Aviva V Pro 12 lets expore each other myths and not argue (if we can).

With the H-cup coming up and a few English V Pro 12 teams playing why don't we have a good old Aviva V Pro 12 debate.


2012–13 Pro 12

Attendance
466,151 (average 7,769 per match)

Tries scored
240 (average 4 per match)

Top point scorer
Tom Prydie (Newport Gwent Dragons)
(97 points)

Top try scorer
Tim Visser (Edinburgh)
(10 tries)


2012–13 English Premiership

Attendance
672,949 (average 11,216 per match)

Tries scored
213 (average 3.55 per match)


Top point scorer
Freddie Burns (Gloucester Rugby)
(143 points)

Top try scorer
Tom Varndell (London Wasps)
(9 tries)

Pro 12 Poorly attended?
To be honest I'm surprised by the Attendance stats; ok the Aviva has had nearly 200000 people more through and an average of 3500 more each game, but for the Pro 12 an average 7,769 per match is pretty good, esp when you consider that the Scots and Italians don't really attract decent crowds, and the double headers for the Aviva would be big crowd boosts (Leinster V Munster does the same though), Between Irish and Welsh home crowds Avg attendance is 9266.3, I don't think th ePro 12 is as badly attended as made out.

Aviva is a snooze feast?
People say the Aviva is boring attritional rugby and Pro 12 free flowing, Tries scored 213 v 240, not sure if this really makes a convincing case, 27 less tries over 60 games means less than 1 try for every two games difference, isn't that big a difference.

Irish teams don't take Pro 12 serously?
Ulster unbeaten top of table, Leinster and Munster in play off positions, think puts that to bed.

Pro 12 teams would struggle in Aviva, as you have to play strongest team each week?
This is brought up alot, Tigers and Harliquins suffer most in Aviva from international windows, but have developed squads to rotate and keep going at the top level all year round. I believe that the Pro 12 teams also have the same depth as these top clubs. There are more internationals in the Pro 12 do the teams may appear to be weaken teams each week, but if they were in the Aviva they would play just the same teams the same as Tigers and Quins do. In fact it is a fairer league as during the call ups all teams lose players, so each has to cope. In Aviva having English players in your squad could be seen as a handicap where in the Pro 12 they are more of a bonus than a handicap.
The fact is that Pro 12 teams play thier international players just as often as the top English teams do (limited about 30-35 games a season), it just that Pro 12 has 4 times the number of international players and hence teams appear weakened 4 times as much.

Attritional nature of Aviva means young players now given a chance?
We have seen plenty of good young English players come though. Aviva has a different structure, where I don't think any of the academies match the Pro 12's, The Aviva has a different appraoh of each club having smaller academies, and purchasing players more often, from smaller clubs. Therefore they do not have to bring as many young players through as pro 12 teams and therefore it seams that they do not give youth a chance, the clubs bring the very top players through and purchase proven performers from Championship/Lower clubs. The English model the top clubs only bring the very best through (smaller numbers) and the rest have to prove themselves in Championship and maybe lower Aviva clubs before moving up and are not youths when they move up, whereas the Pro 12 have to bring all these players though as youths.

No relegration makes pro 12 less competitive?
Super XV, 4 Nations and 6 Nations all have no relegration but are still competitive. No relegration does allow th emodel of bringing more youth through and long term planing. I don't think it give that much more motivation as teams at the bottom want to win, but it does remove some of the pressure. Its prob one we'll all agree to dis agree about relegration has it's good and bad points. what works for one league wonldn't work for Pro 12.

Will we look at more?

Kingshu there's still more opportunity to make progress in the AP than in the Pro12.

Look at Wasps last season. Almost relegated last season. Only 6 points off 4th this season.

Exeter have cemented themselves as an AP side. London Welsh have come into the AP and stayed.

This leads to a more competitive league.

In the AP it's much more competitive at the top -6th placed Exeter - only 5 points off top spot.


Relegation gives the opportunity for sides to rise from the championship with a fresh slate - e.g. Saints,Quins and maybe in the future Newcastle.

The relegation and promotion issue is an interesting one - clearly it is good from both the perspective of giving the teams near the bottom of the league something to play for throughout the season, and also allows the teams in the leagues below something to aspire to.

The problem is that through most of the pro era, the difference in quality between the Aviva teams and the Div 1 teams was such that the relegated team would usually come straight back up (unless they had totally run out of money) and the promoted team would be in a dog-fight to avoid relegation straight off. It's only really Exeter in recent years who have made the transition effectively.

Obviously the Pro 12 is based on a 'franchise' system similar to US sports, which is a necessity for the structure of this competition (with the regional sides being much more important 'feeders' to their respective national unions than the English clubs). It seems to fit the needs of the game for Ireland and to a lesser extent Wales and Scotland.

As far as the stats above are concerned, how many of the extra tries in the Pro 12 are because of a couple of mis-matches with the (relatively) weak Italian sides? Similarly, do these have a significant effect on the match day attendances?

IMO sides in the Pro12 have more structural flaws.

Not the Irish - they are healthy but the regional structure in Wales in my opinion is not working.

More work needs to be done to attract casual Welsh international fans to the regions.

Treviso is making slow but steady progress. Zebre in contrast is going nowhere.

The two Scottish clubs need a structural overhaul too in my opinion.

Most AP clubs are looking to expand.

Sale have their new stadium.

Saracens are getting a new rugby stadium.

Saints,Bath,Leicester all want to expand.

Bath in particular are looking to build a new stadium.

Exeter are expanding.

The gap between the AP and the Championship is closing slowly but surely - proven by Exeter and London Welsh.

I don't know why but this season in the Aviva seems a little flat.

The level of coaching doesn't seem as good as there has been in the past and a lot of teams are just struggling to compete around the basement/middle of the table making a lot games dull affairs between sides too scared to play.

Ignoring attendance and tries the level of coaching needs to be raised so that it's at the level of the players now, likewise the quality of refs needs to get a lot better as so many games just have no flow to them.

All we're currently seeing is a lot of is mindless rugby mixed in with the occasional period of sustained pressure as a side realises it's going to lose and panics then tries to do something about it.

Might just be the crap weather but to me the standards dropping.

dummy_half "Tries against weak Italian sides making the difference?"

Terviso are 8th, wouldn't consider them weak anymore, Zebre are though.
Zebre and Dragons shipped 31 tries each, Aviva worst L.Irish and L.Welsh 25 each bottom teams Sale 24 so maybe.

Zebre and Dragons conceded 293 and 254 points worst in Aviva L.Irish 291 and Sale 271

So while the two bottom in Pro 12 have shipped more tries they have conceded less points overall than bottom 2 in Aviva, so I don't think that you can say they are weaker (than bottom 2 in Aviva) and ship more tries than Aviva equalivent, but can concude that teams playing against them in Pro 12 go for tries more, and Aviva go for kicks.

Beshocked "Most AP clubs are looking to expand."

I think Pro 12 teams already mostly have,
Leinster fill RDS (have expanded it) move big games to NLR
Munster rebuild Thomond park
Ulster, increasing capacity to 18,000
Scarlets moved to larger Parc y scarlets
Ospreys moved to larger Liberity stadium.
Cardiff Blues moved to larger CSS and then back.
Dragons expanded ground and plan to expand more over next few years.
Glasgow moved to Scotstoun Stadium and expanded it (ok its still small)
Edinburgh have a big enough stadium no need to expand.
Italy will work on filling thiers first.

" Zebre in contrast is going nowhere"
they've only played 12 games and in League are only 2 points of Sales total, lets give them this season and then judge.

"Kingshu there's still more opportunity to make progress in the AP than in the Pro12."
you pick out Wasps 11th to 8th as an example what about Ulster 6th to 1st (unbeaten) surly thats more progress? Scarlets 5th to 2nd?

"In the AP it's much more competitive at the top"
Ulster and Scarlets have surprised everyone by running away at the top a bit, which distorts it, 1-6 in both is pretty competative.

"More work needs to be done to attract casual Welsh international fans to the regions."
I think the above in orginal post shows these are improving, Avg Welsh and Irish home games attracts 9266. Would be better if we didn't count Connacht and Dragons.

"The two Scottish clubs need a structural overhaul too in my opinion."
they recentley started recieving more funding from SRU and the players at the teams are better than ever, they do need to promote themselves more and attract bigger crowds, but the structure seams to be working, we can ask Scottish fans if they would like changes.

"regional structure in Wales in my opinion is not working"
They do have quality players, Scarlets and osreys are both very good teams, but have really bad draws in Europe to show it. The structure in Wales can be argued over, some say it works, other want clubs back ...

I always find the relegation argument curious, that it makes games more entertaining, etc. In my mind, relegation is a serious threat to a club, that brings pressure, which comes to bear on the players, management and mostly the coaching staff. When pressure comes on, the approach to games becomes a 'not losing' scenario which inhibits expansive rugby.

The true reason for relegation, is not to make a league more exciting, I think it is the natural by-product of unions having dozens of clubs and needing to have those clubs play opponents of similar quality. It is the depth of english rugby and french rugby, where there are multiple divisions of clubs and the reward of promotion out of the lower divisions that gives it the nudge (in this respect) over the celtic nations set up, who can only sustain a far fewer number of professional set-ups.

As for tries scored being bolstered by playing the Italians, Leinster ran in more tries against Cardiff than Zebre. Leinster up till the international break, had conceded more points than any other club with the exception of Zebre. I haven't seen all of the Jeff games, but do the top 4-6 clubs rack up the points against the likes of London Irish, London Welsh and Sale?

Glasgow have finally moved their games into a more appropriately sized ground.

Treviso have become a mid table team since the Italians were brought in.

Zebre have only played c.12 professional matches since being created. So they have some developing to do.

Edinburgh is a problem. Games in Murrayfield are terrible, it has to be sorted out.

Welsh regions are a problem. They should get more attendances than they are achieving.

I'm being fairly self-critical here I think.

What are the problems with the Jeff? Where does it need to improve? Is it the perfect product?

Maesteg had a pop at the Jeff recently for having the same old faces win it every year.

Celtic league winners/runners up (over 11 years):

Team PRO12 titles Years of titles won Runners-up Years runners-up
Ospreys 4 2004–05, 2006–07, 2009–10, 2011–2012 1 2002–03 (as Neath)
Munster 3 2002–03, 2008–09, 2010–11 2 2001–02, 2004–05
Leinster 2 2001–02, 2007–08 4 2005–06, 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–2012
Ulster 1 2005–06 1 2003–04
Llanelli Scarlets 1 2003–04 0
Cardiff Blues 0 2 2006–07, 2007–08
Edinburgh 0 1 2008–09


Jeff Winner/Runners up (same period)
Season Playoff Winner Score Runner-up Attendance First place in table*
2000–01 Leicester Tigers 22–10 Bath 33,500 Leicester Tigers
2001–02 Gloucester 28–23 Bristol 28,500 Leicester Tigers
2002–03 London Wasps 39–3 Gloucester 42,000 Gloucester
2003–04 London Wasps 10–6 Bath 59,500 Bath
2004–05 London Wasps 39–14 Leicester Tigers 66,000 Leicester Tigers
2005–06 Sale Sharks 45–20 Leicester Tigers 58,000 Sale Sharks
2006–07 Leicester Tigers 44–16 Gloucester 59,000 Gloucester
2007–08 London Wasps 26–16 Leicester Tigers 81,600 Gloucester
2008–09 Leicester Tigers 10–9 London Irish 81,601 Leicester Tigers
2009–10 Leicester Tigers 33–27 Saracens 81,600 Leicester Tigers
2010–11 Saracens 22–18 Leicester Tigers 80,016 Leicester Tigers


Jeff 5 winners Celtic 5
Total teams finishing first/second : Jeff 8, Celtic 7
Most wins by one team Jeff 4 Celtic 4

So essentialy each is as dominated by "the few" as the other.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Maesteg had a pop at the Jeff recently for having the same old faces win it every year.

Celtic league winners/runners up (over 11 years):

Team PRO12 titles Years of titles won Runners-up Years runners-up
Ospreys 4 2004–05, 2006–07, 2009–10, 2011–2012 1 2002–03 (as Neath)
Munster 3 2002–03, 2008–09, 2010–11 2 2001–02, 2004–05
Leinster 2 2001–02, 2007–08 4 2005–06, 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–2012
Ulster 1 2005–06 1 2003–04
Llanelli Scarlets 1 2003–04 0
Cardiff Blues 0 2 2006–07, 2007–08
Edinburgh 0 1 2008–09


Jeff Winner/Runners up (same period)
Season Playoff Winner Score Runner-up Attendance First place in table*
2000–01 Leicester Tigers 22–10 Bath 33,500 Leicester Tigers
2001–02 Gloucester 28–23 Bristol 28,500 Leicester Tigers
2002–03 London Wasps 39–3 Gloucester 42,000 Gloucester
2003–04 London Wasps 10–6 Bath 59,500 Bath
2004–05 London Wasps 39–14 Leicester Tigers 66,000 Leicester Tigers
2005–06 Sale Sharks 45–20 Leicester Tigers 58,000 Sale Sharks
2006–07 Leicester Tigers 44–16 Gloucester 59,000 Gloucester
2007–08 London Wasps 26–16 Leicester Tigers 81,600 Gloucester
2008–09 Leicester Tigers 10–9 London Irish 81,601 Leicester Tigers
2009–10 Leicester Tigers 33–27 Saracens 81,600 Leicester Tigers
2010–11 Saracens 22–18 Leicester Tigers 80,016 Leicester Tigers


Jeff 5 winners Celtic 5
Total teams finishing first/second : Jeff 8, Celtic 7
Most wins by one team Jeff 4 Celtic 4

So essentialy each is as dominated by "the few" as the other.

So only 4 times in 11 years has the team that has finished top in the Jeff league table won the league title. That doesn't seem fair. It's a league for a reason, it goes on for a season and it shouldn't be overly geared towards a team that might gets on a late run.

You seem to have missed Harlequins v Leicester off the end of that Peter?

yappysnap wrote:You seem to have missed Harlequins v Leicester off the end of that Peter?

Didnt happen

Damn you wikipedia!

So yes actually we have 6 Jeff winners to 5 Celtics.

Thats the problem with the Magners, its dominated by a few teams whos unions and/or rich owners keep them articificaly strong and stiffle comeptition.

Actually one thing thats notable is just how much the playoffs concept has taken off with the fans. People used to detest them and treat it as a fraud...now it sells 80,000 seats at a pokey price.

I'll try this:

They are both separate Leagues with their own unique set-up and organisation - leading to great variation in how they appear against each other both in gameplay and in attendances and in aesthetics (TV coverage, advertising etc).

One of the Leagues has brought sides to the very highest levels of European competition with multiple HEC winners.
And the other league has brought sides to the very highest levels of European competition with multiple HEC winners.
One produces players like Tuilagi, Cole, Youngs, Farrell, Care etc
One produces players like Healy, Sexton, Halfpenny, Visser, Bowe etc

Who says we have to mimic each other. We're different because we have to be. We're different because we're not the same. I salute the difference.

English Premiership is a settled competition that gives its fans just what they want. Pro12 is a competiton that will continue to grow and already has proven to hit much harder than it's size suggests it ever should.

Attendances in the Pro 12 are behind the Av Prem. This is the most worrying difference to me and one that needs the most attention.

Attendances here's a few interesting things to put attendances in perspective. The Italians are new so I'm only going to focus on the old, experienced nations where rugby is more of a tradition. Wales, Scotland and Ireland have a total population of less than 16 million people, England has a total population of 53 Million that's more than 3 times more does the Aviva have 3 times the attendance to represent this? In Ireland there is the added stress that the game also has to compete with not only soccer but Gaelic Games (Football and Hurling). Look it's like this leagues are different why should all leagues be the same, each league has it's own uniqueness and for anyone who is not from that league to try and tell it to change is insulting and there is no place for them in rugby. Oh one more thing someone talked about Magners league which is actually the Rabo having rich owners who keep them up top would you ever wise up.

neilthom7 wrote:Attendances here's a few interesting things to put attendances in perspective. The Italians are new so I'm only going to focus on the old, experienced nations where rugby is more of a tradition. Wales, Scotland and Ireland have a total population of less than 16 million people, England has a total population of 53 Million that's more than 3 times more does the Aviva have 3 times the attendance to represent this? In Ireland there is the added stress that the game also has to compete with not only soccer but Gaelic Games (Football and Hurling). Look it's like this leagues are different why should all leagues be the same, each league has it's own uniqueness and for anyone who is not from that league to try and tell it to change is insulting and there is no place for them in rugby. Oh one more thing someone talked about Magners league which is actually the Rabo having rich owners who keep them up top would you ever wise up.

The total attendance doesn't mean anything. The rugby teams in Wales and Ireland are supposed to cover the entire population. The rugby teams in England don't. There isn't a single premiership team in Yorkshire, population around 4.5-5M I think. There isn't a single team north of Sale, which includes the Newcastle, Middlesborough, etc. Birmingham, Bristol don't have premiership teams. Most of the sides are based on small cities/towns (Gloucester, Bath, Northampton), or larger cities with significant competition from football and league. Huge parts of the country and population aren't represented by a premiership side.

But the concept of 'PRO12' attendances really needs to be split into the counties otherwise it can be misleading.

Even then in terms of catchment the Spreys and Scarltes actaully dont do that badly. Theres really not thant many people that live within a hours drive of Parc Y. Big chunks of North Wales are close to Welford Road (driving times) than they are any Pro12 ground.

Travelling support is obviously pretty much non existant in all but the odd few local derbies....but the big ireland v ireland games get huge crowds.

Scotland..well thats just Scotland.

[quote="Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler"]

yappysnap wrote:You seem to have missed Harlequins v Leicester off the end of that Peter?

Didnt happen

Damn you wikipedia!

So yes actually we have 6 Jeff winners to 5 Celtics.

Thats the problem with the Magners, its dominated by a few teams whos unions and/or rich owners keep them articificaly strong and stiffle comeptition.[/quote]

Think this is a bit ill informed, to just completely wrong. Teams in Pro 12 are backed by thier Union, therefore you get the likes of the Scottish teams, where they were precieved to be underperforming and the Union works with them, increasing funding, helping bring in Scottish qualified players etc to make them more competative at the top end of the table. Same for Ulster in past.

Don't know how the likes of Leinster are articificaly strong, they are just strong, with a different funding model than English clubs, but its not articifical.

Can't see how anyone can be said to stiffle comeptition, IRFU have increased investment, and developed a buiness plan for Connacht, making them improve short term, and long term they have some great local players coming through. SRU are looking after the Scottish Discricts better. When you have 4 Unions all trying to push thier teams to the top it does not create an enviroment where competation is stiffled, it improves competation instead.

If you wish to look into with league has more competation, to win the league paddy power has

Leicester 9/5
Saracens 2/1
Harlequins 3/1
Northampton 8/1

Leinster 13/10
Ulster 2/1
Munster 11/2
Ospreys 11/2

As you can see 4 teams with closer odds in pro12 and only 3 in Aviva.

Franchise system is a very good one to manage players, i think only Treviso in the pro 12 is a "club".

Pro 12 is too much affected by the AI and 6N, you have teams completely depleted, i think Treviso was missing a complete pack against Ulster who had their 4 best props (Black is ahead of Mcallister imo), i think this is totally unacceptable if you want to take the league seriously, Edinburgh last year were truly pathetic during international windows. This certainly doesn't help crowds figures.

Speaking of Zebre i think they showed pretty well against Leinster during 30 min before allowing an incredibly soft try. They have a pretty tight defence and arguably should have won against Ulster. They aren't half as bad as people are making them out to be.

[quote="Kingshu"]

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

yappysnap wrote:You seem to have missed Harlequins v Leicester off the end of that Peter?

Didnt happen

Damn you wikipedia!

So yes actually we have 6 Jeff winners to 5 Celtics.

Thats the problem with the Magners, its dominated by a few teams whos unions and/or rich owners keep them articificaly strong and stiffle comeptition.[/quote]

Think this is a bit ill informed, to just completely wrong. Teams in Pro 12 are backed by thier Union, therefore you get the likes of the Scottish teams, where they were precieved to be underperforming and the Union works with them, increasing funding, helping bring in Scottish qualified players etc to make them more competative at the top end of the table. Same for Ulster in past.

Don't know how the likes of Leinster are articificaly strong, they are just strong, with a different funding model than English clubs, but its not articifical.

Can't see how anyone can be said to stiffle comeptition, IRFU have increased investment, and developed a buiness plan for Connacht, making them improve short term, and long term they have some great local players coming through. SRU are looking after the Scottish Discricts better. When you have 4 Unions all trying to push thier teams to the top it does not create an enviroment where competation is stiffled, it improves competation instead.

If you wish to look into with league has more competation, to win the league paddy power has

Leicester 9/5
Saracens 2/1
Harlequins 3/1
Northampton 8/1

Leinster 13/10
Ulster 2/1
Munster 11/2
Ospreys 11/2

As you can see 4 teams with closer odds in pro12 and only 3 in Aviva.

I shouldve put the statement in sarcasm tags. If you read the whole thing I bought the stats up to blow the oft repeated myth (most recently by Maesteg) that the Jeff is unfairly dominate dby a few rich clubs who have the syetm set uuop to defend their position and is boring becaus ethe same old people win it.
I simply regurgiatted that stement back onto the Pro12 clubs (the maginifent socialist republic of myth and legend) after showing that its actually marginally less comeptitive (on those stats) for comic effect.

The point is both leagues have a small number of teams who regualalry appear at the top of the table, and a few others who stick theri nose in form time to time. Much like the T14 and I suspect pretty much every major sports league going.

neilthom7 wrote:Attendances here's a few interesting things to put attendances in perspective. The Italians are new so I'm only going to focus on the old, experienced nations where rugby is more of a tradition. Wales, Scotland and Ireland have a total population of less than 16 million people, England has a total population of 53 Million that's more than 3 times more does the Aviva have 3 times the attendance to represent this? In Ireland there is the added stress that the game also has to compete with not only soccer but Gaelic Games (Football and Hurling). Look it's like this leagues are different why should all leagues be the same, each league has it's own uniqueness and for anyone who is not from that league to try and tell it to change is insulting and there is no place for them in rugby. Oh one more thing someone talked about Magners league which is actually the Rabo having rich owners who keep them up top would you ever wise up.

Of course football in England isn't a massive competitor of rugby?

Rugby union isn't very developed in the North of England because the leaning is towards rugby league plus of course football is huge up there again.

There are a lot more active sports jostling for places in England such as rugby union and league, golf,tennis,cricket,badminton,cycling,rowing,sailing,athletics as well as of course football. England is strong in a whole host of sports.

beshocked wrote:
There are a lot more active sports jostling for places in England such as rugby union and league, golf,tennis,cricket,badminton,cycling,rowing,sailing,athletics as well as of course football. England is strong in a whole host of sports.

You don't think they have those sports in the Rabo nations too? The worlds no1 Golfer is from NI, Britains top Tennis player is a Scotsman as is their most famous and decorated track cyclist ... just to point out a few examples.

I would suggest that none of those sports are direct competitors to rugby union, whereas the other codes of football - soccer, RL and Gaelic are, so Neils point is pretty relevent I think.

Who would be in the Pro12 team v the Aviva?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Who would be in the Pro12 team v the Aviva?

you mean Lions V Potential Lions
Joking Pro 12

healy Best Afoa
Muller POC
Ferris Heaslip Warburton
Pienaar Sexton
North Roberts BOD Bowe
Kearney

Think maybe we could argu over this as much as Lions selection,

rodders wrote:

beshocked wrote:
There are a lot more active sports jostling for places in England such as rugby union and league, golf,tennis,cricket,badminton,cycling,rowing,sailing,athletics as well as of course football. England is strong in a whole host of sports.

You don't think they have those sports in the Rabo nations too? The worlds no1 Golfer is from NI, Britains top Tennis player is a Scotsman as is their most famous and decorated track cyclist ... just to point out a few examples.

I would suggest that none of those sports are direct competitors to rugby union, whereas the other codes of football - soccer, RL and Gaelic are, so Neils point is pretty relevent I think.

Rodders yes the Pro12 sides have some very good sports people but in response to Mcllroy, you could just look at the Ryder Cup side - 4 Englishman. The star player Poulter being English.

Sir Chris Hoy compared to the English cyclists - male and female.

Ok England has no one in tennis to compare to Murray but still an Englishman won a slam this year. Also Robson and Watson are getting better.

England are involved at the highest level in a lot more sports.

You might not say they are direct competitors but people still watch these sports instead. E.g. Formula One - obviously driving a car very fast isn't the same as running with a ball in hand and kicking it but there are obviously situations when you follow one or the other. Do you watch a rugby game on tv or the formula one?

Football is a worthwhile competitor in Ireland seriously? Wales and Scotland I can very much understand.

My AP team would probably be:

1.Ayerza
2.Brits
3.Cole
4.Borthwick
5.Launchbury
6.Brown
7.Robshaw
8.Morgan
9.Care
10.Evans
11.Wade
12.Barritt
13.Tuilagi
14.Ashton
15.Foden

Back three and 12 are the toughest to pick.

I'm not sure what you are getting at Beshocked. My point was that most of the sports you mentioned are neither direct competitors to rugby nor are they specific to England.

Soccer in Ireland? maybe not so much an issue...but they are keen on it in Italy I've heard.... just ask Chelsea ....

Pro12 team v Aviva team? It already happens, it's called the Heineken Cup.

Just drop it guys. Two different leagues. I don't watch a whole helluva lot of AP and I'm sure the vast majority of AP fans don't watch much Pro12. Lives are too busy, too many distractions, facebook networking's gotta be done with the 10,000 'friends' etc, etc. I catch most of my AP when they play in the HEC.

So let's stop pretending we give a damn what the other League is doing. I certainly don't. The AP could be the 'best' League in the World (some will say it already is ) I'll still keep watching the one I'm interested in and that satisfies me. No I wouldn't slit my throat as passionate sacrifice for the good fortune of my local club/Province (as some seem to suggest is the true mark of a true League). And I have great suspicions of the guys who desire more for their local club than they do for their National side. They are certainly entitled to feel that way, I'm just saying on a personal level, I certainly don't share it - I see leagues as feeders for International standard players to learn their craft - my real love. So we all have different leagues to follow, and, more importantly, different reasons for actually following them.
Trying to argue which is better based on some supposed lawful definition of what a League should be and should mean is foolhardy.

Rodders they aren't direct competitors but competitors for people's time nonetheless. If you are playing or watching another sport you aren't playing or watching rugby union are you?

England also has boxing as well.

You mean the club owned by a megalomaniac who sacked a manager who won them two of the big trophies last season?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_in_Italy

Look at Italian sport. Rugby union has an awful long way to go. I would say the sports in the list are competition.

Cutting a very long story short - my point is that Rugby Union in England has a lot of competition. More than you Irish seem to think.

Even different competitions and formats in the same sport compete with each other

Cricket - 20 20, tests and one dayers.

Rugby union -Sevens and XV a side

Internationals and club games in football,rugby and cricket all compete for yours and my time.

The Pro12 competes with the AP which competes with the Top 14 and Super XV.

All compete for our time.

beshocked wrote:Rodders they aren't direct competitors but competitors for people's time nonetheless. If you are playing or watching another sport you aren't playing or watching rugby union are you?

England also has boxing as well.

You mean the club owned by a megalomaniac who sacked a manager who won them two of the big trophies last season?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_in_Italy

Look at Italian sport. Rugby union has an awful long way to go. I would say the sports in the list are competition.

Cutting a very long story short - my point is that Rugby Union in England has a lot of competition. More than you Irish seem to think.

Beshocked ... look I don't doubt that Rugby in England has a lot of competition, I'm just pointing out that the rabo countries do too. The sports you have mentioned are not unique to England in any way.

GAA is a major competitor to Rugby in many, but not all, parts of Ireland. Thats just a fact that is unique to Ireland its a reasonable point to bring up.

Apart from RL in the North of England, which is a fair point... the other mainstream sports (Cricket, Soccer, Tennis, Sailing, Judo etc.) aren't comparable because they are played across the board....

beshocked wrote:Rugby Union in England has a lot of competition. More than you Irish seem to think.

Rugby in Ireland has heavy competition. More than you English ever want to admit.

Ask a non-Irish poster. Ask Cari (Welsh). She's grown to love Gaelic. She reads about it, watches it. She knows how small rugby is in Ireland in comparison to the passions of the indigenous sports.

They aren't even 'professional' and yet are run on a viciously competitive professional level, with all the science and modern training methods brought to bear on bankers, farmers, doctors, teachers etc. And when those championships are in full bloom, tune into a few if you can next year and see what Irish men really crave, where the crowds really are, where the passion often goes from field, to coaching staff to fans joining in...if you know what I mean.

In an island of about 6 million, if you include NI where indigenous sport is also played with a passion - then you'll know where rugby's place is in the scheme of things. Oh and that doesn't include the heavy weekender traffic from Ireland to England to watch English premier league football! The second real following in Ireland. Some of those interests mix of course but not to the extent that rugby Provinces would be relying on the cross over to fill their grounds..

rodders wrote:

beshocked wrote:Rodders they aren't direct competitors but competitors for people's time nonetheless. If you are playing or watching another sport you aren't playing or watching rugby union are you?

England also has boxing as well.

You mean the club owned by a megalomaniac who sacked a manager who won them two of the big trophies last season?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_in_Italy

Look at Italian sport. Rugby union has an awful long way to go. I would say the sports in the list are competition.

Cutting a very long story short - my point is that Rugby Union in England has a lot of competition. More than you Irish seem to think.

Beshocked ... look I don't doubt that Rugby in England has a lot of competition, I'm just pointing out that the rabo countries do too. The sports you have mentioned are not unique to England in any way.

GAA is a major competitor to Rugby in many, but not all, parts of Ireland. Thats just a fact that is unique to Ireland its a reasonable point to bring up.

Apart from RL in the North of England, which is a fair point... the other mainstream sports (Cricket, Soccer, Tennis, Sailing, Judo etc.) aren't comparable because they are played across the board....

I know these sports aren't unique but for example football in England is far bigger than Ireland,Wales and Scotland combined. The Premier League has an average attendance of over 30k.

Yes the Pro12 countries have these sports but I doubt the playing numbers are as high.

Do you think for example golf is bigger in Ireland than England? Do you think that even with Murray tennis is bigger in Scotland than England. Remember England has Wimbledon - the most prestigious slam in the calendar!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues

Look at this domestic professional sports leagues.

Really interesting comparing Pro12 to AP.

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:Rugby Union in England has a lot of competition. More than you Irish seem to think.

Rugby in Ireland has heavy competition. More than you English ever want to admit.

Ask a non-Irish poster. Ask Cari (Welsh). She's grown to love Gaelic. She reads about it, watches it. She knows how small rugby is in Ireland in comparison to the passions of the indigenous sports.

They aren't even 'professional' and yet are run on a viciously competitive professional level, with all the science and modern training methods brought to bear on bankers, farmers, doctors, teachers etc. And when those championships are in full bloom, tune into a few if you can next year and see what Irish men really crave, where the crowds really are, where the passion often goes from field, to coaching staff to fans joining in...if you know what I mean.

In an island of about 6 million, if you include NI where indigenous sport is also played with a passion - then you'll know where rugby's place is in the scheme of things. Oh and that doesn't include the heavy weekender traffic from Ireland to England to watch English premier league football! The second real following in Ireland. Some of those interests mix of course but not to the extent that rugby Provinces would be relying on the cross over to fill their grounds..

We always hear how popular the gaelic sports are etc but never see the stats.

You Irish must hide attendance stats. What's the average attendance of Gaelic games?

beshocked wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:Rugby Union in England has a lot of competition. More than you Irish seem to think.

Rugby in Ireland has heavy competition. More than you English ever want to admit.

Ask a non-Irish poster. Ask Cari (Welsh). She's grown to love Gaelic. She reads about it, watches it. She knows how small rugby is in Ireland in comparison to the passions of the indigenous sports.

They aren't even 'professional' and yet are run on a viciously competitive professional level, with all the science and modern training methods brought to bear on bankers, farmers, doctors, teachers etc. And when those championships are in full bloom, tune into a few if you can next year and see what Irish men really crave, where the crowds really are, where the passion often goes from field, to coaching staff to fans joining in...if you know what I mean.

In an island of about 6 million, if you include NI where indigenous sport is also played with a passion - then you'll know where rugby's place is in the scheme of things. Oh and that doesn't include the heavy weekender traffic from Ireland to England to watch English premier league football! The second real following in Ireland. Some of those interests mix of course but not to the extent that rugby Provinces would be relying on the cross over to fill their grounds..

We always hear how popular the gaelic sports are etc but never see the stats.

You Irish must hide attendance stats. What's the average attendance of Gaelic games?

Watch it! The internet exists to prove points these days beshocked. Stats are something for the dark ages when you can use your eyes. If you keep up this pretence in the belief that rugby Union is numero Uno sport in Ireland, running against all evidence to the contrary...then where can you go when the judge says evidence is inadmissible

and just like it happens in Ireland with a much smaller population, in England reality also happens to an extent. I mean to say in England, the guy who loves Tennis, or Cricket, or swimming,or boxing... he just doesn't yawn and say "Not interested, gov - rugby ain't my sport" He'll be human and like a few sports and perhaps even attend a few differing sports.

Slot those guys into your overall stats and get back to me.

When did I say rugby union was the number one sport in Ireland?

Secretfly you'll need to give me some average attendances of hurling and gaelic football. I can't find them.

I found normal football in Ireland. The attendances from 2010 is pretty shocking. Average 1602.

beshocked wrote:When did I say rugby union was the number one sport in Ireland?

Secretfly you'll need to give me some average attendances of hurling and gaelic football. I can't find them.

I found normal football in Ireland. The attendances from 2010 is pretty shocking. Average 1602.

I agree. Most football watchers in Ireland (I've said this already) are either at home with their beautiful Sky packages of wall to wall English and Scottish football, in pubs watching English and Scottish football or flying over to actually use their season tickets to watch English or Scottish football. English football ain't just big in England, beshocked. Just to let you know that, in case you didn't already know it. I said English Premiership is probably number two on the list of sports followed in Ireland. You don't have to be in the country (England) to be fully committed to it as a sport, to follow 'your team' like a local and to in turn take yourself out of the loop as an attender at other sports in Ireland itself.

There is no way that England's rugby on average has a tougher time getting an audience in a land of 55 million than rugby in Ireland has an issue getting an audience out of 6 million. You just won't sell me that deal, beshocked. English rugby has to compete for its audience for sure and so does Irish rugby. I don't know what the argument is that always needs a "but we suffer more; but we have more competition; but we can draw bigger crowds and you can't" So what? 55 million spreads out better than 6 million. It always will.

beshocked wrote:
I know these sports aren't unique but for example football in England is far bigger than Ireland,Wales and Scotland combined. The Premier League has an average attendance of over 30k.

Yes the Pro12 countries have these sports but I doubt the playing numbers are as high.

Do you think for example golf is bigger in Ireland than England? Do you think that even with Murray tennis is bigger in Scotland than England. Remember England has Wimbledon - the most prestigious slam in the calendar!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues

Look at this domestic professional sports leagues.

Really interesting comparing Pro12 to AP.

OK I'll point out a few obvious things you are missing out, maybe deliberately, the premiership might have average attendences of 30k but has it occured to you that a fair few of those may not be English but fans travelling from other parts of the UK and Ireland....and thats ignoring the zillions of skysports suscribers. Man Utd and Liverpool in particular have huge support over here.

Golf, well in proportional terms I'd say its easily as popular in Ireland...certainly per capita we have more major winners lately anyways.

The big problem is you are quoting gross figures, remember England has 10 times the population of Ireland, so even taking into account the law of diminishing returns you would expect a proportional volume of sports participation and success.

Well Jaysus lads I didn't think when I said that Ireland has less of a population than England and has Gaelic to compete with I didn't realise those facts would have such an argument lol I don't think we will ever convince Beshocked and it doesn't matter because he's entitled to his opinion. My point is that the leagues are different and should be treated different for all their unique traits is what makes them great.

If as you argue the Irish are all travlleing to pay £30 for a Norwich home game doesnt that just prove that the Pro 12 isnt very popular?


Percentages of population etc are really irrelevant. The point is that less people go to watch Pro12 games than they do Jeff ones, and the Jeffereriship has a bigger TV pull too. That means the Jeff clubs have a bigger income of their own rather than being reliant on subsidy from the international game.
(Yeah yeah EPS paymenst yawn yawn...the elite club games in England contribute more directly to the RFU than they take back in payments)








Moving on anyway :
"There is no limit on foriegn players in the Jeff, and the soaring numbers are stiffleing the development of home grown talent."

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/premiership/faqs.php

The rule on foreign players has been amended to come into line with the regulations in European competitions. A maximum of two foreign players can now be on the pitch at any one time, at all periods during the season.

The level of English Qualified Players (EQP) in the Premiership has been fairly consistent since the inception of the league, at around 61-63%. This means on average there is something like 165 English players playing every weekend in the Premiership.

There are more GAA clubs in county Cork than there are rugby clubs in the whole of Ireland.

Does that show how far behind Rugby is to GAA in Ireland.

Bet you don't get more football (insert any sport) clubs in Yorkshire (insert any county) than rugby clubs in whole of England.

But this is pointless, If you are argueing that its harder to get fans to a Aviva Prem teams game in England than it is to get fans to an Irish provinces game in Ireland, your mistaken. The question should be if England and irland can attract these crowds with our different issues, why can the Scots and to lesser extent Welsh not? Italians we'll leave alone (for now).

Some stats you may not know. There are about 2000 GAA clubs in Ireland compared to about 200 rugby clubs. I looked it up recently. No time to give exact numbers but there were ten times as many.

My sister who's living in a mainly GAA county drives her kids about forty miles to play rugby, past around ten GAA grounds on the way. How many parents will do that for their kids? If either of them had liked hurling there's no way that she would do it either!

How far would you have to drive in the UK so that a kid could play rugby?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If as you argue the Irish are all travlleing to pay £30 for a Norwich home game doesnt that just prove that the Pro 12 isnt very popular?


Percentages of population etc are really irrelevant. The point is that less people go to watch Pro12 games than they do Jeff ones, and the Jeffereriship has a bigger TV pull too. That means the Jeff clubs have a bigger income of their own rather than being reliant on subsidy from the international game.
(Yeah yeah EPS paymenst yawn yawn...the elite club games in England contribute more directly to the RFU than they take back in payments)

Well you see that is true but the population values are relevent if you are discussing gross figures. Comparing England to Ireland or Scotland would be like us naval gazing because we have produced more snooker champions than the Isle of Man.......

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If as you argue the Irish are all travlleing to pay £30 for a Norwich home game doesnt that just prove that the Pro 12 isnt very popular?


Percentages of population etc are really irrelevant. The point is that less people go to watch Pro12 games than they do Jeff ones, and the Jeffereriship has a bigger TV pull too. That means the Jeff clubs have a bigger income of their own rather than being reliant on subsidy from the international game.
(Yeah yeah EPS paymenst yawn yawn...the elite club games in England contribute more directly to the RFU than they take back in payments)


Moving on anyway :

No - not moving on anyway. Not after that barrage of....................... well, I don't know what it was. It seems to be acknowledging the facts (unlike beshocked) and yet saying the facts still say "our League is better than yours coz we got more people going to it."

Of course you do. Of course you do. It doesn't need to be repeated - the population differences fundamentally suggest it. Populations are not irrelevent - they are the foundation of beshock's argument that even with all the competition in big population England, with the myriad sports a big population involves itself in on a viable capacity (having enough players and an audience to make leagues or whatever worthwhile) English rugby can still pull in more people than Pro12 can. Of course it can.... A Nation of 80,000 souls will fill an 80,000 stadium, or at least have the potential to. A Nation of 10,000 won't ever fill it - ever - stiff competition or not.

Having bigger crowds - naturally so - does NOT invalidate a League based on lesser crowds. How can it possibly invalidate it given that sides in that League more than hold their own in Europe?

'Better' - the concept of it - does not revolve around crowds and TV deals. If that's your criteria then let's talk business. We're talking Leagues. Our one gets by with less followers. Our one gets by with less followers by nature, by design, out of necessity...based on propotionality. It can never be linked to English League size. If Pro12 particpation ever got to the size of English League support then that should mean that English League support would also grow by the same levels. Then we have new rugby stadia being build in English towns and cities catering for plus 200,000 people

The arguments put forward here for using the word 'best' are quite simply bizarre.

SecretFly wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If as you argue the Irish are all travlleing to pay £30 for a Norwich home game doesnt that just prove that the Pro 12 isnt very popular?


Percentages of population etc are really irrelevant. The point is that less people go to watch Pro12 games than they do Jeff ones, and the Jeffereriship has a bigger TV pull too. That means the Jeff clubs have a bigger income of their own rather than being reliant on subsidy from the international game.
(Yeah yeah EPS paymenst yawn yawn...the elite club games in England contribute more directly to the RFU than they take back in payments)


Moving on anyway :

No - not moving on anyway. Not after that barrage of....................... well, I don't know what it was. It seems to be acknowledging the facts (unlike beshocked) and yet saying the facts still say "our League is better than yours coz we got more people going to it."

Of course you do. Of course you do. It doesn't need to be repeated - the population differences fundamentally suggest it. Populations are not irrelevent - they are the foundation of beshock's argument that even with all the competition in big population England, with the myriad sports a big population involves itself in on a viable capacity (having enough players and an audience to make leagues or whatever worthwhile) English rugby can still pull in more people than Pro12 can. Of course it can.... A Nation of 80,000 souls will fill an 80,000 stadium, or at least have the potential to. A Nation of 10,000 won't ever fill it - ever - stiff competition or not.

Having bigger crowds - naturally so - does NOT invalidate a League based on lesser crowds. How can it possibly invalidate it given that sides in that League more than hold their own in Europe?

'Better' - the concept of it - does not revolve around crowds and TV deals. If that's your criteria then let's talk business. We're talking Leagues. Our one gets by with less followers. Our one gets by with less followers by nature, by design, out of necessity...based on propotionality. It can never be linked to English League size. If Pro12 particpation ever got to the size of English League support then that should mean that English League support would also grow by the same levels. Then we have new rugby stadia being build in English towns and cities catering for plus 200,000 people

The arguments put forward here for using the word 'best' are quite simply bizarre.

Where at any point did I say that made it better or was a definition of best? I didnt say one model was better than the other at all, I simply pointed out the differences alongside some of the absurdities of the argumenst being used. This is a place to discuss myths, not the size of your ...population.
Its you thats used your "this is a comeptition" small minded mentality to read into my words what wasnt there. Get over yourself.

(The premiership is better though )

beshocked wrote:When did I say rugby union was the number one sport in Ireland?

Secretfly you'll need to give me some average attendances of hurling and gaelic football. I can't find them.

I found normal football in Ireland. The attendances from 2010 is pretty shocking. Average 1602.

It'll be difficult to get them, for a start each county runs its own League, so about 32 leagues of equal strenght (you can't really say that the Armagh league is better than the Tyrone League, then each league has normally about 4 divisions (some bigger counties more some smaller counties less) and thats just Gaelic Football, Hurling is divided pretty much same way, but would have fewer divisions.

So at a rough guess there are 128 divisions in Gaelic football and maybe 80 in Hurling. 32 prem divisions (64 if you include hurling) 32 second divisions (64 if hurling included) etc makes getting attandance figures hard to get, plus its an amature organisation so someone would have to volentalry compile these?

What about this
There are 2,099 rugby clubs in England, Pop 53 million
There are 2,319 GAA clubs in Ireland, pop 6.3 million

If it's just about size of population why isn't rugby big in China and India with populations over a billion?

How about USA? Population of 300m

You are really underestimating competition.

The likes of ManU, Arsenal,Liverpool and Chelsea are clubs known throughout the world. Could you say the same of Gaelic clubs?

The difference in competition that rugby union in Ireland faces is nothing compared to that of rugby union in England. Rugby union also has to face rugby league as well as football if we are talking about sports relatively similar.

Also Ireland has 4 provinces. 1 club per province.

Munster can call upon a catchment area of about 1.2m.

Leinster - 2.5m

Ulster - 2.1m

Connacht - 542,000

Those are pretty healthy populations to work with.

Connacht can be let off a bit because their population is a lot lower.

Compare this to Leicestershire which has a population of around 980,000. Also Leicester Tigers have to compete with Leicester City who have average crowds of around 21k.

What are we proving here? That the Irish dont waste as much money travelling to watch grown men p1ss about on a field as the English do?

Can we please discuss important things like grown men p1sing about on fields

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote: Get over yourself.

(The premiership is better though )

I hit the button so Pity I'm not Welsh huh. Those guys just shout back...they don't argue the 'arguments' off the page.