Other stuff

[Ali TT]

Both can be true at the same time ftr.

Agreed, in fact mh's further analysis even suggests as much as he points out that while the WC gives opportunities to other countries it ends up being the best sides that win through in the end.

I guess one thing I'd question is whether there should be a guaranteed second spot for Africa as it's almost always Namibia and they almost always get hammered every time.

 

[Howe_zat]

I'm listening, I'm just not being convinced. Is the World Cup the pinnacle of the sport to find out which is the best team in the world, or is it something for a few fans of Tier 2 (Tier 3 might be a better description) to 'enjoy' watching their team get thrashed?

If the point of the World Cup is to spread the rugby word, introduce other nations to the sport, create a wider competition where more teams are equal then tell me what it has achieved over the last 40 years? I'm suggesting that whilst it's lovely to say nice things about having Tier 2 sides in the comp, what has really changed since 1987? 16 teams played in 1987, 13 of those 16 (USA, Canada, Zimbabwe) are playing in 2023. When it first went to 20 teams in 1999 you find 18 (Portugal for Spain and Chile for Canada) are still the same. A reminder that still only 5 teams have contested a Final, and if Ireland don't make it this year, then I fancy it will stay at 5 for another 40 odd years.

The discussion originated from whether having 20 teams creates a decent format for the competition. It clearly doesn't. The same countries are receiving exposure every World Cup and yet nothing really changes.



I get this point, and a good example would be the Uruguayan scrum half Arata who picked up a deal with Castre after the 2019 World Cup. However, he would still have been part of a 16 Team World Cup. It remains to be seen how many Romanians/Portuguese/Chileans/Namibians get picked up after this comp.

To be 100% clear, if you told me that you knew Chile would lose every world cup game for the next century by 50+ points, I would still say they should be able to qualify and play. I don't care how often they are competitive or make a final, at all

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

People still watched men's tennis when there were like 3 guys who won the grand slam every single year for a decade. People just like having a good time watching sports.

 

[Molehill]

To be 100% clear, if you told me that you knew Chile would lose every world cup game for the next century by 50+ points, I would still say they should be able to qualify and play. I don't care how often they are competitive or make a final, at all

And I'd have no issue with that either, I'd just limit the competition to 16 teams so the whole thing runs more smoothly.

Anyway, we have different opinions. For me, the competition is too long, the gap weeks for each team unnecessary, and the teams ranked 17-20 adding nothing to the experience.

Shall we leave it there?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

No you must be bullied into submission

 

[social]

Some of these lower tier nations are actually good to watch

Japan played in one of the greatest games in history in a WC while Portugal & Kenya have been in some epic stuff in the 7s

It’s a physical game and teams can only play once a week

Cut it down to whatever & it’s still a 6 week tournament

Not too much to ask to hang around for another couple of weeks to give others encouragement and especially when most enjoy it anyway

 

[Ali TT]

Some of these lower tier nations are actually good to watch

Japan played in one of the greatest games in history in a WC while Portugal & Kenya have been in some epic stuff in the 7s

It’s a physical game and teams can only play once a week

Cut it down to whatever & it’s still a 6 week tournament

Not too much to ask to hang around for another couple of weeks to give others encouragement and especially when most enjoy it anyway

20 odd years ago Japan were getting pumped 70, 100 points plus yet they can now mix it up with the top tier nations. I'm not expecting a second tier nation to become world champions anytime soon but again that's not really the point.

And for all the egalitarianism in football, it's a pretty limited clique with their names on the trophy.

 

[Chin Music]

Problem with 24 teams is you have an imperfect path to 8 teams. You can't have an even number of qualifiers per group, so have to have some tie-breaker. Football has always included an extra Round of 16, which brings your tournament length back up.

On current rankings would give you something like
Ireland, Wales, Georgia, Romania
South Africa, Fiji, Japan, Spain
France, Australia, Tonga, Namibia
New Zealand, Argentina, Portugal, Chile,
Scotland, Samoa, Uruguay, Canada
England, Italy, USA, Hong Kong.

I'm pretty sure the football world cup did something like that before they expanded their numbers. It was points and goal difference that got the 3rd place team through.

 

[Chin Music]

I was in Argentina years ago, and ended up almost by accident visiting the Argentina rugby museum, some time before they started getting to world cup semi finals. Up until then, their rugby was essentially amateur, and many of those needing to go pro had to go to Europe, and at times had to decide to play for Italy to make it as a pro if they had the ancestry. Diego Dominguez springs to mind there. They clearly cared about their traditions and it was really almost English amateur in its wild eyed enthusiasm. Of course it was very much the British & Irish who introduced the game there.

 

[andruid]

I guess one thing I'd question is whether there should be a guaranteed second spot for Africa as it's almost always Namibia and they almost always get hammered every time.

As a Kenya fan it really grinds my gears how in the past three cycles we have narrowly failed to steal the one guaranteed Africa spot from Namibia only to go get pasted at the global repechage by the likes of Uruguay and Hong Kong.

 

[Molehill]

I was in Argentina years ago, and ended up almost by accident visiting the Argentina rugby museum, some time before they started getting to world cup semi finals. Up until then, their rugby was essentially amateur, and many of those needing to go pro had to go to Europe, and at times had to decide to play for Italy to make it as a pro if they had the ancestry. Diego Dominguez springs to mind there. They clearly cared about their traditions and it was really almost English amateur in its wild eyed enthusiasm. Of course it was very much the British & Irish who introduced the game there.

Let's not forget that all rugby didn't exactly go professional until well into the 90's. There were at least 3 Policemen in the England '91 World Cup Squad!

 

[Ali TT]

Let's not forget that all rugby didn't exactly go professional until well into the 90's. There were at least 3 Policemen in the England '91 World Cup Squad!

One of our PE teachers played for Gloucester. There was a photo of him in the sports centre tackling Rory Underwood in a game.

 

[ripper868]

Let's not forget that all rugby didn't exactly go professional until well into the 90's. There were at least 3 Policemen in the England '91 World Cup Squad!

Ha Yep, Dan Crowley (Wallaby Prop) was an undercover policeman at the time as well.

EDIT: Too good not to:

 

[ripper868]

Kinda triple captained Penaud in the rwc fantasy comp...

 

[Molehill]

Interesting quote from French Coach Galthie last night. " The aim was to give everyone some game-time and not sit back for a month. The players wanted and needed to play."

So basically as a result of the format and inclusion of teams like Namibia, the tournament and hosts are likely starved of the best player in the world.

Maybe people will start to get my point now. Ideally he'd have not played his first 15, but given he's got a gap week coming, going for a long period with no game time didn't make sense. Quite simply, the format doesn't make sense.

 

[ripper868]

Your right, we should stop ADP playing rugby, lest he get hurt.

Format isn't perfect, no argument, but blaming an impact injury on format is a bit of a reach.

 

[Furball]

Interesting quote from French Coach Galthie last night. " The aim was to give everyone some game-time and not sit back for a month. The players wanted and needed to play."

So basically as a result of the format and inclusion of teams like Namibia, the tournament and hosts are likely starved of the best player in the world.

Maybe people will start to get my point now. Ideally he'd have not played his first 15, but given he's got a gap week coming, going for a long period with no game time didn't make sense. Quite simply, the format doesn't make sense.

zzzzzzzzzzz

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Should've use the format where you can give your players game time with zero risk of injury.

 

[Chin Music]

Should've use the format where you can give your players game time with zero risk of injury.

Touch rugby then?

 

[Molehill]

Your right, we should stop ADP playing rugby, lest he get hurt.

Format isn't perfect, no argument, but blaming an impact injury on format is a bit of a reach.

In an ideal world, he doesn't have to play this game. Either Namibia aren't there or there's no gap week following it. Galthie probably got it wrong, he'd have been better off playing the full team against Uruguay and resting them for Namibia. But as he mentioned, that would've led to 3 weeks with no match time (as England are experiencing now).