You're spot on with this Tim. This competition has been destroyed over the years. I remember heading out to the pub with a few pals for a super saturday of heineken Cup games, and one game was better than the other. Even a win sometimes wasn't enough. You had a nail-biter to the end waiting to see if your team could get a bonus point. Because that could be the difference between qualifying or not. And the home away element was brilliant. As a munster fan, we loved travelling to the likes of Welford Road or Franklin's Gardens. Mega trips with great people hosting us. How in hell have they managed to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Bloody criminal the way it's all gone
Hi Tim. Going forward, why doesn’t the EPCR reduce the Champions Cup to 16 teams (6 from the Top 14, 6 from the URC, and 4 from the Premiership) - i.e. top 40% of each league? Four groups of 4, home and away, then into quarters, semis and final. So we would be back to the brilliant back-to-back match ups of old, and one would need to play nine matches to lift the trophy, not eight. But the quality would be a lot better by removing all the dead wood.
The genius administrators in rugby seem to believe that a confusing format that sports with far higher interest wouldn't touch with a bargepole lest they lose fans will somehow work for rugby. At the very least, as you say, the old, tight, competitive group structures need to be brought back.
@gavindoyle692 Good shout mate, but sounds too much like common sense for rugby authorities to opt for. + this dropping down to the Challenge Cup 🤔 No No No. Once yer oot, yer oot has to be the way.
That is exactly what should be done. In pools of four you would have at least three teams trying to make it into the top two and all matches counting. The problem with the current format is that the teams that finish third and fourth n pools of six and scrape into the round of 16 then get hammered by the better teams. Last year one team, I think it was Ulster, made it to the knockout stage without winning a match. That is crazy.
100% in agreement with the questions raised and suggestions. Viewed from France where I come from, too many games are scheduled and a championship’s appeal also stems from scarcity and quality, which is definitely no longer the case.
I like your suggestion for a new format Tim! And thank you for giving an unbiased view of this, especially in regards to the amount of English clubs playing in the comp, and the treatment Premier is getting from the English press. That's how your channel is building so much credibility
US-exiled Glaswegian George here, Tim. You nailed it yet again. Ludicrous an 8th-ranked English team could qualify for a supposedly elite-level championship. Really like your home and away approach to foster spicier matches. Continued SA teams’ participation simply unviable both from travel cost-wise and having to commit to a 12 out of 12 month playing schedule.
My idea would be: Bring it to 16 team competition: - 5 slots for Top 14 - 5 slots for URC - 4 slots for Premiership - 2 slots for Champions cup and Challenge cup champions. Then: - 4 groups of 4 teams (no more than 2 teams from the same championship in each pool) - 6 group stages games (home and away game against the other teams from the pool) - First 2 teams from each pool go to Quarter-final. The level of this competition is more balanced and give more credit to the challenge cup where some good teams could challenge the title as well.
As a long suffering Leonster fan I agree with everything you are highlighting, Tim, but as an egghead I must point out you can't compare unequal data sets to make your first point. It could have been that in the eight previous seasons that the percentages were the same at the halfway point, but settled by end of group stage. Bring back the days of "bringing them back to Thomond" and "but we're down in Toulon next"
As a South African the idea of us playing in an almost world cup club competition is amazing. But it all comes down to scheduling if each team is going to Europe anyway why not have 2-3 weeks of just away games for the SA teams so they get a rest throw in a URC game in there as well to make both seasons go by faster and have equal amounts of engagement. I think the only thing that needs to happen for SA fans to back the competition is a deep run in the tournament by the bulls, sharks, stormers and then you have a whole new market generating immense money
Hardly an "almost world cup competition" ... no need for hyperbole. If there was a 'Champions Cup' that saw the winners of the Top14, URC, Premiership, Japan League 1, SuperRugby, Major League Rugby, & a South American regional club competition winner ... that would be worthy of the name.
@LittleBigMediaCo what an odd thing to comment on. That statement had nothing to do with the actual point of my message. Since you're such a snob about it let me instead say, "As a South African the idea of playing in a 7 nations style club competition is amazing" u must be fin at parties
@@thatmaddenmobileman9587 Suggest you go read your own comment. The word you might be looking for is "fun". Nothing about the Champions Cup is like a 7 nations for clubs ... it's a bloated tournament with 24 financially mismatched teams, only 6 of who are actually trying seriously to win it, another 12 have one foot in and one foot out, and 6 just have better things to do. There is no parity in the travel schedule, the playing conditions, or the means of the clubs involved ... and a tournament without parity is doomed.
@LittleBigMediaCo again if your read my comment I said the idea of it is amazing, because right now the competition is not where it needs to be, as was the whole point of the video. Right now it's nowhere near a 7 nations type tournament. But if things can work out properly I think having a South African market can do numbers for this game
@@thatmaddenmobileman9587 Expecting a 'quality competition' with 24 teams is a pipe dream. What they have tried to create is nothing more than a competition that is as 'inclusive' as possible, in the hopes it will bring as much money as possible by tapping as many markets as possible. Instead they've got a watered down flop that no one can really justify. Already the Top14 bosses are urgently trying to reduce the salary cap, but the current agreement runs until 2029 or something crazy. So if they can't cut the cap, the next way to cut budget is to cut the squad size. And France is about to head into major political and financial turmoil. Leinster is going to be sitting man-alone with a huge squad on the books. Already their depth and finances are creating one-sided rugby. That's the first thing that will chase away casual fans, who make up probably 70% of all viewers. Just dump the whole distraction.
Big issue I have with these concerns is I have no idea what we are trying to compare it to. Simplest comparison I can see is footballs Champions League. No one there really expects Sparta Praha to be competitive with Barcelona, but we do understand it will fill seats, win tv time for the smaller club, and make the general fan base take an interest in the next game if Praha take Barcelona to the edge somehow. The league was expanded to increase tv time for the smaller clubs and get some more cash into them. To cut back again would just leave the naturally strong that bit stronger again which does nothing to increase rugbys fan base. And until South Africa’s economy gets to a level of strength where they can support their own league, they are better off with us from a TV timing perspective and making sure the advertisers stay interested. One of the years they will take it serious to chase, but at the moment they need more time to get settled into the URC and almost get tired of winning cups there to put the challenge to themselves to go far in this competition.
South Africans travels are an issue. It is originally a European competition; players welfare comes first and doing long flights is an issue. Not to mention carbone footprint.
@@ontheright2482 Agree, you probably flew from the UK to SA and then to Zimbabwe, both on the same continent with one stop. The South African teams have to fly via the Middle East, probably with a longish layover, then to London and then to wherever they are playing, all this occurring over two maybe three days!! All this is done in economy class, imagine a 6'5' 140 lbs player cramped in a tight seat for probably 16 or more hours. Do you think he would be relaxed and ready to play a strenuous game of rugby?? NH teams just have to make an overnight flight probably in Business class with "lie-flat" seating. It is ridiculous. Your suggestion of a home and away competition would be far more indicative of the strength of the teams!
Brilliant video! The SA teams will settle in. This is a very tough comp and we just need time to figure it all out. In terms of format change suggestions; 100% on board. Less teams, home and away and knockout format sounds incredible!
Dear Tim, South Africa would be better of only playing in the URC. Having to travel for one game overseas was the same reason why SA left Super Rugby. This is just a repeat of the same problem.
If they did mix both where you tour for a couple months get your games done and come home rest and they come over then it would work fine… that does require organisers to do some effort which they don’t seem to have any interest in doing… asking them to do their job is too much to ask how dare I
For the Champions cup : 5 teams from top 14 5 teams from URC 5 teams from Premiers for the last team we take the winner of the previous edition, if he's already qualified in the top 5 of his league we take the winner of the challenge cup, for the format we come back as before, home and away matches in the group stage then the playoffs.
For the challenge cup : 3 teams from top 14 3 teams from URC 3 teams from Premiership 3 invited teams Black lion, Lusitanos and Iberians 3 group of 4 home and away matches then playoffs with the 2 best 3rd of champion cup group stages
This years format makes things a lottery. Never mind teams sending “b “ teams the fact that you dont play every team in your group, eg Glasgow will not play Stormers who are by far the weakest and where other teams are likely to get 5 points is a disadvantage. So back to 4 groups of 4 with home and away games
All reasonable suggestions Tim. I think you could also go 5/5/4 from URC/T14/Prem. + Winners of challenge cup (next team from that league if already qualified), winners of champions cup (next team from that league if already qualified) to make 16 teams in total. Also SA teams are in, both us Europeans and Saffers themselves should focus on solutions. I think they could be accommodated a lot more, shouldn't be too difficult to coordinate them playing their away games in a big bunch in URC and Champions Cup.
Spot on - global season, reduction of teams, scheduling. South African teams ARE a breath of fresh air, but I personally think they have been waiting for the full partnership next year to come through before sending their best. Why bother if its only an expense for your franchise? I also believe that this year can't be used as the measuring stick - not much data to go by, and i believe those "win by 7s" and blowouts will be roughly the same as the last 8 seasons once the group games are over.
I think the thing w/ the tv deals is that for the older generation (I could just be waffling), they were used to having games on free to air or always on sky or always on BT. But nowadays that’s just not how things work. Outside of the FA cup and the odd bit of horse racing, every sport is behind some sort of paywall. If you’re a premier league fan, you’ll need to have two subscriptions to watch the EPL (sky and TNT), and if your team make it into Europe you’ll need to have that TNT subscription to watch them
In France too, we have to pay another subscription (Bein sport) to watch the Champions Cup. Very few matches, among those played in France, are not behind a pay wall.
True, but there were 3 games on free to view france TV this weekend. There is always the best game involving a french team on Saturday and Sunday in the Champions Cup. + Perpignan this weekend.
I agree Tim, it needs to be an exclusive, elite competition. I would suggest the top 4 of each competition qualify for the Champions Cup, have it a home and away fixture. To make it more realistic, the URC and Champion Cup organizers need to look at the traveling of SA team. Apart from the play off game, make the tours 5 weeks for SA teams. That will limit the traveling to 2/times per year. That should take care of the 2nd teams playing in the Champions Cup and the SA players being less in the air
Another fantastic video Tim including many good and valid points. So here's my thoughts...... Firstly both the format and scedule have to change, as you've pointed out something along the lines of the old pools of four teams teams playing home and away is much more sensible, although if we had pools of 6 teams playing each other once to give us five games with three home and two away fixtures for some teams while two home and three away fixtures for other teams , the best seeded teams from the previous season's Champions Cup and Challenge Cup would be the ones with the three home games ,this rewarding teams with a better win rate and attacking play etc , however I'd be in favour of a 16 team elite tournament thats four pools of 4 teams playing home and away. As for the schedule, yes certainly the old schedule seemed to be better , however I can remember one Munster fan pointing out about fans being asked to attend games in freezing cold December and January with 8pm kick-offs , perhaps starting the competition with two games in January just prior to the 6 Nations with the remaining pool matches in late March/ early April and then late April with a quarter-finals in May and the semi-finals as a double header in June with the Final at the same venue the following weekend, this would be great for any host city such as Cardiff, Dublin and Edinburgh etc for tourism and publicity for the competition and so on such as helping club administrators sorting out the travel issues etc . Secondly while I agree that we have too many of our English teams in the Champions Cup , could we put two of any South African teams in this competition in the same pool ? This would certainly help with travel and scheduling issues , you're definitely spot on Tim , the powers at be within the URC, Top 14 and Premiership and Rugby Europe need to be working together to sort this mess out. Thirdly, a bit of thinking outside the box here but could having a southern hemisphere section for this competition be a way forward by having the the Australian and New Zealand teams in a section with the South Africans that is played during the same time as the 6 Nations , bringing back some of them much missed Super Rugby clashes, these games could be hosted one year in South Africa and then the following year between Australia and New Zealand followed by play-offs and as said semi-finals and Final in a single host bringing in prestige and publicity a bit like the Super Bowl in the NFL, although this would require a change of format for Super Rugby but would surely bring in far better finance all roud . Finally great that your back on the telly Tim but the is a point from fans regarding yet another subscription, many of us have Sky Sports as we still love our Super Rugby, so along with TNT it's a bit much to ask for people to pay out for a third subscription, is the £70 offer only on a streaming service ? Or is thst available through uour Sky box , many people I've spoken to have had trouble contacting Premier Sports, everything is a bit vague and also trouble with cancelling a subscription with the company reportedly taking money for another year , clarity would be welcomed from Premier Sports please.
I agree there are too many teams and i cant fathom who we are to play when the draw is being made. Also i agree we miss the home away fixtures. Plus the last 2 years we have seen repeats of ties in round of 16 that we had in pool stages. One suggestion i saw some years back that if you want to keep 24 teams you could go 8 pools of 3, each team plays home and away. then only the pool winners go into the quarter final. this would help reduce the number of games by one i realise but everything helps. also it increases the jeopardy as only one team qualifies from a group. bringing back the home away also increases the animosity and camaraderie in the fans. But i think fewer teams would be better.
Good points all. Streamlining the competition, syncing the SA teams’ travel with their URC obligations, and having a tighter home and home setup would all improve things. Maybe even better to make it a pure home and home knockout tournament and bag the pool stage altogether; then every single match would have meaning. 12 teams, with three league champions plus the previous year’s champion or finalist, unless both of those were also a league champion….those four are seeded directly to a quarterfinal, with the other eight drawn into a first-round home/home tie to reach the quarterfinals. Semis and the grand final could be one-offs on neutral venues. That’s fewer matches - 19, I think - but all with high stakes and great potential and greater prestige.
Champions Cup and Challenge Cup in one big pool with straight knock-out, please! This weekend's Benetton v Bath game would have been all over the news. That result hasn't had the impact it should because of the lack of jeopardy.
Yes but at least with a full package on Supersport one gets other sports apart from rugby e.g. football, cricket etc. In the UK if one wants to watch rugby and say Premiership football, UEFA Champions League football, Test cricket/ODI/T20, one needs a combination of Sky, TNT, Amazon Prime, and Premier sports. Can get ridiculously expensive!!
A solution would be a drastic reduction of the number of teams (down to 8 would be good I believe) and knock-out home and away fixtures immediately. Saffas would not be penalized and only 7 games to win it, all of them should be competitive and great. In addition, getting to play the competition would already be quite an achievement while it's today a due thing for english teams and barely competitive for URC and Top14. Qualify the best 2 after regular season of each league, plus Challenge cup winner and an extra spot for Champions cup winner league. Challenge cup would work with more teams including more exotic teams from other leagues. But come on, when you finish 8th of your league, you cannot pretend to play highest level competition.
Good to see you on the tv over the weekend Tim. It need sto be the best of the best. It juat feels like its waiting for Toulouse vs A N other. Probably Leinster. English teams are screwed, just can't compete with the big boys due to the salary cap. The best sides have a world class 23.
The English sides have squads to match most URC teams with the exception of Leinster and maybe a couple of the South Africans teams are a bit stronger.
Couldn’t agree more, the idea of the smaller cohort getting in and I like the cup draw for the playoffs too. I hadn’t actually thought of it being 24 teams out of 40… dead right it just is too many.
Jeopardy is the thing Tim as you mentioned. I remember the miracle match munster needed to score 4 tries and win by 27 point to get out of the group. One of the All time great games in ERC. Less teams and please let the groups make sense for the casual fan
Partial stats are pretty statistically worthless until all the games are played. Don't hang yourself out to dry yet! But your point on the Prem allocation is spot on.
Quite good fixes you proposed. Here is an other idea to adress the b teams problem : Make the EPCR games count in domestic leagues. I guess some will find odd to make the elite competition points count for the domestic season but I'm pretty sure it would help teams and their fans push a bit harder to get to knock-off stages AND it would mechanically select the most epcr involved squads for next year rounds. If my grammar was'nt telling, I'm French. And as a french and Top 14 fan, I'm pissed to hear staffs saying they're letting half off their best players at rest for a Champion's cup game because they need to focus on the next Top 14 bloc....
Very good idea with the format in the video Lot of issues now -SA Teams that have nothing to do in the european cups. -Travel in SA that does not make sense and make it unfair if you play an SA team home or away -Too many teams and sometimes not good enough -URC teams don't play in SA during stage pool and quite unfair for ENG and FR teams Best option is less teams and game or home and away but games that have a value. For the challenge cup, i don't know. With some teams that are currently playing in CC, it can be more interesting but in france, we don't really care about this competition anyway
Like yourself I liked the old home and away. I was fortunate enough, in my younger days, to be a TJ/AR and had some great trips/matches. As for the different channels, it is a great deal for Premiere Sports at 70 quid.
On the Premier Sports criticism, you should know by now that people like to plead poverty on everything and expect everything to be free. It's a tenner. The coverage is decent. Regarding the qualification, yes 2 less teams makes sense. And a team finishing bottom of any league shouldn't be qualifying for any European competition. What would happen if the unthinkable finally did happen and a team were relegated from the Prem. Would they be playing Challenge Cup games in the Championship?
I think we should look at at the stats again at the end of the champions cup. SA teams were involved in the 23-24 season too and that looks pretty much in the same area as previous years. Think there are a few things we need to keep in mind. South African sides has never had to play 2 cups to play for at the same time. Will need time to build depth! Salary caps for different teams also a factor on building depth!
It's a great way to build depth and give lots of players a chance to play. With the physical challenges that rugby places on a player I think resting players in appropriate.
Super Rugby's demise was due to clueless expansionism. The South African teams could add value if the scheduling was more aligned for both sides. This weekend we saw an impressive display by Northampton against my beloved Bulls who themselves were quite poor at a very cold StoneX stadium after thumping Connacht the week before limiting the impact of one match travel in this instance. I think the blocks of the competition need to be stretched out more, 6 rounds, get rid of the last 16 and schedule based on travel.
Hi Tim agree with a lot of your ideas, one thing that really annoys me is the differing broadcasters for the various competitions. For example I subscribe to Premier sports and was wanting to watch the Autumn Internationals. I wanted to subscribe to TNT for the duration of the games, but could only find offers for a long term subscription. Hence I missed all the games.
I’ve been really satisfied with my premier sports subscription, as an Ireland fan in England. Both tournaments I want to watch (URC and ICC) are on the same website, pretty reasonable cost (as a student that is invaluable) and the commentary is fine for the most part, some noticeably poor commentators but that comes with the noticeably good ones
6 from the URC, 5 from the Top14, 4 from the premiership, plus last year’s winner. 16 teams, put them into four pools, home and away for six matches, top two go into the last eight.
@@AnicetChvt You do know that the stadiums in South Africa take between 45k -70k. You muppet. UK stadiums take 8k-12k max. Looks at ticket sales not stadiums.
Every competition is boring before you reach the play offs. The Champions League in soccer is really boring right now and will be until we reach the knock out stages.
December in the old Heineken Cup was absolutely riveting drama because of the implications of disqualification. The extra teams have added little bit revenue
The word champions is misleading when in a European champions final who had an English team, Tottenham, in a final that had not been a champion for over 60 years.
Great thoughts Tim! Too many teams. Needs to he more prestigious. And a pity that success is largely driven by budgets. The French teams will always be tough to beat with their i international lineup of players. I bet it has gotten more pronounced in recent history. While its great that rugby players get paid more, the system is skewed towards French international teams. Their discipline is concerning. Two weekends of play and four very blatant red cards that led to disciplinary action. Penalties for such behavior needs to be greater
There is not a major rugby competition on the planet where they get the scheduling right. This might be the singular and most important use of AI to bang out an equitable travel plan and draw for inter country competitions. Plus, like Microsoft, rugby always seems susceptible to bloatware. Well........like councils, government bureaucracies, non govt bureaucracies, IOC, UN, WHO and pretty much any human endeavour where people like to feel important.
I think most issues in rugby boil down to an issue on the global calendar. I started researching and looking into the calendar in my spare time and how to improve it. A month or 2 down the line I’ve got a full PowerPoint presentation just in case someone from world rugby knocks on my door 😂
I was wondering if it wouldn't be cool for SA sides (assuming we stay in the ECC) to adopt (or rather be adopted) by Euro cities outside of the Top14, URC and Premiership. Just as an example: Stormers based out of Lisbon (we do have that Portuguese connection), Bulls out of Brussels, Sharks Amsterdam. Or something of the sort: close to the action geographically and for SA broadens our markets whilst also bringing the 2nd tier rugby markets top flight club rugby albeit part-time and through adopted teams. Scheduling might make that a non-starters though.
I think of something quite easy 16 teams. 5 best top 14, 5 best URC 4 best premership + winners of challenge and champions cup (if they're already qualified, the spot goes to the first non qualified from their championship) 4 groups of 4. First two go on to direct quarter finals. Winners of group receive in 1/4 finals. Semi finals are full draw (including home and awat teams). Boom, only good teams and cool matches + it gives new interest to the local leagues since you'd want to be in the top spots to qualify.
Tim I think we (South Africa) should play URC only until a global calendar is implemented. Our guys need a rest and we find this champions cup not as important as say the Currie Cup - at least the way it is now. What I find humerous though we keep hearing how this is for Europeans only but the non-SA teams have no problem recruiting our guys to play in it for their teams - do as we say and not as we do. I have seen French guys complain at us for not fielding full teams but they have no issue sending weak teams to the southern hemisphere in June and have said they will do that in NZ no problem in 2025. This works both ways and World Rugby have to sort out a global calendar.
A global calendar will never be sorted and it’s impossible because it’s a winter sport and either the southern or northern hemisphere would have to play rugby in the summer
Dear Bunny No .French people dont complain that you are not sending the best teams. As the matter of fact we understand it. We just take note that what was the summer rant against the french can now be applied to URC and premiership teams . But we understand it
Living in the USA, I’ve been catching up on these games by watching the highlights on TH-cam. The quality of the highlights from match day one was terrible e.g audio issues and replays shown before the realtime plays. Things don’t feel tied down properly from a production standpoint.
Hello Tim. What is expected as a result for a match opposing the current 1st of Top 14 and last of the Premiership? 21 - 64. My proposal: 4 from Top 14, 3 from Premiership 4 from URC + the winner of the previous Challenge Cup. 3 groups of 4, Home and away matches then semi and finals.
Tim, The Biggest Issue Is, The Pool Of Clubs Competing For Top Players Has Outgrown The Production Line. It Will Balance Out With Time, As The Game Settles Globally😊
The problems started when it was very difficult to get out of the group stage which led to some dead rubbers when teams couldn't qualify. For whatever reason the administrators decided to fix that by making it ridiculously easy to get out of the group. Of curse that will also lead to dead rubbers. Agree with reducing the number of teams who qualify out of the Premiership, 80% qualifying is daft. WRT the TV rights issue, I do get why people are upset, it includes me TBH. I simply won't pay another fee to watch what might be only two games for my side. One other point on that, the instant highlights are awful, no replays just incident, ref awards pen, kicker kicks it etc.
From a South African, I wouldn't mind if our players weren't involved in Champs and Challenge Cup. Our players play a 12 month season and they could do with some rest. But if they stay, 1. How many teams have won Champs Cup without winning their home league? Only the Stormers have won URC and they're more injured than a hospital ward so what are they supposed to do. So trying to win your home league before having a go at Champs Cup makes sense. 2. SA teams can't host after the round of 16, so why bother getting a good seed in the pools? And because of the two week blocks, even if an SA team host a R16 game, they then need to fly to Europe to play the next weekend for a "home game." So now the "home team" has to do far more travelling than the away team. So again, why would SA clubs try for a good seed in the pools? 3. I understand why SA teams get a lot of hate for what's happening in Champs Cup, but are we the only ones that don't take it seriously? From what I understand Exeter are taking it pretty seriously, and still losing by massive margins. There isn't enough parity across the three leagues to suppoort so many teams
Agree with the first two point but the 3rd doesn’t make sense. Yes Exeter aren’t in a good place rn but they understand the legacy of the competition and put out their best team everytime which is in the spirit of the cup, showing the best players in the world duking it out in different teams to their nationality. SA teams have shown they don’t care about the cup and won’t send their best teams away and essentially purposefully tank games in sacrifice to the URC (sharks away, stormers away, especially bulls last year in the quarter finals purposefully throwing the game) . If the management doesn’t want to send their best team to the premier competition in favour of another, they shouldn’t play in it at all
@DxQ2 you're right. Honestly I was between two points, the first is that some teams send full strength side and still lose massively and other send weak sides and lose massively. Either way, the game is boring. Of course it's easier for European sides to send a weakened side but still with first choice players to away game in Europe because of the travel time. If SA sides get full membership and so get more money to travel in better condition, we'll see if they start sending better sides to Europe. But, like the Bulls last year, I can't see an SA side that's doing well in both Champs Cup and URC try win both if they haven't yet won a URC title. It feels like trying to run before you can walk. Now that the Bulls have lost at home, we'll see how seriously they take the Champs Cup going forward. Stormers are just trying to find 23 rugby players regardless of position and the Sharks are still on track for what they would've planned. But they need to either beat Toulouse in SA or Bordeaux in France... we'll see what happens. And they're on track in the URC so I imagine they're still trying to win both, but it'll probably come down to picking one at the end of the season. But like I said, I wouldn't mind the SA teams not playing Champs Cup if either things aren't organised better to optimise travel or if SA side continue to not send their best sides after receiving more cash to pay for better travel
The URC already have the South African teams doing mini tours when they come up to Europe for league games. I think it would be completely impractical to only have the South African teams playing their European away league games in December and January to suit the Champions Cup, that would compromise the integrity of the league competition.
Premier Ports are doing great. It's actually the best move for the sport. Club rugby on free to air is the shop window. One subscription broadcaster works best. Premier Sports need to get the English Premiership no matter what happens. That will be best for everyone involved and then Premier Sports can build the product and their own revenue.
The previous TV deal with TNT included a simulcast of one game per round on FTA, and terrestrial highlights. Moving the live games to a second-rate broadcaster, and losing the FTA "shop window" - yes that is a stonking move by EPCR. Top-drawer
At least you have reached the FACT that the new format is a dog’s dinner. The possibility of getting the clowns that developed this system to change their minds? ,do they any, is probably impossible.
Personally think the players are playing too many games and most teams don't have the depth to play for a 10 month season. Something has to give, you have to sacrifice something, player wellbeing or position in the tournament with this current format.
I remember reading Planet Rugby articles complaining about French teams sending their C teams away games because they prioritized the domestic league...I think the South African teams now do the same as they have to contend with crazy schedules, what with the URC away games.
You have to compare the 1st 2 rounds of the 6 game pool format v the 1st 2 games of the 4 game pool format. Losing your 1st 2 was the death sentence that then had teams sending a B squad
The obsession Europeans have with crowd attendance is something new in the Southern hemisphere. Tim can you tell us the tv ratings? We care more about the rugby than the atmosphere in a stadium. Also dont think the Bulls and Sharks are at the bottom of there logs.
Tim, sincere thanks for your hard work in keeping the chan interesting. Can I bring a different perspective and a few sub-issues? - Let's go provocative first: Drop the "old-fart attitude" ie it was better "before"...it was different...not better...can't redo the past...etc...Don't hate me ;) - Money second : As true rugby fans ( you mentionned it in your video) we accept to pay to watch games, heck some of us pay to watch games from the other side of the world no matter where we are because we love THE GAME...of course our hearts beat a bit faster for our local team, our country team; but how many of us are there? My favorite 10 is Dan Carter, favorite 6 is JvDF, 9 is Dupont, 14 is Kolbe, etc...Now would the "average" non true rugby true fan be interested in (and accept to pay for) games that do not involve his local team, another team from his country? Having Saffa teams brought in was the shortcut to make quick money AND bring plausible contenders because... - The past 4 cups have been won by 2 teams from Top 14. And because the budget gap between top 14 and premiership one is widening, chances are both finals and semi finals (this year and the next 2 to 3 ones) will have 2 to 3 French teams and Leinster figting each other...So how do you keep non fans entertained? by breaking the cycle... By bringing another power house into the mix seemed the easiest answer. - Another possible route, instead of calling it the "European" (LOL) Cup is to widen it to the entire World (come Aus, NZ, JAP, ARG, FID, etc, club teams...), change the name and have it last for 1 month on a format similar to the RWC but with clubs instead of countries... But who'd run that, set the schedule with their heads instead of their (pick body part of your choosing) and count the cash to be distributed remains to be seen... - Finally French and Irish fans are currently "fortunate" because French and Irish teams (clubs and countries) are performing (very) well. I remember a time when the French were getting hammered by England, Scotland, Wales (OK national teams because there was no club competition back then)...They persevered, got organized and turned the tide. The future of Rugby lies beyond our current "relatively small" markets....accept that it'll take time for Italy, Scotland, Georgia, Spain, Portugal to strive. You do not grow a business by shrinking it and whine when the participants lack oomph...you do suck it up, bring new players in and make it grow...orelse it is called Sumo, cricket, darts, Australian football, apple race, Ba game played between cousins and say goodbye to worldwide expension (lucrative advertising contracts). Sorry for being too long. Did not have time to ask ChatGpt to sum it up.
what about having teams from other european nations compete, take a few spots from the prem top 14 and urc, and give them out to the domestic champions of romania, goergia, portugal spain. Yeh those teams will probably get battered but atleast at the start, but theres already many blowouts so what about some different teams getting battered, i imagine it would be a great way for players from those countries to get experience against tier 1 nations players.
Well said Tim - the Premier Sports package is good value. As a rugby fan I find TNT sport and the English Premiership poor value with so few rounds being played wiith only ten teams. If it wasn't for the Autumn internationals I'd bin TNT.
I'd also expect the numbers for the next two weekends to be closer to normal. For example the SA teams are 1/6, but they have derbies next week. They'll have an easier spring after the next round.
I think going by stats after two weeks is a bit pointless - nothing has changed in the format since last year, and the balance of games depends entirely on the fixtures week to week. More interesting would be to compare last year with the old Heineken Cup era, which people are constantly pitching as some sort of perfect contest where every game was close and meaningful (despite the fact that it had a whole bunch of blowouts and dead rubbers). The Home / Away thing is fine in theory, but does seeing Ulster get battered twice rather than once by Toulouse *really* make things better? Also it’s really not compatible with the whole reducing travelling thing - it would mean more trips to South Africa for European teams unlucky enough to have them in their group, and vice versa - groups with out SA sides would have a massive advantage. I’m with you on reducing the number of teams, but I think that could be fairly easily done just by taking out 4 English Teams and one French team, and providing a free slot for last year’s winner (to bring the total to 20). It doesn’t require massive changes to the contest.
I assume your talking about the stats in 2:46. For games within 7 points. 23/24 season first 2 rounds/24 games was 45.8%. 22/23 first 2 rounds/24 games was 41%. And for first 2 rounds/24 games for 21+ points it was 23/24 = 17% and 22/23 = 25%. Matchups definitely matter, but those stats are definitely concerning, especially because they don't look like they will be trending upwards anytime soon
When teams are sending out their B Teams and reserves, then it shows clubs aren't taking it seriously. This a massive problem because why should we as fans take it seriously? It's not prestigious enough if you only need to finish 8th out of 10th in the Premiership to qualify. Make the games more scarce and of higher quality. Make them must win. Have it a straight knockout tournament and scrap the pool stages. Have 5 from each league (URC, Premiership, and Top 14) plus the previous winner to make 16 teams. Or maybe 6 URC teams and 4 Premiership
The intersting thing about SA which i dont think has been covered in most rugby circles is that they have chosen (or been forced to chose) a calender where there domestic conpetion is Eurppean based and their international is Southern hemisphere. Even with a global calendar there would still be some friction here as you would have to change the seasonality of the sport in one of those 2 locations. Outside of that, definitely some excellent points covered and attempts at providing solutions rather then the typical moaning and nostalgia driven bias that normally drives the conversations on other outlets
The biggest issue is there is still no "global" season, resulting in a jumbled mess, with competitions overlapping and interfering with one another, breaking momentum and diluting interest in the effected comps. The season should start with the URC/SR/Top14 etc, then have a round of international comps like 6 Nations and Rugby Championship, then bigger club comps like Champions Cup, and then end with the "autumn" international series - but switch it up, so one year in the north, and the next year in the south 🤘
Nice suggestions. Unfortunately they wont do anything to fix the comp cause they want to milk every cent from it they can by playing as many games as possible.
Premier Sports - there is too small a window to watch replays! Basically if you don’t watch in those following days the games disappear. Super annoying!
You're spot on with this Tim. This competition has been destroyed over the years. I remember heading out to the pub with a few pals for a super saturday of heineken Cup games, and one game was better than the other. Even a win sometimes wasn't enough. You had a nail-biter to the end waiting to see if your team could get a bonus point. Because that could be the difference between qualifying or not. And the home away element was brilliant. As a munster fan, we loved travelling to the likes of Welford Road or Franklin's Gardens. Mega trips with great people hosting us. How in hell have they managed to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Bloody criminal the way it's all gone
As a Munster fan both my father, some of his brothers and my grandfather all did away matches as part of the red army, would love to do it some day.
Hi Tim. Going forward, why doesn’t the EPCR reduce the Champions Cup to 16 teams (6 from the Top 14, 6 from the URC, and 4 from the Premiership) - i.e. top 40% of each league? Four groups of 4, home and away, then into quarters, semis and final.
So we would be back to the brilliant back-to-back match ups of old, and one would need to play nine matches to lift the trophy, not eight. But the quality would be a lot better by removing all the dead wood.
The genius administrators in rugby seem to believe that a confusing format that sports with far higher interest wouldn't touch with a bargepole lest they lose fans will somehow work for rugby.
At the very least, as you say, the old, tight, competitive group structures need to be brought back.
Spot on it used to be a lot better 16 teams would ensure a more competitive tournament
@gavindoyle692 Good shout mate, but sounds too much like common sense for rugby authorities to opt for.
+ this dropping down to the Challenge Cup 🤔 No No No. Once yer oot, yer oot has to be the way.
The old pools of six should be brought back.
That is exactly what should be done. In pools of four you would have at least three teams trying to make it into the top two and all matches counting. The problem with the current format is that the teams that finish third and fourth n pools of six and scrape into the round of 16 then get hammered by the better teams. Last year one team, I think it was Ulster, made it to the knockout stage without winning a match. That is crazy.
100% in agreement with the questions raised and suggestions. Viewed from France where I come from, too many games are scheduled and a championship’s appeal also stems from scarcity and quality, which is definitely no longer the case.
On l'aime plutôt comme il est à Toulouse. En même temps on gagne quasi tout.
I like your suggestion for a new format Tim! And thank you for giving an unbiased view of this, especially in regards to the amount of English clubs playing in the comp, and the treatment Premier is getting from the English press. That's how your channel is building so much credibility
US-exiled Glaswegian George here, Tim. You nailed it yet again. Ludicrous an 8th-ranked English team could qualify for a supposedly elite-level championship. Really like your home and away approach to foster spicier matches. Continued SA teams’ participation simply unviable both from travel cost-wise and having to commit to a 12 out of 12 month playing schedule.
My idea would be:
Bring it to 16 team competition:
- 5 slots for Top 14
- 5 slots for URC
- 4 slots for Premiership
- 2 slots for Champions cup and Challenge cup champions.
Then:
- 4 groups of 4 teams (no more than 2 teams from the same championship in each pool)
- 6 group stages games (home and away game against the other teams from the pool)
- First 2 teams from each pool go to Quarter-final.
The level of this competition is more balanced and give more credit to the challenge cup where some good teams could challenge the title as well.
Would make a LOT more sense
Great great plan
As a long suffering Leonster fan I agree with everything you are highlighting, Tim, but as an egghead I must point out you can't compare unequal data sets to make your first point. It could have been that in the eight previous seasons that the percentages were the same at the halfway point, but settled by end of group stage.
Bring back the days of "bringing them back to Thomond" and "but we're down in Toulon next"
16 games is still a good sample of games. It’s worth discussing.
Well done Tim. I think you've put some excellent ideas forward that should be noted by the Admins.
Great video. Really good talking about the data instead of just a feeling. Keep it up.
As a South African the idea of us playing in an almost world cup club competition is amazing. But it all comes down to scheduling if each team is going to Europe anyway why not have 2-3 weeks of just away games for the SA teams so they get a rest throw in a URC game in there as well to make both seasons go by faster and have equal amounts of engagement. I think the only thing that needs to happen for SA fans to back the competition is a deep run in the tournament by the bulls, sharks, stormers and then you have a whole new market generating immense money
Hardly an "almost world cup competition" ... no need for hyperbole.
If there was a 'Champions Cup' that saw the winners of the Top14, URC, Premiership, Japan League 1, SuperRugby, Major League Rugby, & a South American regional club competition winner ... that would be worthy of the name.
@LittleBigMediaCo what an odd thing to comment on. That statement had nothing to do with the actual point of my message. Since you're such a snob about it let me instead say, "As a South African the idea of playing in a 7 nations style club competition is amazing" u must be fin at parties
@@thatmaddenmobileman9587 Suggest you go read your own comment.
The word you might be looking for is "fun".
Nothing about the Champions Cup is like a 7 nations for clubs ... it's a bloated tournament with 24 financially mismatched teams, only 6 of who are actually trying seriously to win it, another 12 have one foot in and one foot out, and 6 just have better things to do.
There is no parity in the travel schedule, the playing conditions, or the means of the clubs involved ... and a tournament without parity is doomed.
@LittleBigMediaCo again if your read my comment I said the idea of it is amazing, because right now the competition is not where it needs to be, as was the whole point of the video. Right now it's nowhere near a 7 nations type tournament. But if things can work out properly I think having a South African market can do numbers for this game
@@thatmaddenmobileman9587 Expecting a 'quality competition' with 24 teams is a pipe dream.
What they have tried to create is nothing more than a competition that is as 'inclusive' as possible, in the hopes it will bring as much money as possible by tapping as many markets as possible.
Instead they've got a watered down flop that no one can really justify. Already the Top14 bosses are urgently trying to reduce the salary cap, but the current agreement runs until 2029 or something crazy. So if they can't cut the cap, the next way to cut budget is to cut the squad size. And France is about to head into major political and financial turmoil. Leinster is going to be sitting man-alone with a huge squad on the books. Already their depth and finances are creating one-sided rugby. That's the first thing that will chase away casual fans, who make up probably 70% of all viewers.
Just dump the whole distraction.
Big issue I have with these concerns is I have no idea what we are trying to compare it to. Simplest comparison I can see is footballs Champions League. No one there really expects Sparta Praha to be competitive with Barcelona, but we do understand it will fill seats, win tv time for the smaller club, and make the general fan base take an interest in the next game if Praha take Barcelona to the edge somehow.
The league was expanded to increase tv time for the smaller clubs and get some more cash into them. To cut back again would just leave the naturally strong that bit stronger again which does nothing to increase rugbys fan base.
And until South Africa’s economy gets to a level of strength where they can support their own league, they are better off with us from a TV timing perspective and making sure the advertisers stay interested. One of the years they will take it serious to chase, but at the moment they need more time to get settled into the URC and almost get tired of winning cups there to put the challenge to themselves to go far in this competition.
South Africans travels are an issue. It is originally a European competition; players welfare comes first and doing long flights is an issue. Not to mention carbone footprint.
I live in uk. I went to a holiday in Zimbabwe. That flight was ridiculously long. I can't imagine doing that for one game. You are very correct here.
@@ontheright2482 Agree, you probably flew from the UK to SA and then to Zimbabwe, both on the same continent with one stop. The South African teams have to fly via the Middle East, probably with a longish layover, then to London and then to wherever they are playing, all this occurring over two maybe three days!! All this is done in economy class, imagine a 6'5' 140 lbs player cramped in a tight seat for probably 16 or more hours. Do you think he would be relaxed and ready to play a strenuous game of rugby?? NH teams just have to make an overnight flight probably in Business class with "lie-flat" seating. It is ridiculous. Your suggestion of a home and away competition would be far more indicative of the strength of the teams!
Carbon footprint.
Yeah right
@@paulcostello1807wow, cool way to announce you only finished high school.
Carbon footprint? You mean like all those "climate" wankfests where they all arrive in private jets and scoff down tons of wagyu beef?
Brilliant video! The SA teams will settle in. This is a very tough comp and we just need time to figure it all out. In terms of format change suggestions; 100% on board. Less teams, home and away and knockout format sounds incredible!
Dear Tim, South Africa would be better of only playing in the URC. Having to travel for one game overseas was the same reason why SA left Super Rugby. This is just a repeat of the same problem.
If they did mix both where you tour for a couple months get your games done and come home rest and they come over then it would work fine… that does require organisers to do some effort which they don’t seem to have any interest in doing… asking them to do their job is too much to ask how dare I
For the Champions cup :
5 teams from top 14
5 teams from URC
5 teams from Premiers
for the last team we take the winner of the previous edition, if he's already qualified in the top 5 of his league we take the winner of the challenge cup, for the format we come back as before, home and away matches in the group stage then the playoffs.
For the challenge cup :
3 teams from top 14
3 teams from URC
3 teams from Premiership
3 invited teams Black lion, Lusitanos and Iberians
3 group of 4 home and away matches then playoffs with the 2 best 3rd of champion cup group stages
Agree Tim, qualitty over quantity should be best for every actor in the ecosystem!
Rugby's dark secret is that the Challenge Cup games are much more interesting and entertaining
And they don't show most of them now
Which is why I don’t want Munster yo end up relegated.
This years format makes things a lottery. Never mind teams sending “b “ teams the fact that you dont play every team in your group, eg Glasgow will not play Stormers who are by far the weakest and where other teams are likely to get 5 points is a disadvantage.
So back to 4 groups of 4 with home and away games
All reasonable suggestions Tim. I think you could also go 5/5/4 from URC/T14/Prem. + Winners of challenge cup (next team from that league if already qualified), winners of champions cup (next team from that league if already qualified) to make 16 teams in total.
Also SA teams are in, both us Europeans and Saffers themselves should focus on solutions. I think they could be accommodated a lot more, shouldn't be too difficult to coordinate them playing their away games in a big bunch in URC and Champions Cup.
Spot on - global season, reduction of teams, scheduling. South African teams ARE a breath of fresh air, but I personally think they have been waiting for the full partnership next year to come through before sending their best. Why bother if its only an expense for your franchise? I also believe that this year can't be used as the measuring stick - not much data to go by, and i believe those "win by 7s" and blowouts will be roughly the same as the last 8 seasons once the group games are over.
I think the thing w/ the tv deals is that for the older generation (I could just be waffling), they were used to having games on free to air or always on sky or always on BT. But nowadays that’s just not how things work. Outside of the FA cup and the odd bit of horse racing, every sport is behind some sort of paywall. If you’re a premier league fan, you’ll need to have two subscriptions to watch the EPL (sky and TNT), and if your team make it into Europe you’ll need to have that TNT subscription to watch them
Spot on Tim. Home and away would do it for me. Now teams figure that if you win your home games you will get through.
In France too, we have to pay another subscription (Bein sport) to watch the Champions Cup. Very few matches, among those played in France, are not behind a pay wall.
True, but there were 3 games on free to view france TV this weekend.
There is always the best game involving a french team on Saturday and Sunday in the Champions Cup. + Perpignan this weekend.
Don’t canal and bien come as a package? I pay 70€ per month and get all sports
@kenrehill8775 yes, you can get a package, but it's more than the standard Canal subscription.
@ right
I agree Tim, it needs to be an exclusive, elite competition. I would suggest the top 4 of each competition qualify for the Champions Cup, have it a home and away fixture. To make it more realistic, the URC and Champion Cup organizers need to look at the traveling of SA team. Apart from the play off game, make the tours 5 weeks for SA teams. That will limit the traveling to 2/times per year. That should take care of the 2nd teams playing in the Champions Cup and the SA players being less in the air
Amazing how often the issues with the game come back to administrators actually being expected to administer.
Big time
Another fantastic video Tim including many good and valid points. So here's my thoughts......
Firstly both the format and scedule have to change, as you've pointed out something along the lines of the old pools of four teams teams playing home and away is much more sensible, although if we had pools of 6 teams playing each other once to give us five games with three home and two away fixtures for some teams while two home and three away fixtures for other teams , the best seeded teams from the previous season's Champions Cup and Challenge Cup would be the ones with the three home games ,this rewarding teams with a better win rate and attacking play etc , however I'd be in favour of a 16 team elite tournament thats four pools of 4 teams playing home and away.
As for the schedule, yes certainly the old schedule seemed to be better , however I can remember one Munster fan pointing out about fans being asked to attend games in freezing cold December and January with 8pm kick-offs , perhaps starting the competition with two games in January just prior to the 6 Nations with the remaining pool matches in late March/ early April and then late April with a quarter-finals in May and the semi-finals as a double header in June with the Final at the same venue the following weekend, this would be great for any host city such as Cardiff, Dublin and Edinburgh etc for tourism and publicity for the competition and so on such as helping club administrators sorting out the travel issues etc .
Secondly while I agree that we have too many of our English teams in the Champions Cup , could we put two of any South African teams in this competition in the same pool ? This would certainly help with travel and scheduling issues , you're definitely spot on Tim , the powers at be within the URC, Top 14 and Premiership and Rugby Europe need to be working together to sort this mess out.
Thirdly, a bit of thinking outside the box here but could having a southern hemisphere section for this competition be a way forward by having the the Australian and New Zealand teams in a section with the South Africans that is played during the same time as the 6 Nations , bringing back some of them much missed Super Rugby clashes, these games could be hosted one year in South Africa and then the following year between Australia and New Zealand followed by play-offs and as said semi-finals and Final in a single host bringing in prestige and publicity a bit like the Super Bowl in the NFL, although this would require a change of format for Super Rugby but would surely bring in far better finance all roud .
Finally great that your back on the telly Tim but the is a point from fans regarding yet another subscription, many of us have Sky Sports as we still love our Super Rugby, so along with TNT it's a bit much to ask for people to pay out for a third subscription, is the £70 offer only on a streaming service ? Or is thst available through uour Sky box , many people I've spoken to have had trouble contacting Premier Sports, everything is a bit vague and also trouble with cancelling a subscription with the company reportedly taking money for another year , clarity would be welcomed from Premier Sports please.
Brilliant analysis - Well done👍
I agree there are too many teams and i cant fathom who we are to play when the draw is being made. Also i agree we miss the home away fixtures. Plus the last 2 years we have seen repeats of ties in round of 16 that we had in pool stages. One suggestion i saw some years back that if you want to keep 24 teams you could go 8 pools of 3, each team plays home and away. then only the pool winners go into the quarter final. this would help reduce the number of games by one i realise but everything helps. also it increases the jeopardy as only one team qualifies from a group. bringing back the home away also increases the animosity and camaraderie in the fans. But i think fewer teams would be better.
Good points all. Streamlining the competition, syncing the SA teams’ travel with their URC obligations, and having a tighter home and home setup would all improve things. Maybe even better to make it a pure home and home knockout tournament and bag the pool stage altogether; then every single match would have meaning. 12 teams, with three league champions plus the previous year’s champion or finalist, unless both of those were also a league champion….those four are seeded directly to a quarterfinal, with the other eight drawn into a first-round home/home tie to reach the quarterfinals. Semis and the grand final could be one-offs on neutral venues. That’s fewer matches - 19, I think - but all with high stakes and great potential and greater prestige.
Champions Cup and Challenge Cup in one big pool with straight knock-out, please! This weekend's Benetton v Bath game would have been all over the news.
That result hasn't had the impact it should because of the lack of jeopardy.
£70 a year really is a bargain. In SA just supersport costs close to £40 per MONTH
Yes but at least with a full package on Supersport one gets other sports apart from rugby e.g. football, cricket etc. In the UK if one wants to watch rugby and say Premiership football, UEFA Champions League football, Test cricket/ODI/T20, one needs a combination of Sky, TNT, Amazon Prime, and Premier sports. Can get ridiculously expensive!!
A solution would be a drastic reduction of the number of teams (down to 8 would be good I believe) and knock-out home and away fixtures immediately. Saffas would not be penalized and only 7 games to win it, all of them should be competitive and great. In addition, getting to play the competition would already be quite an achievement while it's today a due thing for english teams and barely competitive for URC and Top14. Qualify the best 2 after regular season of each league, plus Challenge cup winner and an extra spot for Champions cup winner league.
Challenge cup would work with more teams including more exotic teams from other leagues.
But come on, when you finish 8th of your league, you cannot pretend to play highest level competition.
The back to back pool games were amazing. 100% agree that format element should return
Tim,you are hitting the nail on it's head!
Good to see you on the tv over the weekend Tim. It need sto be the best of the best. It juat feels like its waiting for Toulouse vs A N other. Probably Leinster.
English teams are screwed, just can't compete with the big boys due to the salary cap. The best sides have a world class 23.
The English sides have squads to match most URC teams with the exception of Leinster and maybe a couple of the South Africans teams are a bit stronger.
We have a salary cap in france
Couldn’t agree more, the idea of the smaller cohort getting in and I like the cup draw for the playoffs too. I hadn’t actually thought of it being 24 teams out of 40… dead right it just is too many.
Jeopardy is the thing Tim as you mentioned. I remember the miracle match munster needed to score 4 tries and win by 27 point to get out of the group. One of the All time great games in ERC.
Less teams and please let the groups make sense for the casual fan
What a match!!!
Partial stats are pretty statistically worthless until all the games are played. Don't hang yourself out to dry yet! But your point on the Prem allocation is spot on.
It makes sense. It would help also to have a UEFA style ranking of the teams that determines how many teams each league qualifies.
Quite good fixes you proposed.
Here is an other idea to adress the b teams problem :
Make the EPCR games count in domestic leagues.
I guess some will find odd to make the elite competition points count for the domestic season but I'm pretty sure it would help teams and their fans push a bit harder to get to knock-off stages AND it would mechanically select the most epcr involved squads for next year rounds.
If my grammar was'nt telling, I'm French.
And as a french and Top 14 fan, I'm pissed to hear staffs saying they're letting half off their best players at rest for a Champion's cup game because they need to focus on the next Top 14 bloc....
Very good idea with the format in the video
Lot of issues now
-SA Teams that have nothing to do in the european cups.
-Travel in SA that does not make sense and make it unfair if you play an SA team home or away
-Too many teams and sometimes not good enough
-URC teams don't play in SA during stage pool and quite unfair for ENG and FR teams
Best option is less teams and game or home and away but games that have a value.
For the challenge cup, i don't know. With some teams that are currently playing in CC, it can be more interesting but in france, we don't really care about this competition anyway
Also need to factor in that Premiership is just England, Top 14 is just France, and URC is South Africa, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Italy.
Like yourself I liked the old home and away. I was fortunate enough, in my younger days, to be a TJ/AR and had some great trips/matches. As for the different channels, it is a great deal for Premiere Sports at 70 quid.
On the Premier Sports criticism, you should know by now that people like to plead poverty on everything and expect everything to be free. It's a tenner. The coverage is decent.
Regarding the qualification, yes 2 less teams makes sense. And a team finishing bottom of any league shouldn't be qualifying for any European competition.
What would happen if the unthinkable finally did happen and a team were relegated from the Prem. Would they be playing Challenge Cup games in the Championship?
A straight knock-out Cup competition with home-and-away matches. That would be cool.
I think we should look at at the stats again at the end of the champions cup. SA teams were involved in the 23-24 season too and that looks pretty much in the same area as previous years. Think there are a few things we need to keep in mind. South African sides has never had to play 2 cups to play for at the same time. Will need time to build depth! Salary caps for different teams also a factor on building depth!
It's a great way to build depth and give lots of players a chance to play. With the physical challenges that rugby places on a player I think resting players in appropriate.
Would like to hear more about specifically which turkey needs to vote for what for a global season to work, Maybe it’s been covered already.
Super Rugby's demise was due to clueless expansionism.
The South African teams could add value if the scheduling was more aligned for both sides.
This weekend we saw an impressive display by Northampton against my beloved Bulls who themselves were quite poor at a very cold StoneX stadium after thumping Connacht the week before limiting the impact of one match travel in this instance.
I think the blocks of the competition need to be stretched out more, 6 rounds, get rid of the last 16 and schedule based on travel.
Why are you not involved in making these decisions? These leagues should hire you. You would help grow the game exponentially.
great content as usual Tim
I wish they’d just hire Tim to be head of World Rugby.
Hi Tim agree with a lot of your ideas, one thing that really annoys me is the differing broadcasters for the various competitions. For example I subscribe to Premier sports and was wanting to watch the Autumn Internationals. I wanted to subscribe to TNT for the duration of the games, but could only find offers for a long term subscription. Hence I missed all the games.
I’ve been really satisfied with my premier sports subscription, as an Ireland fan in England. Both tournaments I want to watch (URC and ICC) are on the same website, pretty reasonable cost (as a student that is invaluable) and the commentary is fine for the most part, some noticeably poor commentators but that comes with the noticeably good ones
I appreciate the research Tim!
100% right, it’s only the English base who are complaining about the fact that the matches are on Premier Sports.
6 from the URC, 5 from the Top14, 4 from the premiership, plus last year’s winner.
16 teams, put them into four pools, home and away for six matches, top two go into the last eight.
If I was John Dobson, i wouldve focused on the championship cup, we are so far out in the URC that the champions cup wouldve made more sense.
I also think that the comp needs t be moved to the end of the season. Winners of that seasons Pro-14, URC and Prem, to compete in that years euros.
Good, unbiased observations
The South African travel issue would be resolved if they simply weren’t in European competitions.
Which other competition remains closer?
URC is fine buy Championship is a bridge too far.
You're right, moreover their stands are empty. Poor country!
@@AnicetChvt You do know that the stadiums in South Africa take between 45k -70k. You muppet. UK stadiums take 8k-12k max. Looks at ticket sales not stadiums.
I'd prefer to lose the English teams than the SA teams. It would also be karma for destroying the old competition.
UBB & Toulouse are winning by 40 pts tp 60 pts even on Top 14, so just the current domination of 2 clubs, as Leinster did several years ago.
Every competition is boring before you reach the play offs. The Champions League in soccer is really boring right now and will be until we reach the knock out stages.
December in the old Heineken Cup was absolutely riveting drama because of the implications of disqualification. The extra teams have added little bit revenue
The word champions is misleading when in a European champions final who had an English team, Tottenham, in a final that had not been a champion for over 60 years.
Great thoughts Tim! Too many teams. Needs to he more prestigious. And a pity that success is largely driven by budgets. The French teams will always be tough to beat with their i international lineup of players. I bet it has gotten more pronounced in recent history. While its great that rugby players get paid more, the system is skewed towards French international teams. Their discipline is concerning. Two weekends of play and four very blatant red cards that led to disciplinary action. Penalties for such behavior needs to be greater
Totally agree with you Tim.
There is not a major rugby competition on the planet where they get the scheduling right. This might be the singular and most important use of AI to bang out an equitable travel plan and draw for inter country competitions.
Plus, like Microsoft, rugby always seems susceptible to bloatware. Well........like councils, government bureaucracies, non govt bureaucracies, IOC, UN, WHO and pretty much any human endeavour where people like to feel important.
I think most issues in rugby boil down to an issue on the global calendar. I started researching and looking into the calendar in my spare time and how to improve it. A month or 2 down the line I’ve got a full PowerPoint presentation just in case someone from world rugby knocks on my door 😂
I was wondering if it wouldn't be cool for SA sides (assuming we stay in the ECC) to adopt (or rather be adopted) by Euro cities outside of the Top14, URC and Premiership. Just as an example: Stormers based out of Lisbon (we do have that Portuguese connection), Bulls out of Brussels, Sharks Amsterdam. Or something of the sort: close to the action geographically and for SA broadens our markets whilst also bringing the 2nd tier rugby markets top flight club rugby albeit part-time and through adopted teams. Scheduling might make that a non-starters though.
I think of something quite easy 16 teams. 5 best top 14, 5 best URC 4 best premership + winners of challenge and champions cup (if they're already qualified, the spot goes to the first non qualified from their championship) 4 groups of 4. First two go on to direct quarter finals. Winners of group receive in 1/4 finals. Semi finals are full draw (including home and awat teams).
Boom, only good teams and cool matches + it gives new interest to the local leagues since you'd want to be in the top spots to qualify.
Saw your pre match chat with Andy Goode, he invited you on the rugby pod yet?😉😂
Tim I think we (South Africa) should play URC only until a global calendar is implemented. Our guys need a rest and we find this champions cup not as important as say the Currie Cup - at least the way it is now.
What I find humerous though we keep hearing how this is for Europeans only but the non-SA teams have no problem recruiting our guys to play in it for their teams - do as we say and not as we do. I have seen French guys complain at us for not fielding full teams but they have no issue sending weak teams to the southern hemisphere in June and have said they will do that in NZ no problem in 2025.
This works both ways and World Rugby have to sort out a global calendar.
A global calendar will never be sorted and it’s impossible because it’s a winter sport and either the southern or northern hemisphere would have to play rugby in the summer
@@edconway8599Right now the South Africans are plying in the summer.
@edconway8599 rugby biggest event being played in either winter or summer, depending on where it is hosted, so that is just a stupid argument.
Dear Bunny No .French people dont complain that you are not sending the best teams. As the matter of fact we understand it. We just take note that what was the summer rant against the french can now be applied to URC and premiership teams . But we understand it
@ No, there’s a huge difference between sending second team to a club game, and international test series.
6+6+6 and the winner of the the challenge and champions cup (winners country gets an extra team) makes 20 for 4x5 team groups back to old format
That means 8 pool games. Better to reduce to four pools of four and hence 6 pool matches.
@ sorry, meant 5x4 teams, like the old format when the pool games mattered.
Living in the USA, I’ve been catching up on these games by watching the highlights on TH-cam. The quality of the highlights from match day one was terrible e.g audio issues and replays shown before the realtime plays. Things don’t feel tied down properly from a production standpoint.
Hello Tim. What is expected as a result for a match opposing the current 1st of Top 14 and last of the Premiership? 21 - 64. My proposal: 4 from Top 14, 3 from Premiership 4 from URC + the winner of the previous Challenge Cup. 3 groups of 4, Home and away matches then semi and finals.
I I think the prestige of the tournament has takien a huge hit over the last while.
Tim, The Biggest Issue Is, The Pool Of Clubs Competing For Top Players Has Outgrown The Production Line.
It Will Balance Out With Time, As The Game Settles Globally😊
The problems started when it was very difficult to get out of the group stage which led to some dead rubbers when teams couldn't qualify.
For whatever reason the administrators decided to fix that by making it ridiculously easy to get out of the group. Of curse that will also lead to dead rubbers.
Agree with reducing the number of teams who qualify out of the Premiership, 80% qualifying is daft.
WRT the TV rights issue, I do get why people are upset, it includes me TBH. I simply won't pay another fee to watch what might be only two games for my side.
One other point on that, the instant highlights are awful, no replays just incident, ref awards pen, kicker kicks it etc.
tim , do you have time in your program to run world rugby for us? our players can not handle 12 months of rugby and be competitive in all twelve
From a South African, I wouldn't mind if our players weren't involved in Champs and Challenge Cup. Our players play a 12 month season and they could do with some rest. But if they stay,
1. How many teams have won Champs Cup without winning their home league? Only the Stormers have won URC and they're more injured than a hospital ward so what are they supposed to do. So trying to win your home league before having a go at Champs Cup makes sense.
2. SA teams can't host after the round of 16, so why bother getting a good seed in the pools? And because of the two week blocks, even if an SA team host a R16 game, they then need to fly to Europe to play the next weekend for a "home game." So now the "home team" has to do far more travelling than the away team. So again, why would SA clubs try for a good seed in the pools?
3. I understand why SA teams get a lot of hate for what's happening in Champs Cup, but are we the only ones that don't take it seriously? From what I understand Exeter are taking it pretty seriously, and still losing by massive margins. There isn't enough parity across the three leagues to suppoort so many teams
Agree with the first two point but the 3rd doesn’t make sense. Yes Exeter aren’t in a good place rn but they understand the legacy of the competition and put out their best team everytime which is in the spirit of the cup, showing the best players in the world duking it out in different teams to their nationality. SA teams have shown they don’t care about the cup and won’t send their best teams away and essentially purposefully tank games in sacrifice to the URC (sharks away, stormers away, especially bulls last year in the quarter finals purposefully throwing the game) . If the management doesn’t want to send their best team to the premier competition in favour of another, they shouldn’t play in it at all
@DxQ2 you're right. Honestly I was between two points, the first is that some teams send full strength side and still lose massively and other send weak sides and lose massively. Either way, the game is boring. Of course it's easier for European sides to send a weakened side but still with first choice players to away game in Europe because of the travel time. If SA sides get full membership and so get more money to travel in better condition, we'll see if they start sending better sides to Europe.
But, like the Bulls last year, I can't see an SA side that's doing well in both Champs Cup and URC try win both if they haven't yet won a URC title. It feels like trying to run before you can walk. Now that the Bulls have lost at home, we'll see how seriously they take the Champs Cup going forward. Stormers are just trying to find 23 rugby players regardless of position and the Sharks are still on track for what they would've planned. But they need to either beat Toulouse in SA or Bordeaux in France... we'll see what happens. And they're on track in the URC so I imagine they're still trying to win both, but it'll probably come down to picking one at the end of the season. But like I said, I wouldn't mind the SA teams not playing Champs Cup if either things aren't organised better to optimise travel or if SA side continue to not send their best sides after receiving more cash to pay for better travel
The URC already have the South African teams doing mini tours when they come up to Europe for league games. I think it would be completely impractical to only have the South African teams playing their European away league games in December and January to suit the Champions Cup, that would compromise the integrity of the league competition.
Premier Ports are doing great. It's actually the best move for the sport. Club rugby on free to air is the shop window. One subscription broadcaster works best. Premier Sports need to get the English Premiership no matter what happens. That will be best for everyone involved and then Premier Sports can build the product and their own revenue.
The previous TV deal with TNT included a simulcast of one game per round on FTA, and terrestrial highlights. Moving the live games to a second-rate broadcaster, and losing the FTA "shop window" - yes that is a stonking move by EPCR. Top-drawer
At least you have reached the FACT that the new format is a dog’s dinner. The possibility of getting the clowns that developed this system to change their minds? ,do they any, is probably impossible.
Have to find where the spivs hid the head office in Switzerland first.
Personally think the players are playing too many games and most teams don't have the depth to play for a 10 month season. Something has to give, you have to sacrifice something, player wellbeing or position in the tournament with this current format.
they wanted to play with the best and now they are crying hahahah i love this 😂❤
Rather cry now and laugh later.
I remember reading Planet Rugby articles complaining about French teams sending their C teams away games because they prioritized the domestic league...I think the South African teams now do the same as they have to contend with crazy schedules, what with the URC away games.
You have to compare the 1st 2 rounds of the 6 game pool format v the 1st 2 games of the 4 game pool format. Losing your 1st 2 was the death sentence that then had teams sending a B squad
The obsession Europeans have with crowd attendance is something new in the Southern hemisphere. Tim can you tell us the tv ratings? We care more about the rugby than the atmosphere in a stadium. Also dont think the Bulls and Sharks are at the bottom of there logs.
Got to pay the bills mate.
Tim, sincere thanks for your hard work in keeping the chan interesting. Can I bring a different perspective and a few sub-issues?
- Let's go provocative first: Drop the "old-fart attitude" ie it was better "before"...it was different...not better...can't redo the past...etc...Don't hate me ;)
- Money second : As true rugby fans ( you mentionned it in your video) we accept to pay to watch games, heck some of us pay to watch games from the other side of the world no matter where we are because we love THE GAME...of course our hearts beat a bit faster for our local team, our country team; but how many of us are there? My favorite 10 is Dan Carter, favorite 6 is JvDF, 9 is Dupont, 14 is Kolbe, etc...Now would the "average" non true rugby true fan be interested in (and accept to pay for) games that do not involve his local team, another team from his country? Having Saffa teams brought in was the shortcut to make quick money AND bring plausible contenders because...
- The past 4 cups have been won by 2 teams from Top 14. And because the budget gap between top 14 and premiership one is widening, chances are both finals and semi finals (this year and the next 2 to 3 ones) will have 2 to 3 French teams and Leinster figting each other...So how do you keep non fans entertained? by breaking the cycle... By bringing another power house into the mix seemed the easiest answer.
- Another possible route, instead of calling it the "European" (LOL) Cup is to widen it to the entire World (come Aus, NZ, JAP, ARG, FID, etc, club teams...), change the name and have it last for 1 month on a format similar to the RWC but with clubs instead of countries... But who'd run that, set the schedule with their heads instead of their (pick body part of your choosing) and count the cash to be distributed remains to be seen...
- Finally French and Irish fans are currently "fortunate" because French and Irish teams (clubs and countries) are performing (very) well. I remember a time when the French were getting hammered by England, Scotland, Wales (OK national teams because there was no club competition back then)...They persevered, got organized and turned the tide. The future of Rugby lies beyond our current "relatively small" markets....accept that it'll take time for Italy, Scotland, Georgia, Spain, Portugal to strive. You do not grow a business by shrinking it and whine when the participants lack oomph...you do suck it up, bring new players in and make it grow...orelse it is called Sumo, cricket, darts, Australian football, apple race, Ba game played between cousins and say goodbye to worldwide expension (lucrative advertising contracts).
Sorry for being too long. Did not have time to ask ChatGpt to sum it up.
what about having teams from other european nations compete, take a few spots from the prem top 14 and urc, and give them out to the domestic champions of romania, goergia, portugal spain. Yeh those teams will probably get battered but atleast at the start, but theres already many blowouts so what about some different teams getting battered, i imagine it would be a great way for players from those countries to get experience against tier 1 nations players.
Still early days, if 5 more rounds in it’s still like this I’d start panicking.
Well said Tim - the Premier Sports package is good value. As a rugby fan I find TNT sport and the English Premiership poor value with so few rounds being played wiith only ten teams. If it wasn't for the Autumn internationals I'd bin TNT.
For years a team would be very lucky to have an Italian team in their. Then there were stand out drubbings of Bourgoin, Ebbw Vale etc
I'd also expect the numbers for the next two weekends to be closer to normal.
For example the SA teams are 1/6, but they have derbies next week. They'll have an easier spring after the next round.
I like your sample format.
It's always been shit when teams are poor in the top comp then drop down into the challenge.
I think going by stats after two weeks is a bit pointless - nothing has changed in the format since last year, and the balance of games depends entirely on the fixtures week to week. More interesting would be to compare last year with the old Heineken Cup era, which people are constantly pitching as some sort of perfect contest where every game was close and meaningful (despite the fact that it had a whole bunch of blowouts and dead rubbers).
The Home / Away thing is fine in theory, but does seeing Ulster get battered twice rather than once by Toulouse *really* make things better? Also it’s really not compatible with the whole reducing travelling thing - it would mean more trips to South Africa for European teams unlucky enough to have them in their group, and vice versa - groups with out SA sides would have a massive advantage.
I’m with you on reducing the number of teams, but I think that could be fairly easily done just by taking out 4 English Teams and one French team, and providing a free slot for last year’s winner (to bring the total to 20). It doesn’t require massive changes to the contest.
I assume your talking about the stats in 2:46. For games within 7 points. 23/24 season first 2 rounds/24 games was 45.8%. 22/23 first 2 rounds/24 games was 41%. And for first 2 rounds/24 games for 21+ points it was 23/24 = 17% and 22/23 = 25%. Matchups definitely matter, but those stats are definitely concerning, especially because they don't look like they will be trending upwards anytime soon
Simple solution is remove the SA teams. They are showing that they don't care about the competition
When teams are sending out their B Teams and reserves, then it shows clubs aren't taking it seriously. This a massive problem because why should we as fans take it seriously?
It's not prestigious enough if you only need to finish 8th out of 10th in the Premiership to qualify.
Make the games more scarce and of higher quality. Make them must win. Have it a straight knockout tournament and scrap the pool stages. Have 5 from each league (URC, Premiership, and Top 14) plus the previous winner to make 16 teams. Or maybe 6 URC teams and 4 Premiership
More teams in the competition means more games in the competition, means more they can sell the tv rights for the competition.
The intersting thing about SA which i dont think has been covered in most rugby circles is that they have chosen (or been forced to chose) a calender where there domestic conpetion is Eurppean based and their international is Southern hemisphere. Even with a global calendar there would still be some friction here as you would have to change the seasonality of the sport in one of those 2 locations.
Outside of that, definitely some excellent points covered and attempts at providing solutions rather then the typical moaning and nostalgia driven bias that normally drives the conversations on other outlets
He’s back to that grubby pullover
The biggest issue is there is still no "global" season, resulting in a jumbled mess, with competitions overlapping and interfering with one another, breaking momentum and diluting interest in the effected comps. The season should start with the URC/SR/Top14 etc, then have a round of international comps like 6 Nations and Rugby Championship, then bigger club comps like Champions Cup, and then end with the "autumn" international series - but switch it up, so one year in the north, and the next year in the south 🤘
Nice suggestions. Unfortunately they wont do anything to fix the comp cause they want to milk every cent from it they can by playing as many games as possible.
Premier Sports - there is too small a window to watch replays! Basically if you don’t watch in those following days the games disappear. Super annoying!