Rugby World Cup

[Greenback]

Argentina 15 Scotland 9

Which means, of course, that Scotland will probably win!

 

[newbie babs]

Argentina 22, Scotland 19

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Samoa 27.....Fiji 7

Samoa did not play their usual flowing and attacking game, obviously saving themselves for the next match. It was 12-0 at the break and fly-half Tusi Pisi scored 4 penalties and 1 dropped goal.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Ireland 62.....Russis 12

Ireland played with commendable power which saw them 36-0 up at the break and the team played well as a unit against a Russian side not used to playing as many games as they have done in a short period of time. Ireland ran in seven tries and now top the group, with Australia in second place.

 

[Minilad]

I caught an interview on TalkSport on Saturday morning. It was with an ex Australian International who was complaining that this tournament is too big. Basically his argument was there are too many no hopers who don't try to win games they have no chance in but save themselves for the one game they think they have a chance in.
I must admit listening to odd bits it does strike me as crazy that some teams will field a weekend side against the big nations. Surely if you were a player you would want to play in the big games in the big tournaments to test yourself against the best.
Another reason for me why Rugby is pretty much an irrelevance in world terms

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I caught an interview on TalkSport on Saturday morning. It was with an ex Australian International who was complaining that this tournament is too big. Basically his argument was there are too many no hopers who don't try to win games they have no chance in but save themselves for the one game they think they have a chance in.
I must admit listening to odd bits it does strike me as crazy that some teams will field a weekend side against the big nations. Surely if you were a player you would want to play in the big games in the big tournaments to test yourself against the best.
Another reason for me why Rugby is pretty much an irrelevance in world terms

I have to agree with the Aussie: Samoa, Russia, the US, Fiji, Romania etc look pretty useless here - surely it would be better to have a tournament of 8 world class teams than 16 (?) world class to average ones?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Scotland 12.....Argentina 13

The try by Argentina seven minutes from time which was converted and the missed Scotland drop goal near the end were the moments that decided this match. It had been a very dour affair played in heavy rain, with both sides obviously intent on achieving victory to strengthen their pool position.

 

[Oswyntail]

I have to agree with the Aussie: Samoa, Russia, the US, Fiji, Romania etc look pretty useless here - surely it would be better to have a tournament of 8 world class teams than 16 (?) world class to average ones?

And the 8 would be? SA, NZ, AUS, ENG, FR for sure. Probaby IRE. Then SCO, WAL, ITA, ARG, SAM who are much of a muchness. So you would need a pre-tournament - which is effectively what you have.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

And the 8 would be? SA, NZ, AUS, ENG, FR for sure. Probaby IRE. Then SCO, WAL, ITA, ARG, SAM who are much of a muchness. So you would need a pre-tournament - which is effectively what you have.

Take the world's top 6 (according to rankings) on the day of the draw, then put 7-16 into a qualifier where they play each other once and the top 2 qualify?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Take the world's top 6 (according to rankings) on the day of the draw, then put 7-16 into a qualifier where they play each other once and the top 2 qualify?

The problem here is that the ruling bodies want the profile of the sport raised and the more teams that feature in the World Cup finals, the more matches will be available to show on television, which is a very big carrot to dangle in front of the television media who will want to cover these games, which will bring in more associated advertising revenue in for them.

The days of the needs of sport to stand alone in its portrayal of the event itself are now long gone, as can be seen in the television media coverage of the Olympic Games and the advertising revenue associated with the event. Many multi-national company queue up to be "sponsors" of such events, but only to raise their own commercial profile and not for the good of the sport, despite all their protestations to the opposite.

 

[newbie babs]

For the smaller nations to be able to compete in years to come they have to start somewhere and if you are from Samoa, Fiji, Romania you want to play for your country, they are proud ,passionate men who love rugby and even if they loose its how you lose, with dignity and pride not a "can't be arsed" attitude.
They also learn a lot on the field when they play and these smaller teams have grown over the years to pose many problems for the bigger more well know teams.
Perhaps other sports should look at the smaller teams and take an inch of their passion when they play in a team.

If you watch Rugby and understand what it means to be represent your country then really you would not need to ask the question.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

 

[Greenback]

I caught an interview on TalkSport on Saturday morning. It was with an ex Australian International who was complaining that this tournament is too big. Basically his argument was there are too many no hopers who don't try to win games they have no chance in but save themselves for the one game they think they have a chance in.
I must admit listening to odd bits it does strike me as crazy that some teams will field a weekend side against the big nations. Surely if you were a player you would want to play in the big games in the big tournaments to test yourself against the best.
Another reason for me why Rugby is pretty much an irrelevance in world terms

Ther eis currently a debate going on within international circles as to the desirability of lowering the number of teams in the 2019 tournament.

Thinking back to the first tournament in 1987, teams such as Argentina, ital and Samoa were considered whipping boys. They have developed immensely since those days, partly as a result of the money generated by the World Cup, and partly due to the development that comes from playing against the more powerful nations.

Scotland 12.....Argentina 13

The try by Argentina seven minutes from time which was converted and the missed Scotland drop goal near the end were the moments that decided this match. It had been a very dour affair played in heavy rain, with both sides obviously intent on achieving victory to strengthen their pool position.

The Scots thought they had it sewn up when they went 12-6 ahead. They should not have changed their outside half either!

Take the world's top 6 (according to rankings) on the day of the draw, then put 7-16 into a qualifier where they play each other once and the top 2 qualify?

The problem here is that the ruling bodies want the profile of the sport raised and the more teams that feature in the World Cup finals, the more matches will be available to show on television, which is a very big carrot to dangle in front of the television media who will want to cover these games, which will bring in more associated advertising revenue in for them.

The days of the needs of sport to stand alone in its portrayal of the event itself are now long gone, as can be seen in the television media coverage of the Olympic Games and the advertising revenue associated with the event. Many multi-national company queue up to be "sponsors" of such events, but only to raise their own commercial profile and not for the good of the sport, despite all their protestations to the opposite.

Money plays a big part in the organisation of the tournament. For financial reasons, it's better to have a bigger tournament, and the value of teams from the USA and Russia can't be overstated in that respect.

I wonder if the football World Cup would be improved by only having the top 8 teams who play each other in sudden death knock out games?

For the smaller nations to be able to compete in years to come they have to start somewhere and if you are from Samoa, Fiji, Romania you want to play for your country, they are proud ,passionate men who love rugby and even if they loose its how you lose, with dignity and pride not a "can't be arsed" attitude.
They also learn a lot on the field when they play and these smaller teams have grown over the years to pose many problems for the bigger more well know teams.
Perhaps other sports should look at the smaller teams and take an inch of their passion when they play in a team.

If you watch Rugby and understand what it means to be represent your country then really you would not need to ask the question.

Exactly right!

 

[Oswyntail]

It's interesting this comes from an Australian. Australia and New Zealand both have a long tradition of "claiming" the best players from the Pacific islands, and seem to have had a policy of actually hindering the sport in those regions.
Perhaps what should happen is expansion of the regular tournaments: eg a second-tier six nations with Romania, Spain, Georgia, Russia, which could aid development until there was sense in having promotion and relegation; an Africo-Pacific tournament of Fiji, Samoa, Japan, Namibia, likewise leading eventually into the tri-nations; an American grouping. As Italy have shown, it takes a good few years of competitive internationals to bring a team up to the top tables.

 

[Greenback]

I think that one or two properly structured tier 2 tournaments would be hugely beneficial.

There has, unfortunately, been a fair bit of poaching of the best PI players by the AB's. But those from NZ might say that it's much the same for the home nations - there has been a long tradition of English and Welsh players choosing which team they play for, right back to the 19th century!

 

[newbie babs]

You do realise that the smaller countries must qualify first, Germany have been trying for quite a while to get to the World Cup.

I am against a two tier because it rules out any surprises and upsets and that's whats good about the Rugby world cup.

You don`t want the top 8 to just compete among themselves.To play for the trophy and prestige of winning you have to beat the best and the teams that get through qualifying are the best in the world. They can have to show they are better than anyone by playing tactically and passionately.

Argentina showed that today.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Australia and New Zealand both have a long tradition of "claiming" the best players from the Pacific islands, and seem to have had a policy of actually hindering the sport in those regions.

I am really pleased that someone has picked up on this point and added it to the thread discussion. Both Australia and New Zealand see "Greater Oceania" as their own catchment areas that their scouts can visit and look out for promising young players.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wonder if the football World Cup would be improved by only having the top 8 teams who play each other in sudden death knock out games?

It is interesting that the suggestion of reducing the number of teams who compete in the Rugby World Cup came from a forum member who is better known for his interest in football than in rugby union. As such, your reply is very well phrased in that you have drawn a comparison to his particular sport and asked a reverse question.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

It is interesting that the suggestion of reducing the number of teams who compete in the Rugby World Cup came from a forum member who is better known for his interest in football than in rugby union. As such, your reply is very well phrased in that you have drawn a comparison to his particular sport and asked a reverse question.

I would support the reduction of the Football World Cup, Champions League and Premier League, as well as the abolition of the Europa League and League Cups. The World Cup and Champions League should all be reduced to 16 teams, as should the PL with a winter break. It would improve the quality of games, and if it was done at the WC off rankings it would encourage more competitive friendlies too, as well as removing the rather drawn out and tiring qualifying process. The League Cups and Europa League are far too drawn out and pointless.

Sadly, whilst Mr Blatter remains in power none of the above will happen, I can't wait for the day he retires, it will be the best day football will have enjoyed for several decades.

 

[newbie babs]

MattE2010

This is a rugby debate not football, the two are totally different sports and where the comparison has been made please don`t bring football too much into it, there is a debate thread for Football.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

MattE2010

This is a rugby debate not football, the two are totally different sports and where the comparison has been made please don't bring football too much into it, there is a debate thread for Football.

I was merely responding to what Paul Sidorczuk said. I have copied it to the Football thread too.

 

[newbie babs]

thank you for clarifying that

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Back to the matter of the Rugby World Cup.

Tomorrow's match at the Taranaki Stadium, New Plymouth, between Wales and Namibia gives Wales the opportunity not just to achieve the expected win with the bonus point, but to show how determined that they are to be as ruthless as they can be, to really improve their "points scored difference" in the pool table. Remember the New Zealand v Japan match.

They currently have a "plus 6" figure from two matches against that of Namibia's "minus 148" from three matches.

 

[Greenback]

Wales need to win, they need to play well, be ruthless and post a big score.

There has been a lot of disucssion on whether to bring in players who have not yet played, which the coaching team has now decided to do. Personally, Iwould have rewarded the team that played aginst SA and Samoa with a run out against the minnows, but players like the two Joneses and Jenkinsdo need game time.

 

[tony_mac]

I think it's a problem that Rugby is just too demanding for a competitive, short length tournament; the injury statistics are exceptionally high and so teams need to rest their best players so that they are available for the important games.

Players have a 29% chance of injury in an international, resulting in an average lay-off of 14 days

While this wouldn't be so bad if it was just the strongest v weakest teams, which would make the games a little more competitive, it also means that the weak teams need to rest players to target the games they might win.

 

[Greenback]

I am surprised that the rules only allow for a 30 player squad, given that the numbe rof games that are played. Given the requirements of certain specialist positions to have cover, it's not possibel to have two players for each position, which would allow proper squad rotation.

 

[newbie babs]

For certain specialist positions you need to have more players in the 30 than other positions such as the backs which are less likely to get injured.

Thomas Waldrom has flown out in case Nick Easter can`t recover for the rest of the world cup.

 

[Minilad]

For the smaller nations to be able to compete in years to come they have to start somewhere and if you are from Samoa, Fiji, Romania you want to play for your country, they are proud ,passionate men who love rugby and even if they loose its how you lose, with dignity and pride not a "can't be arsed" attitude.
They also learn a lot on the field when they play and these smaller teams have grown over the years to pose many problems for the bigger more well know teams.
Perhaps other sports should look at the smaller teams and take an inch of their passion when they play in a team.

If you watch Rugby and understand what it means to be represent your country then really you would not need to ask the question.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The question I was asking though is why would smaller teams rest their players against bigger teams. Surely this is a strange thing to do. You expect the big teams to be resting players against the minnows not the other way round. The passion argument to me is a red herring. They can't really show passion sitting in the stands
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is interesting that the suggestion of reducing the number of teams who compete in the Rugby World Cup came from a forum member who is better known for his interest in football than in rugby union. As such, your reply is very well phrased in that you have drawn a comparison to his particular sport and asked a reverse question.

To me it seems that there just isn't enough countries that play Rugby to a high enough standard to enable a competitive 16 team competition.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

While this wouldn't be so bad if it was just the strongest v weakest teams, which would make the games a little more competitive, it also means that the weak teams need to rest players to target the games they might win.

But they won't improve and learn if they are only taking games against teams they might beat seriously

 

[Greenback]

In 2003 Wales rested some of those that were considered first choice players and gave the All Blacks a fantastic game!

The idea was that we were expecting to lose, so we wanted to protect our top line men for the big test against England!

It's not a philosophy that is too popular here at the moment - Gatland wants t wine very game!

 

[Minilad]

Thinking back to the first tournament in 1987, teams such as Argentina, ital and Samoa were considered whipping boys. They have developed immensely since those days, partly as a result of the money generated by the World Cup, and partly due to the development that comes from playing against the more powerful nations.

Once again I suggest paying weakened teams against the big boys will not give them the development they need

 

[Greenback]

I agree. But participation in the tournament provides revenue to further the playing of the sport in that particular country. And to develop the facilities available. It's a virtuous circle!

At the same, if a small country like Georgia is able to compete and win against a more established side like Romania, it increases the media coverage as well.

Samoa were considered weak in 1991 but beat Wales. Argentina made the semi finals last time. The development of the lower tier nations has speeded up since the icneption of the World Cup.

 

[newbie babs]

XCDriver
all the squads take the 30 best rugby players. No coach decides which 30 are the best in their positions at the start and to work as a team until they play against different sides of different levels.
As the coach puts on different players of differing talent he then with the help he has decides who should play against the sides that have got through to quarter finals, semi`s and finals.

All the players need to be on the filed at some point in the group stages.

What do you class as a high enough standard, all teams compete in rounds to get through, so the standard is high already.

 

[Minilad]

I agree. But participation in the tournament provides revenue to further the playing of the sport in that particular country. And to develop the facilities available. It's a virtuous circle!

At the same, if a small country like Georgia is able to compete and win against a more established side like Romania, it increases the media coverage as well.

Samoa were considered weak in 1991 but beat Wales. Argentina made the semi finals last time. The development of the lower tier nations has speeded up since the icneption of the World Cup.

The revenue aspect I can see. Is there any subsidy of the smaller nations by the bigger nations ? Any sort of revenue sharing ?
What in your opinion would be the ideal tournament size and format. Would 12 (4 groups of 3 in the group stage) maybe be OK
I struggle to see how big blowout victories either help the small teams or provide a good spectacle for the viewing public
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

XCDriver
all the squads take the 30 best rugby players. No coach decides which 30 are the best in their positions at the start and to work as a team until they play against different sides of different levels.
As the coach puts on different players of differing talent he then with the help he has decides who should play against the sides that have got through to quarter finals, semi's and finals.

All the players need to be on the filed at some point in the group stages.

What do you class as a high enough standard, all teams compete in rounds to get through, so the standard is high already.

Are you seriously suggesting that no coach knows his best team before the tournament begins. Oh come on please.
As for the standard thats not for me to comment but some of the results so far seem to suggest there are a lot of teams at the tournament that frankly shouldn't be there if you want to have a showpiece competition. Too many blowout wins. Too many small teams playing weekend teams against the big boys. That doesn't (in my opinion) make for a good spectacle for the watching public