Should the Heineken Cup semi-finals be played over 2 legs?

Gerry Thornley in the Irish times discusses the semi-final draw in the Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0424/1224315103747.html

He notes that 20 of the 32 semi-finals to date have been won by the home team and calls it the tournaments biggest flaw. It's certainly a bit unfair. It's pot luck. But if it was decided by pool seeding you could say it comes down to who gets lucky with a weaker pool. The obvious solution is to introduce something that is unheard of in rugby as far as I know. A two legged tie. It would be the fairest option. And it would also be very exciting. I love the pool stage back to back meetings where two teams try to get an advantage in bonus points over the two games. This would simply be about who can score the most points over two games. Thornley says all 6 Unions have been asked about the semi final situation and none expressed any interest in changing it. And the obvious problem is where to fit an extra HC cup fixture. But I think it would be good for the tournament and two legged semi's would add even more spice to an already excellent tournament. Should the Heineken Cup semi-finals be played over 2 legs?

Makes sense to me

+1 [EDIT: all depends on game time, even one extra game makes it tight. Should Quarters be bipedal? I say yes]

No.

I hate two leg matches in rugby. different conditions can lead to varying differentials. All in all I find them totally lacking in drama and an unedifying spectacle.

No, I hate the lack of drama in a first leg. And we don't need an extra game. One game, winner takes all and may we be subject to the luck of the draw

LondonTiger wrote:No.

I hate two leg matches in rugby. different conditions can lead to varying differentials. All in all I find them totally lacking in drama and an unedifying spectacle.

+1.

20/32 won by the home team is surprisingly low ... that's only an extra 20% or so advantage (for pedants" all else equal you would expect 16/32 = 50%. The extra 4 matches is about 10%, and that is 20% of the original 50.) When i read that number it made me even more sure that I wouldn't want them bipedal.

I know they're 'less significant' but then you would have to consider it also for the quarters ...

I would rather have the semis played on neutral ground like the final if it is such a problem.

I can't remember a rugby competition where the tournament structure resulted in a winner that arguably should not have won. Except for maybe RWC 2007: SA had a relatively easy run but then again they beat everyone in front of them.

If Ulster or Clermont (the home sides) win the HC you can't say they won't have deserved it even with their matches up until now.

I'd rather consider playing the semi's, if not also the quarters, on neutral ground than have two legs.

Why create a problem where there isn't one. Thornley is only raising this because Leinster have a tough away draw. I suspect if they had been at the Aviva this article would never have seen the light of day.

No they should not be two legged but I wouldnt be against seeding for the semis. Top seeds get home semi. If you beat the top seed in quarters you take their seeding.

The Great Aukster wrote:Why create a problem where there isn't one. Thornley is only raising this because Leinster have a tough away draw. I suspect if they had been at the Aviva this article would never have seen the light of day.

Its the biggest weakness of the heineken cup because the away team rarely wins therefore its almost like deciding the semis by tossing a coin.

It's strange when the current situation is rubbish, yet the alternatives are hardly any better.

- A two-legger devalues the first match, and different conditions could make it unfair to a particular team.
- Neutral venues simply impose the costs of travel on all supporters, rather than some.
- Home-field advantage for the best pool teams could (possibly) unfairly benefit a team with an easy pool.

Still, it seems strange that the team playing at home has done nothing to earn that advantage and honour and advantage. Just doesn't sit right for me, when so much else (seedings, qualifications, QF rankings) are based on actual performance.

I'd be up for a beer-pong round robin between the clubs' supporters to decide home advantage, but I'd probably lose to a hairy-chested Ulsterwoman...

No, away teams don't have a bad record in semi-finals lb. As has already been pointed out, it's 60/40 in favour of the home team.

Notch wrote:No, away teams don't have a bad record in semi-finals lb. As has already been pointed out, it's 60/40 in favour of the home team.

Even if that statistic is correct that is still a significant advantage in a semi final. Of course you would rather play at home anyway.

Surely the final could also end up being home advantage for one side, so should it be played over two legs in different countries?
The draw is the draw and if teams gets themselves in the mix often enough it will balance out - so the better teams will rise to the top.

The Great Aukster wrote:Surely the final could also end up being home advantage for one side, so should it be played over two legs in different countries?
The draw is the draw and if teams gets themselves in the mix often enough it will balance out - so the better teams will rise to the top.

Pretty rare that a team plays the final in their home country when the other finalists are from elsewhere. Ulster and Wasps the only ones I can think of. Maybe the semis should be played at neutral venues. Dont understand why it cant be done with seeding like the Rabo playoffs. Fairest option.

How do you seed teams that haven't played each other? If it is based on ERC ranking then that is possibly even more unfair because the better teams will have the home draws keeping them in the upper echelons. The imbalance in the home/away win ratio will be a lot more in favour of the home side with such a system.

It used to be that Seeds 1 and 2 got home semis, or the teams that beat them.

I remember Leinster once being top seeds from a urine poor group. Tigers then completely overwhelmed them at Lansdowne Rd and securing the home semi.

yeah but declan kidney was leinster manager for that match

So why not just have one leg on neutral ground?

The Great Aukster wrote:Why create a problem where there isn't one. Thornley is only raising this because Leinster have a tough away draw. I suspect if they had been at the Aviva this article would never have seen the light of day.

+ plenty

Leinster have had a fairly easy time of it so far. Sunday will test whether they have the cojones of champions. Here's hoping for a great game.

Knowsit17 wrote:So why not just have one leg on neutral ground?

What's the definition of neutral ground? e.g. If one team is further away does it disadvantage them by making it harder for their fans? Say Cardiff Blues were playing Harlequins, do they play Murrayfield, the Aviva or Stade de France? What about if it was Leicester v Quins?

the 2001 final was held at the supposedly neutral venue of Parc des Princes fully 25m from the home ground - Stade Francais.

I don't like this suggestion for the Heineken Cup playoffs. The home team has generally earned their home berth by having a superior pool record. Consequently, there is no reason they shouldn't benefit from that and have the match at home, just as in the Quarter Finals. Yes, we all know some pools are harder and others easier. But these are the breaks - no system is perfect.

And if more matches are added to the semi-finals, then for consistency should they not also be added to the quater-finals? This adds an extra two weeks to the season and an extra two matches for the players which I am not in favour of. A solution which may be working in soccer does ot always work in Rugby.

doctor_grey wrote:I don't like this suggestion for the Heineken Cup playoffs. The home team has generally earned their home berth by having a superior pool record.

No they haven't. They have for the quarters but not the semis

Two legs much preferable than one.

Hopping along would slow the game down too much, although it would certainly reduce the number of kicks in a game.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:So why not just have one leg on neutral ground?

What's the definition of neutral ground? e.g. If one team is further away does it disadvantage them by making it harder for their fans? Say Cardiff Blues were playing Harlequins, do they play Murrayfield, the Aviva or Stade de France? What about if it was Leicester v Quins?

Any of them. It really depends on how neutral you want to get, in the extreme of which you could play any semi between Welsh/Scottish/English/Irish sides in France or Italy. I'm not fussed about that personally, I think any country that isn't home to one of the competitors is acceptable. It would effectively disarm the complaints raised on the article as far as I'm concerned without giving the players more game time in a packed season. Essentially neither side would be under pressure of playing in their opponent's backyard.

Derbies between sides of the same country could be moved to a neutral city instead, for instance Leicester vs Quins in Manchester.

The home team has generally earned their home berth by having a superior pool record. Consequently, there is no reason they shouldn't benefit from that and have the match at home, just as in the Quarter Finals. .

Which makes it strange, that Edinburgh who finished 3rd overall out the group stages had to travel to Ireland to face lower placed Ulster in the Semis...

The Great Aukster wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:So why not just have one leg on neutral ground?

What's the definition of neutral ground? e.g. If one team is further away does it disadvantage them by making it harder for their fans? Say Cardiff Blues were playing Harlequins, do they play Murrayfield, the Aviva or Stade de France? What about if it was Leicester v Quins?

Cardiff City's stadium.
Saying that it's effectively an away venue for Cardiff Blues.

Not in favour of a two leg semi. It's the knockout stages, so it should be one game, winner takes all.
The luck of the the draw is part of the attraction of the HEC competition and happens to some degree when the pools are decided in the beginning anyway. I very much doubt Cardiff Blues would have progressed if they were in another group. Racing weren't interested and London Irish were a bit more rubbish than us. Edinburgh didn't give a monkeys about the league and concentrated entirely on the HEC.
Leave it as it is and don't try and fix it if it aint broke.

As a Dragons fan I am a tad awkward in posting on this matter!
Theoretically,I would prefer the Dragons to only have to play one leg semi-final as there is already enough punishment on the players.
I look forward to the time when this is an issue for the Dragons!!!!!!!!

Errrmmmm- were these not theoretically neutral grounds ? Just so turned out that a team ended up playing near to home in each one? No team is actually at its home ground

Can I just ask what *is* the system for home semi then? Because actually I am confused now as to why yesterday was played in Dublin and today in France? Leinster and Edinburgh 'performed' better in the pool stages respectively ..?

Sometimes in rugby, enough is enough. Every side knows what they are fighting for in the pools (victories and home advantage).

Who is to say what is a weak pool and a tough one (there have been many games in history that have proven you can seldom prove anything in advance on that particular front.

Rugby is actually a great sport partially because by its nature it can't really be the saturation sport that football often is.

HC, in my opinion, is good enough as it is. It's not an easy competition, shouldn't be an easy competition and advantages won during pool stages makes it the tough competition it is because fighting has to start from the very beginning. Cruising isn't an option

KickAndChase wrote:Can I just ask what *is* the system for home semi then? Because actually I am confused now as to why yesterday was played in Dublin and today in France? Leinster and Edinburgh 'performed' better in the pool stages respectively ..?

It's a random draw. Pulled out of a hat kind of deal.

Notch wrote:

KickAndChase wrote:Can I just ask what *is* the system for home semi then? Because actually I am confused now as to why yesterday was played in Dublin and today in France? Leinster and Edinburgh 'performed' better in the pool stages respectively ..?

It's a random draw. Pulled out of a hat kind of deal.

Leinster have made 4 semi finals in a row now. Thornleys point is that they could have been unlucky and gotten 4 away draws and never made a final. On the other hand they could have been lucky and gotten 4 home semi's and be going for their 4th title in a row. That's why he says it's the tournaments biggest flaw. It gives one team an advantage and disadvantages another, for no reason. It's just luck and not based on any previous performance.

Most people disagree with two legs. It's true that the weather conditions can often hugely effect how many points a team can score in rugby, so even the two legs mightn't be totally fair. Maybe using the pool seedings, is the least unfair?

Or maybe this imbalance is part of the HC's charm. And it allows the possibility of breakthrough's to the final from the likes of Ulster and Clermont. Teams that haven't been at this stage of the tournament in a long time.

Leinster over 2 legs would be very hide to beat

leinsterbaby wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Why create a problem where there isn't one. Thornley is only raising this because Leinster have a tough away draw. I suspect if they had been at the Aviva this article would never have seen the light of day.

Its the biggest weakness of the heineken cup because the away team rarely wins therefore its almost like deciding the semis by tossing a coin.

I really get off on tossing coins. it's the picture of the Queen that does it for me.

I'm sure Thornley now wishes he hadn't bothered to write that article.

I'm surprised also that no-one actually credited any of the "home" semi-final winners with being the better team on the day and it appears they only won because they were the "home" team.

Won't both finalists now play 'Away' in that Final?

There goes the makings of a great game detroyed by the powers that be as neither side can now possibly win that one

Here is a suggestion

Just like the final the semis venues are picked at the start of the season an if one of the teams gets its own/nearly own stadium well lucky them.

If it is chosen before the competion it will be fairer. Or all semi's can be held in italy that would work too.

Is the WC fair...given that only one country has 'Home' advantage the whole way through...........................?

I see the argument put forward about fairness as just a smokescreen from the rugby addicts who want more and more of the same.... more rugby, more games, more Heineken Cup, lots of saliva and manic stares even thinking about it...oh and of course, more free trips to the games as journalists and overnight stays and........


We have enough rugby in a year...and that's coming from someone who virtually has only rugby as a sport I love (not really interested in anything else; GAA, football, racing or poker!) We have enough rugby and it's fair enough.... as fair as it'll ever get with human referees adjudicating.

Brendan wrote:Here is a suggestion

Just like the final the semis venues are picked at the start of the season an if one of the teams gets its own/nearly own stadium well lucky them.

If it is chosen before the competion it will be fairer. Or all semi's can be held in italy that would work too.

They would do that, but it would decimate ticket sales. They need to have it in someone's home country to make it appealing to fans.

A Munster-Leinster semi in Milan is kind of a waste of everyones money...

I changed my mind. Winning away is even more enjoyable.

Notch wrote:

Brendan wrote:Here is a suggestion

Just like the final the semis venues are picked at the start of the season an if one of the teams gets its own/nearly own stadium well lucky them.

If it is chosen before the competion it will be fairer. Or all semi's can be held in italy that would work too.

They would do that, but it would decimate ticket sales. They need to have it in someone's home country to make it appealing to fans.

A Munster-Leinster semi in Milan is kind of a waste of everyones money...

I don't see the problem with away matches. Look at leinster they have been home and away so its swings and roundabouts.

I only said the Italy thing as a joke but as the final is in England you could of had a set semi in France and one in Scotland etc.

If people complain about away semi's and quarters this year has shown that the best team will usually win 9/10.

When was the last time that a team own a match they didn't deserve to win but only one because of playing at home

NO.

Also people saying why didn't Leinster and Edinburgh have home semis. Edinburgh and Leinster had arguably the two easiest pools so it's not surprising they did well.

They deserved a home quarter final but semi finals should be neutral.

I think the way it is it's probably the most fair.

beshocked wrote:NO.

Also people saying why didn't Leinster and Edinburgh have home semis. Edinburgh and Leinster had arguably the two easiest pools so it's not surprising they did well.

They deserved a home quarter final but semi finals should be neutral.

I think the way it is it's probably the most fair.

Also Beshocked beating a higher ranked team is surely worth its own ranking so Ulster beating the top seed should be rewarded.

Leave it as it is I think away semi's aren't as big as they are unless you play a team in their second stadium like Leinster and the aviva

If the match is played in a neutral venue then I think a winner takes all is fine. But neutral needs to be neutral

Ulster vs Edinburgh semi was imo not neutral. That game could have been played in Wales or England. Although logistics would be a bit difficult given the timesclaes involved.

If you cannot get a neutral venue, then a home and away leg is the way to go!

tigertattie wrote:If the match is played in a neutral venue then I think a winner takes all is fine. But neutral needs to be neutral

Ulster vs Edinburgh semi was imo not neutral. That game could have been played in Wales or England. Although logistics would be a bit difficult given the timesclaes involved.

If you cannot get a neutral venue, then a home and away leg is the way to go!

You say that, but the two teams had exactly the same number of tickets to sell and the vast majority of tickets were on public sale. Mainly Ulster fans went after them.

I think holding the game in Wales or England would be a bit of a slap in the face to fans. I'm going to Twickenham and its massively expensive. The airlines are completely gouging fans. Now, poor Edinburgh this year will have suffered from that in the semi-final but how do two wrongs make a right? A completely neutral venue just benefits price gouging airlines.

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but there's no real preferable solution.

Notch wrote:

tigertattie wrote:If the match is played in a neutral venue then I think a winner takes all is fine. But neutral needs to be neutral

Ulster vs Edinburgh semi was imo not neutral. That game could have been played in Wales or England. Although logistics would be a bit difficult given the timesclaes involved.

If you cannot get a neutral venue, then a home and away leg is the way to go!

You say that, but the two teams had exactly the same number of tickets to sell and the vast majority of tickets were on public sale. Mainly Ulster fans went after them.
I think holding the game in Wales or England would be a bit of a slap in the face to fans. I'm going to Twickenham and its massively expensive. The airlines are completely gouging fans. Now, poor Edinburgh this year will have suffered from that in the semi-final but how do two wrongs make a right? A completely neutral venue just benefits price gouging airlines.

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but there's no real preferable solution.

I'm assuming that's tongue-in-cheek, notch? The differences for fans of Edinburgh and Ulster in travel terms are too obvious.

No, it's true Asbo. You're right but there are something like 35000 tickets on general sale... not many Edinburgh fans went for it. Probably because of the expense. If it was somewhere else neither home or away fans would be wiling to splash out and everybody loses.

You have two choices. Everyone has to travel and get gouged by the airlines, or just one side has to. It's not ideal but home and away ties are not appealing either- I'm yet to see anyone offer a viable alternative.

Maybe seed it so the winners of 1 vs 8 and 2 vs 7 get the home tie and 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 are away. But the disparity of the group stage makes seedings coming out pretty irrelevant. It would basically be the same as random chance.

Brendan wrote:

beshocked wrote:NO.

Also people saying why didn't Leinster and Edinburgh have home semis. Edinburgh and Leinster had arguably the two easiest pools so it's not surprising they did well.

They deserved a home quarter final but semi finals should be neutral.

I think the way it is it's probably the most fair.

Also Beshocked beating a higher ranked team is surely worth its own ranking so Ulster beating the top seed should be rewarded.

Leave it as it is I think away semi's aren't as big as they are unless you play a team in their second stadium like Leinster and the aviva

Brendan which top seed?

Ulster haven't beaten Leinster yet. I think Ulster have done very well this season in the HC. If you mean Munster -Ulster got their reward - a home semi against Edinburgh.

It sounds like this whole neutral thing is difficult to fathom. It certainly favours certain sides.

Question: where would Edinburgh play if they get a home semi in a future HC? Can't be Murrayfield surely?