2018-2019 Champions Cup

troyzer

Heymans wrote: »

Snickers Man wrote: »

I ran my own numbers and came up with something similar. I'm now projecting the q finals as being:

Saracens v Glasgow
Racing v Ulster
Leinster v Toulouse
Edinburgh v Munster


I think Munster will win their group but they will need to be VERY lucky to get a home draw. Could happen though.

Similarly, I can't see Leinster overtaking Racing, so the French side will likely be drawn against Ulster with Leinster meeting their group rivals Toulouse...again.

And what’s your predictions for the semis?

Something needs to be done with the format if three of the four quarter finals involve group rematches.

molloyjh

troyzer wrote: »

Something needs to be done with the format if three of the four quarter finals involve group rematches.

Why? It's unlikely to happen but is a perfectly valid outcome none-the-less.

The Lost Sheep

troyzer wrote: »

Something needs to be done with the format if three of the four quarter finals involve group rematches.

What do you change then? It happened a bit in old format when just 2 runners up qualified that one or both runners up ended up playing the team that had won their group.

troyzer

molloyjh wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

Something needs to be done with the format if three of the four quarter finals involve group rematches.

Why? It's unlikely to happen but is a perfectly valid outcome none-the-less.

I dunno, just seems to take away from it a bit.

Maybe I'm wrong.

CatFromHue

you'd have to bring in a specific rule to stop group rematches in the QFs but that would make the seeding a bit unfair.

if you finished 6th and were to play against a team you already played against you can only drop down to 7th with the team who finished 7th moving to 6th.

but if it's team 7th or 8th who is going to need changing than it gets a bit trickier, trickier philosophically speaking.

Riskymove

troyzer wrote: »

I dunno, just seems to take away from it a bit.

Maybe I'm wrong.

there has only been one pool rematch in all QFs in the new system so it would be a freak outcome to have 3 in one year

Eod100

So here's how things stand going into rounds 5 and 6.


1) Racing, 19 points, 66 PD
2) Saracens, 18 points, 67 PD
3) Toulouse, 17 points, 26 PD
4) Edinburgh, 15 points, 51 PD
5) Munster, 12 points, 38 PD
6) Leinster, 15 points, 82 PD
7) Glasgow, 14 points, 38 PD
8) Ulster, 14 points, - 2 PD

Some big games ahead.

Gloucester v Munster, Leinster v Toulouse and Ulster v Racing look like the most significant ones.

Not sure Munster will have enough for an away win. Would expect Leinster to beat Toulouse at home. Racing should beat Ulster at home

Cookiemunster

Eod100 wrote: »

So here's how things stand going into rounds 5 and 6.


1) Racing, 19 points, 66 PD
2) Saracens, 18 points, 67 PD
3) Toulouse, 17 points, 26 PD
4) Edinburgh, 15 points, 51 PD
5) Munster, 12 points, 38 PD
6) Leinster, 15 points, 82 PD
7) Glasgow, 14 points, 38 PD
8) Ulster, 14 points, - 2 PD

Some big games ahead.

Gloucester v Munster, Leinster v Toulouse and Ulster v Racing look like the most significant ones.

Not sure Munster will have enough for an away win. Would expect Leinster to beat Toulouse at home. Racing should beat Ulster at home

After the last two games each side has played, I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion.

Eod100

Cookiemunster wrote: »

After the last two games each side has played, I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion.

Was more about managing expectations than a definitive statement on result tbh! Would love if we got the win. And after wins over Leinster and Connacht and return of players to fitness, will definitely have spring in our step alright. Didn't see Sale and Tigers matches but would have thought Glaws would have had enough. Think Cipriani is big loss for them. Tom Savage also out now.

Flipside is they will naturally be hungry for a win after last 2 defeats and in front of home crowd but would be great to get win over them.

troyzer

Champions Cup could be downsized in bid to protect player welfare (via @IrishTimes)

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/european-cup/champions-cup-could-be-downsized-in-bid-to-protect-player-welfare-1.3750338

Burkie1203

https://twitter.com/IrishTimesSport/status/1082346652164182017?s=19

troyzer

Burkie1203 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/IrishTimesSport/status/1082346652164182017?s=19

Mate, I literally just posted that.

One post above you.

Squidgy Black

troyzer wrote: »

Mate, I literally just posted that.

One post above you.

Your link doesn't work.

Burkie1203

troyzer wrote: »

Mate, I literally just posted that.

One post above you.

The link opens to some weird Boards poem for me

troyzer

Oh yeah, that's really weird.

I hate mobile.

Diabhal Beag

troyzer's link is abstract art. It's an unpleasant piece from some random Trinity drop-out with a little mirror at the back to look deep inside your deepest soul and decide do you, random punter, want to step aside like a coward and let them ruin our H-cup yet again.

errlloyd

I actually don't understand how we're here. The two European cups are arguably good for welfare. Most teams only play 6 out of 9 weekends. In the challenge cup most teams rest their firsts for all 6 games. In the champions cup most teams end up sending the seconds for at least one game.

Pretty much every club makes more match day revenue in Europe and has a third jersey they sell just for it. I can't understand why you'd change it. Other than Irish teams are winning again.

awec

errlloyd wrote: »

I actually don't understand how we're here. The two European cups are arguably good for welfare. Most teams only play 6 out of 9 weekends. In the challenge cup most teams rest their firsts for all 6 games. In the champions cup most teams end up sending the seconds for at least one game.

Pretty much every club makes more match day revenue in Europe and has a third jersey they sell just for it. I can't understand why you'd change it. Other than Irish teams are winning again.

English and French teams make more money from their league, so they don't want to change those.

Sirius Boner

It's the English sides flexing their muscles again... we've seen it before....even though many here said it wouldn't happen...it did...and again... the posturing has started..
If they want to drop it to 16 sides .. then they will look to cut at least 2 Pro14 sides from the competition imo

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

I actually don't understand how we're here. The two European cups are arguably good for welfare. Most teams only play 6 out of 9 weekends. In the challenge cup most teams rest their firsts for all 6 games. In the champions cup most teams end up sending the seconds for at least one game.

Pretty much every club makes more match day revenue in Europe and has a third jersey they sell just for it. I can't understand why you'd change it. Other than Irish teams are winning again.

It's a nothing article looking to wind up exactly the people it has successfully wound up. Halliday didn't even mention downsizing the competition.

Something in club rugby will have to give to make the global calendar work, but awec is wrong that the English make more money out of the Premiership than European rugby. They know what side their bread is buttered.

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's a nothing article looking to wind up exactly the people it has successfully wound up. Halliday didn't even mention downsizing the competition.

Something in club rugby will have to give to make the global calendar work, but awec is wrong that the English make more money out of the Premiership than European rugby. They know what side their bread is buttered.

There's no growth in Europe for the English though.

They want to grow the Premiership and present it as the forefront global competition. It's hard to do that when Europe is placed on a higher pedastal by the Pro14 teams and when their players are being flogged to death and unavailable for a lot of games.

If curbing Europe means more top players available for the Premiership, they'll see that as a win that adds value to the Premiership brand.

irishbucsfan

troyzer wrote: »

There's no growth in Europe for the English though.

They want to grow the Premiership and present it as the forefront global competition. It's hard to do that when Europe is placed on a higher pedastal by the Pro14 teams and when their players are being flogged to death and unavailable for a lot of games.

If curbing Europe means more top players available for the Premiership, they'll see that as a win that adds value to the Premiership brand.

This is an example of creating a fantasy and then jumping backwards through hoops until it makes sense

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is an example of creating a fantasy and then jumping backwards through hoops until it makes sense

In what way? We know for a fact that with the exception of teams like Saracens who can afford to win both competitions, most teams would rather win the Premiership. It's their primary competition.

We also know that the long term strategy of the Premiership is to grow the grand and market it as the Premier league of rugby. Much like soccer is. They want people from all over the world to watch the best teams play each other every weekend and it's why they brought on such a huge media partner with a history of doing exactly that.

And it's no secret that when things get tough, the English club owners are incredibly selfish and would rather throw European rugby under the bus to save/make a few quid. If they're being screamed at by the RFU, World Rugby and their own players/coaches that they need to start taking player welfare seriously then going off previous form they're going to want to do it by cutting European rugby first.

It's not a fantasy at all, it's entirely consistent with everything they do.

irishbucsfan

troyzer wrote: »

We know for a fact that with the exception of teams like Saracens who can afford to win both competitions, most teams would rather win the Premiership. It's their primary competition.

Where is this fact laid out?

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Where is this fact laid out?

Well the fact that they haven't won the competition since 2008, if you exclude Saracens who are a special case, suggests that they don't get up for European rugby.

It's easy for us to **** on the Premiership and laud the Pro14 as the superior league because of how often Pro14 teams win in Europe but there are some incredible Premiership teams that don't seem to get up for Europe.

There was a Guardian article back in April talking about this around the time that the Premiership was talking about re-structureing. At the time there were leaks that the feeling among club owners was that Europe wasn't a big enough allure because half of the Premiership teams were in it anyway, it wasn't special. Reducing their involvement in Europe would allow for better player welfare and more emphasis on the Premiership.

Assuming of course they didn't just add more domestic fixtures, entirely possible.

Former Former

That article doesn't actually say it's the English who want to scale it back. Maybe it's the French. Maybe it's someone else. Maybe no one wants it and it is just one idea on a long list of suggestions for the future of the tournament.

troyzer

Former Former wrote: »

That article doesn't actually say it's the English who want to scale it back. Maybe it's the French. Maybe it's someone else. Maybe no one wants it and it is just one idea on a long list of suggestions for the future of the tournament.

Possibly, the English do have form on this though.

I'd be shocked if it wasn't them.

irishbucsfan

troyzer wrote: »

Well the fact that they haven't won the competition since 2008, if you exclude Saracens who are a special case, suggests that they don't get up for European rugby.

Eh...

English teams didn't win the competition in 2008. It was Munster.

Munster though, jaysus there's a great example. Irish teams haven't even won the bloody competition since all the way back then! Excluding Leinster of course who are a special case.

This is Grade A ****e talk.

Squidgy Black

Or it could be a complete fluff piece and it's just a stakeholders meeting to review the schedule and ensure everyone's satisfied with how the competition works as is and future planning. Seeing as the article doesn't mention any club putting forward that they're unsatisfied about the existing format.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

That article doesn't actually say it's the English who want to scale it back. Maybe it's the French. Maybe it's someone else. Maybe no one wants it and it is just one idea on a long list of suggestions for the future of the tournament.

To be clear, Kitson's suggestion of "scaling it back" here frees up exactly 0 game weeks from the pool stages and adds an extra leg to the semi finals.

Also, reducing the competition to 16 teams is completely at odds with the suggestion of 3 team pools.

It's just shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to European rugby and Irish fans.

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Eh...

English teams didn't win the competition in 2008. It was Munster.

Munster though, jaysus there's a great example. Irish teams haven't even won the bloody competition since all the way back then! Excluding Leinster of course who are a special case.

This is Grade A ****e talk.

Sorry, 2007. Even worse.

I excluded Saracens for a reason, they're the only English team with the depth to compete in both competitions. None of the other teams are really able to do it.

We'll agree to disagree.

irishbucsfan

troyzer wrote: »

Sorry, 2007. Even worse.

I excluded Saracens for a reason, they're the only English team with the depth to compete in both competitions. None of the other teams are really able to do it.

We'll agree to disagree.

There's no actual substance to anything you've said.

Almost exactly the same is true of Irish teams as is true of English teams. It's evidence of absolutely nothing.

The suggestion that there's no room for growth in Europe for English sides is just as baseless as the suggestion that there's no room for growth for European rugby as a whole.

European rugby is the pinnacle for elite club rugby in England, France and in the Pro 14 countries. It's the level teams want to be at and it's where the most money can be generated.

Buer

troyzer wrote: »

Well the fact that they haven't won the competition since 2008, if you exclude Saracens who are a special case, suggests that they don't get up for European rugby.

If you exclude Leinster, a Pro14 side hasn't won the competition since 2008 (Wasps won it in 2007). The tournament has been dominated by 3 teams since then, that's all there is to it.

Podge_irl

irishbucsfan wrote: »

To be clear, Kitson's suggestion of "scaling it back" here frees up exactly 0 game weeks from the pool stages and adds an extra leg to the semi finals.

I have no idea where you are getting that from. It quite clearly states

it is understood that a proposal to cut the number of European weekends from nine to either seven or eight is set to be aired.

One possibility is for the pool stages to be reduced from six to four matches per team, with the semi-finals possibly being played over two home and away legs as happens in football.

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

I have no idea where you are getting that from. It quite clearly states

And how exactly do you play a 4-game per 3-team pool over any fewer weekends?

You also can’t fit a 3 team pool into 16 teams

In other words, my entire point here is that this is just someone scrambling together rumors and an unconnected interview and then padding it out with brexit

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

And how exactly do you play a 4-game per 3-team pool over any fewer weekends?

Currently four teams in each group. Home and away = six games/six weekends.

Three teams in each group. Home and away = four games/four weekends.

irishbucsfan

troyzer wrote: »

Currently four teams in each group. Home and away = six games/six weekends.

Three teams in each group. Home and away = four games/four weekends.

Oh really? What does the third team do while the other two are playing?

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Oh really? What does the third team do while the other two are playing?

A bye week? It would certainly be consistent with player welfare.

Seems a bit messy though, I agree.

irishbucsfan

troyzer wrote: »

A bye week? It would certainly be consistent with player welfare.

Seems a bit messy though, I agree.

A bye week?

So it’s not 4 weekends then

Buer

troyzer wrote: »

Currently four teams in each group. Home and away = six games/six weekends.

Three teams in each group. Home and away = four games/four weekends.

4 games, 4 weekends....plus 2 weekends where one of the sides is idle.

troyzer

Buer wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

Currently four teams in each group. Home and away = six games/six weekends.

Three teams in each group. Home and away = four games/four weekends.

4 games, 4 weekends....plus 2 weekends where one of the sides is idle.

It's not about the length of the tournament.

It's about the amount of weekends the teams actually play.

irishbucsfan

troyzer wrote: »

It's not about the length of the tournament.

It's about the amount of weekends the teams actually play.

Ha, it’s absolutely about the length of the tournament

Podge_irl

irishbucsfan wrote: »

And how exactly do you play a 4-game per 3-team pool over any fewer weekends?

You also can’t fit a 3 team pool into 16 teams

In other words, my entire point here is that this is just someone scrambling together rumors and an unconnected interview and then padding it out with brexit

5 team groups with home or away would work.

However, he doesn't go into details about group sizes. He does very explicitly state the goal is to reduce game weeks.

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

It's not about the length of the tournament.

It's about the amount of weekends the teams actually play.

Ha, it’s absolutely about the length of the tournament

The entire premise of this article was player welfare.

Weeks off are what matters.

OldRio

Well, that didn't take long. Usual positions maintained.

irishbucsfan

troyzer wrote: »

The entire premise of this article was player welfare.

Weeks off are what matters.

They won’t be weeks off. It doesn’t work.

You’re missing the underlying reason for all of this, which is the global season and the need to reduce the footprint of the overall club rugby calendar.

There really wasn’t an entire premise of the article. It was all over the place. The entire premise of what Halliday said specifically was player welfare, but he also conveniently enough said nothing at all about shortening the competition.

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They won’t be weeks off. It doesn’t work.

You’re missing the underlying reason for all of this, which is the global season and the need to reduce the footprint of the overall club rugby calendar.

There really wasn’t an entire premise of the article. It was all over the place. The entire premise of what Halliday said specifically was player welfare, but he also conveniently enough said nothing at all about shortening the competition.

You're probably right about the global calendar. It seems to be the long term goal but again there's form on the English being awkward on this.

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

5 team groups with home or away would work.

However, he doesn't go into details about group sizes. He does very explicitly state the goal is to reduce game weeks.

It wouldn’t work.

Bye weeks don’t work because there are huge variances in the suitability of available game weeks. Especially when you then have to turn around to European/domestics rights holders individually and explain they’re now competing with each other on the same weekends.

Home or away scheduling doesn’t really work because it’s massively inequitable.

You could remove the pools altogether. I don’t think anyone wants that but it’d be the fairest and most realistic way to reduce game weeks.

This is just a shot in the dark from the guardian and my own opinion is that it’s based entirely on the RFUs inability to get any movement at all out of PRL on reducing their own season length before 2020.

aloooof

troyzer wrote: »

It's easy for us to **** on the Premiership and laud the Pro14 as the superior league because of how often Pro14 teams win in Europe...

Baffling post. Who has been doing this?! You also seem to be completely excluding / forgetting Saracens and Toulon's victories.

As recently as 2016, there were no Pro14 sides in the Quarter Final. In 2015 there was one. These things are cyclical.

troyzer

aloooof wrote: »

Baffling post. Who has been doing this?! You also seem to be completely excluding / forgetting Saracens and Toulon's victories.

As recently as 2016, there were no Pro14 sides in the Quarter Final. These things are cyclical.

I wasn't talking about the French teams and I set Saracens aside because they're the only English team with the depth to compete in both competitions.

I'm aware these things are cyclical.