'I don't agree, to be honest' - Michael Cheika fires back at Stirling Mortlock's Wallabies criticism

Certainly makes eye contact, and it’s certainly reckless which means he’s facing anything between an 8 - 208 week ban. Which is quite a range!

The biggest issue I had with Cane as Skipper was his absence for nearly 50% of tests played. Through injury. Buck Shelford wrote an article on this very issue in 2021, suggesting Cane should relinquish the captaincy & concentrate on availability when fit.

There's a strong argument that he's working both the eyes. It's his left hand he uses which is furthest from the ball he's contesting. His fingers are also clenched which I don't think is a natural way to try and rip a ball.

"I don't like your model that requires them to reach Semi Final level in the Challenge trophy, given the bottleneck that will be URC with 16 teams playing for only 4 places."

my model would have given SA 3 spots in a 16 team CC this year, which is the same number as they have in the 24 team version that is actually taking place. But yes, if they keep getting worse it would get harder for them to get places. It would also get harder for you to argue that they deserve places though!

"I suggest by giving say Englands two semi finalist first seeds of the english teams, then the next best 4 on the league table as much better (it catches improving teams faster)."

interesting argument, but it doesn't always go that way. Gloucester are improving, but they improved in cup competitions before league fixtures started going their way. The same is true of Sharks, and the same was true of la Rochelle. I think maybe this is just an argument for allowing more teams to qualify via the challenge cup!

"the seasons a so bloatedly that if they can only fully concentrate on one, you're specifically trying to make that the EPCR over their league?" if the CC is the pinnacle of european rugby then teams should prioritise it, or at least EPCR should try to encourage teams to prioritise it. When teams don't prioritise it, it makes the competition worse. When teams do prioritise it I think they should be rewarded.

Overall though I like my idea best because my thinking is, each league should get a few qualification spots, and then the rest of the spots should go to the next best teams who have proven an ability to be competitive in the champions cup. The elite French clubs generally make up the bulk of the semi-final spots, but that doesn't (necessarily) mean that the 5th-8th best French clubs would be competitive in a slimmed down champions cup. The CC is always going to be really great competition from the semis onwards, but the issue is that there are some pretty poor showings in the earlier rounds. Reducing the number of teams would help a little bit, but we could improve things further by (i) ensuring that the on-paper "worst" teams in the competition have a track record of performing well in the CC, and (ii) by incentivising teams to prioritise the competition. Teams that have a chance to win the whole thing will always be incentivised to do that, but my system would incentivise teams with no chance of making the final to at least try to win a few group stage matches.

"I'm afraid to say"

Its christmas time; there's no need to be afraid!

It is specifically why I suggested most of the domestic teams models in the URC as reason to increase (give a comparitive equal share based on entrants) their involvement, I see those teams, SA in particular, as only improving their performances in EPCR.

In a world where your current disposition towards their performances continues (SA'n sides only ever give themselves a shot at winning in home matches), they should do what Jones suggested and just straight kick them out.

Now of course, you have suggested ways to fix some of the problems for SA'n sides, so if and when that happens, I don't like your model that requires them to reach Semi Final level in the Challenge trophy, given the bottleneck that will be URC with 16 teams playing for only 4 places.

It may only be small factors, but I'd at least prefer those teams enter Champions Cup a year or two before that, when theyre good enough, so atleast flipping it and doing what I suggest by giving say Englands two semi finalist first seeds of the english teams, then the next best 4 on the league table as much better (it catches improving teams faster).

But wants the point of bitting the bullet in favour of EPCR? What's to gain simply by shifting incentive from one comp to another?

Randomness might not have that result very often, but I'd have thought you'd planned to not have that possiblity. Did you actually think of either of those two situations? Why do you find that idea less palatable?

I like your idea even less now I'm afraid to say, I don't think I realised you literally wanted four Champions Cup teams to come back no matter what. I think you'd need to fix that part. Maybe I haven't looked at it enough to see that you're always pretty much filling those with good teams, I still need to see some sort of limit on it like Ro16 or something though.