Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Since the 2000 season, the most games that a relegated team in the Aviva Premiership has won is 7 games - Bristol Shoguns in 2003. There have been 3 teams with 6 wins, one team with 5, and the remainder have had only 2-3 wins. One even managed none.

In short, relegated teams do pretty poorly in the Premiership, and it's fairly easy to spot early on who are the "drop" candidates and who are the rest of the teams that don't really have to worry about it. To use football parlance, anything over 30 points and you're generally safe. (Over the last five years, it's ranged from 12 points to 32 for Newcastle last year.)

In a recent newspaper article, Bernard Jackman, an assistant coach with French team, Grenoble, talked about their approach to the season whereby they target particular games and rest/rotate players accordingly.

Jackman says that Grenoble have known from the start of this season that they are relegation candidates, along with three to four other teams. The remainder fight for higher spots for mid-table security for another season, and then the top 6 spots for the playoffs and European qualification.

Presumably, a similar outlook must be taken in the Premiership. London Welsh seem to be the early favourites for returning from whence they came. Who else is in the relegation group that'll be spending the season in a dog-fight to get those precious 7-8 wins to stay up? Or if you prefer who doesn't really have to worry about it? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Saracens, Harlequins and Leicester won't be spending too many sleepless nights......

True Saracens, Harlequins and Leicester, but i'd imagine Saints, Bath Sale and Irish would be pretty confident of winning 6+ games in a season, and would target around 8 games they should win. You could even add Exeter to that list as well

London Welsh and Worcester will fight it out, but in truth I can't see LW winning a game lets alone 6+

Not much risk of relegation to keep the other sides keen then...

Finally, a question that's extremely simple to respond to.

Does - Relegation - Really - Matter - To - All - Of - The - Aviva - Clubs - ?

No. And many of us over here in Pro12 land have been saying it over and over and over.

I doubt that Leicester have ever worried about relegation, even last year when they were briefly candidates. But bear in mind that two of last year's top 4 have been relegated in the last 8 seasons, and last season a club who've won the HEC multiple times were within one point of going down. In the season that Quins went down, IIRC any one of the bottom four clubs could have been relegated, depending on the final day's results.

Nearly all Premiership clubs do worry about relegation, but for most it is over part way through the season when they are mathematically safe. For others, it gets worse as he season goes on. Wasps would not have expected to come so close at the outset of the season, but their injury list left them very exposed until Sam Vesty gifted them a crucial bonus point.

This season it's almost unfair to answer that question as normally the promoted club has a more solid squad than LW.
But LW will reap what they have sown having created a unique situation.

Put it this way there are more teams in fear of relegation in the Aviva than teams in fear of failing to qualify for the HC in the Rabo!

No chance that a club the size of Saints orQuins would get relegated....

Of course theres obvious relegation fodder. LWelsh make most teams feel secure. Worcester are pretty poor too.

But look at what happened to Wasps last season, they had a decent squad on paper but fell apart losing at one point 17 senior squad members to long term injuries.
As it was Newcastle were just disgracefuly poor and kept them up, but it was a close thing.


The other thing with relegation is it means teams down near the bottom are trying all through the season. They cant afford to take the last couple of games lightly and experiment with youth.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:This season it's almost unfair to answer that question as normally the promoted club has a more solid squad than LW.
But LW will reap what they have sown having created a unique situation.

Put it this way there are more teams in fear of relegation in the Aviva than teams in fear of failing to qualify for the HC in the Rabo!

By mid-season in the Aviva, there's usually just two maybe three realistically fighting the relegation spot. Although in some years, it's literally just been one - getting zero points kinda makes you stand out from the crowd.

There's two teams in the Pro12 who could fail to qualify for the HC based on their placing.

Pot Hale wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:This season it's almost unfair to answer that question as normally the promoted club has a more solid squad than LW.
But LW will reap what they have sown having created a unique situation.

Put it this way there are more teams in fear of relegation in the Aviva than teams in fear of failing to qualify for the HC in the Rabo!

By mid-season in the Aviva, there's usually just two maybe three realistically fighting the relegation spot. Although in some years, it's literally just been one - getting zero points kinda makes you stand out from the crowd.

There's two teams in the Pro12 who could fail to qualify for the HC based on their placing.

Wow 2 that's really scary.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:This season it's almost unfair to answer that question as normally the promoted club has a more solid squad than LW.
But LW will reap what they have sown having created a unique situation.

Put it this way there are more teams in fear of relegation in the Aviva than teams in fear of failing to qualify for the HC in the Rabo!

Fear of relegation is only a distraction in the way of trying to win. Surely trying to win is what you do when you go onto the field? You try to win if you want a title, you try to win if you want to qualify for a competition, you try to win if you want to avoid relegation. It doesn't matter what's on your agenda, the objective is the same for all - trying to win a game - even with a lazy second string team!!!

If you win enough games you're heading towards the right end of the table and towards titles, qualifications for competitions that will have titles, etc. Winning is its own motivation. Fear of relegation doesn't distract from the desire and need to win every game. Ability is the only thing that gets in the way. So rugby isn't complicated - just win as often as you can. ie, Irish Provinces still try to win their League even though winning it isn't technically relevant to HC qualification for three out of four of them.

And to get to your next point before you do - "the Italians and Scottish don't have to win a blessed thing to get into the HC, so where's your theory there, smartazz?"
Well, winning is again the objective in HC, win as many games as possible and you're on your way to the right end of the table. Losing to 'ultra poor' competition isn't the way to do that

SecretFly wrote:

Fear of relegation is only a distraction in the way of trying to win. Surely trying to win is what you do when you go onto the field? You try to win if you want a title, you try to win if you want to qualify for a competition, you try to win if you want to avoid relegation. It doesn't matter what's on your agenda, the objective is the same for all - trying to win a game - even with a lazy second string team!!!

I'm not sure that's true for all clubs. Those facing relegation or likely to be in a relegation battle have to approach things a little more tactically and smartly - as Bernard Jackman makes very clear in relation to Grenoble. They target the matches they believe they can get points from, and rest players for those where they don't believe they can. It's cynical, etc, but it's pragmatic.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:This season it's almost unfair to answer that question as normally the promoted club has a more solid squad than LW.
But LW will reap what they have sown having created a unique situation.

Put it this way there are more teams in fear of relegation in the Aviva than teams in fear of failing to qualify for the HC in the Rabo!

By mid-season in the Aviva, there's usually just two maybe three realistically fighting the relegation spot. Although in some years, it's literally just been one - getting zero points kinda makes you stand out from the crowd.

There's two teams in the Pro12 who could fail to qualify for the HC based on their placing.

Wow 2 that's really scary.

You mean about the 2 premiership relegation candidates? Not really. Most of the drops were shoite in the seasons they played - with a couple of exceptions.
Bedford Blues, Rotherham Titans x 2, Leeds x 4, NEC Harlequins, Saints, Bristol, Worcester, and Newcastle.

The threat of relegation also tends to create a very different style of play. The relegation candidates in most seasons try to pick up points where they can, which leads to an emphasis on heavy packs and negative play. Close the opposition down enough, and you can get an LBP.

Overall, that tends to lead to lower ambition and skill, and a preference for grizzled journeymen over emerging talent. Which in turn has a knock-on impact on the other teams in the league, who have to be prepared for arm wrestles throughout the season. The bottom placed team will be scrapping for points, not switching off, and with HEC qualification at stake, you can't afford to ignore them.

SecretFly wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:This season it's almost unfair to answer that question as normally the promoted club has a more solid squad than LW.
But LW will reap what they have sown having created a unique situation.

Put it this way there are more teams in fear of relegation in the Aviva than teams in fear of failing to qualify for the HC in the Rabo!

Fear of relegation is only a distraction in the way of trying to win. Surely trying to win is what you do when you go onto the field? You try to win if you want a title, you try to win if you want to qualify for a competition, you try to win if you want to avoid relegation. It doesn't matter what's on your agenda, the objective is the same for all - trying to win a game - even with a lazy second string team!!!

If you win enough games you're heading towards the right end of the table and towards titles, qualifications for competitions that will have titles, etc. Winning is its own motivation. Fear of relegation doesn't distract from the desire and need to win every game. Ability is the only thing that gets in the way. So rugby isn't complicated - just win as often as you can. ie, Irish Provinces still try to win their League even though winning it isn't technically relevant to HC qualification for three out of four of them.

And to get to your next point before you do - "the Italians and Scottish don't have to win a blessed thing to get into the HC, so where's your theory there, smartazz?"
Well, winning is again the objective in HC, win as many games as possible and you're on your way to the right end of the table. Losing to 'ultra poor' competition isn't the way to do that

I agree with most of that & you seem to be making my point for me.

The lack of number of teams striving to qualify for the HC in the Rabo ( because it's guaranteed!) compared to more teams ( in a normal Aviva season) striving to avoid relegation.

There is a fight to avoid relegation.

Right now LI, LW, Sale, Wasps and Worcester are all starting to get desperate for a win.

There is also a scrap for HC spots as only half the teams can make it.

The two combined create a certain amount of drama - but also at times a certain amount of negative play. So far this season there has been a lot more running rugby than negative stuff - but there has been the turgid as well.

Poorfour wrote:I doubt that Leicester have ever worried about relegation, even last year when they were briefly candidates.

True, but we were really worried about making the top 6 and really, really worried about making the play-offs. While the run post WC was fantastic - it led to the players being overplayed.

I think the point is that relegation generally keeps 3 or 4 sides at the bottom of the table on their toes, and HC and top 4 qualification motivate the rest. This means there are very few games until the very end of the season where both sides don't have something to play for.

This year Welsh could undermine that slightly by appearing doomed by Christmas, but most other AP sides probably have a chance of a top 6 finish so hopefully it won't matter too much.

I love how when a question is raised about the Aviva and how it operates some posters immediately jump in with "Well it's better than the Pro12"

Why is your only measure of a good league 'if it's better than the Pro12'?

Smirnoffpriest wrote:I love how when a question is raised about the Aviva and how it operates some posters immediately jump in with "Well it's better than the Pro12"

Why is your only measure of a good league 'if it's better than the Pro12'?

Only two posts referred to Pro12, one being yours.

LondonTiger wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:I love how when a question is raised about the Aviva and how it operates some posters immediately jump in with "Well it's better than the Pro12"

Why is your only measure of a good league 'if it's better than the Pro12'?

Only two posts referred to Pro12, one being yours.

And let's not make it a mickey-waving contest between the two, please.

I think relegation suits the English game as there are a large number of ambitious clubs dreaming of AP rugby developing and growing rugby in their area of the country in order to be able to progress to the required level. This keeps rugby moving forward in areas where otherwise it may be difficult to stimulate interest.

The Cornish Pirates are really doing good things down in Cornwall, Exeter have brought alive rugby in their part of the world and I know Nottingham are doing their best to try and raise the awareness of the sport in a city dominated by football and cricket. That is important. What is also important is that it gives struggling teams a chance to rebuild and return in a better state than when they were relegated. Those relegated teams coming back up normally come back up with a number of talented young English players as part of the team often replacing SH journeymen which is beneficial to the national team long term.

LondonTiger wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:I love how when a question is raised about the Aviva and how it operates some posters immediately jump in with "Well it's better than the Pro12"

Why is your only measure of a good league 'if it's better than the Pro12'?

Only two posts referred to Pro12, one being yours.

Ahh apologies I should have personalised this to BigTrevsbigmac, though he has posted most/2nd most on this thread, and most of them included a ref to the Pro12. I was only pointing this out in the post above.

PotHale - whats a Mickey-waving contest?

IMO while the relegation threat does motivate teams at the bottom, it does induce a negative style of rugby, which though usually only includes 2 or 3 at most teams - particularly past January, does effect the rest of the leagues teams ie they have to deal with overly defensive and very aggressive teams who are very physical in their approach. But most teams would be looking to compete for the HEC places.

The main reason for relegation is to allow promotion (even if it's just a dream at the moment for a lot of clubs).

The way it effects the majority of the clubs in the premiership isn't the worry of them being relegated. It's the fact the teams at the bottom play like demons at the end of the season. You can say "we you sound and win every single game..blah blah blah". But it physically impossible to give your all every game for a full season. The threat of relegation means the lower teams never give up and generally get better at the end of the season when relegation starts to become reality.

Finally, the reason the lower teams don't win many games is because the top teams can't send weakened sides and still expect a win (or are fighting for HEC spots and need the win).

I prefer the Jeff because I'm English and am irrationally biased because of it.

But rationally as a sports-lover I see it this way:

Pros:
• It allows, in theory at least, access to the summit for any club however humble. In reality that's just restricted to Th Championship clubs an a few ND1 sides, but that provides a competitive edge (associated with:)
• Despite any artificial glass ceilings imposed on promotion, there is no reinforced concrete slab. Thus the likes of Saints and Quins are not immune from the drop and Exeter, Worcester, OW etc. can rise from the depths.
•The league has many points of legitimate targets. Much as I despise them, the playoffs create a top-four impetus. The HEC qualifications create a top six challenge and relegation creates a trap-door for failure and opportunity for new blood.

Cons:

• As in any pro sport, money is everything and haves an have-nots are clearly delineated. For me there are too many clubs cluttering up the league in a way that engenders and provides succour to the notion that sucking in foreign make-weights is the way to go forward. It's not. It's a direct route to mediocrity.

• Too many teams - at least two too many (possibly four) - The league clubs and the international sides live in a symbiotic dependency syndrome. Neither can survive without the other and whilst the clubs refute this essential understanding their seeds will forever fall on stony ground.

• Caps ( the Welsh have just fallen into this trap) should be based on sustainability - not magic square numbers. The Wasps and Aironi are evidence of this - if you go bust, you are squit. In England's case there is a huge potential for a vibrant and truly competitive Championship (Jeff II).

Plus the Jeff ain't spread over for nations with four unions with for separate structures.

Portnoy, I agree with your pros, but not your cons. There aren't too many teams in the Jeff; reduce the number of teams and you reduce the number of home games, and therefore revenue. Tigers might survive that, but pretty soon they'd have no-one to play with. Same deal with salary caps and promotion criteria. They are there to make the league as a whole sustainable; making the cap larger for clubs with bigger finances would reduce competitiveness, and eventually damage the viability of everyone.

It's not ideal, but the alternatives are limited. The RFU could sustain an artificially small league, per the regions/provinces, but club owners who've pumped in millions over the years are unlikely to sign up for it. The happier view is that Exeter have shown the way forward, and at the same time made the Championship more competitive and valuable.

The structure isn't ideal for a still-immature professional game, but in the long run it will work better as the gap between top of the Championship and bottom of the Jeff narrows

HammerofThunor wrote:The main reason for relegation is to allow promotion (even if it's just a dream at the moment for a lot of clubs).

The way it effects the majority of the clubs in the premiership isn't the worry of them being relegated. It's the fact the teams at the bottom play like demons at the end of the season. You can say "we you sound and win every single game..blah blah blah". But it physically impossible to give your all every game for a full season. The threat of relegation means the lower teams never give up and generally get better at the end of the season when relegation starts to become reality.

Finally, the reason the lower teams don't win many games is because the top teams can't send weakened sides and still expect a win (or are fighting for HEC spots and need the win).

Relegation is to allow promotion - true but also punishes poor performance - it's a two way street.

The majority of clubs don't worry about relegation - true.

The reason the lower teams don't win many games is because the top teams can't send weakened sides? Surely, it's because they're not good enough. And I don't buy the notion that teams don't send weakened sides out from time to time - they do. Happens across every league.

The unhappy fact Poorfour, is that Oxford got promoted above Cornwall in yet another almighty effup in decision making.

The Championship charged up with the likes of Sale, LI, Wasps and the like would make the Championship more compelling.

As the IWs bollix-up the Jeff table (thereby 'requiring' P-Os), the Prem sides could develop an English Jeff /Championship cup. That would keep turnstiles moving (whilst most fans are more interested in the international)s.

Pot Hale wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The main reason for relegation is to allow promotion (even if it's just a dream at the moment for a lot of clubs).

The way it effects the majority of the clubs in the premiership isn't the worry of them being relegated. It's the fact the teams at the bottom play like demons at the end of the season. You can say "we you sound and win every single game..blah blah blah". But it physically impossible to give your all every game for a full season. The threat of relegation means the lower teams never give up and generally get better at the end of the season when relegation starts to become reality.

Finally, the reason the lower teams don't win many games is because the top teams can't send weakened sides and still expect a win (or are fighting for HEC spots and need the win).

Relegation is to allow promotion - true but also punishes poor performance - it's a two way street.

The majority of clubs don't worry about relegation - true.

The reason the lower teams don't win many games is because the top teams can't send weakened sides? Surely, it's because they're not good enough. And I don't buy the notion that teams don't send weakened sides out from time to time - they do. Happens across every league.

PH,

Zebre could sign up nineteen blokes off the terraces and put in four front rowers for regulatory purposes. Week-in-week out so long as funds last and still merit an HEC spot. That, in a nutshell, is the difference. That is the luxury lower Jeff sides don't have.

Relegation matters.

Such an overrated league. Heineken Cup will be coming around soon, I expect their teams to continue losing to ones from the RaboPro12. Then the usual excuses and threats will be ringing again.

Don't make yourself a hostage to fortune Morgan.

Weather is not the same as climate.

Portnoy wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:The main reason for relegation is to allow promotion (even if it's just a dream at the moment for a lot of clubs).

The way it effects the majority of the clubs in the premiership isn't the worry of them being relegated. It's the fact the teams at the bottom play like demons at the end of the season. You can say "we you sound and win every single game..blah blah blah". But it physically impossible to give your all every game for a full season. The threat of relegation means the lower teams never give up and generally get better at the end of the season when relegation starts to become reality.

Finally, the reason the lower teams don't win many games is because the top teams can't send weakened sides and still expect a win (or are fighting for HEC spots and need the win).

Relegation is to allow promotion - true but also punishes poor performance - it's a two way street.

The majority of clubs don't worry about relegation - true.

The reason the lower teams don't win many games is because the top teams can't send weakened sides? Surely, it's because they're not good enough. And I don't buy the notion that teams don't send weakened sides out from time to time - they do. Happens across every league.

PH,

Zebre could sign up nineteen blokes off the terraces and put in four front rowers for regulatory purposes. Week-in-week out so long as funds last and still merit an HEC spot. That, in a nutshell, is the difference. That is the luxury lower Jeff sides don't have.

Relegation matters.

I agree with you, PN. That's my point. Relegation matters - for 2 or 3 lower Premiership sides. They don't have the luxury of not winning without consequences. If they don't win, the worst of them drops down and the others continue. And they'll continue to stay up if the team promoted is even worse than them as often happens. However, it is only confined to two or three clubs fortunately.

The remainder don't have to worry about relegation and can focus on trying to get into the playoffs. Or winning the Anglo-Welsh Cup. Or winning their European matches.

But relegation drives the lower sides. It means they have to try and get points off the higher up teams as well as the lower sides. If the lower sides just rolled over or experimented for development, played academy players, etc it would be easier for the higher clubs.

HammerofThunor wrote:But relegation drives the lower sides. It means they have to try and get points off the higher up teams as well as the lower sides. If the lower sides just rolled over or experimented for development, played academy players, etc it would be easier for the higher clubs.

It's true. It adds an edge to the teams in danger. Especially near the end. It can't be denied.

The PRO12 only has the battle for top 4 really. Most people would say that the addition of the playoffs have made the PRO12 more exciting.

The AP has the relegation battle, the playoff battle and the HC qualification battle. Gives it a bit more bite I reckon.

And I like the idea that any club can potentially make it to the top.

And I agree with Portnoy that it might be better with 10 teams. Better for the England team anyway. Their players would have 4 games less a year. The RFU would have to make up the losses on every clubs 2 lost home games though.

And on the two clubs who are losing Jeff rugby altogether. And how would you choose them? In most seasons, you'd end up with Worcester in the bottom two, but for all their faults on the pitch they at least have their own ground and a dedicated fanbase. Last year, you'd have lost Wasps, which would be equally unthinkable for exactly the opposite reasons.

it's a mess, but it's our mess and the ownership issues are too intractable to make it fixable.

Feckless Rogue wrote:I agree with Portnoy that it might be better with 10 teams. Better for the England team anyway. Their players would have 4 games less a year. The RFU would have to make up the losses on every clubs 2 lost home games though.

I agree too that you would solve the problem of having less competitive lower ranked teams in the AP by just having ten, but you would have less England players to choose from unless those ten clubs brought in less Non English Qualified players.

It would be more competitive but not necesarily better for the national side as well.

HammerofThunor wrote:But relegation drives the lower sides. It means they have to try and get points off the higher up teams as well as the lower sides. If the lower sides just rolled over or experimented for development, played academy players, etc it would be easier for the higher clubs.

So you don't think that the lower sides target particular matches like Grenoble, Mont-de-Marsan, and others do in the Top 14? Admittedly, Mont-de-Marsan's targeting didn't do them much good at the weekend going down 52-7 to Grenoble. Themselves and Agen are already looking like cannon fodder for the season.

I don't understand. Sorry

Morgannwg wrote:Such an overrated league. Heineken Cup will be coming around soon, I expect their teams to continue losing to ones from the RaboPro12. Then the usual excuses and threats will be ringing again.

Do you live in a parallel universe where your team didn't get unceremoniously dumped out of the HC by an AP side?


It's pretty clear that AP teams generally field more full strength sides than the Pro12 because they have to. There is a lot more at stake in the AP and Top 14 than the Pro12. In the Pro12 you can finish 11th yet qualify for the HC. The Pro12 quality suffers because of more internationals (unsurprising when having to cater for 4 international squads instead of 1) and the likes of Leinster not playing their Irish stars.

As hammerofthunor says those sides in relegation threatening position will fight harder. The important bit though is that they are virtually unaffected by international call ups which makes them harder to beat during the IWs.

In regards to HC qualification you have to stay at the top of your game. 10 or 11 sides in the AP do not auto qualify for the HC. Only 6/7 do. This means that even sides like Leicester,Saracens and Saints have to look over their shoulders.

Beshocked, I believe it is you living in the parallel universe. In that universe there must be an orange, swansea based Morgannwg. Now back to reality, cool.

beshocked wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:Such an overrated league. Heineken Cup will be coming around soon, I expect their teams to continue losing to ones from the RaboPro12. Then the usual excuses and threats will be ringing again.

Do you live in a parallel universe where your team didn't get unceremoniously dumped out of the HC by an AP side?


It's pretty clear that AP teams generally field more full strength sides than the Pro12 because they have to. There is a lot more at stake in the AP and Top 14 than the Pro12. In the Pro12 you can finish 11th yet qualify for the HC. The Pro12 quality suffers because of more internationals (unsurprising when having to cater for 4 international squads instead of 1) and the likes of Leinster not playing their Irish stars.

As hammerofthunor says those sides in relegation threatening position will fight harder. The important bit though is that they are virtually unaffected by international call ups which makes them harder to beat during the IWs.

In regards to HC qualification you have to stay at the top of your game. 10 or 11 sides in the AP do not auto qualify for the HC. Only 6/7 do. This means that even sides like Leicester,Saracens and Saints have to look over their shoulders.

I don't entirelly agree with this.
If Ulster, Munster and Leinster were in the AP, they would put out the same sides and still prob have won at the weekend,
Ulster beat an Ospreys team with 9 Welsh internationals, not many AP teams have that number of Internationals.
Leinster beat the rough equivalent to Worcester Warriors, and I suspect the same team would, have put a similar score on Warriors.

In truth you want to put out a team that you think can win, while rotating the squad, the same XV players can't play every game in the season. The Provinces are just very good at it, (as they have to be) and I suspect their squads are better than most in the AP, and they get good squads by playing the younger players and giving them experience.

If Ulster, Munster and Leinster can win games while resting certain players then why would they not do it, if they were in the AP they would do the exact same thing, and still be at or near top of the table same as Pro 12.

While you call it a weakness of the Pro 12, I think thats its something that the English sides have to learn to do.

Kingshu you seriously big up the Irish sides.

No Ulster,Munster and Leinster couldn't have put out those sides against the top teams in the AP and won.

I wouldn't be so sure. Worcester gave Leicester a game.

Who are the 9 Ospreys Welsh internationals you refer to?

Saracens and Leicester do rotate.

beshocked wrote:Kingshu you seriously big up the Irish sides.

No Ulster,Munster and Leinster couldn't have put out those sides against the top teams in the AP and won.

I wouldn't be so sure. Worcester gave Leicester a game.

Who are the 9 Ospreys Welsh internationals you refer to?

Saracens and Leicester do rotate.

Yes Leicester and Saracens do rotate, as do Leinster, Munster and Ulster they do the same thing - none play their 1st XV all through the season (1 they can't because of the international rest periods and 2 it would destroy the players bodies). Each team also examines the fixture list and determines which teams they will play in order to give themselves the best points total at the end of the season (for example Leicester wouldn't go hell for leather with their absolute best team in both of the LW games because they knew they could save some players/energy for the tougher games).
So the statement that "AV teams can't afford to rest players - or slacken off" because the league is so competitive is nonsense. Teams in all leagues effectively utilize their squads to ensure their players are kept in good condition to give them the best chance of winning the most games.

I'd also imagine the 9 Ospreys internationals are the 9 players who have played internationals - ie , Andrew Bishop, Ashley Beck, Rhys Webb; Ryan Bevington, Richard Hibbard, Ian Gough, Alun Wyn Jones (capt), Justin Tipuric & Jonathan Thomas.

beshocked wrote:Kingshu you seriously big up the Irish sides.

No Ulster,Munster and Leinster couldn't have put out those sides against the top teams in the AP and won.

I wouldn't be so sure. Worcester gave Leicester a game.

Who are the 9 Ospreys Welsh internationals you refer to?

Saracens and Leicester do rotate.

They're big upable. I mean it's not logically unreasonable to do so. There might be arguments that could be put forward to challenge the assumption but that's what they are 'challenges' - because over the last half decade or more certainly two of those Irish sides (Provinces) have been proving on paper that they are a handful, or to put it more bluntly, that they are the sides to beat in Europe. The challenge will be for the other clubs from other leagues to end all that.

Meanwhile though, it's a few of the 'top teams in the AP' that got found out by a few of the lesser sides in the Pro12 last year during the HC, NOT the Irish sides. Top teams in the AP aren't always what the AP marketing men say they are - that's there on paper too in recent years.

Worcester had 9 internationals in their starting XV against Leicester.

I think that the only AP teams that have less than 9 internationals in their squads are Exeter and London Welsh, and I'm not sure about Welsh.

I've seen Leinster A teams in the B&I Cup that, on paper, were stronger than some of their league teams - yet Leinster A have never troubled the finals of the second tier competition.

Fine you got me there smirnoffpriest. Don't forget when you pick from 4 teams it's not that difficult to have a team full of internationals. Treviso and Zebre are full of internationals too.

By your logic Saracens had 10 internationals starting vs Sale.

The teams to beat in Europe are Clermont and Leinster. The rest I am confident of victory against.

Secretfly we beat the Pro12 champs home and away in the HC. It wasn't plain sailing for the Pro12 in the HC.


In the IWs all Pro12 sides lose players bar Connacht. In comparison in the AP it's mainly 4/5 teams who lose the most amount of players in the IW. This means the weaker teams have full strength teams during the IW which makes them tougher.

In the Pro12 even the likes of Treviso and Edinburgh are depleted.

beshocked wrote:

Secretfly we beat the Pro12 champs home and away in the HC. It wasn't plain sailing for the Pro12 in the HC.

But we were talking about the Irish sides, beshocked - not the Ospreys. You mentioned the 'top' AP sides in a tone that suggested they would never get caught out by a third rate Leinster, Munster or Ulster side and I'm simply saying I seem to remember a few of them were caught out in the HC by lesser sides in the Pro12 than certainly a third rate Leinster one.

beshocked wrote:Kingshu you seriously big up the Irish sides.

No Ulster,Munster and Leinster couldn't have put out those sides against the top teams in the AP and won.

I wouldn't be so sure. Worcester gave Leicester a game.

Who are the 9 Ospreys Welsh internationals you refer to?

Saracens and Leicester do rotate.

I didn't say top teams, Leinster and Munster were playing teams expected to finish near the bottom of the table, so try to think of their English equalivents, not top teams.
Only Ulster were playing a title contending team.

Like I said they put out the team they think will win, and rest those that they can and rotate, you'd see very different teams if they were playing London Welsh, compared to playing Leicester Tigers.

https://www.606v2.com/t34489p150-ospreys-vs-ulster

Shiftys comment

"Truth be told though 9 Welsh internationals started that game against Ulster's reserve team"

If that Ulster team beat an Ospreys team with 9 internationals, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't be able to do the same to an AP side that would have less internationals?

And do you really think Worcester would have done any better than the Dragons, in the RDS this weekend?? Really?

And you give out at the Pro 12, rotating squads,yet admit Saracens and Leicester (about the best teams in the AP) do rotate. If its good enough for the top teams in England to do, its good enough for the top Pro 12 teams to do as well.

beshocked wrote:Fine you got me there smirnoffpriest. Don't forget when you pick from 4 teams it's not that difficult to have a team full of internationals. Treviso and Zebre are full of internationals too.

By your logic Saracens had 10 internationals starting vs Sale.

The teams to beat in Europe are Clermont and Leinster. The rest I am confident of victory against.

Secretfly we beat the Pro12 champs home and away in the HC. It wasn't plain sailing for the Pro12 in the HC.


In the IWs all Pro12 sides lose players bar Connacht. In comparison in the AP it's mainly 4/5 teams who lose the most amount of players in the IW. This means the weaker teams have full strength teams during the IW which makes them tougher.

In the Pro12 even the likes of Treviso and Edinburgh are depleted.

I like how dismissive you are of the likes of Trevisio and Edinburgh, one's a team who have beaten/drawn against some good sides and the other are European semi-finalists.

And while the Scarlets struggle to beat the likes of Leinster/Munster we have beaten Saints & LI in recent seasons while we haven't had a front 5.

And it's not so much my logic, it's a fact (trusting you - I haven't looked at the Saracens team) that Saracens have 10 internationals. pretty good though...

Kingshu, the top 4 AP teams all fielded squads with at least 9 internationals in them. So did Wasps, and several other teams were not far behind. Of this week's games, 3 were within 7 points, 2 more were within 10 and the only easy win was the current Champions against the newly-promoted London Welsh.

The Provinces probably are better at squad rotation. This is partly through being forced to rest players more frequently than the AP teams do, but they also have more option to do so.

In the second half of last season, Quins had enough of a buffer at the top of the table that they could make real choices in terms of prioritising games. If a first team player wasn't quite fit, they had the option to rest them (and increase the chances of them being fit for the playoffs) because they could afford to lose a couple of games. Other AP teams did not have that luxury; because there are very few dead rubbers, there is huge pressure to play your best available team even if some of those players would benefit from longer to recover. Leicester, for instance, had to put on an almighty charge to recover from a weak start to the season - and I think it cost them in the final.

That's really the point of this article, to my mind. More games matter in the AP, so they have fewer opportunities to blood new players. This costs the teams in the long run, especially against the better Rabo teams in the HEC.