Leicester (and English Rugby?) just not good enough.

First topic message reminder :

Last night was my work Christmas Party (yes I know 3 weeks late) which meant I was saved the pain of watching that thrashing. However huge congratulations to Ulster - such a dominant scoreline can only ever be attributed to one team being much better than the other.

Tigers European campaign this season has been indicative of the abilities of the team. We have had tight wins at home against the two decent teams in teh pool, and suffered heavy defeats in the reverse fixtures. Tigers were comprehensively outplayed by Clermont in the away leg and I can only assume the same was true last night. We are obviously only the third best team in the group - so right now we are a long way away from being a team that can challenge in Europe.

Is it fair to suggest that the ability of the English teams is and English players is at a low ebb right now? After all Tigers are only 4th in the table and the teams are so close that effectively that counts as mid table. However, as Portnoy keeps pointing out, a table based on the 7 league matches since the World Cup would see Leicester at the top. This suggests that tigers are still one of the best teams in the AP - yet are a long way from being truly competitive in Europe. So yes I think it is fair to say that the standard of teh AP is not great right now.

How about English players - after all Quins are still doing well in Europe with a largely (excl Nick Evans) english team. that is true - yet tigers still have 11 players in the EPS/Saxons squads. Yet those players - among the elite of English players - are not good enough to compete with the good teams in Europe.

Perhaps I am being overly pessimistic - but right now things look very bleak for club and country.

I knew it would be contentious ! Not pointing a finger at anyone or else's system. Five only clubs would make the AP even more competitive with those that don't make it going into the Amblin.
The structure of the season will change and a 16 team/club for the HC will be the compromise - 24 teams is too unwieldy and I am perfectly aware that Bath with few current internationals could well miss out - so be it.
It is not a question of ignorance because this will then raise the profile of the second tier to a proper european competition which currently is an Anglo/french affair as there is pretty much no-one else in it.
The alternative is to open up the salary cap and the wild west begins......

Rec watcher you are pointing the finger at others system, as your asking for the format of the HC to be changed to 16 and you're asking for the Celtic nations to change the systems they have for entering team into the HC - purely because a lot of the English team who were always strong arent performing.

Tell you what mate, why dont you just worry about changing English systems instead of suggesting the Celts or Heineken Cup change theirs and frankly I dont think there a snowballs chance in hell of the HC being reduced to 16 teams so good luck with that.

Some of this stuff is actually embarrassing to read - lets change the Celts systems, lets change the HC setup so that English teams can be more competitive - quite humiliating really.

Dr Grey,

Dr Grey,

I know! I'm just fearless really.

And, I have no problem with Bath at all. Why would I? We always beat them!

Only messing. I actually like Bath.

I love Sir Ian and all he stands for. I was very impressed with how they met their recent troubles off the pitch head on rather than sweep them under the carpet. Love their strip!

My only problem was that 2 of the less well thought out posts (IMHO) I have read on here recently were posted by the same person, who just happens to be a Bath supporter.

Mind you, I am a bit poorly still, so maybe I'm just a bit sensative.

It is not just about the HC but also season structures, salary caps and making viable competitions within the season. I couldn't care less about anyone structure it is about European rugby as a whole. Some just can't see it because some teams are currently successful.
Curious there is no Welsh comment, as their team finances for squads are under pressure as much as anyone's...

I made a comment and I would like to add that I'm happy with the way Wales is building a good depth of quality international players.
To me our regions are only feeder clubs to the national side I'm more interested in Wales doing well but the odd HC win would be a nice bonus.

It's responses like this that make people disengage from a forum.

I hope I am not feeding trolls by responding to this, but let me try to appeal to your better natures.

I was trying to make a factual point in a balanced and rational way, and it descends into the usual "our league's better than your league" nonsense.

The RFU has limited control over the English clubs, because they are independently owned. PRL (the clubs' own governing body) determines HEC qualification. It also determines promotion and relegation. As it happens, I am in favour of both systems, but that's irrelevant. PRL organises itself the way it does because it represents a large group of professional clubs who are all, ultimately, trying to make a profit. Perhaps the RFU should have stepped in at the outset and set up a provincial structure, but since we don't have a time machine we will never know, will we?

By the same token, the country RFUs that control the Rabo will never sign up for a qualification system that rewards performance in the league. It's not in their interests. Perhaps I was a little cheeky in suggesting that I'd like to see them change. But it's interesting that it provoked a similar intensity of reaction to the original debate.

And Cymroglan, you know you are stirring. Stop it. Yes, England and France have more places, but they have more professional clubs. By any proportional measure the English and French clubs are at a massive disadvantage:

75% (minimum) of Welsh and Irish teams
100% of Scottish and Italian teams
83% of the Pro12
50% of the AP
43% of the Top 14.

When you consider the revenue impact of not being in the Heineken Cup and the fact that English and French clubs are commercial entities in their own right, with considerably less support from their respective RFUs than the Celtic clubs, you can (if you try) understand the importance of qualification to these teams.

There's eff all point debating which system is better, because they are the way they are and there's no way to change it any time soon.

Which brings me back to my original point, which was simply that it is reasonable to argue that Ulster had more options in preparing for yesterday's match than Leicester.

Congratulations to Ulster for having a superior system to the English clubs then - great stuff.

Time will tell what actually happens but change is coming - hopefully all will be involved.

By the way, for what it's worth, I don't think English clubs are good enough right now. Wasps have lost it, Leicester need to rebuild. The clubs on the up, Sarries, Saints and Quins, just don't have enough experience to manage a long season across multiple competitions.

It's comparable to where the Irish teams were four or five years ago, and with the same potential outcome. If they can keep their squads together and continue to develop depth beyond the first XV, the talent is there to be competitive.

Poorfour
How on earth could I be stirring when I just pointed out what everybody should know anyway ,What exactly did I say that was out of order ?
And suggesting that your chances of winning get less if you have more representation is quite strange.

Poorfour,

I have to say that it is the English fans who are saying that the rabo teams have an advantage because of the way our unions chose to select which teams play in the HEC.


I'm not saying our league is better, just asking that English fans stop using the differences as an excuse.

I just get a bit tired of it being made out that we are somehow pulling a fast one, when actually it is up to the RFU.

Poorfour wrote:By the way, for what it's worth, I don't think English clubs are good enough right now. Wasps have lost it, Leicester need to rebuild. The clubs on the up, Sarries, Saints and Quins, just don't have enough experience to manage a long season across multiple competitions.

It's comparable to where the Irish teams were four or five years ago, and with the same potential outcome. If they can keep their squads together and continue to develop depth beyond the first XV, the talent is there to be competitive.

I agree.

There are currently no English teams as good as the HEC winning Leicester and Wasps sides. And that has absolutely nothing to do with how Celtic teams qualify for the Heineken Cup. Quins, Sarries and Saints could get to that level over the next few years. There's no reason why they can't.

I just hate this "it's easier for the Celtic teams, that's why they beat us" excuse. It's pathetic. How do you explain the fact that the Welsh have had little impact, and the Scots and Italians have been even worse? Why is it the Irish that have 4 Heineken Cups in 6 years?

Because their teams are currently better. That's why. It hasn't always been the case. And it won't always be in the future. But it is now.

I just want to see the salary cap stay in place otherwise rugby will become like football and the RFU will be powerless to stop it.

I think its the style of play that you can get away with in the Aviva - it doesn't work in the HC

The Rabo does have benefits have its benefits for targeting a Heineken Cup campaign that you just simply cant do in the AP. However that was not the reason why Leicester lost on friday. Despite having good results since the end of the RWC the tigers have been stuck in second gear showing some glimpses of quality rugby but mostly relying on our pack to rumble forward and win games in AP and at home in the HC. This game plan just about worked with Flood standing flat and hitting our forwards short and Youngs on the odd ocassion making a succesful snipe. However away in the HC our forwards were not as dominant and thier carrying not as effective leading us to having a lot of slow ball this with the combination of a poor kicking game, gave us no momentum and no platform to go wide. Going wide wasnt a great option either as our midfied lacked fluidity because of injuries and no time to actually build an understanding. Also without Tuilagi we lacked penetration. With 12T at 10 against Ulster, he decided to go wider earlier and not bringing on the forwards as well, stopping the forwards getting us momentum and leading to Ulster dominating the breakdown as they were constantly on the front foot. I also think there was still a bit of a RWC hangover from players such as Youngs mentally and physically. This I believe resulting in a bloody good beating.

MrsP wrote:Poorfour,

I have to say that it is the English fans who are saying that the rabo teams have an advantage because of the way our unions chose to select which teams play in the HEC.


I'm not saying our league is better, just asking that English fans stop using the differences as an excuse.

I just get a bit tired of it being made out that we are somehow pulling a fast one, when actually it is up to the RFU.

MrsP - did you actually read my post? It has nothing to do with the RFU. And I am not trying to make out that anyone is pulling a fast one, just asking for recognition that the commercial structure of the English league (which neither the fans nor the RFU can do anything about, whether they want to or not) means that English teams have fewer options in managing their season. That inevitably makes it harder to win the HEC, but it's not necessarily a reflection on the quality of either the rugby or the players.

I get sick of the fact that each English defeat in Europe seems to be accompanied by crowings of "the league / players / quality of rugby is not good enough".

TJ wrote:I think its the style of play that you can get away with in the Aviva - it doesn't work in the HC

It's comments like that that really wind me up. For one thing, it over-generalises. Secondly, it's just wrong.

Does the style of play that got Northampton to the final last year not work in the HEC? I thought it was more that their players did not have enough in the tank to finish what they'd started. Does the style of play that saw Quins beat Munster and Stade to claim the Amlin (and this season, Toulouse) not work in Europe? Or is it that it's harder for them to manage the fitness of their squad?

Well, who runs the Jeff?

And, I think the OP is an English fan.

Cymroglan wrote:Poorfour
How on earth could I be stirring when I just pointed out what everybody should know anyway ,What exactly did I say that was out of order ?
And suggesting that your chances of winning get less if you have more representation is quite strange.

Cymroglan, apologies if I caused offence. Yes, having more teams in the competition ought to make it easier to win if there were a level playing field. But it's not, and to look at it in terms of purely the numbers of places is a spurious argument.

No country outside England or France could even make use of 6 places, and the 12 teams of the Rabo have more places between them than either the 12 teams of England or the 14 of France. So it's not surprising that winners are coming from the Rabo at the moment.

And it is equally strange to deny that the efforts of qualifying for the HEC through a tough competition in which most years 2/3 of the teams are separated by a few points has a negative effect on teams' ability to focus on and prepare for the HEC.

MrsP wrote:Well, who runs the Jeff?

And, I think the OP is an English fan.

Err, the PRL.

Given that this is a thread about English rugby I have no idea why the Rabo is being brought into this. The Rabo was set up with a completely function to that of the AP.

I think the issue with the AP is more to do with very poor management and coaching. The AP teams appear to have adapted to the salary cap by bringing in pretty average foreign players. As some one else on this thread has alluded to, England have been producing some excellent underage talent for years yet very few of these seem to get any kind of a look in.

Their is a gulf in class between the top and bottom teams in the Rabo, but this also exists in the AP. This year is the perfect example of this. All international players were away for the first quarter of the season - this would have had the biggest effect on the top AP sides, yet the likes of Tigers, Sarries & Saints (sides who would have missed the most players) are already in the top 4 of the league. The point of this is that the AP is no where near as competitive as people may think. The top teams - if their coaches have the intelligence to realise this - can rotate their squads and focus on certain games. The "oh we were fatigued" argument is only an excuse for poor coaching and poor player management - the league table doesn't lie!!!

So the Tiggers cant qualify so therefore" all English Rugby in is meltdown,decline,trouble,carp. Nevermind that Quins and Sarries can still qualify for the quarters as group winners.

So until the world is righted on its axis and Tiggers win things again we might as well give up as we are all rubbish/not tiggers

The Rabo does have benefits have its benefits for targeting a Heineken Cup campaign that you just simply cant do in the AP

The day English rugby stops clinging onto this myth is the day they might start improving themselves and win Heineken Cups again. If it's so easy for the Pro 12 teams then why haven't Scots, Italians or Welsh ever won it? Or even come close?

Leicester Tigers used squad rotation to become the only team to win a League/HEC double. How did they do that? I guess there were less excuses for defeat being clung to when the great Martin Johnson was playing. Why can't Northampton rotate their squad, like Toulouse, Clermont, Leinster and Munster do? All these teams can fight on two fronts while rotating, because the depth of their squads are top quality. Leinster are top of their HEC pool and top of the Pro 12 by using their whole squad.

No English team has a squad as strong as Toulouse or Leinster. And again, that has nothing to do with How the Pro 12 conducts things. And everything to do with a lack of quality depth at English rugby clubs, compared to 10 years ago.

Knackeredknees wrote:So the Tiggers cant qualify so therefore" all English Rugby in is meltdown,decline,trouble,carp. Nevermind that Quins and Sarries can still qualify for the quarters as group winners.

So until the world is righted on its axis and Tiggers win things again we might as well give up as we are all rubbish/not tiggers

Well done for realising this thread is not about the Celts having a go at the Prem the author is a tigers fan.

I don't think English rugby is in decline, in fact I think it's in much better shape than when Andy Robinson was national coach.

England rugby is apparently in crisis, yet crisis for England is apparently losing 1 grand slam game in Dublin, 1 loss to Wales in Cardiff in a world cup warm up, and a 50/50 game they lost against France, it's worth pointing out you did actually win your other 10 games!

Clubs wise I still think you have wonderful depth in the Aviva Premiership, I would prefer to add Worcester and Leeds and do away with the play off entirely, and just have a 14 team league and have the winner of the championship play a play off against the team finishing bottom so the team who finishes bottom has a chance to save their skin.

MrsP wrote:And, I have no problem with Bath at all. Why would I? We always beat them!
Only messing. I actually like Bath.

I like Bath too. In fact, I like people from Bath.
So much so that I think we should all own at least one.

Feckless Rogue wrote:

The Rabo does have benefits have its benefits for targeting a Heineken Cup campaign that you just simply cant do in the AP

The day English rugby stops clinging onto this myth is the day they might start improving themselves and win Heineken Cups again. If it's so easy for the Pro 12 teams then why haven't Scots, Italians or Welsh ever won it? Or even come close?

Leicester Tigers used squad rotation to become the only team to win a League/HEC double. How did they do that? I guess there were less excuses for defeat being clung to when the great Martin Johnson was playing. Why can't Northampton rotate their squad, like Toulouse, Clermont, Leinster and Munster do? All these teams can fight on two fronts while rotating, because the depth of their squads are top quality. Leinster are top of their HEC pool and top of the Pro 12 by using their whole squad.

No English team has a squad as strong as Toulouse or Leinster. And again, that has nothing to do with How the Pro 12 conducts things. And everything to do with a lack of quality depth at English rugby clubs, compared to 10 years ago.

That would be the salary cap, which prevents the development of the depth of squads. The level of the cap has become eroded over the last few years by the wage inflation of moneybag clubs from France and the IRFU. (The wealth of IRFU and its branches is also a factor in the relative success of Provincial teams over the Welsh and Scottish). This is in comparison to the moneybag English clubs of a few years ago.

However, as Recwatcher stated, the salary cap is essential for the English domestic competition as it stands, otherwise the likes of Leicester, Saints, Bath and Sarries could buy domestic success (even more than now). It does however hinder conducting campaigns on 2 fronts.

This thread seems to be about how to improve the English game in order to compete in European competition, whilst maintaining domestic competitivity - there is no easy answer.

There is huge pressure for the salary cap to change because current AP squads can no longer match the fixture demands when key players get injured or selected for Test sides. That has big implications - the French started it and the English will follow - I don't believe that is good for the growth of European rugby. There are better options that should be explored.

Just because the Tigers had a bad game it doesn't mean all the English teams are rubbish , from the tables it looks as if the 3 Irish,1 Welsh 1 Scottish? or Clemont, 2 English and Toulose will qualify. So the French are equally as "rubbish " as the English or it just shows the Celts have more time to prepare for the HC and the English/French concentrate on their home leagues.
The end of the 6N will be revealing about the balance of power in the NH

The French are just richer than the rest. Even if you take out the sugar daddies of the likes of Toulon. The French league just attracts far bigger sponsorship deals and gets higher attendances on average across the board. It's just more lucrative. Maybe that's where the rest of us have to try and catch up before we can think of increasing our salaries.

It wouldn't be sensible for English rugby to try and match French budgets when they simply aren't lucrative enough to do so. The IRFU has already said they can't match French money and they don't intend to try to. They have other ways to persuade their best players to stay in Ireland.

Anyway we're talking here as if English rugby is in the doldrums. They're 6 Nations champs. They've provided 2 HEC finalists in the last 3 years. In Quins and Sarries they seem to have two of Europes up and coming teams. At the moment English rugby just isn't the dominant force it was a decade ago.

or it just shows the Celts have more time to prepare for the HC

Eh? That's another addition to the pile of excuses. The Pro 12 teams slow down time to prepare better. Not fair is it.

I repeat - some of the excuses here are embarrassing to read.

Tigers suffer their biggest ever European defeat and its toys out of pram time.

Just for the record I am not a Tigers fan...

Artful_Dodger wrote:I repeat - some of the excuses here are embarrassing to read.

Tigers suffer their biggest ever European defeat and its toys out of pram time.

Can't you just be happy enough with a great win or do you have to complain when tigers fans try suggest reasons for their defeat?

I am happy, and most of the fans making these excuses arent Tigers fans - it just annoys me after are greatest victory in Europe since winning the HC in 1999 - people start demanding that not as many Irish teams should be in the HC or that the HC's structure should be fundamentally reformed to help sides of a certain nationality compete better. The Irish teams are winning in Europe cause they are good not because, English teams have to compete in the AP and HC, cause in reality the Irish teams are regularly making the top 4 in the rabo as well as the HC.

Its ridiculously over the top and quite childish, I'm sorry if it seems like I'm a bad winner, but these English fans should be putting emphasis on making English rugby better - not looking at how you can change other Unions structures or the structure of the HC to your advantage.

Nah, it's just Leicester.

A number of posters seem to be missing that this thread was started by a depressed Tigers fan. Tigers have been on a downward dip for a couple of years now and certainly aren't good enough to win the HC. It's also true that although there are some sides on the rise, currently there probably isn't a side that is capable of beating the best other nations currently have to offer.

This is the way things work though, no country or club is completely dominant all the time, they all have their peaks and troughs.

I see a handful of English sides building towards greater European competitiveness and this takes a couple of seasons of repeated efforts. How often did the recently dominant Irish sides falter before their successes?

Getting rid of the salary cap would certainly assist those sides in that quest of competing on multiple fronts, though depending on their focus isn't a necessity and may be decided isn't in the best interest of other national objectives.

I also think it's important to note that club level success isn't indicative of international success. We haven't seen the Irish club European success translate into the same level of international success. Nor has NZ's dominance of international rugby resulted in much recent Super Rugby success.

English rugby certainly hasn't been as good as formative years (which had to be built towards from a previous dip), and yes we had a seriously lacklustre WC, yet even with a number of poor coaches making poor selections, hanging on to past their prime players & notions, last season we still managed to win the most international matches of our neighbours and take the 6N title.

Plenty of room for improvement, but the addressing of the coaching and selection issues will be the biggest steps in that regard.

I don't see many of the other changes being discussed here as particularly relevant.

Artful - it is naive to think that the current structure is the final version when there so many vested interests. It will continue to evolve regardless of who is currently successful and I don't mean in one single game although Fridays fixture encapsulated many things including a fine victory. There is a bigger picture.

Recwatcher wrote:Artful - it is naive to think that the current structure is the final version when there so many vested interests. It will continue to evolve regardless of who is currently successful and I don't mean in one single game although Fridays fixture encapsulated many things including a fine victory. There is a bigger picture.

I would say the opposite mate, its incredibly naive to think that structures are going to change cause your team are garbage.

Fair enough.

Lots of different points being made. I'd say:

- Nothing fundamentally wrong with English club rugby. Sarries are through from a tough group despite their inexperience, Saints would have been through if they hadn't made a complete hash of the Scarlets home game (and perhaps just if Foden hadn't pulled out just before kick off leaving an out of position player at fullback to be exploited by some excellent kicking), Quins may yet qualify and I don't think Gloucester are far away from being competitive. Of the others LI are a couple of years away from being competitive but have many fine young players, Bath have had a nightmare season and Tigers are a side with obvious weaknesses. But European rugby is a lot more competitive than it was a few years back and a reasonable season is now two English qualifiers. English club rugby has no particular right to 3 or 4 QF places. But this doesn't mean the AP has got worse - the conditioning and the organisation, not to mention the quality of the young players is way better than it's ever been thanks to the huge numbers of supporting staff. One of the Bristol coaches said earlier this season that the Championship is now around the level the AP was 4 or 5 years back.
- English clubs ARE sometimes at a disadvantage to Celtic league clubs because where you finish in the AP really matters. Take Leicester, horrible start, will probably struggle during the 6 Nations - they face a real possibility of being out of Europe next season. Hence they've had to try really hard to win all their recent domestic games, despite the inevitable injuries, and it has caught up with them. This takes nothing from Ulster who were brilliant, but it is hard for an AP side to consistently bring the same intensity to a one-off game as an Irish province can. Let their be no doubt though, Ulster are a better team than Leicester at present.
- English rugby, with the exception of Leicester, is giving more chances to young players than ever before.
- Leicester look a side in decline. There must be questions about Cockerill and how he uses the resources available to him. I think the Saints squad for example looks much better balanced. Also there is something serious wrong with the academy. Yes Leicester produce an exceptional player every couple of years, but that's it. Generally speaking their academy doesn't produce the groups of two or three players a year who pad out squads to convincingly cover injuries and become decent club men. Armes, Harris, Bower, Green, Forsyth, Everard - they just haven't been good enough (or haven't been given the chances). Serious remedial action is needed to up the quantity of decent academy graduates because you can't compete at the top level by just spending more and more of your budget on TH props and thinking that will be enough to bring success.

English clubs ARE sometimes at a disadvantage to Celtic league clubs because where you finish in the AP really matters.

But it matters for Leinster too. A top 4 finish is pretty much demanded. And we're pretty much always in the top 2 in recent years. Last season we had a really poor start, losing something like 3 out of 5 games. We had to claw our way back up the table with win after win after win. Nobody was waiting around for us to catch up. It was hard to keep winning while keeping up the European campaign. But we had the squad to do it, and finished 2nd. It's not as if we're languishing around mid-table waiting for the next European match.

Anyway I'll stop arguing and try and turn the conversation towards something more constructive. I think squad depth is an advantage that the big Irish and French teams have over their English counterparts. True, Leinster has a huge catchment area of about 2.5 million people. Probably one of the biggest of the home nations. But they're tapping into it and pumping out quality players from the academy. Why isn't London, with a population of 7 million, churning out top players at the same rate?

The best teams have always produced a lot of home grown talent and topped it up with good signings. I don't understand what is happening in England. The underage England sides are the best in Europe. What's happening to these players? Is conservatism in the clubs preventing youngsters from getting the necessary exposure? Is the coaching at the clubs up to standard?

Quins are showing that young English players playing good rugby can be a recipe for success, not failure. So maybe English teams don't HAVE to play their first 15 as much as they think they do. It might be a better long term plan to trust your full squad. A couple of defeats in the short term could be outweighed by the benefits bringing youngsters up to speed.

From Feckless,

'Leicester Tigers used squad rotation to become the only team to win a League/HEC double. How did they do that? I guess there were less excuses for defeat being clung to when the great Martin Johnson was playing. Why can't Northampton rotate their squad, like Toulouse, Clermont, Leinster and Munster do? All these teams can fight on two fronts while rotating, because the depth of their squads are top quality. Leinster are top of their HEC pool and top of the Pro 12 by using their whole squad.'

Not true - Wasps did it (2003)despite having a small squad & Saints nearly did it last year with a relatively small squad.
They did well despite the disadvantages because at the time they had outstanding first XV players.

Feckless - London is producing a steady stream of quality players. N the last couple of seasons alone you could point to Owen Farrell, Tom Homer, Jonathan Joseph, Joe Marler, Christian Wade, Luke Wallace...

But there are four clubs competing for that talent.

More importantly, the English salary cap means that most teams are running with squads of about 38 players, plus academy lads, and that it's a tricky balancing act to make both first xv players and their backups of competitive quality, especially in Europe.

I think that the salary cap is essential and can only be raised gradually, because without it we would inevitably see too many clubs unable to compete at AP level. But in the short term, it limits what English clubs can do in Europe, because we just can't carry as many experienced, quality players as some of the clubs we face.

Maybe it is just that too many expensive foreign players fill the leagues and not less expensive academy players.

Poorfour wrote: All I am saying is that Ulster would have had more opportunity to plan ahead and manage their squad for this match, even if it's only a matter of resting a couple of players at some point to keep them fresh for the game. Leicester have had to focus on winning every game and looked totally drained in comparison.

.

I see a number of people have made this point that Leicester have had to play hard in every game whilst Ulster rest players. So I thought I would check some facts.

Guess what is it complete and utter garbage.

I took the front 5 as an example. Both teams have had 3 matches since the 3rd and 4th rounds of the HC.

So that is 15 starts available.

The Leicester front 5 against Ulster only started in 4 of those 15 starts.
The Ulster front 5 , by contrast , started in 8 of those 15 starts.

So if anything it is Leicester who had the rest not Ulster ...but hey lets not let the facts get in the way of the myth that Pro12 rest players and the Aviva doesn't

I don't think theres a Problem with English Rugby, Leicester are a good team but arn't hitting the Heights they used to, it's the same with Munster, the two are in a little rebuilding phase, but are still good. If Leicester had not been in a pool of death they would have got to the QF's. Sarries need a bit more experience, and could be talked about as serious H-cup contenders.

I would ideally like to see the H-cup change to all the teams, in the top14, Pro12, and english, (except the just promoted teams) all qualify for it, but no group stage just a plane knock out cup, the higher each team finished in its domestic league the later it enters.

Recwatcher wrote: Tigers were always likely to get mugged in that game,away from home, with key players missing and others out of position, against a rested team

Dismissed as garbage - see above

Recwatcher wrote:and with a ref who allows a free for all at the breakdown.

Poite referred both teams the same way - the difference was Ulster could see what he was and wasn't allowing and adapted accordingly. Leicester problem if they haven't got the brains to do the same.

Recwatcher wrote:If Ulster were a consistent side why are they mid table in the Rabo Pro 12 ?

Ulster are 4 points of a playoff place and as Leicester know you can go up the table very quickly. Also we have, on balance, played a harder set of fixtures in the first half of the season. Our next 7 games are 4 at home and 3 away, which includes Connacht and Treviso. Not understimating anyone but my money is on us being in a play off place at the end of those 7 games. Someone else said we didn't take the Pro12 serious - nothing could be further fromn the truth.

Recwatcher wrote:When Bath played Ulster we were down to our 4th choice flyhalf because of injury, with the same result on the scoreboard against a fully fit opposition.

Bath lost to Ulster 4 times in 2 year - are you putting all 4 defeats down to one selection. As an FYI in not one of those matches did Ulster play a first choice XV with players like Best, Ferris and Cave missing matches. The difference is we rolled our sleeves up and got on with it rather than making excuses. 4-0 speaks for itself