What makes a "Tough Group" in European Rugby?

Do you think your team had a tough group in the HEC this season?

When the draw was announced I thought we hadn't done too badly to get Glasgow, Castres and Saints. Now that the season is over it turns out all 4 of the teams in Group 4 made the semi-finals of their domestic competition at the very least.

One winner, 2 beaten finalists and a semifinalist.



All 4 teams finished in the top third of the Euro Table Rankings

Every other group had 2 teams, and in one case 3 teams who ended the season below our lowest placed team.

Group	Teams	Eurotable Ranking Total	Eurotable Rating Total
1	Ed/Mun/Rac/Sar	64	261.96
2	Trev/Tig/Os/Toulouse	58	276.90
3	Con/Quin/Biar/Zeb	97	203.62
4	Cast/Glas/Saints/Uls	37	308.20
5	ASM/Ex/Lein/Scar	42	317.14
6	Card/Sale/Mont/Toulon	66	266.18

So, was Group 4 actually the group of death?


PS. I have never tried to do a table before so

Your table is nice Mrs P.

Yes, I immediately thought (when the groups were revealed) that Group 5 would be the toughest but as you have shown, it is in fact Group 4 which was the Group of Death.

It makes Ulter's performance this year even more impressive, doesn't it?

Wasnt Biarritz in group 3?

They were indeed and Sharks were in group 6.

Blooming ERC site!!!
Recalculations in progress!

Beautiful table, MrsP - clear, effective, transparent - a thing of wonder

As an aside, altho I hate to detract from your superb table, by rating (your last column), Group 5 was indeed the mst difficult?

Only by a smidgeon though, As.

I'm sure we all agree it's the 2nd column which is the most relevant.

Indeed, LB, I was simply lost in the layout and structuring of the wonderous table for a moment!

I'm 'tabled out' at the moment.
I'm only doing 2 live ones this year but it's always more work than you think it is... especially with all those little badges for the teams.

Yes, I feel slightly robbed that MrsP made no effort whatsoever to incorporate external art work - I'm adjusting my table score to B+

I dont think thats an accurate way to judge the quality of a group.

Castres for example have been doing well in the French league for years but do not have the depth for competing on two fronts. They sacrifice Europe in the same way some Pro 12 teams have sacrificed the league (Musnter this year, Edinburgh last year).

I'm not sure it is either Stag, but I thought it gave an interesting slant.

And. it gave me the chance to attempt to produce a table. Even if it only scored B+.

Asbo, it depends on which criteria you use to judge difficulty. Our group (when you have your Weedgie hat on) had no weak team. Our end-of-season rankings only had a spread of 8 places.



Maybe I should add an extra column to me "not so wonderful as I'd hoped" table!

The HC seedings are based on HC/Amlin achievement, which is why Castres are 4th seeds despite consistently reaching the T14 play offs.

As stag says, they invariably sacrifice Europe by fielding 2nd string teams in away games. They will usually put a strong team out at home though, and you wouldn't want to face them at Stade Pierre Antoine with q/f qualification resting on the result.

The thing is no one can predict the form a team will bring to the HC. Sale are an obvious example, having had a good previous league season, they were woeful in all competitions until the last third of the season.

MrsP wrote:I'm not sure it is either Stag, but I thought it gave an interesting slant.

And. it gave me the chance to attempt to produce a table. Even if it only scored B+.

Asbo, it depends on which criteria you use to judge difficulty. Our group (when you have your Weedgie hat on) had no weak team. Our end-of-season rankings only had a spread of 8 places.



Maybe I should add an extra column to me "not so wonderful as I'd hoped" table!

It depends if you're the weak team or not. The 'hardest' group for any team is one that has two better teams in it

Surely you could twist it to suit your argument?

Group 4 - only Ulster have done anything in the HC in the last two seasons.

This season:


Group 1 had two HC semi finalists. Last season 3 teams in this pool - 2 quarter finalists and 1 semi finalist.

Group 2 had 1 quarter finalist

Group 3 had 1 quarter finalist.

Group 4 had just 1 quarter finalist.

Group 5 had one finalist and Amlin winner.

Group 6 had winner of the HC and 1 quarter finalist.

beshocked wrote:Surely you could twist it to suit your argument?

Group 4 - only Ulster have done anything in the HC in the last two seasons.

This season:


Group 1 had two HC semi finalists. Last season 3 teams in this pool - 2 quarter finalists and 1 semi finalist.

Group 2 had 1 quarter finalist

Group 3 had 1 quarter finalist.

Group 4 had just 1 quarter finalist.

Group 5 had one finalist and Amlin winner.

Group 6 had winner of the HC and 1 quarter finalist.

Please tell me you are joking, right?

Or are you really saying that having 2 teams quailify from your group implies it was a tough group?

Mrs. P,
I think you misunderstand.
Its not the words, but what is said between the lines. And to me, it is clear that any group which contains Ulster and Saints must - by definition - be the toughest group. Probably ever.

Its clear to me.........

MrsP wrote:

beshocked wrote:Surely you could twist it to suit your argument?

Group 4 - only Ulster have done anything in the HC in the last two seasons.

This season:


Group 1 had two HC semi finalists. Last season 3 teams in this pool - 2 quarter finalists and 1 semi finalist.

Group 2 had 1 quarter finalist

Group 3 had 1 quarter finalist.

Group 4 had just 1 quarter finalist.

Group 5 had one finalist and Amlin winner.

Group 6 had winner of the HC and 1 quarter finalist.

Please tell me you are joking, right?

Or are you really saying that having 2 teams quailify from your group implies it was a tough group?

Only 1 team qualified from the weakest group - pool 3 so that pretty much blows your argument away.

No I am saying that group 1 had 2 of the toughest teams in the competition. Ireland's representative in the HC and also England's that got furthest.

Ulster got beaten quite convincingly by Sarries and Quins lost at home to Munster.

Munster had pretty indifferent league form but had a good HC run.



We are talking about the HC not league form. Glasgow have been strong in the Pro12 but had little to no impact in the HC. Ditto Castres in the top 14.

Saints have done little in the HC since their final appearance which is looking further and further away. Only Ulster have done anything of note in the last two seasons.

2 vs 1.

Mrs P - Surely pool 5 was the toughest, they have the largest Eutro CLub rating points, and second highest total. That pool included -:

ASM Clermont -: HEC runners up, T14 League toppers in the regular season
Leinster -: Amlin Cup Winners, RABO Winners
Scarlets -: RABO play-offs
Exeter -: .....

Grey,



Beshocked,

still

Spidey,

Could be but I found it interesting to see just how well each of the teams in Group 4 had done domestically this season even though it didn't look to be too tough a group when the draw was made.

MrsP important word - domestically.

I would agree with scarletspiderman. Pool 5 was the toughest. Pool 3 clearly the weakest. The other 4 being somewhere in the middle.

But, surely HEC qualification is based on domestic form so you can not discount how teams perform in their home leagues, can you?

Look at Biarritz and SF. Both loads of points in the ERC ranking system but neither in the HEC cup next season because of their domestic form.

In many ways you could argue that the 'toughest' pools are those where all the teams are of a similar level?

In that way, pool 5 wasnt that tough in some ways as Leinster/Clermont had the tough games against each other and on paper the other 4 games should have been easier (I know Exe almost ruined that theory).

Therefore pool 4 is tough because any of the sides could realistically beat each other and so in theory the group would hinge on away LBPs?

MrsP in the Top 14 and AP HC qualification is based on league form.

In the Pro12 HC qualification is all but automatic bar 1 or 2 teams.

Neither Biarritz or SF have actually done well in the HC in the last two seasons though have they?

bathman in london you could argue that but on the other hand you could say there was no team noticeably stronger than the others means qualifying is potentially easier.

I would say Clermont and Leinster are two of the strongest sides in Europe. They have backed this up with good recent records in the HC.

Clermont effectively knocked out Leinster. Could Castres,Glasgow or Saints done the same if Ulster swapped pools with Leinster? Perhaps not.

There are so many conditions that come into play after the Pool stages of HC that it becomes next to impossible to draw conclusions about how the end of the season might have something to say with how 'tough' a particular pool was when it was happening.

As certain teams fall back into total concentration on a single competition after the pool stages, others must plot and plan their way through two competitions and extra games.

The conditions have changed from during the pool stages (when everyone is on a equal footing) through to the ending of the season (when everyone isn't on an equal footing)

Biarritz have 15 points from the last 3 seasons HEC. They topped their group and were second in their group.

SF have 14 points from the past 3 seasons even though they were in the Amlin.

I thought of a better (and much much more complicated) system. I'll explain it with an example:

Pool 5

Leinster 100
Clermont 92.89
Scarlets 56.43
Exeter 67.82

Take the difference between each club and the others and then add them together

So
Leinster = (100-92.89) + (100-56.43) + (100-67.82) = 82.86
Clermont = 54.42
Scarlets = -91.42
Exeter = -45.86

Pool 4

Ulster 82.46
Saints 72.86
Glasgow 72.24
Castre 80.64

So

Ulster = 21.64
Saints = -16.76
Glasgow = -18.62
Castre = 14.36

I'd say that Pool 4 was harder because all four teams were closer.

MrsP obviously the points system is a little messed up. I thought everyone knew that.

You get 1 point for just participating in the HC.

Winning the Amlin nets you only one point less than the being a HC semi finalist if you top your pool, if you come 2nd it equals it.

Of course the drop down system has had a detrimental effect on the ranking system - allowing Biarritz and Cardiff to keep artificially high ERC rankings.

Did you know since the drop down system was put into place 3 out of the 4 winners have come from the HC?

Draw for next season is on this Wednesday by the way.

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/21242.php#.UayOt9KTjSg

beshocked wrote:MrsP obviously the points system is a little messed up. I thought everyone knew that.

You get 1 point for just participating in the HC.

Winning the Amlin nets you only one point less than the being a HC semi finalist if you top your pool, if you come 2nd it equals it.

Of course the drop down system has had a detrimental effect on the ranking system - allowing Biarritz and Cardiff to keep artificially high ERC rankings.

Did you know since the drop down system was put into place 3 out of the 4 winners have come from the HC?

Draw for next season is on this Wednesday by the way.

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/21242.php#.UayOt9KTjSg

Mate,
To me these are somewhat circular arguments (which I suppose is part of the fun of these discussions). Personally I don't put much stock in rating points because that tells history, although imperfectly, as we agree. But to me, in a competition between three leagues which are roughly equal competitively, the best way to evaluate strength is league finish.
Castres won the Top 14
Ulster lost in the Rabo championship match
Saints lost in the Premiership championship match
Glasgow lost in the Rabo semi-finals

I cannot see a group of 4 teams which collectively achieved so much.
All other evaluations, to me at any rate, are somewhat subjective. No style points - just where teams finished.

I think that a number of posters now have been missing the point of this thread, which is that Mrs P's table is Very Good.

George Carlin wrote:I think that a number of posters now have been missing the point of this thread, which is that Mrs P's table is Very Good.

Spot on Dr. Grey - like the logic.

George Carlin wrote:I think that a number of posters now have been missing the point of this thread, which is that Mrs P's table is Very Good.

She'll get into 606 Stat Premiership Tier 1 next year because of the quality of the Table...

SecretFly wrote:

George Carlin wrote:I think that a number of posters now have been missing the point of this thread, which is that Mrs P's table is Very Good.

She'll get into 606 Stat Premiership Tier 1 next year because of the quality of the Table...

GC, quite right - thank you for bringing us bak to MrsP's box table, Erm, sorry

The group with Edinburgh in it should be the easiest group. Worse than the Zebras and Connacht in Europe. Zero resistance. We should have given Sarries the 10 points and saved them the bother of travelling.

I like your cold analytical approach to this MrsP.

Firstly, you'd need to define tough, is it on average "better" teams, or is it relative strengths of the teams? I'd say it's somewhere in between.

To see which teams are better I like the idea of combining the official and unofficial European rankings, one looks at historical form in Europe, the other only the last 30 games.

How you go about combining would be pretty tricky. But for arguement sake lets just say Strenght = (37 - offical ERC rank)*(Unofficial Euro score)

Where 37 is 1+ the amount of teams currently ranked on the ERC table, so Zebre would be 1*(unofficial Euro Score) and Toulon would be 35*(unofficial Euro Score)

Now to find their relative strengths you need to look at the standard deviation of strength. The lower the variation the closer they are in strength.

Then the pool strength would be the average of the strength times the standard deviation of strength.

But I know nobody will take me seriously because I haven't done a table.

Oh I get you there, mick. Wise move. The square root of 'strength' multiplied by the obtuse angle of the ERC ranking system.

Mrs P's table looks rather silly now, to be honest.

That should of course be:

Then the pool strength would be the average of the strength divided by the standard deviation of strength.

Because the smaller the standard deviation, the closer the teams are in terms of strength so the "harder" the pool is...

Mickado wrote:I like your cold analytical approach to this MrsP.

Firstly, you'd need to define tough, is it on average "better" teams, or is it relative strengths of the teams? I'd say it's somewhere in between.

To see which teams are better I like the idea of combining the official and unofficial European rankings, one looks at historical form in Europe, the other only the last 30 games.

How you go about combining would be pretty tricky. But for arguement sake lets just say Strenght = (37 - offical ERC rank)*(Unofficial Euro score)

Where 37 is 1+ the amount of teams currently ranked on the ERC table, so Zebre would be 1*(unofficial Euro Score) and Toulon would be 35*(unofficial Euro Score)

Now to find their relative strengths you need to look at the standard deviation of strength. The lower the variation the closer they are in strength.

Then the pool strength would be the average of the strength times the standard deviation of strength.

But I know nobody will take me seriously because I haven't done a table got the sum wrong.

A very very hard pool is one my team does not get out of.
A very hard pool is one my team courageously gets out of, but is consigned to an away 1/4 final
A hard group is one my team wins and shows it's class by getting a home 1/4 final.

An easy pool is the others.

A hard group is one that contains the only team that have beaten my team in any European game in the last 3 seasons, which consigns us to winning the Amlin.

An easy group is when that team are also first seeds and cannot end up in our group tomorrow at 14:30.

I think it's pretty tough for an Irish province to get an easy draw next year.

I can just see it now:

Munster, Harlequins, Scarlets, Castres
Leinster, Tigers, Ospreys, Racing Metro
Ulster, Perpignan, Montpellier, Gloucester

Actually looking at it Racing Metro will be a very new look team next year. They have signed the winning coaching team from Castres and are bringing in BOTH of Northamptons props as well as Dan Lydiate and Jamie Roberts not to mention trying to create a Sexton-O'Gara hybrid player. They'll be tough to beat.

red_stag wrote:I think it's pretty tough for an Irish province to get an easy draw next year.

I can just see it now:

Munster, Harlequins, Scarlets, Castres
Leinster, Tigers, Ospreys, Racing Metro
Ulster, Perpignan, Montpellier, Gloucester

Actually looking at it Racing Metro will be a very new look team next year. They have signed the winning coaching team from Castres and are bringing in BOTH of Northamptons props as well as Dan Lydiate and Jamie Roberts not to mention trying to create a Sexton-O'Gara hybrid player. They'll be tough to beat.

Only the 1st one is possible.

An Irish team can ONLY get Metro along with Montpelier.

Montpellier and Perpignan CANNOT be in the same group.

Metro as the lowest ranked French side HAVE to go into a group with another French side. Cannot be Perp as there are no English sides in tier 3

Ah thanks John! Mind at ease.

You Europeans don't know what a tough group is.

Chiefs, Crusaders, Blues, Hurricanes, Highlanders.
Every ****** year.

Just once it'd be nice to swap in the Southern Kings or the Force or the Rebels ...
Or even a couple of nice mid-table Rabo or AP sides

Here's possibles starting with your one

Munster................Leinster........Ulster Rugby
Northampton........Leicester........Perpignan
Ospreys...............Montpellier........Scarlets
Castres................Racing Métro........Exeter

Only Possibility of Italian teams is with Montpellier also. I hope we get the one I have given to Ulster.

Key thing to note in the draw is if Cardiff get an Irish or a French team in tier 1. That changes the possibilities for ALL Irish teams.

Irish team MUST get Perpignan. Then either 2 English or English + Cardiff. No Eng teams in 3 means French teams will have to get Italians and Racing UNLESS one of them gets Cardiff.

Is this post open to analytical peer review?

If so, I'll do some analysis.
But it may take a day or two.

greytiger wrote:Is this post open to analytical peer review?

If so, I'll do some analysis.
But it may take a day or two.

Only until 14:29 tomorrow.

greytiger wrote:Is this post open to analytical peer review?

If so, I'll do some analysis.
But it may take a day or two.

Yes!

But!

Only if the results are presented in Tabular format. And that the aforementioned table does not outshine the one in the OP!

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:You Europeans don't know what a tough group is.

Chiefs, Crusaders, Blues, Hurricanes, Highlanders.
Every ****** year.

Just once it'd be nice to swap in the Southern Kings or the Force or the Rebels ...
Or even a couple of nice mid-table Rabo or AP sides

Europeans? Are you kidding me?
There are no Europeans here, at leas that I am aware of.
Those of us you accuse of being Europeans are mostly Brits and Irish by country and geography.
By nationality and background we are many, including Leinstermen, Munstermen, Ultsermen, Cannuckians, Lowland Scots, Highland Scots, Cornish, Manx, Northern-ish, Kentish, English, Squimish, Western, and, umm....err......., oh yes, Welsh.

Please do not connect us or affiliate us (or contaminate us) with the great unwashed on that....ummm..... errrr..... continent somewhere off our southwestern coast. Europe was put there because no one else would take it and it had to go somewhere. Dover Castle was built a thousand years ago to keep them out. Its record is unblemished.

funnyExiledScot wrote:The group with Edinburgh in it should be the easiest group. Worse than the Zebras and Connacht in Europe. Zero resistance. We should have given Sarries the 10 points and saved them the bother of travelling.

If it's so easy to get 10 points vs Edinburgh how come neither Munster nor Racing Metro managed it?


Grey your logic is flawed. It certainly doesn't take into account fighting on two fronts.


Something that none of Glasgow,Castres or Saints had to do which made it far easier to progress domestically. Adding on top of that Castres had virtually no internationals missing. Don't remember Saints having too many away with England either. This meant that these two sides had fresh players for the business end with just one focus - the playoffs. Their league form saw them both come 4th - far behind in the wins and points to the two sides they beat.

None of the semi finalists or finalists in the HC managed to win their domestic league.

I am not sure what Castres record is like vs Clermont overall but Saints record vs Sarries is pretty shocking. Saints lost twice to them during the normal season but won the playoff game. I wouldn't say that makes Saints a better side. It's just about time Saints actually won a game vs Sarries - the motivation was there.

I would still rate Clermont higher than Castres and Sarries above Saints if we take into account league form and HC form (not a one off playoff game).