Rugby World Cup 015

[Hope]

What an upset at Brighton!!  South Africa 32 : 34 Japan

[jeremyp]

I don't think England were looking too special for more than half the match too.


On a different topic, should the thread be pinned for the duration of the RWC?

[Rhiannon]

As you wish.

Anyone seen Jack Whitehall's Samsung ads? V funny.

[Hope]

I don't think England were looking too special for more than half the match too.

Only special for about 15 minutes in my view - and not in a row.  But the first match of any World Cup - be it rugby/soccer/hockey/... - tends to be a bit scrappy.

They'll just have to get their heads on straight for the next 2 matches!!

[jeremyp]

They'll just have to get their heads on straight for the next 2 matches!!

Well that worked well... oh wait!

I knew England were doomed when they failed to beat Wales who were playing with nine first choice picks out injured.

Now there's nothing left to do  except hope that Wales get humiliated in one of their next matches and marvel at the All blacks.

[Anchorman]

I get cheesed off with the vitriol amed at the England team - and Lancaster.
I fully expect to see most of the present England squad in four years time in Japan, because Lancaster had a very young squad to work with.
As for Lancaster himself, I don't really see the need for him to go - though I suspect the media has other ideas.
Of the home nations, Wales has the best chance of getting furthest into the competition, but, yes, a southern Hemisphere team will lift the trophy - either the All blacks or the 'Boks.

[jeremyp]

I get cheesed off with the vitriol amed at the England team - and Lancaster.

Because England's media Expects. Thy forget that England was a group with two top teams and in sport, nobody has a right to win. It cheeses me off too.

As for Lancaster himself, I don't really see the need for him to go - though I suspect the media has other ideas.

Nothing like a public lynching to sell papers.

Of the home nations, Wales has the best chance of getting furthest into the competition, but, yes, a southern Hemisphere team will lift the trophy - either the All blacks or the 'Boks.

Wales has no chance. As I said before, nine of their first choice players are out injured. The first tri-nations team they come across will roll them over (excepting Australia in the last group match who may choose to field weakened side).

[Anchorman]

I didn't say Wales would WIN, JeremyP - just that, of the remaining home nations, they have the best chance of getting furthest - even with their depleted squad.
Yes, I know Ireland has a strong(ish) squad, but I still think Wales could trump them there.
I hope I'm wrong, and, come the end of the month, Wales will win.
I doubt it, though.

[jeremyp]

I didn't say Wales would WIN, JeremyP - just that, of the remaining home nations, they have the best chance of getting furthest - even with their depleted squad.

I didn't say you said Wales would win. I said they will get rolled over at the first opportunity.

Yes, I know Ireland has a strong(ish) squad, but I still think Wales could trump them there.

I think with Wales' injury problems, Ireland would beat them.

I hope I'm wrong, and, come the end of the month, Wales will win.
I doubt it, though.

I have transferred my allegiance to the All Blacks.

[Anchorman]

Heck, I've been an All Blacks supporter since the '70's!

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't say Wales would WIN, JeremyP - just that, of the remaining home nations, they have the best chance of getting furthest - even with their depleted squad.
Yes, I know Ireland has a strong(ish) squad, but I still think Wales could trump them there.
I hope I'm wrong, and, come the end of the month, Wales will win.
I doubt it, though.

From what I can see this is turning into another tournament dominated by the big three southern hemisphere sides. Frankly I can't  see beyond one of them as the winners.

For Wales to win the tournament, or even make the semi-final they are going to have to beat one of the big three and that's something they have never done in a world cup in the competition proper (i.e. not a pointless third place play-off) before as far as I am aware.

Actually the side with the best chance form the northern hemisphere is who-ever comes top in the group with Ireland and France.

[jeremyp]

From what I can see this is turning into another tournament dominated by the big three southern hemisphere sides. Frankly I can't  see beyond one of them as the winners.

Are you surprised? For as long as I can remember, the Tri-nations team have always dominated the World Cup. England is still the only Northern hemisphere side to win and I don't think any of the remaining NH teams are looking close this year. I did think England had a chance on home turf, but they couldn't beat a second string Welsh side at Twickenham, so in reality, they were way off the pace.

[ProfessorDavey]

From what I can see this is turning into another tournament dominated by the big three southern hemisphere sides. Frankly I can't  see beyond one of them as the winners.

Are you surprised? For as long as I can remember, the Tri-nations team have always dominated the World Cup. England is still the only Northern hemisphere side to win and I don't think any of the remaining NH teams are looking close this year. I did think England had a chance on home turf, but they couldn't beat a second string Welsh side at Twickenham, so in reality, they were way off the pace.

No - I'm not surprised at all, and in the whole history of the competition only England (actually won it) and France have made anything like a decent fist at competing with the SH big three. I don't believe Ireland, Scotland or Wales have even knocked out Australia, New Zealand or SA.

I think back in 2003 there was a glimmer that rugby might become competitive with the tournament being more than an opportunity for the SH big three to share the trophy about between them. But things seem to have gone backwards.

I think the NH sides really need to assess their tournaments and how they prepare for the world cup. There seems to be too much reliance (frankly sentimental affection) for the 6 nations, which is (lets face it) a second division tournament with a tired format that doesn't really seem to help prepare teams for the world cup.

And the nonsense that is the British lions should be consigned to the dustbin of history. If you are effectively accepting that you need to put together the best players from four national teams to have any chance of beating the big three SH sides, then you have badly lost the plot.

[jeremyp]

I think the NH sides really need to assess their tournaments and how they prepare for the world cup. There seems to be too much reliance (frankly sentimental affection) for the 6 nations, which is (lets face it) a second division tournament with a tired format that doesn't really seem to help prepare teams for the world cup.

Why do you think the format is tired? What would you replace it with? Bear in mind it is a big source of income for the six NH unions in it, so you'll need something equally as lucrative.

And the nonsense that is the British lions should be consigned to the dustbin of history. If you are effectively accepting that you need to put together the best players from four national teams to have any chance of beating the big three SH sides, then you have badly lost the plot.

I agree with that. Since our national teams frequently go on foreign tours now, I think it has had its day.

[jeremyp]

If Ireland don't beat Argentina now, there will be no NH sides in the semifinals (I'm assuming Scotland- Australia is a done deal).

[jeremyp]

Ireland well beaten in the end. It wasn't even close.

[Rhiannon]

I think the NH sides really need to assess their tournaments and how they prepare for the world cup. There seems to be too much reliance (frankly sentimental affection) for the 6 nations, which is (lets face it) a second division tournament with a tired format that doesn't really seem to help prepare teams for the world cup.

Why do you think the format is tired? What would you replace it with? Bear in mind it is a big source of income for the six NH unions in it, so you'll need something equally as lucrative.

And the nonsense that is the British lions should be consigned to the dustbin of history. If you are effectively accepting that you need to put together the best players from four national teams to have any chance of beating the big three SH sides, then you have badly lost the plot.

I agree with that. Since our national teams frequently go on foreign tours now, I think it has had its day.

6 Nations Rugby is the only rugby we watch. We haven't even watched any WC. I think it essential for getting people interested, especially the young. Not that I'm overly fussed about rugby, but if it's going to succeed here the 6 Nations is important, unless something better comes along.

[Hope]

I think the NH sides really need to assess their tournaments and how they prepare for the world cup. There seems to be too much reliance (frankly sentimental affection) for the 6 nations, which is (lets face it) a second division tournament with a tired format that doesn't really seem to help prepare teams for the world cup.

And the nonsense that is the British lions should be consigned to the dustbin of history. If you are effectively accepting that you need to put together the best players from four national teams to have any chance of beating the big three SH sides, then you have badly lost the plot.

I think that there may be a rather deeper issue, PD.  For years, the International Rugby Board, now World Rugby, was dominated by Europeans.  In the 90s, that domination moved to the Southern Hemisphere, and it only fairly recently that there has been a more level board make-up.  Of the exec. committee, 4 are from the Southern Hemisphere (2 from Australia, and 1 each from NZ and Africa), 3 from Europe, including the chairman, 1 from Japan and 1 from the North American and Caribbean Rugby Organisation.  During the original domination, everyting was very much skewed towards the European type of game, but with the more recent domination of the Southern Hemisphere, the more physical almost brutal style of the All Blacks and Austraklians have become more important.  With the arrival of the Japanese, Argentinians and North Americans where there seems to be a greater emphasis on finesse, things may change again. 

Not sure what you would replace the 6 Nations tournament with.  Are you suggesting that it should be cut so as to create a mirror image of the Southern Hemisphere's Rugby Championship?

I think that there is still a place for the Lions concept with, perhaps, more involvement, as the Baa-Baas perhaps, when entertaining a S.Hemisphere team i the UK.  Should it include the French, perhaps?

[jeremyp]

I think that there may be a rather deeper issue, PD.  For years, the International Rugby Board, now World Rugby, was dominated by Europeans.  In the 90s, that domination moved to the Southern Hemisphere, and it only fairly recently that there has been a more level board make-up.  Of the exec. committee, 4 are from the Southern Hemisphere (2 from Australia, and 1 each from NZ and Africa), 3 from Europe, including the chairman, 1 from Japan and 1 from the North American and Caribbean Rugby Organisation.  During the original domination, everyting was very much skewed towards the European type of game, but with the more recent domination of the Southern Hemisphere, the more physical almost brutal style of the All Blacks and Austraklians have become more important.  With the arrival of the Japanese, Argentinians and North Americans where there seems to be a greater emphasis on finesse, things may change again.

I'm sorry, I don't see how this explains the domination of the Big Three Southern teams in the RWC. They have always dominated. There was no period before the 90's when NH sides were on level terms. Furthermore, my memory is that it was the NH teams that tended to use the brutal forwards fight (especially England) and the Southern teams that used expansive running with style and finesse.

[Nearly Sane]

"It might have been nice"

[Hope]

I'm sorry, I don't see how this explains the domination of the Big Three Southern teams in the RWC. They have always dominated. There was no period before the 90's when NH sides were on level terms. Furthermore, my memory is that it was the NH teams that tended to use the brutal forwards fight (especially England) and the Southern teams that used expansive running with style and finesse.

The South Africans weren't at the first 2 rugby world cups and made their debut at their own tournament in 1995.  They lost in the semis in 1999, and in the quarters in 2003 and 2011, winning their second World Cup in 2007.  As such, it has generally been England and Wales who have gone through to semis, Along with NZ and Australia.  This is the first time a Northern Hemisphere team hasn't appeared in the semis.

When I was young, Wales used to play an expansive game based on the scrummaging ability of their collier forwards, whilst England also had a group of excellent backs but with a far greater emphasis on scrummaging.

[jeremyp]

I'm sorry, I don't see how this explains the domination of the Big Three Southern teams in the RWC. They have always dominated. There was no period before the 90's when NH sides were on level terms. Furthermore, my memory is that it was the NH teams that tended to use the brutal forwards fight (especially England) and the Southern teams that used expansive running with style and finesse.

The South Africans weren't at the first 2 rugby world cups and made their debut at their own tournament in 1995.

What is your point here? You are surely not claiming the NH was better because one of the SH teams was banned due to Apartheid?

When I was young, Wales used to play an expansive game based on the scrummaging ability of their collier forwards, whilst England also had a group of excellent backs but with a far greater emphasis on scrummaging.

I'm assuming that was back in the 70's . My memories of rugby really start just before 1980 when Wales had started a decline that really continued until the Gatland era. It didn't really matter then what kind of rugby they played.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm sorry, I don't see how this explains the domination of the Big Three Southern teams in the RWC. They have always dominated. There was no period before the 90's when NH sides were on level terms. Furthermore, my memory is that it was the NH teams that tended to use the brutal forwards fight (especially England) and the Southern teams that used expansive running with style and finesse.

The South Africans weren't at the first 2 rugby world cups and made their debut at their own tournament in 1995.  They lost in the semis in 1999, and in the quarters in 2003 and 2011, winning their second World Cup in 2007.  As such, it has generally been England and Wales who have gone through to semis, Along with NZ and Australia.  This is the first time a Northern Hemisphere team hasn't appeared in the semis.

When I was young, Wales used to play an expansive game based on the scrummaging ability of their collier forwards, whilst England also had a group of excellent backs but with a far greater emphasis on scrummaging.

With the exception of England in 2003 the SH teams have totally dominated the world cup and for good reason - they are better. I don't think this has anything to do with the political shift of power you talk of because SH teams won every world cup from its inception in 1987 until 2003.

Rather that getting closer to the SH teams those from the north seem to be going backward. Surely NH international rugby has to take a long hard look at how it organises itself given that it has failed to produce a single semi-finalist.

On what should be done - not entirely sure, but there needs to be more genuinely competitive tournament rugby where NH teams can play against SH. A world cup once in 4 years and the autumn internationals and summer tours which really don't mean anything aren't enough.

So perhaps rather than the same old tired 6 nations format every year we should develop a new slimmed down global tournament every two years. Eight teams - top four from previous years 6 nations qualify, top 3 from SH championship. Final place is a play-off between 4th in SH and 5th in 6 nations. Proper tournament rules - two groups of 4, top two go through to knock out. Seeding into groups based on 6 nation and SH championship placing.

Not only would that make the 6 nations actually mean something, it would also give the NH sides far more opportunity to play genuinely competitive rugby against SH teams.

Just a thought.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the NH sides really need to assess their tournaments and how they prepare for the world cup. There seems to be too much reliance (frankly sentimental affection) for the 6 nations, which is (lets face it) a second division tournament with a tired format that doesn't really seem to help prepare teams for the world cup.

Why do you think the format is tired? What would you replace it with? Bear in mind it is a big source of income for the six NH unions in it, so you'll need something equally as lucrative.

And the nonsense that is the British lions should be consigned to the dustbin of history. If you are effectively accepting that you need to put together the best players from four national teams to have any chance of beating the big three SH sides, then you have badly lost the plot.

I agree with that. Since our national teams frequently go on foreign tours now, I think it has had its day.

6 Nations Rugby is the only rugby we watch. We haven't even watched any WC. I think it essential for getting people interested, especially the young. Not that I'm overly fussed about rugby, but if it's going to succeed here the 6 Nations is important, unless something better comes along.

Surely now that we have the world cup, a genuinely global event which involves the very best teams (the 6 nations fails on both those counts) then the most important thing that the 6 nations should do is help teams hone their skills to be really competitive in the top drawer world cup tournament. But it is demonstrably failing to do that. By contrast the SH championship is admirably succeeding in that way. If you win the SH championship you've got a darned good chance of winning the world cup (and if not you'll lose out to another SH team). If you win the 6 nations, well best you might hope for is a world cup semi final (or even final if the draw works for you and you don't have to play a top SH team in the knock-outs). Or in the current case - out in the quarters.

[jeremyp]

Rather that getting closer to the SH teams those from the north seem to be going backward.

Not sure about that. Having reviewed the results from previous RWC's, it seems clear to me that the main problem is that the two major NH forces in previous years didn't show up. England and France are going backwards but, on the other hand, Wales put in a good showing with a second string team and Scotland nearly made the semis but for a 78th minute penalty kick.

So perhaps rather than the same old tired 6 nations format every year

You still haven't said why it is tired.

we should develop a new slimmed down global tournament every two years. Eight teams - top four from previous years 6 nations qualify, top 3 from SH championship. Final place is a play-off between 4th in SH and 5th in 6 nations. Proper tournament rules - two groups of 4, top two go through to knock out. Seeding into groups based on 6 nation and SH championship placing.

You still have the problem of income. The Six Nations is a massive money spinner.

I certainly think more competitive rugby between NH and SH sides is needed. I also think we need to figure out a way for this to happen at a club level.