Men's Rugby Union World Cup 2023

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Farrell's ban reinstated - oh the hokey-cokey.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66581854

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

South Africa thrash the All Blacks

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66622196

[Nearly Sane]

Fiji beat England for first time

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66629208

[jeremyp]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

Huge performance from Samoa


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66619638

[Nearly Sane]

Easy win for France over Australia.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66630985

[Nearly Sane]

After tge warm up matches, Scotland ranked 5, have the No 1 and 2 ranked teams in their group.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Good preview


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/sep/03/france-rugby-world-cup-antoine-dupont-england-south-africa-new-zealand

[Nearly Sane]

And one for tonight's opening game.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66746406

[Nearly Sane]

Good marker from the French, setting themselves up as very likely group winners.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66758479

[jeremyp]

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.