'Pointless' Challenge Cup unsustainable - Jackman

Interesting comments by Grenoble coach Barnard Jackman about the Challenge Cup - just reinforces what we thought the French clubs' attitude to this non-competition is - give fringe players a run-out while the first team is rested for the Top 14

Link?

This the one brennon?

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/challenge-cup/2014/1031/656108-pointless-challenge-cup-unsustainable-jackman/

Thats my attitude too. Whats it for? Scrap it, enlarge the main competition. The Celtic unions were damn right about that.

Yep, apols for not posting the link with OP. Apart from using the competition to rest first-teamers, big problem obviously is that winner doesn't get a place in the ERCC the following year like the Amlin winners did. So why take an eggcup competition like this seriously and risk injuries in a competition that doesn't matter. At least Jackman is being honest. Does anybody really think if the Irish provinces were in this, Axel, MOC and Doak would be sending out their best players when the the only way they are going to get into the following year's ERCC is being in the top six in Pro12. Did Lam field his best team against Exeter last week?

well the one thing thats not going to happen is an expansion of the top tier cup. not after all the blood spilt getting it down to 20 and weeding out some of the weaker sides from the pro12.

and maybe the pro12 unions shouldnt have been so quick to veto the 20th spot in the top tier going to the winner of the Amin. after all, PRl and LNR were strongly in favour.

the other thing that should be done in the second tier competition is put prize money up for grabs. they do that with some of the money in the top tier i think. although i dont know what the arrangements are for that in this new format. i know it used to be 15% when it was the Heiny cup

Brutally spoken, but it's difficult to argue with the sense of it.
So much would be different if it just allowed the Champions Cup place.
Madder than a box of hair.

quinsforever wrote:well the one thing thats not going to happen is an expansion of the top tier cup. not after all the blood spilt getting it down to 20 and weeding out some of the weaker sides from the pro12.

and maybe the pro12 unions shouldnt have been so quick to veto the 20th spot in the top tier going to the winner of the Amin.  after all, PRl and LNR were strongly in favour.

Thanks for clearing that up quins - in summary all Pro12's fault.

He is right - it is pointless.  My club play in it.  Actually there is some point for Edinburgh because the wins are a boost to a weak team.  But for many teams there is little point at all.


Its why my favoured solution is to have a qualifying round.  Everyone can enter every year, the weaker teams get removed in the first round of matches.  You could have some byes for the top teams.

quinsforever wrote:the other thing that should be done in the second tier competition is put prize money up for grabs. they do that with some of the money in the top tier i think. although i dont know what the arrangements are for that in this new format. i know it used to be 15% when it was the Heiny cup

George Carlin wrote:Brutally spoken, but it's difficult to argue with the sense of it.
So much would be different if it just allowed the Champions Cup place.
Madder than a box of hair.

If it did then who drops out of the top tier each year? the lowest team? How do you judge that? One from the same union? Last years winners? all solutions seem unfair. I don't see that working.

I don't think it was worth the handful of injuries Edinburgh picked up in it.

VinceWLB wrote:I don't think it was worth the handful of injuries Edinburgh picked up in it.

True. Our team for tonight looks more than a little threadbare.

Totalflanker wrote:

quinsforever wrote:well the one thing thats not going to happen is an expansion of the top tier cup. not after all the blood spilt getting it down to 20 and weeding out some of the weaker sides from the pro12.

and maybe the pro12 unions shouldnt have been so quick to veto the 20th spot in the top tier going to the winner of the Amin.  after all, PRl and LNR were strongly in favour.

Thanks for clearing that up quins - in summary all Pro12's fault.

no, just saying its not all the PRL's fault.

Amlin winner not qualifying and pro12 getting a 7th spot was the price of rabo12 unions' agreement.

english clubs quite like playing in the Amlin by the way. as can be seen from the pools so far. so its not so much an Amlin issue as a french club issue.

Jackman's opinion isn't universal in France if attendances can be used to gauge popularity, although the rotations in the matchday squads is there for all to see.

4,500 home attendance is a big drop from the 14,000 minimum he incorrectly claims for Top 14 games. However take 2 of Grenoble's near-ish neighbours - Oyo had their biggest crowd of the season when they hosted Glaws, and Lyon had a little under their season average with London Welsh in town.

I'm in agreement that the Challenge winner should get a shot at the Champions Cup, if not already qualified, but I'm not convinced it has an overweaning influence on the strengths of teams in the pool stages. There were plenty of rests and rotations in the pool stages of the Amlin when the winners got that promotion. Seriousness only really kicked in for the knockouts, and that was still dependent on league positions.

the thing about Jackman's article that doesnt ring true is that nothing has really changed about the Amlin (apart from its name). French teams never cared about it.

also, given the HC parachute that was used from 2010 to 2014, a team like Grenoble had precious little chance of winning the Amlin anyway, so methinks Jackman is maybe blaming the fact he coaches the only french team with 2 losses on the tournament structure?

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:the other thing that should be done in the second tier competition is put prize money up for grabs. they do that with some of the money in the top tier i think. although i dont know what the arrangements are for that in this new format. i know it used to be 15% when it was the Heiny cup

George Carlin wrote:Brutally spoken, but it's difficult to argue with the sense of it.
So much would be different if it just allowed the Champions Cup place.
Madder than a box of hair.

If it did then who drops out of the top tier each year?  the lowest team?  How do you judge that?  One from the same union?  Last years winners?  all solutions seem unfair.  I don't see that working.

I would have had both finalists qualifying.

also, maybe if Jackman had picked a decent side he would have seen more of his season ticket holders show up for their home game, no?

saying you think a tournament is a waste of time as a coach is hardy likely to inspire players or fans now is it.

Great points by Jackson, its a bit like the LV cup for the French teams and gives his second string players a chance to prove themselves. Makes sense for a team like Grenoble in the Top 14 who need to make sure they dont get relegated and then try to qualify in the top 6. Why bother risk your bread and butter for something that gives you nothing at the end of it.

Notch wrote:Thats my attitude too. Whats it for? Scrap it, enlarge the main competition. The Celtic unions were damn right about that.

quinsforever wrote:well the one thing thats not going to happen is an expansion of the top tier cup. not after all the blood spilt getting it down to 20 and weeding out some of the weaker sides from the pro12.

and maybe the pro12 unions shouldnt have been so quick to veto the 20th spot in the top tier going to the winner of the Amin.  after all, PRl and LNR were strongly in favour.

This.

George Carlin wrote:

TJ wrote:

quinsforever wrote:the other thing that should be done in the second tier competition is put prize money up for grabs. they do that with some of the money in the top tier i think. although i dont know what the arrangements are for that in this new format. i know it used to be 15% when it was the Heiny cup

George Carlin wrote:Brutally spoken, but it's difficult to argue with the sense of it.
So much would be different if it just allowed the Champions Cup place.
Madder than a box of hair.

If it did then who drops out of the top tier each year?  the lowest team?  How do you judge that?  One from the same union?  Last years winners?  all solutions seem unfair.  I don't see that working.

I would have had both finalists qualifying.

So who drops out each year to accommodate a different team winning?

Why are people making this complicated and trying to put the blame on the pro12?

The solution is very simple! Drop the joke that is the end of season playoff for the 20th spot and give it to the CC winners!!!

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Why are people making this complicated and trying to put the blame on the pro12?

The solution is very simple! Drop the joke that is the end of season playoff for the 20th spot and give it to the CC winners!!!

All the blaming accomplishes nothing.

LeinsterFan, I agree with your solution.  Seems so simple from here.  
Actually I agree with George Carlin too, let both finalists in the top tier competition.

On the other hand, I am sure someone will find a cogent reason why that ain't possible and then blame it on the PRL or Pro12 or Top14 or RFU or IRFU or SRU or IRB or CIA or FBI or MI5 or RAF or......

The Challenge Cup is self defeating if you take it seriously.  
Its very existence dampens the ability of the lower sides of each league to rise in those respective leagues.  
If you're dragged into taking it too seriously, you'll end up having a permanent home there.  Some seem to think there is nothing wrong with that philosophy.  It's capitalism.  
In order for a guy to have a mansion, a big car and a high paying job, he requires someone down the street somewhere to have none of those things.  His wealth is dependent on someone else being poor.  And the theory extends to the new model of Proferssional rugby in Europe.  The top sides want even more tools given them to increase wealth but they need some of the present 'equals' to accept a future of less ambition in order for the plan to work.

Like I've said before - French lower sides aren't falling for it.  And Pro12 sides will learn how not to try too hard in the competition too.  The French sides aren't wrong.  They're acknowledging that League and the top European contest are the only goals in town worth sending your best players to.

Guys please - all of you who want the previous years winners in. do they drop out again the following year to accomodate that years winners? Or who does?

TJ wrote:Guys please - all of you who want the previous years winners in.  do they drop out again the following year to accomodate that years winners?  Or who does?

The lowest performing Pro12 side (points, tries, bonus points etc) drops down.

plus.............. as I think TJ is alluding to; if you have a system whereby the winner of the Challenge Cup goes up to ERCC the following year, that makes a side who can't hack it in their own league (by definitions given to us rather than it being mine) being given a free entry into the Premium European contest on an agenda which doesn't reflect their League ability.............

now we all know we've been there before in debating terms - and it was ugly.

Fly,
Not sure I accept your theory of economics.  I rather subscribe to the theory that a rising tide raises all ships.  Clearly not everyone is the same, nor has the same advantages or skills.  But I don't believe that there is a balance which requires one successful person to be counterbalanced by someone or some people in completely opposite circumstances.  

But that also does not mean Rugby is caught in the same balance.  The second tier competition has never been the love child of our Rugby teams.  In whatever guise.  Not sure how to fix beyond the incentive of winning promotion.  This is how it was before.  Why would it be much different now?  

By the way, would you be opposed to blowing up all three leagues and creating a gigantic NFL style all-6 Nation competition?  No Pro12, no Premiership, no Top14?  Just one big 6 Nation League.  Whaddya think?

doctor_grey wrote:Fly,
Not sure I accept your theory of economics.  I rather subscribe to the theory that a rising tide raises all ships.  Clearly not everyone is the same, nor has the same advantages or skills.  But I don't believe that there is a balance which requires one successful person to be counterbalanced by someone or some people in completely opposite circumstances.  This does not mean I think the world is rosy.  It's clearly very, very far from that.  And I have seen too much of that for a few lifetimes.  

But that also does not mean Rugby is caught in the same balance.  The second tier competition has never been the love child of our Rugby teams.  In whatever guise.  Not sure how to fix beyond the incentive of winning promotion.  This is how it was before.  Why would it be much different now?  

By the way, would you be opposed to blowing up all three leagues and creating a gigantic NFL style all-6 Nation competition?  No Pro12, no Premiership, no Top14?  Just one big 6 Nation League.  Whaddya think?

On your first highlighted point.  You don't have to subscribe to my theory Doc, but it's not a theory.  It's how capitalism at its purest works.  And it's why Europe is trying to seriously recalibrate it's Captialism model to more fully realise the prime truth that not everyone can be wealthy in a healthy Capitalist system.  In the good old days before the BANG, normal folks were getting +100% loans.  And with those loans, that their salaries could never hope to service in the long term, they bought mansions and big cars and went on expensive holidays.  But the system was creaking because Capitalism can't work that way - and didn't.  It broke.  And now we're back to an older model where the wealthy don't even have to ask for loans as juicy 'expenses' and 'bonuses'' take care of most of their spend concerns - whilst small companies struggle to get diddly squat loans on sky high interest.  Capitalism is finding its feet again and discovering the requirement for a 'thriving' underclass.

On your second highlight - I believe I'm one of the earliest - if not the very first person - to suggest the idea that the best should be the best - 20 spots filled by the true top 20 sides across all three leagues based on their end of year score cards.  It might not be a League but it's closer to the idea of a true 20 Best sides than the current model.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Why are people making this complicated and trying to put the blame on the pro12?

The solution is very simple! Drop the joke that is the end of season playoff for the 20th spot and give it to the CC winners!!!

you cant have it both ways.

that "joke" end of season playoff mechanism was in exchange for the pro12 getting a 7th side automatically qualifying.

if they drop the "joke" 20th qualifying spot then of course its only fair that you drop the "joke" 7th automatic spot from the pro12.

and then both amlin finalists can qualify for the next year's competition.

although personally i would worry that this would make the amlin final a bit of an exhibition match once both knew they were into the top tier for next season. maybe double the money on offer to the winning team to ensure serious squad selection?

quinsforever wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Why are people making this complicated and trying to put the blame on the pro12?

The solution is very simple! Drop the joke that is the end of season playoff for the 20th spot and give it to the CC winners!!!

you cant have it both ways.

that "joke" end of season playoff mechanism was in exchange for the pro12 getting a 7th side automatically qualifying.

if they drop the "joke" 20th qualifying spot then of course its only fair that you drop the "joke" 7th automatic spot from the pro12.

I don't get this as the 8th place pro12 goes into the end of season playoff...So why would they have to drop the 7th placed Pro12 (which is the Italians) team?
The reason its a joke is because the french team only has to win one game (the winner between the 7th placed AP team and 8th place p12) to qualify for the HC.

All the detail...all the money...all the boardroom bottles of water and snack food, all the knives in backs and plans written on matchboxes................. all the time, money and effort to create the new shiny product and everyone - everyone - is still talking in terms of "maybe we could try this" and "maybe that would be better", and "Maybe we should do it this way"

Maybe the creationists got it wrong?  I'll add that to the list  

If I'm being honest, now that I've thought about it, the best thing to do with this would be to indeed scrap the Challenge Cup and use the free weekend to both give the other sides byes and occasionally schedule games in the Top14, Premiership and Pro12 between the teams that are not involved in the main tournament.

This has the massive advantage of reducing the number of club games every year, which is a bullet that will have to be bitten otherwise the overall quality of all rugby in the NH will suffer- if it hasn't already. It would also allow situations like this weekend where teams like Edinburgh have to field second XVs in the tournament that is actually meaningful- the Pro12- due to international call-ups. The best 7 or 8 teams would still be affected, but its the best teams who have these strength in depth to actually cope with that.

It would be a big advantage for the underdogs in each league. Instead of having to go through the motions in the joke cup, they could be resting up and waiting for their more illustrious rivals to tire themselves out on two fronts.

It has to be only occasional games in these windows otherwise we'll end up with the best teams playing each other in the international windows, which nobody wants. But the odd game here and there- as well as having some weekends in January for potentially rescheduled games- should help.

For me, the old Amlin had two redeeming features. It was useless and rubbish too, but there were two good things.

1) The games with teams from minnow nations which brought profile to players from lower levels.
2) The fact the winner could qualify for the real thing which added some bite to the closing stages.

Its rather disingenuous to blame the Pro12 unions for 2 without taking into account it was a your money or your life scenario. Gunboat diplomacy was at play. I think if they had been given a fair crack of the whip in terms of having a minimum 8 teams in the big show they would have been quite happy to keep that. The restriction of the number of teams in the main tournament was and is the biggest problem. 20 gives contributes to the slightly nonsensical idea that less elite teams is always better for the neutral.

For me, variety is better. I don't want to play against the same teams all the time. Ulster have played Leicester six times in four years by the end of this tournament. It's getting really dull in a sense. I would love to face new teams. Less teams is less variety which is not better or more interesting.

The wags will answer "well thats easy, to face new teams Ulster just need to finish outside the top six". Hmmm.

Scrap the Challenge Cup
Somewhere in excess of 100,000 people plonked their bums on seats (or leant on railings) at the 20 Challenge Cup games so far. That's a lot of pasties and pastis sold - where's the income to come from to replace that and who's going to have the temerity to tell those 100,000+ that there's no rugby on for them over 6 weekends during the season.

Reduce Club Games
Scrap the Champions Cup, then - that's where the fatigue is mostly generated.

Going Through the Motions
Better for a coach to have the options to manage his squad as he sees fit than have rest weekends arbitrarily imposed. Players need gametime - not too much, not too little.

Minnow Nations
Still there - Italian representation is reduced, but are they a minnow nation? Bucaresti qualified, Georgian Caucasians did not. There's still a 3rd level Cup being touted by FIR for this season, and hopefully next year the Qualifying Competition will be broader and more meaningful (with Champion clubs rather than Union all-sorts).

Variety is Better
Yes, variety is better, and it's better for the likes of Gloucester and Exeter, and newly promoted Lyon and La Rochelle too.

Variety is Better (again)
Some of the "New" opposition are probably plying their trade in this year's Challenge Cup. Grenoble in their 3rd season, Oyonnax in their 2nd, Lyon and La Rochelle debuting, and all learning the nuances of European rugby, preparing themselves for the "real thing".

Lastly
On Friday last, Sky made the asronishing decision to show Munster v Saracens on a Friday night - 2 teams with reputations not associated with flowing rugby. Intense it was, entertaining it was not - a game for the purists, not for the neutrals, and yet there were 3 Challenge Cup games untelevised, which may (or may not) have been less intense, but were almost certainly more entertaining. Televise more Challenge Cup games and there may just, gradually, little by little, become an awareness that there is worthwhile rugby played outside the "real thing".

Do the teams still get a split of the Euro money if the Challenge Cup is scrapped?
What is wrong in fielding different players? Giving squad players a chance who wouldn't play unless an injury occurred.
Notch as for playing different teams the teams that are not in the Champions Cup that were in the HEC come from the Pro12 so Ulster are already playing them, unless you want more teams from Aviva/Top14 so Ulster has the chance to play different teams

So Televise more Challenge Cup games to show the cynics how good the games are?  Would that mean that the 'real thing' has some games downgraded to non-televised events?  

Oh dear...so many hours in a weekend; lives to lead, other sports to watch, jobs to go to, kids to mind, meals to eat, political protest marches to be part of, romance to enjoy, zoos to go to, shopping to be engaged in................... is there time to watch it all?  
Or is there more than enough money available to demote some ERCC games to radio?  Surely, the idea was always that the ERC didn't know how to suck every last drop of profit potential out of the game? Surely the new bosses should have then demanded the TV people televise more Challenge games as part of the negotiated super package of profit?  Who is being blamed for not enough televisualness for the Challenge Cup?  The same people who complained there is not enough televisualness about the old HEC?

OR................ perhaps the new bosses should have just made a ruling that ALL games MUST be 'entertaining' or else the side that is least entertaining gets automatically dropped to the Entertainment Grade Competition the following year.  Munster in The Challenge Cup?   They'd ruin the beauty of it!

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:... truth, truth and yet more truth...

Very well said sir.

Hell yeah, expand the top competition to all teams. I mean I am sure die hard Munster fans (and TV execs) would love a group of Munster, London Welsh, Oyonnax and Treviso.

I must be the only person who believes that both competitions are more interesting this season. Lower tier still needs a lot of work - but around 40% of matches have been intriguing - way up on previous years.

Meanwhile in the top competition it is hard to predict who will qualify and it should go down to round 6 for once before we know.

Even Connacht didn't care much about it and Pat Lam admitted they were focusing on the Ospreys fixture rather than Exeter.

There is basically nothing to gain from that Challenge cup.

LondonTiger wrote:Hell yeah, expand the top competition to all teams. I mean I am sure die hard Munster fans (and TV execs) would love a group of Munster, London Welsh, Oyonnax and Treviso.

Munster would. The ultimate pragmatist no-bullshitters

The call to televise more Challenge Cup games is to counter the whiff of condescension, arrogance and negativity that pervades some of these threads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuStsFW4EmQ




but mostly it's to avoid having to watch blydi Munster and blydi Saracens.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote: the whiff of condescension, arrogance and negativity that pervades.

Go write a letter to McCafferty and blame him for spreading the flu.

VinceWLB wrote:Even Connacht didn't care much about it and Pat Lam admitted they were focusing on the Ospreys fixture rather than Exeter.

There is basically nothing to gain from that Challenge cup.

That didn't do them much good, they were well beaten by a combination of first, second, third and finally academy players.

des wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:... truth, truth and yet more truth...

Very well said sir.

+1

If you look on the London Irish forum they have a thread going called "top 6 or trophy". 90% of them said they would take winning the Challege cup or LV over getting too 6.

After all that is what sports is about; winning things and thats what the CC is... Another chance for a team to win a trophy.

quinsforever wrote:well the one thing thats not going to happen is an expansion of the top tier cup. not after all the blood spilt getting it down to 20 and weeding out some of the weaker sides from the pro12.

and maybe the pro12 unions shouldnt have been so quick to veto the 20th spot in the top tier going to the winner of the Amin.  after all, PRl and LNR were strongly in favour.

The PRO12 weren't quick to veto anything - the whole story is that the PRO12 were the only ones giving up their representation so why would they give up yet another place?

The answer is simple - whichever club wins the Challenge Cup should take a Champion's Cup place from their League's quota.

The Great Aukster wrote:

quinsforever wrote:well the one thing thats not going to happen is an expansion of the top tier cup. not after all the blood spilt getting it down to 20 and weeding out some of the weaker sides from the pro12.

and maybe the pro12 unions shouldnt have been so quick to veto the 20th spot in the top tier going to the winner of the Amin.  after all, PRl and LNR were strongly in favour.

The PRO12 weren't quick to veto anything - the whole story is that the PRO12 were the only ones giving up their representation so why would they give up yet another place?

The answer is simple - whichever club wins the Challenge Cup should take a Champion's Cup place from their League's quota.

it was a bit more complicated than that i think.

lots of people are unhappy that their teams are in the Amlin for the first time. my team love it. we are always happy to try to win silverware. if others dont thats fine. everything will calm down eventually. teething grumbles.

quinsforever wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

quinsforever wrote:well the one thing thats not going to happen is an expansion of the top tier cup. not after all the blood spilt getting it down to 20 and weeding out some of the weaker sides from the pro12.

and maybe the pro12 unions shouldnt have been so quick to veto the 20th spot in the top tier going to the winner of the Amin.  after all, PRl and LNR were strongly in favour.

The PRO12 weren't quick to veto anything - the whole story is that the PRO12 were the only ones giving up their representation so why would they give up yet another place?

The answer is simple - whichever club wins the Challenge Cup should take a Champion's Cup place from their League's quota.

it was a bit more complicated than that i think.

lots of people are unhappy that their teams are in the Amlin for the first time. my team love it. we are always happy to try to win silverware. if others dont thats fine. everything will calm down eventually. teething grumbles.

Lots of people are unhappy? That perhaps should read lots of PRO12 people are unhappy. AP people have no change so why would they be unhappy all of a sudden? Perhaps the PRO12 teams should feel flattered that the Amlin competition wanted them so much to give some kudos, but more likely they are moving on to focus on competitions where winning means something rather than being best of the rest.

If you plant a dandelion it's never going to become an orchid - some people like dandelions but they don't have the same cache as an orchid. Each to their own.