Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Sports, Hobbies & Interests => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on February 12, 2023, 03:06:49 PM
-
The madness of doing the seedings for the World Cup in September 2023 based on rankings on the 1st Jan 2020 means that on current rankings the top 5 teams in the world are in groups A and B, and that 2 teams from those ranked 6-10 or lower are guaranteed to make the semi finals.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Rugby_World_Cup
-
Yep. No other major tournament would consider that.
-
One take on how doing the draw now would affect it.
https://www.rugbyworld.com/news/how-would-the-rugby-world-cup-pools-look-based-on-todays-rankings-150486
-
One take on how doing the draw now would affect it.
https://www.rugbyworld.com/news/how-would-the-rugby-world-cup-pools-look-based-on-todays-rankings-150486
Definitely would be fairer, although I think Scotland's high ranking is something of an aberration.
-
The madness of doing the seedings for the World Cup in September 2023 based on rankings on the 1st Jan 2020 means that on current rankings the top 5 teams in the world are in groups A and B, and that 2 teams from those ranked 6-10 or lower are guaranteed to make the semi finals.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Rugby_World_Cup
Absolutely crazy - and I've made this point in relation to the previous world cup too.
Why the RWC needs to announce the groups 3 years in advance of the tournament is beyond me. The football world cup, which let's face it is a far bigger and more complex tournament, typically draws the teams for the group stage about 6 months ahead of the tournament starting. The RWC should be drawing the groups for the Autumn straight after the 6 nations, based on March 2023 rankings.
It really frustrates me - the RWC is by far the biggest show in town in rugby union, but it keeps shooting itself in the foot with bizarre operational details. The other non-sense is having a tournament of 20 teams when there clearly aren't that number of teams vaguely competitive. It should reduce the number to 16 teams - four groups of 4 which would sort out the whole bonkers stretched out fixtures approach.
-
Agree, and given the demands of rugby union, one less match to play would make a lot of sense.
-
Agree, and given the demands of rugby union, one less match to play would make a lot of sense.
Absolutely - but apparently not all teams are equal in terms of 'demands'. So Namibia are require to play their four group stage matches in an 18 day period, while France (in the same group) have a leisurely 28 days to complete their four matches.
But was always thus - the big teams given an advantageous gap between matches while they come thick and fast for the minnows.
But you are correct the upshot is not only too many matches, but a tournament that is oh so slow to get going. The whole football world cup was complete, start to finish, in 28 days. Four weeks from the start of the RWC and there will still be a bunch of group stage matches still to play and the knockout stage will still be over a week away.
-
Um,
Absolutely crazy - ... The football world cup, which let's face it is a fart bigger ...
Have I misread it or is it something I've missed? 🤔
-
Um,Have I misread it or is it something I've missed? 🤔
Oooops ;D
Corrected - but actually I think the Cricket World Cup is fart bigger again ... because they have the Windies.
-
SBorthwick is picking Smith ahead of Farrell.
This game is still France's choice. Either they batter England, or they'll implode. I think Shaun Edwards won't let them implode (and should have been recruited as England's coach a long time ago, IMO.)
It might affect the WC, with Smith as a great white hope (/ dark horse?).
I know that's a rubbish prediction, so, to be clear, either France will win, or England will. Or it'll be a draw. I hope that's understood.
-
I think batter is the word.
-
.
-
IMO, that was Shaun Edwards 53, England Rugby Committee 0.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/mar/15/england-ireland-owen-farrell-injury-fears-six-nations-rugby-union (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/mar/15/england-ireland-owen-farrell-injury-fears-six-nations-rugby-union)
There's a quote about doing the same thing over and over again and hoping it will change (as source of madness).
SB'wick repicking OF might as well be Boxer's quote, "We must work harder."
Or to borrow another quote OFFS.
-
This whole Owen Farrell business is becoming a complete farce:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66540494
So an on-field decision ...
Is overturned by an off-field decision ...
Which is overturned by a different off-field decision ...
And potentially may be overturned again by yet another off-field decision.
How long does this go on!
And the laws themselves are pretty impenetrable in the first place. This is where rugby just loses me.
-
This whole Owen Farrell business is becoming a complete farce:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66540494
So an on-field decision ...
Is overturned by an off-field decision ...
Which is overturned by a different off-field decision ...
And potentially may be overturned again by yet another off-field decision.
How long does this go on!
And the laws themselves are pretty impenetrable in the first place. This is where rugby just loses me.
The on-field decision was not over-turned, it was enhanced, but otherwise... I wish I knew what Owen Farrell had on the IRB. It's not even an attempt to tackle - whether he went high or not, there's no arms involved, it's a blatant shoulder charge, and far from his first.
The only thing that's truly surprised me in all of this was finding out that it's Farrell's first red card!
O.
-
The on-field decision was not over-turned, it was enhanced,
Semantics - what I mean is that there seems to be an almost endless process by which an earlier decision is looked at again and potentially changed. The on-field decision of a yellow was overturned/changed/enhanced (delete as appropriate, it amounts to the same thing) and became a red. Fair enough that's what the process is there to do, like VAR in football.
And it is reasonable that a red card may then be challenged under an appeal process - this has happened. But there now seems to be an appeal process to the appeal process to the off-field video decision during match time to the original referees decision on-field.
That is one step to many - fine to have a later appeal against a red card (this happens in all kinds of sports) - but an appeal against the appeal :o
... but otherwise... I wish I knew what Owen Farrell had on the IRB. It's not even an attempt to tackle - whether he went high or not, there's no arms involved, it's a blatant shoulder charge, and far from his first.
The only thing that's truly surprised me in all of this was finding out that it's Farrell's first red card!
O.
I'm not arguing with the decision and frankly the rules are so opaque that it seems that no-one really knows, given that a decision by the expert on-field referee was then changed by the expert video ref, which was then changed by the off-field expert appeal panel which may ... who knows ... be changed by another expert off-field appeal panel.
If it was so clear cut how come these experts seem unable to agree.
But I come back to my point - it isn't the decision, it is the number of stages, which is frankly ridiculous and makes the sport's official bodies look like a laughing stock in my opinion.
-
The on-field decision was not over-turned, it was enhanced, but otherwise... I wish I knew what Owen Farrell had on the IRB. It's not even an attempt to tackle - whether he went high or not, there's no arms involved, it's a blatant shoulder charge, and far from his first.
The only thing that's truly surprised me in all of this was finding out that it's Farrell's first red card!
O.
There is another point with all this multi-layer decision/decision/appeal/appeal stuff, which is when any ban kicks in.
Currently Farrell is, presumably, not banned - as the current decision is 'yellow'. So while I understand that he's not going to be picked on Saturday anyhow would that game form part of his ban or not part of his ban should the appeal to the appeal panel decide to reinstate the red, which was previously a yellow, which was previously a red, which was previously a yellow!
Complete fiasco.
-
Currently Farrell is, presumably, not banned - as the current decision is 'yellow'. So while I understand that he's not going to be picked on Saturday anyhow would that game form part of his ban or not part of his ban should the appeal to the appeal panel decide to reinstate the red, which was previously a yellow, which was previously a red, which was previously a yellow!
This is the problem. There are two games left before the RWC which could have counted as part of the ban and they probably won't, unless there is a rule that says games not played pending the appeal decision count towards the ban.
The whole process is making rugby look ridiculous (on top of the ridiculous seeding system).
-
The whole process is making rugby look ridiculous (on top of the ridiculous seeding system).
Too true.
So as we head into the world cup:
Pool A contains teams ranked 2 and 3 in the world.
Pool B contains teams ranked 1, 4 and 5 in the world.
Yet the highest ranked team in Pool C is ranked 8th.
It is just bonkers - and it keeps happening. I could accept that the tournament organisers might screw up once, but having had the non-sense of picking the pools three years ahead of the tournament they keep doing it.
And I think this speaks to an inherent small-c conservatism in rugby, possibly still a hang-over from the amateur days. An inherent reluctance to tweak anything that is seems to be historically how things are done - however broken.
For all the faults in cricket (and there are many) at least they seem willing to be enterprising, to evolve the game and try new stuff - good example being the phenomenon that is T20, including the world leading tournament that is the IPL - probably one of the biggest sporting tournaments on the planet now.
But rugby is just stuck - the only major innovations I can see, in decades, are the World Cup itself (but that started nearly 40 years ago and needs some serious tweaking of the format) and adding Italy to the 5/6 nations in 2000 (which was very much a case of shutting the door after the horse has bolted as they were already in decline at that point and their continued presence year after year is just a joke).
The 6 nations needs to actually mean something - some format that involves relegation or that being ranked high qualifies you for something else (like the Champions league), so that the later rounds actually matter to all the teams. And don't get me started on the British Lions - a format that is defeatist in its very concept in accepting that the only way you can be competitive against southern hemisphere opposition is to combine four teams. New Zealand, Australia and South Africa must be laughing all the way to their almost inevitable world cup wins as they get hugely valuable training matches in their preparations for the world cup.
Rant over ;D
-
Just to note a new North and South biennial tournament is due to start in 2026
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66074883
-
Just to note a new North and South biennial tournament is due to start in 2026
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66074883
This idea, or something similar, has been knocking around for years but never seems to come to fruition.
But the concept remains flawed - what is the point of simply including all 6 nations and rugby championship sides. If this is the case there remains no incentive for a team in the 6 nations who have lost perhaps the first couple of games to fight really hard to end up third so that they qualify for this tournament. Realistically all this seems to be is turning the Autumn internationals and summer tours into some kind of 'tournament'.
A much better format would be one where perhaps just the teams that finish in the top half of each existing tournament qualify. That would make the 6 nations ranking actually matter, as currently unless you win it is completely irrelevant if you finish second, third or fifth.
-
Just to note a new North and South biennial tournament is due to start in 2026
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66074883
As I said in my previous post - this simply fails to deal with issue that finishing low down in the 6 nations has no consequences, so some later stage matches simply become totally irrelevant.
Here is my proposal.
A 6 team tournament played every two years. Qualification is based on the combined outcomes of the previous two years 6 nations and rugby championship tournaments (to deal with the anomaly that in the 6 nations each year some teams play 3 home games and others 3 away games). The teams that finish in the top half qualify automatically for the new tournament, so that's 3 from the 6 nations and 2 from the rugby championship. The final place is decided in a home/away play-off between the team ranked 4th in the 6 nations and the team ranked 3rd in the rugby championship.
At a stroke this will keep interest in those tournaments going right until the very end.
The new tournament itself - two groups of three teams play each other home and away, so four games each. Bottom side is eliminated. One-off semi between the winner of one group and second placed side of the other, with home advantage to the team finishing top of their group. A one-off final in a location predetermined, like the Champions league final. This would give teams knock-out match experience, which they simply don't get anywhere else other than the once in four years World Cup.
My final tweak - back to the two year cycle of the 6 nations and rugby championship tournaments - the team that finishes bottom goes into a play-off with the 'best of the rest' team from their part of the world (not sure if we really have a proper second division, but that would also be a good thing). The winner plays in the 6 nations or rugby championship tournaments for the next two years. Better than a straight promotion/relegation as there seems to be a massive gulf (in the 6 nations, not so much in the rugby championship) so you'd just get constant yo-yo - team goes up goes straight back down.
-
As I said in my previous post - this simply fails to deal with issue that finishing low down in the 6 nations has no consequences, so some later stage matches simply become totally irrelevant.
Here is my proposal.
A 6 team tournament played every two years. Qualification is based on the combined outcomes of the previous two years 6 nations and rugby championship tournaments (to deal with the anomaly that in the 6 nations each year some teams play 3 home games and others 3 away games). The teams that finish in the top half qualify automatically for the new tournament, so that's 3 from the 6 nations and 2 from the rugby championship. The final place is decided in a home/away play-off between the team ranked 4th in the 6 nations and the team ranked 3rd in the rugby championship.
At a stroke this will keep interest in those tournaments going right until the very end.
The new tournament itself - two groups of three teams play each other home and away, so four games each. Bottom side is eliminated. One-off semi between the winner of one group and second placed side of the other, with home advantage to the team finishing top of their group. A one-off final in a location predetermined, like the Champions league final. This would give teams knock-out match experience, which they simply don't get anywhere else other than the once in four years World Cup.
My final tweak - back to the two year cycle of the 6 nations and rugby championship tournaments - the team that finishes bottom goes into a play-off with the 'best of the rest' team from their part of the world (not sure if we really have a proper second division, but that would also be a good thing). The winner plays in the 6 nations or rugby championship tournaments for the next two years. Better than a straight promotion/relegation as there seems to be a massive gulf (in the 6 nations, not so much in the rugby championship) so you'd just get constant yo-yo - team goes up goes straight back down.
Why not just take the top three from the 6N and the Rugby Championship? A playoff between the fourth best Northern side and the third best Southern side is likely to be no more than a formality.
-
Why not just take the top three from the 6N and the Rugby Championship?
Because one involves six teams, the other just four.
Plus it will help ensure that flighting to be one place higher in either tournament makes a difference. The one exception being second/third in the 6 nations. But then as this is based on two seasons of results even that will come into play in a single season.
-
A playoff between the fourth best Northern side and the third best Southern side is likely to be no more than a formality.
Would it?
If we enacted this right now, based on the past two seasons - the playoff would be between Argentina and England. Wouldn't say that would necessarily be a formality.
-
Would it?
If we enacted this right now, based on the past two seasons - the playoff would be between Argentina and England. Wouldn't say that would necessarily be a formality.
I don't think England can beat Argentina at the moment.
-
Farrell's ban reinstated - oh the hokey-cokey.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66581854
-
I don't think England can beat Argentina at the moment.
Well we will see in a few weeks given that they are playing each other in their first fixture in the world cup. Sure Argentina could beat England, but it is a long way from a forgone conclusion - certain the betting odds don't suggest that with England are 4/6 favourites for the match with Argentina 7/4 against.
But your claim was that it was a 'formality' that a 3 placed team in the rugby championship would beat a 4th ranked team in the 6 nations - the implication being that the rugby championship team will always beat the 6 nations side. That is simply non-sense, as the betting odds for the upcoming England v Argentina match suggests.
But there is a broader point - what I want to achieve with my proposal is to keep an interest for as many teams for as many rounds as possible in both the rugby championship and the 6 nations. Under my proposal there is an incentive to finish 2nd rather than 3rd in the rugby championship as the former provides automatic qualification (a real formality) into my proposed new tournament, while the latter provides the uncertainly of having to go into a play off. Similarly in the 6 nations - there is incentive to finish 3rd rather than 4th as the former provides automatic qualification while the latter only result in playoff. But there is also incentive to finish 4th (where the opportunity to qualify for the new tournament via playoffs exists), rather than 5th where there is no chance.
Simply allowing the top three from both tournaments to qualify significantly reduces 'skin in the game' to try to finish one place higher.
-
Farrell's ban reinstated - oh the hokey-cokey.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66581854
But surely there must be an opportunity to appeal the red with overturned the yellow under appeal, with overturned the red under appeal with overturned the refs original yellow decision ;)
Will be interesting what happens with Vunipola - presumably under natural justice if world rugby could appeal the appeal panel's yellow card decision in the Farrell case, then if the initial appeal panel decision to confirm the red for Vunipola he will have a chance to appeal. Otherwise the process would be tipped in favour of the rugby authorities rather than the player/team and in favour of red rather than yellow.
-
But surely there must be an opportunity to appeal the red with overturned the yellow under appeal, with overturned the red under appeal with overturned the refs original yellow decision ;)
Will be interesting what happens with Vunipola - presumably under natural justice if world rugby could appeal the appeal panel's yellow card decision in the Farrell case, then if the initial appeal panel decision to confirm the red for Vunipola he will have a chance to appeal. Otherwise the process would be tipped in favour of the rugby authorities rather than the player/team and in favour of red rather than yellow.
So Vunipola's red is upheld by the first panel. Does Vunipola have the opportunity to appeal, or is this only available to the rugby authorities if they perceive that the first appeal panel's decision has not gone in their favour.
Again this isn't a comment on whether or not Farrell or Vunipola should be banned/not banned, but on the complete chaos of the whole process.
-
Well we will see in a few weeks given that they are playing each other in their first fixture in the world cup. Sure Argentina could beat England, but it is a long way from a forgone conclusion - certain the betting odds don't suggest that with England are 4/6 favourites for the match with Argentina 7/4 against.
The last time they played each other England lost and that was at Twickenham. If England are the favourites, it might be worth a bet on Argentina.
But your claim was that it was a 'formality' that a 3 placed team in the rugby championship would beat a 4th ranked team in the 6 nations - the implication being that the rugby championship team will always beat the 6 nations side. That is simply non-sense, as the betting odds for the upcoming England v Argentina match suggests.
Under normal circumstances, the match up would be one of Australia, New Zealand or South Africa against Wales or Scotland.
That's as close to a formality as it gets in sport.
But there is a broader point - what I want to achieve with my proposal is to keep an interest for as many teams for as many rounds as possible in both the rugby championship and the 6 nations. Under my proposal there is an incentive to finish 2nd rather than 3rd in the rugby championship as the former provides automatic qualification (a real formality) into my proposed new tournament, while the latter provides the uncertainly of having to go into a play off. Similarly in the 6 nations - there is incentive to finish 3rd rather than 4th as the former provides automatic qualification while the latter only result in playoff. But there is also incentive to finish 4th (where the opportunity to qualify for the new tournament via playoffs exists), rather than 5th where there is no chance.
Simply allowing the top three from both tournaments to qualify significantly reduces 'skin in the game' to try to finish one place higher.
I understand that, but it adds an extra game to the calendar, so it's got to be weighed against that.
-
So Vunipola's red is upheld by the first panel. Does Vunipola have the opportunity to appeal, or is this only available to the rugby authorities if they perceive that the first appeal panel's decision has not gone in their favour.
Again this isn't a comment on whether or not Farrell or Vunipola should be banned/not banned, but on the complete chaos of the whole process.
I don't know. Rugby Union is looking like a joke at the moment.
-
Under normal circumstances, the match up would be one of Australia, New Zealand or South Africa against Wales or Scotland.
That's as close to a formality as it gets in sport.
Really?!?
Just plucking one match-up at random - Australia vs Scotland - of the past 10 meetings between the two there have been five Australia wins and five Scottish wins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union_matches_between_Australia_and_Scotland
Doesn't sound like a formality to me. The point is that there can be no guarantee that a team will progress in a play-off - so it incentivises a team to try to finish in the automatic qualification positions. Likewise being in the play-offs provides the possibility to qualify so it incentivises a team to try to finish in that spot rather than the one below where there is no chance of qualification.
And actually over the past 10 years or so the teams most likely to have finished 3rd in the rugby championships are Australia and South Africa, so throwing in New Zealand is a red herring as I doubt they's have ever been 3rd over a two year cycle. And in the 6 nations the teams most commonly finishing fourth over the same period are Scotland and France.
And sure the match ups of Australia/SA vs Scotland/France broadly tip in favour of the former, but there have been some decent numbers of victories for Scotland and France so you wouldn't come close to considering these kind of match-ups to be a formality in favour of the rugby championship side.
-
South Africa thrash the All Blacks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66622196
-
Fiji beat England for first time
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66629208
-
Really?!?
Just plucking one match-up at random - Australia vs Scotland - of the past 10 meetings between the two there have been five Australia wins and five Scottish wins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union_matches_between_Australia_and_Scotland
Doesn't sound like a formality to me. The point is that there can be no guarantee that a team will progress in a play-off - so it incentivises a team to try to finish in the automatic qualification positions. Likewise being in the play-offs provides the possibility to qualify so it incentivises a team to try to finish in that spot rather than the one below where there is no chance of qualification.
And actually over the past 10 years or so the teams most likely to have finished 3rd in the rugby championships are Australia and South Africa, so throwing in New Zealand is a red herring as I doubt they's have ever been 3rd over a two year cycle. And in the 6 nations the teams most commonly finishing fourth over the same period are Scotland and France.
And sure the match ups of Australia/SA vs Scotland/France broadly tip in favour of the former, but there have been some decent numbers of victories for Scotland and France so you wouldn't come close to considering these kind of match-ups to be a formality in favour of the rugby championship side.
Still think England Argentina is not a formality?
-
Huge performance from Samoa
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66619638
-
Easy win for France over Australia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66630985
-
After tge warm up matches, Scotland ranked 5, have the No 1 and 2 ranked teams in their group.
-
After tge warm up matches, Scotland ranked 5, have the No 1 and 2 ranked teams in their group.
The point about the craziness of the pool allocation years ahead of the tournament is completely valid.
However I’m not sure the ranking should be so susceptible to what are, let’s face it, completely irrelevant warm up matches. Not sure how the ranking works in rugby, but certainly in football the importance of the match is a major factor. So major tournament games rank highest and friendlies (or warm up matches) count lowest.
So realistically we shouldn’t be seeing NZ drop 2 ranks and Fiji go up 2 (as examples) on the basis of on poor match by the former and one great on by the latter - why, we’ll because those matches cues are really nothing more than training exercises for the real thing that starts next month.
-
The point about the craziness of the pool allocation years ahead of the tournament is completely valid.
However I’m not sure the ranking should be so susceptible to what are, let’s face it, completely irrelevant warm up matches. Not sure how the ranking works in rugby, but certainly in football the importance of the match is a major factor. So major tournament games rank highest and friendlies (or warm up matches) count lowest.
So realistically we shouldn’t be seeing NZ drop 2 ranks and Fiji go up 2 (as examples) on the basis of on poor match by the former and one great on by the latter - why, we’ll because those matches cues are really nothing more than training exercises for the real thing that starts next month.
Detailed explanation here
https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/rankings/explanation
But significantly
RWC RANKING
Points are doubled during the World Cup Finals to recognise the importance of this event, but all other international matches, friendly or competitive, are treated the same across the world.
-
Detailed explanation here
https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/rankings/explanation
But significantly
RWC RANKING
Points are doubled during the World Cup Finals to recognise the importance of this event, but all other international matches, friendly or competitive, are treated the same across the world.
Well that explains it!
Another bonkers decision by the rugby authorities. Suggesting that there is an equivalence in ranking terms between a key match in the 6 nations or rugby championship with a match that means absolutely nothing and it just being used to try out some fringe squad players or possible new tactics is … well … nuts.
-
Detailed explanation here
https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/rankings/explanation
But significantly
RWC RANKING
Points are doubled during the World Cup Finals to recognise the importance of this event, but all other international matches, friendly or competitive, are treated the same across the world.
I have to agree with Professor Davey on that. Friendly matches should count less towards world rankings than competitive matches.
-
I have to agree with Professor Davey on that. Friendly matches should count less towards world rankings than competitive matches.
I think rugby has a problem in not having a consistent competitive structure.
-
I think rugby has a problem in not having a consistent competitive structure.
Sure - rugby needs to sort out it's structure - it is still stuck in its amateur mindset in my view.
But that said surely the rugby authorities should recognise that the 6 nations and rugby championship are established competitions, and while they aren't at the level of the world cup they are more significant than a one off game between two sides, where one (or both sides) might not be taking this as a competitive game. Many of these games are basically used to 'try stuff out', try now players etc. I doubt the coach would consider the result as the most important thing rather than what is learned from those experiments. Games like that shouldn't be ranked the same as the 6 nations and rugby championship. Or, for that matter, formal qualifying matches that lower ranked sides may play in order to achieve qualification for the world cup.
-
Good preview
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/03/france-rugby-world-cup-antoine-dupont-england-south-africa-new-zealand
-
And one for tonight's opening game.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66746406
-
Good marker from the French, setting themselves up as very likely group winners.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66758479
-
Good marker from the French, setting themselves up as very likely group winners.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66758479
It's a certainty. Nobody else in that group is going to beat them.
-
I see that ITV are showing all four matches live today which means that it's Rugby World Cup from 11.30 to 22.25 on ITV1 today.
-
Easy win for Ireland who looked a bit rusty, but possibly all the more impressive for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66754098
-
Remarkable performance from England, dismal one from Argentina.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66765159
-
Remarkable performance from England, dismal one from Argentina.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66765159
Dismal all round apart from the result, especially as England now has yet another red card.
-
England feeling aggrieved at Curry's red card (my opinion - the right call), particularly in light of the relative leniency shown to Sigren in the Chile-Japan game must actually have something in common with the Scotland supporters after Kriel's miraculous avoidance of any sort of sanction (at this time I've still not seen anything to suggest he's been cited after the game).
All of which then feeds in to the justifiable questions the Fijians must have about the refereeing in their match against Wales. It's a shame that so much of the shine (particularly after the first few matches) has already been taken off some of the performances.
England don't look like they're going to pose any problems for anyone, Australia will not be looking forward to facing Fiji next weekend and Scotland realistically have to face the fact that the draw screwed them over long, long before anyone even looked at who their team for the tournament might be.
O.
-
Remarkable performance from England, dismal one from Argentina.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66765159
England really need to sort out their tackling issues.
That said to win with only 14 players for pretty well the entire match is very unusual. One of the issues with rugby is that almost always where you have two reasonably matched sign a sending off (except in the last few minutes) is decisive. Effectively it ruins the game and once they were incredibly rare, now they seem pretty common with is an issue.
-
England feeling aggrieved at Curry's red card (my opinion - the right call), particularly in light of the relative leniency shown to Sigren in the Chile-Japan game must actually have something in common with the Scotland supporters after Kriel's miraculous avoidance of any sort of sanction (at this time I've still not seen anything to suggest he's been cited after the game).
Within the rules as they currently stand, it was a red card, but so was the one in the RSA-Scotland game. However, it has got to be looked at because both collisions were accidental and red carding an accidental hit seems really harsh and ruins the game (nrmally) as PD says.
All of which then feeds in to the justifiable questions the Fijians must have about the refereeing in their match against Wales. It's a shame that so much of the shine (particularly after the first few matches) has already been taken off some of the performances.
I didn't see that match but I gather Fiji has good reason to feel aggrieved, particularly as it came down to one fumbled try (with a difficult conversion).
England don't look like they're going to pose any problems for anyone,
I think they'll win the remaining games in the group and, if facing Wales in the QF, they could win. Australia would brush them off.
-
England really need to sort out their tackling issues.
I'd be more concerned with their attack. One of the reasons they were doing all the drop goals is because there was nothing else on. The last drop goal was from seven metres. If that's your best option from seven metres out, that's pretty poor, even with a man down.
That said to win with only 14 players for pretty well the entire match is very unusual. One of the issues with rugby is that almost always where you have two reasonably matched sign a sending off (except in the last few minutes) is decisive. Effectively it ruins the game and once they were incredibly rare, now they seem pretty common with is an issue.
This is true and I thought the sending off was doom for England. The main problem is that the rules around tackles have been changed significantly in response to head injury concerns. The rise in red cards may just be part of the adjustment and when everybody gets used to them, they'll stop happening. Or it may be that it is fundamentally impossible to play rugby within the new rules, in which case, serious questions about safety have to be asked.
-
Within the rules as they currently stand, it was a red card, but so was the one in the RSA-Scotland game. However, it has got to be looked at because both collisions were accidental and red carding an accidental hit seems really harsh and ruins the game (nrmally) as PD says.
But there is always an element of interpretation. This isn't purely objective or we wouldn't have had the crazy yellow, red, yellow, red situation with Farrell which each change being due to different interpretations of the same laws (albeit the first on field decision didn't have the benefit of video evidence).
So the authorities need to look at interpretation and they can choose to err on the side of leniency or harshness as they see fit. Providing this is applied consistently then I see no issue. We've seen similar things in football with handball where there has been changed guidance on interpretation even if the wording of the law hasn't changed.
I do think the authorities need to get a grip on this or we risk seeing games ruined for accidental collisions (where the ball carrier is just as much 'at fault') as the tackler. If that continues happening as we get to the sharp end of the tournament we really will have a problem.
-
Within the rules as they currently stand, it was a red card, but so was the one in the RSA-Scotland game. However, it has got to be looked at because both collisions were accidental and red carding an accidental hit seems really harsh and ruins the game (nrmally) as PD says.
I'd say neither of them were intentional, but I wouldn't say accidental, they were negligent. In both instance (and the Chile one, too) the tacklers went in upright, and that's always going to come with a high likelihood of a head-clash.
If there's a standard that needs changing it's the idea that you give away a penalty for being overrun at the scrum - if you misalign or drop, fine, but if you're wheeled or driven back I think it should be a free-kick. Why do you give away a penalty because they opposition are better than you at one particular aspect of the game? It's like giving Cheslin Kolbe a penalty every time he outruns someone.
I didn't see that match but I gather Fiji has good reason to feel aggrieved, particularly as it came down to one fumbled try (with a difficult conversion).
I think the most telling part was that Wales committed something like 6 off-side infringements inside their own 22m (and maybe 9 or 10 penalties in total) before someone got shown a yellow card, whereas Fiji got carded for their second infringement.
I think they'll win the remaining games in the group and, if facing Wales in the QF, they could win.
I'd be edging towards Wales on what I've seen so far if they were against England, although not by much.
Australia would brush them off.
Sorry, England (yes, agreed) or Fiji?
O.
[/quote]
-
I think they'll win the remaining games in the group and, if facing Wales in the QF, they could win. Australia would brush them off.
Realistically I think it is anyone's call which of Australia, England or Wales reach the semi-final (I suspect on Saturday's showing Argentina less likely, but not a foregone conclusion). Highest ranking of any of those teams pre-tournament was 6th.
But the point is that two out of those four will make the semi final, while two from New Zealand, South Africa, Scotland, Ireland and France (lowest ranking pre-tournament was 5th) won't, such is the non-sense of the pool-stage allocation process.
-
I'd say neither of them were intentional, but I wouldn't say accidental, they were negligent. In both instance (and the Chile one, too) the tacklers went in upright, and that's always going to come with a high likelihood of a head-clash.
And if the tackler doesn’t go in upright and headbuts the ball carrier’s shoulder, it’s just as dangerous.
This is a rugby match. Things happen fast and concepts like negligence aren’t really helpful.
-
Realistically I think it is anyone's call which of Australia, England or Wales reach the semi-final (I suspect on Saturday's showing Argentina less likely, but not a foregone conclusion). Highest ranking of any of those teams pre-tournament was 6th.
But the point is that two out of those four will make the semi final, while two from New Zealand, South Africa, Scotland, Ireland and France (lowest ranking pre-tournament was 5th) won't, such is the non-sense of the pool-stage allocation process.
No it’s not the point. We’ve had that conversation and we all agree it was bonkers and we’ll have a similar conversation before the next RWC if things don’t change, but right now it’s an irrelevance.
-
No it’s not the point. We’ve had that conversation and we all agree it was bonkers and we’ll have a similar conversation before the next RWC if things don’t change, but right now it’s an irrelevance.
I don't think it is an irrelevance at all. I think if you are a supporter of Ireland (ranked 1), South Africa (2), France (3), New Zealand (4) or Scotland (5) I think you'd consider it highly relevant.
-
And if the tackler doesn’t go in upright and headbuts the ball carrier’s shoulder, it’s just as dangerous.
This is a rugby match. Things happen fast and concepts like negligence aren’t really helpful.
It also seems that the tackler seems to be the only one considered culpable for a potentially dangerous incident. Surely the ball carrier can also act in a manner that is dangerous to themselves or the tackler. It seems with some of these incidents both players seem to be equally responsible for a clash of heads.
-
And if the tackler doesn’t go in upright and headbuts the ball carrier’s shoulder, it’s just as dangerous.
No, it isn't. Not withstanding that there is more 'give' in someone's shoulder than their skull, there is only one head involved, not two.
This is a rugby match. Things happen fast and concepts like negligence aren’t really helpful.
I know. I played from my school days through to my mid-forties. I know rugby. I know that tackling moved from low to the chest around the turn of the millenium, I know that the mass of players has increased massively in the last quarter century, I know the game has become quicker and I know that it's not hard to aim the tackles lower.
Concepts like negligence aren't just helpful they're explicitly called out in the laws of the game; as the tackling player you are responsible for how you tackle. If you lift someone, you are responsible for how they land. You're supposed to tackle low, but equally we penalise (rightly) people who target the knee during tackles. If we can expect them to aim above the knee we can expect them to aim below the shoulder just as easily - indeed, outside of the professional leagues we're doing that now.
O.
-
No, it isn't. Not withstanding that there is more 'give' in someone's shoulder than their skull, there is only one head involved, not two.
I know. I played from my school days through to my mid-forties. I know rugby. I know that tackling moved from low to the chest around the turn of the millenium, I know that the mass of players has increased massively in the last quarter century, I know the game has become quicker and I know that it's not hard to aim the tackles lower.
Concepts like negligence aren't just helpful they're explicitly called out in the laws of the game; as the tackling player you are responsible for how you tackle. If you lift someone, you are responsible for how they land. You're supposed to tackle low, but equally we penalise (rightly) people who target the knee during tackles. If we can expect them to aim above the knee we can expect them to aim below the shoulder just as easily - indeed, outside of the professional leagues we're doing that now.
O.
But we mustn't ignore the responsibilities on the player being tackled to. When we are talking about player safety surely both players must bear some responsibility not just the tackler. I'm sure I've read this elsewhere, but there is concern that under the current laws there is an incentive for the player being tackles to ensure head to head, or shoulder to head contact because it will result in the tackler getting a red card. That is not only game-playing but highly dangerous.
Surely if there is evidence that the player with the ball also falls to take action to prevent head/shoulder to head contact or worse appears to ensure it will happen, then the player with the ball should be sent off.
-
But we mustn't ignore the responsibilities on the player being tackled to. When we are talking about player safety surely both players must bear some responsibility not just the tackler. I'm sure I've read this elsewhere, but there is concern that under the current laws there is an incentive for the player being tackles to ensure head to head, or shoulder to head contact because it will result in the tackler getting a red card. That is not only game-playing but highly dangerous.
Surely if there is evidence that the player with the ball also falls to take action to prevent head/shoulder to head contact or worse appears to ensure it will happen, then the player with the ball should be sent off.
Not the article I think I saw previously, but this is in a similar vein.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/rugby-players-fans-call-ball-27223205
Surely if any contact to the head is dangerous then both the ball carrier and the tackler should carry equal responsibility.
-
But we mustn't ignore the responsibilities on the player being tackled to. When we are talking about player safety surely both players must bear some responsibility not just the tackler.
Yes. So you aren't allowed to hand-off with a straight arm, you aren't allowed to lead with the elbow, or with the forearm to the face/neck, you aren't allowed to attempt to jump tackles (although they could do with clearing up the grey area about leaping over the try-line...).
Where this becomes problematic is the tendency, particularly of forwards, to head towards the floor and plunge six inches forward at a time; it's inevitable that they'll lead with the head/neck when they do. In these circumstances the tackler cannot do anything to avoid contact with the head, but how you'd alter this area of the game isn't something that I've seen any sensible suggestions on.
I'm sure I've read this elsewhere, but there is concern that under the current laws there is an incentive for the player being tackles to ensure head to head, or shoulder to head contact because it will result in the tackler getting a red card.
In exactly the same way that there's an incentive for footballers to trail a foot behind them in the box, buying a foul and a penalty. Thankfully, at the moment, there doesn't seem to be much appetite for that sort of behaviour in rugby, although there was talk amongst the commentary teams about that sort of cynicism starting to leak into the game (particularly, if I recall, around Johnny Sexton's response to someone having the temerity to come near him after he'd scored his try). If the requirement is for the tackling player to be entering the tackle shoulder-first and below shoulder height, then if the ball-carrier starts to dip they take on the risks themselves - it should be advised against, for a while at least, and see how it plays out. It would encourage the sort of play you get from the South-Sea Island nations where they get their shoulders through the tackle and off-load behind the defensive line, which makes for attractive, attacking rugby which has to be another benefit (and is what the chest-high tackle was specifically introduced to combat).
Surely if there is evidence that the player with the ball also falls to take action to prevent head/shoulder to head contact or worse appears to ensure it will happen, then the player with the ball should be sent off.
At the moment, with regards to the sort of incidents that we're seeing, the obligation is on the tackler to position themselves correctly. As I noted above, there are restrictions on what the ball-carrier can do. The reason the obligation is primarily on the tackler is because there are regularly situations where the ball-carrier is already interacting with one or more tacklers when someone enters the tackle area. The point is not to eliminate contact entirely, but rather to reduce the number of impacts - it's not (just) the single concussion incidents that the game is trying to manage, but rather the cumulative effects of repeated, regular head-impacts.
O.
-
In exactly the same way that there's an incentive for footballers to trail a foot behind them in the box, buying a foul and a penalty.
Exactly my point. But in football the only consequence is likely an unfairly awarded foul and a card for the 'tackler'. In rugby similar game playing is likely to be actively dangerous.
Thankfully, at the moment, there doesn't seem to be much appetite for that sort of behaviour in rugby, although there was talk amongst the commentary teams about that sort of cynicism starting to leak into the game ...
Isn't there - how on earth would you know. I'm hate this notion that somehow footballers cheat but rugby players are somehow all honourable. Let's not forget that this is the sport where, in England, a team used fake blood to deliberately cheat. There has been nothing like that in football, certainly not in this country. And when cheating occurs in scrums (as happens basically all the time and has always happened), it is just described as 'front row dark arts' rather than calling it out for what it is.
So I don't think we have any idea how regularly this is going on because it is really tricky to tell the difference between a deliberate last minute lowering of position from the ballcarrier hoping to induce a high tackle with possible contact to the head (resulting in an engineered yellow or red card for the tackler) and something that is completely accidental. There seems to be a huge incentive to 'coach for the card'. Currently there seems to be little risk of sanction for the ballcarrier and the worst that happens is that the tackler ends up with mitigation that means that they don't get a card or don't get a red. The only way you'd know if there is a lot of coached deliberate stuff going on is to start to penalise ballcarriers and then soon enough you'll find the deliberate stuff begins to disappear.
But I think the fundamental issue here is the current rules somehow seem to assume that the tackler is the only one that can be in the wrong. And also that the ballcarrier is the only one likely to suffer injury with a head collision. Neither seems to be the case to me.
-
Another issue I have with the way the Rugby world cup is formatted is the stop/start nature. Once a tournament starts I want wall to wall fixtures, until you get to the sharp end, when there are only a few teams left and necessarily there needs to be some gap between games. So for big football tournaments you'll get two or three games every day until you reach quarter final stage.
But look at the rugby world cup. Only just started - three days with games and now nothing today and indeed nothing until Thursday. What's the problem - are the organisers so scared that fans aren't committed enough to watch a match on a Monday ... or a Tuesday or for that matter a Wednesday. And weirdly there will be a bunch of teams who will have already played two games before Portugal play their first, which won't happen until next Saturday over a week since the tournament started.
Just odd.
-
I don't think it is an irrelevance at all. I think if you are a supporter of Ireland (ranked 1), South Africa (2), France (3), New Zealand (4) or Scotland (5) I think you'd consider it highly relevant.
You’d end up playing and having to beat some of these teams anyway. It’s a done deal and there’s no use moaning about it.
-
Another issue I have with the way the Rugby world cup is formatted is the stop/start nature. Once a tournament starts I want wall to wall fixtures, until you get to the sharp end, when there are only a few teams left and necessarily there needs to be some gap between games. So for big football tournaments you'll get two or three games every day until you reach quarter final stage.
But look at the rugby world cup. Only just started - three days with games and now nothing today and indeed nothing until Thursday. What's the problem - are the organisers so scared that fans aren't committed enough to watch a match on a Monday ... or a Tuesday or for that matter a Wednesday. And weirdly there will be a bunch of teams who will have already played two games before Portugal play their first, which won't happen until next Saturday over a week since the tournament started.
Just odd.
It seems odd to me. Three days without a game then two days with only one game each before two days with three games each. I think the answer is yes, the organisers are concerned about attendance and viewing figures.
-
It seems odd to me. Three days without a game then two days with only one game each before two days with three games each. I think the answer is yes, the organisers are concerned about attendance and viewing figures.
Surely mainly because of the greater recovery times, and lower numbers involved, as opposed to a football world cup?
-
Exactly my point. But in football the only consequence is likely an unfairly awarded foul and a card for the 'tackler'.
In terms of direct influence on the game, in football (which is typically lower scoring that rugby) the effect is actually more likely to be game-changing.
In rugby similar game playing is likely to be actively dangerous.
I disagree, but I do see your point. I think that, in the main, even people seeking to con the referee will still be seeking to protect themselves whilst they do so and feign injury rather that deliberately sustaining them in order to gain an advantage. There might be errors made which result in injury.
Isn't there - how on earth would you know.
Decades of watching the game at multiple levels and decades of playing the game (all at lower levels).
I'm hate this notion that somehow footballers cheat but rugby players are somehow all honourable.
I love it. It's one of the things that makes rugby the game that it is, the spirit in which it is (still) played. It's not absolutely all, and rugby has its own 'grey' areas that people will try to exploit (flankers do love to see how far they can extend the off-side line at the ruck, and the All Blacks always seem to be able to get away with a slightly flatter pass than anyone else can manage), but overwhelmingly you don't see, at any level, rugby players throwing themselves to the floor as though they've been shot trying to get a free kick or a penalty. Football, at every level, from children at school through to the professional level, is riddled with it.
Let's not forget that this is the sport where, in England, a team used fake blood to deliberately cheat.
We don't forget. It's one of the defining moments of rugby history. The fact that it's so remarked upon, so well-remembered is BECAUSE it's so significantly out of character with how rugby culture typically operates.
There has been nothing like that in football, certainly not in this country.
There's a fake injury every three minutes in every professional game, not just in this country but around the world. That rugby needing a blood-capsule to try to finesse a blood-injury substitution rule and football hasn't isn't because rugby is 'just as corrupt', but because football doesn't have a blood injury rule.
And when cheating occurs in scrums (as happens basically all the time and has always happened), it is just described as 'front row dark arts' rather than calling it out for what it is.
Feeding the scrums is one of my pet peeves, in part because it should be so easy to identify and police.
So I don't think we have any idea how regularly this is going on because it is really tricky to tell the difference between a deliberate last minute lowering of position from the ballcarrier hoping to induce a high tackle with possible contact to the head (resulting in an engineered yellow or red card for the tackler) and something that is completely accidental.
Which is amongst the reasons why world rugby polices the tackler and not the ball-carrier. If you, as the tackler, bend, wrap and drive forwards rather than lifting, there will not be a penalty. It encourages the ball-carrier to stay high, which in turn (as a by-product) encourages off-loading, free-flowing rugby.
There seems to be a huge incentive to 'coach for the card'. Currently there seems to be little risk of sanction for the ballcarrier and the worst that happens is that the tackler ends up with mitigation that means that they don't get a card or don't get a red.
Nonsense. I see no evidence of anyone being 'coached' to try and draw fouls. I see more evidence of continued leniency towards hazardous tackling (Owen Farrell's repeated no-arms tackle technique being only intermittently penalised, for instance) and 'old-guard' players bemoaning changes to the game resulting in people taking the risk with disregarding the new guidance and continuing to play as they have been.
The only way you'd know if there is a lot of coached deliberate stuff going on is to start to penalise ballcarriers and then soon enough you'll find the deliberate stuff begins to disappear.
What deliberate stuff? The bits and pieces that ball-carriers can do to cause injury are already policed - leading elbows, straight-arm fends etc.
But I think the fundamental issue here is the current rules somehow seem to assume that the tackler is the only one that can be in the wrong.
No, but the latest changes to the rules place the duty on the tackler because they are the one most likely to be able to control fully how they enter the tackle situation.
And also that the ballcarrier is the only one likely to suffer injury with a head collision.
I don't see that it's about protecting solely the ball-carrier, it's about preventing head collisions. It is, however in part, about protecting the ball-carrier, because although the latest few high-profile incidents have been head-on-head collisions, the rules are also about preventing direct contact with the ball-carrier's head from, say, the tackling players' shoulders.
O.
-
Surely mainly because of the greater recovery times, and lower numbers involved, as opposed to a football world cup?
I understand that you may require a bit more time between games, although in past tournaments this has applied only to the 'big' teams, with minnows expected to play two games in four days.
But even so that doesn't mean you are forced to have days without games at the early stages of the tournament. Each round of games involves eight fixtures, so you could spread that over 8 consecutive days if you wanted and still give every team a massive break between games. More realistically you could spread them over 6 days, still allowing teams a 6 day break between games.
When I get into a tournament, during the group stages I don't want to look at the fixtures that day and find there aren't any, nor the day after, nor the day after than. It makes it really difficult to get a flow to the tournament.
-
I understand that you may require a bit more time between games, although in past tournaments this has applied only to the 'big' teams, with minnows expected to play two games in four days.
But even so that doesn't mean you are forced to have days without games at the early stages of the tournament. Each round of games involves eight fixtures, so you could spread that over 8 consecutive days if you wanted and still give every team a massive break between games. More realistically you could spread them over 6 days, still allowing teams a 6 day break between games.
When I get into a tournament, during the group stages I don't want to look at the fixtures that day and find there aren't any, nor the day after, nor the day after than. It makes it really difficult to get a flow to the tournament.
Having the bulk of matches at or around the weekend though surely makes it easier to sell in all sorts of ways, rather than being set up to keep you happy?
-
In terms of direct influence on the game, in football (which is typically lower scoring that rugby) the effect is actually more likely to be game-changing.
I disagree - in a relatively evenly match pair of teams being down a player, particularly for most of the game is all to often decisive, as it is much more difficult to reorganise in rugby to fill the gap, so to speak, than it is in football. There are plenty of instances in football where teams down to 10 players frustrate the opposition to achieve a draw or win against similarly matched oppositions. I think it is much, much harder in rugby.
Decades of watching the game at multiple levels and decades of playing the game (all at lower levels).
With respect, these rules have come in fairly recently and in the case of the uplift from yellow to red just in the past few weeks. So experience over decades is pretty irrelevant as for most of that time there would be no gain so no incentive to ensure that the tackler makes contact (however minor) with the ball carriers head.
I love it. It's one of the things that makes rugby the game that it is, the spirit in which it is (still) played. It's not absolutely all, and rugby has its own 'grey' areas that people will try to exploit (flankers do love to see how far they can extend the off-side line at the ruck, and the All Blacks always seem to be able to get away with a slightly flatter pass than anyone else can manage), but overwhelmingly you don't see, at any level, rugby players throwing themselves to the floor as though they've been shot trying to get a free kick or a penalty. Football, at every level, from children at school through to the professional level, is riddled with it.
We don't forget. It's one of the defining moments of rugby history. The fact that it's so remarked upon, so well-remembered is BECAUSE it's so significantly out of character with how rugby culture typically operates.
There's a fake injury every three minutes in every professional game, not just in this country but around the world. That rugby needing a blood-capsule to try to finesse a blood-injury substitution rule and football hasn't isn't because rugby is 'just as corrupt', but because football doesn't have a blood injury rule.
Feeding the scrums is one of my pet peeves, in part because it should be so easy to identify and police.
I think you are being biased because of your love for the game and also an orthodox (but unevidenced) view that football players are all cheats and rugby players are all saints who play the game in the right way. I think one of the issues with rugby is that, unlike football, there are parts of the game where it is almost impossible to see what is going on and it seems to me there is a hell of a lot of cheating (or game playing) going on particularly in scrums, rucks and mauls. Anyone for eye gouging?
I don't see that it's about protecting solely the ball-carrier, it's about preventing head collisions. It is, however in part, about protecting the ball-carrier, because although the latest few high-profile incidents have been head-on-head collisions, the rules are also about preventing direct contact with the ball-carrier's head from, say, the tackling players' shoulders.
But surely there is just as much risk from the ball carriers shoulder hitting the tacking players head. If this is all about risk then both should have equal responsibility and equal consequences if there is contact to the head. But there isn't - the ball carrier is protected by the laws more than the tacker, which means that there is an incentive for the ball carrier to play for the card, but ensuring some (however minor) contact.
-
Having the bulk of matches at or around the weekend though surely makes it easier to sell in all sorts of ways, rather than being set up to keep you happy?
I'm sure I'm not the only person who'd prefer matches on more days than more matches on each day.
Cricket surely has a similar 'profile' issue as rugby. We are about to see the cricket world cup. Starts in 5th Oct. There will be at least one match every day until 12th Nov. They don't seem to see a problem with scheduling matches on Mondays, Tuesdays or Wednesdays.
-
I'm sure I'm not the only person who'd prefer matches on more days than more matches on each day.
Cricket surely has a similar 'profile' issue as rugby. We are about to see the cricket world cup. Starts in 5th Oct. There will be at least one match every day until 12th Nov. They don't seem to see a problem with scheduling matches on Mondays, Tuesdays or Wednesdays.
You may not be the only person who might like it that way but keeping you happy has been the entirety of your argument.
That a different sport may do it differently is simply a fact, not an argument.
What cricket appear to have chosen for marketing is a quite restricted World Cup which lowers the chance of matches involving just countries with smaller supports. I suspect that rugby see packaging those less marketable matches in a flow of closely packed matches as their chosen approach.
I can understand both approaches, and without detailed information on the arguments and figures that are available to governing bodies, can't really disagree or agree with whether it seems correct. What makes me happy though isn't to me relevant.
-
I'm sure I'm not the only person who'd prefer matches on more days than more matches on each day.
Cricket surely has a similar 'profile' issue as rugby. We are about to see the cricket world cup. Starts in 5th Oct. There will be at least one match every day until 12th Nov. They don't seem to see a problem with scheduling matches on Mondays, Tuesdays or Wednesdays.
The cricket World Cup is taking place in India. There's no profile problem there.
I think NS is right that this format is designed to maximise recovery times for teams and also attendance and viewing figures. I don't like the hiatuses, but they have clearly decided the advantages of the schedule outweigh that.
-
You may not be the only person who might like it that way but keeping you happy has been the entirety of your argument.
That a different sport may do it differently is simply a fact, not an argument.
Which has no bearing on my opinion (and presumably the opinion of a bunch of other people), which is that I'd prefer the formatting to have games on more days than more games on individual days.
What cricket appear to have chosen for marketing is a quite restricted World Cup which lowers the chance of matches involving just countries with smaller supports. I suspect that rugby see packaging those less marketable matches in a flow of closely packed matches as their chosen approach.
Which we've discussed previously and I think you were in agreement that the rugby world cup has too many teams involved as there simply aren't enough of a sufficient standard to support a 20 team tournament. And the argument that the minnows improve through being able to play in the world cup simply doesn't seem to be sustained - we end up with the same old teams finishing last in their groups having lost by cricket scores to everyone. Anyone for Namibia!!
And on the attractiveness of a match - so as an example Georgia vs Portugal is unlikely to be a big draw where-ever it sits in the schedule. But it is certainly a sustainable argument that it may be more attractive as the only game on a Monday evening (if you want to watch a match that day you've got no choice) rather than the first game of three on a Saturday afternoon.
-
In terms of direct influence on the game, in football (which is typically lower scoring that rugby) the effect is actually more likely to be game-changing.
Unless it is the goalkeeper, I don't agree on this point.
In football, it is relatively straight forward to reorganise the team following the sending off of an outfield player. In rugby union it can be very difficult. If you lose any forward, your scrum is going to be ineffective unless you replace one of your backs with another forward (indeed that is mandatory for the front row). If you are a back down, you're effectively playing six players against seven which is worse than nine against ten. Worse, if you lose your fly half, you have lost the person who is running the team and probably your best goal kicker too.
-
It’s a done deal and there’s no use moaning about it.
As an England fan I should be happy with the situation - but unless people keep moaning about it the rugby authorities simply won't change their bonkers approach.
Perhaps if people were moaning about it more when the 2019 tournament was under way they wouldn't have made the draw for this tournament in Dec 2020!!!
If we (and by that I mean the entire rugby community) don't keep moaning about it momentum will mean that we will suddenly find the pools for the 2027 world cup being drawn in Dec 2024 based on rankings for 1st Jan 2024 (yup that's right, using rankings for just 4 months away to dictate pools for a tournament 4 years away).
-
Unless it is the goalkeeper, I don't agree on this point.
In football, it is relatively straight forward to reorganise the team following the sending off of an outfield player. In rugby union it can be very difficult. If you lose any forward, your scrum is going to be ineffective unless you replace one of your backs with another forward (indeed that is mandatory for the front row). If you are a back down, you're effectively playing six players against seven which is worse than nine against ten. Worse, if you lose your fly half, you have lost the person who is running the team and probably your best goal kicker too.
I agree and it is actually worse than that.
Go down to 14 players and when there is a set piece scrum 9 players on each side are sucked into one place and you are effectively 6 vs 5 stretched across the entire pitch.
And in football, even if it is a goalkeeper, you can make a substitution - if you have no subs left then almost by definition it will be towards the end of the game.
The issue is rugby is exemplified by the notion that even for a 10 min sin-bin it is a massive achievement if the team with 14 players doesn't concede.
-
As an England fan I should be happy with the situation - but unless people keep moaning about it the rugby authorities simply won't change their bonkers approach.
Perhaps if people were moaning about it more when the 2019 tournament was under way they wouldn't have made the draw for this tournament in Dec 2020!!!
If we (and by that I mean the entire rugby community) don't keep moaning about it momentum will mean that we will suddenly find the pools for the 2027 world cup being drawn in Dec 2024 based on rankings for 1st Jan 2024 (yup that's right, using rankings for just 4 months away to dictate pools for a tournament 4 years away).
The time for moaning about the draw for this World Cup on this forum is past. We are all aware of your views and we all agree with them (I think). If we knew for a fact that the president of World Rugby was reading this thread, it might be different, but I am sure he is not.
-
The time for moaning about the draw for this World Cup on this forum is past. We are all aware of your views and we all agree with them (I think). If we knew for a fact that the president of World Rugby was reading this thread, it might be different, but I am sure he is not.
Nope because unless people continue to moan about it on every forum the rugby authorities will simply fail to fix the problem ... just as they didn't after the 2019 world cup. and the 2015 one, and the 2011 one ...
People talking about it anywhere and everywhere amplifies the message. And given that the authorities seem to be particularly tin-eared on this that message needs to be turned up to 11.
-
What deliberate stuff? The bits and pieces that ball-carriers can do to cause injury are already policed - leading elbows, straight-arm fends etc.
I'm not talking about overt would play from the ball carrier.
What I am talking about is deliberately trying to ensure that the tackler is at risk of a card when entering a tackle, by acting to maximise the tiniest bit of shoulder contact (for example) with the ball carriers head. This seems to me to be very similar to the trailing leg in football - a tactic that can be easily coached to maximise the likelihood of the opponent being penalised.
And, of course, the best way of doing this as a ball carrier it to lower upper body as you enter a tackle, which seems increasingly common. Hard not to think that perhaps that lowering of upper body isn't just about the best way to ride a tackle, but the best way to ensure that the tackler makes contact with the head, which is more positioned lower and further forward.
And I agree that the safest tackle is when the ball carrier stands up and the tackler goes low, but surely the most risky is when both ball carrier and tackler go low as both are then leading with head and shoulders.
-
Nope because unless people continue to moan about it on every forum the rugby authorities will simply fail to fix the problem ... just as they didn't after the 2019 world cup. and the 2015 one, and the 2011 one ...
People talking about it anywhere and everywhere amplifies the message. And given that the authorities seem to be particularly tin-eared on this that message needs to be turned up to 11.
This is not the thread to do it on. Start a new one.
-
Tom Curry gets a two game ban for something that was essentially accidental.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66785811
On the other hand, Kriel in RSA v Scotland doesn't get a card of any sort, for a very similar event.
-
Tom Curry gets a two game ban for something that was essentially accidental.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66785811
On the other hand, Kriel in RSA v Scotland doesn't get a card of any sort, for a very similar event.
And that the following applies:
'The independent disciplinary committee imposed a ban of three matches on the flanker - but that is reduced to two games if he completes the World Rugby coaching programme on tackling', seems to emphasise that they don't see it as fully intentional.
-
I'm not talking about overt would play from the ball carrier.
If the tackle is low it would have to be very overt.
What I am talking about is deliberately trying to ensure that the tackler is at risk of a card when entering a tackle, by acting to maximise the tiniest bit of shoulder contact (for example) with the ball carriers head.
And if the tackler is entering the tackle area low, and the ball-carrier dips into the contact that's already identified as mitigation and takes the burden off the tackler. Would there be mistakes, probably, but on the off-chance that would happen, with the potential to suffer significant injury yourself, I can't see that happening.
This seems to me to be very similar to the trailing leg in football - a tactic that can be easily coached to maximise the likelihood of the opponent being penalised.
Except that the trailing leg gets you two minutes of a physio pretending to treat you whilst you roll around on the floor, and then a penalty, whereas deliberately trying to put your head in the vicinity of fourteen or fifteen stone channeled through the point of a shoulder gets you concussion and early onset dementia.
And, of course, the best way of doing this as a ball carrier it to lower upper body as you enter a tackle, which seems increasingly common.
People are entering the contact with lower hips because the counter to lower tackles is to drop the weight and lead with the upper arm trying to bump the tackle off - bulky second-rows and props have been doing it for years, although I'd agree it does seem to be spreading, particularly outside of the professional leagues. This is good, it's a sign that the tackles are going in lower.
Hard not to think that perhaps that lowering of upper body isn't just about the best way to ride a tackle, but the best way to ensure that the tackler makes contact with the head, which is more positioned lower and further forward.
No, you lower your body over the tackle and drive the arm down into the oncoming shoulder - you try to keep your head will out of the way.
And I agree that the safest tackle is when the ball carrier stands up and the tackler goes low, but surely the most risky is when both ball carrier and tackler go low as both are then leading with head and shoulders.
It's not more or less hazardous than when both go upright, but it is significantly less common - it isn't currently resulting in significant numbers of head injuries, and therefore doesn't need addressing in the same way. Law of unintended consequences, and all that, it might need to be looked at if it starts to become an issue, but the current situation needed to change.
Tom Curry gets a two game ban for something that was essentially accidental.
I would say 'careless', but I'd agree it wasn't malicious or deliberate.
On the other hand, Kriel in RSA v Scotland doesn't get a card of any sort, for a very similar event.
What's even more concerning is, at the moment, I've still not seen anything to suggest that he's even been cited after the match (which, for those not familiar with rugby, is a normal process for incidents which are missed by the officials during the game).
O.
-
I would say 'careless', but I'd agree it wasn't malicious or deliberate.
What's even more concerning is, at the moment, I've still not seen anything to suggest that he's even been cited after the match (which, for those not familiar with rugby, is a normal process for incidents which are missed by the officials during the game).
What concerns me is two things. Firstly, the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime. Secondly, the crime is being policed inconsistently.
-
The rankings after the first round of matches
-
Nick Evans' article has a couple of interesting points.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/10/george-ford-masterclass-and-defensive-organisation-bode-well-for-england (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/10/george-ford-masterclass-and-defensive-organisation-bode-well-for-england)
whenever you lose a forward to a red card, it affects your systems from an attacking point of view. You have one less forward spread across the field so there’s an adaptation on the shapes you need to run. What Ford did brilliantly is that he twigged so early on that forwards have a certain energy level and they expend it because they need to scrum, they need to execute the lineout, maul, tackle, carry and ruck and when there’s only seven of them it’s an extra five to 10 minutes’ work, which is hard graft.
...
I loved working with Kev(...in Sinfield). As a human being he’s inspirational but the relationships he has with the players is fantastic. His knowledge as well – coming from rugby league he has an ability to transfer his thoughts and principles on defence from a league background
Has been delayed here (quite extensively).
Point 2 about a rugby league player sharing his experience with Union player reminded me that there are Sean Edwards and Andy Farrell had earlier league experiences and both seem to dominate Rugby Union as coaches now a day. Is Rugby league any good, or am I just missing it?
I've only ever watched a few minutes and never found any of it exciting or interesting any thoughts?
-
Regarding the Kriel incident I think the argument is that the initial contact was chest on ball and that the head to head contact was minimal and without force. I can see that.
-
Regarding the Kriel incident I think the argument is that the initial contact was chest on ball and that the head to head contact was minimal and without force. I can see that.
The head to head contact didn't look minimal.
-
Is Rugby league any good, or am I just missing it? I've only ever watched a few minutes and never found any of it exciting or interesting any thoughts?
It's a horses-for-courses sort of a judgement - I prefer to watch and play Union, it's for me a more tactically and strategically varied game. League takes out most of the set pieces to any real extent, and focuses on trying to create line breaks - there is much less tactical kicking, the ball is in play for longer and more regularly. It requires an even higher level of fitness across the team and there are fewer distinctions between the skill-sets of the positions.
O.
-
The head to head contact didn't look minimal.
It seemed more cheek to cheek from what I saw. I think that is part of the problem that there didn't seem to be any different angles to help make a judgement from.
-
Outsider,
For me, the contest for the ball is a lot more important (in Union not League). Whenever I did see a bit of league after a tackle the ball holder would stand up and heel it back to the next player. Any tackle in Union would have a Ruck and that was (almost always) attacked by the defenders.
I was going to start moaning about the rule changes limiting a lot acontest event (line outs and scrums mainly?), but I should probably stop.
-
Looks like Namibia are continuing their trend of being good enough to qualify for every world cup since 1999 ... yet so woefully bad that their record is played 22, lost 22. Oh I think that will be played 23, lost 23 in about an hour.
-
Looks like Namibia are continuing their trend of being good enough to qualify for every world cup since 1999 ... yet so woefully bad that their record is played 22, lost 22. Oh I think that will be played 23, lost 23 in about an hour.
And? The football team I support has in its history won 1 major trophy, over 40 years before I was born, and I'm on the autumn/winter chicken cusp.
-
The best looking (as in hardest to predict, most even) match today looks to be Samoa v Chile today. I don't expect Tonga to trouble Ireland and Wales should have an easy ride against Portugal.
-
Well done, Fiji!
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/66839029
-
Well done, Fiji!
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/66839029
I don't know if they've changed the link from the BBC Sport homepage, but it was saying that Fiji's win was an 'upset', which I'm not sure given how they've both been playing was really true. It's Fiji's first win against the Wallabies since, I think, the fifties, but on current form it was far from an upset. Great game to watch, and if Australia can beat Wales next week (anyone's guess given both teams patchy performances lately) it makes things really tight at the top of that group.
O.
-
I don't know if they've changed the link from the BBC Sport homepage, but it was saying that Fiji's win was an 'upset', which I'm not sure given how they've both been playing was really true. It's Fiji's first win against the Wallabies since, I think, the fifties, but on current form it was far from an upset. Great game to watch, and if Australia can beat Wales next week (anyone's guess given both teams patchy performances lately) it makes things really tight at the top of that group.
O.
Yes - by far the best game of the tournament.
If Australia beat Wales it could well come down to bonus points.
-
Intrigued by the Marler head incident.
Never realised that there isn't a knock on if the ball comes off the head.
Does this mean it could be used as a deliberate tactic - in other words a ball carrier deliberately heading the ball forward and passing through the line of defenders (who wouldn't be able legitimately tackle as he wouldn't have the ball). Never seen this tried, but seems like it could be a really effective tactic if there is the surprise element.
-
Intrigued by the Marler head incident.
Never realised that there isn't a knock on if the ball comes off the head.
Does this mean it could be used as a deliberate tactic - in other words a ball carrier deliberately heading the ball forward and passing through the line of defenders (who wouldn't be able legitimately tackle as he wouldn't have the ball). Never seen this tried, but seems like it could be a really effective tactic if there is the surprise element.
You can, but typically it's difficult to get enough height on it to clear the defensive line and still get any distance on it to make it worthwhile - you're almost always better off kicking it. There are a few niche cases where it's beneficial - here's one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSv8anOp9aM)
I don't follow Rugby League as much as Union, but I think I recall that they explicitly banned heading the ball forward.
O.
-
You can, but typically it's difficult to get enough height on it to clear the defensive line and still get any distance on it to make it worthwhile - you're almost always better off kicking it. There are a few niche cases where it's beneficial - here's one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSv8anOp9aM)
I don't follow Rugby League as much as Union, but I think I recall that they explicitly banned heading the ball forward.
O.
Interesting - but I've never seen it tried so it is hard to know whether it would work.
I think the point is about the surprise element - the defending team would simply not be expecting this tactic so quite possibly the ball would have been headed over them before they'd realise what was going on.
Once it became a recognised tactic then teams would coach to be prepared for it, but I don't think they are at the moment.
-
And?
It shows the massive gulf in class as you drop down the rankings. Clearly Namibia are a class above the teams they need to beat in qualifying or they wouldn't routinely power through the qualifying tournament (often, I believe, winning all their games). But once they get to the world cup the gulf in class to the teams above them, even the fourth pot sides in the group, is also massive - hence they lose all their games.
What this demonstrates to me is firstly that there are too many teams in the world cup - there simply aren't enough sides of sufficient quality to justify a 20 team tournament.
But secondly the current situation surely cannot help develop Namibia (and the other similar sides) - surely you improve through close fought games - so they aren't going to develop through participating in the qualifying tournament, which looks really easy for them, nor the tournament itself, which it too hard.
The football team I support has in its history won 1 major trophy, over 40 years before I was born, and I'm on the autumn/winter chicken cusp.
And they've lost all their games? Never promoted nor relegated? I don't think you are comparing apples with apples.
-
There are a few niche cases where it's beneficial - here's one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSv8anOp9aM)
But that isn't what I was thinking.
Is it possible for a ball carrier to throw the ball up, head it forward themselves over the oncoming defenders and then collect the ball having run through the defending line (who wouldn't be able to tackle him).
-
But that isn't what I was thinking.
Is it possible for a ball carrier to throw the ball up, head it forward themselves over the oncoming defenders and then collect the ball having run through the defending line (who wouldn't be able to tackle him).
Rules-wise it's exactly like kicking the ball forward, so if they were already in the act of tackling they could continue, but otherwise the ball is in open play, not in their control. You could do it.
O.
-
Rankings updated for the second matches
-
Yes - by far the best game of the tournament.
If Australia beat Wales it could well come down to bonus points.
Georgia also might have a say int the final group positions. I could see them beating Wales or Fiji.
-
Georgia also might have a say int the final group positions. I could see them beating Wales or Fiji.
I don't think them winning is likely (not impossible, though) but who does or doesn't get a bonus point against them might be important, although the outcome of the Wales-Australia game could take bonus points out of contention. Fiji getting two bonus points in their loss to Wales already puts them at an advantage vs Australia only managing one in their own loss to the South Sea Islanders.
O.
-
I don't think them winning is likely (not impossible, though) but who does or doesn't get a bonus point against them might be important, although the outcome of the Wales-Australia game could take bonus points out of contention. Fiji getting two bonus points in their loss to Wales already puts them at an advantage vs Australia only managing one in their own loss to the South Sea Islanders.
O.
Agree with that - don't think that Georgia will beat either Wales or Fiji, but if they can prevent either of those teams getting a bonus point that could be decisive.
-
So last night we saw 'writ large' why the rugby world cup authorities need to deal with the issue of teams that are simply not at an appropriate level being able to qualify for the world cup.
So not only did we see Namibia's 100% losing streak in world cups continue - (they've qualified for every tournament since 1999, with the exception of a game in Japan 2019 that never actually took place), but also quite likely an injury to one of the most exciting players in the tournament that could end his participation.
Elsewhere, a few days ago, I was reading an article which compared grossly mis-matched matches in football and rugby. In the former, if you put up Man City vs your local Sunday league side, likely Man City would win by a cricket score but that would be just about it. But in rugby such mismatches create the risk of serious injury as one side is simply not technically good enough. In that article the writer was talking about risk to a player on the weaker side, but technical inadequacy also poses risks to the players on the better side as we saw last night.
This really has to stop - until there are sufficient sides of sufficient quality to justify a 20 team tournament the world cup needs to be restricted to teams (probably 16) that are of an acceptable quality. Otherwise the farce of teams losing 96-0 will continue and, more seriously, the risk of serious injury in matches that are entirely pointless will continue.
-
Dramatic match between Georgia and Portugal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66902116
-
England cruising against Chile
-
Dramatic match between Georgia and Portugal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66902116
Ironically, it probably prevents either team from qualifying for the knockout stage.
-
Ireland, big win over Sth Africa, both could win the whole thing, both could go out in the quarter finals.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66902188
-
Ireland, big win over Sth Africa, both could win the whole thing, both could go out in the quarter finals.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66902188
I saw the second half. I thought RSA were generally the better team except for their kicking.
-
I saw the second half. I thought RSA were generally the better team except for their kicking.
I agree, and they did lose a group game last World Cup before winning it, but except for their kicking' is s big except.
-
I agree, and they did lose a group game last World Cup before winning it, but except for their kicking' is s big except.
Pollard will improve that.
-
Adequate performance from Scotland, but failing to put as many points past Tonga as Ireland did. Not only shows that they are in that slightly lower tier from the top 2, but if the group does ever come down to points different that could be telling.
Another farcical review of a head collision for the first Tongan yellow card, though.
O.
-
Adequate performance from Scotland, but failing to put as many points past Tonga as Ireland did. Not only shows that they are in that slightly lower tier from the top 2, but if the group does ever come down to points different that could be telling.
Another farcical review of a head collision for the first Tongan yellow card, though.
O.
There was a dip by the Scottish player which the Bunker Ref considered mitigation.
-
There was a dip by the Scottish player which the Bunker Ref considered mitigation.
I was joined by pretty much every ex-professional pundit and not a few of the sports commentators in thinking that wasn't nearly enough of a dip to warrant consideration. Glad to see the second yellow has been upped to a red, at least.
And a strong result for Wales, too. I though they would win, but I expected it to be closer than that. They improved their game since Fiji, and Australia, if anything, got worse.
O.
-
I was joined by pretty much every ex-professional pundit and not a few of the sports commentators in thinking that wasn't nearly enough of a dip to warrant consideration. Glad to see the second yellow has been upped to a red, at least.
If you are going to count obviously accidental hits as red cards, as in the first England match, the fact that the Scotland player dipped into it shouldn't matter. It was extremely dangerous.
-
Latest rankings
-
If you are going to count obviously accidental hits as red cards, as in the first England match, the fact that the Scotland player dipped into it shouldn't matter. It was extremely dangerous.
If he hadn't dipped would the hit have been on the chest?
-
Well that's 2 people saying not to sack Eddie Jones
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66914086
-
Well that's 2 people saying not to sack Eddie Jones
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66914086
Was quite amused by one commentator's rather wry observation that it would serve Australia well to wait until they're on the verge of actually having players capable of competing at the top level, then ditch Jones in order to suggest that the lean times were his doing and the new broom they've brought in has been effective.
O.
-
If he hadn't dipped would the hit have been on the chest?
The direction of the hit was upwards. If there had been no dipping, I think he would still have been hit.
But that isn't the point I was making. Contact with the head is considered so dangerous that even doing it accidentally is deserving of a red card. The fact that the other guy dipped doesn't lessen the danger. So why is it suddenly "safe"?
-
The direction of the hit was upwards. If there had been no dipping, I think he would still have been hit.
But that isn't the point I was making. Contact with the head is considered so dangerous that even doing it accidentally is deserving of a red card. The fact that the other guy dipped doesn't lessen the danger. So why is it suddenly "safe"?
I don't think the hit would have been to the head. So if that tackle had made contact with the chest you would still expect a red card? If not, then surely you must take the mitigation of what the tackled player does into consideration. If not then there will be multiple red cards every match. At community rugby level the tackle height threshold is lowered from this year and it will be very interesting to see how that goes. The game needs to change or else it won't survive but if this is really possible I'm not sure.
-
The BBC have come up with a scenario in which England fail to qualify (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66914301). It is possible for England, Argentina and Samoa to all end up with 14 points. In that scenario, you can't break the deadlock by using head to head games so points difference comes in to play.
Why is this of interest, I hear you say?
Well, this leads to an interesting scenario for the last game. If Samoa have scored three tries and England are more than seven points behind them in the last five minutes - say it's 21-3 to Samoa, for example - England can qualify for the QF by letting Samoa score another try.
-
I don't think the hit would have been to the head.
Well I do.
But my point is that there was a hit to the head. It was dangerous, so why isn't it a red card. In other scenarios, purely accidental hits to the head have been red cards, so why not this? This was a much more dangerous scenario than the one that got Tom Curry sent off and banned for two games.
I think the red card for an accidental hit is too harsh, or at least, the red card and two game ban is too harsh.
-
The BBC have come up with a scenario in which England fail to qualify (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66914301). It is possible for England, Argentina and Samoa to all end up with 14 points. In that scenario, you can't break the deadlock by using head to head games so points difference comes in to play.
Why is this of interest, I hear you say?
Well, this leads to an interesting scenario for the last game. If Samoa have scored three tries and England are more than seven points behind them in the last five minutes - say it's 21-3 to Samoa, for example - England can qualify for the QF by letting Samoa score another try.
Would Samoa needed to have taken 5 points from the Japan game for that?
-
Well I do.
But my point is that there was a hit to the head. It was dangerous, so why isn't it a red card. In other scenarios, purely accidental hits to the head have been red cards, so why not this? This was a much more dangerous scenario than the one that got Tom Curry sent off and banned for two games.
I think the red card for an accidental hit is too harsh, or at least, the red card and two game ban is too harsh.
Curry put himself into a position where head contact was inevitable and there was no mitigation. There was in this case since it's not clear that there would have been head contact without the dip. The bunker refs felt that there wouldn't have been. It's not about intent but about a duty of care of course so you could say he shouldn't have tackled in a way whereby the dip led to head contact. Whether that approach could work I'm not sure. There is an effort to change the game without destroying it, hence the lower tackle 'trial' of tackles needing to be below the bottom of the sternum. I do see the point you are making.
-
Would Samoa needed to have taken 5 points from the Japan game for that?
Yes, and, in fact they would need to beat Japan by a lot in order to negate England's vastly superior points difference (also Argentina would have to score a lot of points in their last two games for the same reason).
-
Curry put himself into a position where head contact was inevitable and there was no mitigation. There was in this case since it's not clear that there would have been head contact without the dip. The bunker refs felt that there wouldn't have been. It's not about intent but about a duty of care of course so you could say he shouldn't have tackled in a way whereby the dip led to head contact. Whether that approach could work I'm not sure. There is an effort to change the game without destroying it, hence the lower tackle 'trial' of tackles needing to be below the bottom of the sternum. I do see the point you are making.
The dip was pretty minimal. Let's be honest, the Tonga player smashed the Scotland player in the head with his shoulder. That's always been considered highly illegal and dangerous.
-
The dip was pretty minimal. Let's be honest, the Tonga player smashed the Scotland player in the head with his shoulder. That's always been considered highly illegal and dangerous.
I don't agree about the dip being minimal, and clearly neither did the bunker ref.
To summarise my thoughts;
The tackler could have gone lower which would have resulted in a totally legal tackle.
The tackler made contact with the head so the tackle was dangerous and illegal, but there was mitigation hence yellow rather than red.
If there was no mitigation then it would have been red.
That is under the current rules that the refs have to follow.
The legal tackle height will need to be lowered or else the game has no future (will be sued out of existence).
Whether a lower legal tackle height will destroy the game is yet to be seen.
-
Japan have beaten Samoa. Bizarrely that means England have won the group.
-
Maybe not the wisest statement
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66951420
-
Maybe not the wisest statement
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66951420
Other nations may have caught up, but not Italy.
I still think the ABs are the fourth strongest team in the tournament.
-
"The nightmare scoreline for South Africa goes like this: if Scotland beat Ireland by 21 points or more with a four-try bonus and Ireland get a four-try bonus point in defeat, then South Africa will be knocked out of the Rugby World Cup. Scotland would go through as pool winners, while due to their head-to-head loss with Ireland and a points difference lower than Scotland, the Boks would be eliminated.
According to the match-fixing conspiracy theories doing the rounds on the internet, Ireland and Scotland could agree to this result, as it’s the one scenario that would see them both qualify. What’s in it for Ireland? They guarantee that they won’t have to face the Springboks again at the tournament"
Simple really.
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-ireland-scotland-scoreline-thatd-knock-south-africa-out-of-world-cup/
-
"The nightmare scoreline for South Africa goes like this: if Scotland beat Ireland by 21 points or more with a four-try bonus and Ireland get a four-try bonus point in defeat, then South Africa will be knocked out of the Rugby World Cup. Scotland would go through as pool winners, while due to their head-to-head loss with Ireland and a points difference lower than Scotland, the Boks would be eliminated.
According to the match-fixing conspiracy theories doing the rounds on the internet, Ireland and Scotland could agree to this result, as it’s the one scenario that would see them both qualify. What’s in it for Ireland? They guarantee that they won’t have to face the Springboks again at the tournament"
Simple really.
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-ireland-scotland-scoreline-thatd-knock-south-africa-out-of-world-cup/
Ireland would have to get their bonus point through scoring four tries because Scotland need a +21 points difference on them to overhaul RSA. So we are talking about Scotland getting at least 41 points against Ireland (assuming no penalties, drop goals or conversions from Ireland) but Ireland still being good enough to put four tries over the line.
It's not happening.
-
Ireland would have to get their bonus point through scoring four tries because Scotland need a +21 points difference on them to overhaul RSA. So we are talking about Scotland getting at least 41 points against Ireland (assuming no penalties, drop goals or conversions from Ireland) but Ireland still being good enough to put four tries over the line.
It's not happening.
I can't see a scenario where Ireland and Scotland both go through, Scotland needed a losing bonus point against South Africa to give themselves a realistic chance. As it stands, if Scotland win they could go through, but only because Ireland would go out (I can't see Ireland letting Scotland get a big score). Realistically, Scotland are probably heading home - when the likes of England, Fiji/Japan/Samoa and (probably) Fiji are going through to the quarter finals that's a damning indictment of the draw.
O.
-
I can't see a scenario where Ireland and Scotland both go through, Scotland needed a losing bonus point against South Africa to give themselves a realistic chance. As it stands, if Scotland win they could go through, but only because Ireland would go out (I can't see Ireland letting Scotland get a big score). Realistically, Scotland are probably heading home - when the likes of England, Fiji/Japan/Samoa and (probably) Fiji are going through to the quarter finals that's a damning indictment of the draw.
O.
Yes, it's not going to happen. I posted the link as it covered that the only possibility that it would happen is some sort of fix.
I think Scotland are probably the 5th best team in the world as in the rankings, but also as in the rankings there's a big gap between 4th and 5th. On a luckier draw we could have made the semi finals but that, as with whoever appears in the semifinals from the England and Wales groups would be as underserved in my opinion.
-
Yes, it's not going to happen. I posted the link as it covered that the only possibility that it would happen is some sort of fix.
I think Scotland are probably the 5th best team in the world as in the rankings, but also as in the rankings there's a big gap between 4th and 5th. On a luckier draw we could have made the semi finals but that, as with whoever appears in the semifinals from the England and Wales groups would be as underserved in my opinion.
I think the classic 'Tier 1', 'Tier 2', 'Tier 3' model is far beyond its date. The old Tier 1, at any given moment, can be split into at least two groups, and the second of them (Scotland down to somewhere around England and Australia, currently) can be counted on to reliably win against the next tier down, but it's not a guarantee and it's not going to be by fifty points a time like it used to be.
O.
-
I can't see a scenario where Ireland and Scotland both go through, Scotland needed a losing bonus point against South Africa to give themselves a realistic chance. As it stands, if Scotland win they could go through, but only because Ireland would go out (I can't see Ireland letting Scotland get a big score). Realistically, Scotland are probably heading home - when the likes of England, Fiji/Japan/Samoa and (probably) Fiji are going through to the quarter finals that's a damning indictment of the draw.
O.
If NS's scenario occurs, you can't resolve the deadlock on head to head because RSA beat Scotland, Ireland beat RSA and Scotland will have beaten Ireland.
The deadlock will be broken on points difference - Scotland will have the best points difference of the three teams so they go through. The second place will then be determined by the head to head between Ireland and RSA so Ireland will go through.
It's unlikely to happen except through shenanigans. If the teams cooperated, they could manufacture a scoreline where Ireland got four tries but Scotland ended 21 points ahead (with at least four tries).
-
I think Scotland are probably the 5th best team in the world as in the rankings, but also as in the rankings there's a big gap between 4th and 5th.
This is something I was going to bring up.
Scotland are fifth in the rankings, but the gap between New Zealand at 4 and Scotland at 5 is 4.26. That's larger than the gap between Scotland at 5 and Argentina at 9.
-
That there is a good chance that England will make the semi finals of the World Cup having performed as they did last night while 2 of France, New Zealand, Ireland, and South Africa won't is laughable.
-
That there is a good chance that England will make the semi finals of the World Cup having performed as they did last night while 2 of France, New Zealand, Ireland, and South Africa won't is laughable.
I don't think England will reach the semi final if they play again as they did yesterday.
-
Very enjoyable match between Japan and Argentina with Argentina victorious
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67046362
-
And another enjoyable match with Tonga and Romania with special moment when Surugiu scored a try in his last match for Romania.
-
Great final game of the pool stages between Fiji and Portugal. Well deserved win for Portugal (not just for their play tonight, but for their attitude through their other pool games) and the best thing is that Australia still go out :)
Shame Scotland will go down in history as also going out in the group stage, but here's hoping that people will remember the circumstances.
O.
-
Rankings after the end of the group games
Big move from Portugal over the matches.
-
Argentina beat Wales who seemed to switch off after going 10-0 up
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67111823
-
Argentina beat Wales who seemed to switch off after going 10-0 up
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67111823
Can't believe you fixed that typo. I had a great response post.
Anyway, I'm not totally surprised. Argentina had no matches in the run up to the RWC, so when they played England, they were pretty rusty. They are getting better.
-
Can't believe you fixed that typo. I had a great response post.
Anyway, I'm not totally surprised. Argentina had no matches in the run up to the RWC, so when they played England, they were pretty rusty. They are getting better.
Having watched the All Blacks hold out Ireland tonight, I can't see that they're getting better anywhere near quickly enough to worry New Zealand. (Weird that their semi-final is on a Friday?)
I think England will get past Fiji tomorrow, not massively but comfortably, but then I though Ireland had the measure of New Zealand before tonight. France - South Africa is too close to call, but Dupont being back for the French probably just gives them the edge, for me.
O.
-
Having watched the All Blacks hold out Ireland tonight, I can't see that they're getting better anywhere near quickly enough to worry New Zealand. (Weird that their semi-final is on a Friday?)
I think England will get past Fiji tomorrow, not massively but comfortably, but then I though Ireland had the measure of New Zealand before tonight. France - South Africa is too close to call, but Dupont being back for the French probably just gives them the edge, for me.
O.
You seem to have the All Blacks playing New Zealand in the semi final?
-
Having watched the All Blacks hold out Ireland tonight, I can't see that they're getting better anywhere near quickly enough to worry New Zealand. (Weird that their semi-final is on a Friday?)
No, of course not.
I think England will get past Fiji tomorrow, not massively but comfortably, but then I thought Ireland had the measure of New Zealand before tonight. France - South Africa is too close to call, but Dupont being back for the French probably just gives them the edge, for me.
O.
After watching England against Samoa, I'm not so sure. Samoa ran them ragged.
And the selection policy is bizarre. Our best fly half is on the bench and our second best is playing at fullback. Frankly, the England captain isn't good enough, anymore, to get into the side.
-
You seem to have the All Blacks playing New Zealand in the semi final?
No. The post was about Argentina.
-
No. The post was about Argentina.
I guessed you may have meant that but what you wrote was
'Having watched the All Blacks hold out Ireland tonight, I can't see that they're getting better anywhere near quickly enough to worry New Zealand.'
-
Anyway, brilliant match with New Zealand and Ireland.
-
I guessed you may have meant that but what you wrote was
'Having watched the All Blacks hold out Ireland tonight, I can't see that they're getting better anywhere near quickly enough to worry New Zealand.'
I didn't write it, but the post was in reply to the jeremyp's comment about Argentina getting better, so the they in the comment you quoted is Argentina. I.e. it is actually I can't see Argentina getting better quickly enough to worry New Zealand.
Yes, was an excellent match.
-
I didn't write it, but the post was in reply to the jeremyp's comment about Argentina getting better, so the they in the comment you quoted is Argentina. I.e. it is actually I can't see Argentina getting better quickly enough to worry New Zealand.
Yes, was an excellent match.
Sorry, what do you mean you didn't write it?
-
Sorry, what do you mean you didn't write it?
It was an Outrider post.
-
It was an Outrider post.
-
England into semi finals
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67115985
-
I guessed you may have meant that but what you wrote was
'Having watched the All Blacks hold out Ireland tonight, I can't see that they're getting better anywhere near quickly enough to worry New Zealand.'
"They" in this case obviously referred to Argentina. When you take it in context with my post quoted above, I'm not sure what the problem is.
-
I think a lot of people thought this just might be the world cup where the northern hemisphere sides came to the fore - particularly Ireland and France. But yet again when 6 nations sides come up against rugby championship sides the latter are better. We saw three 6 nations/rugby championship match ups over the weekend and the 6 nations sides lost all three.
And I cannot see England coming close to matching south africa, so we'll probably have another all southern hemisphere final.
The 6 nations teams really do need to have a root and branch reappraisal of how they can, frankly, get better. Currently, and for decades, they've simple not been good enough. And at the heart of the matter is the 6 nations itself - a tournament played year after year between the same (compared to the world's best) second ranked sides. How is that helping the likes of Ireland, France, Wales etc to develop. It isn't as we've seen yet again when they come up against southern hemisphere sides in matches that actually matter.
-
I think a lot of people thought this just might be the world cup where the northern hemisphere sides came to the fore - particularly Ireland and France. But yet again when 6 nations sides come up against rugby championship sides the latter are better. We saw three 6 nations/rugby championship match ups over the weekend and the 6 nations sides lost all three.
France lost by one point. Ireland lost by four points. Both of those matches could have gone the other way quite easily. New Zealand, Argentina and RSA all lost matches to NH sides in the pool rounds.
I don't think these results support your thesis as much as you would like.
-
Between Ireland-New Zealand and France-South Africa, the weekend's rugby was an absolute treat. Personally, of my four preferred winners, only the least preferred (England) got through, but you can't complain when the winners put in the performances they did.
England-Fiji I wasn't that bothered about - England is my second team (I'm a Scotland fan for rugby), but as neither Fiji nor England seemed capable of winning the semi-final it wouldn't have been bad for Fiji to get through and draw some more World Rugby attention to the South Sea Islands.
I thought it was Ireland's year to go further, but the All Blacks were outstanding (as Mark Pougatch put in in the ITV commentary, you don't ever get a 'bad' All Blacks side).
Wales I preferred against Argentina just for the Northern Hemisphere/Home Countries ties.
The really disappointing one, though, was France going out to South Africa. In sport normally I have my preferred team, then whoever is playing France is next, but with Rugby I just have to dislike South Africa. And France have been playing absolutely delightful rugby in the past couple of years, too.
So I'll be looking for a silver fern for the final, I guess.
I think a lot of people thought this just might be the world cup where the northern hemisphere sides came to the fore - particularly Ireland and France. But yet again when 6 nations sides come up against rugby championship sides the latter are better.
I don't think that they were noticeably better - the finest of fine margins were the difference this weekend. The bounce of the ball, here and there - Ireland were held up over the line by an individual moment of absolute brilliance from Barrett, but a few chip throughs that bounced ever so slightly different, a few desperate off-loads from New Zealand that stuck that on another day wouldn't and it could have easily been different.
Similarly with France and South Africa, they were so close all through - a different referee in that game with a very slightly different interpretation of (say) the scrum and South Africa could easily have lost by a point or two instead of winning by a point.
And I cannot see England coming close to matching south africa, so we'll probably have another all southern hemisphere final.
Can't argue with that - and you certainly can't see Argentina or England raising their game enough to win both remaining matches.
The 6 nations teams really do need to have a route and branch reappraisal of how they can, frankly, get better.
Ireland and France are the top 2 ranked teams in the world, and the six nations has five of the top 8, with only Italy below Australia and Argentina. South Africa and New Zealand are excellent, at the moment, but Australia and Argentina are not on the same level as the mainstream Six Nations sides, let alone the top 2.
Currently, and for decades, they've simple not been good enough.
Historically, I'd agree, but currently I wouldn't. The trick for the northern sides is to build on this current status and make sure it's the start of something, not the peak.
And at the heart of the matter is the 6 nations itself - a tournament played year after year between the same (compared to the world's best) second ranked sides. How is that helping the likes of Ireland, France, Wales etc to develop. It isn't as we've seen yet again when they come up against southern hemisphere sides in matches that actually matter.
South Africa and New Zealand play each other, and then Australia (who have been fading for a few years) and Argentina, and yet they maintain those standards - the problem doesn't really lie at the international level, it lies at the club level and at the cultural level where rugby struggles to compete against sports like football in the northern hemisphere in a way that it doesn't in South Africa and New Zealand (but does in Argentina, or where it's losing out to Rugby League in Austrialia).
O.
-
France lost by one point. Ireland lost by four points.
But they both lost.
Both of those matches could have gone the other way quite easily.
But they didn't did they - a reasonable argument if there are loads of examples of Ireland, Wales, France etc beating the rugby championship sides across the years to triumph in the world cup. But there aren't are there. The truism being that the world cup is a competition where the top sides from the NH come up against the opt sides from the SH and then the latter win the tournament. Sure England have won the competition once, but that's it and the tournament has been going since 1987. The NH sides simply aren't good enough.
New Zealand, Argentina and RSA all lost matches to NH sides in the pool rounds.
In matches which clearly had no bearing on the sharp end of the tournament, as all three of those sides are in the semi-finals and Wales, France, Ireland and Scotland aren't, and England got there by beating a second tier side not in the rugby championship. In matches that count the rugby championship sides are too good for the 6 nations sides.
I don't think these results support your thesis as much as you would like.
What that the semi finals will involve three out of the four rugby championship sides, all of whom knocked out a 6 nations side in the quarters, while just on 6 nations side has made it, and did so without having to beat a rugby championship side in the knockout phase. I think the results support my thesis very well and your argument seems to be that had the results gone another way we might have had more NH sides in the semis - but that is wishful thinking - the reality is that they didn't and we don't.
-
Between Ireland-New Zealand and France-South Africa, the weekend's rugby was an absolute treat.
I agree - both were amazing matches.
I don't think that they were noticeably better - the finest of fine margins were the difference this weekend. The bounce of the ball, here and there - Ireland were held up over the line by an individual moment of absolute brilliance from Barrett, but a few chip throughs that bounced ever so slightly different, a few desperate off-loads from New Zealand that stuck that on another day wouldn't and it could have easily been different.
Similarly with France and South Africa, they were so close all through - a different referee in that game with a very slightly different interpretation of (say) the scrum and South Africa could easily have lost by a point or two instead of winning by a point.
That would be all fine if there were plenty of examples where it went the other way. But it doesn't - the SH sides simply seem to get the job done against NH sides when push comes to shove, and ultimately you have to accept that isn't due to good fortune, but because they are better.
And don't forget that SA played 10 mins with 14 players and NZ played 20 mins with 14 players and they still both won.
Ireland and France are the top 2 ranked teams in the world
They won't be for long though will they - if they are really the top two in the world you'd expect them to be competing in the final rather than being dumped out at the quarter final stage.
, and the six nations has five of the top 8,
I'm not convinced that the ranking works well with comparing SH with NH, simply because the only time they actually play each other in properly competitive fixtures is once every four years at the world cup. So the rankings are good at telling you which 6 nations sides are better than which other 6 nations sides, and which rugby championship sides are better than which other rugby championship sides, but not good at telling you whether NZ are better than Ireland. The exception are the rankings immediately after the world cup, which I think will see NZ and SA one and two, not Ireland and France.
but Australia and Argentina are not on the same level as the mainstream Six Nations sides, let alone the top 2.
Agree on Australia - they are poor at the moment and finished bottom of the rugby championship, but it is hard to argue that Argentina are not as good as the mainstream 6 nations sides as they've just dumped one of those, Wales, out of the world cup.
South Africa and New Zealand play each other, and then Australia (who have been fading for a few years) and Argentina, and yet they maintain those standards - the problem doesn't really lie at the international level, it lies at the club level and at the cultural level where rugby struggles to compete against sports like football in the northern hemisphere in a way that it doesn't in South Africa and New Zealand (but does in Argentina, or where it's losing out to Rugby League in Austrialia).
I think the problem is just as much at international level as club level. The four SH sides get to play each other every year in a competitive tournament, which inevitably will involve the best side in the world (as the SH pretty well always win the world cup). So they constantly have the opportunity of the best playing the best. The 6 nations is a second class tournament in comparison. Win the rugby championship and you'll be competitive for the world cup, win the 6 nations ... well not so much.
-
But they both lost.
By very small margins.
But they didn't did they - a reasonable argument if there are loads of examples of Ireland, Wales, France etc beating the rugby championship sides across the years to triumph in the world cup.
But your thesis isn't that the NH is historically inferior to the SH, it is that they are inferior now. The evidence isn't there - or if it is, it's marginal.
In matches which clearly had no bearing on the sharp end of the tournament
They still mattered, especially the Ireland - RSA one.
-
The evidence isn't there - or if it is, it's marginal.
Err, are you for real JP - the evidence is staring us in the face. World Cup semis - NZ, SA, Argentina (all SH sides who knocked out 6 nations sides) and England (who knocked out a second tier side to get there).
And I suspect by this time next week we will be looking at yet another all SH final, and yet another SH winner.
What more evidence do you need.
-
Err, are you for real JP - the evidence is staring us in the face. World Cup semis
Oh FFS do you understand how sport works?
Two of those QF matches were won by less than a single score. These were not SH sides dominating NH sides, they were even matches that just both happened to be won by the SH side.
And I suspect by this time next week we will be looking at yet another all SH final, and yet another SH winner.
That's true because the two good NH sides both lost very close matches.
What more evidence do you need.
Something more statistically significant than the results of two rugby matches.
-
Oh FFS do you understand how sport works?
I do - if you lose even by a single point, you still lose.
Two of those QF matches were won by less than a single score. These were not SH sides dominating NH sides, they were even matches that just both happened to be won by the SH side.
True, but apparently France and Ireland are ranked higher that SA and NZ; the tournament is being played in France, so they had home advantage and Ireland were still playing in their back yard rather than on the other side of the world. France played against 14 players for 10 mins, Ireland played against 14 players for a quarter of the match. Surely all those factors should point to comfortable victories for Ireland and France - but they both lost. Why? for the simple reason that SA and NZ were better.
Something more statistically significant than the results of two rugby matches.
OK - let's have some stats.
World Cup winners:
SH - 8 (likely 9 in a couple of weeks time)
NH - 1
Knock-out stage victories between rugby championship vs 6 nations match-ups (oh and this includes Argentina)
SH - 27
NH - 9
-
Something more statistically significant than the results of two rugby matches.
Three - Argentina beat Wales too.
-
I do - if you lose even by a single point, you still lose.
True, but apparently France and Ireland are ranked higher that SA and NZ; the tournament is being played in France, so they had home advantage and Ireland were still playing in their back yard rather than on the other side of the world. France played against 14 players for 10 mins, Ireland played against 14 players for a quarter of the match. Surely all those factors should point to comfortable victories for Ireland and France - but they both lost. Why? for the simple reason that SA and NZ were better.
OK - let's have some stats.
World Cup winners:
SH - 8 (likely 9 in a couple of weeks time)
NH - 1
Knock-out stage victories between rugby championship vs 6 nations match-ups (oh and this includes Argentina)
SH - 27
NH - 9
Nobody is disputing that the SH have been historically dominant. Your claim, however, is that the QF results show that it is continuing, but it's based on the results of two matches there were very close.
You're a scientist. Do you know what "statistically significant" means?
-
Three - Argentina beat Wales too.
Wales is not a top tier NH side. Neither is England.
The top two sides in the NH are Ireland and France. Everybody else is a long way behind. The top two sides in the SH are South Africa and New Zealand. Everybody else is a long way behind.
-
Wales is not a top tier NH side.
Nor are Argentina a top tier SH side - but when they came up against each other in a match that mattered Argentina won.
The top two sides in the NH are Ireland and France. Everybody else is a long way behind. The top two sides in the SH are South Africa and New Zealand. Everybody else is a long way behind.
And when those teams came up against each other in a match that mattered the two SH sides won. Even though the NH sides had variously home advantage, not playing on the other side of the world, nominal higher ranking and playing against 14 players for 10 or 20 minutes of the game. Yet the SH sides still won.
It is pretty hard to come to any other conclusion than NZ and SA are simply better.
-
Nobody is disputing that the SH have been historically dominant.
And they still are - three of the four rugby championship teams are in the semi finals (all of whom beat 6 nations sides to get there). Just one of the 6 nations sides are in the semis, and they got through by beating a second tier rugby nation, rather than a rugby championship side.
Your claim, however, is that the QF results show that it is continuing, but it's based on the results of two matches there were very close.
Three matches, not two. The matches were close (well actually the Argentina/Wales match wasn't that close in the end), but the NH sides still lost all of them, despite many factors being in their favour (home or close to home advantage, nominal higher ranking, playing against 14 players for a chunk of the match in the case of France and Ireland).
You really are like an ostrich with your head in the sand - what happened over the weekend demonstrates that NH rugby continues to have a major problem matching the SH sides. This isn't just historical, it if continuing through yet another world cup tournament.
-
That would be all fine if there were plenty of examples where it went the other way. But it doesn't - the SH sides simply seem to get the job done against NH sides when push comes to shove, and ultimately you have to accept that isn't due to good fortune, but because they are better.
Historically that's been the case, at the moment I don't there's much in it, and arguably there's more breadth of good play in the Northern Hemisphere with a spread of abilities between Ireland/France down to Italy, whereas there's South Africa/New Zealand and then a gap down to Australia and Argentina. The test is going to be are there still going to be competitive northern hemisphere sides in three, four, five, ten years time. We expect this level from the Southern Hemisphere - Australia's below par performance is as much of an aberration as France and Ireland being competitive, historically speaking.
And don't forget that SA played 10 mins with 14 players and NZ played 20 mins with 14 players and they still both won.
New Zealand's card, though, were for professional fouls in attempting to stop try-scoring opportunities - some could argue it's that cynical edge that gives them an advantage, but I can't be confident that one of the more shrewd Ireland players wouldn't have taken the same risk. At that level they practice playing with a man down, knowing that it's a risk of the game. Ireland got a penalty try for the second infringement, and turned their numerical advantage in the first into a try.
France's inability to maximise their numerical benefit is perhaps a little more telling - as you suggest, the Northern Hemisphere sides are not used to being favourites in these pinch matches, and haven't developed the mentality to step it up a notch in those circumstances, to really punish when it's called for.
They won't be for long though will they - if they are really the top two in the world you'd expect them to be competing in the final rather than being dumped out at the quarter final stage.
I don't think it's as clear-cut as that - you'd expect them to win four or five out of six - what they need is to make sure that one of those is at the sharp end, and I suspect that's a combination of mentality and luck - the luck you can't control, but the mentality will come from playing at the sharp end more consistently.
I'm not convinced that the ranking works well with comparing SH with NH, simply because the only time they actually play each other in properly competitive fixtures is once every four years at the world cup.
I don't think you can watch an All Blacks game - any All Blacks game - and suggest that they don't give everything every time they pull on that shirt. Part of what makes them the legends they are is that you can't give them an inch, ever. South Africa breeds rugby players that, individually, are always physical, aggressive, domineering, it's part and parcel of the fabric of their game - that doesn't get let go for 'lesser' matches. You could argue that northern and southern hemisphere sides don't play each other often enough, perhaps, but you I don't see that you can suggest that matches outside of the world cup are noticeably less competitive.
So the rankings are good at telling you which 6 nations sides are better than which other 6 nations sides, and which rugby championship sides are better than which other rugby championship sides, but not good at telling you whether NZ are better than Ireland. The exception are the rankings immediately after the world cup, which I think will see NZ and SA one and two, not Ireland and France.
South Africa have six ranking points to make up to catch Ireland, which I'm not sure is mathematically possible given the timeframe the rankings are taken over.
Agree on Australia - they are poor at the moment and finished bottom of the rugby championship, but it is hard to argue that Argentina are not as good as the mainstream 6 nations sides as they've just dumped one of those, Wales, out of the world cup.
In a hard-fought, close contest that only got away from Wales (who didn't play to their capabilities) when they had to chase the game at the end, and Wales are a distant fourth in the standards of the six nations right now. Argentina would not be out of place competing against the six nations teams (and, from the little I've seen of them, didn't play to their best either), but they would be in the lower half of it right now.
I think the problem is just as much at international level as club level. The four SH sides get to play each other every year in a competitive tournament, which inevitably will involve the best side in the world (as the SH pretty well always win the world cup). So they constantly have the opportunity of the best playing the best. The 6 nations is a second class tournament in comparison. Win the rugby championship and you'll be competitive for the world cup, win the 6 nations ... well not so much.
It's a development problem - South Africa and New Zealand have a wealth of talent in each position, the northern hemisphere teams historically have always had maybe four or five world class players and a clutch of eager journeymen. It's only in recent years that northern hemisphere teams (led by France, but Ireland and England to a lesser extent) have regularly produced not just those world class players but a layer of depth behind it. South Africa and New Zealand have enough players of that capability in their leagues that the players need less coaching and tactical guidance, so when the 'second string' come in they don't suffer that drop in performance and (in England's case) they aren't a susceptible to questionable management practices.
O.
-
Nor are Argentina a top tier SH side - but when they came up against each other in a match that mattered Argentina won.
And when those teams came up against each other in a match that mattered the two SH sides won.
But both matches were even and could have gone either way.
Why are you having trouble understanding that?
This is another of your "I'm always right" crusades isn't it.
I'll tell you what. I'm going to stop arguing with you until after you have demonstrated that you understand the concept of statistical significance and why you feel you can ignore its implications when your evidence includes just two rugby matches.
-
But both matches were even and could have gone either way.
But all THREE of them didn't.
Why are you having trouble understanding that?
Because it doesn't matter that they were close, as in so many previous tournaments the SH sides are just that bit better - they get the job done.
This is another of your "I'm always right" crusades isn't it.
There's no crusade here merely a recognition that what has happened in world cup after world cup is continuing to happen. And if the NH attitude is a complacent 'well it was close, could have gone either way' SH sides are going to continue to win match up after match up with NH sides and continue to win world cup after world cup.
I'll tell you what. I'm going to stop arguing with you until after you have demonstrated that you understand the concept of statistical significance and why you feel you can ignore its implications when your evidence includes just two rugby matches.
I've ignore this because as a scientist I recognise that the notion of 'statistical significance' when you are talking about just three games has no meaning. I think the 8 (likely 9 in a couple of weeks time) to 1 world cup wins and 27 to 9 rugby championship vs 6 nations world cup knock out stage victories may well be.
-
But all THREE of them didn't.
Because it doesn't matter that they were close, as in so many previous tournaments the SH sides are just that bit better - they get the job done.
There's no crusade here merely a recognition that what has happened in world cup after world cup is continuing to happen. And if the NH attitude is a complacent 'well it was close, could have gone either way' SH sides are going to continue to win match up after match up with NH sides and continue to win world cup after world cup.
I've ignore this because as a scientist I recognise that the notion of 'statistical significance' when you are talking about just three games has no meaning. I think the 8 (likely 9 in a couple of weeks time) to 1 world cup wins and 27 to 9 rugby championship vs 6 nations world cup knock out stage victories may well be.
I've stopped arguing with you until after you have demonstrated that you understand the concept of statistical significance and why you feel you can ignore its implications when your evidence includes just two rugby matches.
-
I've stopped arguing with you until after you have demonstrated that you understand the concept of statistical significance and why you feel you can ignore its implications when your evidence includes just two rugby matches.
Why are you continuing to disingenuously refer only to two matches when there were of course three over the weekend in which SH rugby championship sides beat nominally higher ranked 6 nation sides.
Also why are you banging on about statistical significance when I've already been quite clear that it has no place for such a small sample. However that doesn't change the fact that the pattern over many, many world cups of 6 nations sides coming up short when faced with SH rugby championship sides, continues in this world cup.
-
Why are you continuing to disingenuously refer only to two matches when there were of course three
Why are you disingenuously referring to three matches when there were of course four?
Would you like to calculate the p-value and tell us if it meets the bar for statistical significance?
-
Why are you disingenuously referring to three matches when there were of course four?
So not only are you being disingenuous, but also now quote-mining.
Why did you fail to include the final part of the sentence when you quoted me. For clarity the sentence was:
'Why are you continuing to disingenuously refer only to two matches when there were of course three over the weekend in which SH rugby championship sides beat nominally higher ranked 6 nation sides.'
Yet you missed out the part in bold.
There were exactly three matches over the weekend involving a rugby championship side playing a 6 nation side (Wales v Argentina; Ireland vs NZ and France vs SA). Not four, not two, but three.
-
And the selection policy is bizarre. Our best fly half is on the bench and our second best is playing at fullback. Frankly, the England captain isn't good enough, anymore, to get into the side.
I don't think he's ever been good enough to get into the (Eng) side. I'd stick with Courtney Lawes (despite injuries). (as a lock and not a flanker).
-
So not only are you being disingenuous, but also now quote-mining.
Why did you fail to include the final part of the sentence when you quoted me. For clarity the sentence was:
'Why are you continuing to disingenuously refer only to two matches when there were of course three over the weekend in which SH rugby championship sides beat nominally higher ranked 6 nation sides.'
Yet you missed out the part in bold.
There were exactly three matches over the weekend involving a rugby championship side playing a 6 nation side (Wales v Argentina; Ireland vs NZ and France vs SA). Not four, not two, but three.
There were four matches over the weekend of which two were between top tier sides. You know, as a scientist, that it is incredibly dishonest to cherry pick the data as you do.
Have you worked out the p-value yet? Does it meet the test for statistical significance?
-
I don't think he's ever been good enough to get into the (Eng) side. I'd stick with Courtney Lawes (despite injuries). (as a lock and not a flanker).
I think that is a little bit unfair. He was a good fly half in 2019.
-
There were four matches over the weekend of which two were between top tier sides. You know, as a scientist, that it is incredibly dishonest to cherry pick the data as you do.
Have you worked out the p-value yet? Does it meet the test for statistical significance?
Is there a clear statement of the hypothesis?
-
Is there a clear statement of the hypothesis?
The Southern hemisphere sides are better than the Northern hemisphere sides. PD claims this is true based on the QF results.
-
There were four matches over the weekend of which two were between top tier sides.
Oh dear, now you've started making stuff up.
Tier 1 rugby nations are defined as those that play in the 6 nations (England, France, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Italy) or in the rugby championship (NZ, SA, Australia, Argentina).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67048489
'Tier one consists of the European teams who play in the Six Nations (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France and Italy), and the four who compete in the southern hemisphere's Rugby Championship (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina).'
So your claim that there were only two matches involving two tier 1 sides is demonstrably non-sense. There were three:
NZ vs Ireland
SA vs Wales
Wales vs Argentina
There was also a fourth match (England vs Fiji) which was between a tier 1 nation (England) and a tier 2 nation (Fiji).
And actually my claim was about matches involving a 6 nation team playing a rugby championship side - again there were three, not two, not four, but three. But the criteria are synonymous as tier 1 is defined as sides that play in either the 6 nation team or the rugby championship.
You know, as a scientist, that it is incredibly dishonest to cherry pick the data as you do.
I haven't cherry picked anything - I have used an external definition (regardless of whether tier 1 or 6 nations and rugby championship) and considered all the matches where a tier one SH side played a tier 1 NH side (or by my definition, which is effectively the same) a 6 nation team played a rugby championship side.
You on the other hand have made up stuff - a Jeremy P definition of a top tier side and also ignored stuff - the third relevant match, Wales vs Argentina.
-
The Southern hemisphere sides are better than the Northern hemisphere sides. PD claims this is true based on the QF results.
Let's be clear - I'm talking about top tier SH vs NH sides, so those that play in the 6 nations and rugby championship.
And given that in all three match ups of that nature over the weekend the SH side won it is hard to argue that they weren't better - actually despite a range of factors (playing at home or close to home, being nominally higher ranked, playing against 14 players for a part of the match) which should have favoured the NH side.
But the point is that this isn't a one off - this is the continuation of a pattern with has stretched pretty well uninterrupted since the world cup started in 1987. When the top SH sides and the top NH sides play each other in a tournament that matters (the world cup is the only time they play each other in a properly competitive format) the SH sides invariably come out on top.
-
And given that in all three match ups of that nature over the weekend the SH side won it is hard to argue that they weren't better - actually despite a range of factors (playing at home or close to home, being nominally higher ranked, playing against 14 players for a part of the match) which would have favoured the NH side.
You could equally argue that the 'home advantage' actually added pressure to the French, and doesn't really represent much of a home advantage for, particularly, England (Ireland and Wales perhaps).
But the point is that this isn't a one off - this is the continuation of a pattern with has stretched pretty well uninterrupted since the world cup started in 1987.
It might be a continuation of that pattern, but the fact that there is so much discussion about how it's surprising that all three matches went the way of the SH sides suggests that perhaps it's not. We could be at the stage where the SH sides are not significantly better, as they have been in the past, but rather it was just the 'statistical aberration' of close sides separated by the bounce of the ball. In order to demonstrate that the NH sides now need to build on this and stay competitive - the SH status isn't built on one tournament, but rather on their consistent ability to operate at or near the top. The NH sides have periodically had one side or another have a peak, but rarely have they had two or three sides in the top five, rarely have they had two sides in realistic consideration for a major tournament.
When the top SH sides and the top NH sides play each other in a tournament that matters (the world cup is the only time they play each other in a properly competitive format) the SH sides invariably come out on top.
And it may be that the pressure of a tournament is playing a part, a legacy of that sense of the having been there and done it vs it being new territory, but I don't accept the notion that the All Blacks or the South Africans play any less intensely outside of the World Cup than they do in any other competitive match.
O.
-
Oh dear, now you've started making stuff up.
No. There really were four. That's why they are called "quarter finals".
Tier 1 rugby nations are defined as those that play in the 6 nations (England, France, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Italy) or in the rugby championship (NZ, SA, Australia, Argentina).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67048489
'Tier one consists of the European teams who play in the Six Nations (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France and Italy), and the four who compete in the southern hemisphere's Rugby Championship (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina).'
So your claim that there were only two matches involving two tier 1 sides is demonstrably non-sense. There were three:
NZ vs Ireland
SA vs Wales
Wales vs Argentina
"Tier 1" isn't really a formal definition. There are four teams of roughly equal ability at the top of the rankings and they are a long way ahead of the group behind them.
So anyway, how's your calculation of statistical significance coming along?
-
You could equally argue that the 'home advantage' actually added pressure to the French, and doesn't really represent much of a home advantage for, particularly, England (Ireland and Wales perhaps).
I think it is generally accepted that NH sides will find it that bit harder playing in the SH and vice versa, not least due to the challenges of time zones and effectively having to adjust to a completely different season (you do understand that our physiology doesn't like that!). It is pretty hard to argue that NZ, SA and Argentina were somehow advantaged by playing in France compared to France, Wales and Ireland.
It might be a continuation of that pattern, but the fact that there is so much discussion about how it's surprising that all three matches went the way of the SH sides suggests that perhaps it's not. We could be at the stage where the SH sides are not significantly better, as they have been in the past, but rather it was just the 'statistical aberration' of close sides separated by the bounce of the ball. In order to demonstrate that the NH sides now need to build on this and stay competitive - the SH status isn't built on one tournament, but rather on their consistent ability to operate at or near the top. The NH sides have periodically had one side or another have a peak, but rarely have they had two or three sides in the top five, rarely have they had two sides in realistic consideration for a major tournament.
But it never seems to drop the other way does it. I get it that sometimes there are slim margins, there are critical decisions and ball bounces that make the difference between winning and losing. But over time you'd expect these things to even out - sometimes the SH sides get the rub of the green sometimes the NH sides. But that isn't the case here - when push comes to shove in the world cup the SH sides come out on top - and when that happens as a continuing pattern you have to look beyond the rub of the green, the fine margins. And accept the clear conclusion - that the SH teams are just better - 8 (likely 9 in a couple of weeks) world cups to 1 tells its own story.
And it may be that the pressure of a tournament is playing a part, a legacy of that sense of the having been there and done it vs it being new territory,
I think that's part of it - the big three SH sides simply have a heritage of winning the world cup - they know how to do it. The NH sides (with the exception of England) don't. And that probably plays into the mentality side of things - the SH sides simply expect to come out on top and guess what, they do.
... but I don't accept the notion that the All Blacks or the South Africans play any less intensely outside of the World Cup than they do in any other competitive match.
But the SH sides don't play NH sides in properly competitive fixtures except at the world cup. The summer internationals down under and the autumn internations aren't really competitive at all - in many cases the matches are played by 'experimental' sides as teams use them as useful training exercises to blood new players, try new tactics, in a manner they'd never dream of doing in a world cup quarter final or semi final etc.
So the only time we really get to see who is top dog between SH and NH sides is once every 4 years at the world cup - and yet again we see the SH sides rising to the top.
I must admit I find this level of hand wringing complacency rather startling if you actually want to see NH sides genuinely competing against the SH sides at the world cup. While you continue to put it down to an unfortunate bounce of the ball or 'fine margins' the SH sides will continue to dominate. Only by accepting that they are, frankly, better will the NH rugby authorities start to look at what they need to do in terms of root and branch changes to the game in the NH to make them competitive.
But hey denial is a river in Egypt (not a tier 1 rugby playing nation).
-
No. There really were four. That's why they are called "quarter finals".
Not between 6 nations vs rugby championship sides (or tier one if you want). There were three - not two as you claimed, not four as you are now pivoting to - nope there were three - Wales vs Argentina; France vs SA; NZ vs Ireland. Last time I looked Fiji were not a nation that play in the 6 nations nor rugby championship.
"Tier 1" isn't really a formal definition.
Yes it is - it is a designation used by World Rugby, the authority that runs rugby internationally.
-
Unsurprisingly following the weekend fixtures SA and NZ have risen to the top of the world rankings:
https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/rankings/mru
-
I think it is generally accepted that NH sides will find it that bit harder playing in the SH and vice versa, not least due to the challenges of time zones and effectively having to adjust to a completely different season (you do understand that our physiology doesn't like that!). It is pretty hard to argue that NZ, SA and Argentina were somehow advantaged by playing in France compared to France, Wales and Ireland.
I think that, given the discipline around behaviour and planning, the top tier set-ups get out and acclimatise well in advance enough to pretty much neutralise those sort of travel-related effects. As I say, the 'home field' advantage of the crowd can go either way if you don't have the experience to handle it.
But it never seems to drop the other way does it. I get it that sometimes there are slim margins, there are critical decisions and ball bounces that make the difference between winning and losing. But over time you'd expect these things to even out - sometimes the SH sides get the rub of the green sometimes the NH sides. But that isn't the case here - when push comes to shove in the world cup the SH sides come out on top - and when that happens as a continuing pattern you have to look beyond the rub of the green, the fine margins. And accept the clear conclusion - that the SH teams are just better - 8 (likely 9 in a couple of weeks) world cups to 1 tells its own story.
I don't disagree that, historically, that's been the case. The sheer numbers they've had to choose from, and the breadth of the competitive environment they play in at club level, meant that they had a consistent level of players that put them in better stead than the NH nations, and a professionalism to their approach too that was not matched. You see this world cup as a continuation of that; I'm not definitively saying that it's not, but I'm open to the possibility that we are actually on a competitive footing, and in this particular instance it was just the luck of the bounce, as it were. The only way we'll be sure of that is to watch the next few years and see if the NH sides slip back or not.
But the SH sides don't play NH sides in properly competitive fixtures except at the world cup.
Each and every time they pull on the shirt it's competitive.
The summer internationals down under and the autumn internations aren't really competitive at all - in many cases the matches are played by 'experimental' sides as teams use them as useful training exercises to blood new players, try new tactics, in a manner they'd never dream of doing in a world cup quarter final or semi final etc.
And both sides are playing around with combinations, and both sides are trying out new blood. Historically it's been more apparent from the SH sides as they've had a broader pool of viable talent to test out, but France, Ireland and to a lesser extent England have been just a wide-ranging of late. Scotland, by contrast, whilst they have a highly capable first choice selection, have a number of key positions where they don't appear to have the strength in depth coming through - they could well be on a short-term peak and returning to tier 1.5 status alongside Italy.
I must admit I find this level of hand wringing complacency rather startling if you actually want to see NH sides genuinely competing against the SH sides at the world cup. While you continue to put it down to an unfortunate bounce of the ball or 'fine margins' the SH sides will continue to dominate. Only by accepting that they are, frankly, better will the NH rugby authorities start to look at what they need to do in terms of root and branch changes to the game in the NH to make them competitive.
I don't see being open to the possibility as 'denial'. The proof will come in the next few cycles.
O.
-
I think that, given the discipline around behaviour and planning, the top tier set-ups get out and acclimatise well in advance enough to pretty much neutralise those sort of travel-related effects. As I say, the 'home field' advantage of the crowd can go either way if you don't have the experience to handle it.
Sure teams plan and plan better the more professional they are, but that doesn't negate 'home' advantage.
I don't disagree that, historically, that's been the case. The sheer numbers they've had to choose from, and the breadth of the competitive environment they play in at club level, meant that they had a consistent level of players that put them in better stead than the NH nations, and a professionalism to their approach too that was not matched. You see this world cup as a continuation of that; I'm not definitively saying that it's not, but I'm open to the possibility that we are actually on a competitive footing, and in this particular instance it was just the luck of the bounce, as it were. The only way we'll be sure of that is to watch the next few years and see if the NH sides slip back or not.
But this is actually why the NH sides and authorities really do need to sit up and (finally) take notice.
In the run up to this world cup, all the talk was about this being the tournament where finally, after a single victory 20 years ago, NH sides would come to the fore. France and Ireland considered the best (but only from nominal ranking), the advantages of location - surely at least one would make the final, likely one would be the winner. Yet neither made it even to the semis. When push comes to shove the SH teams are stronger, more ruthless and get the job done.
So to my mind we are simply seeing the historical situation - at each world cup one or two 6 nations sides tend to be stronger than the other 4 and one or two rugby championship sides tend to be stronger than the other two - but the top SH sides consistently prove themselves stronger than the top NH sides when on the biggest stage, the world cup.
Each and every time they pull on the shirt it's competitive.
Absolute non-sense - to compare the level of competition and jeopardy of a world cup knockout stage match with an autumn international or a summer tour test match is ludicrous. Sure players and coaches want to win all matches but frankly a loss in the latter is no great shakes while a loss in the former is huge. In fact for some of these (effectively friendly) matches the key thing the coaches want is to learn about players capabilities, with the result itself secondary.
I don't see being open to the possibility as 'denial'. The proof will come in the next few cycles.
Next few cycles of world cups?
If the NH sides don't wake up and smell the coffee I'd be pretty confident we'll be having the same discussion in 2031 with the SH continue to dominate.
-
Sure teams plan and plan better the more professional they are, but that doesn't negate 'home' advantage.
But this is actually why the NH sides and authorities really do need to sit up and (finally) take notice.
In the run up to this world cup, all the talk was about this being the tournament where finally, after a single victory 20 years ago, NH sides would come to the fore. France and Ireland considered the best (but only from nominal ranking), the advantages of location - surely at least one would make the final, likely one would be the winner. Yet neither made it even to the semis. When push comes to shove the SH teams are stronger, more ruthless and get the job done.
So to my mind we are simply seeing the historical situation - at each world cup one or two 6 nations sides tend to be stronger than the other 4 and one or two rugby championship sides tend to be stronger than the other two - but the top SH sides consistently prove themselves stronger than the top NH sides when on the biggest stage, the world cup.
Absolute non-sense - to compare the level of competition and jeopardy of a world cup knockout stage match with an autumn international or a summer tour test match is ludicrous. Sure players and coaches want to win all matches but frankly a loss in the latter is no great shakes while a loss in the former is huge. In fact for some of these (effectively friendly) matches the key thing the coaches want is to learn about players capabilities, with the result itself secondary.
Next few cycles of world cups?
If the NH sides don't wake up and smell the coffee I'd be pretty confident we'll be having the same discussion in 2031 with the SH continue to dominate.
Any luck in calculating the statistical significance of 2/3/4 matches?
-
Any luck in calculating the statistical significance of 2/3/4 matches?n
Given that it is only you that seems obsessed with statistical significance on the basis of just a couple of matches I'll leave that one to you.
But considering the world cup winners over the past 9 tournaments, and using a null hypothesis that NH and SH teams are equally good and therefore equally likely to win the tournament, the observed results of SH:NH of 8:1, compares to an expected of 4.5:4.5 and using the chi squared test, results in a p value of 0.0196 which is highly significant.
If we predict the 2023 tournament to be a SH victory (as most people seem to think) then p value becomes even more significant at 0.0114.
If England win the tournament then we just drop out of the 5% statistical significance.
Using chi squared again the p value for 6 nations (9 wins) vs rugby championship (27 wins) match ups in the knock out stages is even more significant at p = 0.0027
-
I think that is a little bit unfair. He was a good fly half in 2019.
https://www.englandrugby.com/news/article/rugby-world-cup-england-team-to-play-new-zealand-in-semi-final
So good, they moved him to inside centre.Captain Owen Farrell is named at inside centre with George Ford selected at fly half and Manu Tuilagi at outside centre
I remember the result, but I can't remember if Eddie Jones ' instructions were, "Remember you're in a team. And throw the ball to Tuilagi."
-
The other test I remember was v Wales at home back in 2015.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34350871 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34350871)
England needed to draw to qualify and there was a late penalty on the right side that would (have) levelled the scores. George Ford and Farrell both looked at it and neither fancied it, so it ended up with a line out. Which they promptly lost.
Wilkinson, at the time said the decision to take a line out should have been planned for "something" and the short line out was too obvious (& defendable) for the Welsh. It's arguable that Stuart Lancaster and Chris Robshaw had lots of time to prepare for a situation like that, but they didn't seem to.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34370727 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34370727)Wales coach Warren Gatland said England made a mistake by not going for a late penalty kick that could have drawn ...
"It's a big call to make and a brave call to make."
Farrell wasn't brave enough to make that decision.
So from that day to this, I've only ever regarded him playing as a bellweather, not a leader.
-
The other test I remember was v Wales at home back in 2015.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34350871 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34350871)
England needed to draw to qualify and there was a late penalty on the right side that would (have) levelled the scores. George Ford and Farrell both looked at it and neither fancied it, so it ended up with a line out. Which they promptly lost.
Yes I remember that one as well.
It was frankly a dumb decision, but it is one of my bugbears when teams fail to take easy penalty points and feel they need to go for the 'crowd pleasing' kick to touch to attempt to get a try ... which very often results in zero points.
We've seen a fair few examples in this world cup so I don't think it is something that can be laid on England, let alone Farrell, alone.
-
Given that it is only you that seems obsessed with statistical significance on the basis of just a couple of matches I'll leave that one to you.
But considering the world cup winners over the past 9 tournaments, and using a null hypothesis that NH and SH teams are equally good and therefore equally likely to win the tournament, the observed results of SH:NH of 8:1, compares to an expected of 4.5:4.5 and using the chi squared test, results in a p value of 0.0196 which is highly significant.
If we predict the 2023 tournament to be a SH victory (as most people seem to think) then p value becomes even more significant at 0.0114.
If England win the tournament then we just drop out of the 5% statistical significance.
Using chi squared again the p value for 6 nations (9 wins) vs rugby championship (27 wins) match ups in the knock out stages is even more significant at p = 0.0027
The point is that you are making a thesis based on two matches that were very close. You don’t seem to understand that those two matches alone are not enough evidence. This is remarkable for somebody who claims to be a scientist.
The historical matches don’t count because we all agree that the SH sides were better back then. The question is have the NH sides caught up.
-
The point is that you are making a thesis based on two matches that were very close. You don’t seem to understand that those two matches alone are not enough evidence. This is remarkable for somebody who claims to be a scientist.
Yawn - three matches.
The historical matches don’t count because we all agree that the SH sides were better back then.
If you use that argument you'll never be able to draw any conclusions as you'll always be ignoring everything except the most recent match, and that won't be sufficient to draw statistic conclusions, albeit it will tell you who actually won that match.
The question is have the NH sides caught up.
It would appear not, because had the 6 nations sides have caught up surely you would expect at least one of those matches to result in a 6 nations team beating a rugby championship side. Particularly the other advantages for the 6 nations sides in terms of nominal ranking, home or close to home advantage and in two cases playing a part of the match (or even a quarter of the match) with a player advantage.
Oh and if you do want to go all 'statistical' - if you start with a hypothesis that the 6 nations sides have caught up with the rugby championship - in other words equal likelihood of winning, then chi square suggests from just those 3 results that there is a 92% likelihood that your hypothesis is wrong.
-
Yawn - three matches.
If you use that argument you'll never be able to draw any conclusions as you'll always be ignoring everything except the most recent match, and that won't be sufficient to draw statistic conclusions, albeit it will tell you who actually won that match.
It would appear not, because had the 6 nations sides have caught up surely you would expect at least one of those matches to result in a 6 nations team beating a rugby championship side. Particularly the other advantages for the 6 nations sides in terms of nominal ranking, home or close to home advantage and in two cases playing a part of the match (or even a quarter of the match) with a player advantage.
Oh and if you do want to go all 'statistical' - if you start with a hypothesis that the 6 nations sides have caught up with the rugby championship - in other words equal likelihood of winning, then chi square suggests from just those 3 results that there is a 92% likelihood that your hypothesis is wrong.
If you want to find out how NH sides are doing against SH sides now, you look at recent matches, not ones from four years ago.
The SH sides in the three matches that you are obsessed by all suffered recent defeats from NH sides. Oops. You might need to think again.
-
If you want to find out how NH sides are doing against SH sides now, you look at recent matches, not ones from four years ago.
Oh you mean the three knockout stage matches last weekend in which nominally higher ranked 6 nations teams came up against nominally lower ranked rugby championship teams and the SH teams won all three.
Not really helping your argument, are you.
-
The SH sides in the three matches that you are obsessed by all suffered recent defeats from NH sides. Oops. You might need to think again.
In matches that actually matter or make a difference - I don't think so.
Sure NZ lost to France in the group stage and SA lost to Ireland also in the group stage. But those matches were basically irrelevant as the only thing that mattered was finishing first or second in the group, which they did. But fat lot of good it did Ireland and France as they are out of the tournament while NZ and SA are sailing on into the semis, and perhaps beyond.
Autumn and summer internationals have about as much relevance as the England vs Australia football match I went to last Friday. A bit of fun, useful to check out new players/tactics, but nothing you'd worry about losing.
-
Oh you mean the three knockout stage matches last weekend in which nominally higher ranked 6 nations teams came up against nominally lower ranked rugby championship teams and the SH teams won all three.
Not really helping your argument, are you.
Why not the group matches as well?
-
In matches that actually matter or make a difference - I don't think so.
Sure NZ lost to France in the group stage and SA lost to Ireland also in the group stage. But those matches were basically irrelevant as the only thing that mattered was finishing first or second in the group, which they did. But fat lot of good it did Ireland and France as they are out of the tournament while NZ and SA are sailing on into the semis, and perhaps beyond.
Autumn and summer internationals have about as much relevance as the England vs Australia football match I went to last Friday. A bit of fun, useful to check out new players/tactics, but nothing you'd worry about losing.
The group stage matches were not irrelevant. They determined who came top and second which determines who you play in the QF.
-
The group stage matches were not irrelevant.
They were, as Argentina, SA and NZ all lost a group match against a 6 nations team, but all three not only made it to the quarter finals, but are now still in the competition in the semis, unlike Wales, Ireland and France who avoided defeat in the group stage. Throughout the history of the world cup (as far as I can see) no team that has lost just a single game in the group stage has failed to qualify for the knock-outs, so losing a single game is largely irrelevant - what you cannot afford to do is lose two games.
They determined who came top and second which determines who you play in the QF.
Which has no real bearing unless you are confident you'll be playing a much weaker side in the quarter finals - and this doesn't seem to be the case here. SA and Ireland knew they play one of France or NZ in the quarters and vice versa. I can't see how they'd be particularly wanting one rather than the other opponent in the quarters. Wales perhaps felt that winning the group would result in an easy quarter final draw against Argentina - fat lot of good that did them.
We have four teams left, three lost a group match and finished second in their groups, just one is an unbeaten group winner (England). The three other group winners (all unbeaten at group stage) are out.
And unless England win, for the second world cup in a row we will see a tournament winner that came second in the group stage having lost a match. But I suspect there aren't many people who will remember that SA got trounced 23-13 in their opening game against NZ. And nor should they, as that result was irrelevant and SA went on to win the tournament, while NZ made the semis only.
-
Was utterly shocked by last night's result
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67177704
-
Was utterly shocked by last night's result
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67177704
Bit fearful that tonight’s result might be similar!
-
They were, as Argentina, SA and NZ all lost a group match against a 6 nations team, but all three not only made it to the quarter finals,
Don't talk absolute crap.
You're saying that those sides went into the group matches against England, Ireland and France respectively saying "these don't matter because we'll be in a QF that we will win". You can't say "this match doesn't count because it didn't matter in the end". The players didn't know that at the time.
This really is the end of the conversation. You must be trying to yank our chains.
-
Was utterly shocked by last night's result
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67177704
Why? Did you think Argentina might win?
-
Why? Did you think Argentina might win?
Absolutely! 1000%!
-
Absolutely! 1000%!
Fancy a bet? £10 says South Africa beat England tonight.
-
Don't talk absolute crap.
You're saying that those sides went into the group matches against England, Ireland and France respectively saying "these don't matter because we'll be in a QF that we will win". You can't say "this match doesn't count because it didn't matter in the end". The players didn't know that at the time.
This really is the end of the conversation. You must be trying to yank our chains.
I'm not talking crap.
For any coach worth the name their objective is to qualify for the next stage. In the group stages this means winning three matches, as that is what you need to get to the quarter finals barring the most bizarre of circumstances. So they will be looking at which three matches they can win in the group and they will recognise that although they'd like to win all four matches, they can afford to lose one match and still achieve their objective of getting to the quarter finals.
So those group stage match ups of France vs NZ and SA vs Ireland were ones that whilst each team would of course like to win all four teams would have recognised that losing wasn't really that important as long as they could see a path to the quarters by winning their other three matches, which they would have seen as the other three teams in the groups were demonstrably weaker.
I doubt they'd have given much thought to the 1st vs 2nd place issue as they would regardless have a pretty competitive quarter final and as these four teams were basically the four favourites to win the tournament each would feel they could beat anyone and would have to beat anyone to win.
But you still seem to be failing to recognise that those group stage matches were irrelevant as the losers (NZ and SA) are still in the tournament, while the winners (France and Ireland) are out.
-
Stunning drama, if not the greatest match.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67182592
-
Stunning drama, if not the greatest match.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67182592
I thought it was compelling as a match and gutted that England couldn't hold on. Sometimes you don't need piles of tries to make a great rugby match. England played brilliantly, way above what most people expected and SA were pretty shambolic until near the end. But SA simply had another gear to get the job done, the gear shift came when England started losing every scrum with a reluctant penalty.
-
I thought it was compelling as a match and gutted that England couldn't hold on. Sometimes you don't need piles of tries to make a great rugby match. England played brilliantly, way above what most people expected and SA were pretty shambolic until near the end. But SA simply had another gear to get the job done, the gear shift came when England started losing every scrum with a reluctant penalty.
Who said anything about needing lots of tries for it to be a great match? It's the shambolic bit that's the issue.
-
I'm not talking crap.
Yes you are. You really don't know what you are talking about, if you think those matches didn't matter.
-
Yes you are. You really don't know what you are talking about, if you think those matches didn't matter.
Blimey JP, you really are like a bear with a sore tooth.
So let's look at those two group matches that you seem to think were ever so important, Ireland vs SA and NZ vs France. Imagine if the results had gone the other way, so that NZ and SA had won rather than France and Ireland. Let's see what difference it would have made.
So what actually happened was Ireland and France won those group games, with Ireland, SA, NZ and France qualifying for the quarter finals with Ireland playing NZ and SA playing France.
So what would have happened if SA and NZ had won those group games. Well, err, Ireland, SA, NZ and France would have qualifyied for the quarter finals with Ireland playing NZ and SA playing France.
If those matches had been reversed in terms of results it would have made literally zero difference to the unfolding of the tournament.
And last time I looked SA and NZ (who lost those group matches that JP seems to think were critically important) will be contesting the final next weekend. Those group matches were clearly irrelevant.
-
Who said anything about needing lots of tries for it to be a great match?
There are loads of so-called rugby fans who seem obsessed only with tries - the people who boo if a team decides to kick a penalty for 3 points rather than kick for touch to go for a try.
It's the shambolic bit that's the issue.
I think SA were pretty shambolic in the early stages - they clearly got tactics wrong and didn't cope well with the conditions. Why do you think their coach made a key tactical substitution with just 30 mins on the clock.
-
There are loads of so-called rugby fans who seem obsessed only with tries - the people who boo if a team decides to kick a penalty for 3 points rather than kick for touch to go for a try.
I think SA were pretty shambolic in the early stages - they clearly got tactics wrong and didn't cope well with the conditions. Why do you think their coach made a key tactical substitution with just 30 mins on the clock.
For me, a great match involves 2 good teams playing their best.
-
There are loads of so-called rugby fans who seem obsessed only with tries - the people who boo if a team decides to kick a penalty for 3 points rather than kick for touch to go for a try.
There was a time back in the Carling and Johnson eras where England very much relied on forward power. I actually prefer watching matches like that where the forwards grind the opposition down over the course of eighty minutes. I like the game to be really tight so that when somebody does break out, it's all the more exciting.
I think SA were pretty shambolic in the early stages - they clearly got tactics wrong and didn't cope well with the conditions. Why do you think their coach made a key tactical substitution with just 30 mins on the clock.
I didn't watch the match because I was expecting another cricket score, but I gather it was pissing down with rain. That was probably a factor.
-
Be interesting to see if anything comes from this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67185493
-
For me, a great match involves 2 good teams playing their best.
It was certainly a great match and England certainly played way above expectation. But I think the south africans would have been really disappointed at how they adapted to the conditions and to England's tactics in the first half, which is why they'd made seven changes to their starting side by 50 minutes, none of which (I think) were due to injury.
-
It was certainly a great match and England certainly played way above expectation. But I think the south africans would have been really disappointed at how they adapted to the conditions and to England's tactics in the first half, which is why they'd made seven changes to their starting side by 50 minutes, none of which (I think) were due to injury.
When you write it was 'certainly a great match', what are you trying to convey with the use of the word 'certainly'? It reads as if you are trying to gild your subjective opinion as something more objective.
-
Hmmm...
'Bongi Mbonambi named in South Africa team to face New Zealand'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67223507
-
Hmmm...
'Bongi Mbonambi named in South Africa team to face New Zealand'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67223796
What? Are we blaming Keir Starmer for that too?
-
What? Are we blaming Keir Starmer for that too?
Presumably it's not that he's responsible for the selection, but rather that he suggested earlier in the day that Mbonambi wouldn't be selected?
O.
-
What? Are we blaming Keir Starmer for that too?
Thanks. Updated
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67223507
-
England come third.
I have to admit that they exceeded my expectations in this RWC. I thought the best they would do is come second in the group and go out in the QF against Wales or Australia. I wasn't even confident of the coming second part.
-
England come third.
I have to admit that they exceeded my expectations in this RWC. I thought the best they would do is come second in the group and go out in the QF against Wales or Australia. I wasn't even confident of the coming second part.
I think that as with the actual rankings , they are now the 5th best team in the world, and the oddities of the draw got them 3rd.
-
The 2027 World Cup will have 24 teams.
https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/2023/news/885620/rugby-world-cup-2027-expanded-to-24-teams
-
the oddities of the draw got them 3rd.
Totally agree, but even with the weak bottom half of the draw, they did far better than I expected. Their current fifth place is a reflection of how they did in the tournament: going in, they were in eighth below both Fiji and Argentina.
-
The 2027 World Cup will have 24 teams.
https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/2023/news/885620/rugby-world-cup-2027-expanded-to-24-teams
I'm very supportive of the idea. Having the hiatus every week during the pool stages was quite annoying. The only problem will be in finding four more competitive teams.
-
So that's it. To paraphrase Gary Lineker's comment about football, rugby union is now that they play for 80 minutes, someone gets sent off, and South Africa win by 1 point.
-
And Cane's sending off delays his start for my new favourite team Suntory Sungoliath - what a name!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67331907