Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Sports, Hobbies & Interests => Topic started by: Hope on September 19, 2015, 09:04:04 PM
-
What an upset at Brighton!! South Africa 32 : 34 Japan
-
I don't think England were looking too special for more than half the match too.
On a different topic, should the thread be pinned for the duration of the RWC?
-
As you wish.
Anyone seen Jack Whitehall's Samsung ads? V funny.
-
I don't think England were looking too special for more than half the match too.
Only special for about 15 minutes in my view - and not in a row. But the first match of any World Cup - be it rugby/soccer/hockey/... - tends to be a bit scrappy.
They'll just have to get their heads on straight for the next 2 matches!!
-
They'll just have to get their heads on straight for the next 2 matches!!
Well that worked well... oh wait!
I knew England were doomed when they failed to beat Wales who were playing with nine first choice picks out injured.
Now there's nothing left to do except hope that Wales get humiliated in one of their next matches and marvel at the All blacks.
-
I get cheesed off with the vitriol amed at the England team - and Lancaster.
I fully expect to see most of the present England squad in four years time in Japan, because Lancaster had a very young squad to work with.
As for Lancaster himself, I don't really see the need for him to go - though I suspect the media has other ideas.
Of the home nations, Wales has the best chance of getting furthest into the competition, but, yes, a southern Hemisphere team will lift the trophy - either the All blacks or the 'Boks.
-
I get cheesed off with the vitriol amed at the England team - and Lancaster.
Because England's media Expects. Thy forget that England was a group with two top teams and in sport, nobody has a right to win. It cheeses me off too.
As for Lancaster himself, I don't really see the need for him to go - though I suspect the media has other ideas.
Nothing like a public lynching to sell papers.
Of the home nations, Wales has the best chance of getting furthest into the competition, but, yes, a southern Hemisphere team will lift the trophy - either the All blacks or the 'Boks.
Wales has no chance. As I said before, nine of their first choice players are out injured. The first tri-nations team they come across will roll them over (excepting Australia in the last group match who may choose to field weakened side).
-
I didn't say Wales would WIN, JeremyP - just that, of the remaining home nations, they have the best chance of getting furthest - even with their depleted squad.
Yes, I know Ireland has a strong(ish) squad, but I still think Wales could trump them there.
I hope I'm wrong, and, come the end of the month, Wales will win.
I doubt it, though.
-
I didn't say Wales would WIN, JeremyP - just that, of the remaining home nations, they have the best chance of getting furthest - even with their depleted squad.
I didn't say you said Wales would win. I said they will get rolled over at the first opportunity.
Yes, I know Ireland has a strong(ish) squad, but I still think Wales could trump them there.
I think with Wales' injury problems, Ireland would beat them.
I hope I'm wrong, and, come the end of the month, Wales will win.
I doubt it, though.
I have transferred my allegiance to the All Blacks.
-
Heck, I've been an All Blacks supporter since the '70's!
-
I didn't say Wales would WIN, JeremyP - just that, of the remaining home nations, they have the best chance of getting furthest - even with their depleted squad.
Yes, I know Ireland has a strong(ish) squad, but I still think Wales could trump them there.
I hope I'm wrong, and, come the end of the month, Wales will win.
I doubt it, though.
From what I can see this is turning into another tournament dominated by the big three southern hemisphere sides. Frankly I can't see beyond one of them as the winners.
For Wales to win the tournament, or even make the semi-final they are going to have to beat one of the big three and that's something they have never done in a world cup in the competition proper (i.e. not a pointless third place play-off) before as far as I am aware.
Actually the side with the best chance form the northern hemisphere is who-ever comes top in the group with Ireland and France.
-
From what I can see this is turning into another tournament dominated by the big three southern hemisphere sides. Frankly I can't see beyond one of them as the winners.
Are you surprised? For as long as I can remember, the Tri-nations team have always dominated the World Cup. England is still the only Northern hemisphere side to win and I don't think any of the remaining NH teams are looking close this year. I did think England had a chance on home turf, but they couldn't beat a second string Welsh side at Twickenham, so in reality, they were way off the pace.
-
From what I can see this is turning into another tournament dominated by the big three southern hemisphere sides. Frankly I can't see beyond one of them as the winners.
Are you surprised? For as long as I can remember, the Tri-nations team have always dominated the World Cup. England is still the only Northern hemisphere side to win and I don't think any of the remaining NH teams are looking close this year. I did think England had a chance on home turf, but they couldn't beat a second string Welsh side at Twickenham, so in reality, they were way off the pace.
No - I'm not surprised at all, and in the whole history of the competition only England (actually won it) and France have made anything like a decent fist at competing with the SH big three. I don't believe Ireland, Scotland or Wales have even knocked out Australia, New Zealand or SA.
I think back in 2003 there was a glimmer that rugby might become competitive with the tournament being more than an opportunity for the SH big three to share the trophy about between them. But things seem to have gone backwards.
I think the NH sides really need to assess their tournaments and how they prepare for the world cup. There seems to be too much reliance (frankly sentimental affection) for the 6 nations, which is (lets face it) a second division tournament with a tired format that doesn't really seem to help prepare teams for the world cup.
And the nonsense that is the British lions should be consigned to the dustbin of history. If you are effectively accepting that you need to put together the best players from four national teams to have any chance of beating the big three SH sides, then you have badly lost the plot.
-
I think the NH sides really need to assess their tournaments and how they prepare for the world cup. There seems to be too much reliance (frankly sentimental affection) for the 6 nations, which is (lets face it) a second division tournament with a tired format that doesn't really seem to help prepare teams for the world cup.
Why do you think the format is tired? What would you replace it with? Bear in mind it is a big source of income for the six NH unions in it, so you'll need something equally as lucrative.
And the nonsense that is the British lions should be consigned to the dustbin of history. If you are effectively accepting that you need to put together the best players from four national teams to have any chance of beating the big three SH sides, then you have badly lost the plot.
I agree with that. Since our national teams frequently go on foreign tours now, I think it has had its day.
-
If Ireland don't beat Argentina now, there will be no NH sides in the semifinals (I'm assuming Scotland- Australia is a done deal).
-
Ireland well beaten in the end. It wasn't even close.
-
I think the NH sides really need to assess their tournaments and how they prepare for the world cup. There seems to be too much reliance (frankly sentimental affection) for the 6 nations, which is (lets face it) a second division tournament with a tired format that doesn't really seem to help prepare teams for the world cup.
Why do you think the format is tired? What would you replace it with? Bear in mind it is a big source of income for the six NH unions in it, so you'll need something equally as lucrative.
And the nonsense that is the British lions should be consigned to the dustbin of history. If you are effectively accepting that you need to put together the best players from four national teams to have any chance of beating the big three SH sides, then you have badly lost the plot.
I agree with that. Since our national teams frequently go on foreign tours now, I think it has had its day.
6 Nations Rugby is the only rugby we watch. We haven't even watched any WC. I think it essential for getting people interested, especially the young. Not that I'm overly fussed about rugby, but if it's going to succeed here the 6 Nations is important, unless something better comes along.
-
I think the NH sides really need to assess their tournaments and how they prepare for the world cup. There seems to be too much reliance (frankly sentimental affection) for the 6 nations, which is (lets face it) a second division tournament with a tired format that doesn't really seem to help prepare teams for the world cup.
And the nonsense that is the British lions should be consigned to the dustbin of history. If you are effectively accepting that you need to put together the best players from four national teams to have any chance of beating the big three SH sides, then you have badly lost the plot.
I think that there may be a rather deeper issue, PD. For years, the International Rugby Board, now World Rugby, was dominated by Europeans. In the 90s, that domination moved to the Southern Hemisphere, and it only fairly recently that there has been a more level board make-up. Of the exec. committee, 4 are from the Southern Hemisphere (2 from Australia, and 1 each from NZ and Africa), 3 from Europe, including the chairman, 1 from Japan and 1 from the North American and Caribbean Rugby Organisation. During the original domination, everyting was very much skewed towards the European type of game, but with the more recent domination of the Southern Hemisphere, the more physical almost brutal style of the All Blacks and Austraklians have become more important. With the arrival of the Japanese, Argentinians and North Americans where there seems to be a greater emphasis on finesse, things may change again.
Not sure what you would replace the 6 Nations tournament with. Are you suggesting that it should be cut so as to create a mirror image of the Southern Hemisphere's Rugby Championship?
I think that there is still a place for the Lions concept with, perhaps, more involvement, as the Baa-Baas perhaps, when entertaining a S.Hemisphere team i the UK. Should it include the French, perhaps?
-
I think that there may be a rather deeper issue, PD. For years, the International Rugby Board, now World Rugby, was dominated by Europeans. In the 90s, that domination moved to the Southern Hemisphere, and it only fairly recently that there has been a more level board make-up. Of the exec. committee, 4 are from the Southern Hemisphere (2 from Australia, and 1 each from NZ and Africa), 3 from Europe, including the chairman, 1 from Japan and 1 from the North American and Caribbean Rugby Organisation. During the original domination, everyting was very much skewed towards the European type of game, but with the more recent domination of the Southern Hemisphere, the more physical almost brutal style of the All Blacks and Austraklians have become more important. With the arrival of the Japanese, Argentinians and North Americans where there seems to be a greater emphasis on finesse, things may change again.
I'm sorry, I don't see how this explains the domination of the Big Three Southern teams in the RWC. They have always dominated. There was no period before the 90's when NH sides were on level terms. Furthermore, my memory is that it was the NH teams that tended to use the brutal forwards fight (especially England) and the Southern teams that used expansive running with style and finesse.
-
"It might have been nice"
-
I'm sorry, I don't see how this explains the domination of the Big Three Southern teams in the RWC. They have always dominated. There was no period before the 90's when NH sides were on level terms. Furthermore, my memory is that it was the NH teams that tended to use the brutal forwards fight (especially England) and the Southern teams that used expansive running with style and finesse.
The South Africans weren't at the first 2 rugby world cups and made their debut at their own tournament in 1995. They lost in the semis in 1999, and in the quarters in 2003 and 2011, winning their second World Cup in 2007. As such, it has generally been England and Wales who have gone through to semis, Along with NZ and Australia. This is the first time a Northern Hemisphere team hasn't appeared in the semis.
When I was young, Wales used to play an expansive game based on the scrummaging ability of their collier forwards, whilst England also had a group of excellent backs but with a far greater emphasis on scrummaging.
-
I'm sorry, I don't see how this explains the domination of the Big Three Southern teams in the RWC. They have always dominated. There was no period before the 90's when NH sides were on level terms. Furthermore, my memory is that it was the NH teams that tended to use the brutal forwards fight (especially England) and the Southern teams that used expansive running with style and finesse.
The South Africans weren't at the first 2 rugby world cups and made their debut at their own tournament in 1995.
What is your point here? You are surely not claiming the NH was better because one of the SH teams was banned due to Apartheid?
When I was young, Wales used to play an expansive game based on the scrummaging ability of their collier forwards, whilst England also had a group of excellent backs but with a far greater emphasis on scrummaging.
I'm assuming that was back in the 70's . My memories of rugby really start just before 1980 when Wales had started a decline that really continued until the Gatland era. It didn't really matter then what kind of rugby they played.
-
I'm sorry, I don't see how this explains the domination of the Big Three Southern teams in the RWC. They have always dominated. There was no period before the 90's when NH sides were on level terms. Furthermore, my memory is that it was the NH teams that tended to use the brutal forwards fight (especially England) and the Southern teams that used expansive running with style and finesse.
The South Africans weren't at the first 2 rugby world cups and made their debut at their own tournament in 1995. They lost in the semis in 1999, and in the quarters in 2003 and 2011, winning their second World Cup in 2007. As such, it has generally been England and Wales who have gone through to semis, Along with NZ and Australia. This is the first time a Northern Hemisphere team hasn't appeared in the semis.
When I was young, Wales used to play an expansive game based on the scrummaging ability of their collier forwards, whilst England also had a group of excellent backs but with a far greater emphasis on scrummaging.
With the exception of England in 2003 the SH teams have totally dominated the world cup and for good reason - they are better. I don't think this has anything to do with the political shift of power you talk of because SH teams won every world cup from its inception in 1987 until 2003.
Rather that getting closer to the SH teams those from the north seem to be going backward. Surely NH international rugby has to take a long hard look at how it organises itself given that it has failed to produce a single semi-finalist.
On what should be done - not entirely sure, but there needs to be more genuinely competitive tournament rugby where NH teams can play against SH. A world cup once in 4 years and the autumn internationals and summer tours which really don't mean anything aren't enough.
So perhaps rather than the same old tired 6 nations format every year we should develop a new slimmed down global tournament every two years. Eight teams - top four from previous years 6 nations qualify, top 3 from SH championship. Final place is a play-off between 4th in SH and 5th in 6 nations. Proper tournament rules - two groups of 4, top two go through to knock out. Seeding into groups based on 6 nation and SH championship placing.
Not only would that make the 6 nations actually mean something, it would also give the NH sides far more opportunity to play genuinely competitive rugby against SH teams.
Just a thought.
-
I think the NH sides really need to assess their tournaments and how they prepare for the world cup. There seems to be too much reliance (frankly sentimental affection) for the 6 nations, which is (lets face it) a second division tournament with a tired format that doesn't really seem to help prepare teams for the world cup.
Why do you think the format is tired? What would you replace it with? Bear in mind it is a big source of income for the six NH unions in it, so you'll need something equally as lucrative.
And the nonsense that is the British lions should be consigned to the dustbin of history. If you are effectively accepting that you need to put together the best players from four national teams to have any chance of beating the big three SH sides, then you have badly lost the plot.
I agree with that. Since our national teams frequently go on foreign tours now, I think it has had its day.
6 Nations Rugby is the only rugby we watch. We haven't even watched any WC. I think it essential for getting people interested, especially the young. Not that I'm overly fussed about rugby, but if it's going to succeed here the 6 Nations is important, unless something better comes along.
Surely now that we have the world cup, a genuinely global event which involves the very best teams (the 6 nations fails on both those counts) then the most important thing that the 6 nations should do is help teams hone their skills to be really competitive in the top drawer world cup tournament. But it is demonstrably failing to do that. By contrast the SH championship is admirably succeeding in that way. If you win the SH championship you've got a darned good chance of winning the world cup (and if not you'll lose out to another SH team). If you win the 6 nations, well best you might hope for is a world cup semi final (or even final if the draw works for you and you don't have to play a top SH team in the knock-outs). Or in the current case - out in the quarters.
-
Rather that getting closer to the SH teams those from the north seem to be going backward.
Not sure about that. Having reviewed the results from previous RWC's, it seems clear to me that the main problem is that the two major NH forces in previous years didn't show up. England and France are going backwards but, on the other hand, Wales put in a good showing with a second string team and Scotland nearly made the semis but for a 78th minute penalty kick.
So perhaps rather than the same old tired 6 nations format every year
You still haven't said why it is tired.
we should develop a new slimmed down global tournament every two years. Eight teams - top four from previous years 6 nations qualify, top 3 from SH championship. Final place is a play-off between 4th in SH and 5th in 6 nations. Proper tournament rules - two groups of 4, top two go through to knock out. Seeding into groups based on 6 nation and SH championship placing.
You still have the problem of income. The Six Nations is a massive money spinner.
I certainly think more competitive rugby between NH and SH sides is needed. I also think we need to figure out a way for this to happen at a club level.
-
Rather that getting closer to the SH teams those from the north seem to be going backward.
Not sure about that. Having reviewed the results from previous RWC's, it seems clear to me that the main problem is that the two major NH forces in previous years didn't show up. England and France are going backwards but, on the other hand, Wales put in a good showing with a second string team and Scotland nearly made the semis but for a 78th minute penalty kick.
So perhaps rather than the same old tired 6 nations format every year
You still haven't said why it is tired.
we should develop a new slimmed down global tournament every two years. Eight teams - top four from previous years 6 nations qualify, top 3 from SH championship. Final place is a play-off between 4th in SH and 5th in 6 nations. Proper tournament rules - two groups of 4, top two go through to knock out. Seeding into groups based on 6 nation and SH championship placing.
You still have the problem of income. The Six Nations is a massive money spinner.
I certainly think more competitive rugby between NH and SH sides is needed. I also think we need to figure out a way for this to happen at a club level.
The 6 nations is tired as a format because it fails to develop NH national teams to the highest level - i.e. so they are able to compete credibly to win the world cup. It is tired in the manner that the football home nations championship became tired.
On income - I'm not convinced. Why would a more global event, such as the one I suggested, be any less of a money spinner? I would have thought that South Africa vs England in a major tournament would be just as much of a big money draw than Scotland vs England in a global market. And there is the problem of familiarity breeds contempt in the 6 nations. Why should I get so excited about Wales vs England in the 6 nations next spring - it doesn't really mean anything and won, lose or draw they'll be another along in 12 months. If you check out the viewing figures for the 6 nations they aren't great at all - certainly not what you'd expect for a major sporting event - but that isn't surprising as the 6 nations isn't a major sporting event.
Cut the sentimentality, shake it up, make it competitive and mean something and focus on ensuring that NH sides are given the opportunity more than once every four years to play against the very best in a proper tournament. Do this and you just might see England, France, Wales etc actually competing to win the world cup.
-
On income - I'm not convinced. Why would a more global event, such as the one I suggested, be any less of a money spinner? I would have thought that South Africa vs England in a major tournament would be just as much of a big money draw than Scotland vs England in a global market. And there is the problem of familiarity breeds contempt in the 6 nations. Why should I get so excited about Wales vs England in the 6 nations next spring - it doesn't really mean anything and won, lose or draw they'll be another along in 12 months. If you check out the viewing figures for the 6 nations they aren't great at all - certainly not what you'd expect for a major sporting event - but that isn't surprising as the 6 nations isn't a major sporting event.
Cut the sentimentality, shake it up, make it competitive and mean something and focus on ensuring that NH sides are given the opportunity more than once every four years to play against the very best in a proper tournament. Do this and you just might see England, France, Wales etc actually competing to win the world cup.
PD, in view of the mismatch of seasons between the northern and southern hemispheres, how would you organise such a global event. After all, even football doesn't manage a 2-yearly global event.
-
On income - I'm not convinced. Why would a more global event, such as the one I suggested, be any less of a money spinner? I would have thought that South Africa vs England in a major tournament would be just as much of a big money draw than Scotland vs England in a global market. And there is the problem of familiarity breeds contempt in the 6 nations. Why should I get so excited about Wales vs England in the 6 nations next spring - it doesn't really mean anything and won, lose or draw they'll be another along in 12 months. If you check out the viewing figures for the 6 nations they aren't great at all - certainly not what you'd expect for a major sporting event - but that isn't surprising as the 6 nations isn't a major sporting event.
Cut the sentimentality, shake it up, make it competitive and mean something and focus on ensuring that NH sides are given the opportunity more than once every four years to play against the very best in a proper tournament. Do this and you just might see England, France, Wales etc actually competing to win the world cup.
PD, in view of the mismatch of seasons between the northern and southern hemispheres, how would you organise such a global event. After all, even football doesn't manage a 2-yearly global event.
I can't see it as a problem, given that we already have the autumn internationals with SH sides, which although valuable don't really provide genuinely competitive tournament sport.
I don't think football is unable to have a global tournament more frequently than every four years, rather it chooses not to. And from a european perspective there isn't a need. The European championship is an exceptionally competitive competition at the highest level. Teams competing in it have won the past three world cups so it is great 'training' competition for future world cup success. By contrast the 6 nations isn't - from a global quality perspective it is a second tier tournament - you have no confidence that the winners will come close to being competitive in the world cup - all the evidence suggests they aren't.
-
So sad to see Scotland go out like that; and to see Ireland hammered. I won't get over it for a long time... ;)
-
On income - I'm not convinced. Why would a more global event, such as the one I suggested, be any less of a money spinner?
You are suggesting it happens only every two years. The Six Nations delivers 15 matches every year.
-
A new format would also presumably mean qualifying - bye bye England - and persuading SH teams to travel, or persuading NH fans that Adelaide is just as accessible as Twickenham.
-
I'm not really clear what is being proposed by the Prof. Is it that there would continue to be a world cup every four years, and then a sort of world cup every even year? Wouldn't this essentially devalue the world cup?
-
I don't think there are enough world class teams. In football the UEFA cup is always a challenge to win - RU just doesn't have the teams to stage a tournament of an equivalent standard.
I think if we look at cricket the 'gold standard' was the Ashes, in part because it was rarely held. Now that it is played far more frequently than before the fans are getting fed up with both the standard of play and the prices they are charged - and the Ashes have been devalued by playing it too often, it's not that big a deal anymore. If I were heading up rugby I wouldn't want to make the same mistake.
-
A new format would also presumably mean qualifying - bye bye England - and persuading SH teams to travel, or persuading NH fans that Adelaide is just as accessible as Twickenham.
Yes it would mean qualifying - but this would be from the previous 6 nations and SH championship, so England would be likely to qualify except in a terrible year. And this would also have the advantage of making the later games in the 6 nations interesting with most teams (probably all) actually playing for something - either to win, or to ensure qualification.
But the SH teams already travel - they are touring round europe every autumn, but for a series of one off games that don't really mean anything. Replace that tour with a genuine tournament.
I'm not actually suggesting this tournament would even be in the SH, because it would be an every other year replacement for the 6 nations with is a NH tournament. But lets face it there are plenty of NH rugby fans you trot off for the British lions every so often - so I don't think that would be an issue. And also this would tap into SH fans who might be more interested in England vs NZ that another match vs Argentina for example.
-
I'm not really clear what is being proposed by the Prof. Is it that there would continue to be a world cup every four years, and then a sort of world cup every even year? Wouldn't this essentially devalue the world cup?
It seems to have worked OK in cricket where there is the larger World Cup and a much more focussed (8 team) ICC champions trophy.
So I have no problem with a large and completely global World Cup every four years and then a four year cycle of traditional 6 nations (as a qualifying tournament) for a 'super-8' (call it what you will) involving the best in europe and the best in the SH.
In reality I'm not sure what the best modified format would be, but the desperately poor showing of the 6 nations sides in the world cup must act as a wake up call for change. The 6 nations isn't (and actually hasn't been for a long time) a tournament that helps nurture the best in the world - teams competitive in the world cup. There is no fundamental reason why the NH sides cannot be as good as the SH, but unless the relevant authorities commit to make them as good we will continue to have a tired and sentimental second tier tournament every single year (the 6 nations) and then the NH teams will be way off the pace when they face the SH teams in the world cup and that tournament will continue to be shared around the SH teams. If that's what you want, fine, but I don't - I'd like to the NH teams really competing in the world cup.
-
Has it worked well in cricket? I am only a casual observer but I used to know which year an actual world cup was and who were the winners, now it just seems blurred. Also not helped particularly by the addition of 20/20 world cups. I couldn't tell you a current holder of such things, and who has what bit of it. I suspect die hard geek fans but they can tell you who won the second division on things.
I am reminded of boxing with its innumerable titles issued by by various sets of acronyms. What used to be clear becomes an endless blur.
Also as with cricket, there is a worry that in moving to a system to make it elitist at points that you dilute any ability of increasing the global spread - if we simply make more teams second tier will that set up more barriers?
-
The 6 nations isn't (and actually hasn't been for a long time) a tournament that helps nurture the best in the world - teams competitive in the world cup.
I would disagree; after all this is the first time that there has been no European representation in the semi finals, and we have had a European representative in the final in every previous tournament bar 2007 (England 3 times, and France 3 times).
We also see that the way the rues are interpreted differs across the hemispheres, with the attacking team getting far more positive calls at the breakdown in the South, than here in the North.
At the same time, I believe that the rules need honing. In the Southern hemisphere (and to an extent Wales) players are encouraged to dispossess the ball-carrier more than by most European nations. When a ball is knocked out of a player's hand(s) in the tackle and goes 'forward', it is automatically deemed a knock-forward. In reality, what often happens is that the tackler knocks the ball out of the carrier's hands and back towards his own players. That should be acknowledged by allowing play to continue.
I'd like to the NH teams really competing in the world cup.
As some have done every time except this one.
-
We also see that the way the rues are interpreted differs across the hemispheres, with the attacking team getting far more positive calls at the breakdown in the South, than here in the North.
That's not a difference in interpretation of the rules, it's just that the Southern Hemisphere teams in the tournament this time have been much, much better at choosing how to enter the contact area - even the Fijians and Samoans (and the Japanese, who play those sides more often than the 'Northern' hemisphere sides).
If you watch them go into contact they take the tackler with them if they're aiming to recycle a ruck, if they try to get tackled past the man then they're looking to off-load and the support runners know that. The Northern hemisphere sides have forwards taking the ball static and trying to drive the ruck forward (with the exception of Scotland, which was why they ran Australia so close), but the Northern hemisphere sides are always trying to break through or loose too early, and their backs aren't looking to make contact outside of the 10-12 channel.
It's not that the decisions have gone against them, it's just that they haven't played to the same standard.
O.
-
We also see that the way the rues are interpreted differs across the hemispheres, with the attacking team getting far more positive calls at the breakdown in the South, than here in the North.
That's not a difference in interpretation of the rules, it's just that the Southern Hemisphere teams in the tournament this time have been much, much better at choosing how to enter the contact area - even the Fijians and Samoans (and the Japanese, who play those sides more often than the 'Northern' hemisphere sides).
O, I was only reflecting something someone speaking on behalf of 'World Rugby' said in an interview yesterday afternoon (on Radio 5 iirc)
-
The 6 nations isn't (and actually hasn't been for a long time) a tournament that helps nurture the best in the world - teams competitive in the world cup.
I would disagree; after all this is the first time that there has been no European representation in the semi finals, and we have had a European representative in the final in every previous tournament bar 2007 (England 3 times, and France 3 times).
Sounds vaguely OK until you realise that:
1. Although NH teams have made the final on 6 occasions they have only won it once.
2. There are only 3 major SH sided, yet in every world cup final one of them has been present, and in one (probably 2 cases both finalists have been one of the big 3 SH teams. Often the reason why there weren't 2 SH sides in the final was because they ended up in the same half of the draw knocking each other out (see 3).
3. Of those 6 finalists from the NH on two occasions (2003 and 2011) the NH team progressed through the knockout stage to the final without actually having to play one of the big 3 SH sides.
4. In the entire history of the tournament NH sides have only knocked out big 3 SH sided on 5 occasions - just last weekend in the space of just over 24 hours SH sides knocked out 4 of the big NH sides. You have to go back 18 world cup knock-out matches - back to 2007 for the last time a NH side knocked out a SH side (and yes that includes Argentina, not just the big 3).
-
Has it worked well in cricket? I am only a casual observer but I used to know which year an actual world cup was and who were the winners, now it just seems blurred. Also not helped particularly by the addition of 20/20 world cups. I couldn't tell you a current holder of such things, and who has what bit of it. I suspect die hard geek fans but they can tell you who won the second division on things.
I am reminded of boxing with its innumerable titles issued by by various sets of acronyms. What used to be clear becomes an endless blur.
Also as with cricket, there is a worry that in moving to a system to make it elitist at points that you dilute any ability of increasing the global spread - if we simply make more teams second tier will that set up more barriers?
I don't think the challenge in cricket is the presence of the world cup and ICC champions trophy, rather the difficulty is the multiple forms of the game (test, 50 overs, 40 overs - does that still exist, 20:20). That really means there are several variants.
The same doesn't really exist in rugby so I can't see why there shouldn't be a world cup (more teams more global, less frequently) and a more focussed super-8 - top SH and top NH sides playing in a tournament more frequently and qualifying via their own respective 6 nations and SH championship.
-
I thought of an great idea for a mini tournament.
Generally speaking the top three SH sides always tour the NH in the autumn (I assume this year will be an exception on account of the RWC), so why not make it a proper tournament: the top two ranked NH sides against the top two ranked SH sides in a league plus maybe a final between the top two placed teams. That's three matches for all teams plus another one for the top two, which is the same number, roughly as they play now. The tournament could be alternated with the South, but the NH sides' home grounds are conveniently close to each other.
I've arrived at almost the same idea as PD but mine is smaller scale and can accommodate the Six Nations every year. In fact, if the qualifying NH sides are the winners and runners up in the previous 6N, it adds something to that tournament.
I'd really like to see some sort of tournament at club level too, but I can't see that being financially viable.
-
I thought of an great idea for a mini tournament.
Generally speaking the top three SH sides always tour the NH in the autumn (I assume this year will be an exception on account of the RWC), so why not make it a proper tournament: the top two ranked NH sides against the top two ranked SH sides in a league plus maybe a final between the top two placed teams. That's three matches for all teams plus another one for the top two, which is the same number, roughly as they play now. The tournament could be alternated with the South, but the NH sides' home grounds are conveniently close to each other.
I've arrived at almost the same idea as PD but mine is smaller scale and can accommodate the Six Nations every year. In fact, if the qualifying NH sides are the winners and runners up in the previous 6N, it adds something to that tournament.
I'd really like to see some sort of tournament at club level too, but I can't see that being financially viable.
The details are of course open to debate.
But I think there needs to be a proper tournament more regularly than every 4 years that allows NH and SH sides to compete against each other in a genuinely competitive manner. And give that the SH sides can always find the time to be here in the Autumn every year then replacing this rather strange and random set of Autumn internationals with something genuinely competitive.
I think making the 6 nations a qualifying tournament also makes a lot of sense as it would give more sides something to be playing for in the later rounds, which (lets face it) can often become a bit of a training exercise for sides that cannot win the tournament by that stage.
-
I thought of an great idea for a mini tournament.
Generally speaking the top three SH sides always tour the NH in the autumn (I assume this year will be an exception on account of the RWC), so why not make it a proper tournament: the top two ranked NH sides against the top two ranked SH sides in a league plus maybe a final between the top two placed teams. That's three matches for all teams plus another one for the top two, which is the same number, roughly as they play now. The tournament could be alternated with the South, but the NH sides' home grounds are conveniently close to each other.
I've arrived at almost the same idea as PD but mine is smaller scale and can accommodate the Six Nations every year. In fact, if the qualifying NH sides are the winners and runners up in the previous 6N, it adds something to that tournament.
I'd really like to see some sort of tournament at club level too, but I can't see that being financially viable.
I guess the key question is whether the SH teams would play ball, so to speak.
Given that they are totally dominant in world terms and have been for many years there isn't any incentive for them to change the format of their tournaments and preparations for the world cup in a manner that might improve the quality of the NH sides.
I guess what would help would be money, and some of the Autumn internationals are currently a bit of a damp squibb in terms of attendance etc, so something more competitive might be able to generate more income.