and playing like a Tier 1.

The games decide who is best in any given year. Form drifts for all sides. Munster might be 5 from 5 now, but even they'll say it's a very lucky 5 from 5! The lower Tiers made them fight for it. Some of the Tier 2 and 3 sides in other pools will be saying "We could have taken them". The pools are nervous ventures for all sides - even Tier 1