Is the Rabo a serious competition?

First topic message reminder :

Ulster fielded many debutants for the away fixture against Leinster and got smashed 42-13 then made 15 changes (15!!!) for their home fixture against Munster today and smashed them 33-17. According to a Welsh commentator it was a Munster 3rd string that took the field.
In Wales this evening we witnessed a much changed Turk side after their home win against the O's, take on Newport GD and got a lucky win. Not surprisingly Cardiff have many players "injured" or "ill" for the new year's day away fixture against the O's.
I wonder what the Leinster team will be at Cardiff on Jan 7th?

Mickado wrote:Some people using Ulster’s two games as an example of how poor the league is.

What would an AP team have done? send out their first XV against Leinster, lose with no BP, garner no experience for talented youth like Birch (looked very good), then put the same tired XV out against Munster at home, possibly still won, but not got the BP? That would have been a tactical failure which would have resulted in 1 league point lost and a lot of young players not getting game time. it was a gamble, it paid off, fair play to them.

Did you watch Bath London Irish over the weekend?

HERSH wrote:Is the Rabo a serious competition?

How can it be when some teams don't play there 1st choice teams for large parts of the season, the fans know this hence why games have poor attendances.

There are a lot of things that drive the poor attendances. Personally I don't have the quality of the league as the primary factor. Edinburgh are desperate for attendances, but for playing styles has meant that the leinster v Edinburgh fixture way back through the life of the celtic league is a competitive fixture with some great rugby. Murrayfield though is not a place to host those games where 10,000 people (and especially 5-8,000 people) doesn't even make a dent.
Add on to that the slow acceptance by the welsh towards the regional setup and you have half the sides in the league having poor attendances despite the quality of rugby being played.

It doesn't have the decades of fixtures under its belt. It didn't even have a sponsor or tv-rights in the early years. I'm not here to say the Rabo is flawless. Some of the scheduling is poor (see Ulster over the christmas break), and I personally don't like a playoff system where all sides have already played each other home and away. Don't get me started on the referee appointments (though I don't know how to sort that out so it will be a long running bug bear for me).

beshocked wrote: Geoff I think the problem is the ludicrous amount of changes. 15 changes is bordering on the silly. It shows how seriously Ulster take the competition.

To get 5 points over two games against the two best teams in the competition is a excellent return, and shows exactly how seriously Ulster take the league, as does the fact that the Munster game pulled the biggest home crowd of the season for Ulster.

maestegmafia wrote:

Mickado wrote:Some people using Ulster’s two games as an example of how poor the league is.

What would an AP team have done? send out their first XV against Leinster, lose with no BP, garner no experience for talented youth like Birch (looked very good), then put the same tired XV out against Munster at home, possibly still won, but not got the BP? That would have been a tactical failure which would have resulted in 1 league point lost and a lot of young players not getting game time. it was a gamble, it paid off, fair play to them.

Did you watch Bath London Irish over the weekend?

Nope. I got the score though.

roddersm wrote:

beshocked wrote: Geoff I think the problem is the ludicrous amount of changes. 15 changes is bordering on the silly. It shows how seriously Ulster take the competition.

To get 5 points over two games against the two best teams in the competition is a excellent return, and shows exactly how seriously Ulster take the league, as does the fact that the Munster game pulled the biggest home crowd of the season for Ulster.

So just how bad are they if they are taking it that seriously and still near the bottom?

What it shows is that the provinces are taking the pee out of their supporters ( partly the fault of the IRFU) with games between lottery sides in a period when many make a big family effort to attend. Its a dangerous game to play, it could put many off who expected to see a serious game then get greated with the reserves side getting tonked.
Yes there needs to be squad rotation but try and structure it for the games noone was going to see anyway.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

roddersm wrote:

beshocked wrote: Geoff I think the problem is the ludicrous amount of changes. 15 changes is bordering on the silly. It shows how seriously Ulster take the competition.

To get 5 points over two games against the two best teams in the competition is a excellent return, and shows exactly how seriously Ulster take the league, as does the fact that the Munster game pulled the biggest home crowd of the season for Ulster.

So just how bad are they if they are taking it that seriously and still near the bottom?

What it shows is that the provinces are taking the pee out of their supporters ( partly the fault of the IRFU) with games between lottery sides in a period when many make a big family effort to attend. Its a dangerous game to play, it could put many off who expected to see a serious game then get greated with the reserves side getting tonked.
Yes there needs to be squad rotation but try and structure it for the games noone was going to see anyway.

Leinster v Ulster was sold out on Stephens day.

Roddersm no you got 5 against Munster, 0 vs Leinster. Let's get it right.

Did you have so little faith in your side that could not get 8 or 9 points over the two games?

Ulster are supposedly a good side no? If so you need to actually try vs the good sides. You call resting 15 players tactical, I call it giving up on winning before the match has even started!

You don't necessarily need to play the same team in both matches but 15 changes is an awful lot.

Scarlets changed 14 men and won.

Played really well. Ospreys changed a number and had a superb match against a talented Blues team.

roddersm wrote:

HERSH wrote:Is the Rabo a serious competition?

How can it be when some teams don't play there 1st choice teams for large parts of the season, the fans know this hence why games have poor attendances.

Well in terms of attendances its hard to compete with a League were people will pay to watch Worcester beat Wasps 6-0 and Bath beat LI 30 -3.

With scorelines like that I'd be wondering how serious a competition the AP is.

WUM alert!

Take a look at the Jeff, Exeter lose one game and dropped several places, its a tough league plus it has the added pressure of qualifying for the HC (unlike some leagues) and the fear of relegation although Newcastle look the most likely.

beshocked wrote:Roddersm no you got 5 against Munster, 0 vs Leinster. Let's get it right.

There were two games over the Xmas period against the two best teams with a 5 day turnaround. The club target was 5 points, not mine.

I think we are a good side but I doubt if we could have beat the two best teams back to back with a 5 day turnaround.

Personally I was disappointed that we sent such a weakened side down to Leinster. I'd have put some more senior players in the bench and we may have got something from that one but ultimately 5 points is a very good return from the two games.

Mickado wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

roddersm wrote:

beshocked wrote: Geoff I think the problem is the ludicrous amount of changes. 15 changes is bordering on the silly. It shows how seriously Ulster take the competition.

To get 5 points over two games against the two best teams in the competition is a excellent return, and shows exactly how seriously Ulster take the league, as does the fact that the Munster game pulled the biggest home crowd of the season for Ulster.

So just how bad are they if they are taking it that seriously and still near the bottom?

What it shows is that the provinces are taking the pee out of their supporters ( partly the fault of the IRFU) with games between lottery sides in a period when many make a big family effort to attend. Its a dangerous game to play, it could put many off who expected to see a serious game then get greated with the reserves side getting tonked.
Yes there needs to be squad rotation but try and structure it for the games noone was going to see anyway.

Leinster v Ulster was sold out on Stephens day.

Yes and because of the way the games were structured and IRFU demands on player call ups one side took the pee out of the supporters whod made the effort.

Why ? Because the regulation Rabo fixtures are a low priority. Its a shame, youd want these fixtures were the big crowds turn up to be ones played between full strength sides with both teams fully committed to winning.

This is the ONLY game this year Ulster have put out a notably weak side. Other defeats have been down to poor performances not weakened sides. In fact I'd go further we have rotated less than nearly yall of the Aviva sides this year.

Last year we hedged our bets in the same fixtures and lost both. Given the short turnaround and given the quality of opposition this was simply a matter of us playing smart and doing what we believed we could to maximize our point return. You may not agree with it but to use is as proof of our not taking the Pro12 seriously is complete and utter garbage

HERSH wrote:Is the Rabo a serious competition?

How can it be when some teams don't play there 1st choice teams for large parts of the season, the fans know this hence why games have poor attendances.

One game is not large parts of the season.

Also please explain why both Leinster v Ulster and Ulster v Munster were sell out crowds.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote: Why ? Because the regulation Rabo fixtures are a low priority.

Nope thats not the reason.

Traditionally there have been Inter Provincials on Boxing Day. However when it falls in the middle of the week the crowded fixture list means that we have a short turn around between matchesd.

To be honest this insistance of Boxing day matches has to be consigned to the dustbin i.e these fixtures should have been played on Christmans Eve.

Fortunately Boxing Day is a Wednesday next year and I don't think the IRFU will be in a position to demand Boxing Day fixtures

geoff998rugby wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote: Why ? Because the regulation Rabo fixtures are a low priority.

Nope thats not the reason.

Traditionally there have been Inter Provincials on Boxing Day. However when it falls in the middle of the week the crowded fixture list means that we have a short turn around between matchesd.

To be honest this insistance of Boxing day matches has to be consigned to the dustbin i.e these fixtures should have been played on Christmans Eve.

Fortunately Boxing Day is a Wednesday next year and I don't think the IRFU will be in a position to demand Boxing Day fixtures

Apparently it was RTE that insisted the game should be on stephens day. Both Leinster and Ulster wanted it on Christmas eve.

Thanks Mikado as I say being a Wednesday how is that going to be possible next year ??
I knew Ulster wanted to play on Christmas Eve but I didn't realize it was RTE who blocked it.

So Ulster and Leinster wanted Christmas Eve - maybe, just maybe, that is because they take it seriously and wanted to be able to put out their best sides in both matches

Mind you that doesn't fit the conspiracy theorist around here

geoff998rugby wrote:This is the ONLY game this year Ulster have put out a notably weak side. Other defeats have been down to poor performances not weakened sides. In fact I'd go further we have rotated less than nearly yall of the Aviva sides this year.

Last year we hedged our bets in the same fixtures and lost both. Given the short turnaround and given the quality of opposition this was simply a matter of us playing smart and doing what we believed we could to maximize our point return. You may not agree with it but to use is as proof of our not taking the Pro12 seriously is complete and utter garbage

Well said - all this rubbish about teams not taking the league seriously because they are unwilling to force their players to play 2 games in 4 days or 2 games in 5 when a busy schedule is coming up are just deluded.

If you want to blame someone blame the Rabo12 organisers, but you'll also need to take into account the power and reliance on TV money and the resulting power they have in shaping the schedule.

Don’t be ridiculous. It’s clear what’s going on here, Ulster are just falling on their sword to allow Leinster to have a clear run at the top of the league so they can concentrate on beating everyone in Europe. Which is nice of them, in all fairness.

The Rabodirect is a terrible competition. But not because of squad changes. (2 games in 72 hours means there is litttle choice from the coaches)

The standard of officiating. The fixture disadvantages. The qualification for the Heineken Cup and the kick off times make it a terrible product.

Chunky Norwich wrote:The Rabodirect is a terrible competition. But not because of squad changes. (2 games in 72 hours means there is litttle choice from the coaches)

The standard of officiating. The fixture disadvantages. The qualification for the Heineken Cup and the kick off times make it a terrible product.

Captain hindsight here! You should have told me that before i renewed my season ticket again. Money down the bloody drain...

Still full of the joys of Spring I see Chunky.

You remind me of Marvin the robot in Hitchhikers guide.
What is the point of life

Miond you you are different in one way - he has the brain the size of a planet whereas you......

geoff998rugby wrote:Still full of the joys of Spring I see Chunky.

You remind me of Marvin the robot in Hitchhikers guide.
What is the point of life

Miond you you are different in one way - he has the brain the size of a planet whereas you......

Erm, cheers.

Life is great by the way. It's the Pro 12 that is not.

geoff998rugby wrote:

HERSH wrote:Is the Rabo a serious competition?

How can it be when some teams don't play there 1st choice teams for large parts of the season, the fans know this hence why games have poor attendances.

One game is not large parts of the season.

Also please explain why both Leinster v Ulster and Ulster v Munster were sell out crowds.

Irish region derbies will surely be popular? I think Hersh is referring more to the titanic clashes Edinburgh vs Connacht or Aironi vs Glasgow.

beshocked wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

HERSH wrote:Is the Rabo a serious competition?

How can it be when some teams don't play there 1st choice teams for large parts of the season, the fans know this hence why games have poor attendances.

One game is not large parts of the season.

Also please explain why both Leinster v Ulster and Ulster v Munster were sell out crowds.

Irish region derbies will surely be popular? I think Hersh is referring more to the titanic clashes Edinburgh vs Connacht or Aironi vs Glasgow.

Connacht and Edinburgh are good teams, Connacht almost did a number on Quins in the HEC, Edinburgh looking good in their pool. Airioni beat Treviso over the holiday period so may see a change of fortunes.

You mean you are highlighting games between 2 teams who struggle for attendances anyway and asking why when these 2 teams play each other then - shock horror, they get only a slightly higher attendance then they normally do?

But the fact that they had 13k and 8k isn't too bad I would have thought - especially as it's bigger than it was last year (9k and 7k).

Incidentally both these attendances were bigger than Falcons vs Saints, Wasps vs Warriors and Saracens vs Gloucester.

Now I'm not saying that means the Rabo is better supported than the Aviva, or that the Scottish teams are better supported than Saracens - but these figures do bring a question to the claim that loads of fans were put off these fixtures.

In regards to the Edinburgh vs Connacht or Aironi vs Glasgow fixtures I find it strange that Beshocked has chosen to highlight these games as none of them take place over Christmas and I would say that Aironi and Connacht offer the least 'pull' among all teams in the Pro12 for the Scottish teams - it's and even worse comparison than asking why Falcons only got 4k fans when they played Gloucester.

It's meaningless until you look at how much attendance there was in previous years and average attendances as a whole, and any figures which may cause discrepancies (ie a game with a much larger/smaller figure than the average) which may distort the figures.

Hersh's claim was that non 1st XV team being selected leads to poor crowds. Ulster played the Ravens against Leinster and the the ground was a sell out. Therefore not playing the first XV did not result in a poor crowd.

Yes there are teams who are less supported than others but that is true of all team leagues in any sport. England has a league that has been going longer and have a higher population density so it is hardly surprising that croeds in the Aviva are slightly higher.

Newcastle, Exeter, Wasps and Saracens have all had low crowds this year - why are people not turning up in a big numbers at those grounds ?

The reason for disappointing crowds are many and the structure of the competition is only one of those.

HERSH wrote:
Take a look at the Jeff, Exeter lose one game and dropped several places, its a tough league plus it has the added pressure of qualifying for the HC (unlike some leagues) and the fear of relegation although Newcastle look the most likely.

Take a look at Pro12.
Four rugby nations with their own national complexities (organisational wise)
Four rugby nations with at least 3 national TV networks covering Pro12 games.
Four rugby nations operating within an activity box of some 1,000 miles by 1,000 miles and two time zones (as distinct from the reasonably compact 700 miles by 200 miles Premiership)

.... Pressure?

The Heineken Cup. Pressure? English clubs have a guaranteed Six Places in the Heineken, coming from a league of 12. Let's not get too greedy! French clubs have Six Places coming from a league of 14 - already English clubs look like they have little to moan about.

The real 'pressure' in Leagues - any league - is winning. Win and the pressures lessen. Hersh would have us believe a Premiership player goes out with three pressures as distinct from the Pro12 player's measly one. The Pro12 player worries about winning; the AP player worries about: 1. winning, 2. relegation. 3. Heineken Cup qualification...even if they're sitting at the top of the table with 9 or 10 wins from 12.

Those AP players...they need to chill

Geoff to answer your question.

Newcastle are relegation favourites, no money.
Wasps and Saracens do not own their own grounds. Saracens in particular have both eyes firmly on securing Barnet Copthall. Wasps are virtually bankrupt.
Not sure about Exeter.


Secretfly Pro 12 sides have 10 HC places guaranteed.

Maestegmafia almost is the important word. Edinburgh are doing alright in probably the weakest HC group and Connacht are at the bottom of theirs.

Smirnoff I am saying that the matches between those sides lack intensity.

beshocked wrote:
Newcastle are relegation favourites, no money.

Well considering they are 10 points adrift I am not sure were all this pressure comes from? And given that there is 15 points between 1st and 3rd in the table perhaps the AP is not the super competitive high pressure league that the Rabo critics make out it is.

In fact there seems to more one sided games in the Jeff than the Rabo and more teams in the Rabo in genuine contention for play off places and with a serious chance of winning.

I agree with all of that Fly

BUT

I can see no logical reason for Heineken Cup qualification not being tied to league placing in the Rabo, given that the 2-4 clubs that would not qualify would go into the Amlin.

My suggestions would be top 8 qualify in addition to the winners of the HC and Amlin, if from the Rabo.

The playoffs have made the Rabo more competitive at the top after Christmas, a second qualification criteria would make the bottom more interesting as well.

As things stand:
2011-2012 - RaboDirect PRO12
1 Leinster Rugby
2 Ospreys
3 Glasgow Warriors
4 Munster Rugby
5 Cardiff Blues
6 Scarlets
7 Benetton Treviso
8 Ulster Rugby
9 Edinburgh Rugby
10 Connacht Rugby
11 Newport Gwent Dragons
12 Aironi Rugby


Play offs
Leinster v Munster
Ospreys v Glasgow

HC
1 Leinster Rugby
2 Ospreys
3 Glasgow Warriors
4 Munster Rugby
5 Cardiff Blues
6 Scarlets
7 Benetton Treviso
8 Ulster Rugby

Amlin
11 Newport Gwent Dragons
12 Aironi Rugby

Sweating on the result of the finals
9 Edinburgh Rugby
10 Connacht Rugby

Who could deny that that is:
a fair
b makes for a better league.

In other words, why should the Dragons and Aironi qualify for the HC if they cant do better in the league?

the anti argument is that it would perpetuate the status quo as to the teams on the bottom due to lost revenue from the HC and would be detrimental to development - my response to that is that the status quo has not in fact addressed those very points!

roddersm wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Newcastle are relegation favourites, no money.

Well considering they are 10 points adrift I am not sure were all this pressure comes from? And given that there is 15 points between 1st and 3rd in the table perhaps the AP is not the super competitive high pressure league that the Rabo critics make out it is.

In fact there seems to more one sided games in the Jeff than the Rabo and more teams in genuine contention for play off placesa dn with a serious chance of winning.

This is going way off topic but remeber a couple of seasons ago when Leeds were dead and buried? Newcastle are far from gone, and they are scrapping for every game. You dont see them debuting 5 players just to give the home crowd an easy victory to cheer.


The simple fact is that if the Rabo is seen as a development tool for the national sides, well below the HC in importnace, and all club rugby subserviant to the natiuonal sides then it isnt as serious a comeptition as it could be. Its still from from the LV in terms of being ridiculous but it does short change supporters to give them demonstration games in the most popular week of the year for attending.

beshocked wrote:

Secretfly Pro 12 sides have 10 HC places guaranteed.

I knew that would come back at me. You did read my emphasis both on RFU as NATIONAL arbiter of England's guaranteed qualification number and the idea that Pro12 NATIONS shouldn't be too worried about how you do it. Just as we in Ireland aren't too worried about how the Welsh decides what three regions represent them.

You do get my point? RFU decides England's contribution to Heineken, not the AP.
IRFU decides Ireland's and WRU decides Wale's. When AP take over control of Heineken Cup representation from the RFU then get back to us about Pro12's '10' contingent.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
The simple fact is that if the Rabo is seen as a development tool for the national sides

No thats how you see it. I doubt the likes of BJ Botha, Ruan Pienaar, Doug Howlett, Isa Nacewa, John Afoa etc. who are world class players and turn out nearly every week see it that way. If the likes of O'Driscoll, Ferris, O'Connell etc. weren't restricted by the IRFU player welfare programme then I'd imagine they'd be on the pitch every weekend.

Glas a du wrote:I agree with all of that Fly

BUT

I can see no logical reason for Heineken Cup qualification not being tied to league placing in the Rabo, given that the 2-4 clubs that would not qualify would go into the Amlin.

My suggestions would be top 8 qualify in addition to the winners of the HC and Amlin, if from the Rabo.

The playoffs have made the Rabo more competitive at the top after Christmas, a second qualification criteria would make the bottom more interesting as well.

As things stand:
2011-2012 - RaboDirect PRO12
1 Leinster Rugby
2 Ospreys
3 Glasgow Warriors
4 Munster Rugby
5 Cardiff Blues
6 Scarlets
7 Benetton Treviso
8 Ulster Rugby
9 Edinburgh Rugby
10 Connacht Rugby
11 Newport Gwent Dragons
12 Aironi Rugby


Play offs
Leinster v Munster
Ospreys v Glasgow

HC
1 Leinster Rugby
2 Ospreys
3 Glasgow Warriors
4 Munster Rugby
5 Cardiff Blues
6 Scarlets
7 Benetton Treviso
8 Ulster Rugby

Amlin
11 Newport Gwent Dragons
12 Aironi Rugby

Sweating on the result of the finals
9 Edinburgh Rugby
10 Connacht Rugby

Who could deny that that is:
a fair
b makes for a better league.

In other words, why should the Dragons and Aironi qualify for the HC if they cant do better in the league?

the anti argument is that it would perpetuate the status quo as to the teams on the bottom due to lost revenue from the HC and would be detrimental to development - my response to that is that the status quo has not in fact addressed those very points!

I think this would be better though should be adopted in 2-3 years to give Aironi and Treviso more time to settle in the Pro 12.

Aironi would be more competitive in the Amlin though.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote: You dont see them debuting 5 players just to give the home crowd an easy victory to cheer.

If they had to play Leicester and Saracens within 4/5 days of each other they might.
Are you honestly suggesting Ulster played a weakened team to give the Leinster fans something to cheer about

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
The simple fact is that if the Rabo is seen as a development tool for the national sides, well below the HC in importnace, and all club rugby subserviant to the natiuonal sides then it isnt as serious a comeptition as it could be.

The only association where the provinces are subservient in any way is in Ireland and that is organizational.
The above is not true of the other 3 countries.

As it so happens that same country, Ireland, is by far the most successfully of the 4 countries in the Pro12, supplying 3 of the 4 teams that have won more than one Pro12 (or under its previous names) trophies.
The Irish Provincies take it very seriously indeed I can guarantee you that.

please please not this HC qualification arguement again.

It is an agreement between nations not leagues.
Each NATION is free to determine how it decides its participants.

The bigger playing numbers in France and England is already reflected in their higher number of entries

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:You dont see them debuting 5 players just to give the home crowd an easy victory to cheer.

You don't see that in the Pro12 either - this is quite a ludicrous comment it's quite amazing that you seem to think that a team utilizing their squad and playing players only when full fit to maximise their chances of points (ie Ulster getting 5 points over 2 games this season to getting 0 points last season), when faced with a lot of big games in a short amount of time - you seem to think this is in some way a dishonest conspiracy designed to make the fans of the home team feel better?

Smirnoff, he's just taking the pish.

geoff998rugby wrote:please please not this HC qualification arguement again.

It is an agreement between nations not leagues.
Each NATION is free to determine how it decides its participants.

The bigger playing numbers in France and England is already reflected in their higher number of entries

That's my point, it shouldn't be.

Beshocked I'd take that.

[quote="Smirnoffpriest"]

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

roddersm wrote:
You dont see them debuting 5 players just to give the home crowd an easy victory to cheer.

You don't see that in the Pro12 either - this is quite a ludicrous comment it's quite amazing that you seem to think that a team utilizing their squad and playing players only when full fit to maximise their chances of points (ie Ulster getting 5 points over 2 games this season to getting 0 points last season), when faced with a lot of big games in a short amount of time - you seem to think this is in some way a dishonest conspiracy designed to make the fans of the home team feel better?

Er just to clarify the quotes are messed up here...it was Peter seabiscuit who said that not me...

I think that the European qualification thing has little bearing. Like Turkeys voting for Christmas it shouldn't happen.

That's strange - not sure why it's attributed the quote to you Rodderism - I didn't see your name in any part of the text - I'll have a look back through it and try and edit it now

hmm very weird but it's sorted now

Glas a du wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:please please not this HC qualification arguement again.

It is an agreement between nations not leagues.
Each NATION is free to determine how it decides its participants.

The bigger playing numbers in France and England is already reflected in their higher number of entries

That's my point, it shouldn't be.

Beshocked I'd take that.

The Pro12 nations will never agree to a changed.

If you do insist, the Pro 12 nations will withdraw, and it will just end up with the English playing with themselves as the French will not be interested either.

Mind you it is the one way you will be able to ensure the English win something I suppose

Somehow, somewhere, sometime...the story got out that National rugby and indeed Heineken Cup rugby is almost ruineous to good club rugby. Concentrate on the Nation or the Heineken and you do a grave disservice to the 'grassroots' game "we all love".

I'd prefer call that a strange case of inverted snobbery. Rather than constantly ramming it down our throat that the Pro12 is just a training ground spree for prospective National players and careless runaround preparation for the Heineken; rather than critics say that, maybe they might be better served telling us why it is that AP sides Don't prioritise the blueribbon event of European rugby, or indeed why it is that fans are not unduly proud when one, two or three players from their respective clubs are picked on merit to play for the National side?

Why should all that be bad, or of lesser importance than the league? Nothing is mutually exclusive of the other. Your player only gets picked for the national side if he's making an impression, either in the league or Heineken. You don't get trot-out players doodling in performances in Pro 12 and miraculouly getting selected to play Heineken or International.... well, in theory anyway!!!

The either/or brigade just don't do the maths. Nothing wrong with being top of a league, doing well in Heineken and having a few players playing International...nothing wrong at all. That's actually where League rightfully sits. First comes school, then comes lesser leagues, then comes the premier leagues, then comes Heineken and then comes International. If there are those that think there should be a distinct break in that line and that League should exist in its own world with a selfish philosophy; well, I don't see how it would work. Players are motivated by progress - you don't progess from International to league. Players themselves create the heirarchy by the very urges within them.

SecretFly wrote:Somehow, somewhere, sometime...the story got out that National rugby and indeed Heineken Cup rugby is almost ruineous to good club rugby. Concentrate on the Nation or the Heineken and you do a grave disservice to the 'grassroots' game "we all love".

I'd prefer call that a strange case of inverted snobbery. Rather than constantly ramming it down our throat that the Pro12 is just a training ground spree for prospective National players and careless runaround preparation for the Heineken; rather than critics say that, maybe they might be better served telling us why it is that AP sides Don't prioritise the blueribbon event of European rugby, or indeed why it is that fans are not unduly proud when one, two or three players from their respective clubs are picked on merit to play for the National side?

Why should all that be bad, or of lesser importance than the league? Nothing is mutually exclusive of the other. Your player only gets picked for the national side if he's making an impression, either in the league or Heineken. You don't get trot-out players doodling in performances in Pro 12 and miraculouly getting selected to play Heineken or International.... well, in theory anyway!!!

The either/or brigade just don't do the maths. Nothing wrong with being top of a league, doing well in Heineken and having a few players playing International...nothing wrong at all. That's actually where League rightfully sits. First comes school, then comes lesser leagues, then comes the premier leagues, then comes Heineken and then comes International. If there are those that think there should be a distinct break in that line and that League should exist in its own world with a selfish philosophy; well, I don't see how it would work. Players are motivated by progress - you don't progess from International to league. Players themselves create the heirarchy by the very urges within them.

What he said.

geoff998rugby wrote:Hersh's claim was that non 1st XV team being selected leads to poor crowds. Ulster played the Ravens against Leinster and the the ground was a sell out. Therefore not playing the first XV did not result in a poor crowd.

Yes there are teams who are less supported than others but that is true of all team leagues in any sport. England has a league that has been going longer and have a higher population density so it is hardly surprising that croeds in the Aviva are slightly higher.

Newcastle, Exeter, Wasps and Saracens have all had low crowds this year - why are people not turning up in a big numbers at those grounds ?

The reason for disappointing crowds are many and the structure of the competition is only one of those.

I think you'll find that Exeter do just fine seeing as they are new to the league. as for the crowds maybe the fans had already bought their tickets before the teams were named?

I can't help but think there would have been a few disappointed fans in the stands.

Geoff, I believe you are close to the Ulster machine and the "Turkeys don't vote for Christmas" thing is as depressing as it is predictable. My argument is that the turkeys are being very short sighted and not realising that the status quo is 'Christmas' and exactly what they are voting for. More like "dog in the manger" or more accurately "cutting their noses off the spite their face" due to the said short-sightedness.

Or "what we have we hold". Fine as long as what we have is not a steaming pile of Poopie.

Glas a du wrote:Geoff, I believe you are close to the Ulster machine and the "Turkeys don't vote for Christmas" thing is as depressing as it is predictable. My argument is that the turkeys are being very short sighted and not realising that the status quo is 'Christmas' and exactly what they are voting for. More like "dog in the manger" or more accurately "cutting their noses off the spite their face" due to the said short-sightedness.

Irish, Scottish, Welsh and Italian rugby unions do what is best for Irish, Scottish, Welsh and Italian rugby shock.
Unlike those benevolent English

The HC is the best thing that has happened to European rugby in the professional era.
If the existing structure is not working for the English they should change their own structure not expect others to change to accomodate their wishes