Did the Rugby Pod correctly predict this weekend's Champions Cup matches?

It just beggars belief that Leinster did not go for the penalty attempt at the death. Also beggars belief they started the game without either Jordie Barrett, Andrew Porter or Jack Conan on the field. I listened to a very good podcast on the two semis during last week, and one view expressed was that Northampton would start well, and be capable of scoring then…first 15 mins or so. That was when Leinster needed their best XV on the field.

I just don’t see how Andy Farrell can now pick Sam Prendergast for this Lions tour. Surely the Fin(n)s are the two top 10 picks now, and I would think Marcus should go as well as a utility/10. That loss has hurt the chances of a swathe of Leinster players. Going to an interesting day, this Thursday !

Forget anything else that happened in the game … top teams convert that. They rise to the moment, reduce errors, maintain discipline, increase their energy, and sharpen their focus for those moments that matter. And the question for fans is simply one of why their team could not do this, patiently and accurately retaining possession while creating a scoring opportunity.

Different teams would have done different things with that penalty. A dominant scrumming team might have called the scrum, a successful mauling team might have gone for the lineout, a team with a rock star kicker and a sense of late game superiority might have taken the kick for goal, and a another team might have set a Rassie-esque midfield maul to allow an easy dropped goal. You pick what you have confidence in.

So Leinster picking the tap is not wrong, as long as that is a banker play for them. But don’t pick an option involving forwards smashing into gainline tackles if you have less than 100% confidence in your ball retention.

In the end it all came down to whether Leinster could convert that penalty to points. The stage was set, they held all the cards, and it was time for the killer blow (to mix a few metaphors). This is when giants impose themselves.

The coaching team need to stare at those few minutes of tape 1,000 times, and ask themselves why the team could not land that winning blow. Its not about selections, or replacements, or refereeing, or skillsets, or technique. It is a question of attitude and Big Match Temperament. It’s about imposing your will. Why was it not in evidence?

No one can blame Jordie, he did alright. Is that what you were getting at?

Secondly if we are calling SRP and URC a domestic comp I feel like we're colouring well outside the lines. But if we are drawing parallels to SRP and URC “domestic” comps and you're question of dominance I'd point out that SA have had 3 teams in each quarter final since they joined and either won or been a runner up to the tournament every year. Hardly flunking it. As far as fanbase, you can use viewership, subscriptions or bums on seats and CC is still ahead on the fanbase vs SRP, the benefit of a rugby nation with double the population of AU.

Other than financials the benefits of URC are also as you mentioned more games but also more teams and players getting exposure to professional rugby (it's actually 5 teams if you include the repechage of the SA teams). With the schedules and competition setup all URC teams are required to have enough players to field 2-3 teams across the season. Previously under the SR you had 5 teams being forced into 4 squads with minimal change between squads week in week out.

See the thing about the SR or URC being better for competitiveness falls over pretty quick when you understand its a too way street. Arguing that SA is better or worse off because they left the SRP implies that AU and NZ aren't impacted and that they some how stay sharp without outside competition. All teams are worse off in the regard that they are no longer exposed to the different playing styles But When you consider RWC I would argue that being in the URC is a benefit to SA because they are far more likely to face a European team in the pool stages than AU or NZ.