Lets move the debate on a bit...

by butterfingers Fri 18 Oct 2013, 4:21 pm

Part of the arguments are regarding Rabo teams resting players and targetting HC games, which is the only part of the argument the PRL spouted I could get on board with (despite them trying to exercise control over a league they are uninvolved with).

Now we have it though, that Perpignan have decided their HC season will be left to a weakened team to beat Edinburgh at home. Is this an attempt to highlight that the Rabo nations are going to do better in the HC so why bother trying, or flat out disrespect to Edinburgh?

Sadly Gloucester have all but conceded to getting anything from Thomond, Davies has decided the hugely impressive win last week doesn't need to be built on and that conceding the points will give them a better shot in the league next week...

Am I missing something? Surely if the PRL/LNR want a level playing field then they have to at least try when on the field in the first place, and lets be honest this isn't the first time a French team has set out a 2nd string XV in the HC. I am actually amazed that the PRL spout wanting the comp to be club owned when the clubs themselves either don't rate the competition or decide not to try against the bigger boys!

by quinsforever Fri 18 Oct 2013, 4:32 pm

how can we blame teams for doing whatever they think best given the structure of the competitions in front of them? no-one is blaming the rabo12 teams for perfectly sensible policy of focusing on HC. just highlighting that their league structure allows this more than PRL/LNR teams.

within a given structure everyone is going to do what they think best for them.

thats why prl/lnr teams want similarly structured leagues to feed into HC.

if you want a tournament where everyone tries to win every HC match, then get rid of the group stages and make it straight knockout.

and put 50% of the HC money up for performance rather than 15%.

by butterfingers Fri 18 Oct 2013, 4:39 pm

'if you want a tournament where everyone tries to win every HC match, then get rid of the group stages and make it straight knockout.'

That has to be the saddest comment I've heard on the argument so far. If HC qualification is that iportant surely HC competitiveness should be just as important.

Give me the reason why Gloucester have done this, to focus on next weeks game? Why have they focused on next weeks game? for the HC qualification spot?

Does HC qualification effect their funding? Or is it merely a huge numbers bums on seats spectacular? Where you are guarentee'd 3 bumper home crowds?

After beating Perpignan in front of a very nice crowd Gloucester have the chance to go to Thomond and really compete with a struggling Munster, even a LBP puts them in a strong position after round 2.

This smacks of what the PRL's problem is, agenda, Gloucester want to milk the 3 home game crowds, and offer no real competition to qualification, offer nothing to away games, and nothing to the true rugby fan, they are just cashing in on the HC bonus's, and ensuring they cash in on it next season.

And we want these guys running a new tourny? Geez... Now imagine if I wasn't a fan!

by LeinsterFan4life Fri 18 Oct 2013, 4:41 pm

Fair enough Perpignan resting players but I don't understand Gloucester. They are still well in this group with Munster losing at the weekend. If Gloucester was to somehow grind out a win tommorow night it would see Munster out.

by Guest Fri 18 Oct 2013, 4:42 pm

Glaws are fearful of losing to Bath next Friday night, which is far more meaningful than losing to a side away from home and packed with current internationals representing a Union owned team.....

Then again Bath are fielding a second string side against Newport Wink

by Toohey Fri 18 Oct 2013, 4:43 pm

How is this moving on the debate? It's always been the case that the French and English teams value their domestic leagues over the European competition and vice versa for the Rabo. What’s the news here? The idea of setting up the new comp or changing the old one is in an attempt to close this gap on all sides I thought.

by **Notch** Fri 18 Oct 2013, 4:43 pm

Gloucester have no plans to actually try and compete to qualify for the knockout stages obviously or belief they can win away from home. Raises the question on whether there should be 6 English teams in a new tournament.

by butterfingers Fri 18 Oct 2013, 4:44 pm

Leinster

I had this game highlighted as my game of the weekend, after we managed to beat Perpignan and Munster really struggled against an average Embra, I honestly think we go there all guns blazing we stand a good chance.

This has absolutely infuriated me, and I know a couple of friends who have travelled are feeling exactly the same!

by butterfingers Fri 18 Oct 2013, 4:47 pm

Toohey

My point is the HC is as big as it's ever been and teams still don't give a shoite about competing in it, just benefitting from it.

How is the new tourny club owned going to be any different? With all the talk on structure, theres been no real talk of how standards will improve, or how club ownership will solve problems of club focus!

by quinsforever Fri 18 Oct 2013, 4:48 pm

butterfingers wrote:'if you want a tournament where everyone tries to win every HC match, then get rid of the group stages and make it straight knockout.'

That has to be the saddest comment I've heard on the argument so far. If HC qualification is that iportant surely HC competitiveness should be just as important.

Give me the reason why Gloucester have done this, to focus on next weeks game? Why have they focused on next weeks game? for the HC qualification spot?

Does HC qualification effect their funding? Or is it merely a huge numbers bums on seats spectacular? Where you are guarentee'd 3 bumper home crowds?

After beating Perpignan in front of a very nice crowd Gloucester have the chance to go to Thomond and really compete with a struggling Munster, even a LBP puts them in a strong position after round 2.

This smacks of what the PRL's problem is, agenda, Gloucester want to milk the 3 home game crowds, and offer no real competition to qualification, offer nothing to away games, and nothing to the true rugby fan, they are just cashing in on the HC bonus's, and ensuring they cash in on it next season.

And we want these guys running a new tourny? Geez... Now imagine if I wasn't a fan!

not sure i see what you are so upset about. if there is a problem surely its with the structure? change the structure and you will get different behaviour. glaws are balancing competing objectives. they havent given up on HC, but with 1 win in the bag, this is presumably their % play for what gives them the best likellihood of achieveing what they want in AP and still qualifying for the knockout stage in the HC.

do you really think nigel davies should be picking his sides for the overall season in order to please away fans? or rugby fans in general? he has a job, and i'm pretty sure he's trying to meet the objectives of his employers.

by quinsforever Fri 18 Oct 2013, 4:50 pm

quinsforever wrote:
butterfingers wrote:'if you want a tournament where everyone tries to win every HC match, then get rid of the group stages and make it straight knockout.'

That has to be the saddest comment I've heard on the argument so far. If HC qualification is that iportant surely HC competitiveness should be just as important.

Give me the reason why Gloucester have done this, to focus on next weeks game? Why have they focused on next weeks game? for the HC qualification spot?

Does HC qualification effect their funding? Or is it merely a huge numbers bums on seats spectacular? Where you are guarentee'd 3 bumper home crowds?

After beating Perpignan in front of a very nice crowd Gloucester have the chance to go to Thomond and really compete with a struggling Munster, even a LBP puts them in a strong position after round 2.

This smacks of what the PRL's problem is, agenda, Gloucester want to milk the 3 home game crowds, and offer no real competition to qualification, offer nothing to away games, and nothing to the true rugby fan, they are just cashing in on the HC bonus's, and ensuring they cash in on it next season.

And we want these guys running a new tourny? Geez... Now imagine if I wasn't a fan!
not sure i see what you are so upset about. if there is a problem surely its with the structure? change the structure and you will get different behaviour. glaws are balancing competing objectives. they havent given up on HC, but with 1 win in the bag, this is presumably their % play for what gives them the best likellihood of achieveing what they want in AP and still qualifying for the knockout stage in the HC.

do you really think nigel davies should be picking his sides for the overall season in order to please away fans? or rugby fans in general? he has a job, and i'm pretty sure he's trying to meet the objectives of his employers.

didnt realise you were a glaws fan bf, that explains why you're so upset.

by butterfingers Fri 18 Oct 2013, 4:56 pm

quins

It's not so much about the away fan as the average fan. We have a real chance of a Munster scalp, and lets be honest it would be a scalp, we are a far better team than Embra, who highlighted the problems Munster are having under their new coach.

Going to Thomond and winning is the best chance we will have had for lord knows how long, if we were to beat Munster who are struggling, and Embra manage to beat a weak Perpignan side we go head to head with Embra for the group, now in my eyes thats a 60/40 shot of qualification and the hugest boost to Glaws rugby in donkeys years, but it takes vision, conviction and belief.

by quinsforever Fri 18 Oct 2013, 4:59 pm

totally fair opinion. and i understand why you would be disappointed. i am sure though that nigel davies is doing what he thinks is best, and not trying to demean the tournament or throw it away or anything like that.

i am sure you have many sympathetic glaws fans. can you write letters to the board/official fan club/local newspaper? that might get attention and put some pressure.

by butterfingers Fri 18 Oct 2013, 5:02 pm

hahaha

I have reacted pretty heavily, but I want to see my club top of the pile, and not resorting itself to middling around.

by **Notch** Fri 18 Oct 2013, 5:44 pm

Don't understand how people think changing the structure will prevent this happening- all proposals we've heard contain no changes to the status quo for English and French teams.

It seems very likely next year we'll still have six English teams qualifying, the same issues with teams prioritising the league could obviously arise again.

by quinsforever Fri 18 Oct 2013, 5:52 pm

change the merit payments to 50%. that should be plenty motivating.

although totally agree notch, no-one is proposing this.

by LeinsterFan4life Fri 18 Oct 2013, 5:59 pm

Recwatcher wrote:Glaws are fearful of losing to Bath next Friday night, which is far more meaningful than losing to a side away from home and packed with current internationals representing a Union owned team.....

Then again Bath are fielding a second string side against Newport

Oh this again.

by LeinsterFan4life Fri 18 Oct 2013, 6:04 pm

butterfingers wrote:Leinster

I had this game highlighted as my game of the weekend, after we managed to beat Perpignan and Munster really struggled against an average Embra, I honestly think we go there all guns blazing we stand a good chance.

This has absolutely infuriated me, and I know a couple of friends who have travelled are feeling exactly the same!

Ye actually I never thought of that. The travelling fans must be absolutely outraged. It's ridiculous because Glaws tried so hard to get into the HC and did so well.

by **Notch** Fri 18 Oct 2013, 6:13 pm

I wouldn't want to change the merit payments too much. We've had teams that have had successful periods in the Heineken Cup before, and then fallen away while new teams arise. What happens when a successful side gets much more money that anyone else? Their budget gets bigger, they stay on top.

Last thing this competition should be is predictable.

by quinsforever Fri 18 Oct 2013, 6:25 pm

Notch wrote:I wouldn't want to change the merit payments too much. We've had teams that have had successful periods in the Heineken Cup before, and then fallen away while new teams arise. What happens when a successful side gets much more money that anyone else? Their budget gets bigger, they stay on top.

Last thing this competition should be is predictable.

not necessarily - if the salary cups are stuck with, then in prl/lnr in theory the extra monies would be greater profits or reduced losses for owners, and for the union teams it all goes into the union pot anyway.

additionally, how about merit payments to players for wins (but only those who get on the pitch).

these are all ideas that should be examined, except they're not being.

by Totalflanker Fri 18 Oct 2013, 8:13 pm

Don't agree with it, but can see why Gloucester are doing what they are doing. Munster away after what is seen as a very bad loss for them the week before. Doesn't matter who you are, you are in for a very very hard day.

by butterfingers Fri 18 Oct 2013, 8:17 pm

I disagree, Munster aren't the team they were 3/4 seasons ago, and they are struggling this season, they are beatable.

by Totalflanker Fri 18 Oct 2013, 8:28 pm

Agree that they are perhaps not quite the team of a few years ago, but think back even just to last year against quins - they still have the ability to raise their game massively in Europe. Reckon on the back of last weeks game and with the coaches comments still ringing in their ears, Thomond is about the last place you want to go.

by butterfingers Fri 18 Oct 2013, 8:42 pm

Nah, after beating Perp, Glaws have noone to fear, I'd go to Thomond with my tail up looking to all but put them out of this years tourny!

Munster are a side confused, the coaching team want them to play this total rugby, expansive game, but the old guard are still there and it's not natural, Munster are there for the taking, I think last year they were creaking.

Either way it's sad we're even talking about it, Bath is a big game but it won't effect our league status like a win could effect our HC hopes!

by Totalflanker Fri 18 Oct 2013, 8:45 pm

Absolutely

by splenetic Fri 18 Oct 2013, 9:58 pm

quinsforever wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
butterfingers wrote:'if you want a tournament where everyone tries to win every HC match, then get rid of the group stages and make it straight knockout.'

That has to be the saddest comment I've heard on the argument so far. If HC qualification is that iportant surely HC competitiveness should be just as important.

Give me the reason why Gloucester have done this, to focus on next weeks game? Why have they focused on next weeks game? for the HC qualification spot?

Does HC qualification effect their funding? Or is it merely a huge numbers bums on seats spectacular? Where you are guarentee'd 3 bumper home crowds?

After beating Perpignan in front of a very nice crowd Gloucester have the chance to go to Thomond and really compete with a struggling Munster, even a LBP puts them in a strong position after round 2.

This smacks of what the PRL's problem is, agenda, Gloucester want to milk the 3 home game crowds, and offer no real competition to qualification, offer nothing to away games, and nothing to the true rugby fan, they are just cashing in on the HC bonus's, and ensuring they cash in on it next season.

And we want these guys running a new tourny? Geez... Now imagine if I wasn't a fan!
not sure i see what you are so upset about. if there is a problem surely its with the structure? change the structure and you will get different behaviour. glaws are balancing competing objectives. they havent given up on HC, but with 1 win in the bag, this is presumably their % play for what gives them the best likellihood of achieveing what they want in AP and still qualifying for the knockout stage in the HC.

do you really think nigel davies should be picking his sides for the overall season in order to please away fans? or rugby fans in general? he has a job, and i'm pretty sure he's trying to meet the objectives of his employers.
didnt realise you were a glaws fan bf, that explains why you're so upset.

He's not. Another poster pointed out that this is an alias of a particular Blues poster. If you check his posting history he's never posted on a Glos or AP topic.

by nth Fri 18 Oct 2013, 10:09 pm

splenetic wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
butterfingers wrote:'if you want a tournament where everyone tries to win every HC match, then get rid of the group stages and make it straight knockout.'

That has to be the saddest comment I've heard on the argument so far. If HC qualification is that iportant surely HC competitiveness should be just as important.

Give me the reason why Gloucester have done this, to focus on next weeks game? Why have they focused on next weeks game? for the HC qualification spot?

Does HC qualification effect their funding? Or is it merely a huge numbers bums on seats spectacular? Where you are guarentee'd 3 bumper home crowds?

After beating Perpignan in front of a very nice crowd Gloucester have the chance to go to Thomond and really compete with a struggling Munster, even a LBP puts them in a strong position after round 2.

This smacks of what the PRL's problem is, agenda, Gloucester want to milk the 3 home game crowds, and offer no real competition to qualification, offer nothing to away games, and nothing to the true rugby fan, they are just cashing in on the HC bonus's, and ensuring they cash in on it next season.

And we want these guys running a new tourny? Geez... Now imagine if I wasn't a fan!
not sure i see what you are so upset about. if there is a problem surely its with the structure? change the structure and you will get different behaviour. glaws are balancing competing objectives. they havent given up on HC, but with 1 win in the bag, this is presumably their % play for what gives them the best likellihood of achieveing what they want in AP and still qualifying for the knockout stage in the HC.

do you really think nigel davies should be picking his sides for the overall season in order to please away fans? or rugby fans in general? he has a job, and i'm pretty sure he's trying to meet the objectives of his employers.
didnt realise you were a glaws fan bf, that explains why you're so upset.
He's not. Another poster pointed out that this is an alias of a particular Blues poster. If you check his posting history he's never posted on a Glos or AP topic.

by quinsforever Fri 18 Oct 2013, 10:35 pm

splenetic wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
butterfingers wrote:'if you want a tournament where everyone tries to win every HC match, then get rid of the group stages and make it straight knockout.'

That has to be the saddest comment I've heard on the argument so far. If HC qualification is that iportant surely HC competitiveness should be just as important.

Give me the reason why Gloucester have done this, to focus on next weeks game? Why have they focused on next weeks game? for the HC qualification spot?

Does HC qualification effect their funding? Or is it merely a huge numbers bums on seats spectacular? Where you are guarentee'd 3 bumper home crowds?

After beating Perpignan in front of a very nice crowd Gloucester have the chance to go to Thomond and really compete with a struggling Munster, even a LBP puts them in a strong position after round 2.

This smacks of what the PRL's problem is, agenda, Gloucester want to milk the 3 home game crowds, and offer no real competition to qualification, offer nothing to away games, and nothing to the true rugby fan, they are just cashing in on the HC bonus's, and ensuring they cash in on it next season.

And we want these guys running a new tourny? Geez... Now imagine if I wasn't a fan!
not sure i see what you are so upset about. if there is a problem surely its with the structure? change the structure and you will get different behaviour. glaws are balancing competing objectives. they havent given up on HC, but with 1 win in the bag, this is presumably their % play for what gives them the best likellihood of achieveing what they want in AP and still qualifying for the knockout stage in the HC.

do you really think nigel davies should be picking his sides for the overall season in order to please away fans? or rugby fans in general? he has a job, and i'm pretty sure he's trying to meet the objectives of his employers.
didnt realise you were a glaws fan bf, that explains why you're so upset.
He's not. Another poster pointed out that this is an alias of a particular Blues poster. If you check his posting history he's never posted on a Glos or AP topic.

i figured that out later. what a tool.

by doddieman Sat 19 Oct 2013, 6:02 pm

Surely it all comes down to the sheer number of games that are played and how many each player can physically Play.
the league 22 games, heineken minimum of 6, and then for the international contingent, AIs 4, 6N 5, with possible playoffs and knock out stages as well. Then the summer tours...
Teams have to rest their elite players at some point.

by butterfingers Sat 19 Oct 2013, 6:10 pm

Not a Glaws fan...

Love it, especially from the new poster who has settled in so well Laugh

by quinsforever Sat 19 Oct 2013, 10:47 pm

well that confirms it. anyone who was a glaws fan wouldnt lash out first, they would defend their glawsness.

as for "settling in well" and "new poster"...LOL. you think i am here to settle in well? what - just stay quiet when i see someone dress a poopie as a pie? not likely. and you think how long someone has been frequenting this site has a bearing on intelligence or validity of comment? well i've seen plenty of strong contra-indications there my fake friend.

by quinsforever Sat 19 Oct 2013, 10:54 pm

looking forwards to reading your posts during glaws matches for the rest of the AP and HC season, as i can see are the rest of your glaws co-fans Smile

by doctor_grey Sat 19 Oct 2013, 10:59 pm

doddieman wrote:Surely it all comes down to the sheer number of games that are played and how many each player can physically Play.
the league 22 games, heineken minimum of 6, and then for the international contingent, AIs 4, 6N 5, with possible playoffs and knock out stages as well. Then the summer tours...
Teams have to rest their elite players at some point.

Mate,in one sense you are correct. In my opinion, players are already exceeding the number of matches they should play in any calendar year - and have been. Teams will not reduce the number of matches their best players play below some threshold because they want to win and maintain, in their view, the integrity of their team and sport. Also Managers and Coaches are compensated for wins, not resting players, despite any pious utterances to the contrary. Teams also do not want to reduce the overall number of matches because they need revenue.

A clear no-win scenario. Someone needs to cut the Gordian knot before all our players are broken.

by Guest Sat 19 Oct 2013, 11:01 pm

Recwatcher wrote:Glaws are fearful of losing to Bath next Friday night, which is far more meaningful than losing to a side away from home and packed with current internationals representing a Union owned team.....

Then again Bath are fielding a second string side against Newport

I'm not surprised they did against a semi pro team?

by Sponsored content

Lets move the debate on a bit...

Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...

Re: Lets move the debate on a bit...