Anyone think the new pan european tournament looks a little... lopsided?

Just had a look at the groups, and well it looks less like a representitive tournament than PRL/LNR invitational.

Now i'm not having a go, or have any vested interest, but surely so many games every year involving either 2 English teams or 2 french teams playing each other in the group stage detracts from the competition.

I prefer a tournament that has Europes and rugbys interest in mind, and like this tournament less now I know it's an elitist version of a once great spectacle.

What is wrong with allowing 2 Scottish teams, 2 Italian teams and maybe Spanish, Russian national representitives?

Because the Italian and other smaller rugby nationalities become whipping boys. The second tier is where development occurs and teams push on for the step up. The HEC is supposed to be the pinnacle not a come all invitational.

The ERC also repeatedly refused the inclusion of a third tier for the inclusion and development of smaller nations.

But if this is the pinnacle and not the development, why do certain English and French teams deserve to be there on the basis of finishing 6th in their league?

Surely a Pinnacle would be 1/2 teams from every tier 1 nation?

The ERC refused the inclusion of a 3rd tier which was wrong, so the same guys who from there who run the new competition will be better?

PS I am not an expert so forgive me if I get some facts wrong, it's from what I read on here.

Tecnicaly speaking the Rabo Direct teams always play at least one team from their own league in the European pools each season. The Ospreys have had Treviso for the last few years.

Neutralee wrote:But if this is the pinnacle and not the development, why do certain English and French teams deserve to be there on the basis of finishing 6th in their league?

Surely a Pinnacle would be 1/2 teams from every tier 1 nation?

Would a team that finished 12th in their league really be that much more deserving though? Should both teams in Italy and Scotland be rewarded with a place at the top table just for existing?

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Neutralee wrote:But if this is the pinnacle and not the development, why do certain English and French teams deserve to be there on the basis of finishing 6th in their league?

Surely a Pinnacle would be 1/2 teams from every tier 1 nation?

Would a team that finished 12th in their league really be that much more deserving though? Should both teams in Italy and Scotland be rewarded with a place at the top table just for existing?

Do I take it from that logic Italy and Argentina do not deserve their places in their tournaments?

Do we really beleive this tournament looks as attractive as is than last year?

Where will this head next? 8 English teams, 8 French, Leinster and Ospreys?

Neutralee wrote:
Would a team that finished 12th in their league really be that much more deserving though? Should both teams in Italy and Scotland be rewarded with a place at the top table just for existing?

Do I take it from that logic Italy and Argentina do not deserve their places in their tournaments?

Do we really beleive this tournament looks as attractive as is than last year?

Where will this head next? 8 English teams, 8 French, Leinster and Ospreys?[/quote]

The Ospreys won't qualify, were not even top 4 in the Rabo league!   

Previously 4 pools had two teams from the PRO12 and the others would have two teams from the league that produced the team that won the ACC or HEC.

Now there are 2 pools with 2 teams from PRO12, one with 2 from the T14, one with 2 from AP and the last will have two from the league that produces the team that wins the playoff.

Seems less lopsided than it was before. Although that obviously depends on your bias.

Neutralee wrote:Do I take it from that logic Italy and Argentina do not deserve their places in their tournaments?

Do we really beleive this tournament looks as attractive as is than last year?

I don't really see how that follows at all. If you wanted to extend it to the international game it would be more like those teams having to play an extra qualifier to get to the world cup if they finish bottom.
The competition is more selective, with teams that have earned their spots and a few good teams added to the second tier. I'd say it looks more attractive.

HammerofThunor wrote:Previously 4 pools had two teams from the PRO12 and the others would have two teams from the league that produced the team that won the ACC or HEC.

Now there are 2 pools with 2 teams from PRO12, one with 2 from the T14, one with 2 from AP and the last will have two from the league that produces the team that wins the playoff.

Seems less lopsided than it was before. Although that obviously depends on your bias.

Thats only if your pro PRL and lump 4 nations into 1 category ie a world club championship would only involve 4 super rugby teams as they're in one league.

So if you look at it from a totally rugby perspective, cutting down teams from 4 nations to satisfy 2 nations is a) perfectly fair
b) oppressive

And don't get me wrong, I'd like to see more nations involved too, and a totally evens split of the money, Rugby stands out fromother sports for it's inclusiveness and tolerance, unless you live in europe and money is involved it seems.

Yes, very lopsided. It's much less interesting for me to watch teams of the same nation play each other compared to teams of different nations. In the old format  there was only one pool out of six every year where teams of the same nation played against one another.

Now there are three pools out of five where this happens.

You can argue whether thats a good thing or not, but I really don't understand how it can be denied that it is more lopsided. The only way you could argue the reverse is to lump all the Pro12 teams in together which, if nothing else, is either the product of a poor grasp of geography or just... ignorance.

The bottom line is that now there's a minimum of 12 out of 20 teams from just two nations and yeah- that is exceptionally lopsided. We may have fought a losing battle but I'm proud the IRFU was willing to stand against that nonsense until the last possible moment. The structure seems every bit as ridiculous to me now as it always has done.

HammerofThunor wrote:Seems less lopsided than it was before. Although that obviously depends on your bias.

Right, so for you is a team from Ireland playing a team from Italy is basically the same as a team from Gloucester playing a team from London? We may as well divide the world map into England and not-England.

One is an international fixture regardless of whether it happens in the Pro12 or the Heineken Cup and one is a domestic fixture. The Pro12 has nothing to do with it. There can be no comparison between an international competition and a national competition. That whole ridiculous (and convenient for some) twisting of logic is what has caused the current mess.

What I want to see from a cross-border, international Cup tournament is more cross-border, international games. Not teams from the same countries playing each other- at least not until the knockout stages.

Notch wrote:We may as well divide the world map into England and not-England.

That's been tried. Mind you, we've got the Commonweath Games out of it

Cyril wrote:

Notch wrote:We may as well divide the world map into England and not-England.

That's been tried. Mind you, we've got the Commonweath Games out of it

  

Notch wrote:Right, so for you is a team from Ireland playing a team from Italy is basically the same as a team from Gloucester playing a team from London? We may as well divide the world map into England and not-England.

One is an international fixture regardless of whether it happens in the Pro12 or the Heineken Cup and one is a domestic fixture. The Pro12 has nothing to do with it. There can be no comparison between an international competition and a national competition. That whole ridiculous (and convenient for some) twisting of logic is what has caused the current mess.

If they don't want to be lumped together, they should stop lumping themselves together. It's a competition between leagues, not countries.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Notch wrote:Right, so for you is a team from Ireland playing a team from Italy is basically the same as a team from Gloucester playing a team from London? We may as well divide the world map into England and not-England.

One is an international fixture regardless of whether it happens in the Pro12 or the Heineken Cup and one is a domestic fixture. The Pro12 has nothing to do with it. There can be no comparison between an international competition and a national competition. That whole ridiculous (and convenient for some) twisting of logic is what has caused the current mess.

If they don't want to be lumped together, they should stop lumping themselves together. It's a competition between leagues, not countries.

Bulllllllllllllllshhhh....

I suppose if Italy leave the Pro12 in the future and form their own league we can look forward to the money and places being split equally four ways between the four leagues.   

I thought it was a European competition?

Is it a league competition?

Neutralee wrote:I thought it was a European competition?

Is it a league competition?

Of course its not a league competition. It's a international club competition in which we agree to enter our sides and negotiate the terms of that entry. The only difference between the Pro12 and the European Cup is the number of nations involved and the format- and the new double standards our wise English and French friends have introduced to benefit themselves, such as the two big nations being guaranteed six teams regardless of performance while the other four nations are only guaranteed one team each year etc.

Now the 1 team per year is a decent idea in my opinion, I think the tournament should start with that...

1 Welsh
1 Irish
1 Scottish
1 Italian
1 English
1Franch

Then everyone else goes into a qualifier based on league standing? Allowing the potential to be heavy to the nation who best performs.

Less lop sided now than it was & more meritocratic.

Well this seems like a question nobody will answer with a bias...

Yes it is lopsided and will be a poorer tournament for it. We should have expanded to 32 teams. The perfect number.

To be honest, I think its less lopsided too. Playing a Pro12 team four times a season get tedious, especially when it meant losing to them 4times.

Also the new second tier is far less lopsided, there are Italian (pro12 sides) Scottish and Irish sides in there for the first time in years, and an additional welsh side. Should be far more entertaining for neutrals.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Yes it is lopsided and will be a poorer tournament for it. We should have expanded to 32 teams. The perfect number.

I'd have liked 32 but it would have been pointless as there aren't 32 teams who are nearly good enough

Or 16 teams

Or 4 groups of 5

In terms of the geographical mix it is more lopsided with proportionately more English and French teams involved.

However, there are more interesting match ups right from the start.

Some of the so called 'making up the numbers' teams no longer feature. But a few of them have had their moments - it's a shame we are unlikely to see a Connacht win in Toulouse again, or an unlikely run to the semis a la Embra two seasons ago. Simply because, as things stand in the Pro12, those teams are unlikely to qualify via league position. And there is no longer the possibility of getting in on an 'OBE' (other b*uggers efforts).

Oh well, I'm sure there will be a lot of interest in the new competition for various reasons.

Form one league and be treated as one nation as far as I'm concerned.

Scarletspiderman makes a good point about the 2nd tier comp. That definitely needed freshening up.

Wasps were invariably in the old Amlin over the last 6 seasons. More often than not we got Bayonne (and/or Racing Metro), and the away games would invariably be a Thursday night. Dragons* were usually in our pool if only one T14 team were in it, and lastly a hopeless Italian team that we would stick 50+ points on home and away.  Not much fun to watch, but the trips to Italy were always great.

* The last time the Dragons qualified for the HC was when the Italian league hadn't finished and they couldn't provide a 3rd placed team to play off against the Dragons for the last HC spot.

Yup, Wasps drew them in the Heiny too that season. The two games were horribly affected by snow with an aggregate attendance for the games being about 4.3k.

Great bunch of fans at the Dragons though. So that was something to look forward to.

Sorry, the memories of the Amlin trips are flooding back. 

Neutralee wrote:Now the 1 team per year is a decent idea in my opinion, I think the tournament should start with that...

1 Welsh
1 Irish
1 Scottish
1 Italian
1 English
1Franch

Then everyone else goes into a qualifier based on league standing? Allowing the potential to be heavy to the nation who best performs.

I actually would prefer that than the current or former shceme. always been in favour to reduce the number of teams anyway. there is hardly 16 "elite" teams in europe let alone 20,24 or 32!

Notch wrote:

Neutralee wrote:I thought it was a European competition?

Is it a league competition?

Of course its not a league competition. It's a international club competition in which we agree to enter our sides and negotiate the terms of that entry. The only difference between the Pro12 and the European Cup is the number of nations involved and the format- and the new double standards our wise English and French friends have introduced to benefit themselves, such as the two big nations being guaranteed six teams regardless of performance while the other four nations are only guaranteed one team each year etc.

How is that true? They have to finish in the top six to qualify, they're not gifted a qualification place based on a sympathy shag system like the Pro12 used to be.

In fairness Jimpy it could be argued that there's not actually a lot of real competition for European places in the Jeff - who actually wins the league title in terms of play offs and final places I would accept is different - but I don't see a point in the future at which Saints, Saracens, Quins and Tigers are ever going to miss out again and will qualify every season by coming top four unless something goes spectacularly financially or managerially wrong. Even a slip out of top four will have them still in the top six.
 
In terms of European qualification for English clubs the actual competition is for the fifth and sixth places (maybe fourth at a stretch) so Bath, Wasps, Sale etc. are really looking to come top two in a league of eight whilst trying not to be the bottom at the end of the season.
 
I understand that this is different to the Rabo system of guaranteed places based on nationality but in some ways for the Big Four at least it's no more of a fait accompli than Treviso/Zebre getting in every year.

Except of course they have to be better than the other teams. I find it rather bizarre to compare around 4 teams than due to them being better than the other teams qualify each year with 2 teams which qualify because they're the only teams eligible.

I'd also prefer a system with one team auto qualified from each country and then qualification for the rest, down to a top 16. But in rugby all sides are desperate for money so the better teams would lose money from the qualifying fixtures.

EDIT: and actually if you look at what we have that's pretty much it assuming that all the leagues are of appoximate equal 'quality'.

Feels like a wind up thread to be honest

Quick answer- of course it's lopsided. Anyone who comes from outside England or France could always see that it would be.

To the PRL/LNR an English/French-heavy tournament has always been classified as 'fair' or 'meritocratic' and the contest would always arbitrarily be considered a contest between leagues, not nations purely for their own purposes. This is old news by now.

Which, I might add, is why I refuse to watch the farce Euro club rugby is fast becoming. It simply isn't worth it anymore.

I don't suppose you could avoid posting on it as well could you?

Some people need to call it for what it is in the face of mass ignorance. I do seriously wonder about the sanity of people sometimes when the takeover of an international comp (by a minority of participants for the sake of their own interests) is not only tolerated but defended.

Is it just me or arepeople missing the fact the second their is far more ballenced now, and likely to be a good competition? And that only happened by removing the unballence from the top.

Would people honestly prefer 2 from each nation, bar Scotland/Italy?

Jimpy wrote:

Notch wrote:

Neutralee wrote:I thought it was a European competition?

Is it a league competition?

Of course its not a league competition. It's a international club competition in which we agree to enter our sides and negotiate the terms of that entry. The only difference between the Pro12 and the European Cup is the number of nations involved and the format- and the new double standards our wise English and French friends have introduced to benefit themselves, such as the two big nations being guaranteed six teams regardless of performance while the other four nations are only guaranteed one team each year etc.

How is that true? They have to finish in the top six to qualify, they're not gifted a qualification place based on a sympathy shag system like the Pro12 used to be.

England and France are guaranteed a minimum of six places every year.

Knowsit17 wrote:Some people need to call it for what it is in the face of mass ignorance. I do seriously wonder about the sanity of people sometimes when the takeover of an international comp (by a minority of participants for the sake of their own interests) is not only tolerated but defended.

OK, I take it back. Please continue to teach us poor, unenlightened folk with your pure, true wisdom oh great one.

Take over? We were told the board has remained largely the same. The only thing that's changed in the running is the commercial bit and that needs 100% vote or agreement from the independent chairman.

Guys unless we all have the same number of teams competing in leagues it will always technically be lopsided one way or the other.

Let's look at nationalities % wise

Ireland 3/4 75%
England 6/12 50%
Wales 2/4 50%
Scotland 1/2 50%
Italy 1/2 50%
France 6/14 42.8%

So maybe we should all blame the Irish for hogging too many spots, and praise the French for taking less than their fair share?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Guys unless we all have the same number of teams competing in leagues it will always technically be lopsided one way or the other.

Let's look at nationalities % wise

Ireland 3/4 75%
England 6/12 50%
Wales 2/4 50%
Scotland 1/2 50%
Italy 1/2 50%
France 6/14 42.8%

So maybe we should all blame the Irish for hogging too many spots, and praise the French for taking less than their fair share?

Why would you use percentages as a measure,it's not like if Ireland were to create 4 more provinces out of thin air we'd suddenly get 6 spots in Europe.Unless that were true then using percentages doesn't make any kind of sense,the real problem is that the PRL talked about meritocracy yet they haven't been punished for their poor showings over the last few years,also Ireland wasn't rewarded for it's period of dominance.It seems the English can continue to put in 6 average teams and they will continue to struggle to win more than one group each year (last year they didn't even manage one).

'Sore shoulder why use number of teams to divide if its ballenced? Truth is you can twist figures to suit your own agenda. Everyone is jumping on the volume if English/French teams, but if you look at it as ratios that not true. A debate is pointless if its just a case of repeating the same stuff over and over, so thought I'd see what people think of the lopsided issue when its broken into %.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:'Sore shoulder why use number of teams to divide if its ballenced?  Truth is you can twist figures to suit your own agenda.  Everyone is jumping on the volume if English/French teams, but if you look at it as ratios that not true.  A debate is pointless if its just a case of repeating the same stuff over and over, so thought I'd see what people think of the lopsided issue when its broken into %.

We use numbers because they are real and can't be manipulated,Ireland has 3 teams in the competition,however even using percentages if Irish teams underperform we can drop to a 25% participation,English or French teams can never drop so low.It seems the merit system the PRL whinged about so much only applies to the Irish and Welsh teams no matter what way you want to crunch the numbers.

'Sore ok, why not slam the Scots and italians too then? They are certain of 50% participation, even if they are bottom two of the league. That unjust, probably worse, if you want to be anal, as they can get 100% qualification unlike the English or French.

Just a quick note here, the tournament was never a 'pan European' tournament. It was a tournament that was effectively sealed off for only 6 nations. People who talk about how it needs to be inclusive of all would do well to remember that their unions are every bit as greedy as the PRL and have no interest in allowing other nations to break in to the cartel. Until someone advocates a truly inclusive ERC or 6 nations you can't take any moral high ground i'm afraid.

Also, numbers can't be manipulated but percentages and ratios can? Sorry but you were let down by your school

Edit: Just to add, I don't think it's at all unfair to look at the percentage of a nation's top flight teams that are guaranteed entry and the maximum possible. 50% as a base would have been fine by me.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:'Sore ok, why not slam the Scots and italians too then?  They are certain of 50% participation, even if they are bottom two of the league.  That unjust, probably worse, if you want to be anal, as they can get 100% qualification unlike the English or French.

Basically because they didn't engineer the entire situation using threats and lies to get their way.They were simply swept along on the tide and as they are only guaranteed one team each year with a maximum of two.That's why measuring it on percentages is ridiculous,you can make out that the Scottish are doing better than the English/French while only having a maximum of 2 teams against the minimum of 6 that England and France get.

"Guys unless we all have the same number of teams competing in leagues it will always technically be lopsided one way or the other."

Exactly SS so it is comparing apples and pears. Let's be thankful we finally have another cup competition & move on.
Some Irish posters on here are getting monotonously boring with their anti PRL/LNR arguments & holier than thou attitude.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:it's not like if Ireland were to create 4 more provinces out of thin air we'd suddenly get 6 spots in Europe.

Depending on the setup they were playing in, I think you'd have a pretty good shot actually.

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Just a quick note here, the tournament was never a 'pan European' tournament. It was a tournament that was effectively sealed off for only 6 nations. People who talk about how it needs to be inclusive of all would do well to remember that their unions are every bit as greedy as the PRL and have no interest in allowing other nations to break in to the cartel. Until someone advocates a truly inclusive ERC or 6 nations you can't take any moral high ground i'm afraid.

Also, numbers can't be manipulated but percentages and ratios can? Sorry but you were let down by your school

Edit: Just to add, I don't think it's at all unfair to look at the percentage of a nation's top flight teams that are guaranteed entry and the maximum possible. 50% as a base would have been fine by me.

Farul Constanta (Romanian club) played in the first Heineken Cup. Milan also played in it. That would suggest to me that the organisers were welcoming to everyone at the start of the competition.

Funny, that all changed when the English and Scots got on board.