Home and away semis in the RCC?

Will Greenwoods article in the telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/11544242/Champions-Cup-semi-finals-are-unfair-they-need-to-be-over-two-legs.html

maestegmafia wrote:Will Greenwoods article in the telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/11544242/Champions-Cup-semi-finals-are-unfair-they-need-to-be-over-two-legs.html

Quite stupid and an impossible thing to do.
First we don't have enought dates in a season to do it.
And finally if that was the case, we will have defending games where teams would thing about the second legs. And if it's difficult for the weakest team to win one game on two leags it would be worse.
It didn't bother him when the english clubs dominated in Europe, but now they had little chance he complained about it.

You're right there is too much rugby as it is, possibly neutral grounds/countries is the way to go.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're right there is too much rugby as it is, possibly neutral grounds/countries is the way to go.

But it's neutral already. Ok it's in France but if we play Toulon vs Leinster in England, how many of fan will travel, with only two weeks to organize the trip? And the Clermont vs Sarries would have to be in Ireland, and even with that one club would have an advantage with the distance. It's perfect like it's now. It's just that in the recent years the french clubs have been lucky and like two of them tend to be stronger than other, it's really hard to win there.

It's not perfect obviously. Perfect in the sense of fairness would be over 2 legs or a neutral venue but costs, player fatigue, time etc affect it.

shuren34 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're right there is too much rugby as it is, possibly neutral grounds/countries is the way to go.

But it's neutral already. Ok it's in France but if we play Toulon vs Leinster in England, how many of fan will travel, with only two weeks to organize the trip? And the Clermont vs Sarries would have to be in Ireland, and even with that one club would have an advantage with the distance. It's perfect like it's now. It's just that in the recent years the french clubs have been lucky and like two of them tend to be stronger than other, it's really hard to win there.

Fans only have two weeks after qualifying before their team plays in their semi final.

Home and away would make it easier.

Both semis this year are very close proximity to one of the teams and not for the other. Similar last year with Saracens playing at Hq

Maybe they should play the 1st half home and 2nd half away...

It's always the simplest answers which are best!

I think this suggestion is both silly and naive.  Yes, the current system is not perfect, but there is no perfect system.  Anyone can knock holes in anything if one so desires.  But we need a reality check:
1.  There is too much Rugby, extra matches makes this much worse.
2.  The team which finishes with a higher seed (no matter how imperfectly arrived at) or wins their pools deserve home matches.  Why else try to finish top of the pool? Why punish success?
3.  In that context, why not have home advantage?  
4.  Home and away?  Rugby matches are 80 minutes not 160.   
5.  Playoff sport is about 'The Moment'.  Teams have to raise themselves for that one match, that one moment, not playing for a draw today and to win next week.  
6.  Rugby ain't soccer.

Ultimately, this will never happen because there is too much Rugby now.  Even the possibility of the extra tv money will not drive this one unless the regular league seasons are reduced, and that ain't happening.  Reads like an article written in the absence of anything of value.

No................... more rugby and yet more rugby is not the answer, but eternal Greed seems to be.

Home and Away is just too much pressure in an already hard season, certainly when you have squads that are held together with glue and sticky tape like some of them are.  The Home and Away deal would again serve the interests of the teams with squads stuffed with bought-in talent.  "Oh we were kinda caught off guard in that first game by Glasgow.  But we have the second game to beat the bejaysus out of them, thank God."

No, it should remain a one shot opportunity for sides to put their money where their mouth is.  Take their chance and whether they're minnow or Giant, live with the consequences.

Rugby isn't football - why do ex-players of rugby seem to think it's so easy to bandage up the injuries and go again the following week?  Because the ex-Players get money to talk at these games, that's why.  The more games, the higher their chat, blog fees .

SecretFly wrote:No................... more rugby and yet more rugby is not the answer, but eternal Greed seems to be.

Home and Away is just too much pressure in an already hard season, certainly when you have squads that are held together with glue and sticky tape like some of them are.  The Home and Away deal would again serve the interests of the teams with squads stuffed with bought-in talent.  "Oh we were kinda caught off guard in that first game by Glasgow.  But we have the second game to beat the bejaysus out of them, thank God."

No, it should remain a one shot opportunity for sides to put their money where their mouth is.  Take their chance and whether they're minnow or Giant, live with the consequences.

Rugby isn't football - why do ex-players of rugby seem to think it's so easy to bandage up the injuries and go again the following week?  Because the ex-Players get money to talk at these games, that's why.  The more games, the higher their chat, blog fees .

Ok but why not have impartial venues?

maestegmafia wrote:

Ok but why not have impartial venues?

I'd have no problem with it, maesteg. But like someone said above, plenty of fans probably would if both sets were required to travel. But on a personal level, I'd have no issue with the principle. Indeed I'd like it. Irish v French game held in Italy English v Welsh game held in France. A third of tickets to one side, a third of tickets to the other side and a third to locals..................... to go!!! Not to sell to the highest bidder on Net!

SecretFly wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Ok but why not have impartial venues?

I'd have no problem with it, maesteg.  But like someone said above, plenty of fans probably would if both sets were required to travel.  But on a personal level, I'd have no issue with the principle.  Indeed I'd like it.  Irish v French game held in Italy  English v Welsh game held in France.  A third of tickets to one side, a third of tickets to the other side and a third to locals..................... to go!!! Not to sell to the highest bidder on Net!

I would have a problem with it.

If I win my pool and you squeak in by a hair, why should I be punished for being more successful (regardless of the teams in my pool)?  I should be rewarded for success and play at home or near home.  

Just think of a Leinster-Leicester semi-final played in Murrayfield.  Neutral.  Fine Stadium.  But a pain is the bum for everyone.  Completely unworkable.  
  
Regardless of anyone's opinion, just because Greenwood put out a piece, this won't change much in the future.  The final will continue to be a one-off in a pre-planned large venue (as is the Super Bowl).  The semi-finals will eventually be openly recognised as being played in a larger venue of the home team's choice:  The current situation is bone-headed silly.  A neutral venue 50 miles from home ain't neutral.  I think that is verbal vomit to get semi-finals played in larger venues to bring in more fans and more money, whilst claiming  a veneer of neutrality.  And I don't have a problem with home semi-finals at all, but it should be open and not covered is psychobabble about neutrality and all that.

doctor_grey wrote:
I would have a problem with it.

You're the very 'someone above' I was referring to, Doc. And forgive me for being too lazy at the time to go back up and get a name check on you.

Scrap the draw, give the home country advantage to the highest seeded team in the pool phase. There is no room for more fixtures in the calendar.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's not perfect obviously. Perfect in the sense of fairness would be over 2 legs or a neutral venue but costs, player fatigue, time etc affect it.

It's perfect because we don't have enough date to have two legs in semi-final.
And even if we could there would be other problems: on two games the richer and stronger teams would have even more chance to win.
With two games we would have the away teams playing defensive rugby and trying to waste time. Instead of one good game you would have two boring games in smaller stadium.
And finally you would have teams qualified because on 5, 3 or maybe even one point of difference. If that the case the referees would be criticized even more because one penalty given or forgotten. It's a false good idea in my opinion.

Now people want neutral place. Ok, but explain me what is a neutral place to you. Because if an english team play against a french one in Cardiff or Murrayfield, I'm sorry but it isn't very "neutral" to me. And we would have more difficulties to sell all the ticket than we have now.

By the way as we are speaking about fairness, what about the referees? Sorry if I offend people here but having welsh or scottish referees when we're playing against english team (and vice versa) isn't very normal. When you play against us the referee isn't breton, basque or alsacien. Why can't we take referees from SH after the pool stage?

Best compromise may be the term you re after not perfect as it isnt. Neutral venue would be outside the countries represented or regions if the are both from the same. Wales and Scotland are different countries to England dont get your point?

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
I would have a problem with it.

You're the very 'someone above'  I was referring to, Doc.  And forgive me for being too lazy at the time to go back up and get a name check on you.

No worries, mate.  If you are writing it, I am not concerned.

If a World Cup can handle One Off quarters, semis and ONE final, then I can't see why Club think they need Home and Away to get it right?  

It's money talking.  It's a money fever right now - it's everywhere, like a virus.  It can't go on that even fans now mostly engage in boardroom/finance/TV contract chat more than they do about actual games coming or gone.
Right now, this money fever is all consuming - every last drop of sweat is wanted from players for it; playing an all-sweating high tempo game week in and week out to please the fans who have forgotten how to enjoy the finer complexities.... to attract the League fans who don't like Union at all.  And more games, for more income, for more sponsorship.  And more of them and still more of them.  
It's just not a nice mood rugby is in right now.  Not for me anyway.  
Chase the money is the biggest item on its greedy agenda.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Best compromise may be the term you re after not perfect as it isnt. Neutral venue would be outside the countries represented or regions if the are both from the same. Wales and Scotland are different countries to England dont get your point?

Sorry but Wales, Scotland and England are offically one single country: UK. Same language, similar culture. Of course there are differences like there differences between a basque, a breton and a provençal. You wouldn't imagine a breton referee for a game like Clermont vs Sarries.
It's just the old tradition in rugby which make you believe it's totally normal to have a welsh or scottish referee for an english team (not the case in this semi-finals)

But that not my main point here. My main point is the distance. Cardiff is much closer from most of english teams than most of our clubs which are in south of France. So it's not really fairer than now.

No different countries. And Cardiff would be much better than France or England for Clermont Saracens.

SecretFly wrote:If a World Cup can handle One Off quarters, semis and ONE final, then I can't see why Club think they need Home and Away to get it right?  

It's money talking.  It's a money fever right now - it's everywhere, like a virus.  It can't go on that even fans now mostly engage in boardroom/finance/TV contract chat more than they do about actual games coming or gone.
Right now, this money fever is all consuming - every last drop of sweat is wanted from players for it; playing an all-sweating high tempo game week in and week out to please the fans who have forgotten how to enjoy the finer complexities.... to attract the League fans who don't like Union at all.  And more games, for more income, for more sponsorship.  And more of them and still more of them.  
It's just not a nice mood rugby is in right now.  Not for me anyway.  
Chase the money is the biggest item on its greedy agenda.

Do you really think Greenwood was thinking money or his interpretation of fairness?  I took him as thinking the home and away semi-final was a element of fairness - though I disagree with the proposal.  

The money thing right now is a strange thing.  Rugby is professional, so we cannot separate the sport from the money.  Perhaps this is an element of a professional sport going through growing pains, but a some people involved with the sport, in all countries, are thinking bigger than the financial reach of the sport can attain at the moment.   

I believe the growth should, and will, be incremental.  Clearly a couple of Premiership club owners , some Top 14 club owners, many national unions and their organisations (OK, no one excluded here), and the television networks, want to accelerate the process beyond rational and logical limits.  But this is also the push and pull of business: Let the few push the bounds, but the majority slow the progress so all can grow together.  

I don't mind a little revolution (instead of evolution) from time to time, but I believe growth in Rugby will take time.  We have a great sport, but it can't be force fed.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No different countries. And Cardiff would be much better than France or England for Clermont Saracens.

Why better?
St Etienne give an advantage to Clermont, and Cardiff would give an advantage to Sarries. And Clermont was first in its pool and Sarries 2nd. So finally there is a justice.

doctor_grey wrote:
Do you really think Greenwood was thinking money or his interpretation of fairness?  I took him as thinking the home and away semi-final was a element of fairness - though I disagree with the proposal.

I like Greenwood.  But I do think he and others are being dragged in by this fever of more, more, more.  

It's like Soaps.  Fans want more, more, more.  One Soap isn't enough.  Fans of soaps can often watch them all on one night. They're not a fan of a particular Soap but simply addicted to the idea of Soaps.
And aren't some of them smartly timed out to allow just that to happen? Soaps not in competition with each other for time slots but actually helping each other out by having those slots in sequence.  And that's because the Networks know that the more people watch Soaps, the more they want to watch them.  It's simply an addiction - like any other.  It's smoking, it's drinking, it's a drug.

Rugby is quickly becoming like that.  Followers want the buzz to keep going.  They get withdrawal symptoms.  They want more reasons to have more of League Rugby, more European rugby.  Not for 'Fairness' but just for More Games.  More games for the sake of more games because they want rugby whenever they turn on the TV.  
I don't actually call that a love of a certain sport, I call it addiction.  I call a lot of sports now addictions.  And now that we have 24 hour Sports networks, people are saying 'why can I not be given the drug that feeds me? - why can we not be given 24 hour golf, tennis or rugby?  We should get what we want.'

Well maybe we should.  But before we do get given all that we want, we should be made admit that it isn't really Love, it's addiction.

I like rugby and then I like it to go away..and then I like it to come back and entertain me again...and go away again so that I can live a few weeks or months without it in my head.  I'm relieved when it's off air in a sense!  Rugby exhaustion can happen.

shuren34 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No different countries. And Cardiff would be much better than France or England for Clermont Saracens.

Why better?
St Etienne give an advantage to Clermont, and Cardiff would give an advantage to Sarries. And Clermont was first in its pool and Sarries 2nd. So finally there is a justice.

France gives the advantage to the French team, England to the English Welsh to neither. Pools shouldnt matter come the semis. The team finishing top has already had the advantage.

SecretFly wrote:  One Soap isn't enough.  

Were you ever in prison?

The random draw is unfair. It's gone against the Irish more than anyone and in particular Munster. Toulon have never been drawn away for a semi final.

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:  One Soap isn't enough.  

Were you ever in prison?

I always tried to get into solitary during my stays behind bars.  That's the safest place .... unless someone shares your solitary cell of course due to overcrowding

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:  One Soap isn't enough.  

Were you ever in prison?

I always tried to get into solitary during my stays behind bars.  That's the safest place .... unless someone shares your solitary cell of course due to overcrowding

Sorry mate, I couldn't resist.

On a serious note, I do agree about a real off season. For the sake of the players most of all. Rugby is already an all year sport, whether NH or SH. The benefit, or is it a paradox, or a beneficial paradox, or a paradoxical benefit (?) to more money in the sport is it can lead to a more rational season. A longer off season and more rational globally. If tv really wants full year Rugby, then we need global agreement who plays when. But that won't happen in the near term, will it?.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

shuren34 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No different countries. And Cardiff would be much better than France or England for Clermont Saracens.

Why better?
St Etienne give an advantage to Clermont, and Cardiff would give an advantage to Sarries. And Clermont was first in its pool and Sarries 2nd. So finally there is a justice.

France gives the advantage to the French team, England to the English Welsh to neither. Pools shouldnt matter come the semis. The team finishing top has already had the advantage.

Cardiff-London: 243km. Cardiff-Clermont: 1127.3 km. Of course it doesn't give advantage to an English team.  But next time we will play in Monaco or in Switzerland it would be totally neutral.
And by the way only 3 final in France for 20 years of playing. And only 1 in the 14 last finals.

It's a neutral country shuren, so no advantage, not hard to understand.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's a neutral country shuren, so no advantage, not hard to understand.

Sorry but first it isn't an official country. (the only one is UK)
And secondly this neutral ground is totally pointless if it's far closer of one team. So still an huge advantage, not hard to understand.

You're really struggling with this! both teams are having to play away from their own country and home comforts so it's neutral! They're different countries. You could play them in Belgium and i wouldn't be saying France have an advantage.

No 7&1/2 wrote: You're really struggling with this! both teams are having to play away from their own country and home comforts so it's neutral! They're different countries. You could play them in Belgium and i wouldn't be saying France have an advantage.

And you're really struggling to understand we still have an huge advantage in a country like Switzerland, Monaco or even Belgium. Closer mean more fans from our country in the stadium. And the "neutral" people (who are partially francophone) would mostly support us.
So instead of having 99% of the stadium supporting us, we would have 90%. If you can't understand that it wouldn't change anything for players, then

Course it would. If you can't see a neutral country is much more beneficial for fairness than within the country of 1 of the teams particpating it's pointless talking to you.

Does it matter? We all know winning away - against a loud home crowd - is the sweetest of all And the ability to do so usually helps in getting to a Final anyway.

To hell with advantages or none. Just play the game and have the moral victory of winning against the 'odds' if you pull an away victory off.

Too much chat these days about levelling the crowd! Level the run-away-player-salaries - that's my cry

No 7&1/2 wrote:Course it would. If you can't see a neutral country is much more beneficial for fairness than within the country of 1 of the teams particpating it's pointless talking to you.

I think it's the only thing I agree with you. I have lost enough time with your stupid whining.

Don't be insulting.

The only way to make neutral venues work (financially) would be to have a semi final double header rotated between stadium capable of holding 60k plus. TV would not want that though.

LondonTiger wrote:The only way to make neutral venues work (financially) would be to have a semi final double header rotated between stadium capable of holding 60k plus. TV would not want that though.

Neither would poor fans looking for beds...that weren't extortionately hiked in price!

whocares wrote:Maybe they should play the 1st half home and 2nd half away...

Ah but then we would still get 'well they had the first half, it is unfair'

A different Ref per half?

SecretFly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:The only way to make neutral venues work (financially) would be to have a semi final double header rotated between stadium capable of holding 60k plus. TV would not want that though.

Neither would poor fans looking for beds...that weren't extortionately hiked in price!

Sir,
Poor fans do NOT get beds.  They sleep in the gutter as is their wont.  They smell bad too.  
Only the proper and well-heeled get beds.    
Have you no sense of shame?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU