Euro club competition: Rankings and seedings

Following on from my other post about the fog of what's going to happen in Europe next year, I'd like to debate what I think is the worst aspect of the 'old' seedings system which in my view creates and/or fosters imbalanced pools in the HEC.

As stated many times, I'd prefer the EuroTable system based on the Uefa rankings calculations http://www.eurorugby.com/index.php

It relies on current form in both league and Europe.

But I'd tweak it to extend over a full twelve months. But I'd continue give more emphasis on recent matches than the older ones.

From what I've read, it sounds as tho a move of that type is being planned

From what I've read, Asbo, I've learned not to believe what I've read.

Especially the unprinted stuff that isn't written between the lines.

I would like to have teams divided into two pots.

Top 10 in pot 1 and rest in pot 2
2 seeded teams in each group.

Cause lets be honest the if table stay as is you could have
Toulon, Toulouse, Munster & Sarries

And

Exeter, Scarlets/Edinburgh, Zebre and Castre

If we cribbed about groups before it will be much worse with open draw

Looking through that list I'd agree with the Top 10 but not too sure about the ordering within it. Taking Pro12, Jeff and Top14 teams out of the list and comparing their order it makes sense, I just don't know about the Irish teams being up so far and then how the Top14 slot in at the level they do.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Looking through that list I'd agree with the Top 10 but not too sure about the ordering within it.  Taking Pro12, Jeff and Top14 teams out of the list and comparing their order it makes sense, I just don't know about the Irish teams being up so far and then how the Top14 slot in at the level they do.

It is only a snapshot of one week but recently it's a representative sample.

The leagues are not treated differently*.
It's just a results-based algorithm.

* Maybe they are - in respect that rewards

EuroTable wrote:Strength of the opponent (more points are awarded when playing against a top-ranked opponent as opposed to a weaker one).

link from the same website as the OP.

France this season has a preponderance of home wins which has caused a clustering of the teams and therefore ranking points? I dunno.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Looking through that list I'd agree with the Top 10 but not too sure about the ordering within it.  Taking Pro12, Jeff and Top14 teams out of the list and comparing their order it makes sense, I just don't know about the Irish teams being up so far and then how the Top14 slot in at the level they do.

Taking my own club I would suggest you can only truly test that in head to head matches.

Ulster got the better of Saints the last time they were in the same group but we are behind them.
Saracens - we will find out in April - if we lose I suspect Saracens will go above us. Saracens lost 2 games in the groups, Ulster none.
In our last 4 games against Leicester we have won 3, in our last 4 games against Bath we have won 4.
Now Bath have improved but have yet to do it in Europe.
It seems like a fair balance to me

geoff998rugby wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Looking through that list I'd agree with the Top 10 but not too sure about the ordering within it.  Taking Pro12, Jeff and Top14 teams out of the list and comparing their order it makes sense, I just don't know about the Irish teams being up so far and then how the Top14 slot in at the level they do.

Taking my own club I would suggest you can only truly test that in head to head matches.

Ulster got the better of Saints the last time they were in the same group but we are behind them.
Saracens - we will find out in April - if we lose I suspect Saracens will go above us. Saracens lost 2 games in the groups, Ulster none.
In our last 4 games against Leicester we have won 3, in our last 4 games against Bath we have won 4.
Now Bath have improved but have yet to do it in Europe.
It seems like a fair balance to me

Hmm, didn't Sarries beat you in your last head-to-head?

Hmm indeed. The ET rankings don't count previous meetings between clubs played beyond the past thirty games.

What happened beyond that becomes irrelevant.

It's purely a measure of recent results both domestic and European.

As the business end of Europe and domestic competitions approaches, more credit will be given to the winners. So the best teams will benefit for their successes this year and previous historic influences will lost.

At the end of the season, a representative form book would be drawn from which imo would be a far sounder basis for 'fairer', 'balanced' pool draws.

There will still be groups of death and strollers, but it won't be the fault the crazed ERC which was built on results solely in Europe and from as much as four years ago.

I basically disagree with all above, you qualify for this competition through meritocracy of 3 Leagues, so therefore every pool MUST have one from each League with a second from one, and the seedings must be the top of each league, seeded joint first. The winner of the play off games should automatically be in one of the top seeded teams groups, although as is alluded to above it will be the ranking system used

I think it was Gerry Thornley who said this week that the change in the seedings are damaging the competition. He gave the example of clubs who are now basically out of Europe and who are playing their second or third string teams. Theres no punishment for them doing that.


The old seedings were the best because they rewarded the teams who played best in European competition and not the teams who put out their B sides in Europe to concentrate on the league.

profitius wrote:I think it was Gerry Thornley who said 

Stop!

On this Gerry is right

In the old competition you still had something to play for after losing 3 matches in the new system the games are pointless.

That doesn't help the competition

geoff999rugby wrote:On this Gerry is right

In the old competition you still had something to play for after losing 3 matches in the new system the games are pointless.

That doesn't help the competition

In your dreams sunshine.

This has been discussed on the Saints thread recently - is Gerry a reader?

It seems that all the Celtic teams' predictions at the inception of the new competitions are unfortunately proving to be 100% accurate.

Since this thread is live -

Fantastic gesture from Racing's supporters - they have supplied Munster's Supporters Club with a list of their fans who are willing to host Munster fans for the rescheduled game in Paris.

Cyril wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:On this Gerry is right

In the old competition you still had something to play for after losing 3 matches in the new system the games are pointless.

That doesn't help the competition

In your dreams sunshine.

No fact - Exeter for example have nothing to play for.

Under the old system they could win 2 matches and finish 2nd, or at least 3rd, thereby improve their seeding next year.
In the new competition it does matter if they win the two games 50-0 or lose the two games 50-0 it is totally irrelevant to next years seedings.

This will inevitably led to a lot more dull games in rounds 5 and 6 as team use them as glorified training sessions

Under the old rules they'd be doing the same concentrating on qualifying for the next year.

Yes they would but there would be some value in winning the later rounds.
If qualification was fairly secure for example they would have a real reason to try and win the matches.

Now those games are totally meaningless

I don't think the old rules were perfect, but I do think they give more teams something to play for, for longer.

Under the old way finishing 3rd made a difference to ranking points for next year,

Groups of 4 seam to work in football and WRC, I think though every 2nd place team needs to qualify to make it competitive.

They were meaningless before as well. You would more likely see clubs playing full strength in their leagues where it continued to matter than a comp that was done and dusted.

Nobody is saying that teams would give everything to finish 3rd rather than 4th in the group.

Neither situation is ideal but to make a less than perfect situation into a totally meaningless situation has to be regarded as a retrograde step.
For me the solution is a ranking based on a combination of the old European ranking alongside the league position.

Actually Exeter were in the position of having nothing to play for in the final round of 2013 and yet they went at it with Leinster, only losing 29-20. I haven't known many English teams to pack it in at the pool stage. Seems to be a recent phenomenon.

Engine#4 wrote:Actually Exeter were in the position of having nothing to play for in the final round of 2013 and yet they went at it with Leinster, only losing 29-20. I haven't known many English teams to pack it in at the pool stage. Seems to be a recent phenomenon.

Go and ask Geordie Falcon if that is true? His team doesn't even START the pool stages with anywhere near their first choice team, and haven't for YEARS.