What a great contest the HC really is

quinsforever wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

quinsforever wrote:well sorry TJ, but it's just not unequivocally a great contest. there are some great matches. but there are also a lot of very forgettable ones. on the back of a few great matches should we say that this is "good enough"? or should we be aiming for more great matches, more closely contested groups, larger attendances, etc, etc. these comments are completely 100% appropriate on a thread entitled as this one.

You seem to want an unrealistic level of competition,you were on another thread defending the Top 14 despite it not being anywhere near the competition that the HC has proven itself to be.Why the double standard?

yes. top14 clearly works for french clubs, french fans, players in france, and french broadcasters. works spectacularly well i would say if the attendances, money and rumoured EUR100m tv deal are objective measures of its success. and far more of the top14 matches are close-fought matches and sold out, than HC pool stages.

where is the double standard? looks to me like the level of competition (measured by closeness of matches) in top14 and AP are pretty high. HC pool stages on average far less so.

This jumps out as obviously wrong,someone has already posted that 87% of home matches are won in the Top 14 compared to 57% in the HC so far this season.In the Top14 teams often rest their best players for the away matches,where's the competition in that?

I was responding to your comment that it was not a great contest and comparing that with your defense of the Top 14 as a contest,that's the double standard.Show me how you can claim that one comp where the home team wins with boring regularity and teams rest their top players constantly can compare with the HC where the away team wins regularly,you have upsets like Connacht beating Toulouse away,Northampton coming back from a spanking to beat up Leinster in Dublin.You also have Leicester and Munster getting last minute wins in France,Quins winning home and away versus moneybags Metro,Edinburgh recovering from losing at home to beat Gloucester,Cardiff beating Toulon.

You won't find those kind of results in the Top 14,you can point to Oyannax (spelling?) and Grenoble winning against the big temas but when you look closely you'll see the big teams didn't actually play their best players so the competition is compromised and the results tainted.

this. will always be true in HC group stages which is LESS competitive. The weakest teams will be lucky to get a single, maybe ever two wins out of 6 matches. if half the teams won all their matches, and half the teams lost all their matches, the %of away wins would be 50%, and yet you think that is an indication of a better overall measure of how close the teams are? it means absolutely nothing.

the HC where the away team wins regularly,you have upsets like Connacht beating Toulouse away,Northampton coming back from a spanking to beat up Leinster in Dublin.You also have Leicester and Munster getting last minute wins in France,Quins winning home and away versus moneybags Metro,Edinburgh recovering from losing at home to beat Gloucester,Cardiff beating Toulon.

TJ wrote: 

So far it has been a great contest with.  Looking forward to the rest of it.  It produces by and large good rugby and good contests.

the HC where the away team wins regularly,you have upsets like Connacht beating Toulouse away,Northampton coming back from a spanking to beat up Leinster in Dublin.You also have Leicester and Munster getting last minute wins in France,Quins winning home and away versus moneybags Metro,Edinburgh recovering from losing at home to beat Gloucester,Cardiff beating Toulon.

quinsforever wrote:whatever. logic or statistics clearly not your strong points.

as i said, the weakest teams will get 1 or 2 wins. i was highlighting the absurdity of using % home vs away wins as a measure of the competitiveness of a league. the most uncompetitive league in the world could have a 50% away win ratio. do i really need to spell this out?

TJ wrote: 

So far it has been a great contest with.  Looking forward to the rest of it.  It produces by and large good rugby and good contests.

the HC where the away team wins regularly,you have upsets like Connacht beating Toulouse away,Northampton coming back from a spanking to beat up Leinster in Dublin.You also have Leicester and Munster getting last minute wins in France,Quins winning home and away versus moneybags Metro,Edinburgh recovering from losing at home to beat Gloucester,Cardiff beating Toulon.

Brennus wrote:Actually there some interesting points here if you can see through the childish waffle. Meritcoratic qualification does need to be introduced only as long there's a change for all nations(notice I didn't say 'leagues'). Whether some people like it or not, the English teams are not as good as they were in the past so a system should be introduced where spots are allocated on recent performances.

Bluedragon wrote:
There are currently 38 pro teams in European rugby. Thats all that needs to be accommodated.

Exiledinborders wrote:

TJ wrote: 

So far it has been a great contest with.  Looking forward to the rest of it.  It produces by and large good rugby and good contests.

the HC where the away team wins regularly,you have upsets like Connacht beating Toulouse away,Northampton coming back from a spanking to beat up Leinster in Dublin.You also have Leicester and Munster getting last minute wins in France,Quins winning home and away versus moneybags Metro,Edinburgh recovering from losing at home to beat Gloucester,Cardiff beating Toulon.

I was on the edge of my seat watching Saracens against Zebre!

Exiledinborders wrote:

Bluedragon wrote:
There are currently 38 pro teams in European rugby. Thats all that needs to be accommodated.

There in fact at least 66 pro teams in Europe. There are two divisions in England and France. The second division teams are certainly as strong as the Italian teams playing in the Amlin and probably as strong as Zebre playing in the Heineken.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Bluedragon wrote:
There are currently 38 pro teams in European rugby. Thats all that needs to be accommodated.

There in fact at least 66 pro teams in Europe. There are two divisions in England and France. The second division teams are certainly as strong as the Italian teams playing in the Amlin and probably as strong as Zebre playing in the Heineken.

andyi wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Bluedragon wrote:
There are currently 38 pro teams in European rugby. Thats all that needs to be accommodated.

There in fact at least 66 pro teams in Europe. There are two divisions in England and France. The second division teams are certainly as strong as the Italian teams playing in the Amlin and probably as strong as Zebre playing in the Heineken.

Not all the teams in the RFU championship are fully Pro, some are semi-pro.

HammerofThunor wrote:

andyi wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Bluedragon wrote:
There are currently 38 pro teams in European rugby. Thats all that needs to be accommodated.

There in fact at least 66 pro teams in Europe. There are two divisions in England and France. The second division teams are certainly as strong as the Italian teams playing in the Amlin and probably as strong as Zebre playing in the Heineken.

Not all the teams in the RFU championship are fully Pro, some are semi-pro.

Andyi, what do you think the chances are of a two tier pro structure in England? Licenses given out for pro rugby? Do-able? Good/bad? I know there was some talk of this when the 8 team playoffs were introduced.