Heineken Cup Draw and Discussion. - Opening round fixtures announced.

First topic message reminder :

Pool 1 - Leinster, Northampton Saints, Ospreys, Castres Olympique

Pool 2 - Toulon, Cardiff Blues, Glasgow Warriors, Exeter Chiefs

Pool 3 - Toulouse, Saracens, Connacht, Zebre

Pool 4 - Clermont Auvergne, Harlequins, Scarlets, Racing Metro 92

Pool 5 - Ulster, Leicester Tigers, Montpellier, Benetton Treviso

Pool 6 - Munster, Perpignan, Edinburgh, Gloucester

First round:- Commencing 11/10/2013

Pool 1:
Castres v Northampton Saints
Ospreys v Leinster

Pool 2:
Exeter Chiefs v Cardiff Blues
Toulon v Glasgow Warriors

Pool 3:
Connacht v Saracens
Toulouse v Zebre

Pool 4:
Quins v Scarlets
Racing Métro v ASM Clermont Auvergne

Pool 5:
Ulster v  Leicester Tigers
Treviso v Montpellier

Pool 6:
Edinburgh v Munster
Gloucester v Perpignan

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/news/21719.php#.Ue0Qm43T_Tp

Common ground at last Greytiger, the ERC ranking system is stupid. Biarritz, Cardiff Blues (and to a lesser extent Munster) have been the main beneficiaries.

I know you favour some other weird ranking system that takes league form and stuff into account.

I prefer no seeding system. 24 teams. 6 English teams, 6 French teams, 8 <sigh> Rabo teams.

Only stipulation is that 1 English and 1 French per pool.

That does assume that none of the non-dominant leagues can gain access.
But running with your concept, 24 teams would be 8,8,8 given my preference for no lucky freeloaders.

This goes back to my main point.

8 sides from each league is not meritocratic. It means more contributions to the main event for two nations and less in theory for the other four nations.

That's much to much extra top level experience in the premium hard-hitting (almost international standard) European rugby event for two nations at the expense of less experience for the other competing European nations.

That's an unfair advantage when you acknowledge that HC standard competition produces future international players. Club assists International development. And then, International standard players assist club success. The two are linked and the two need to be considered in any HC solution.

greytiger wrote:That does assume that none of the non-dominant leagues can gain access.
But running with your concept, 24 teams would be 8,8,8 given my preference for no lucky freeloaders.

Sorry Portnoy I meant 20 team 6, 6, 8 no lucky freeloaders that way.

Twenty implies lucky losers. So no deal.

Sorry. There's the common ground contaminated with anthrax.

My fascination with a modified version of the Eurotable is that it would or could be adapted for accedence for entry to non-6Ns sides. I've also proposed separate E&W European leagues/cups to spread the game.

But like the 6Ns, the glass ceiling must be removed in order to democratise the game.
IMO

red_stag wrote:

beshocked wrote:Secretfly I didn't say I wanted more HC pools with minnows.

I want to see HC pools with less minnows. I want to see more Pro12 sides in the Amlin where some of them belong till they prove their worth. I know you don't believe in qualifying by merit.

Could expand the European competition though - either make the Amlin bigger or make a 3rd tier.

The third tier is a great suggestion. I'm firmly behind the 24 team Heineken Cup and a stronger Amlin Cup along with a new third tier development tournament.

Let countries like Belgium earn their stripes. If we have the Heineken Cup Final in Rome 2014 we will have come a long way. Then bring it to Edinburgh 2015 and look at Barcelona 2016. By the time it gets back to Cardiff or Paris in 2017 its been to two new destinations and everyone has had a few more bites at the cherry.

But Belgium/Holland/Germany etc do not deserve the Heineken Cup Final I feel. I don't see how anyone could claim it is a good idea.

But we won't get a significantly stronger Amlin without reducing the number of HC participants - only 14 "Tier 1" clubs/provinces/regions ain't enough if the minnows are banished to a third tier. At the same time, there's less than a dozen participants in HC who would have realistic ambitions of winning the thing (and only a few more with knockout qualification in their sights without the help of an easy group) so why not reduce HC to 16 to give 4 roughly equal groups of death.

Meritocratic qualification is equitably done on performances in the previous season's Euro competitions, not domestic league - this would filter out teams who prioritise league over euro. Bottom 4 of HC demoted to Amlin, and top 4 of Amlin promoted, perhaps with playoffs for 5th to 8th places.

Bucharest seems to fit the criteria for the finals - founder participants in ERC and far from the epicentre of Tier 1 Euro rugby. If it is Spain, though, why Barcelona instead of Madrid, or the Basque country?

greytiger wrote:Twenty implies lucky losers. So no deal.

Sorry. There's the common ground contaminated with anthrax.

My fascination with a modified version of the Eurotable is that it would or could be adapted for accedence for entry to non-6Ns sides. I've also proposed separate E&W European leagues/cups to spread the game.

But like the 6Ns, the glass ceiling must be removed in order to democratise the game.
IMO

No it don't.

6,6,8 no losers. Or if there is to be a reward for winning the Amlin, it should be at the expense of the 6th or 8th place team from that country/league.

8 English teams would include some severely rubbish teams.

No deal.

No deal it is then.

Shame that intransigence sealed the deal even amongst non-combatants.

The 3rd World forever suffers from 1st World internal bickerings.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

greytiger wrote:Twenty implies lucky losers. So no deal.

Sorry. There's the common ground contaminated with anthrax.

My fascination with a modified version of the Eurotable is that it would or could be adapted for accedence for entry to non-6Ns sides. I've also proposed separate E&W European leagues/cups to spread the game.

But like the 6Ns, the glass ceiling must be removed in order to democratise the game.
IMO

No it don't.

6,6,8 no losers. Or if there is to be a reward for winning the Amlin, it should be at the expense of the 6th or 8th place team from that country/league.

Jenny,
6+6+8 = 20

That means that
a. The glass ceiling is doubly-glazed.
b. The lucky loser syndrome has guaranteed perpetuation.

Also Amlin winners should qualify by performance just as everyone else - or at the very least is part of any league's allocation. I'd agree with that.

Staggy,
Every league supplies some rubbish to the tip.
Some Leagues more than others.
Look again at the most recent pool results.

I see myself agreeing with greytiger quite a lot in this case.

red stag if you have the english top 8 I am not quite sure where the severely rubbish teams comes in.

Bath and Wasps came 7th and 8th in the AP this season. I wouldn't call them that personally.

I think Bath in particular have made some very canny acquisitions for next season so should be stronger.

Wasps have a strong first team on paper.

The problem with the current Heineken Cup ranking system is that teams with easier pools get higher ranking points meaning they get easier pools etc.

A team like Ospreys has been quite unlucky with pools. Okay you could argue they should do better anyway but their pools have mostly been tough.

Cardiff and Biarritz have benefitted from easier pools and even my side in the last 3 seasons including this one have done well in the draw too.


It's interesting looking at my own club in the last 5 seasons of European competitions.

2009-10 - perhaps one of the toughest Amlin pools ever - Saracens,Toulon,Castres and Rovigo. European ranking points - 0 (despite winning 5 matches out of 6).

2010-11 - one of the toughest HC pools ever-
Leinster,Clermont,Saracens, Racing Metro. European ranking points - 1

2011-12 - a relatively easy pool -
Biarritz,Ospreys,Saracens,Treviso. European ranking points - 5

2012-13 - a relatively easy pool -
Munster,Edinburgh,Saracens,Racing Metro. European ranking points - 7

2013-14 - one of the easiest pools-
Toulouse,Saracens,Connacht,Zebre. European ranking points - .........

greytiger wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

greytiger wrote:Twenty implies lucky losers. So no deal.

No it don't.

6,6,8 no losers. Or if there is to be a reward for winning the Amlin, it should be at the expense of the 6th or 8th place team from that country/league.

Jenny,
6+6+8 = 20 That's what I just said innit?

That means that
a. The glass ceiling is doubly-glazed.
b. The lucky loser syndrome has guaranteed perpetuation.

Also Amlin winners should qualify by performance just as everyone else - or at the very least is part of any league's allocation. I'd agree with that.

One or both of us is missing something. I bolded the bit I was replying to. I will remove the rest and highlight my reply.

English proposals are 666 + lucky losers. (Or teams from HC + Amlin winners league) Mine (and others) are 668 (not 666) and Amlin winners REPLACE lowest qualifier from that country/league.

HC winners have never failed to be top 6 in their league so not an issue (Nor likely to be)

As regards the make up of the 8 Rabo teams.

A/ I think that should be up to the 4 unions in question.

B/ I presume the compromise would be minimum 1 team from each country.

As it has never happened that BOTH Scottish teams have finished outside the top 8, the only ones likely to benefit from and "upgrade" are the Italians.

Personally I would have no problem with that.

The worst case scenario would be (for example)

Welsh teams 1 to 4.

Irish teams 5 to 8

Then 2 Irish teams would miss out to Italian and Scottish teams.

HOW LIKELY WOULD THIS REALLY BE?

Not very is the answer. Having no Italian or Scottish teams in the top 8 would be very UNlikely. (but not impossible)

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

greytiger wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

greytiger wrote:Twenty implies lucky losers. So no deal.

No it don't.

6,6,8 no losers. Or if there is to be a reward for winning the Amlin, it should be at the expense of the 6th or 8th place team from that country/league.

Jenny,
6+6+8 = 20 That's what I just said innit?

That means that
a. The glass ceiling is doubly-glazed.
b. The lucky loser syndrome has guaranteed perpetuation.

Also Amlin winners should qualify by performance just as everyone else - or at the very least is part of any league's allocation. I'd agree with that.

One or both of us is missing something. I bolded the bit I was replying to. I will remove the rest and highlight my reply.

English proposals are 666 + lucky losers. (Or teams from HC + Amlin winners league) Mine (and others) are 668 (not 666) and Amlin winners REPLACE lowest qualifier from that country/league.

HC winners have never failed to be top 6 in their league so not an issue (Nor likely to be)

That's what I just said innit?

Not exactly Jen. If you followed my argument carefully, it also includes amongst other things, no lucky losers as it is prefaced on eight pools of three.


Plus a rational seeding system.

Plus I'm on record as opining that all of the officially tabled amendments are flawed and weak.

greytiger wrote:
Not exactly Jen. If you followed my argument carefully, it also includes amongst other things, no lucky losers as it is prefaced on eight pools of three.


Plus a rational seeding system.

Ah. I misinterpreted what you meant by lucky losers. I thought you meant teams like Perpignan and Connacht who were brought into the comp by their country's teams winning the cups.

The 7th and 8th qualifier for the HC qf are not lucky, but get there by their own results (I know you are going to say they have a lucky group because the tiers are skewed by the ranking system)

I also think that the 7th and 8th add to the drama of the HC as the qualifiers are not known until the last pool game is played.

Not a huge fan of dropping to 20 teams, but it seems to be what your lads want, and it would make the comp harder.

5 groups of 4 like the Amlin or 4 groups of 5 though?

Five groups of four implies three 'lucky losers' (i.e. second 'bests')
four groups of five allows for two qualifiers from each pool but increases the number of pool games by two per team).

8x3 allows a qualifier from each pool plus frees up sufficient games to cater for home and away quarters and semis.

Ok so from what I gather the French & English would like a change to the structure on qualification (equal basis per league) which will result in an increase of funding based on participation.

What I don't get is if all these terms are being discussed as possibilities why are the Rabbo sides not asking for their own restrictions in that case? For example no squad registered can be less than 90% of its own nationality with a limit of 2 match day foreigners (any other capped nation included). Additionally a spending cap on registered players to be decided.

It seems logical that if the French & English want more they should make some reverse changes to even the HC out on all sides. Granted they would never agree to this on the basis that barely 50% of English clubs could participate under those guidelines and in France with the exception of Montpellier probably none of the other top sides.

All of this seems to be about having your cake and eating it. I do hope the Rabbo sides quit and join a global provincial HC style knockout with Super 15 sides. I actually think that could potentially improve the standard of our domestic leagues. Just my view though.

BTW I kind of like the current funny HC second place qualifying structure. Don't get me wrong it makes no sense at all but it does add something wild to the process which I quite like. Its all very random but I do think its part of what makes the current HC so special.

I also agree the seeding system is totally flawed but again it just adds to tournament with some crazy pool's of death guaranteed each year which under a fairer system would probably be avoided to some degree.

Welshmushroom wrote:Ok so from what I gather the French & English would like a change to the structure on qualification (equal basis per league) which will result in an increase of funding based on participation.

What I don't get is if all these terms are being discussed as possibilities why are the Rabbo sides not asking for their own restrictions in that case? For example no squad registered can be less than 90% of its own nationality with a limit of 2 match day foreigners (any other capped nation included). Additionally a spending cap on registered players to be decided.

It seems logical that if the French & English want more they should make some reverse changes to even the HC out on all sides. Granted they would never agree to this on the basis that barely 50% of English clubs could participate under those guidelines and in France with the exception of Montpellier probably none of the other top sides.

All of this seems to be about having your cake and eating it. I do hope the Rabbo sides quit and join a global provincial HC style knockout with Super 15 sides. I actually think that could potentially improve the standard of our domestic leagues. Just my view though.

I do hope the Rabbo sides quit and join a global provincial HC style knockout with Super 15 sides. I actually think that could potentially improve the standard of our domestic leagues.

That's a different argument but I believe the thought is (simply put) that everyone gets more cake as the cake is bigger - even if you get a smaller slice.

[ed]

I do hope the Rabbo sides quit and join a global provincial HC style knockout with Super 15 sides. I actually think that could potentially improve the standard of our domestic leagues.

Try crowbaring that into the season (NH or SH).

SecretFly wrote:This goes back to my main point.

8 sides from each league is not meritocratic. It means more contributions to the main event for two nations and less in theory for the other four nations.

That's much to much extra top level experience in the premium hard-hitting (almost international standard) European rugby event for two nations at the expense of less experience for the other competing European nations.

That's an unfair advantage when you acknowledge that HC standard competition produces future international players. Club assists International development. And then, International standard players assist club success. The two are linked and the two need to be considered in any HC solution.

I have no sympathy (or is it empathy) with this concept that HC is (or should be) merely a training exercise for internationals for two reasons:

It demeans the collective efforts of multi-national squads who build a collective camaraderie on their HC efforts.

Given the contrasting history of Welsh and Irish National and Regional/Provincial results in recent history, it's probably bolleaux.

red_stag wrote:Surely Ospreys will have their goal as winning the group and getting a home quarter final? They should not be contemplating anything less.

They have been to Dublin and won against Leinster in knockout matches on multiple occasions.

Belief is key in the Heineken Cup and Ospreys need to believe that they can beat Leinster, beat Castres and beat Saints.

I think no reason they cannot. They have never ever won a Heineken Cup pool. Surely its about time they pull the finger out and change that.

That's about the size of it. You must believe, beyond all reason at this level, or you are phooked before you start.

The Heino takes years to really kop-on to. It has its own rhythm. But once you find it, you progress.

It takes a lot of pain and heartache to get there. Unless you are Toulon.

Toulouse defined it.
Munster gave credence to it.
Wasps glorified it.
Tigers showed how to win it.
Leinster learned from all of the above and perfected it.

And BT will be allowed to take it all away. Consign it all to History. The greatest club competition on the Planet.

It breaks my cold blue heart.

Kill them all. Let their CEO Gods sort them out.

greytiger wrote:Five groups of four implies three 'lucky losers' (i.e. second 'bests')
four groups of five allows for two qualifiers from each pool but increases the number of pool games by two per team).

8x3 allows a qualifier from each pool plus frees up sufficient games to cater for home and away quarters and semis.

No it doesn't. Pools of 3 will take 6 weeks to complete, with every team having 2 bye weekends in that 6 weeks.

There are other things that teams could be doing robbo. Like fulfilling Jeff and LV fixtures (or equivalent league commitments.)

Just so happens that the ERC fixtures would have to be arranged to accommodate these - guaranteeing pairs of 'spare' teams.

Can't wait to see big Mike Cusack up against Sheridan and destroy him.

I genuinely believe Glasgow can top their pool, certainly with their level of play the last 4-5 months, they should fear no one.

Fixtures for 1st 4 rounds out shortly.

Leinster away to Northampton 6pm. 7th of December.

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/matchdaytv?play=media&id=15993

Jenifer you can see all fixture list on video.

Odd that this HC there aren't many round 3 and 4 clashes to really look forward to.

Glad Ulster start with Tigers at home instead of a double header against them.  Not that it makes a huge amount of difference, but I think we'll be in a better position if we beat them at Ravenhill first up and the pressure is then on them to beat us at Welford Road in latter rounds.

Lock up your sheep Ospreylians. Only Welsh ground I have not been to.

Saints fans can lock up what ever you have there too.  

Scarlets first which is OK, then away to ASM. That's the really hard one.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Scarlets first which is OK, then away to ASM. That's the really hard one.

Humiliation awaits Quins in the HC. I can't wait to read your excuses.

An amazingly unpredictable post from Logan there. I don't know why you would care so much as you evidently no longer support Quins. Go and support someone, this anti-support is both feeble and utterly utterly pointless

Oh dear. I have obviously hit a nerve.

It's mostly the incessant nature of your trolling that is irritating. That and the utter lack of anything constructive you have to add

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:Saints fans can lock up what ever you have there too.  

Their cousins probably.

Cousins that are also sisters...

Can't get the link to open at work but what are the dates for the two Quins V ASM games?

20th October at 4pm for the first, weekend of 10th jan for the 2nd

Just realized our game against Tigers at Ravenhill is a Friday night game as well

ChequeredJersey wrote:It's mostly the incessant nature of your trolling that is irritating. That and the utter lack of anything constructive you have to add

I have posted positive stuff about Quins but there isnt much to be positive about. Still, I'll leave you in your dreamworld to work on your excuses.

ChequeredJersey wrote:20th October at 4pm for the first, weekend of 10th jan for the 2nd

 

I didn't just mean about Quins Logan, I haven't seen you post about anything else

ChequeredJersey wrote:I didn't just mean about Quins Logan, I haven't seen you post about anything else

https://www.606v2.com/spa/logansrun38

Have a pick through that for positivity. I particularly liked.

logansrun38 wrote:Nick Kennedy is leaving Toulon. He wont come to Quins because they are rubbish.

 

Wrong reply

Trips to Swansea, Dublin and Castres in the planning now. May make Franklyn Gardens, to scratch another stadium off the list.

Really looking forward to getting back on the HC Road again.

logansrun38s posting history is quite hilarious. It's like Marvin the Paranoid Android on downers decides to support Quins.

So I can only post if I'm positive? Cretin.

logansrun38 wrote:So I can only post if I'm positive? Cretin.

of course not. moron. Just that normal people post negatively sometimes, and positively sometimes.

Not 106 posts of almost uniform negativity

I think Notch nailed it. Marvin the paranoid android on downers. I can hear his voice in my head from the tv/radio series.

logansrun38 wrote:So I can only post if I'm positive? Cretin.

Another one for the Hall of Fame  

This doesn't quite fit in the details but the gist of the message is there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M-3q9XLYR4

Does anyone know when the group fixtures for the Amlin are announced?