Rugby Union

[jeremyp]

It's gone completely unnoticed due to Euro 2016 and other non sporting events, but congratulations to the England Rugby Union team on their whitewash of Australia.

[Hope]

It's gone completely unnoticed due to Euro 2016 and other non sporting events, but congratulations to the England Rugby Union team on their whitewash of Australia.

I've been celebrating it for the last couple of days - some good news in the midst of bad from both the political and (England) football POV.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's gone completely unnoticed due to Euro 2016 and other non sporting events, but congratulations to the England Rugby Union team on their whitewash of Australia.

Don't think it has gone unnoticed, but certainly not too much attention. And lets not forget that these matches and the Autumn internationals are really just 'friendlies' and by that I mean they have no real consequence beyond blagging rights and giving some kind of indication as to how teams might do in the only really competitive tournament England ever play in - the Rugby World Cup.

That said, this is really encouraging. I've always felt that to be competitive in the world cup northern hemisphere sides need routinely to be beating the SH sides at home and regularly beating them away. The only time this has happened before was in the run up to England winning the world cup in 2003. Perhaps we are beginning to see this again, although we need to see England against the tougher opposition, most notable New Zealand. Good as well to see that England are focussing on beating SH sides as England, rather than the nonsense of the British Lions. As soon as we accept that the only way to beat one SH side is to put together the set of 4 NH sides, we are doomed.

[john]

Yaal seemed to have failed to notice that;

The England Rugby Under 20 side did win their age group World Championship last Saturday.

The future of English Rugby looks good.

[jeremyp]

Don't think it has gone unnoticed, but certainly not too much attention. And lets not forget that these matches and the Autumn internationals are really just 'friendlies' and by that I mean they have no real consequence beyond blagging rights and giving some kind of indication as to how teams might do in the only really competitive tournament England ever play in - the Rugby World Cup.

Yes they are, but in the past England always managed to lose them. This is a step in the right direction (as long as it can be sustained).

That said, this is really encouraging. I've always felt that to be competitive in the world cup northern hemisphere sides need routinely to be beating the SH sides at home and regularly beating them away. The only time this has happened before was in the run up to England winning the world cup in 2003. Perhaps we are beginning to see this again, although we need to see England against the tougher opposition, most notable New Zealand. Good as well to see that England are focussing on beating SH sides as England, rather than the nonsense of the British Lions. As soon as we accept that the only way to beat one SH side is to put together the set of 4 NH sides, we are doomed.

Before this series, Australia were ranked number two in the World. Don't they count as "tougher opposition"? I think your sentence "we need to see England against the tougher opposition" would be better if you changed "tougher" to "toughest".

I still think are probably some way behind New Zealand though.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes they are

Yes they are what?

Before this series, Australia were ranked number two in the World. Don't they count as "tougher opposition"? I think your sentence "we need to see England against the tougher opposition" would be better if you changed "tougher" to "toughest".

I still think are probably some way behind New Zealand though.

Certainly New Zealand are much tougher and the toughest, but I'd have thought that the number 2 ranking prior to the matches was already rather outdated, and so it proved, with not just England but South Africa overtaking Australia. So I'd probably consider Australia currently to be the weakest of the SH big three.

Also very significant is the different match preparedness. Don't forget that Australia hadn't played a match since last October, so they were very match 'rusty' coming into the series. Also they (not unreasonably) are in the very earliest stage of rebuilding after the world cup and these were there very first games of that new developmental stage, hence the appearance of a bunch of first cap and/or very inexperienced players. So this was the very, very best time to be facing Australia on Australian soil.

So bottom line, excellent results but let's not get too carried away - beating a match rusty experimental Australian side in a few 'friendlies' doesn't mean we could beat a tournament ready Australian side in the world cup.

[jeremyp]

Yes they are what?

Yes they are only friendlies.

Certainly New Zealand are much tougher and the toughest, but I'd have thought that the number 2 ranking prior to the matches was already rather outdated, and so it proved, with not just England but South Africa overtaking Australia. So I'd probably consider Australia currently to be the weakest of the SH big three.

The reasoning seems a little bit circular to me. You are saying "we only beat the weakest of the tri-nations teams". Why are they the weakest? "Because England beat them". The objective evidence, such as it is is

- they were ranked number 2 in the World at the start
- they were finalists in the RWC
- they won the last Rugby Championship

Also very significant is the different match preparedness. Don't forget that Australia hadn't played a match since last October, so they were very match 'rusty' coming into the series. Also they (not unreasonably) are in the very earliest stage of rebuilding after the world cup and these were there very first games of that new developmental stage, hence the appearance of a bunch of first cap and/or very inexperienced players. So this was the very, very best time to be facing Australia on Australian soil.

So bottom line, excellent results but let's not get too carried away - beating a match rusty experimental Australian side in a few 'friendlies' doesn't mean we could beat a tournament ready Australian side in the world cup.

Being prepared is all part of being a good team.

Anyway, I think we are both agreed that this is only a step in the right direction. The ultimate goal is to be number one in the World, win the RWC and to sustain that level of performance (unlike last time). I suspect, against NZ we would give them a game but lose at the moment.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes they are only friendlies.

The reasoning seems a little bit circular to me. You are saying "we only beat the weakest of the tri-nations teams". Why are they the weakest? "Because England beat them". The objective evidence, such as it is is

- they were ranked number 2 in the World at the start
- they were finalists in the RWC
- they won the last Rugby Championship

Number 2 in the world - probably flattering to deceive. Don't forget that in the Rugby world cup, although they made it to the final they failed to beat either NZ (they played and lost comprehensively) or SA who they didn't play.

Rugby championship is a bit of a red herring as it was a curtailed tournament and Australia had the good fortune of playing both NZ and SA on home soil. The 2014 tournament gives a rather truer picture with the normal home and away format - and they came 3rd, winning just 2 of 6 games. In fact I'm struggling to see when the last time Australia managed to beat either NZ or SA except on him soil was.

Being prepared is all part of being a good team.

I agree, and that's why it isn't really particularly enlightening to compare a team that has played 6 matches since the world cup with a pretty stable core side, with one that hadn't played at all and threw three new caps into the first match.

Anyway, I think we are both agreed that this is only a step in the right direction. The ultimate goal is to be number one in the World, win the RWC and to sustain that level of performance (unlike last time). I suspect, against NZ we would give them a game but lose at the moment.

Agree on both counts and I hope that Eddie Jones is smart enough not to get sucked into thinking that winning 6 nations is relevant at all to being competitive in a world cup. Nor to get pulled into the nonsense that is the British lions - I heard someone claim that he'd be pulled in to lead the lions 2017 tour. That would be a terrible decision and completely district from making England competitive.

Lead dewy eyed nostalgia about the Lions to the Welsh and get on with creating a genuinely competitive England side, just as Clive Woodward did in the run up to 2003.

[ProfessorDavey]

In fact I'm struggling to see when the last time Australia managed to beat either NZ or SA except on him soil was.

Not sure I've got this exactly correct, but ...

I think the last time Australia beat either SA or NZ except on home soil was the victory over SA in the 2011 world cup, and even then that was on neutral territory. You have to go back to earlier in 2011 for the last time Australia beat either SA in SA or NZ in NZ.

Doesn't sound quite like Australia are really number 2 of the SH teams really.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not sure I've got this exactly correct, but ...

I think the last time Australia beat either SA or NZ except on home soil was the victory over SA in the 2011 world cup, and even then that was on neutral territory. You have to go back to earlier in 2011 for the last time Australia beat either SA in SA or NZ in NZ.

Doesn't sound quite like Australia are really number 2 of the SH teams really.

Just in the interests of completeness ...

As far as I can see the last time Australia beat NZ on NZ soil was ...

11th August 2001 in Dunedin.

That's 15 years ago, that's incredible.

[jeremyp]

Here's a tip for aspiring rugby internationals: if you find yourself being tackled in the air, make sure you land on your head, otherwise the tackler might not get sent off.

[Hope]

I agree, and that's why it isn't really particularly enlightening to compare a team that has played 6 matches since the world cup with a pretty stable core side, with one that hadn't played at all and threw three new caps into the first match.
Agree on both counts and I hope that Eddie Jones is smart enough not to get sucked into thinking that winning 6 nations is relevant at all to being competitive in a world cup.

Except of course, that victory in the last 6 Nations' competition (and next year's?) along with in these Autumn Internationals) impacts on one's position in the world rankings which can put you in a more or less killer qualifying group. 

Nor to get pulled into the nonsense that is the British lions - I heard someone claim that he'd be pulled in to lead the lions 2017 tour.

Whoever suggested that clearly hadn't heard that Warren Gatland had been chosen to do this back last spring.

Lead dewy eyed nostalgia about the Lions to the Welsh and get on with creating a genuinely competitive England side, just as Clive Woodward did in the run up to 2003.

And, of course, by being selected for the Lions, a competitive English player gets to learn from other great British players, to experience high-quality competition (remember that the relevant host nation is in the middle of its own season, rather than at the fag-end of it as is the case with our Autumn International opponents.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except of course, that victory in the last 6 Nations' competition (and next year's?) along with in these Autumn Internationals) impacts on one's position in the world rankings which can put you in a more or less killer qualifying group.

I guess it depends on when the RWC organisers set the date for the draw - don't forget that in the run up to the last world cup, held in 2015, they used rankings on 1st Dec 2012!!!! Completely bonkers. I'm not sure if they have realised how stupid that was, but the equivalent would be deciding on the draw for 2019 based on rankings this Thursday - I mean wtf.

Of course being repeatedly successful will help with a favourable draw (and should be based on rankings in 2018/19, not now), but to win the tournament you need to beat the best, not in the group stage but in the knock-out stages.

Prior to England's victory in 2003 (and the only time a northern hemisphere side has won the RWC) England regularly beat SH opposition on their home soil and routinely beat them in the NH. That has to be Eddie Jones' goal over the next few years.

And, of course, by being selected for the Lions, a competitive English player gets to learn from other great British players, to experience high-quality competition (remember that the relevant host nation is in the middle of its own season, rather than at the fag-end of it as is the case with our Autumn International opponents.

If they only way you feel you can beat a SH side in full flow is by putting together 4 NH sides then you might as well go home due to a paucity of ambition. Do you think that the SH sides really give a damn about winning a Lions series - of course not, they simply see it as useful preparation for the world cup on the basis that (unlike the NH sides) they have a good chance of winning it.

And frankly it is little use in preparation for the only proper tournament in town (the RWC) for and English scrum half to pay alongside a Welsh fly half, because that isn't going to happen in the real thing because they will be on different teams. And besides most top players get to play with and against internationally leading players in club rugby now.

[ProfessorDavey]

I guess it depends on when the RWC organisers set the date for the draw - don't forget that in the run up to the last world cup, held in 2015, they used rankings on 1st Dec 2012!!!! Completely bonkers. I'm not sure if they have realised how stupid that was, but the equivalent would be deciding on the draw for 2019 based on rankings this Thursday - I mean wtf.

I have just read that they are going to make the draw for the 2019 RWC - which starts on the 20th Sept 2019 in ... May 2017 - I mean have these people learnt nothing - are they totally incompetent.

How is it possible that they need 2 years and 4 months notice - how can that be justified. The football world cup of 2014 made the draw just 6 months (give or take a few days) before the opening game. And that's far more complex with more teams etc.

So we face a possible repeat of the farce of group A in the 2015 tournament which contained the 2nd, 3rd and 4th ranked teams in the world at the time of the tournament.

I despair.

[jeremyp]

I guess it depends on when the RWC organisers set the date for the draw - don't forget that in the run up to the last world cup, held in 2015, they used rankings on 1st Dec 2012!!!! Completely bonkers. I'm not sure if they have realised how stupid that was, but the equivalent would be deciding on the draw for 2019 based on rankings this Thursday - I mean wtf.

WTF indeed but, by losing to England, Argentina got demoted into the third rank for the next World Cup, so it is happening around about now.

If they only way you feel you can beat a SH side in full flow is by putting together 4 NH sides then you might as well go home due to a paucity of ambition. Do you think that the SH sides really give a damn about winning a Lions series - of course not, they simply see it as useful preparation for the world cup on the basis that (unlike the NH sides) they have a good chance of winning it.

And frankly it is little use in preparation for the only proper tournament in town (the RWC) for and English scrum half to pay alongside a Welsh fly half, because that isn't going to happen in the real thing because they will be on different teams. And besides most top players get to play with and against internationally leading players in club rugby now.

Totally agree.

[Hope]

I have just read that they are going to make the draw for the 2019 RWC - which starts on the 20th Sept 2019 in ... May 2017 - I mean have these people learnt nothing - are they totally incompetent.

How is it possible that they need 2 years and 4 months notice - how can that be justified. The football world cup of 2014 made the draw just 6 months (give or take a few days) before the opening game. And that's far more complex with more teams etc.

You are wrong on both counts, PD.  The football world cup draw was made in something like mid-2012 in order to be able to create the qualifying groups that were played between September 2012 and the end of 2013.  The RWC has a similar process of qualification for all teams below, iirc, the top 8 - hence the importance of the results of this set of Autumn internationals.

So we face a possible repeat of the farce of group A in the 2015 tournament which contained the 2nd, 3rd and 4th ranked teams in the world at the time of the tournament.

I despair.

I would however, agree that the drawing of the 'finals' groups so early, even if some of the places will be referred to as 'Winner of qualifying group ...' is ridiculous.

[Nearly Sane]

Err Prof D is right about groups in the World Cup itself not the qualification and seeding.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are wrong on both counts, PD.  The football world cup draw was made in something like mid-2012 in order to be able to create the qualifying groups that were played between September 2012 and the end of 2013.

Sorry you are completely wrong. The 2014 World Cup's opening fixture was on 12 June 2014, the draw for the group stages took place on 6th Dec 2013.

It is always this way with the draw for the teams in each group being made about six months before the tournament, and after the whole set of qualifying tournaments are complete.

So for this year's Euros (first match on 10th June) the draw took place on 12th Dec 2015 - less than six months ahead of time.

And the reason is obvious - it allows seeding of top teams based on current form, not form from years ago. Those ranked highest in the world six months before the tournament get seeded, not those ranked highest 2-3 years before the tournament as is the case for rugby.
[/quote]

[Hope]

Sorry you are completely wrong. The 2014 World Cup's opening fixture was on 12 June 2014, the draw for the group stages took place on 6th Dec 2013.

OK, PD, if that is true, when did the qualifiers take place?  Between 6th Dec 2013 and 12th June 2014?

The football/cricket/rugby union World Cups effectively have up to a 2-year cycle - which includes the qualifiers.  The tournament that kicked off on 12th June 2014 was the 2014 World Cup Finals tournament, and the Final of that Finals competition took place on the 13th July 2014.

And the reason is obvious - it allows seeding of top teams based on current form, not form from years ago. Those ranked highest in the world six months before the tournament get seeded, not those ranked highest 2-3 years before the tournament as is the case for rugby.

As I said, I agree with the daftness of the seeding for the Rugby World Cup Finals being set 2 or 3 years early, but was pointing out part of why the May 2017 date is so important to all the nations. 

I also believe that the fact that traditionally the top 8 rugby nations (as of the equivalent date in previous years) have automatically qualified, meaning that they don't have to play qualifying matches (the equivalent occurs in cricket) also skews the situation. [In Football, only the host(s) don't have to qualify].  Remember that although there are 120 nations that are affiliated to 'World Rugby' (previously called the International Rugby Board), only 103 are members - the rest are affliate nations.  Of the 103 member nations, only 23 make up the top two tiers.  There is nothing like this in football - so comparing the two is somewhat pointless.

[ProfessorDavey]

OK, PD, if that is true, when did the qualifiers take place?  Between 6th Dec 2013 and 12th June 2014?

The qualifiers are irrelevant - that is the mechanism that decided the teams to compete in the finals - what we are talking about is how those teams that have qualified for the final are allocated to the group stages of the final tournament. That in football takes place six months before the tournament starts and is based on the official rankings at that point.

The football/cricket/rugby union World Cups effectively have up to a 2-year cycle - which includes the qualifiers.  The tournament that kicked off on 12th June 2014 was the 2014 World Cup Finals tournament, and the Final of that Finals competition took place on the 13th July 2014.
As I said, I agree with the daftness of the seeding for the Rugby World Cup Finals being set 2 or 3 years early, but was pointing out part of why the May 2017 date is so important to all the nations. 

I also believe that the fact that traditionally the top 8 rugby nations (as of the equivalent date in previous years) have automatically qualified, meaning that they don't have to play qualifying matches (the equivalent occurs in cricket) also skews the situation. [In Football, only the host(s) don't have to qualify].  Remember that although there are 120 nations that are affiliated to 'World Rugby' (previously called the International Rugby Board), only 103 are members - the rest are affliate nations.  Of the 103 member nations, only 23 make up the top two tiers.  There is nothing like this in football - so comparing the two is somewhat pointless.

Again you are confusing selecting the groups for the qualifying tournament and allocating teams that have qualified for the finals into the groups for the group stage of the final tournament.

And it gets even more bizarre in rugby - so apparently the draw for the group stages of the 2019 tournament will be made in spring of 2017, based on rankings some 2.5 years ahead of the tournament. Yet some of the qualifying fixtures won't actually be completed until summer of 2018 - so they will be allocating teams into groups without actually knowing who those teams are.

It is totally non-sense and completely unnecessary.

[ProfessorDavey]

To focus a little more on the non-sense of the timing of allocation of teams into the group stages for the 2019 RWC (and the even more ridiculous timing for the 2015 RWC), you need to look at where teams are in their developmental cycle.

There is a four year cycle leading up to the only proper global tournament in rugby - the RWC and all teams who want to win that tournament go through a four year developmental cycle with the objective of being at the peak of form and development at exactly the point when the RWC takes place.

So we are currently 1 year on from the last tournament so not surprisingly most teams are at an early stage in that cycle - teams are in transition, dropping players who are unlikely to be competitive in 2019, perhaps because they are too old, trying new blood and new tactics to see what is working. Some teams (e.g. England) seem currently to be being pretty successful, while others (look at the selection of SA last weekend) starting with a whole raft of inexperienced players.

Now that isn't really a problem for SA, or at least shouldn't be if the tournament bosses were competent - as it matters not a jot whether SA get spanked in a friendly in Cardiff in November 2016, if they build toward having a formidable team come 2019, which I imagine will be the case, as will be the case for the other SH sides.

But we run the risk that if SA drop a touch down the rankings now, as they are in full on development mode, that they might end up in 2019 as a top ranked side, but end up n a group with other top ranked sides, as happened in 2015. It is non-sense, it was non-sense in the run up to 2015 and the organisers were massively criticised for it - yet they are doing the same thing again.

[jeremyp]

OK, PD, if that is true, when did the qualifiers take place?  Between 6th Dec 2013 and 12th June 2014?

It's pretty obvious - to me at least - that we are talking about the draw for the group stage of the World Cup Finals, not the qualifying tournaments. You can't have the draw for the group stage of the finals before the qualifiers because you won't know who is going to be in the finals at that point.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's pretty obvious - to me at least - that we are talking about the draw for the group stage of the World Cup Finals, not the qualifying tournaments. You can't have the draw for the group stage of the finals before the qualifiers because you won't know who is going to be in the finals at that point.

But that is actually what the RWC do - they make the draw for the final tournament group stage well before the final qualifying tournament matches are complete - so they have actual teams allocated and 'winners ocean group' etc, without actually knowing who that team is.

And this leads to another issue in the organisation of the RWC - that they don't treat the big teams and the little teams equally. In my mind once you've got to the world cup and the draw is made all else should be equal, as it is in football. But in rugby the big teams have 2.5-3 years to make their plans for their base in the host country (as they haven't had to qualify and know what group they are in) while the small teams are still in qualifying.

But also there is the non-sense of the fixtures. Look at the fixture list for the last few world cups - the big teams are given minimum 6-7 days between fixtures (cos rugby players apparently aren't able to play more often), yet some of the small teams ended up with just a couple of days recovery between games.

[ProfessorDavey]

I see that the six nations is moving to a bonus point system.

While I'm not a great fan of these kinds of complicated systems, with points for losing, points for losing closely etc given that this is the system used in the RWC it is essential that the 6 nations catches up. The 6 nations is a tournament that should be supporting teams to make the best possible preparation for the RWC, which is (let's face it) the only serious tournament open to NH sides, so this is a small step in the right direction.

[jeremyp]

But that is actually what the RWC do - they make the draw for the final tournament group stage well before the final qualifying tournament matches are complete - so they have actual teams allocated and 'winners ocean group' etc, without actually knowing who that team is.

I stand corrected: you can hold the draw before you know which teams are in it but it's a stupid idea.