Embarrassment in Europe

[Puja]

So, out of 8 teams, England have just 1 quarter-finalist.

It's not helped by several clubs not taking it remotely seriously - Bath declared their disinterest in the pool stages, followed by Leicester and Saracens chucking away eminently winnable last-16 games with widespread rotation - but that's a symptom of the overall malaise, rather than a cause. They've looked at Leinster and Toulouse (frequently from behind their own posts in Leicester's case) and decided that, yeah, they **could** try and get to a quarter final but they stand no chance of winning the competition with those two in there, so what's the point? May as well focus on the Prem where at least winning is possible.

I don't know what the answer is. English viewership and crowd interest is going to keep decreasing as long as it's effectively a dead competition to the English teams (not helped by teams putting out shadow XVs and blatantly treating it as a waste of their time) and, while there is the argument that playing against better teams drives improvement, I'm not sure that applies to games of 80-12 and 63-0.

Puja

[fivepointer]

I'm afraid its become a trend. Half hearted selections, lack of intent and a resigned shrug of the shoulders as the realisation hits that some of these games in Europe are unwinnable for our teams.
Unless the salary caps gets a substantial uplift i cant see how our teams can assemble the kind of squad that could challenge the big teams in the competition.
That said, some of our teams performances have been little short of pathetic.

[Beasties]

Maybe they’ve realised no one’s watching anyway, now they’ve had enough of endless extra subscriptions.

[Banquo]

Multi factorial as always.
Format is crap
SA team introduction is crap
Coverage is patchy- but folks, you can’t have it for nothing as an aside
Salary cap means it’s nigh impossible to fight on two fronts, and even if you decide it’s Europe you are behind the rest tbh. It’s a huge question for our domestic game. Basically….. the economics don’t work and it’s gloomy.

[Oakboy]

Maybe they’ve realised no one’s watching anyway, now they’ve had enough of endless extra subscriptions.

This!

Sky subscription + TNT sport was my limit. Then, jacking up the numbers involved and complicating the format destroyed my waning interest. How the hell can a European competition have SA teams in it? I don't want weeks of league matches before the significant knock-out stage kicks in. Quantity dilutes quality. 10 - 20 years ago I'd watch all matches. Now I have slight interest only if English clubs are involved and I only get to see highlights anyway.

[Captainhaircut]

Given the SA team introduction, the inability to compete financially against the top French sides and the Irish putting everything into Leinster, is there an argument for English sides just sacking off Europe?

It would give the ability to run a proper cup competition and add additional league games. Would it really hit that hard financially if we just played more league games in place of Europe?

[Banquo]

Given the SA team introduction, the inability to compete financially against the top French sides and the Irish putting everything into Leinster, is there an argument for English sides just sacking off Europe?

It would give the ability to run a proper cup competition and add additional league games. Would it really hit that hard financially if we just played more league games in place of Europe?

No, but would it raise the standard of domestic rugby and thus produce a better pipeline of international players. If you don’t think that’s an issue then fine.
But European Rugby used to be fantastic, so maybe let’s look at how we can get back to that?

[twitchy]

I ended up watching rugby league (I only watch union normally) this weekend because it was on the bbc. This can't have been what the organisers intended. I'd love to see the english viewing figures.

[Stom]

Given the SA team introduction, the inability to compete financially against the top French sides and the Irish putting everything into Leinster, is there an argument for English sides just sacking off Europe?

It would give the ability to run a proper cup competition and add additional league games. Would it really hit that hard financially if we just played more league games in place of Europe?

No, but would it raise the standard of domestic rugby and thus produce a better pipeline of international players. If you don’t think that’s an issue then fine.
But European Rugby used to be fantastic, so maybe let’s look at how we can get back to that?

Question is, now we’ve invited SA in, can we simply kick them out?

It’s all a symptom of a big problem at the core of the game, though. Terrible mismanagement when it comes to growing the game.

[Oakboy]

Given the SA team introduction, the inability to compete financially against the top French sides and the Irish putting everything into Leinster, is there an argument for English sides just sacking off Europe?

It would give the ability to run a proper cup competition and add additional league games. Would it really hit that hard financially if we just played more league games in place of Europe?

No, but would it raise the standard of domestic rugby and thus produce a better pipeline of international players. If you don’t think that’s an issue then fine.
But European Rugby used to be fantastic, so maybe let’s look at how we can get back to that?

Is it just a cycle or misplaced greed? If English clubs are not competitive who is to blame?

French clubs were notorious for not sending strong teams away but now their increased financial clout and larger squads mean their home league chances are less threatened.

Now, travel to the other end of the world is involved. Is there a net financial gain? Is there even a theoretical marketing gain?

The irony is that if English clubs/players are to develop against stronger opposition they need some top quality foreign players in their teams (certainly in the short term). The salary cap restricts that. Might, therefore, there be a gain in not being in Europe if our younger players get more chances ahead of foreign journeymen? Now, that may well be marketable with the right publicity approach.

[Banquo]

Given the SA team introduction, the inability to compete financially against the top French sides and the Irish putting everything into Leinster, is there an argument for English sides just sacking off Europe?

It would give the ability to run a proper cup competition and add additional league games. Would it really hit that hard financially if we just played more league games in place of Europe?

No, but would it raise the standard of domestic rugby and thus produce a better pipeline of international players. If you don’t think that’s an issue then fine.
But European Rugby used to be fantastic, so maybe let’s look at how we can get back to that?

Question is, now we’ve invited SA in, can we simply kick them out?

It’s all a symptom of a big problem at the core of the game, though. Terrible mismanagement when it comes to growing the game.

Yus, but that’s because ‘the game’ isn’t a single entity

[fivepointer]

Given the SA team introduction, the inability to compete financially against the top French sides and the Irish putting everything into Leinster, is there an argument for English sides just sacking off Europe?

It would give the ability to run a proper cup competition and add additional league games. Would it really hit that hard financially if we just played more league games in place of Europe?

No, but would it raise the standard of domestic rugby and thus produce a better pipeline of international players. If you don’t think that’s an issue then fine.
But European Rugby used to be fantastic, so maybe let’s look at how we can get back to that?

Thats the challenge. The current format is awful. Finishing 8th should not get you a place in the Champions Cup. Thats a nonsense that could easily be righted by limiting the numbers of teams.

The SA teams are here to stay. Once they entered the URC it was inevitable that they would be included in this competition.

[Captainhaircut]

Given the SA team introduction, the inability to compete financially against the top French sides and the Irish putting everything into Leinster, is there an argument for English sides just sacking off Europe?

It would give the ability to run a proper cup competition and add additional league games. Would it really hit that hard financially if we just played more league games in place of Europe?

No, but would it raise the standard of domestic rugby and thus produce a better pipeline of international players. If you don’t think that’s an issue then fine.
But European Rugby used to be fantastic, so maybe let’s look at how we can get back to that?

I don’t see a path back to that for English clubs. The SA sides aren’t going to be kicked out so you have that nonsense travel issue and French clubs aren’t going to stop pumping money in.

Why keep flogging our players in a tournament none of our clubs can win.

I’m not convinced that getting smashed in Europe by clubs with massive budgets is a great development for international players.

We massively downplay our own national competition. Someone like IFW for example took to internationals amazingly and had barely played European rugby for example.

[Oakboy]

Given the SA team introduction, the inability to compete financially against the top French sides and the Irish putting everything into Leinster, is there an argument for English sides just sacking off Europe?

It would give the ability to run a proper cup competition and add additional league games. Would it really hit that hard financially if we just played more league games in place of Europe?

No, but would it raise the standard of domestic rugby and thus produce a better pipeline of international players. If you don’t think that’s an issue then fine.
But European Rugby used to be fantastic, so maybe let’s look at how we can get back to that?

Thats the challenge. The current format is awful. Finishing 8th should not get you a place in the Champions Cup. Thats a nonsense that could easily be righted by limiting the numbers of teams.

The SA teams are here to stay. Once they entered the URC it was inevitable that they would be included in this competition.

Does it not make a nonsense of quotas from competitions/nations? Farcical as it sounds, might we be better off competing against NZ and Australian sides should the opportunity arise?

I can't get my head around what the real purpose of a European + SA competition might be. Presumably, France and England had the SA involvement dropped on to them.

Maybe, a re-think should start with a calendar block of, say, 6 weeks maximum and fit the competition around it. A 16 team competition setting out with four groups of four (3 weeks) followed by QFs, SFs and final is as large as any multi-league competition should be. I'd be happy to drop the QFs and let the initial group winners go straight into a SF draw (5 weeks).

[Crash Hamster]

I ended up watching rugby league (I only watch union normally) this weekend because it was on the bbc. This can't have been what the organisers intended. I'd love to see the english viewing figures.

Snooker for me, on ITV3 (?)

I don't care about which European/South African team wins the European/South African cup, the league stage is tedious and I'm not paying yet more money for Premier+ sports.

I am going to the Leinster/Toulouse game (and whatever the other final is) which should be a nice weekend away, but this format has taken me from 'committed follower' to 'casual fan'.

[Banquo]

Given the SA team introduction, the inability to compete financially against the top French sides and the Irish putting everything into Leinster, is there an argument for English sides just sacking off Europe?

It would give the ability to run a proper cup competition and add additional league games. Would it really hit that hard financially if we just played more league games in place of Europe?

No, but would it raise the standard of domestic rugby and thus produce a better pipeline of international players. If you don’t think that’s an issue then fine.
But European Rugby used to be fantastic, so maybe let’s look at how we can get back to that?

I don’t see a path back to that for English clubs. The SA sides aren’t going to be kicked out so you have that nonsense travel issue and French clubs aren’t going to stop pumping money in.

Why keep flogging our players in a tournament none of our clubs can win.

I’m not convinced that getting smashed in Europe by clubs with massive budgets is a great development for international players.

We massively downplay our own national competition. Someone like IFW for example took to internationals amazingly and had barely played European rugby for example.

I don't think we do- skill levels and intensity really aren't consistently very high. Picking out an exceptional talent to prove a point...doesn't.

I agree that getting smashed in Europe isn't great- but some of that is deliberate, because the comp itself is pi55 poor as an event tbh- if we can't find a way to get it back, then we must raised the standards of the Prem imo. Which is probably less teams.

[FKAS]

No, but would it raise the standard of domestic rugby and thus produce a better pipeline of international players. If you don’t think that’s an issue then fine.
But European Rugby used to be fantastic, so maybe let’s look at how we can get back to that?

I don’t see a path back to that for English clubs. The SA sides aren’t going to be kicked out so you have that nonsense travel issue and French clubs aren’t going to stop pumping money in.

Why keep flogging our players in a tournament none of our clubs can win.

I’m not convinced that getting smashed in Europe by clubs with massive budgets is a great development for international players.

We massively downplay our own national competition. Someone like IFW for example took to internationals amazingly and had barely played European rugby for example.

I don't think we do- skill levels and intensity really aren't consistently very high. Picking out an exceptional talent to prove a point...doesn't.

I agree that getting smashed in Europe isn't great- but some of that is deliberate, because the comp itself is pi55 poor as an event tbh- if we can't find a way to get it back, then we must raised the standards of the Prem imo. Which is probably less teams.

Not sure less teams in the Premiership does anything other than send the competition under. Less teams means less games and less revenue. Less revenue means teams either take a bigger loss each season or they cut costs further.

What we have seen is that international refs are more open to turnovers and shenanigans at the breakdown, Prem refs are far stricter. That doesn't help our game much in my opinion, we are seeing teams play looser and looser in attack and defence become optional. More tries in the Prem but when the games become more intense at Champions Cup level we are getting mullered. Instead of trying to breed a high scoring game we need to work to push a more intense game and accept that it probably brings less tries.

[Scrumhead]

On ‘raising the standards of the Premiership’, my question would be ‘in comparison to what?’.

As a regular watcher of the URC, I honestly don’t think it is a superior competition. The top teams pick and choose when to field their first XV (usually against each other) and often play 2nd XVs. Leinster and the better SA sides are well known for this.

It’s mostly a predictable league that rarely gives many surprise results and the rugby is of a very variable standard. The best games can be akin to test rugby but on average, the level is fairly poor.

I’d argue that the average level of the Premiership is higher but the top level is not as high.

In Europe, Premiership teams have typically performed well against the URC teams apart from Leinster as well.

If we’re comparing ourselves to the Top 14, then the Premiership is obviously inferior, but money is clearly a huge driver in that.

There’s not a simple answer, but I don’t think there’s a huge amount we can do to change the status quo. It very much looks like European titles will be shared between Leinster, Toulouse and the other top French clubs for the foreseeable.

[Puja]

On ‘raising the standards of the Premiership’, my question would be ‘in comparison to what?’.

Fair point, but I would agree with FKAS in a few respects - we do appear to have entered an era of defences being overpowered and I don't think it's all to do with an increase in attacking quality. Every gameweek, 2-5 of the games have a total points scored >50 and games where there's 80-90 points scored have become commonplace too. We've become like the caricature of 2000s Super Rugby with defence being optional.

All well and good, but it impacts our attack (as we don't have to work as hard domestically so we're blunt when facing teams that don't wave you through), our defence, and I don't think it's even helping with the marketability of the league as people haven't come to see end-to-end basketball. I'm worried it's going to start costing us at international level as well.

We might not be able to be on par with the Top14, but we shouldn't be this far away.

Puja

[TheNomad]

On ‘raising the standards of the Premiership’, my question would be ‘in comparison to what?’.

Fair point, but I would agree with FKAS in a few respects - we do appear to have entered an era of defences being overpowered and I don't think it's all to do with an increase in attacking quality. Every gameweek, 2-5 of the games have a total points scored >50 and games where there's 80-90 points scored have become commonplace too. We've become like the caricature of 2000s Super Rugby with defence being optional.

All well and good, but it impacts our attack (as we don't have to work as hard domestically so we're blunt when facing teams that don't wave you through), our defence, and I don't think it's even helping with the marketability of the league as people haven't come to see end-to-end basketball. I'm worried it's going to start costing us at international level as well.

We might not be able to be on par with the Top14, but we shouldn't be this far away.

Puja

Is it impacting the national side though? It's really hard to isolate the effects - manager, playing style, players etc - but I'd argue the attack became more varied and better in the last 6Ns

I agree with a lot of what you say, mind you

[Oakboy]

On ‘raising the standards of the Premiership’, my question would be ‘in comparison to what?’.

Fair point, but I would agree with FKAS in a few respects - we do appear to have entered an era of defences being overpowered and I don't think it's all to do with an increase in attacking quality. Every gameweek, 2-5 of the games have a total points scored >50 and games where there's 80-90 points scored have become commonplace too. We've become like the caricature of 2000s Super Rugby with defence being optional.

All well and good, but it impacts our attack (as we don't have to work as hard domestically so we're blunt when facing teams that don't wave you through), our defence, and I don't think it's even helping with the marketability of the league as people haven't come to see end-to-end basketball. I'm worried it's going to start costing us at international level as well.

We might not be able to be on par with the Top14, but we shouldn't be this far away.

Puja

Also, what is the aim with our game? If it's just about the international side, the only true yardstick is the RWC in which we compare favourably with France and Ireland. The irony of that is that the SA team is way ahead.

Basically, if we do well at the RWC and have an entertaining league competition do we need a Europe + SA competition so badly?

Yes, a quality European competition would sharpen a few edges but the current set-up is anything but quality. The single most important issue is getting young EQPs into starting XVs and maintaining their progress. Maybe, there is a case for more A fixtures. Encouraging Tier 2 countries to tour and play warm-up games against our club sides could help, as would a few regional fixtures v the top four SH sides ( turning the clock back but so what).

[Scrumhead]

On ‘raising the standards of the Premiership’, my question would be ‘in comparison to what?’.

Fair point, but I would agree with FKAS in a few respects - we do appear to have entered an era of defences being overpowered and I don't think it's all to do with an increase in attacking quality. Every gameweek, 2-5 of the games have a total points scored >50 and games where there's 80-90 points scored have become commonplace too. We've become like the caricature of 2000s Super Rugby with defence being optional.

All well and good, but it impacts our attack (as we don't have to work as hard domestically so we're blunt when facing teams that don't wave you through), our defence, and I don't think it's even helping with the marketability of the league as people haven't come to see end-to-end basketball. I'm worried it's going to start costing us at international level as well.

We might not be able to be on par with the Top14, but we shouldn't be this far away.

Puja

I was actually challenging @Banquo’s point rather than @FKAS

On the ‘marketability of the league’, what makes you say ‘people haven’t come to see end-to-end basketball’ with total confidence? It might not be what we know … but I can see a definite argument that it’s more marketable than low scoring arm wrestles.

[Banquo]

I don’t see a path back to that for English clubs. The SA sides aren’t going to be kicked out so you have that nonsense travel issue and French clubs aren’t going to stop pumping money in.

Why keep flogging our players in a tournament none of our clubs can win.

I’m not convinced that getting smashed in Europe by clubs with massive budgets is a great development for international players.

We massively downplay our own national competition. Someone like IFW for example took to internationals amazingly and had barely played European rugby for example.

I don't think we do- skill levels and intensity really aren't consistently very high. Picking out an exceptional talent to prove a point...doesn't.

I agree that getting smashed in Europe isn't great- but some of that is deliberate, because the comp itself is pi55 poor as an event tbh- if we can't find a way to get it back, then we must raised the standards of the Prem imo. Which is probably less teams.

Not sure less teams in the Premiership does anything other than send the competition under. Less teams means less games and less revenue. Less revenue means teams either take a bigger loss each season or they cut costs further.

What we have seen is that international refs are more open to turnovers and shenanigans at the breakdown, Prem refs are far stricter. That doesn't help our game much in my opinion, we are seeing teams play looser and looser in attack and defence become optional. More tries in the Prem but when the games become more intense at Champions Cup level we are getting mullered. Instead of trying to breed a high scoring game we need to work to push a more intense game and accept that it probably brings less tries.

No sh*t on the first (unless of course you have a proper English cup, say, and still compete in a revamped smaller european comp), and yes to the second irrespective of the first, but how do you do that.

[Banquo]

On ‘raising the standards of the Premiership’, my question would be ‘in comparison to what?’.

Fair point, but I would agree with FKAS in a few respects - we do appear to have entered an era of defences being overpowered and I don't think it's all to do with an increase in attacking quality. Every gameweek, 2-5 of the games have a total points scored >50 and games where there's 80-90 points scored have become commonplace too. We've become like the caricature of 2000s Super Rugby with defence being optional.

All well and good, but it impacts our attack (as we don't have to work as hard domestically so we're blunt when facing teams that don't wave you through), our defence, and I don't think it's even helping with the marketability of the league as people haven't come to see end-to-end basketball. I'm worried it's going to start costing us at international level as well.

We might not be able to be on par with the Top14, but we shouldn't be this far away.

Puja

I was actually challenging @Banquo’s point rather than @FKAS

On the ‘marketability of the league’, what makes you say ‘people haven’t come to see end-to-end basketball’ with total confidence? It might not be what we know … but I can see a definite argument that it’s more marketable than low scoring arm wrestles.

Been round this buoy before. The answer is...in comparison to international rugby! You historically have thought few issues with standard of prem, and I historically have disagreed. I don't buy the entertainment argument either, but have no evidence; what does sell is 'jeopardy'.

[Puja]

On the ‘marketability of the league’, what makes you say ‘people haven’t come to see end-to-end basketball’ with total confidence? It might not be what we know … but I can see a definite argument that it’s more marketable than low scoring arm wrestles.

Fair point, I guess I don't know it for sure. It is telling that the most popular game in the world is one where scoring is a big deal, rather than just something that the opposition can shrug off because they're planning to go down the other end and nullify it. I'm not proposing a return to 6-6 borefests, but the average number of tries in a Prem game this season is just under 8, which to my mind devalues them.

Right now, there's too many games where it doesn't feel like any moment is a big one because there's just too many of them. There's rarely a special, matchwinning, moment of brilliance that can be clipped up and put on social media, because the team scored 5 other tries and needed all of them to outdo the 6 tries the opposition scored.

Puja