Well lets have a proper Pro 12 Discussion, and ways to improve it, constructive please not WUMS.

by Kingshu Wed 03 Oct 2012, 12:08 pm

Here's Jeremy Guscott's View

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19803591

Hi Jerry, after watching two truly awful performances this weekend from the Blues and Leinster (both quarter-finalists in last year's Heineken Cup) we can't really blame England and France for wanting changes in the Heineken. The RaboDirect Pro12 is an absolute joke! No wonder attendances aren't great, it's being treated like a glorified training session by some teams. Dave Morgan

Hi Dave, I believe the Pro12 teams have an opportunity to play the game as the Super XV do but haven't realised it yet; the sooner they do, the better the performances will be. I accept the weather conditions are different but not for the entire season.

The Pro12 at the moment has the better players compared to the English Premiership in terms of possible Lions, but the brand of rugby isn't commensurate with the superior ability. It needs the top players playing more regularly and the teams' attitude has to be to produce an enviable product that will have the supporters wanting to watch.

Well there's one person thought's, it seams to be a widely held view in England (rightly or wrongly).

Do you feel the Pro 12 needs to make changes?

by Mickado Wed 03 Oct 2012, 12:19 pm

I think the qualification for the HC from the Pro12 should change to be at least 2 Irish, 2 Welsh, 1 Scot and 1 Italian with the remaining teams qualifying based on league position.

Other than that, I don’t think any changes are needed.

The premise of the question put to Guscott is laughable though, because Leinster lost at the weekend “we can’t blame the English and France for wanting changes”? really? Sounds like they only want to play us when we’re in league mode, not cup mode. Maybe we could petition to make sure Clermont don’t play any games at home from now on, they always seem to do well at home, and sometimes when they’re not at home, they LOSE! There’s obviously a correlation between them winning, and them playing at home half the time, it’s unfair if you ask me.

by neilthom7 Wed 03 Oct 2012, 12:21 pm

If he actually watched the Ulster game v Cardiff he wouldn't be so glibb, what an idiot thinking that these teams have a divine right to win shocks happen and Ulster v Cardiff on form and the players Ulster now have not to mention the extenuating circumstances of last weekend for Ulster could always have been an Ulster win, if he watched he would have seen Ulster played superb rugby. I do think changes may need to happen but the 2 games he pointed out are wrong and he can't call something a joke if he has clearly not even been interested in or watched often. It's a classic deflection technique.

by SirJohnnyEnglish Wed 03 Oct 2012, 12:24 pm

You wonder, when talking about quality of the game, if Guscott/Morgan watched the recent Tigers/Sarries and Sarries/Quins games Rolling Eyes

by LordDowlais Wed 03 Oct 2012, 12:27 pm

Kingshu wrote:Do you feel the Pro 12 needs to make changes?

No I do not think we should make any changes, and whilst I am at it, I think that both Dave Morgan, who ever he is, and Gerry Guscott should keep their beaks out of other people businesses and just concentrate on the daily grind that is the Aviva Premiership. steam

by Kingshu Wed 03 Oct 2012, 12:29 pm

My opinion on this is no, the Pro 12 doesn't need to make changes. It has to better educate English and other fans to its methods.

1st point
To say "top players playing more regularly", why?

The top players are internationals, and play around the same number of games in a season as their counterparts in other leagues. The difference is the Pro 12 is packed with internationals, almost every team loses a load of players come 6 nations.
The Prem has less internationals, so the teams lose less players and don't have to rest as many of them. If every team in the Prem had as many international players as Tigers, you would have a simalar case as the Pro 12.
Saying "need top players playing more regularly", isn't correct, what they mean is fill the league with lower standard non international players, who are free to play for thier clubs more! and would that really improve the Pro 12 and attendances?

2nd point
"teams' attitude has to be to produce an enviable product that will have the supporters wanting to watch."

When you have teams playing like Leinster, Scarlets and Edinburgh playing running rugby, most teams are attacking, that has to be an enviable product that will have the supporters wanting to watch, compared to the likes of Sarrries, which even guscott says are boring to watch. Far more attacking teams and style of play than in the prem.

by LordDowlais Wed 03 Oct 2012, 12:43 pm

We MUST let all the English teams out of their HC pools this year, I cannot stand the constant grizzling any more. Lets just leave the baby have it's bottle, for the sheer sake of humanity, we cannot go on like this anymore. If we do this they can start fighting with themselves again over salary caps and player releases and London Welsh and the rest of it. Whistle

by HERSH Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:02 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Kingshu wrote:Do you feel the Pro 12 needs to make changes?

No I do not think we should make any changes, and whilst I am at it, I think that both Dave Morgan, who ever he is, and Gerry Guscott should keep their beaks out of other people businesses and just concentrate on the daily grind that is the Aviva Premiership.

Firstly a big well done to Gerry and Dave for raising this question.

Lorddowlais what do you mean by other peoples businesses?

Is this not being discussed on the BBC, the last time I checked the Beeb pay Guscotts wages and pay to show some Rabo matches so I think he has a right to talk about it.

IMO the HC should be played on consecutive weekends from start to finish, that way it would do away with the issue of players being rested for Rabo games, which shock horror! Might help to improve attendance figures in some of the countries involved.

by Guest Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:13 pm

neilthom7 wrote:If he actually watched the Ulster game v Cardiff he wouldn't be so glibb, what an idiot thinking that these teams have a divine right to win shocks happen and Ulster v Cardiff on form and the players Ulster now have not to mention the extenuating circumstances of last weekend for Ulster could always have been an Ulster win, if he watched he would have seen Ulster played superb rugby. I do think changes may need to happen but the 2 games he pointed out are wrong and he can't call something a joke if he has clearly not even been interested in or watched often. It's a classic deflection technique.

Exactly, Blues have been average for several seasons now, not helped by injuries admittedly, but always maintained a presence in Europe: a HC semi, the Amlin, and then getting out of the group last year. Ulster have been steadily improving over the same period and are now serious challengers in both Europe and the league. It's not a particularly educated answer from Guscott.

by clivemcl Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:14 pm

HERSH, we all know YOU are Dave Morgan, don't try to hide it!

My genuine opinion is that interspersing international matches, european cup matches and league matches over a year does not allow teams/players to focus properly.

It is likely that at 6Nations time, the players are still thinking about European Club Glory. And during league games, teams and players will undoubtedly be thinking about HC.

Is there a reason I am missing that we cant get a league wrapped up by March, followed by HC, before internationals/6N In June/July.

It would also surely help a team spirit in internationals to allow players to temporarily forget they are fierce rivals at club level.

by **Biltong** Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:29 pm

I know I can go do research on this but it is easier just to ask the question here.

How do the 6 teams from the Premiership and Top 14 qualify for the HC?

Is it based on their perfromance during these comps?

Similarly for the teams from the RABO?

by red_stag Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:39 pm

Biltong,

England have 6 teams - they appoint them to the 6 English teams that finish highest in the Premiership

France have 6 teams - they appoint them to the 6 French teams that finish highest in the Top 14

Ireland have 3 teams - they appoint them to the 3 Irish teams that finish highest in the Pro 12

Wales have 3 teams - they appoint them to the 3 Welsh teams that finish highest in the Pro 12

Scotland have 2 teams - they appoint them to the 2 Scottish teams that finish highest in the Pro 12

Italy have 2 teams - they appoint them to the 2 Italian teams that finish highest in the Pro 12

The Heineken and Amlin Cup winners both qualify. If they are already qualified their country gets to allocate another place.

These places can be allocated however the union wishes. So England could decide that every year regardless of how they do that Tigers, Wasps, Saracens, Northampton and London Welsh will be in the Heineken Cup.

by **Biltong** Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:43 pm

cheers stag, what is the Amlin?

So by reasoning then, the RABO teams have to perform per country to make the HC, so what is the actual issue then?

by beshocked Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:44 pm

Kingshu wrote:My opinion on this is no, the Pro 12 doesn't need to make changes. It has to better educate English and other fans to its methods.

1st point
To say "top players playing more regularly", why?

The top players are internationals, and play around the same number of games in a season as their counterparts in other leagues. The difference is the Pro 12 is packed with internationals, almost every team loses a load of players come 6 nations.
The Prem has less internationals, so the teams lose less players and don't have to rest as many of them. If every team in the Prem had as many international players as Tigers, you would have a simalar case as the Pro 12.
Saying "need top players playing more regularly", isn't correct, what they mean is fill the league with lower standard non international players, who are free to play for thier clubs more! and would that really improve the Pro 12 and attendances?

2nd point
"teams' attitude has to be to produce an enviable product that will have the supporters wanting to watch."

When you have teams playing like Leinster, Scarlets and Edinburgh playing running rugby, most teams are attacking, that has to be an enviable product that will have the supporters wanting to watch, compared to the likes of Sarrries, which even guscott says are boring to watch. Far more attacking teams and style of play than in the prem.

Like many you prefer style over substance. Can't say I blame you but then again I wouldn't enjoy seeing my side getting smashed by sides I would expect to beat.

Do you take glee when your defence is cut to pieces like a knife through hot butter? Saracens are boring indeed but they are tough, gritty and rarely allow their pants to be pulled down by the opposition. I like that about them. I take pride in my club side because they have a consistent mental toughness which many Pro12 should hope to aspire to. Very rarely do sides beat Saracens by more than 7.

by Mickado Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:46 pm

Biltong wrote:cheers stag, what is the Amlin?

So by reasoning then, the RABO teams have to perform per country to make the HC, so what is the actual issue then?

The short answer is that the Amlin is the rest of the teams from the Pro12, Prem and Top14 that didn't make the HC plus a few inviational sides from Spain, Italy or Romania.

The Rabo teams have to perform per country, but both the Scottish and Italian teams always qualify regardless (if they had more teams that wouldn't be the case but they only have 2 each).

by funnyExiledScot Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:47 pm

Biltong wrote:So by reasoning then, the RABO teams have to perform per country to make the HC, so what is the actual issue then?

England and France want more money and want to do better in the competition. Having failed on the pitch, they now want to use their larger supporter numbers as leverage to influence things as much as they can off the pitch.

by red_stag Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:49 pm

Biltong wrote:So by reasoning then, the RABO teams have to perform per country to make the HC, so what is the actual issue then?

The issue the English and French have is that although Scotland and Italy only have two Heineken Cup places they only have two teams. Similarly Ireland and Wales have only got four teams but they get three places.

What they forget is that we set up structure for that very reason. England and France are free to have franchises too.

The fact that England and France choose to have 12 and 14 teams each is their business. They feel that we should change our system so that England gets 6 places, France gets 6 places and Ireland,Wales,Scotland,Italy gets 6 places between all of them.

Essentially they are trying to force the four nations to change their allocation system.

by funnyExiledScot Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:51 pm

We used to have three teams, but it was financially unsustainable for many reasons, and the decision was taken to maximise resources by cutting to two sides which would both play in the HC. That is now of course under threat. An issue for Scotland, but the English and French clubs clearly don't care whether or not there's Scottish or Italian representation in the HC. Their prerogative.

by Jenifer McLadyboy Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:51 pm

beshocked wrote:
Like many you prefer style over substance. Can't say I blame you but then again I wouldn't enjoy seeing my side getting smashed by sides I would expect to beat.

Do you take glee when your defence is cut to pieces like a knife through hot butter? Saracens are boring indeed but they are tough, gritty and rarely allow their pants to be pulled down by the opposition. I like that about them. I take pride in my club side because they have a consistent mental toughness which many Pro12 should hope to aspire to. Very rarely do sides beat Saracens by more than 7.

Isn't that a bit like "Yes my wife is a ming bag, but boy she can cook" Laugh

by **Biltong** Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:52 pm

Mickado wrote:
Biltong wrote:cheers stag, what is the Amlin?

So by reasoning then, the RABO teams have to perform per country to make the HC, so what is the actual issue then?

The short answer is that the Amlin is the rest of the teams from the Pro12, Prem and Top14 that didn't make the HC plus a few inviational sides from Spain, Italy or Romania.

The Rabo teams have to perform per country, but both the Scottish and Italian teams always qualify regardless (if they had more teams that wouldn't be the case but they only have 2 each).

Thanks Mick, so in other words the winner of this season's Amlin will qualify for next season's HC?

by **Biltong** Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:53 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Biltong wrote:So by reasoning then, the RABO teams have to perform per country to make the HC, so what is the actual issue then?

England and France want more money and want to do better in the competition. Having failed on the pitch, they now want to use their larger supporter numbers as leverage to influence things as much as they can off the pitch.

Yeah, I understand that part, however how will things off the pitch really benefit their Clubs on the pitch?

What do they propose must change?

by red_stag Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:55 pm

Biltong wrote:
Mickado wrote:
Biltong wrote:cheers stag, what is the Amlin?

So by reasoning then, the RABO teams have to perform per country to make the HC, so what is the actual issue then?

The short answer is that the Amlin is the rest of the teams from the Pro12, Prem and Top14 that didn't make the HC plus a few inviational sides from Spain, Italy or Romania.

The Rabo teams have to perform per country, but both the Scottish and Italian teams always qualify regardless (if they had more teams that wouldn't be the case but they only have 2 each).

Thanks Mick, so in other words the winner of this season's Amlin will qualify for next season's HC?

Yes, for example last year in France Biarritz finished in 9th place. That isn't good enough for Heineken Cup. However they won the Amlin Cup so they gained entry.

Last year Leinster won the Heineken Cup but had already qualified so Connacht (the 4th Irish team) got to play in the Heineken Cup instead of the Amlin Cup.

by red_stag Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:55 pm

Biltong wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Biltong wrote:So by reasoning then, the RABO teams have to perform per country to make the HC, so what is the actual issue then?

England and France want more money and want to do better in the competition. Having failed on the pitch, they now want to use their larger supporter numbers as leverage to influence things as much as they can off the pitch.
Yeah, I understand that part, however how will things off the pitch really benefit their Clubs on the pitch?

What do they propose must change?

The issue the English and French have is that although Scotland and Italy only have two Heineken Cup places they only have two teams. Similarly Ireland and Wales have only got four teams but they get three places.

What they forget is that we set up structure for that very reason. England and France are free to have franchises too.

The fact that England and France choose to have 12 and 14 teams each is their business. They feel that we should change our system so that England gets 6 places, France gets 6 places and Ireland,Wales,Scotland,Italy gets 6 places between all of them.

Essentially they are trying to force the four nations to change their allocation system.

by **Biltong** Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:57 pm

red_stag wrote:
Biltong wrote:So by reasoning then, the RABO teams have to perform per country to make the HC, so what is the actual issue then?

The issue the English and French have is that although Scotland and Italy only have two Heineken Cup places they only have two teams. Similarly Ireland and Wales have only got four teams but they get three places.

What they forget is that we set up structure for that very reason. England and France are free to have franchises too.

The fact that England and France choose to have 12 and 14 teams each is their business. They feel that we should change our system so that England gets 6 places, France gets 6 places and Ireland,Wales,Scotland,Italy gets 6 places between all of them.

Essentially they are trying to force the four nations to change their allocation system.

What I don't understand is why they have an issue with how the teams qualify if their qualification is based on the same principle as the Top 14 and Premiership.

I can see why there might be an issue whith scotland and Italy as they can say but these two teams from each nation gets in, irrespective of how good they are, but then didn't Scotland's Edinburgh make the quarters last season?

And the decision for them to have clubs and not regional teams/franchises isn't through the fault of the Celtic countries now is it?

by tigertattie Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:58 pm

The idea of the 6n's in june is scary!

Lets not piddle about with the international game just because the English and French cannot beat the Rabo teams in the HC!

Internaionals and club matches are totally seperate.

I do however agree that the HC should be played outwith the league window! The league could run from Aug to say march and then the HC could be played in April/May. If you get knocked out earlier, you get an extended preseason to work on things. This way all teams have had a "season" of league games before all is finished to let them look at the HC as a seperate comp.

Would this help the English or french clubs to do better? Dunno.

by Mickado Wed 03 Oct 2012, 1:59 pm

Biltong wrote:
red_stag wrote:
Biltong wrote:So by reasoning then, the RABO teams have to perform per country to make the HC, so what is the actual issue then?

The issue the English and French have is that although Scotland and Italy only have two Heineken Cup places they only have two teams. Similarly Ireland and Wales have only got four teams but they get three places.

What they forget is that we set up structure for that very reason. England and France are free to have franchises too.

The fact that England and France choose to have 12 and 14 teams each is their business. They feel that we should change our system so that England gets 6 places, France gets 6 places and Ireland,Wales,Scotland,Italy gets 6 places between all of them.

Essentially they are trying to force the four nations to change their allocation system.

What I don't understand is why they have an issue with how the teams qualify if their qualification is based on the same principle as the Top 14 and Premiership.

I can see why there might be an issue whith scotland and Italy as they can say but these two teams from each nation gets in, irrespective of how good they are, but then didn't Scotland's Edinburgh make the quarters last season?And the decision for them to have clubs and not regional teams/franchises isn't through the fault of the Celtic countries now is it?

They made the Semi's, but they finished second from last in the league. Which is fuel for the English and French flames.

by Kingshu Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:00 pm

Biltong wrote:cheers stag, what is the Amlin?

So by reasoning then, the RABO teams have to perform per country to make the HC, so what is the actual issue then?

Just a few point England only have 5 qualify from the league, the 6th is the winner of LV=cup, if English.(a cup between Enlish and Welsh sides that is mostly 'A' sides untill the knock out stages). If its a Welsh team or the LV=cup winner has already qualified for h-cup (by being in top 5 in Leauge) then 6th place in league qualifies.

Prem and top14 teams, issue with the Pro 12 league is 10 teams qualify from it, while only 6 from English and French Leauge, they want the qualification changed from union (country) based (where each Union gets to enter a certain number of teams) to league based, where only Top 6 in Pro 12 qualify regardless of nationality. They also want to reduce H-cup from 24 teams to 20, and the 4 teams that lose out all to come from the Pro 12.

As you can see they are asking a lot from the 4 Pro 12 Unions, who do not want to risk having zero teams in the top teir of club rugby.

by red_stag Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:00 pm

Biltong you are preaching to the choir.

The way they phrase it is that Ireland and Wales have 75% of their teams included. Scotland and Italy have 100% of teams included.

England and France have only about 50% of their teams included.

Thats how it is spun.

Stuart Barnes said it yesterday - the Pro 12 is an easy scapegoat. It baffles me how these teams feel they should be telling others to disadvantage themselves.

Instead they should be looking to develop their own systems if unsatisfied.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

by **Biltong** Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:01 pm

red_stag wrote:
Biltong wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Biltong wrote:So by reasoning then, the RABO teams have to perform per country to make the HC, so what is the actual issue then?

England and France want more money and want to do better in the competition. Having failed on the pitch, they now want to use their larger supporter numbers as leverage to influence things as much as they can off the pitch.
Yeah, I understand that part, however how will things off the pitch really benefit their Clubs on the pitch?

What do they propose must change?

The issue the English and French have is that although Scotland and Italy only have two Heineken Cup places they only have two teams. Similarly Ireland and Wales have only got four teams but they get three places.

What they forget is that we set up structure for that very reason. England and France are free to have franchises too.

The fact that England and France choose to have 12 and 14 teams each is their business. They feel that we should change our system so that England gets 6 places, France gets 6 places and Ireland,Wales,Scotland,Italy gets 6 places between all of them.

Essentially they are trying to force the four nations to change their allocation system.

Ok, let's say for argument sake they get that, then how does that make them more successful?

Even if you work on a basis of the top six in the RABO, you will still have the top teams compete in the HC, and Leinster as an example will still keep on being the top team.

How does it benefit them, apart from perhaps getting a bigger share of the pie?

Essentially from how I see it, is they just really want more money.

Now if the RABO only provides 6 teams rather than 12, then obviously it means the Rabo countries will get less money?

by beshocked Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:01 pm

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:
beshocked wrote:
Like many you prefer style over substance. Can't say I blame you but then again I wouldn't enjoy seeing my side getting smashed by sides I would expect to beat.

Do you take glee when your defence is cut to pieces like a knife through hot butter? Saracens are boring indeed but they are tough, gritty and rarely allow their pants to be pulled down by the opposition. I like that about them. I take pride in my club side because they have a consistent mental toughness which many Pro12 should hope to aspire to. Very rarely do sides beat Saracens by more than 7.

Isn't that a bit like "Yes my wife is a ming bag, but boy she can cook"

Interpret it however you want. Personally I prefer a mentally tougher boring side over a mentally fragile exciting side. More wins. More chances at trophies.

It's nice to be both exciting and mentally tough but not every side has got that. Few sides can sustain both.

In regards to the Pro12 - to get better - more needs to be at stake. This means HC qualification. Less resting of players for HC.

by **Biltong** Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:03 pm

Mickado wrote:
Biltong wrote:
red_stag wrote:
Biltong wrote:So by reasoning then, the RABO teams have to perform per country to make the HC, so what is the actual issue then?

The issue the English and French have is that although Scotland and Italy only have two Heineken Cup places they only have two teams. Similarly Ireland and Wales have only got four teams but they get three places.

What they forget is that we set up structure for that very reason. England and France are free to have franchises too.

The fact that England and France choose to have 12 and 14 teams each is their business. They feel that we should change our system so that England gets 6 places, France gets 6 places and Ireland,Wales,Scotland,Italy gets 6 places between all of them.

Essentially they are trying to force the four nations to change their allocation system.

What I don't understand is why they have an issue with how the teams qualify if their qualification is based on the same principle as the Top 14 and Premiership.

I can see why there might be an issue whith scotland and Italy as they can say but these two teams from each nation gets in, irrespective of how good they are, but then didn't Scotland's Edinburgh make the quarters last season?And the decision for them to have clubs and not regional teams/franchises isn't through the fault of the Celtic countries now is it?

They made the Semi's, but they finished second from last in the league. Which is fuel for the English and French flames.

But why is that an issue for them, what they are saying is a team that weren't supposed to be in the compeition according to their reasoning, has taken the place of another "more deserved team". Then perhaps the other teams should have performed better than Edinburgh did.

by red_stag Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:04 pm

Beshocked thats fine if you see it that way and feel like that.

However I do not think our teams are "mentally fragile". I have seen Cardiff, Leinster, Edinburgh, Munster, Ulster, Scarlets all enjoy very good seasons both in the league and in Europe. I have seen Conancht and Aironi and Treviso and Glasgow claim some simply magnificant wins in Europe despite not being as good as others.

Ospreys have probably not delivered in Europe compared to their league form but they have always tried hard and given a good account of themselves.

by red_stag Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:07 pm

I may be wrong Beshocked but it looks to me you are trying to unsettle a few people with your claims that our teams are mentally fragile.

I think you need to show a bit of respect pal - nobody else is dragging this into a my dad is bigger than your dad thing.

As Biltong says why are you or any English people trying to fiddle with things that are of no concern to the English?

by **Biltong** Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:08 pm

red_stag wrote:Biltong you are preaching to the choir.

The way they phrase it is that Ireland and Wales have 75% of their teams included. Scotland and Italy have 100% of teams included.

England and France have only about 50% of their teams included.

Thats how it is spun.

Stuart Barnes said it yesterday - the Pro 12 is an easy scapegoat. It baffles me how these teams feel they should be telling others to disadvantage themselves.

Instead they should be looking to develop their own systems if unsatisfied.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

But stag, more teams won't make them more successful at winning the cup. If you argue more teams for England and Fracne, and their best teams are already represented, then it means weaker performing teams come in, which doesn't mean they will do better, unless their reasoning is "we want to qualify for the knock outs by playing our weaker teams, and not the touhger teams from the RABO.

The way it looks to me is they want a smaller percentage of representation from RABO which in turn means their unions get more money.

I can understand that, at the end of the day it is a business. But their justification makes little sense.

by HERSH Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:09 pm

The whole system is wrong. ERC need to sort out the qualifying criteria of the Rabo, Jeff and super14.

The easiest way is to say top 6 from each league with the winning league getting an extra place plus the winners of the Amlin.

That's not just the best way it's the only way.

If Italy and Scotland don't have any representation in the HC then they need to pull their socks up.

by Casartelli Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:11 pm

red_stag wrote:

As Biltong says why are you or any English people trying to fiddle with things that are of no concern to the English?

Thousand years of habit.

Anyway, that's off topic. Ultimately, England & France have the cash. Money talks and b***s**t walks.

They'll get their own way.

by red_stag Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:12 pm

Biltong, they are not calling for more of their own. They are calling for less Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Italian.

Essentially they wish to reduce the allocation for the Pro 12 countries by 40% and retain all of their places.

I do think it has more to do with TV rights than with playing performances though.

I think this thing about resting players is simply a convenient thing that ties in nicely with it. If they were paid well enough I suspect they would not mind about how the Pro 12 conducts its business.

by red_stag Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:13 pm

HERSH wrote:The whole system is wrong. ERC need to sort out the qualifying criteria of the Rabo, Jeff and super14.

The easiest way is to say top 6 from each league with the winning league getting an extra place plus the winners of the Amlin.

That's not just the best way it's the only way.

If Italy and Scotland don't have any representation in the HC then they need to pull their socks up.

Nothing is ever the "only way". Thats just silly - it may very well be the best way. But to say it is the "only way" just makes you look foolish.

by HERSH Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:16 pm

The 'other way' is that you have teams that haven't earned the right to take part.

Which is wrong when you consider the money that these Clubs/Regions/Provinces get.

by red_stag Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:17 pm

Sure thing Hersh thumbsup

by Guest Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:18 pm

The whole debate seems bizarre, perhaps even completely wrong, and it's undoubtedly being dictated by money and power rather than the best interests of the game. The French, with wealthy benefactors seeking the opportunity to gain fame and glory, realise they are in a precarious position: bar Toulouse, Clermont and a few others, the prospect of survival in the league isn't as likely as it once was: it's much cheaper to buy and flood with international quality players a club that isn't in the Top 14, to get them promoted and keep them up. Admittedly, the league is made up of many teams that are really, high quality sides, and with the likes of Stade and Perpginan now having to travel to Eastern Europe where once they would have faced the other big guns in the Heineken, it's a shock to the ego. With England, they see the threat of the French money to lure their best players, and the example of Wasps is one they don't want to mimic: to maintain their best players and the status of the club, they need to be playing elite rugby, and that only occurs in the Heineken Cup, where it has the intensity of competition they get in the Aviva, but to a much higher standard of play.

The RABO obviously doesn't have relegation, so, generally speaking, as soon as the season starts, we're (the RABO team supporters/pundits) looking up and towards the top 6, rather than every team having to fight for their survival. This lack of relegation threat may be an argument why there is aesthetically 'better' rugby in the RABO, but perhaps not the same competition. I'd contest this: Leinster have continued to win in Europe whilst fielding 'weakened' sides in the RABO, yet still make the the play offs, all the while playing positive rugby. I'd say the English game is naturally biased from an early age towards strength and conservatism, and this is a far greater reason why the teams in the Aviva are often more negative rather than the threat of relegation: do players in the RABO not care how they play? Do coaches tell them to throw the ball about because the result doesn't matter? If any team apart from the Italians, the Scottish and the Dragons finished 9th or lower, the coach would likely be out of a job, and most of the players would fail to make an impression on their international selectors; where, then, is the incentive to play pretty, losing rugby and rest players en masse regularly? Leinster are one of the few who have the depth and quality to get away with it: two losses at the start of the season prove nothing.

Ultimately, a key point of this debate is the next, elite level of rugby, the international stage. The Irish, with centrally contracted players, have the best set up, and the success of Munster, and more recently Ulster and Leinster, reflects this: their inconsistent success in green shirts is more down to selection and tactical decisions, in my opinion, and performances like the England 6N '11 game and the second test in NZ prove they could be one of the best teams in the world if they played to their potential. Wales, likewise, has benefited from the regions: we are producing players who now seamlessly fit into the national set up at a young age. Where the regions have failed is almost a mirror image of the Irish; we've been successful in the red of Wales, but regionally, and especially in Europe, the lack of impact has been disappointing, barring perhaps the Ospreys' domestic achievements. Scottish club rugby had seemed to be in decline until last season's revival of sorts. I think it still has issues it needs to resolve, yet a young crop of talented players do seem to be on the horizon. Professional Italian club rugby is one year old, and understandably for their fledgling sides, need time, yet Treviso have already proved more than competitive. What you have here is a power play: the English especially, but the French as well, trying to exert what they perceive to be their right to lead the structure of the game. What good is it to introduce the Italians into the RABO and Europe to develop the game in the country, consequently to improve their national team, to then banish them from Europe, meaning the international Italian players will likely go/stay in France, thus perpetuating Treviso and Zebre's position of weakness.

The English club teams just simply aren't that good, and all bar the best in the Premiership are likely to beat the Ospreys, Leinster, Ulster and Munster, which perhaps many in England are not willing to accept. This is due to spreading their talent over so many teams; 12 rather than, at most, 4, for the other nations (though this should be countered by the massive playing base that England has in comparison to the other countries). The other point is simply ability and talent: as mentioned earlier, England will forever produce big, strong, confident players if they don't change their grassroots system dramatically, and it was this, along with an iron will to prove doubters wrong, that got them to the WC final in '07 (I'm not doubting that it can be a strength). But this does mean that, when in the Premiership, where the mentality is to safety rather than skills first, the strong player will be picked over the more 'naturally' talented. That is also when, on the international stage, England, for all their strengths, simply don't have the footballing skills to compete with, not only the SANZAR nations, but many of the other 6N's teams as well when their depth of selection and apparent 'quality' would suggest they should be superior. In essence, the Aviva Premiership is failing to deliver England the kind of players capable of stepping up to the international stage, and winning them games without resorting to a brutal, physical, forward-dominated battle. France has both depth and quality, their failings are often impossible to pin down, but inept coaching and lack of cohesion and consistency over the last decade can certainly been seen to have played a big part. They will undoubtedly suffer in the medium term because of the sheer quantity of NFQ players starting in their sides, but if harnessed correctly, these players can influence their French understudies, so when they move back to the Southern Hemisphere or wherever, the French youngsters are better because of their influence.

I think this is undoubtedly a time of transition, and the obvious solution is a pan-European league/competition based on the Super 15, improving standards and having a clear hierarchy of competition which would ultimately benefit player development and international teams. I alone don't know how it could/would work, I have my own, vague preferences, though I see no reason why the international schedule would have to be changed, it could surely work around the 6N and Summer tours. I know many others have their opinions on the best way to implement such a league. It's perhaps naive though, with the power that money, along with traditional powers, are already exerting. The likelihood is that the English will fail with their breakaway without French support, and the legal aspect means that, all along, they didn't have the power to sell the broadcasting rights, yet some sort of change will still be made: possibly to the point of only the top 6 of the RABO qualifying, removing the Italians' and Scots' guaranteed inclusion.

by **Biltong** Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:19 pm

HERSH wrote:The whole system is wrong. ERC need to sort out the qualifying criteria of the Rabo, Jeff and super14.

The easiest way is to say top 6 from each league with the winning league getting an extra place plus the winners of the Amlin.

That's not just the best way it's the only way.

If Italy and Scotland don't have any representation in the HC then they need to pull their socks up.

NOw that I inderstand fully, but why reduce the RABO number of teams?

You are talking about 6 different nations here.

So you could theoretically end up with a situation where England has 6 teams, France has 6 teams, Ireland has 3 teams and Wales has 3 teams in the HC, with no representation from Scotland and Italy. that would be disastrous for Italy and scotland from a financial stand point.

If you want teams to qualify for the HC, then fine, do it on the basis that the TOp 14, which is really exclusively Frnech teams, the Premiership which is exclusively English teams get their top 7 teams each, and then make it half from the rabo (top 6) and 1 from each nation participating in the RABO.

At least guarantee a team per nation.

This way you have 24 teams, 7 from England and France each, so they get a compromise, and there are 10 spots up for grabs for the RABO countries, 1 each automatically and then the top 6.

by Kingshu Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:20 pm

Biltong wrote:
red_stag wrote:Biltong you are preaching to the choir.

The way they phrase it is that Ireland and Wales have 75% of their teams included. Scotland and Italy have 100% of teams included.

England and France have only about 50% of their teams included.

Thats how it is spun.

Stuart Barnes said it yesterday - the Pro 12 is an easy scapegoat. It baffles me how these teams feel they should be telling others to disadvantage themselves.

Instead they should be looking to develop their own systems if unsatisfied.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

But stag, more teams won't make them more successful at winning the cup. If you argue more teams for England and Fracne, and their best teams are already represented, then it means weaker performing teams come in, which doesn't mean they will do better, unless their reasoning is "we want to qualify for the knock outs by playing our weaker teams, and not the touhger teams from the RABO.

The way it looks to me is they want a smaller percentage of representation from RABO which in turn means their unions get more money.

I can understand that, at the end of the day it is a business. But their justification makes little sense.

What Red Stag means, is England and France are free to reduce their League to 6 teams each, that means each team automatically qualifies for the H-cup, plus since they have havled the number of teams thier best players will be concentrated in these 6 rather than spread among 12 teams, and the monies generated by TV etc would only have to be shared between 6 rather than 12/14.

If they wanted to do that its thier choice, and you can see how the teams would be improved and would prob dominate Europe, but this is what Wales did by forming 4 regions rather than having top 3 in Welsh premiership qualify.

Now if England reduced to 6 teams, and all 6 automatically qualify for H-cup, would it be fair to say in a few years that only 3 teams can qualify as having them all automatically qualify is unfair?

by red_stag Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:21 pm

Kingshu wrote:
Biltong wrote:
red_stag wrote:Biltong you are preaching to the choir.

The way they phrase it is that Ireland and Wales have 75% of their teams included. Scotland and Italy have 100% of teams included.

England and France have only about 50% of their teams included.

Thats how it is spun.

Stuart Barnes said it yesterday - the Pro 12 is an easy scapegoat. It baffles me how these teams feel they should be telling others to disadvantage themselves.

Instead they should be looking to develop their own systems if unsatisfied.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

But stag, more teams won't make them more successful at winning the cup. If you argue more teams for England and Fracne, and their best teams are already represented, then it means weaker performing teams come in, which doesn't mean they will do better, unless their reasoning is "we want to qualify for the knock outs by playing our weaker teams, and not the touhger teams from the RABO.

The way it looks to me is they want a smaller percentage of representation from RABO which in turn means their unions get more money.

I can understand that, at the end of the day it is a business. But their justification makes little sense.

What Red Stag means, is England and France are free to reduce their League to 6 teams each, that means each team automatically qualifies for the H-cup, plus since they have havled the number of teams thier best players will be concentrated in these 6 rather than spread among 12 teams, and the monies generated by TV etc would only have to be shared between 6 rather than 12/14.

If they wanted to do that its thier choice, and you can see how the teams would be improved and would prob dominate Europe, but this is what Wales did by forming 4 regions rather than having top 3 in Welsh premiership qualify.

Now if England reduced to 6 teams, and all 6 automatically qualify for H-cup, would it be fair to say in a few years that only 3 teams can qualify as having them all automatically qualify is unfair?

Shush now lets not let logic get in the way of things Cool

by beshocked Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:24 pm

red_stag wrote:I may be wrong Beshocked but it looks to me you are trying to unsettle a few people with your claims that our teams are mentally fragile.

I think you need to show a bit of respect pal - nobody else is dragging this into a my dad is bigger than your dad thing.

As Biltong says why are you or any English people trying to fiddle with things that are of no concern to the English?

Lord Dowlais was criticising Saracens in the AP so I answered him. Not many sides are mentally tough. Normally the teams that win the most are.

I am arguing the point that being exciting isn't great if it's not backed up by good defence and mental toughness.

Leinster should not being hammered by Connacht as example. Credit to Connacht for the win but seriously that shouldn't happen. You can call it exciting an arguably showing the toughness of the Pro12. Yet looking at the Leinster side says otherwise.

Edinburgh showed an intensity and toughness in the HC which they have failed to replicate in the Pro12. They still ship too many tries. Granted they have shown resilience against the likes of Leinster but then again shouldn't get hammered by Dragon. You can call it exciting but it's also humiliating.

Are all sides in the AP mentally tough? No - most aren't which is why we have failed in Europe.

by **Biltong** Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:24 pm

Kingshu wrote:
Biltong wrote:
red_stag wrote:Biltong you are preaching to the choir.

The way they phrase it is that Ireland and Wales have 75% of their teams included. Scotland and Italy have 100% of teams included.

England and France have only about 50% of their teams included.

Thats how it is spun.

Stuart Barnes said it yesterday - the Pro 12 is an easy scapegoat. It baffles me how these teams feel they should be telling others to disadvantage themselves.

Instead they should be looking to develop their own systems if unsatisfied.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Yes, they can reduce to six, but that would mean they need to go the frnachise way, and from what I have seen from england fans, that is never going to happen.

But stag, more teams won't make them more successful at winning the cup. If you argue more teams for England and Fracne, and their best teams are already represented, then it means weaker performing teams come in, which doesn't mean they will do better, unless their reasoning is "we want to qualify for the knock outs by playing our weaker teams, and not the touhger teams from the RABO.

The way it looks to me is they want a smaller percentage of representation from RABO which in turn means their unions get more money.

I can understand that, at the end of the day it is a business. But their justification makes little sense.

What Red Stag means, is England and France are free to reduce their League to 6 teams each, that means each team automatically qualifies for the H-cup, plus since they have havled the number of teams thier best players will be concentrated in these 6 rather than spread among 12 teams, and the monies generated by TV etc would only have to be shared between 6 rather than 12/14.

If they wanted to do that its thier choice, and you can see how the teams would be improved and would prob dominate Europe, but this is what Wales did by forming 4 regions rather than having top 3 in Welsh premiership qualify.

Now if England reduced to 6 teams, and all 6 automatically qualify for H-cup, would it be fair to say in a few years that only 3 teams can qualify as having them all automatically qualify is unfair?

by HERSH Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:30 pm

Biltong wrote:
HERSH wrote:The whole system is wrong. ERC need to sort out the qualifying criteria of the Rabo, Jeff and super14.

The easiest way is to say top 6 from each league with the winning league getting an extra place plus the winners of the Amlin.

That's not just the best way it's the only way.

If Italy and Scotland don't have any representation in the HC then they need to pull their socks up.

NOw that I inderstand fully, but why reduce the RABO number of teams?

You are talking about 6 different nations here.

So you could theoretically end up with a situation where England has 6 teams, France has 6 teams, Ireland has 3 teams and Wales has 3 teams in the HC, with no representation from Scotland and Italy. that would be disastrous for Italy and scotland from a financial stand point.

If you want teams to qualify for the HC, then fine, do it on the basis that the TOp 14, which is really exclusively Frnech teams, the Premiership which is exclusively English teams get their top 7 teams each, and then make it half from the rabo (top 6) and 1 from each nation participating in the RABO.

At least guarantee a team per nation.

This way you have 24 teams, 7 from England and France each, so they get a compromise, and there are 10 spots up for grabs for the RABO countries, 1 each automatically and then the top 6.

The English and French didn't make them join together to form the Celtic League so why should their Unions have a 75 - 100% representation in the HC.

by Guest Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:32 pm

The Celtic regions didn't make England maintain their 12 premier team league, or make them keep relegation, thus denying the English sides the ability to play 'weakened' teams in the league or have only 50% league representation. I know you're WUMming, HERSH, but still...poor logic.

by Kingshu Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:36 pm

HERSH wrote:
Biltong wrote:
HERSH wrote:The whole system is wrong. ERC need to sort out the qualifying criteria of the Rabo, Jeff and super14.

The easiest way is to say top 6 from each league with the winning league getting an extra place plus the winners of the Amlin.

That's not just the best way it's the only way.

If Italy and Scotland don't have any representation in the HC then they need to pull their socks up.

NOw that I inderstand fully, but why reduce the RABO number of teams?

You are talking about 6 different nations here.

So you could theoretically end up with a situation where England has 6 teams, France has 6 teams, Ireland has 3 teams and Wales has 3 teams in the HC, with no representation from Scotland and Italy. that would be disastrous for Italy and scotland from a financial stand point.

If you want teams to qualify for the HC, then fine, do it on the basis that the TOp 14, which is really exclusively Frnech teams, the Premiership which is exclusively English teams get their top 7 teams each, and then make it half from the rabo (top 6) and 1 from each nation participating in the RABO.

At least guarantee a team per nation.

This way you have 24 teams, 7 from England and France each, so they get a compromise, and there are 10 spots up for grabs for the RABO countries, 1 each automatically and then the top 6.

The English and French didn't make them join together to form the Celtic League so why should their Unions have a 75 - 100% representation in the HC.

How about instead of changing the Pro 12, the Prem reduces in Size to 8 teams and ring fence it, that way you will have 75% representation in the HC, same as RABO. It what we decided to do, and you are free to follow the successfull model if you wish.

Why change our qualificaton when you can change your own?

by HERSH Wed 03 Oct 2012, 2:39 pm

Your right Miaow they didn't but we're not the ones with poor attendances week in week out like some teams have in the Rabo, plus the contract is nearing it's end so the English and French clubs are well within their rights to question the qualifying criteria for the HC.

Why is this so hard to understand.

Also how the Frak is that a WUM?

by Sponsored content