Sam Warburton discusses European Competition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24069627

"I can understand from the English and French point of view," said Warburton.
"I do agree there should be a qualifying system from the Rabodirect.
"I don't think they should hand it out to each country, it should be the top six to qualify and it would make the Rabo more interesting.
"I can agree with the English and French perspective that there should be tougher qualification."

"Hopefully, whatever happens, the Cardiff Blues will be playing in the top tier of European rugby next season," said Warburton.
"If that was the case, then at least the standard of the Rabo would be improved because there would have to be full teams.
"I have always said if all the top teams fielded their best sides in the Rabo, it would be a competitive and great league.
"So there are pros and cons and hopefully the Blues will remain in Europe somehow.
"I cannot really imagine it happening and I am sure something will be worked out - and that the regions will play European rugby and I hope that is the case."

Now I have to disagree that places shoudl not be handed out to each country. If it is a EUROPEAN competition, then there should be at least one entry from each of the 6Ns countries - expanding if European club rugby grows.

Now...this is interesting. An influential Wales player coming out and saying this is a big deal imo, wonder what Rodge the Todge will have to say about this?

LT, i know it is a european competition but why should a team who finishes in the bottom 3 (scenario: treviso finish in the bottom 3 above the blues & zebre) just because they've only got 2 pro teams? In an ideal world there would be 2 euro league competitions taking the place of the HEC.

League 1
Top 6 Jeff
Top 6 Rabo
Top 6 France

League 2
7, 8, 9 & 10 Jeff
7, 8, 9 & 10 Rabo
7, 8, 9 & 10 France

Yes there will be 2 teams missing out from the jeff, rabo and 4 from the french league but you can't say someone deserves to be in europe if they finished in the bottom 2 (or 4) of their respective league.

But people here have been moaning about poor Italian sides getting through. Saying that, I can see Trevisio in the top 6 this season

There needs to be an onus on improving the Amlin and making it a credible second tier. Winning it should still get you into the HEC and for teams that don't achieve top 6 status it should provide interest and a genuine European competition to test their players in.

A third tier with developing nations the best of which feed into the Amlin would also help European rugby grow as a whole.

A competitive Amlin would attract better sponsorship and tv deals making it more lucrative financially.

I don't disagree with that at all. Certainly the part you say about being all inclusive of European countries.

I think fans of the RP12 would be happy to see anything that makes the league better, tougher and more engaging. We would all like to see anything that improves the chances for the clubs we support to compete and win in Europe.

What is not addressed in this piece and what is the crux of much vented anger is that we do not trust the LNR or PRL to set up a fair and even competition.

Even though there are many wrangling's and discomforts with our own unions I think the majority of fans would like to see Unions and not clubs running elite rugby.

Changes have to be made, as the media economy grows and opens new opportunities for the sport to earn more revenue these situations have to be used to the advantage of the growth and well being of the sport, not to the advantage of benefactors.

formerly known as Sam wrote:There needs to be an onus on improving the Amlin and making it a credible second tier. Winning it should still get you into the HEC and for teams that don't achieve top 6 status it should provide interest and a genuine European competition to test their players in.

A third tier with developing nations the best of which feed into the Amlin would also help European rugby grow as a whole.

A competitive Amlin would attract better sponsorship and tv deals making it more lucrative financially.

Definitely correct...!

To aid the growth of the sport improving the lower tier European competitions is vital and will surely bring huge benefits to the game in the future.

Would it make Sam Warburton try a leg for Cardiff? I can honestly say I can't remember having ever seen him play well for his club.

gcBlues wrote:Now...this is interesting. An influential Wales player coming out and saying this is a big deal imo, wonder what Rodge the Todge will have to say about this?

LT, i know it is a european competition but why should a team who finishes in the bottom 3 (scenario: treviso finish in the bottom 3 above the blues & zebre) just because they've only got 2 pro teams? In an ideal world there would be 2 euro league competitions taking the place of the HEC.

League 1
Top 6 Jeff
Top 6 Rabo
Top 6 France

League 2
7, 8, 9 & 10 Jeff
7, 8, 9 & 10 Rabo
7, 8, 9 & 10 France

Yes there will be 2 teams missing out from the jeff, rabo and 4 from the french league but you can't say someone deserves to be in europe if they finished in the bottom 2 (or 4) of their respective league.

I'd go with that, failure shouldn't be rewarded even if it means a Union isn't represented at the top table of euro rugby.

maestegmafia wrote:I don't disagree with that at all. Certainly the part you say about being all inclusive of European countries.

I think fans of the RP12 would be happy to see anything that makes the league better, tougher and more engaging. We would all like to see anything that improves the chances for the clubs we support to compete and win in Europe.

What is not addressed in this piece and what is the crux of much vented anger is that we do not trust the LNR or PRL to set up a fair and even competition.

Even though there are many wrangling's and discomforts with our own unions I think the majority of fans would like to see Unions and not clubs running elite rugby.

Changes have to be made, as the media economy grows and opens new opportunities for the sport to earn more revenue these situations have to be used to the advantage of the growth and well being of the sport, not to the advantage of benefactors.

The problem with the LNR/PRL is that you cant ignore them and hope that they will go away. Finding a way of including them and keeping everyone happy is going to be difficult, and, tbh I am not sure if I have confidence that the ERC is currently up to the job.

Mickado wrote:Would it make Sam Warburton try a leg for Cardiff? I can honestly say I can't remember having ever seen him play well for his club.

Pretty hard to be an effective 7 when playing with the pack we had in the previous years.

The Welsh SW and the Cardiff Blues SW are the same player its just that the Blues fans don't hype him as much as the Welsh media do.  

lostinwales wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I don't disagree with that at all. Certainly the part you say about being all inclusive of European countries.

I think fans of the RP12 would be happy to see anything that makes the league better, tougher and more engaging. We would all like to see anything that improves the chances for the clubs we support to compete and win in Europe.

What is not addressed in this piece and what is the crux of much vented anger is that we do not trust the LNR or PRL to set up a fair and even competition.

Even though there are many wrangling's and discomforts with our own unions I think the majority of fans would like to see Unions and not clubs running elite rugby.

Changes have to be made, as the media economy grows and opens new opportunities for the sport to earn more revenue these situations have to be used to the advantage of the growth and well being of the sport, not to the advantage of benefactors.

The problem with the LNR/PRL is that you cant ignore them and hope that they will go away. Finding a way of including them and keeping everyone happy is going to be difficult, and, tbh I am not sure if I have confidence that the ERC is currently up to the job.

I agree after the way the PRL have behaved in the press it is going to be very hard for anyone to trust them at future meetings. But as you say they do have to be included.

gcBlues wrote:

Mickado wrote:Would it make Sam Warburton try a leg for Cardiff? I can honestly say I can't remember having ever seen him play well for his club.

Pretty hard to be an effective 7 when playing with the pack we had in the previous years.

Even harder for a fullback or winger to play well with a beaten pack but Halfpenny and Cuthbert always give their all. I don't just mean I haven't seen Warburton play well, but i honestly haven't seen him bothering his arse.

Mickado wrote:

gcBlues wrote:

Mickado wrote:Would it make Sam Warburton try a leg for Cardiff? I can honestly say I can't remember having ever seen him play well for his club.

Pretty hard to be an effective 7 when playing with the pack we had in the previous years.

Even harder for a fullback or winger to play well with a beaten pack but Halfpenny and Cuthbert always give their all. I don't just mean I haven't seen Warburton play well, but i honestly haven't seen him bothering his arse.

He didn't have much luck with injury last year. He was superb vs the dragons last Autumn. It was an epic backrow battle between Warbs, Lyds and Toby.. All three were superb.

Have to agree with people saying it is unfair to judge SW on Cardiff form as the pack was woeful last year.

In terms of another point raised, I agree the PRL nor the LNR should run a tournament on their own. But I do not believe that the Unions are the ones to run it either. IMHO it should be an independent body that consists of representatives of the 3 qualifying leagues, not unions. The leagues vote on who they want to be represented by. That way no one league is not proportionately represented, whether you want to say the places are for the Unions not the league. If they are serious in pushing to grow in Europe then there has to be some form of representation from the emerging countries.

LondonTiger wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24069627

"I can understand from the English and French point of view," said Warburton.
"I do agree there should be a qualifying system from the Rabodirect.
"I don't think they should hand it out to each country, it should be the top six to qualify and it would make the Rabo more interesting.
"I can agree with the English and French perspective that there should be tougher qualification."

"Hopefully, whatever happens, the Cardiff Blues will be playing in the top tier of European rugby next season," said Warburton.
"If that was the case, then at least the standard of the Rabo would be improved because there would have to be full teams.
"I have always said if all the top teams fielded their best sides in the Rabo, it would be a competitive and great league.
"So there are pros and cons and hopefully the Blues will remain in Europe somehow.
"I cannot really imagine it happening and I am sure something will be worked out - and that the regions will play European rugby and I hope that is the case."

Now I have to disagree that places shoudl not be handed out to each country. If it is a EUROPEAN competition, then there should be at least one entry from each of the 6Ns countries - expanding if European club rugby grows.

Warburton is a real airhead to make such comments. Glad he isnt head of the ERC. England and France the richest NH nations are and always will be guarenteed to have teams in the HC every year and the most amount of teams at that. Why shouldnt Italy, Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

Just because they dont have enough resources, players and teams to have their own leagues doesnt mean they should be punished for that.

maestegmafia wrote:

Mickado wrote:

gcBlues wrote:

Mickado wrote:Would it make Sam Warburton try a leg for Cardiff? I can honestly say I can't remember having ever seen him play well for his club.

Pretty hard to be an effective 7 when playing with the pack we had in the previous years.

Even harder for a fullback or winger to play well with a beaten pack but Halfpenny and Cuthbert always give their all. I don't just mean I haven't seen Warburton play well, but i honestly haven't seen him bothering his arse.

He didn't have much luck with injury last year. He was superb vs the dragons last Autumn. It was an epic backrow battle between Warbs, Lyds and Toby.. All three were superb.

It was Navidi who was the best back rower on the park that day though.

Warburton s take on qualification is fair enough although I personally believe it should be the top 8 from the Rabo depending on who wins both competitions. I think this would be the easiest thing to negotiate. It is the division of the revenue and shareholding that is we're the difficulty comes

Student- A1 I agree completely.

Another point. ERC wasn't independent in the sense that it was biased towards Sky.

Independence should mean impartiality but in reality it doesn't.

Gunsgerms Warburton is an airhead because he disagrees with you? It is his opinion. Just as you have an opinion.

formerly known as Sam wrote:There needs to be an onus on improving the Amlin and making it a credible second tier. Winning it should still get you into the HEC and for teams that don't achieve top 6 status it should provide interest and a genuine European competition to test their players in.

A third tier with developing nations the best of which feed into the Amlin would also help European rugby grow as a whole.

A competitive Amlin would attract better sponsorship and tv deals making it more lucrative financially.

Definitely. I'd stop the teams dropping down from the Heineken also, so the Amlin feels like its own credible competition and there's more of a reward to playing in it.

munkian wrote:But people here have been moaning about poor Italian sides getting through. Saying that, I can see Trevisio in the top 6 this season

Possibly. I would say top 8 for sure and that's why I would have 8 qualifying from the RABO as it does give teams an opportunity to qualify and is really more inclusive then (as at least one team from each country should make it).

Risca Rev wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:There needs to be an onus on improving the Amlin and making it a credible second tier. Winning it should still get you into the HEC and for teams that don't achieve top 6 status it should provide interest and a genuine European competition to test their players in.

A third tier with developing nations the best of which feed into the Amlin would also help European rugby grow as a whole.

A competitive Amlin would attract better sponsorship and tv deals making it more lucrative financially.

Definitely. I'd stop the teams dropping down from the Heineken also, so the Amlin feels like its own credible competition and there's more of a reward to playing in it.

Completely agree. It really needs to stand alone and not become a consolation prize for 'failed' HC sides.

beshocked wrote:Student- A1 I agree completely.

Another point. ERC wasn't independent in the sense that it was biased towards Sky.

Independence should mean impartiality but in reality it doesn't.

Gunsgerms Warburton is an airhead because he disagrees with you? It is his opinion. Just as you have an opinion.

Its an idiotic opinion as I just pointed out. Basically he wants Ireland, Wales, Italy and Scotland to share 6 HEC places while England and France get 6 each or something along those lines. Could he be any more thick?

Heres a thought, maybe each country should actually have the same amount of places!!!!

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:Student- A1 I agree completely.

Another point. ERC wasn't independent in the sense that it was biased towards Sky.

Independence should mean impartiality but in reality it doesn't.

Gunsgerms Warburton is an airhead because he disagrees with you? It is his opinion. Just as you have an opinion.

Its an idiotic opinion as I just pointed out. Basically he wants Ireland, Wales, Italy and Scotland to share 6 HEC places while England and France get 6 each or something along those lines. Could he be any more thick?

Heres a thought, maybe each country should actually have the same amount of places!!!!

What two?

Yes that would work!

GunsGerms wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24069627

"I can understand from the English and French point of view," said Warburton.
"I do agree there should be a qualifying system from the Rabodirect.
"I don't think they should hand it out to each country, it should be the top six to qualify and it would make the Rabo more interesting.
"I can agree with the English and French perspective that there should be tougher qualification."

"Hopefully, whatever happens, the Cardiff Blues will be playing in the top tier of European rugby next season," said Warburton.
"If that was the case, then at least the standard of the Rabo would be improved because there would have to be full teams.
"I have always said if all the top teams fielded their best sides in the Rabo, it would be a competitive and great league.
"So there are pros and cons and hopefully the Blues will remain in Europe somehow.
"I cannot really imagine it happening and I am sure something will be worked out - and that the regions will play European rugby and I hope that is the case."

Now I have to disagree that places shoudl not be handed out to each country. If it is a EUROPEAN competition, then there should be at least one entry from each of the 6Ns countries - expanding if European club rugby grows.

Warburton is a real airhead to make such comments. Glad he isnt head of the ERC. England and France the richest NH nations are and always will be guarenteed to have teams in the HC every year and the most amount of teams at that. Why shouldnt Italy, Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

Just because they dont have enough resources, players and teams to have their own leagues doesnt mean they should be punished for that.

alright, lets flip that.

Why should England and France be punished because the rabo unions have less resources, players and teams.

They arent being punished. They already have more entrants to the HC than each of the other nations?????

How is that being punished? The PRL is just extremely greedy.

GunsGerms wrote:They arent being punished. They already have more entrants to the HC than each of the other nations?????

How is that being punished? The PRL is just extremely greedy.

just the PRL now, not the French too?

The hatred for the PRL on here really does make me laugh!

nathan wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:They arent being punished. They already have more entrants to the HC than each of the other nations?????

How is that being punished? The PRL is just extremely greedy.

just the PRL now, not the French too?

The hatred for the PRL on here really does make me laugh!

They are clearly the driving force behind it all because they are completly independant of the RFU where as the FFR seem to have some control over the Top 14. The French league are just playing both sides as I see it.

Welsh regions should just join the french league, our players tend to go there anyway.

Qualification should be by league NOT by nation.

Cyril wrote:Qualification should be by league NOT by nation.

Correct, it's the fairest way and it means that the HC is the best of the best not 'oh we only have two teams as we're a poor union so we deserve two places in the HC'

gcBlues wrote:Welsh regions should just join the french league, our players tend to go there anyway.

Combine the RP 12 with the T14. Sounds good to me.

Cyril wrote:Qualification should be by league NOT by nation.

disagree. all nations should have a minimum of participants. otherwise there is no point of calling that a european competition. in my opinion playoffs to decide who else qualifies if the way forward so that all countries get a shot (including romania, russia, georgia or whoever wants in).

whocares wrote:

Cyril wrote:Qualification should be by league NOT by nation.

disagree. all nations should have a minimum of participants. otherwise there is no point of calling that a european competition. in my opinion playoffs to decide who else qualifies if the way forward so that all countries get a shot (including romania, russia, georgia or whoever wants in).

There would still be a 2nd tier euro cup, at the end of the day if your not good enough you shouldn't expect to walk into the supposedly premier European competition, places should be earned not gifted.

Whatever happens, the rabo needs to be done by league finish NOT nationality. If italian teams miss out then it's tough, then it's up to the Italian RFU to sort out their teams. They've been in the 6Nations for 13 years now and they've had pro teams for a while as well, we've held their hands a long the way and they should now be fully capable of running their teams properly.

The whole 'it can't be european if a nation isn't represented' is a rubbish argument, why should a country be represented if their teams are woeful? It instantly devalues the tournament.

If the blues didn't get in to the top 6 and didn't qualify, i wouldn't kick up a fuss because i know they weren't good enough.

Scrumpy wrote:

Cyril wrote:Qualification should be by league NOT by nation.

Correct, it's the fairest way and it means that the HC is the best of the best not 'oh we only have two teams as we're a poor union so we deserve two places in the HC'

Completly incorrect. If thats the case whats stopping the Irish teams just set up their own league with just four teams and get a guarenteed 4 spots every year? Should Italy set up a league with 6 teams and have a guarenteed 6 teams in the HC every year. Same as the number of English and French teams?

Greed, Greed, Greed!!!!!!!!!!!!

whocares wrote:

Cyril wrote:Qualification should be by league NOT by nation.

disagree. all nations should have a minimum of participants. otherwise there is no point of calling that a european competition. in my opinion playoffs to decide who else qualifies if the way forward so that all countries get a shot (including romania, russia, georgia or whoever wants in).

Where do you draw the line? The competition already isn't 'elite' and this will just make it worse.

When a side languishing at the bottom of a league with no wins can still automatically qualify for the 'premier' European competition it's a bit odd.

gcBlues wrote:Whatever happens, the rabo needs to be done by league finish NOT nationality. If italian teams miss out then it's tough, then it's up to the Italian RFU to sort out their teams. They've been in the 6Nations for 13 years now and they've had pro teams for a while as well, we've held their hands for a while now.

The whole 'it can't be european if a nation isn't represented' is a rubbish argument, why should a country be represented if their teams are woeful? It instantly devalues the tournament.

If the blues didn't get in to the top 6 and didn't qualify, i wouldn't kick up a fuss because i know they weren't good enough.

gcBlues I agree, as a Bath fan the simple truth was we weren't good enough over the season to earn a place in the HC, It wouldn't feel right to be gifted a place year in year out without earning it.

Guns germs it's only an idiotic opinion in your opinion.

You must understand that wanting equal places in terms of countries is flawed logic.

No matter how you look at it. The top two Italian sides are no match for the top 2 English sides. Funnily enough we are likely to see in the HC this season as Tigers will take on Treviso,Sarries will take on Zebre.

The top two Irish sides of course more than a match for the AP sides but the other two? Well Ulster's record against English sides is 39% in the HC. Connacht are a poor side.

I always find the argument for Irish having more than two automatic places flawed. Leinster and Munster ultimately carry the Pro12 and Irish threat in the HC. Without them it looks bleak.


You have 6 English teams with win rates in the HC of 59% and above. That beats all Pro12 sides bar Leinster and Munster.

GunsGerms wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

Cyril wrote:Qualification should be by league NOT by nation.

Correct, it's the fairest way and it means that the HC is the best of the best not 'oh we only have two teams as we're a poor union so we deserve two places in the HC'

Completly incorrect. If thats the case whats stopping the Irish teams just set up their own league with just four teams and get a guarenteed 4 spots every year? Should Italy set up a league with 6 teams and have a guarenteed 6 teams in the HC every year. Same as the number of English and French teams?

Greed, Greed, Greed!!!!!!!!!!!!

  but we would still have teams that haven't earned the right to be there which is wrong, the HC is meant to be the best european clubs playing for the right to be crowned the best team in europe.

GunsGerms wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

Cyril wrote:Qualification should be by league NOT by nation.

Correct, it's the fairest way and it means that the HC is the best of the best not 'oh we only have two teams as we're a poor union so we deserve two places in the HC'

Completly incorrect. If thats the case whats stopping the Irish teams just set up their own league with just four teams and get a guarenteed 4 spots every year? Should Italy set up a league with 6 teams and have a guarenteed 6 teams in the HC every year. Same as the number of English and French teams?

Greed, Greed, Greed!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why should your worst side be guarranteed a place? When nations can't manage a full infrastructure and need to share a league it should mean they qualify from that league and not from that nation.

It would improve the Rabo for a start.

Cyril wrote:

whocares wrote:

Cyril wrote:Qualification should be by league NOT by nation.

disagree. all nations should have a minimum of participants. otherwise there is no point of calling that a european competition. in my opinion playoffs to decide who else qualifies if the way forward so that all countries get a shot (including romania, russia, georgia or whoever wants in).

Where do you draw the line? The competition already isn't 'elite' and this will just make it worse.

When a side languishing at the bottom of a league with no wins can still automatically qualify for the 'premier' European competition it's a bit odd.

What would your split be from the Rabo? 8 or 6 teams? Personally, as I've said 8 is a fair qualification from the Rabo (in my opinion), so then teams like Zebre have a chance of making a realistic step from 12th to 8th.

I could even live with 7 and the Amlin winner stepping up (if they haven't qualified from their league).

Agree Cyril and Scrumpy.

The thing is the Pro12 sides don't want to lose their juicy cake. It's greed from the Pro12 sides. They have never had it so good.

Guns germs if you had 6 competitive Irish sides, 6 Italian sides etc it could work.

Perhaps Ireland should work on getting 4 competitive sides before wanting 6? Ulster are improving but have more work to do. Connacht have a very long way to go.

Treviso are improving too but have an awful lot of work to do. Zebre - well when you are at rock bottom the only way is up surely.

Scrumpy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

Cyril wrote:Qualification should be by league NOT by nation.

Correct, it's the fairest way and it means that the HC is the best of the best not 'oh we only have two teams as we're a poor union so we deserve two places in the HC'

Completly incorrect. If thats the case whats stopping the Irish teams just set up their own league with just four teams and get a guarenteed 4 spots every year? Should Italy set up a league with 6 teams and have a guarenteed 6 teams in the HC every year. Same as the number of English and French teams?

Greed, Greed, Greed!!!!!!!!!!!!

  but we would still have teams that haven't earned the right to be there which is wrong, the HC is meant to be the best european clubs playing for the right to be crowned the best team in europe.

Looking at the European Rankings of the best 20 teams in Europe seven are T14, eight are RP12 and five are AP teams.

Why should the league qualification not be based around that if we want the best teams involved?

Giving two places away from that to the Amlin winner and Previous season winner would mean losing the two lower placed sides, one is T14 the other RP12

So justifiably it should be split seven T14 teams, six RP12 and five AP teams plus the previous years winners of the HEC and Amlin. That would give you the best teams in Europe facing each other.

So next seasons qualifiers would be

Toulon (Last Years winners)
Clermont
Toulouse
Castre
Montpellier
Racing Metro
Perpignan
Bayonne
Leinster (Amlin Winners)
Ulster
Glasgow
Scarlets
Ospreys
Munster
Treviso
Saracens
Leicester Tigers
Quins
Saints
Gloucester

Risca Rev wrote:

Cyril wrote:

whocares wrote:

Cyril wrote:Qualification should be by league NOT by nation.

disagree. all nations should have a minimum of participants. otherwise there is no point of calling that a european competition. in my opinion playoffs to decide who else qualifies if the way forward so that all countries get a shot (including romania, russia, georgia or whoever wants in).

Where do you draw the line? The competition already isn't 'elite' and this will just make it worse.

When a side languishing at the bottom of a league with no wins can still automatically qualify for the 'premier' European competition it's a bit odd.

What would your split be from the Rabo? 8 or 6 teams? Personally, as I've said 8 is a fair qualification from the Rabo (in my opinion), so then teams like Zebre have a chance of making a realistic step from 12th to 8th.

I could even live with 7 and the Amlin winner stepping up (if they haven't qualified from their league).

The split should be the same from each league (6) plus HC and Amlin winner. Then you've got the best 20 sides who have qualified through merit.

Risca Rev wrote:
I could even live with 7 and the Amlin winner stepping up (if they haven't qualified from their league).

7 and 1 sounds good - I dont believe that the HEC champion should get the right to defend automatically, but keeping a place for the Amlin winner at least gives some tangible reward for that competition.

The next question is do you have runners up in the HEC dropping down to the Amlin or not? (surely not would be better for that competition.)

beshocked wrote:Guns germs it's only an idiotic opinion in your opinion.

You must understand that wanting equal places in terms of countries is flawed logic.

Its only flawed logic if your only aim is to allow club rugby to become a monster driven by wealth. Club competition should serve its purpose as a platform from which International rugby can flourish otherwise in my opinion the sport will very quickly become completly meaningless.

I see absolultly no reason why each country shouldnt have the same representation. "Merit" based competition inevitabely leads to dominance driven by money which serves no one well.

beshocked wrote:
No matter how you look at it. The top two Italian sides are no match for the top 2 English sides. Funnily enough we are likely to see in the HC this season as Tigers will take on Treviso,Sarries will take on Zebre.

The top two Irish sides of course more than a match for the AP sides but the other two? Well Ulster's record against English sides is 39% in the HC. Connacht are a poor side.

I always find the argument for Irish having more than two automatic places flawed. Leinster and Munster ultimately carry the Pro12 and Irish threat in the HC. Without them it looks bleak.

You have 6 English teams with win rates in the HC of 59% and above. That beats all Pro12 sides bar Leinster and Munster.

Ulster were in the Heineken cup final two seasons ago?? They have also won it before. They are just as good as Leinster and Munster right now but they would not be if they didnt play Hcup rugby.

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:Guns germs it's only an idiotic opinion in your opinion.

You must understand that wanting equal places in terms of countries is flawed logic.

Its only flawed logic if your only aim is to allow club rugby to become a monster driven by wealth. Club competition should serve its purpose as a platform from which International rugby can flourish otherwise in my opinion the sport will very quickly become completly meaningless.

I see absolultly no reason why each country shouldnt have the same representation. "Merit" based competition inevitabely leads to dominance driven by money which serves no one well.

beshocked wrote:
No matter how you look at it. The top two Italian sides are no match for the top 2 English sides. Funnily enough we are likely to see in the HC this season as Tigers will take on Treviso,Sarries will take on Zebre.

The top two Irish sides of course more than a match for the AP sides but the other two? Well Ulster's record against English sides is 39% in the HC. Connacht are a poor side.

I always find the argument for Irish having more than two automatic places flawed. Leinster and Munster ultimately carry the Pro12 and Irish threat in the HC. Without them it looks bleak.

You have 6 English teams with win rates in the HC of 59% and above. That beats all Pro12 sides bar Leinster and Munster.

Ulster were in the Heineken cup final two seasons ago?? They have also won it before. They are just as good as Leinster and Munster right now but they would not be if they didnt play Hcup rugby.

Club rugby already is a 'monster' if thats what you want to call it. Its a monster you have to learn to deal with. You cant ignore or destroy it.

Yes but you can regulate it and structure it properly so it serves its purpose rather than allowing it to suffocate everything else. Thats what the ERC are for and they do a good job IMO.

i'm another getting rid of the qualify by union rubbish, this isn't england vs ireland. These are club teams (regions or provinces, they mean the same bloody thing other than how there funded). I just don't see how the lower teams learn much from getting a whipping every time.

Surely it's much better for them to drop to the amlin and build from there. The experience of winning matches is what builds teams not getting a yearly beating.