England's Fin Baxter targets silverware after signing new Quins deal

“It isn't what you suggested.”

Yes I was the one who suggested to use a UEFA style point. And I guessed, that based on the last 5 years we should start with 6 top14, 6 URC and 4 Prem. My guess was based on my recollection on which teams where in the semis the last 5 year as this will get the most points. I have to admit, my memory wasn't quite right and I vastly overestimated the URC and underestimated the top 14. It should have been more like 8 Top14, 4 URC and 4 Prem... but then if half of the teams are from the top14 we might as well just watch the top14 and cancel the Champions cup.

“Which of my points have you "got"?”

I got your point, that will be “unfair” for the Prem as the 3 leagues are “equal partners” so suggest just 5 teams each + the winner.

“Or what about a UEFA style system where places are allocated to leagues on the basis of their performance in previous years' competitions?”

Again, I was the one suggesting that, but you didn't like the outcome of that.

And actually I think I prefer the 3*5+1 format…. Or maybe we should include some other leagues. I think it will be a fantastic way to develop rugby if we include teams like the Black lion or the Lusitanos.. 4 teams for Top14, URC and Prem, 3 teams for other leagues and the last winner, what do you think?

"Are you incapable of thinking for yourself?"

Are you capable of taking a joke? 😉

Some modern coaches actively train and select their teams to avoid red cards. In this case NZ did not do that well enough, resulting in two red cards in a single RWC campaign.

Regardless, Foster's response is how leaders should react, namely to own their results and credit their opponents.

Ireland and France can have some claims of unfairness with the draw pitting them at QF stage against treble champions with RWC finals and medals galore amongst their squads.

But nobody can argue with SAs victory.

If NZ had won, it would have just meant the dodgy draw won.

England almost bounced SA and would have been hammered in the final. We were that close to seeing the tournament draw turn the tournament to utter farce. SA had to win.

"I am suggesting an equal share. England is not 1/3 of european rugby, and yet it gets the same number of entrants does it not?"

England has a 1/3 stake in EPCR. I don't even understand what it would mean to be "1/3 of european rugby". South Africa isn't part of european rugby at all. Germany and Czechia are though, so should they get more teams in the champions cup?

"6-8 last year, or the year before Finn?"

the teams that qualified for last years champions cup as the 6-8 placed teams in their leagues. So I'm talking about CC performance in the 23-24 season, and league positions in the 22-23 season.

"Of Exeter Chiefs, Bath, and Bristol Bears, first none had a winning percentage in the prem, where Bulls, Connacht, Sharks, all had winning seasons, as did France's Bordeaux Bègles, Toulon, Bayonne, with of of each getting to their semi finals, with two of those also making, and performing well I may say, in the CC quarters"

Ok so firstly you can't compare perfomances in one league to performances in another. First because in a stronger league, good teams will win fewer games, and secondly because Exeter, Bath, and Bristol might have made the semi finals of the prem, if the prem had an 8 team play-off like the URC and Top 14 do.

Secondly, I'll present the performances of the 6-8th qualifying teams in a table-type format:

Exeter: QF

Bath: R16

Bristol: group stage

Bulls: QF

Connacht: group stage

Sharks: D.N.Q. - replaced in competition by Cardiff, who exited in the group stage

Bordeaux: QF

Toulon: group stage

Bayonne: group stage

You're actually right that this wasn't a significant overperformance by the premiership clubs - I initially thought it was because I was including Harlequins (who made the SF) instead of Bristol, but that was a mistake. It is still an overperformance by the prem sides though.

"No on is doubt the English teams performances for the most part, especially while they remain a 10 team league, that also isn't really what an EPCR style tournament is about."

I get what you're saying, but I don't really agree. The European Super League was a really unpopular suggestion because there are 50-something countries that play club football in europe, about 30 of which are actually quite good, so the fans want a competition that brings all those countries together. Rugby doesn't have that. Maybe Georgian, Russian, German, and Spanish clubs should be given a seat at the table, but that has never really been what the EPCR is about. In terms of Wales, Scotland, South Africa, and Ireland needing equal (or less drastically unequal) representation in the CC to England and France, I would sympathise if each of these countries had their own professional leagues, but they don't. The purpose of the EPCR comps is, I think, the facilitate competition between the best of the 3 leagues. If it because more about each nation getting representation then you're just recreating the URC, both in the sense that the makeup of the competition would be similar to the URC, and in the sense that a really large number of fixtures would just feature the same URC sides playing each other over and over again.

The truth about red cards is that some teams find ways to avoid them, and others don't. None of Scotland, Australia and South Africa has had an RWC red card in over 25 years. How do you do that? Well, I am sure that it helps to bring in an experienced ref to advise the team, to train the players on tackle technique, and to select players that don't play too close to the edge.

It is true that a 2023 RWC final without the red card could have had a different outcome, but it is also true that NZ created an incident that many refs would call as a red card. They did not get away with it, which is not the same as being unfairly treated, much less being "robbed" (which arrogantly suggests that they had a right to the win).

Great to see Foster being sportsmanlike, despite a tough loss. Fair play.

"its the league having a higher performing base"

what does base mean in this context? how would it be quantified?

"if those teams performed just as well or better than English for example, why should they not have more?"

earlier on this thread you said "What happened last year is irrelevant, any model or distribution needs to be taken with the future in mind"

So which is it? Should teams get rewardd based on how they have performed or not? And should the English be rewarded for their performances last year, which outpassed those of the URC and Top 14 clubs.

"if South Africa and Ireland, and the rest of URC really, all have models that promote 4 Elite teams, why should the struggle for basically half the spots that the English teams get?"

Because they struggle against the English sides. If England is able to have 10 elite sides, why should only a small fraction of them be permitted to perform at the top level?

Champions cup wins last year:

Prem: 24

URC: 19 +1 draw

Top 14: 19 +1 draw

"league performance trumps EPCR performance"

why? (i) on merit, a team that makes the champions cup semi final has done at least as much as a team that finishes 6th or 7th in their league; (ii) one of the main problems with the champions cup is that teams often choose to field a weakened side in order to focus on their domestic league. A consequence of both the current system, and the system you are suggesting, is that teams that prioritise their domestic competition over the champions cup are actually more likely to qualify than teams who prioritise the cup.

"I think you'll get consistently better performing teams if you work out a fair share between the leagues and remove half the wildcard entries"

this is literally just the system that already exists.

"I'm looking to remove english teams because it's literally the title of the article!!!"

Surprisingly, it is actually permissible to disagree with the title of an article. Are you incapable of thinking for yourself?

"What about 5 each + last year winners?"

What about 4 each + 4 to the best performing teams in last years competition not to have otherwise qualified? Or what about a UEFA style system where places are allocated to leagues on the basis of their performance in previous years' competitions?

"But ok, I've got your point."

have you? you've disagreed with everything I've said so far. Which of my points have you "got"?

I was poking fun at a pedant, not being sincerely pedantic.