So... Worceter confirmed as the worst team in Europe?

The worst in the Jeff v the worst of theT14 come out with the silver again at home (again) Worcester Warriors 15 - 19 Biarritz.

Don't get me wrong but Wuss have all the key Jeff advantages in that it has its own ground and reasonable support and the bias of the PRL shares of the financial cash splits.

But what what is wrong with the club?
And what is Dean Ryan's short-term future (i.e. Jan 1st)?

http://eurorugby.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Rugger&file=latest (as of last Monday)

119 readers and not a single post from PRL defenders of the faith.
No Jeff apologists. No defence for the ertswhile Sky pundit and Scottish coach. No expressions of sadness that the foreign-player-dominated team can't knock the skin off a rice pudding.

No wonder the battered and bruised PRL defenders feel unable to speak when their high and holy articles of faith and Mammon have been consigned to the wilderness.

 

munkian wrote: 

I don't think that Ryan's that bad, munkian. Not an inspirational coach. But he certainly needs to sell his ideas to his players (such as they are).

I think that he'll be claiming benefit early next year, though.

Not sure what you're getting at there, Portnoy. Are you saying that because Biarritz beat Worcester there is something inherently wrong with how English rugby is set up?

That would be generalising far too much from a specific result, methinks. Besides, it's not as if Biarritz don't have advantages of their own - municipal stadium, bigger budget, starrier players. They're in a slump at the moment but last season they were in the Heineken and the season before they won the Amlin.

I have no idea what's wrong with Worcester or how they have lost the small amount of mojo they once had. But it makes you appreciate what Richard Hill achieved with them, doesn't it?

They should have stuck with Richard Hill

What I'm saying is that whilst the embarassment of having Worcester (written in a fit of pique) as the least capable of the top flight European Leagues is pretty insufferable, it also more or less lays to lie to the pretence that in some way that the PRL is in some way fit for purpose.

My fear is that the PRL will press on regardless and the consequence will ultimately be to the detriment (as in soccer) of the English game. Club will in the eyes of PRL members be greater than country.

Thankfully I sat on the fence during the RCC abortion process but was slowly convinced by some of the precious few coherent, logical arguments presented on behalf of the Celtalians. But ultimately I didn't care either way as it became clear that neither side offered nor presented a satisfactory outcome.

The alchemists at the PRL are slowly turning gold into base metal.

No, sorry, that's nonsense. In what way does Worcester being rubbish suggest that the PRL isn't fit for purpose?

Because they aren't competitive? You might have a case for that if the weakest team in the AP was consistently the weakest in Europe but that simply isn't true. Worcester are for some reason in a real mess, but in just about every other season the relegation fight has been hard fought and the differences between the teams have been quite fine. Even London Welsh were in with a shout of survival for most of the season, and it's only a couple of years ago that Saints got relegated while having a very credible run in the HEC.

Besides, what would you replace it with? Direct union control? Not feasible (the clubs are already privately owned) and even if you could do it you'd end up with Ireland and Wales's issues around who are the favoured clubs only massively scaled up. So you need some sort of organising body for the clubs, and whatever you call it it would probably behave similarly to the PRL.

The PRL is (I think deliberately) modelled on the NFL in the US - which runs one of the most successful sporting leagues in the world, keeps it competitive and makes it a very attractive business. NFL doesn't have the club-vs-country issue that the RFU & PRL have, but the answer they've found is OK. Not perfect, but OK. Measures like the salary cap and playoffs are mechanisms to keep the competition close while containing costs - you'd prefer the alternative?

The alternative would be to have something like the football premiership, in which deep pockets tend to win trophies, foreign players are making it hard to develop English talent, club-vs-country has landed very firmly on the side of club.

The PRL isn't perfect but it's necessary to make the club game in England work. And it's nowhere near as evil / incompetent / power-hungry as some of our Celtic friends like to argue. It's a trade body in a nascent industry that's trying to create conditions in which its members can move from making losses to paying them off. I have yet to see any hard evidence that it's done anything that overreaches that aim (though some of the things it has done are fairly extreme, they are all consistent with that aim and seemingly necessary to make any change happen).

I didn't realise Europe was just made up of England and France.....

Wuss have been truly awful this season though, a lot has to be placed at the feet of Ryan.

When you're getting beat at home off Falcons, you know it's going to be a long season.

Poorfour wrote:No, sorry, that's nonsense. In what way does Worcester being rubbish suggest that the PRL isn't fit for purpose?

Because they aren't competitive? You might have a case for that if the weakest team in the AP was consistently the weakest in Europe but that simply isn't true. Worcester are for some reason in a real mess, but in just about every other season the relegation fight has been hard fought and the differences between the teams have been quite fine. Even London Welsh were in with a shout of survival for most of the season, and it's only a couple of years ago that Saints got relegated while having a very credible run in the HEC.

Besides, what would you replace it with? Direct union control? Not feasible (the clubs are already privately owned) and even if you could do it you'd end up with Ireland and Wales's issues around who are the favoured clubs only massively scaled up. So you need some sort of organising body for the clubs, and whatever you call it it would probably behave similarly to the PRL.

The PRL is (I think deliberately) modelled on the NFL in the US - which runs one of the most successful sporting leagues in the world, keeps it competitive and makes it a very attractive business. NFL doesn't have the club-vs-country issue that the RFU & PRL have, but the answer they've found is OK. Not perfect, but OK. Measures like the salary cap and playoffs are mechanisms to keep the competition close while containing costs - you'd prefer the alternative?

The alternative would be to have something like the football premiership, in which deep pockets tend to win trophies, foreign players are making it hard to develop English talent, club-vs-country has landed very firmly on the side of club.

The PRL isn't perfect but it's necessary to make the club game in England work. And it's nowhere near as evil / incompetent / power-hungry as some of our Celtic friends like to argue. It's a trade body in a nascent industry that's trying to create conditions in which its members can move from making losses to paying them off. I have yet to see any hard evidence that it's done anything that overreaches that aim (though some of the things it has done are fairly extreme, they are all consistent with that aim and seemingly necessary to make any change happen).

Poorfour, you're going to have to explain that one to me? So both have salary caps and playoffs ... but that's about it? They don't have club vs country issues cos no other country plays american football at the level that would sustain a meaningful international competition. Think you're clutching for straws there! Actually, perhaps I'll steal your idea - the Rabo is modelled on the NFL - we have multiple conferences (nations) involved, we have playoffs, etc.  

Portnoy, I don't think that Wuss are particularly symptomatic of the travails of the PRL - they own their own ground for a start, are near to breaking even, and have a decent enough fan base for their catchment area.

Wuss are finding out the follies of changing your head coach and then not letting three of his four big signings join the squad until November due to international commitments. Add to that Ryan is a phenomenally average coach trying to fundamentally alter the club's ethos very quickly. Just very difficult to accomplish things short term. They'll go down and look to bounce back ala Quins and Saints.

If they go down, will many of those big names leave them though? Then they will effectively wasted 2 years!

Worcester are very very poor. I am not sure they are any worse than Zebre or Connacht.

I really don't think it matters if they are better or worse than anyone outside the Premiership.  Their record clearly shows they are worst in the Premiership and are probably doomed to relegation.   Nothing else really matters.  

Not sure Ryan is ultimately responsible.  The team has been hovering near the bottom since coming back up.  And before their recent relegation they were near the bottom as well.  Almost seems destined to go back down, and there is something institutional which is failing there. Shame.

doctor_grey wrote:I really don't think it matters if they are better or worse than anyone outside the Premiership.  Their record clearly shows they are worst in the Premiership and are probably doomed to relegation.   Nothing else really matters.  

Not sure Ryan is ultimately responsible.  The team has been hovering near the bottom since coming back up.  And before their recent relegation they were near the bottom as well.  Almost seems destined to go back down, and there is something institutional which is failing there.  Shame.

Unfortunately true... Could have won that game like a few others but always manage to contrive to lose. Very frustrating to say the least. Still perhaps they will expand the Prem and Worcs will have a bit more time in the top flight. Can't blame Ryan I agree and I think the team are slowly gelling but too slowly for this season.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:119 readers and not a single post from PRL defenders of the faith.
No Jeff apologists. No defence for the ertswhile Sky pundit and Scottish coach. No expressions of sadness that the foreign-player-dominated team can't knock the skin off a rice pudding.

No wonder the battered and bruised PRL defenders feel unable to speak when their high and holy articles of faith and Mammon have been consigned to the wilderness.

Muppet

Who are the big names at Worcester? Mierez? Paul Hodgeson - cant think of many more.

I think that a lot can be laid at Ryans feet - he is ultimately responsible. I am not sure that I would want to be playing for him when he bandys around statements like its the players fault for loosing.
There just doesn't seem to be any spirit or team there - just a load of individuals.

Bringing in Ryan, and not replacing some of their outgoing quality players like Kvesik, Kitchener even going back to Marcel Garvey and Miles Benjamin.

Now losing to 14 players confirms it.

I feel for that Worcester team, they started brightly and a team that wasn't first choice and who had slept at the airport arriving three hours before kick off had things stacked against them as the game continued. The reserves arrived two hours pre game with the backroom staff. No fresh legs on the bench.

I'm sure they'll improve as the season continues but I can't see it being enough.

Exiledinborders wrote:Worcester are very very poor. I am not sure they are any worse than Zebre or Connacht.

Would that be Connacht who just beat Toulouse in Toulouse and browned the trousers of Saracens?

Surely there must be some other Connacht to which you refer....   

At least the Sarries went a little way to spare Worcester's blushes last weekend and restored the Rabo's historical dominance of the 'Worst team in Europe' spot.

But after last night's debacle, I don't see it lasting.
http://www.eurorugby.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Rugger&file=latest

If we mean the worst team in Europe to be the worst team in either the Amlin or HC, then either Bucaresti or Mogliano (or another Italian 1st division team) would surely be the proud holders of that award. Given the Italian teams consist of players logically not good enough for Zebre, one of those should take the award.

Not that its a fair comparison of course, they would be far better suited to playing the B&I cup in many ways.

Zebre are the worst team in Europe. They're on an upward curve though but realistically it'll take a few years for them to be more competitive. They've ony won 1 rabo game so fai in their existence.

Every dog has its day.

A freak win over Toulouse doesn't make Connacht a good side, they're a poor outfit with a few good players much like Worcester.

profitius wrote:Zebre are the worst team in Europe. They're on an upward curve though but realistically it'll take a few years for them to be more competitive. They've ony won 1 rabo game so fai in their existence.

and yet they get a HC place every year!

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Every dog has its day.

A freak win over Toulouse doesn't make Connacht a good side, they're a poor outfit with a few good players much like Worcester.

As you well know because your team plays them week in week out.

Ask a Sarries fan which one he would rather face......

Scrumpy wrote:

profitius wrote:Zebre are the worst team in Europe. They're on an upward curve though but realistically it'll take a few years for them to be more competitive. They've ony won 1 rabo game so fai in their existence.

and yet they get a HC place every year!

There are loads of really good English soccer clubs who miss out on European competition every year, but teams from Luxembourg (and even Ireland occasionally) make it in.

That's the nature of cross border competition.

The wind that shakes the barley blows in all directions but the (financial and implied) benefits that Worcester have received from the ongoing PRL ones and the historic grants from the RFU have seemingly been slashed up the wall.

If we want the game to grow around Europe (which benefits everyone in the long run) then we have to accept that some teams will need to be given time to grow.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Every dog has its day.

A freak win over Toulouse doesn't make Connacht a good side, they're a poor outfit with a few good players much like Worcester.

Connacht are better than Worcester. They've some quality players like Marmion, Henshaw, Clarke, Heenan, Griffin, White etc. The surprise this season is how they've managed to lose so many games despite having their strongest every squad. It happens with young teams I suppose.

Both Connacht and Worcester are poor sides but certainly not the worst in Europe.

Naming a few players who are apparently quality (non are regular Ints) hardly makes Connacht a better side.

Both are pretty dire tbh.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Both Connacht and Worcester are poor sides but certainly not the worst in Europe.

Naming a few players who are apparently quality (non are regular Ints) hardly makes Connacht a better side.

Both are pretty dire tbh.

There was a Sarries fan on here who used to harp on about how sh1t Connacht were. (despite never watching them in the Rabo) I seem to remember him changing his mind sharpish.

I would give Connacht a better chance of making the Amlin knockouts this season than Wor chester.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

profitius wrote:Zebre are the worst team in Europe. They're on an upward curve though but realistically it'll take a few years for them to be more competitive. They've ony won 1 rabo game so fai in their existence.

and yet they get a HC place every year!

There are loads of really good English soccer clubs who miss out on European competition every year, but teams from Luxembourg (and even Ireland occasionally) make it in.

That's the nature of cross border competition.

But wouldn't they benefit from being in the Amlin?

The football teams you speak of have earned the right by taking part in qualifying rounds and haven't been gifted it year after year.

Bit of a pointless debate deciding who's the worst.

Both sit bottom of their respective leagues, can we not agree both are not playing great at the minute and leave it at that.

Scrumpy wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

profitius wrote:Zebre are the worst team in Europe. They're on an upward curve though but realistically it'll take a few years for them to be more competitive. They've ony won 1 rabo game so fai in their existence.

and yet they get a HC place every year!

There are loads of really good English soccer clubs who miss out on European competition every year, but teams from Luxembourg (and even Ireland occasionally) make it in.

That's the nature of cross border competition.

But wouldn't they benefit from being in the Amlin?

The football teams you speak of have earned the right by taking part in qualifying rounds and haven't been gifted it year after year.

This could go round in circles again.

That was the way they used to do it. They had a playoff each year between the lowest Welsh region and the 3rd Italian team. The Italians even had 3 teams in the comp a few times.

Then the Italians decided to join the Rabo with 2 teams (Ruling out the possibility of having 3 teams in the HC ever again.

They still enter teams in the Amlin btw.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:


They still enter teams in the Amlin btw.

That they do and they're awful too

Scrumpy wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:


They still enter teams in the Amlin btw.

That they do and they're awful too

What about Treviso? Not having a great season but they have taken scalps in both Rabo and HC since they joined.

The Italian national side have improved hugely too since they joined the 6N.

I find it ironic that the PRL on one hand say they want to grow the game with a third tier for other nations, say that they don't want to make Italian or Scotish rugby any stronger.

They also don't want to share out their money based on countries, they want it on merit through leagues. But they share out money evenly between their 12 teams regardless of merit or which comp they play in.

Or that Leicester were dominating Europe because of relegation and a tough league. But now English teams can't win fock all.... Because of relegation and a tough league.

As the daily mail might say "You couldn't make it up"

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Bit of a pointless debate deciding who's the worst.

Both sit bottom of their respective leagues, can we not agree both are not playing great at the minute and leave it at that.

The only comparator that I know of is the EuroTable.

It includes all Rabo, Jeff and T14 in all league and European competitions.

As ever it provides merely a results-based table on form (30 games). But I quite like it for all it's hamfisted calculations.

Far superior than the quite clearly sectionable ERC boffins' one who designed their table (which is taken seriously btw).

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:


They still enter teams in the Amlin btw.

That they do and they're awful too

What about Treviso? Not having a great season but they have taken scalps in both Rabo and HC since they joined.

The Italian national side have improved hugely too since they joined the 6N.

I find it ironic that the PRL on one hand say they want to grow the game with a third tier for other nations, say that they don't want to make Italian or Scotish rugby any stronger.

They also don't want to share out their money based on countries, they want it on merit through leagues. But they share out money evenly between their 12 teams regardless of merit or which comp they play in.

Or that Leicester were dominating Europe because of relegation and a tough league. But now English teams can't win fock all.... Because of relegation and a tough league.

As the daily mail might say "You couldn't make it up"

Whats PRL got to do with it?

Do you want salt and vinegar on your chip?

Scrumpy wrote:
Do you want salt and vinegar on your chip?  

Me not the one with the chip matey. I'm a happy supporter of the best team in the NH.   

You may remember us from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69xdh1p7Mr8

But that was before we lost Nacewa, Sexton and Schmidt. Sure we're muck nowadays....

Jenny wrote:Or that Leicester were dominating Europe because in spite of relegation and a tough league. But now English teams can't win fock all.... Because of relegation and a tough league.

  
Remind me. How many teams facing relegation competed in the Final last year?

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:
Do you want salt and vinegar on your chip?  

Me not the one with the chip matey.

Are you sure about that?

I also think the HC needs to be for clubs only, not regions or provinces, just seems unfair to me.   

The HC is for the Unions only not the clubs. The Unions then decide what teams they enter.

It's nice being able to roll out your big players for the HC and then get the youngsters back in for meaningless league games.

The English clubs can't do this, every league game is a fight against relegation or a scrap for European qualification.

It's not either leagues fault or the clubs really. Do you want to compete in Europe or do you want a competitive league system?

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Jenny wrote:Or that Leicester were dominating Europe because in spite of relegation and a tough league. But now English teams can't win fock all.... Because of relegation and a tough league.

  
Remind me. How many teams facing relegation competed in the Final last year?

Exactly. Leinster have been top 3 in the Celtic/Rabo/Magners since.....ever. In fact they have only been 3rd once in the last 8 seasons.

Leicester the same in the Jeff. Having relegation or scrapping relegation wouldn't make a blind bit of difference in either case.

Disagree with your correction though. The people from the Jeff years ago were offering the strong league theory as the reason Leicester were so good and because the Celtic league was so shyte we were rubbish.

They are saying the opposite now.

The reason we rest players is because we are told to by the IRFU. We have no option. There are times when it hurts us (noticeably every September for Leinster) but it does benefit us.

We win the Heino because we "want it" more that the English and especially the French. Only 3 clubs in France give a boll1x about the HC.

We do prioritise it more than the English and French. We also want to win the Rabo. Leinster have been in every final in history. But the HC is the big one for us.

Partly down to the fact that it has a longer history than the Celtic league. The Jeff and especially the T14 have waaay longer histories than the HC.

It is always going to be hard to square the circle between the requirements of all the countries in the HC. And the last few years have really not helped.

"We win the Heino because we "want it" more that the English and especially the French."

Don't agree with this. Certainly not the English and as you say not all the French.

"We do prioritise it more than the English and French"

Partly agree with this as the Irish Provinces do not need to prioritise the Rabo because qualification is automatic. So it is all relative. The fact is English clubs have to prioritise BOTH.

Healey makes a good point about Johnny Sexton.

"The perfect example of what I’m trying to say is this. Jonny Sexton has played more rugby in the first three months of the season for Racing Metro, then he did in the whole of last season's Rabo for Leinster. What does that tell you about the contrasting demands on players?"

Is yet another debate going to be spoiled and soiled by facile inter-league rantings?

Yep and what a debate it was!   

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:We win the Heino because we "want it" more that the English and especially the French.

Don't agree with this. Certainly not the English and as you say not all the French.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:We do prioritise it more than the English and French

Partly agree with this as the Irish Provinces do not need to prioritise the Rabo because qualification is automatic. So it is all relative. The fact is English clubs have to prioritise BOTH.

Healey makes a good point about Johnny Sexton.

Some knobhead in the Torygraph wrote:The perfect example of what I’m trying to say is this. Jonny Sexton has played more rugby in the first three months of the season for Racing Metro, then he did in the whole of last season's Rabo for Leinster. What does that tell you about the contrasting demands on players?

That article from Healey is the biggest load of bollix in the world. Read the comments after it. Hardly any positive ones and most from English rugby fans.

You missed my point that neither Leicester nor Leinster would be affected by relegation being in or out of the equation.

Same as they would not be affected by having to qualify. Leinster have always been top 2 or 3. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WOULD CHANGE for them if their was qualification from the Rabo.

They would still be top 2 or 3. Don't you get it?

They keep winning the HC, because they are a GREAT FOCKING TEAM. Just like Toulouse and Leicester were (to take one from each of the Leagues) in their time.

Probably one you wish you'd have stepped aside from then, Scrumpy.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Is yet another debate going to be spoiled and soiled by facile inter-league rantings?

And there was me thinking I was agreeing with you.