'I wouldn't get rid of him' - Neil Back defends Jones despite bad call on Saracens players

That's not quite my idea.

For a 20 team champions cup I'd have 4 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 4 from the previous years challenge cup. For a 16 team champions cup I'd have 3 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 1 from the previous years challenge cup.

"The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime."

If teams get a tough draw in the challenge cup quarters, they should have won more pool games and so got better seeding. My system is less about finding the best teams, and more about finding the teams who perform at the highest level in european competition.

"You mean like the option I suggested like 3 times now?"

I mean the option that you initially suggested, but then disavowed because you didn't like the outcome.

"That will lead to have half of team from top14 and the end of the tournament."

I don't think it would be a disaster if half the teams were from the top14, but that wouldn't actually necessarily be a consequence of the system. We're talking about a UEFA style system. UEFA grant 1/8 champions league places to English premiership sides, but much more than 1 in 8 champions league semi-finalists are English.

"I genuinely disagree with that. I do think it's a decent team and are not doing too badly in the challenge cup."

Black Lion have won 2 and lost 4 in the Challenge Cup group stage in the past 2 seasons. That's not the record of a team that would do well in the Champions cup. They might have some close games, but the likelihood of a win is very low I think.

"Based on the current geopolitics I won't bet on this happening anytime soon 😉"

More's the pity!

Those T2 sides could play a pool or some simple comp with the bottom dwellers (that was actually something else I liked in Jones structure, he left out 2 English sides alltogehter, 4+4-2), and then come into the Challenge Cup when those top4 sides go up?

That idea just helps keep a nice balance for me. I like both comps having exactly the same structure, and raising 4 or so T2 sides requires that to break in some manner.

I'm strongly against Challenge cup semi finalists going to the Champions Cup, I could vaguely agree for the winner but definitely not beyond that.

Neither. You have a situation where like the Stormers lose to la Rochelle in Ro16 but lose out to a lower performing league team in Benneton (5th place v 7th) just because they made it to the semis of Challenge Cup.

"Well that's one starting point for an error in your reasoning. Do you think that in regards to who should have a say in how it's setup in the future as well? Ie you would care what they think or what might be more fair for their teams (not saying your model doesn't allow them a chance)?"

Did you even read what you're replying to? I wasn't arguing for excluding south africa, I was pointing out that the idea of quantifying someone's fractional share of european rugby is entirely nonsensical. You're the one who was trying to do that.

"Yes, I was thinking about an automatic qualifier for a tier 2 side"

What proportion of european rugby are they though? Got to make sure those fractions match up! 😂

"Ultimately what I think would be better for t2 leagues would be a third comp underneath the top two tournemnts where they play a fair chunk of games, like double those two. So half a dozen euro teams along with the 2 SA and bottom bunch of premiership and top14, some Championship and div 2 sides thrown in."

I don't know if Championship sides want to be commuting to Georgia every other week.

"my thought was just to create a middle ground now which can sustain it until that time has come, were I thought yours is more likely to result in the constant change/manipulation it has been victim to"

a middle ground between the current system and a much worse system?

Surely there is scope for a blended, hybrid role now. Remote working/coaching. It's an easier idea post-Lockdown and international rugby isn't usually more than a dozen games per calender year.

It could be huge step backwards for the wallabies if they don't get recruitment right.

I'm strongly against Challenge cup semi finalists going to the Champions Cup, I could vaguely agree for the winner but definitely not beyond that. I.e. why not the winner of the losers cup but not a loser from the losers. Sorry not a big fan of the Challenge cup 😅.

That's a lot of words to say that I was right. If (e.g.) Glasgow won the URC and Edinburgh finished 16th, but Scotland won the six nations, Edinburgh would qualify for the Champions Cup under your system.

"And the reason say another URC (for example) member would get the spot over the other team that won the Challenge Cup, would be because they were arguable better if they finished higher in the League."

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.

"It won't diminish desire to win the Challenge Cup, because that team may still be competing for that seed, and if theyre automatic qual anyway, it still might make them treat it more seriously"

This doesn't make sense. Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't. Under my system, teams will "compete for the seed" by winning the Challenge Cup, under yours they won't. If a team is automatically qualified anyway why on earth would that make them treat it more seriously?

"I'm promoting the idea of a scheme that never needs to be changed again"

So am I. I'm suggesting that places could be allocated according to a UEFA style points sytem, or according to a system where each league gets 1/4 of the spots, and the remaining 1/4 go to the best performing teams from the previous season in european competition.

"Yours will promote outcry as soon as England (or any other participant) fluctates. Were as it's hard to argue about a the basis of an equal share."

Currently there is an equal share, and you are arguing against it. My system would give each side the opportunity to achieve an equal share, but with more places given to sides and leagues that perform well. This wouldn't promote outcry, it would promote teams to take european competition more seriously. Teams that lose out because they did poorly the previous year wouldn't have any grounds to complain, they would be incentivised to try harder this time around.

"This new system should not be based on the assumption of last years results/performances continuing."

That's not the assumption I'm making. I don't think the teams that perform better should be given places in the competition because they will be the best performing teams next year, but because sport should be based on merit, and teams should be rewarded for performing well.

"I'm specifically promoting my idea because I think it will do exactly what you want, increase european rugyb's importance."

how?

"I won't say I've done anything compressive"

Compressive.

Barrett's irate kicking - a hangover from the ills of SR - is all that stopped them winning the Webb Ellis. I wonder if aule Fozzie would still be so hated?

Either way, I think it's poor to have your successor announced 7 months before the end of your contract.

I think the first is a fairly irrelevant view, decide on the second and then worry about the first. Personally I'd have had them in a third lvl comp with all the bottom dwellers of the leagues. I liked the idea of those league clubs resting their best players, and so being able to lift their standards in the league, though, so not against the idea that T2 sides go straight into Challenge Cup, but that will be a higher level with smaller comps and I think a bit too much for them (not having followed any of their games/performances mind you).

Because I don't think that having the possibility of a team finishing outside the quarter finals to qualify automatically will be a good idea. I'd rather have a team finishing 5th in their domestic league.

fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen.

The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime.

You may have been going for just a 16 team league ranking cup?

But yes, those were just ideas for how to select WCs, all very arbitrary but I think more interesting in ways than just going down a list (say like fl's) of who is next in line. Indeed in my reply to you I hinted at say the 'URC' WC spot actually being given to the Ireland pool and taken away from the Welsh pool.

It's easy to think that is excluding, and making it even harder on, a poor performing country, but this is all in context of a 18 or 20 team comp where URC (at least to those teams in the URC) got 6 places, which Wales has one side lingering around, and you'd expect should make. Imagine the spice in that 6N game with Italy, or any other of the URC members though! Everyone talks about SA joining the 6N, so not sure it will be a problem, but it would be a fairly minor one imo.

But that's a structure of the leagues were instead of thinking how to get in at the top, I started from the bottom and thought that it best those teams doing qualify for anything. Then I thought the two comps should be identical in structure. So that's were an even split comes in with creating numbers, and the 'UEFA' model you suggest using in some manner, I thought could be used for the WC's (5 in my 20 team comp) instead of those ideas of mine you pointed out.

I see Jones has waded in like his normal self when it comes to SH teams. One thing I really like about his idea is the name change to the two competitions, to Cup and Shield. Oh, and home and away matches.

"What about 4 each + 4 to the best performing teams in last years competition not to have otherwise qualified?"

Because I don't think that having the possibility of a team finishing outside the quarter finals to qualify automatically will be a good idea. I'd rather have a team finishing 5th in their domestic league.

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

You mean like the option I suggested like 3 times now? 😜 That will lead to have half of team from top14 and the end of the tournament.

"There's no point including Black Lion if they're just going to get whitewashed every year"

I genuinely disagree with that. I do think it's a decent team and are not doing too badly in the challenge cup.

"Maybe the best placed non-Israeli team and the Russian winners could play off every year for the spot?"

Based on the current geopolitics I won't bet on this happening anytime soon 😉

Foster's prior eight years international test experience when he took over counted for little. By mid-2022, an overall win rate in the low 60s caused NZR to intervene. Foster's ABs had been reduced to a laughing stock.

Joe Schmidt became a selector in 2022 & was given an expanded role as Foster's mentor. Rugby NZ clearly had coaching concerns.

After the well documented sackings Schmidt & Ryan joined Foster's coaching team. It was from that point, the ABs began to show signs of improvement. And nearly won the RWC. In spite of Foster in my opinion.