leinster h-cup group

[BlueBlue]

we all know about this, its not new. we all know its a good system but not a perfect one. The following is an interesting artical about the flawed q-final qualifying system.

Lets not be childish, we have benifited from it in the past so this is not about crying about this year, but we all know the 2 runner up spots in the last eight is flawed, but it is suggested that its the best system given that it is a european cup and one nation cannot be handicaped.

This years pool of death has turned out to be Leinsters, given we are up against 2 teams that have won the h-cup 3 times each and edinburgh are not turned over easily at home, as shown by the only away win in the group a slim 4 points loss to toulouse.

Munster group also has seen 3 heavy weights thrown together.

From the telegraph.........................

Robinson has right to be reeling as archaic system condemns his side
Tools
Print Email Search
Search
Go
Bookmark & Share
Digg
del.icio.us
Google
Stumbleupon
Facebook
Reddit
What are these?
By Alasdair Reid
Friday January 18 2008


To say that like can only be compared with like is not so much an arcane principle of philosophy as a statement of the obvious. It is, for most of us at least, the sort of thing we have figured out long before we leave the playground. But it is a point that still eludes the organisers of the Heineken Cup, and an oversight that casts a long and worrying shadow across an otherwise marvellous event.


The problem lies in the way the quarter-finalists are selected, a pertinent issue ahead of the final round of pool matches this weekend. Obviously, the winners of each of the six groups go straight into the last eight, but that leaves the problem of finding another two teams to make up the quarter-final numbers. Enter the concept of the best-placed runners-up, an ugly, clumsy and unsatisfactory solution.

Granted, there is a compelling simplicity to the best-of-the-rest concept, whereby the last two quarter-final slots are taken by the sides which accumulated the most points in finishing second in their respective groups.

The system was introduced in 1999-2000 when the English clubs came back into the European fold, swelling the number of participating sides.

So far so good, except, of course, that not all pools are equal. Every year, when the Heineken Cup draw is made, the vagaries of the seeding system have managed to cram some of the giants of the European game into a single section. Almost invariably, the group includes Toulouse.

So it was this season, when the French outfit were drawn in Pool Six alongside Leicester and star-studded Leinster. The only rabbit in the group was Edinburgh, a side which had only once scraped into the knockout stages.

To finish second in such a group would be no disgrace. Indeed, the side which did that would almost certainly merit one of the two runners-up slots in the last eight. Yet in fact, the tournament's format conspires against that side progressing to the quarter-finals. How so? Easy. With so little between the sides, home advantage was always likely to be critical. Only one of the 10 matches played has produced an away win. Nor was there much possibility of any running rugby, as only two games have produced try-bonus points. The competitiveness of the Pool has been compelling, but it has conspired against big numbers in the points column. Any one of Toulouse, Leicester or Leinster can still win the group, but the side finishing second will definitely not go through.

The contrast with Glasgow's group is fascinating. Sean Lineen's side were drawn in Pool Four, alongside Biarritz, Saracens and Viadana. Only Biarritz could boast a Heineken Cup pedigree of any great distinction, and even they came into the tournament on a run of distinctly shaky form. The group's less-than-stifling atmosphere can be measured by the fact it has produced an average of almost 50 points per game, with try-bonuses earned on six separate occasions.

To be blunt, a side's best hope of reaching the latter stages of the Heineken Cup on a runners-up ticket appears to rest on the good fortune of being drawn in the same pool as an Italian side. No disrespect to Viadana or Benetton Treviso, but the former's failure to win a game and the latter's generosity in conceding 26 tries in five matches have helped to boost the points tallies of their opponents. In essence, the sides in the least competitive groups are disproportionately advantaged.

Andy Robinson needs no lessons on the fickleness of rugby, but the former England coach must raise a wry smile when he considers that his Edinburgh side may finish bottom of their group despite some outstanding form, while Glasgow have reached the brink of qualification after some unimpressive displays.

Yet credit is due to Glasgow. A good win against Saracens tonight could propel them into the last eight. Scottish sides have been elegant losers often enough, so a team capable of grafting out such wins, such as their 18-15 scrape past Viadana ought to be a cause for celebration. Lineen has engineered a change of attitude at Glasgow this season and it is not their fault they are taking part in a skewed competition.

It is, however, incumbent upon the organisers to reassess the rules and format of their tournament. There is no easy alternative -- play-offs bring their own problems while expanded groups could weaken the competition -- but nobody who cares about the core principles of sport could be indifferent to the present weaknesses. Telegraph, London)

[Donny B.]

"Any one of Toulouse, Leicester or Leinster can still win the group, but the side finishing second will definitely not go through."

Leicester can't win the group.

[Donny B.]

Despite that error, he does make some valid points.

I think the big thing is the seeding system. The current system only refers to individual countries and has thrown up two of the hardest groups ever. That said Stade Francais and Biarritz probably thought they had handy groups and one is out and the other is likely to be out by the weekend. The six winners and two runner-up system isn't perfect but if we made it the top two of every group would the group stages be as tense and exciting?

[Fred Funk]

After the draw came out this season. I conducted my own draw. Teams were ranked based on 2 years history in the HEC.
i.e 1 point for being in the HEC, 2 for making the quarters, 3 for semis, 4 for runner up and 5 for winner. The previous season was weighted so the points were 0,1,2,3,4. They were also ranked on their domestic positions similar to the way they are now. The results of several draws never placed 3 heavy weights in the one pool. For example the 2006 winners and the 2007 winners would never be in the same pool as they would have too many points. Do you think it is worth sending in to the ERC.

[limecat]

I think that somebody else suggest this on the forum, namely that the "other" second placed teams are parachuted into the Challenge Cup, possibly increasing the profile of that tournament in the process.

[Uncle Mort]

One thing that could be considered is that you only get a try bonus point for scoring 6 tries and keep the losing bonus point for being within 7 points. This would reduce the impact of big teams playing lesser teams and then when you need to sort the teams into a seeding order for those teams on the same number of group points you ignore the best result and the worst result and use the results in the remaining four matches and consider points difference. For teams in the same group then you would consider the matches between the two teams taking group points, then match point difference, then tries scored. This would reduce the impact of freak results and to some extent negate the impact of sides sending weak teams. In fact if anyone has a bit of time I'd be interest to see the groups according to these rules for this season and if and how they would be different.

As for parachuting teams in the Chanllenge Cup I would not like to see this as it would reduce the chances of the teams in that competition from the start actually winning it. In many ways it would actually devalue it.

[BlueBlue]

Despite that error, he does make some valid points.

I think the big thing is the seeding system. The current system only refers to individual countries and has thrown up two of the hardest groups ever. That said Stade Francais and Biarritz probably thought they had handy groups and one is out and the other is likely to be out by the weekend. The six winners and two runner-up system isn't perfect but if we made it the top two of every group would the group stages be as tense and exciting?

Well thats the point really, the system is flawed and we all know that , but can anyone come up with a better one. One that maintains the spirit of a full euro comp , keeps the excitement and promotes rugby in each of the 6N countries.

you could have 5 pools of 5 teams with 10 qualifying, 6 straight into q-finals and the bottom 4 going into play offs for the last 2 places on a 7th plays 10th and 8th plays 9th, the higher placed 2 having home advantage. but it simply would not work because there are not enough weekends available for the extra games. The limited window for fixture is another huge problem.

[BlueBlue]

After the draw came out this season. I conducted my own draw. Teams were ranked based on 2 years history in the HEC.
i.e 1 point for being in the HEC, 2 for making the quarters, 3 for semis, 4 for runner up and 5 for winner. The previous season was weighted so the points were 0,1,2,3,4. They were also ranked on their domestic positions similar to the way they are now. The results of several draws never placed 3 heavy weights in the one pool. For example the 2006 winners and the 2007 winners would never be in the same pool as they would have too many points. Do you think it is worth sending in to the ERC.

That would mean the weaker country's are costantly penalised, the purpose of the cup is also to promote rugby in places like Italy.

[R-Dog]

How about extending the comp to 8 pools 1&2 in each to go through, would avoid the situation of teams giving up after two loses. The extra teams could come from the best placed in the challenge cup or maybe include some lesser nations, Countries like romania and georgia most of their top players play in france but what about portugal, they were good enough to be in the wc. I recall samoa used to play in a super 10 tournement against the oz/nz provincial sides years back

[Leinster til i die]

how about, when judging and ranking the second place teams, their results against the last place team in the group do not count. So in Leinster's case the points gained against Edinburgh would be taken away (4 points). In the case of 2nd place teams with an Italian team they would effectively be deducted ten points. The results that count are effectively against teams that are trying to qualify and have a realistic chance of qualifying.

[John_C]

how about, when judging and ranking the second place teams, their results against the last place team in the group do not count. So in Leinster's case the points gained against Edinburgh would be taken away (4 points). In the case of 2nd place teams with an Italian team they would effectively be deducted ten points. The results that count are effectively against teams that are trying to qualify and have a realistic chance of qualifying.

That's the system in soccer, it removes the incentive to hammer San Marino and works quite well.

[CRAZYDAVE]

how about, when judging and ranking the second place teams, their results against the last place team in the group do not count. So in Leinster's case the points gained against Edinburgh would be taken away (4 points). In the case of 2nd place teams with an Italian team they would effectively be deducted ten points. The results that count are effectively against teams that are trying to qualify and have a realistic chance of qualifying.

All very well, but woudl it not be simpler to re-jig the calendar and have four groups of 6, with the top 2 in each group going through.

Two benefits
1. No real gain from playing in a group with a "lesser" team
2. More competitive groups with a chance to still qualify if you've lost two matches.

[Aussiedub]

How about just seeding the tournament properly -

Top 6 in french league are in one bucket
Top 6 in English league are in one bucket
Top 6 in ML are in one bucket
7th place in French, English, ML are in one bucket along with 3 Italien teams.

First place in each league goes into Buckets 1, 2, 3
2nd place in each league goes into Buckets 4, 5, 6
3rd in each league goes into Buckets 4, 5, 6
4th in each league goes into Buckets 1, 2, 3
5th in each league goes into Buckets 4, 5, 6
6th in each league goes into Buckets 1, 2, 3
7th in the 3 leagues goes into Buckets 4, 5, 6
3 Italien teams goes into Buckets 1, 2, 3

[epaddy]

How about just seeding the tournament properly -

Top 6 in french league are in one bucket
Top 6 in English league are in one bucket
Top 6 in ML are in one bucket
7th place in French, English, ML are in one bucket along with 3 Italien teams.

First place in each league goes into Buckets 1, 2, 3
2nd place in each league goes into Buckets 4, 5, 6
3rd in each league goes into Buckets 4, 5, 6
4th in each league goes into Buckets 1, 2, 3
5th in each league goes into Buckets 4, 5, 6
6th in each league goes into Buckets 1, 2, 3
7th in the 3 leagues goes into Buckets 4, 5, 6
3 Italien teams goes into Buckets 1, 2, 3

So HEC form counts for nothing. Wasps would have been 2nd seeds.

[Aussiedub]

No I wouldn't count HEC form - It would ensure that performances in the ML improved dramatically and teams would have to take it an awful lot more seriously.

[epaddy]

No I wouldn't count HEC form - It would ensure that performances in the ML improved dramatically and teams would have to take it an awful lot more seriously.

I would go the other way. It should be based on European form and that onlt. Also your system doesnt allow for the italians improving.

[Give us a swerve Girve]

Alot of these seem to be thought of with the intention of getting Leinster through, and if that happens the system works. That might be true but I think sorting the seedings is the best way. The problem with usingt the HC form for seedings is that it perpetuates the problem. Eg Leicster ar going to finish 3 in the group so next year they'd be drawn with 2 other big teams. It's gotta be the leagues for seedings.

[BlueBlue]

So HEC form counts for nothing. Wasps would have been 2nd seeds.

[/quote]

england is the only country where winning the h-cup thrumps winning the domestic league.
Leinster were no.1 seeds the year munster were defending champs, by finishing above them in the magners

[BlueBlue]

No I wouldn't count HEC form - It would ensure that performances in the ML improved dramatically and teams would have to take it an awful lot more seriously.

I would go the other way. It should be based on European form and that onlt. Also your system doesnt allow for the italians improving.

The italians wont improve, if you penalise them every year for not doing well in the previous h-cup. Also coming 1st 2nd and 3rd in the italian league wont matter to much to anyone anymore and will make the domestic league less competitive, in fact it will make all domestic league less competitive.

Also the same big teams would get stronger while the middle teams/ lower teams would get weaker in the domestic leagues , the likes of london irish would find it hard to break into the h-cup club

[Dave Cahill]

How about just seeding the tournament properly -

Top 6 in french league are in one bucket
Top 6 in English league are in one bucket
Top 6 in ML are in one bucket
7th place in French, English, ML are in one bucket along with 3 Italien teams.

First place in each league goes into Buckets 1, 2, 3
2nd place in each league goes into Buckets 4, 5, 6
3rd in each league goes into Buckets 4, 5, 6
4th in each league goes into Buckets 1, 2, 3
5th in each league goes into Buckets 4, 5, 6
6th in each league goes into Buckets 1, 2, 3
7th in the 3 leagues goes into Buckets 4, 5, 6
3 Italien teams goes into Buckets 1, 2, 3

So HEC form counts for nothing. Wasps would have been 2nd seeds.

england is the only country where winning the h-cup thrumps winning the domestic league.
Leinster were no.1 seeds the year munster were defending champs, by finishing above them in the magners

No, Ulster were, they won the ML, we were top irish seeds this season