Rugby Champions Cup 2015-16 - Tiers

First topic message reminder :

Early days I know to be thinking about the RCC for 2015-16 with the Top 14 still not passed through the semi final stage, but as things stand this seems how the four tiers will work out:

Tier 1 – Glasgow, Saracens, Winner Top14 final, one of Munster/Bath/Loser Top 14 final, one of Munster/Bath/Loser Top 14 final

Tier 2 – one of Munster/Bath/Loser Top 14 final, Ospreys, Northampton, better Top 14 losing SF, one of Ulster/Leicester/worse Top 14 losing SF

Tier 3 - one of Ulster/Leicester/worse Top 14 losing SF, one of Ulster/Leicester/worse Top 14 losing SF, Leinster, Exeter, Racing Metro

Tier 4 – Scarlets, Wasps, Oyonnax, Treviso, Bordeaux

For Tiers 1 and 2, anybody know how the two from Munster, Bath and the losing Top 14 finalist who will go into Tier 1 and the one from that group who will go into Tier 2 will be picked - do they pick them out of a hat or what?.  Likewise for Tier 2 and 3, do they pick one from Ulster, Leicester and the worse Top 14 semi-finalist  to go into Tier 2 and the two others go into Tier 3.

From a Leinster point of view we're paying for our sh1te season and could potentially face the Top 14 winner - presume it'll be Toulon of Clermont, Bath and Scarlets - not a nice prospect.  Alternatively we could face Saracens, Northampton and Treviso - not easy but certainly more palatable. Quite happy to be in same tier as Exeter - wouldn't fancy playing them.  

Lots of permutations for all you fans of the other 19 teams to contemplate

****

Edit: Draw has now been made for both competitions and the pools look like this:

2015/16 Champions Cup pools

Pool 1: Saracens, Ulster Rugby, Toulouse, Oyonnax
Pool 2: ASM Clermont Auvergne, Ospreys, Exeter Chiefs, Bordeaux-Bègles
Pool 3: Glasgow Warriors, Northampton Saints, Racing 92, Scarlets
Pool 4: Stade Français Rugby, Munster Rugby, Leicester Tigers, Benetton Treviso
Pool 5: Bath Rugby, RC Toulon, Leinster Rugby, Wasps

2015/16 Challenge Cup pools

Pool 1: Connacht Rugby, Brive, Newcastle Falcons, Eniset-STM
Pool 2: Sale Sharks, Newport Gwent Dragons, Castres Olympique, Pau
Pool 3: Montpellier, Harlequins, Cardiff Blues, Cammi Rugby Calvisano
Pool 4: La Rochelle, Gloucester Rugby, Zebre Rugby, Worcester Warriors
Pool 5: Edinburgh Rugby, London Irish, Grenoble, Agen

There's only been 1 set of knock outs yet so you can't possibly say that.

I'd say the pool stages are less predictable in terms of results (although we haven't got much data to compare yet). Last season you had sides qualifying for the knock-outs after two losses and qualification going down to the wire in many cases. It seemed a lot more cut and dried in the past especially when you had two Italian sides etc giving out 10 points.

Having fewer sides (and an increase in overall quality) will mean more sides being matched together more often. It's a small price to pay though, especially as it increases rivalries and talk of 'payback' always raises interest. There's already talk of Ulster 'owing' Sarries for previous results and not wanting Ashton to run riot against them again.

Cyril

The problem with that is developing rivalries between the same small number of clubs is great for fans of those small number of clubs only!

With less teams, and a higher ratio of teams from Fance and England, the tournament has to be stale for a lot of fans, I imagine a large TV viewing fanbase from Cardiff losing interest, and to a lesser extent Edinburgh.

You mention last season having sides losing 2 games and qualifying, and qualifications going down to the wire, are we just talking about the 2 occasions? And who cares outside of the 3/4 clubs involved?

For me the beauty of a tournament like the Heineken cup, was always that qualification was possible, and a cup run doable, like the FA cup, cindarella stories could emerge, see Edinburgh a few years back, Leinsters first title, and Cardiff's semi final loss to Leicester. This tournament now kills that possibility off, I am happy to name half of the teams in this tournament and write them off of qualification through the groups, thats not very inspirational from an outside perspective.

Lastly the quality of the playing squads have definitely gone up, but has the average performance quality? Do we want to see huge talented squads not trying, or lesser quality squads fighting tooth and nail for their best ever finish, first win, first qualification etc?

That was reduced anyway Fanster with the french clubs moving to a strong position in the H Cup. Qualification is still possible for everyone within the 3 leagues. You seem to now be moving away from an open stance to a more pro Pro 12 stance.

My stance is pro 12 right now, because I generally take the stance of the minority/victim/good of the game.

If money rules all the pro12 are the underdogs, and are the party recently bullied to allow power to be in France and England, its always natural to see the underdogs view first, and from everything I have read and know it's hard to see past powerhouses stepping on the small guy for financial gain, look at what happened to Treviso, who were undoubtedly the huge victims in this power struggle. Italian rugby has probably been set back 10 years!

Cyril wrote:I'd say the pool stages are less predictable in terms of results (although we haven't got much data to compare yet). Last season you had sides qualifying for the knock-outs after two losses and qualification going down to the wire in many cases. It seemed a lot more cut and dried in the past especially when you had two Italian sides etc giving out 10 points.

Having fewer sides (and an increase in overall quality) will mean more sides being matched together more often. It's a small price to pay though, especially as it increases rivalries and talk of 'payback' always raises interest. There's already talk of Ulster 'owing' Sarries for previous results and not wanting Ashton to run riot against them again.

Well they aren't more unpredictable because the tighter pools mean less away wins and less bonus points, which leads to pretty predictable results and less adventurous play.

Teams qualifying with 3 losses just means in certain pools a side can get tonked and still make the KO stages just by winning their home games, whereas in the past sides needed 19-20 points to qualify - so for me its less intense and competitive.

Agree with Fansters post.

Fanster wrote:My stance is pro 12 right now, because I generally take the stance of the minority/victim/good of the game.

If money rules all the pro12 are the underdogs, and are the party recently bullied to allow power to be in France and England, its always natural to see the underdogs view first, and from everything I have read and know it's hard to see past powerhouses stepping on the small guy for financial gain, look at what happened to Treviso, who were undoubtedly the huge victims in this power struggle. Italian rugby has probably been set back 10 years!

Why are they underdogs in Europe? Europe clearly needed to change to balance the 3 leagues out. You've already stated that Treviso don't deserve to be in Europe.

rodders wrote:

Cyril wrote:I'd say the pool stages are less predictable in terms of results (although we haven't got much data to compare yet). Last season you had sides qualifying for the knock-outs after two losses and qualification going down to the wire in many cases. It seemed a lot more cut and dried in the past especially when you had two Italian sides etc giving out 10 points.

Having fewer sides (and an increase in overall quality) will mean more sides being matched together more often. It's a small price to pay though, especially as it increases rivalries and talk of 'payback' always raises interest. There's already talk of Ulster 'owing' Sarries for previous results and not wanting Ashton to run riot against them again.

Well they aren't more unpredictable because the tighter pools mean less away wins and less bonus points, which leads to pretty predictable results and less adventurous play.

Teams qualifying with 3 losses just means in certain pools a side can get tonked and still make the KO stages just by winning their home games, whereas in the past sides needed 19-20 points to qualify - so for me its less intense and competitive.

Agree with Fansters post.

It's easy to spin it one way or another depending on what you're looking for. Tight pools can be seen as exciting, close finishes or boring, nervy grinds.

Just out of interest, If the quality has gone up then why were Sale and Castres this years embaressments? Didn't Treviso manage at least a win?

Does this highlight the competition level being higher? Or that squads are higher quality, but only when interested?

Did you watch the Sale games? They were close on the whole despite defeats. If you purely look at stats and ignore the actual games you're right they didn't compete.

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:

Cyril wrote:I'd say the pool stages are less predictable in terms of results (although we haven't got much data to compare yet). Last season you had sides qualifying for the knock-outs after two losses and qualification going down to the wire in many cases. It seemed a lot more cut and dried in the past especially when you had two Italian sides etc giving out 10 points.

Having fewer sides (and an increase in overall quality) will mean more sides being matched together more often. It's a small price to pay though, especially as it increases rivalries and talk of 'payback' always raises interest. There's already talk of Ulster 'owing' Sarries for previous results and not wanting Ashton to run riot against them again.

Well they aren't more unpredictable because the tighter pools mean less away wins and less bonus points, which leads to pretty predictable results and less adventurous play.

Teams qualifying with 3 losses just means in certain pools a side can get tonked and still make the KO stages just by winning their home games, whereas in the past sides needed 19-20 points to qualify - so for me its less intense and competitive.

Agree with Fansters post.

It's easy to spin it one way or another depending on what you're looking for. Tight pools can be seen as exciting, close finishes or boring, nervy grinds.

That is a good point Cyril, tighter pools do make the group stage more exciting and open, but when away teams rarely get the points it is only exciting come round 6, and well by then there are always teams who have given up the ghost like Sales 65-10 drubbing to Munster.

Thats the problem with only wanting bigeer and better teams, when you get them from 2 main leagues, half of the teams from those 2 leagues will priorities qualification into the euro comp the season after, than qualification from the group stage, as it adds no monetary gain and adds extra fixtures to an already conjested schedule, of which the pressure to qualify is massive.

The same will happen to the Pro 12 teams too, and direclty forced upon them by the PRL LNR coup, what Is Treviso's, Ospreys, Scarlet's, Ulster's, Connacht's and Edinburghs motivation to qualify through their groups, when they have to focus on ensuring a spot in next years competition first and foremost?

The idea of teams not really wanting to qualify through the group is now amongst all 3 leagues, it's been likened to Bradford FC not wanting to win the FA'Carling cup a few years ago because they couldn't afford the fixture schedule etc that comes with it and wanted to gain promotion in the league.

'There are also the huge differences between quality, the gulf between the haves and have nots is getting stupid, at least when the gulfs were big and people whinged it was for rugby reasons, right now is he who spends most...

Treviso don't deserve to be in european competition if we're being honest, theyre tearing themselves apart at the seams.'

If we increased money more for teams progressing further wouldn't this just add your issue of the rich getting richer fanster?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:My stance is pro 12 right now, because I generally take the stance of the minority/victim/good of the game.

If money rules all the pro12 are the underdogs, and are the party recently bullied to allow power to be in France and England, its always natural to see the underdogs view first, and from everything I have read and know it's hard to see past powerhouses stepping on the small guy for financial gain, look at what happened to Treviso, who were undoubtedly the huge victims in this power struggle. Italian rugby has probably been set back 10 years!

Why are they underdogs in Europe? Europe clearly needed to change to balance the 3 leagues out. You've already stated that Treviso don't deserve to be in Europe.

Because their squad includes a ton of semi pro players, and they are awfull, due to losing 20 first team players during the PRL/LNR coup and not knowing if they would exist, or if there were going under.

The Pro 12 teams (notice I do not class them as a league combined, as they are a group of 4 unions/nations trying to survive by combining) are of course the Underdogs, just look at the budgets most of the teams are having to work with compared to their English/French equivilants, and to be honest i'm not sure the PRL had though enough through this change as the French clubs are becoming stupid rich, with the likes of Montpellier, Pau, and others signing top class players and become powerhouses themselves.

Lets use the examples of nationality transfer trends, is there a flow of English or French top class players moving to Pro 12 clubs?

I see it only as a matter of time before this tournament folds, but not before the French dominate all semi final slots, and / or the South Africans are involved etc...

The mask truly is slipping now.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:My stance is pro 12 right now, because I generally take the stance of the minority/victim/good of the game.

If money rules all the pro12 are the underdogs, and are the party recently bullied to allow power to be in France and England, its always natural to see the underdogs view first, and from everything I have read and know it's hard to see past powerhouses stepping on the small guy for financial gain, look at what happened to Treviso, who were undoubtedly the huge victims in this power struggle. Italian rugby has probably been set back 10 years!

Why are they underdogs in Europe? Europe clearly needed to change to balance the 3 leagues out. You've already stated that Treviso don't deserve to be in Europe.

The irony there is that it's the French clubs that didn't turn up for games. How did that effect the balance of the championship? Turning up for maybe a couple of games and then basically conceding the remaining games before actually playing them. Maybe it is they that didn't deserve to be there. Treviso deserve to be there if they qualify as the best in their country.

Cyril wrote:The mask truly is slipping now.

Because I've made points you can't respond to?

Lets make it a bit easier, would the competition have suffered without Sale and Castres this year? Lets say there were 2 Pro 12 teams instead... Cardiff Blues and Edinburgh?

For the record, if this was a Pro 12 thread I would be slating the Welsh and Irish for not allowing the Italians to be competitive...

If this were a Top14 thread i'd be slating the likes of Toulon and Cleremont for pillaging the likes of Castres, who come off the back of a championship and great couple of seasons to lose their coaching team and a number of key first team players...

If this was an Aviva thread I could go on all day about the PRL, championship promotion debacle etc...

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:My stance is pro 12 right now, because I generally take the stance of the minority/victim/good of the game.

If money rules all the pro12 are the underdogs, and are the party recently bullied to allow power to be in France and England, its always natural to see the underdogs view first, and from everything I have read and know it's hard to see past powerhouses stepping on the small guy for financial gain, look at what happened to Treviso, who were undoubtedly the huge victims in this power struggle. Italian rugby has probably been set back 10 years!

Why are they underdogs in Europe? Europe clearly needed to change to balance the 3 leagues out. You've already stated that Treviso don't deserve to be in Europe.

The irony there is that it's the French clubs that didn't turn up for games. How did that effect the balance of the championship? Turning up for maybe a couple of games and then basically conceding the remaining games before actually playing them. Maybe it is they that didn't deserve to be there. Treviso deserve to be there if they qualify as the best in their country.

I'd say the worst culprits in this first competition (I keep forgetting sometimes this is just the first year, and noone knows where the trends will be) were Sale, they were a total waste of time from the off!

Also I think it's worth mentioning that Leinster were taght a valuable lesson this year, trying to compete on both fronts cost them a top 4 finish.

I would suggest that Leinster need a trophy next year, and i'm willing to bet that won't come through europe.

Fanster wrote:Also I think it's worth mentioning that Leinster were taght a valuable lesson this year, trying to compete on both fronts cost them a top 4 finish.

I would suggest that Leinster need a trophy next year, and i'm willing to bet that won't come through europe.

I think the biggest challenge for Leinster was fielding competitive teams in the PRO12 and the championship after having the squad so depleted by so many players representing Ireland. That and having a coach that didn't bring out the best in those players he was left with.
They have Sexton back next season, and if they manage to employ a great head coach then they might make it out of their group. I don't think anyone but a French team will win it though.

Fanster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:My stance is pro 12 right now, because I generally take the stance of the minority/victim/good of the game.

If money rules all the pro12 are the underdogs, and are the party recently bullied to allow power to be in France and England, its always natural to see the underdogs view first, and from everything I have read and know it's hard to see past powerhouses stepping on the small guy for financial gain, look at what happened to Treviso, who were undoubtedly the huge victims in this power struggle. Italian rugby has probably been set back 10 years!

Why are they underdogs in Europe? Europe clearly needed to change to balance the 3 leagues out. You've already stated that Treviso don't deserve to be in Europe.

The irony there is that it's the French clubs that didn't turn up for games. How did that effect the balance of the championship? Turning up for maybe a couple of games and then basically conceding the remaining games before actually playing them. Maybe it is they that didn't deserve to be there. Treviso deserve to be there if they qualify as the best in their country.

I'd say the worst culprits in this first competition (I keep forgetting sometimes this is just the first year, and noone knows where the trends will be) were Sale, they were a total waste of time from the off!

Sale offered a few really good performances and the comp certainly shouldnt go back to more Pro 12 teams. As has been said before teams from the same league playing each bore people you d have more of it.

Munchkin wrote:

Fanster wrote:Also I think it's worth mentioning that Leinster were taght a valuable lesson this year, trying to compete on both fronts cost them a top 4 finish.

I would suggest that Leinster need a trophy next year, and i'm willing to bet that won't come through europe.

I think the biggest challenge for Leinster was fielding competitive teams in the PRO12 and the championship after having the squad so depleted by so many players representing Ireland. That and having a coach that didn't bring out the best in those players he was left with.
They have Sexton back next season, and if they manage to employ a great head coach then they might make it out of their group. I don't think anyone but a French team will win it though.

Well if any team managed to employ a great coach they'd start to see success and look at getting out of their group, are there many great coaches available?

The Irish model is so to develop international talent, it always has been and they have always been competitive in recent seasons, is the cost of keeping these internationals effecting squad depth?

I personally don't see Leinster qualifying this year, and they would be better served not trying too hard.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:My stance is pro 12 right now, because I generally take the stance of the minority/victim/good of the game.

If money rules all the pro12 are the underdogs, and are the party recently bullied to allow power to be in France and England, its always natural to see the underdogs view first, and from everything I have read and know it's hard to see past powerhouses stepping on the small guy for financial gain, look at what happened to Treviso, who were undoubtedly the huge victims in this power struggle. Italian rugby has probably been set back 10 years!

Why are they underdogs in Europe? Europe clearly needed to change to balance the 3 leagues out. You've already stated that Treviso don't deserve to be in Europe.

The irony there is that it's the French clubs that didn't turn up for games. How did that effect the balance of the championship? Turning up for maybe a couple of games and then basically conceding the remaining games before actually playing them. Maybe it is they that didn't deserve to be there. Treviso deserve to be there if they qualify as the best in their country.

I'd say the worst culprits in this first competition (I keep forgetting sometimes this is just the first year, and noone knows where the trends will be) were Sale, they were a total waste of time from the off!

Sale offered a few really good performances and the comp certainly shouldnt go back to more Pro 12 teams. As has been said before teams from the same league playing each bore people you d have more of it.

Luckily for me I'm not one saying that the Pro12 is a league product, but moreover a product of 4 nations combined.

And i'm pretty sure had Sale and Castres been replaced by 2 Pro 12 teams there would be exactly the same number of same league clashes, except there would be 2 more competitive teams!

So now your not about a higher quality of tournament but about a more diverse tournament? You see how all your anti Pro 12 nation biases are looking more and more flawed the more you beat around the bush and avoid the points I make?

You clearly didn t watch all Sales games or you wouldn t be saying they didnt put up a fight. You said Treviso didnt deserve their spot in this thread not me. The 3 leagues need to be treated equally. You keep changing your argument from too many boring games to fairness to quality to equality.

Fanster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Fanster wrote:Also I think it's worth mentioning that Leinster were taght a valuable lesson this year, trying to compete on both fronts cost them a top 4 finish.

I would suggest that Leinster need a trophy next year, and i'm willing to bet that won't come through europe.

I think the biggest challenge for Leinster was fielding competitive teams in the PRO12 and the championship after having the squad so depleted by so many players representing Ireland. That and having a coach that didn't bring out the best in those players he was left with.
They have Sexton back next season, and if they manage to employ a great head coach then they might make it out of their group. I don't think anyone but a French team will win it though.

Well if any team managed to employ a great coach they'd start to see success and look at getting out of their group, are there many great coaches available?

The Irish model is so to develop international talent, it always has been and they have always been competitive in recent seasons, is the cost of keeping these internationals effecting squad depth?

I personally don't see Leinster qualifying this year, and they would be better served not trying too hard.

I don't know who is available on the coaching front. Contracts are made to be broken, so I wouldn't rule many out. I think it's likely that any coach they do get will arrive after the RWC. Same as Ulster.
No, I don't think the cost of keeping the internationals is effecting squad depth. Keeping these internationals can only increase squad depth, even if not during internationals. The Provinces have had a difficult past season with coaches leaving, coaches replaced, one coach struggling, injuries and so on. They will improve, although I don't think we will witness any real improvement until the 2016/17 season.

Pool 5 is a tough pool for any side to get out of. Especially with it being a RWC year I can't see Leinster getting out of the group, but still possible. Toulon were there to be beaten last season. I wasn't in awe of them.

A few things don't really make sense to me.

Well they aren't more unpredictable because the tighter pools mean less away wins and less bonus points, which leads to pretty predictable results and less adventurous play.

Teams qualifying with 3 losses just means in certain pools a side can get tonked and still make the KO stages just by winning their home games, whereas in the past sides needed 19-20 points to qualify - so for me its less intense and competitive.

Agree with Fansters post.

That doesn't make sense. Previously you needed 19-20 points because they're were easy pools as anyone with Italians would probably get at least one away win. Not only that but by needing 19-20 points meant that after a couple of wins you have no realistic chance. That's why, going into the last round, every team was pretty much known, seeding was the only thing being decided. How is that more competitive? Now, were have teams that make the quarters even without winning their first two games. Perhaps they weren't the teams you wanted to go through and that had more bearing on the lack of intensity for you?[quote]

And i'm pretty sure had Sale and Castres been replaced by 2 Pro 12 teams there would be exactly the same number of same league clashes, except there would be 2 more competitive teams!

Sale were with the Pro12 finalists, GP winners and T14 finalists. What makes you think that anyone else would have done any better? Castres were the lowest qualifying French team and didn't qualify for the next season. What would you prefer? Under the previous system Pro12 teams were often making up the bottom of the pools but were there year on year. Note both Sale and Castres aren't in the competition next year.

I don't why I bothered writing this.

Triple post

Quad post

You feeling ok, Hammer

HammerofThunor wrote:A few things don't really make sense to me.

Well they aren't more unpredictable because the tighter pools mean less away wins and less bonus points, which leads to pretty predictable results and less adventurous play.

Teams qualifying with 3 losses just means in certain pools a side can get tonked and still make the KO stages just by winning their home games, whereas in the past sides needed 19-20 points to qualify - so for me its less intense and competitive.

Agree with Fansters post.

That doesn't make sense. Previously you needed 19-20 points because they're were easy pools as anyone with Italians would probably get at least one away win.  

Well it does because, there is less incentive now for teams to go for bonus points because there are tighter and more predictable pools. Previously you had 3-4 pools where only 1 team could realistically qualify and 2-3 maybe where there was a chance for the runner up.

There was also the incentive of amlin qualification for 2 more teams and European ranking points at stake, so for all but a few teams there was something to play for until the final round.

Now you have 5 pools and 3 runner up spots, no second tier qualification or points for next years qualification - its a duller, more predictable and devalued competition.

Sorry rodders have to disagree. Tighter pools mean teams have to go for the bonus as it could make the difference between qualifying or not. If you had 3-4 pools where only 1 team could realistically qualify that is quite predictable!

To me it looks much more like balls-to-the-wall Rugby in every pool.  Even the pool with Treviso has three other teams which could knock the stuffing out of each other.  Not sure how Onionax or Bordeaux Bagels will get on, but every other team has at least a puncher's chance to beat any other team in their respective pools.  Pools could easily be won by the occasional bonus point earned or denied at the end of the matches.  

On paper, for whatever that's worth, it looks like a tough exciting competition to me.

If 15/16 points is enough to qualify versus 19/20 in the old comp then this is not an incentive to go for bonus points but to settle for the win and play conservative rugby, especially away from home.

The only thing I really  don't like is how the runners up positions are going to be decided. That still seems to be linked to who gets the worst performing teams in their group.

Well if you accept that only 1 team will go through from pool 5 it makes the other pools fairly predictable and pointless.

rodders wrote:Well if you accept that only 1 team will go through from pool 5 it makes the other pools fairly predictable and pointless.

How?

last year didnt 2 teams emerged from the so called pool of death?

LondonTiger wrote:

rodders wrote:Well if you accept that only 1 team will go through from pool 5 it makes the other pools fairly predictable and pointless.

How?

I would say it's predictable that the pools with Treviso and Oyannax will have two of the runners up, and also that only one team will qualify from pool 5.

whocares wrote:last year didnt 2 teams emerged from the so called pool of death?

Only one team from Toulons pool.

Munchkin wrote:

whocares wrote:last year didnt 2 teams emerged from the so called pool of death?

Only one team from Toulons pool.

was referrign to the clermont/sarries/munster one...

whocares wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

whocares wrote:last year didnt 2 teams emerged from the so called pool of death?

Only one team from Toulons pool.

was referrign to the clermont/sarries/munster one...

I know, whocares, but the Toulon pool would have been very close to the 'pool of death', and only one qualified which was fairly predictable.

Munchkin wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

rodders wrote:Well if you accept that only 1 team will go through from pool 5 it makes the other pools fairly predictable and pointless.

How?

I would say it's predictable that the pools with Treviso and Oyannax will have two of the runners up, and also that only one team will qualify from pool 5.

In what way is that different from any other year? If it is so predictable - then name who will qualify.

doctor_grey wrote:To me it looks much more like balls-to-the-wall Rugby in every pool.  Even the pool with Treviso has three other teams which could knock the stuffing out of each other.  Not sure how Onionax or Bordeaux Bagels will get on, but every other team has at least a puncher's chance to beat any other team in their respective pools.  Pools could easily be won by the occasional bonus point earned or denied at the end of the matches.  

On paper, for whatever that's worth, it looks like a tough exciting competition to me.  

It's tough, but it's missing the magic of a Cardiff Blues or a Connacht giant killing team as far as I'm concerned.

LondonTiger wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

rodders wrote:Well if you accept that only 1 team will go through from pool 5 it makes the other pools fairly predictable and pointless.

How?

I would say it's predictable that the pools with Treviso and Oyannax will have two of the runners up, and also that only one team will qualify from pool 5.

In what way is that different from any other year? If it is so predictable - then name who will qualify.

It was fairly predictable that runner ups would emerge from pools with Italian sides in the HEC. Difference is there was only two. Now we have three. So 5 top finishers in the pools + 3 as opposed to 6 + 2. Which seems fairer?

"If it is so predictable - then name who will qualify."

The winners and runner ups from pools with Treviso and Oyannax in them. That's what I said.....

That still leaves 1 runner up spot when before it was prdictably the 2 pools with the Italians in.

FFS Munchkin, are you being deliberately obtuse?

Can you name the teams who will qualify or not?

At the moment you have named the finishing positions - well whoop-de-doo. We could all have done that in the past, with a high level of accuracy.

Just like last year we should expect qualification to go right down to the last game for the majority of the 1/4 finalists.

broadlandboy wrote:That still leaves 1 runner up spot when before it was prdictably the 2 pools with the Italians in.

I doubt the last runner up will come from pool 5, so that leaves pools 2 & 3. Out of those two pools I would think pool two. So 2nd placed teams from pools one, two and four likely to qualify.

LondonTiger wrote:FFS Munchkin, are you being deliberately obtuse?

Can you name the teams who will qualify or not?

At the moment you have named the finishing positions - well whoop-de-doo. We could all have done that in the past, with a high level of accuracy.

Just like last year we should expect qualification to go right down to the last game for the majority of the 1/4 finalists.

If you can engage your brain for at least a few seconds you will find that I have stated that those pools with 2nd place qualifiers are fairly predictable. I have never stated I know who those teams may be.

Now back in your box.

Edit: Removed one comment.

But you still hav'nt named the teams. You said the winners & runners up from pools 1 & 4 but hav'nt said which 2 from the remaining 3 in each pool will qualify.

broadlandboy wrote:But you still hav'nt named the teams. You said the winners & runners up from pools 1 & 4 but hav'nt said which 2 from the remaining 3 in each pool will qualify.

Is this so incredibly difficult to understand?

Q: What is predictable? A: 2nd place qualifiers from pools containing certain teams.

Other than predicting that a pool 5 2nd place qualifier is unlikely, that's it, blb. Nothing more from me. Now I could go on and try and predict which teams will finish in the top two of their pools, as others have done already, but that has nothing to do with the points I made.