Winners:

France -Toulouse, Brive
England – Bath, Northampton Saints, Leicester Tigers, London Wasps
Ireland – Ulster, Munster, Leinster

Losing finalists:
Wales – Cardiff Blues
France: Brive, Colomiers, Stade Francais, USAP Perpignan, Toulouse, Biarritz
England: Leicester Tigers
Ireland: Munster

That there is a greater diversity of losing French finalists is perhaps a reflection of the financial context of French rugby (sugar daddies etc), the significance of the Brennus shield, and the unfortunate length of their season.

I would actually say it’s the other way round, with Celtic fans not knowing their GP rugby. I watch a lot of Magners and however bad the Guinness Premiership has been this season (it’s improving slowly), it’s still not as poor as the Magners League.

If we examine the current individual clubs then we can see that only two of the top 5 GP clubs are actually in the HC cup this year. Therefore, surely the poor performances of Bath and Gloucester, for example, indicate that the mediocrity of the GP has not been exposed given that both clubs are doing poorly in the GP, and both clubs will not qualify for the knockout stages of this years HC.
Conversely, the only pool that doesn’t contain an English club in the top two positions is Bath’s group. Does that not reflect a consistency as opposed to mediocricy being exposed AGAIN?

Also, what English and French clubs are moaning? I haven’t read anything in the media along those lines. And what do you mean that the SA Super sides just keep on winning and not moaning? I thought that Sarfu has long been pushing for extra places despite the fact that the SA Super sides had generally been woefully uncompetitive? I’m confused by what you’re suggesting about English and French underachievement?

The average quality of a lot of the GP sides has been exposed yet again this year. Apart from a few teams with questionable numbers of Englishmen (which is super frustrating), they rest are not up to it. 7 teams is more than enough and I dont see why the French and English should feel hard done by? Do you hear the Boks moaning about the number of teams the Aussies have in the S14, soon to be S15? Nope. They get on with it and win games. Regardless of the representative disparity. Its about breeding competition. It shows how competitive the 6 nations is now when ‘le crunch’ is pretty much just another game. It hasn’t been the decider in years.

I agree with PotHole though, ratching up the ML a little on the HC front wouldnt be a bad idea. However, places should not be cut in favour of letting more mediocre English teams into the competition. if that’s gonna happen, why not just let them all in? Hopefully the addition of the Italians to the ML will sort the Italian problem re: hideously uncompetiive teams loaded with journeymen antipodians (Treviso excluded).

As for the Challenge Cup, I don’t know, I guess I am just somewhat predisposed against it. Many teams have a sort of ‘who cares’ type of attitude to it in many games and I dont think the number of teams currently in domestic European leagues merits such a competition. And if your team wins it, who really cares??? But on the other hand, it hands less competitive teams a chance to compete in Europe.

Pothale, whats your plan for a British Irish league, do tell!

Although I’m not sure if Winter game is not a bit of a misnomer. The rugby season start in August (Autumn) and runs through winter, spring and into the first month of summer in May, leaving aside the June tests down South.

Besides look at what has happened in recent seasons in the Magners – teams have fallen off the pace with mainly the Irish teams dominating winning it. I suggested the top 6 would automatically qualify. Currently it’s 7, with Wlales invariably getting the 8th team spot in the playoffs with Italian sides.

What’s absent from the ML is any threat of relegation (or absence from competition) – similar to the S14 – a flaw in my view, albeit one could argue it was never set up on that basis. However, teams like Southern Kings and Queensland Reds continue to flounder in the nether regions of the comp, year in, year out.

If you tighten qualification for the H Cup a notich, and ratchet up the pressure, it makes the ML more competitive, and qualification more highly prized. Besides, the current standings in the ML has the two scottish teams first and second, followed by Leinster. Munster are in 7th spot. Admittedly that may change, but don’t forget Edinburgh finished second last year. And The Blues didn’t bother with the league last year – Dai Young made it quite clear what his priority was.

And if not winning the league in the future still means automatic qualification, then the ML teams are not sufficiently incentivised. Welsh rugby is heading for a major slump with the way things are going and it already showed itself in their match against Australia.

Resting players/fielding weaker teams in prep for H Cup becomes less of an option, and/or demands bigger squads.

This year sees the introduction of the trapdoor in the H Cup where the next best runners up in the Pools drop down into the Challenge Cup, so the teams still are in the hunt, since the winner of the Challenge Cup automatically qualifies for the next season of the H Cup. And if the same country wins both, there’s an extra spot for that country.

i don’t see the point of a team like Viadana continuing to qualify for the H Cup automatically under the current system. They are practically guaranteed 10 pointer for any teams in their pool. The Ospreys put over 90 points past them. It makes it too easy in that pool, and doesn’t help Viadana at all. Much better that they developed a) in the Magners (or the new franchise did) and b) in the Challenge Cup. Treviso – whilst much improved – might also fare better in the Challenge Cup, but it will be interesting to see how they do in the Magners – better than some people might think.

Having a more open two-tier European tournament with greater competition for places would be a good thing in my view.

Mind you, that’s only half the story. Next up is my grand plan to break the existing structures of the ML and the Premiership and create a Celtic and English league instead with 3 or 4 divisions – but maybe that needs a separate article.

As much as I agree with your points regarding its benefits for the Celtic nations international test sides, the English and French clubs do have a legitimate reason to feel hard done by. They are the clubs that actually make money and draw in fans. The Magners League has relatively low crowds and TV ratings when compared to these two competitions, and their fans tend to only come out in huge numbers for HC games, and thus the French and English clubs do have some claim to a more democratic shot at the spots rather than the current 6 1/2, 6 1/2 and 9 in favour of the Magners League.

I agree that it isn’t broken, and I’m sure FIRA will do the conservative thing and keep the status quo as is. I’ll be more interested to see if the Super 10 teams remain invited to the Challenge Cup, or if only a few will and instaed more spots will be granted to Russian or Iberian clubs.

The ML concept includes giving the best teams from Scotland Wales and Ireland the chance to compete in the Heineken Cup each year, where players play at a quasi test level in many games. England and France have the opportunity to play 6 teams in it each year (this year England got 7), Wales 4, Ireland 3, Scotland 2. The 2 nations with the largest playing pools have more teams which is fair enough. Italy then have their 2. The Celtic teams have as many (taking into account the wild card magners place) as is justifiable given their player base and as their budgets allow. To scrap this system for Nick’s proposed system would make no sense. Imagine a HC with say 3 Irish teams and 2 welsh teams with no Scottish teams based on a hypothetical ML top 5 finish? It would spell the end of the ML and kill interest in the HC. A similar structure/development philosophy is used in the Super 14. Look at the Saffers player base, then look at their representation compared to that of NZ and then look at the Aussies player base. The whole point there is for the Super 14 competition to be (a) entertaining (b) competitive and (c) a vehicle what will ultimately improve the quality of internatonal competition in the tri nations, which, it undoubtedly does. That’s the raison d’etre. Each country is given the chance to develop a sufficent amount of players to become as cometitive as possible at a national level. This is essentially what the ML strives to do too. And it does it reasonably well too.

Why tinker with the HC format, it is already many peoples’ favourite tournament. Look at when top teams slip up against ‘lesser’ teams each week and the dramatic games and clashes that are made possible by virture of the diversity and randomness of teams and fixtures in it. This is what makes it so special. Teams play against each other in European Competition on an irregular basis, thus keeping the whole concept fresh. I’m not taking a swipe at Super 14, but having followed it closely on tv and from the stands, its just doesn’t have freshnesss and the ‘once-of-ness’ that you get with the Heineken Cup. It is a tad stale in many many games although it has some great games and magnificent skills too. It’s just a little less interesting as a spectacle (in my opinion).

If it isnt broken, then don’t fix it. Many things might (arguably) need tinkering in rugby, but HC rugger isn’t one of them.

I had a similar thought around the Magners when it becomes a 12 team league. Instead of the 2 or 3 automatic places for each of the countries of Ireland, Wales and Scotland, it would go to the Top 6 automatically and then play-off matches between Celtic, English and French teams for remaining spots.

Just a thought, because other wise as far as I can discern with only three competitions (totallying 38 teams) ‘competing’ for 24 places sought of rewards medicoracy (much as the 9 out of 10 qualification for the Magners League does now).