Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Sports, Hobbies & Interests => Topic started by: jeremyp on August 11, 2019, 08:10:08 PM
-
As if there wasn't enough sporting excitement this year, the RWC is about to kick off.
We've had the first warm up games. As any Welshman or New Zealander will tell you, they don't mean much, but apparently Wales trained too hard, so they were a bit puffed out.
-
Oh dear.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49322030
-
Can see Scotland getting knocked out in the group stage.
-
Can see Scotland getting knocked out in the group stage.
I don't think so - their group is pretty weak so I think they will be OK at the group stage.
-
As if there wasn't enough sporting excitement this year, the RWC is about to kick off.
We've had the first warm up games. As any Welshman or New Zealander will tell you, they don't mean much, but apparently Wales trained too hard, so they were a bit puffed out.
Hope this will be a great tournament although the format remains rather strange, with pools of 5 teams!
I wonder if it will be more competitive than in previous tournament, in relation to NH vs SH. Current rankings suggest the SH sides are ranked 1, 5 and 6, although my gut feeling is that they will rise to the top as they always seem to do. However could we see the first defeat of one of the big 4 SH sides (including Argentina) in the knock out stages of the world cup by a NH side for 16 years.
-
I don't think so - their group is pretty weak so I think they will be OK at the group stage.
Likely loss to Ireland. And quite possible loss against the hosts in what looks like being a qualifier for the quarters in the last of all the group matches. Scotland not known as the best travellers.
-
Likely loss to Ireland. And quite possible loss against the hosts in what looks like being a qualifier for the quarters in the last of all the group matches. Scotland not known as the best travellers.
Plausible, but not likely in my view - I think Scotland will be strong enough to beat Japan. And don't forget that Scotland vs Ireland is the opening game for both sides so anything could happen.
-
Plausible, but not likely in my view - I think Scotland will be strong enough to beat Japan. And don't forget that Scotland vs Ireland is the opening game for both sides so anything could happen.
I think the odds are about 80/20 for an Irish win, and about 60/40 for a Scottish win against Japan. I haven't said that it is likely that they will go out just that it seems eminently possible.
-
I think the odds are about 80/20 for an Irish win, and about 60/40 for a Scottish win against Japan. I haven't said that it is likely that they will go out just that it seems eminently possible.
The odds concur entirely with my opinion that it is 'plausible, but not likely' that Japan will beat Scotland. And with odds of 60/40 then the betting market also agrees with my view that Scotland will be strong enough to beat Japan.
-
The odds concur entirely with my opinion that it is 'plausible, but not likely' that Japan will beat Scotland. And with odds of 60/40 then the betting market also agrees with my view that Scotland will be strong enough to beat Japan.
You seem to be arguing about something not said.
-
You seem to be arguing about something not said.
Quite the contrary - your posts imply that you disagree with me and that the betting odds are on your side. They aren't - they concur with my view that Scotland losing to Japan (and going out at the group stage) is plausible but not likely. You seem much more negative about their chances with your opening opinion that you '[c]an see Scotland getting knocked out in the group stage'. While it is plausible neither I nor the betting markets think it likely.
-
Quite the contrary - your posts imply that you disagree with me and that the betting odds are on your side. They aren't - they concur with my view that Scotland losing to Japan (and going out at the group stage) is plausible but not likely. You seem much more negative about their chances with your opening opinion that you '[c]an see Scotland getting knocked out in the group stage'. While it is plausible neither I nor the betting markets think it likely.
No, you are misreading my posts - I'm the one who said 60/40 in favour of Scotland and I haven't said anything about it being likely that they will. My opening comment is about it being a perfectly plausible scenario, and one that isn't very low odds. And any original miscomprehension you had should have been addressed by my other posts but you seem to have misread something, got it fixed in your head, and been unable to adjust with further information. We all do it.
-
No, you are misreading my posts - I'm the one who said 60/40 in favour of Scotland and I haven't said anything about it being likely that they will. My opening comment is about it being a perfectly plausible scenario, and one that isn't very low odds. And any original miscomprehension you had should have been addressed by my other posts but you seem to have misread something, got it fixed in your head, and been unable to adjust with further information. We all do it.
Whatever - I guess you have the classic negative worry of a fan of a side rather than the more dispassionate objectively of the neutral.
That said I think it would be good for the tournament if Japan progressed, not least because this is the first time the world cup has been held outside the normal major rugby playing countries. Also it is incredibly rare for a team outside of the 'big 9' rugby playing elite to progress to the knock-out stages (I think it has only happened 3 times from memory) and for rugby to progress as a sport we need to shake up the rather boring dominance, first of the big 9 and then of the big 3 SH sides.
-
Whatever - I guess you have the classic negative worry of a fan of a side rather than the more dispassionate objectively of the neutral.
That said I think it would be good for the tournament if Japan progressed, not least because this is the first time the world cup has been held outside the normal major rugby playing countries. Also it is incredibly rare for a team outside of the 'big 9' rugby playing elite to progress to the knock-out stages (I think it has only happened 3 times from memory) and for rugby to progress as a sport we need to shake up the rather boring dominance, first of the big 9 and then of the big 3 SH sides.
No, it's just that you misread my comment, and then having become invested in that couldn't adjust, and now have decided to continue with your error because you don't want to lose face having had the error pointed out.
I agree that it would be good for Japan to get through, and even if it was at the cost of a quarter final place for Scotland, I would happily cheer them on.
-
I agree that it would be good for Japan to get through, and even if it was at the cost of a quarter final place for Scotland, I would happily cheer them on.
Or at the expense of Ireland
-
No, it's just that you misread my comment, and then having become invested in that couldn't adjust, and now have decided to continue with your error because you don't want to lose face having had the error pointed out.
What error?
'Can see Scotland getting knocked out in the group stage.'
'Likely loss to Ireland. And quite possible loss against the hosts in what looks like being a qualifier for the quarters in the last of all the group matches. Scotland not known as the best travellers.'
Are not comments that can reasonably be interpreted as anything other than you thinking Scotland going out at the group stages is a likely outcome, despite your later denial. I did not misinterpret what you wrote regardless of whether that is what you actually meant.
-
Or at the expense of Ireland
Indeed, and Japan look to me the most likely by a distance of teams outside the top 9 to achieve a quarter final place. Add to that them being hosts and it's also going to create a wave of interest.
-
What error?
'Can see Scotland getting knocked out in the group stage.'
'Likely loss to Ireland. And quite possible loss against the hosts in what looks like being a qualifier for the quarters in the last of all the group matches. Scotland not known as the best travellers.'
Are not comments that can reasonably be interpreted as anything other than you thinking Scotland going out at the group stages is a likely outcome, despite your later denial. I did not misinterpret what you wrote regardless of whether that is what you actually meant.
You can interpret them how you like but I notice that you don't put in anything about my actual calling of the odds here - that's an interesting omission in terms of the information you had to hand. And of course none of what you do quote uses the word likely - that's just your invention.
I do understand how hard it is for you to admit you were wrong about what I thought.
-
You can interpret them how you like but I notice that you don't put in anything about my actual calling of the odds here - that's an interesting omission in terms of the information you had to hand.
Eh - once you quoted the odds (not sure whether they are correct or not) I commented that they were consistent with my view. Not sure why you quoted the odds in a reply to my post implying that your earlier comments were overly negative on Scotland's chances unless you thought somehow that they backed up your view; 'quite possible loss against the hosts in what looks like being a qualifier for the quarters in the last of all the group matches. Scotland not known as the best travellers.' - which they don't - a 60% odds of a Scottish win isn't consistent with a 'quite possible loss'. The betting odds aren't consistent with your earlier comments - maybe you thought they were, but they aren't. Seems you are twisting things to imply you've been consistent all along, while you haven't been.
My only opinion in the matter is that Scotland losing to Japan and going out at the group stage is plausible but not likely. Are you saying I am wrong in that view?
-
Eh - once you quoted the odds (not sure whether they are correct or not) I commented that they were consistent with my view. Not sure why you quoted the odds in a reply to my post implying that your earlier comments were overly negative on Scotland's chances unless you thought somehow that they backed up your view; 'quite possible loss against the hosts in what looks like being a qualifier for the quarters in the last of all the group matches. Scotland not known as the best travellers.' - which they don't - a 60% odds of a Scottish win isn't consistent with a 'quite possible loss'. The betting odds aren't consistent with your earlier comments - maybe you thought they were, but they aren't. Seems you are twisting things to imply you've been consistent all along, while you haven't been.
My only opinion in the matter is that Scotland losing to Japan and going out at the group stage is plausible but not likely. Are you saying I am wrong in that view?
Can you point out where I said it was likely - i.e. the interpretation you decided. I quoted my estimate of the odds to be clear what I thought the odds were but you having misread my original comments as implying something they didn't say, just continued to argue with the strawman you had created. I understand that it's often hard to deal with making an error and that when new information comes along that it's hard to read it clearly. There are indeed lots of studies on the phenomenon. You just happen to be today's example of it on the board.
-
Can you point out where I said it was likely - i.e. the interpretation you decided. I quoted my estimate of the odds to be clear what I thought the odds were but you having misread my original comments as implying something they didn't say, just continued to argue with the strawman you had created. I understand that it's often hard to deal with making an error and that when new information comes along that it's hard to read it clearly. There are indeed lots of studies on the phenomenon. You just happen to be today's example of it on the board.
Can you answer my question please. Namely:
My only opinion in the matter is that Scotland losing to Japan and going out at the group stage is plausible but not likely. Are you saying I am wrong in that view?
-
Can you answer my question please. Namely:
My only opinion in the matter is that Scotland losing to Japan and going out at the group stage is plausible but not likely. Are you saying I am wrong in that view?
My posts have already answered this even to the extent of giving odds' long prior to your question. it's just your inability to admit your error that is leading you to pursue this approach because you are fixated on your misreading. I quite understand that you are struggling to accept your error. As I've said it happens to us all.
-
My posts have already answered this even to the extent of giving odds' long prior to your question. it's just your inability to admit your error that is leading you to pursue this approach because you are fixated on your misreading. I quite understand that you are struggling to accept your error. As I've said it happens to us all.
Can you please answer a direct question with a direct answer - simply yes/no is all that is required.
Do you think I am wrong in suggesting that Scotland losing to Japan and going out at the group stage is plausible but not likely?
-
Can you please answer a direct question with a direct answer - simply yes/no is all that is required.
Do you think I am wrong in suggesting that Scotland losing to Japan and going out at the group stage is plausible but not likely?
It's often difficult when you are struggling to admit a mistake to avoid sounding a bit monomaniacal, you seem to be failing as you continue to ask an already answered question. Have you been drinking enough water today?
-
I think the odds are about 80/20 for an Irish win, and about 60/40 for a Scottish win against Japan.
Out of interest, where did you gets those odds from. I'm struggling to find odds on the match, but where I have it seems nearer to 70:30 in favour of Scotland - e.g.:
https://rugby4cast.com/events/rugby-world-cup/
-
Out of interest, where did you gets those odds from. I'm struggling to find odds on the match, but where I have it seems nearer to 70:30 in favour of Scotland - e.g.:
https://rugby4cast.com/events/rugby-world-cup/
My head - they are what I think, that's why I said' I think' and they are just rough figures.
-
My head - they are what I think, that's why I said' I think' and they are just rough figures.
OK - so you make comments about Scotland's chances that are more negative than the reality. You then make up betting odds that don't exist to back up your view (even though they actually don't). And you are claiming that I'm somehow wrong and made a mistake. Unbelievable.
And of course you continue to refuse to answer a direct question with a direct answer.
-
OK - so you make comments about Scotland's chances that are more negative than the reality. You then make up betting odds that don't exist to back up your view (even though they actually don't). And you are claiming that I'm somehow wrong and made a mistake. Unbelievable.
And of course you continue to refuse to answer a direct question with a direct answer.
I'm giving my opinion of what the odds are. It's my estimate - It's what I think. Odds being offered elsewhere are a factor of the maket, they aren't 'reality' in some mystical sense. You are hopelessly confused.
-
I'm giving my opinion of what the odds are. It's my estimate - It's what I think. Odds being offered elsewhere are a factor of the maket, they aren't 'reality' in some mystical sense. You are hopelessly confused.
No - you are making stuff up. You can't just make up odds on the basis of what you think, and then try to imply that these odds back up what you think. It is non-sense. When you mentioned odds I assumed (as I suspect anyone would) that this was based on a betting market not on stuff you'd made up.
-
I'm giving my opinion of what the odds are. It's my estimate - It's what I think. Odds being offered elsewhere are a factor of the maket, they aren't 'reality' in some mystical sense. You are hopelessly confused.
Back in the real world rather than the NS 'let's make up stuff world'.
While I'm struggling to find odds on the specific Japan/Scotland match there are odds available on stage of elimination:
https://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/rugby-world-cup/rugby-world-cup-2019/stage-of-elimination-scotland
The odds (actual odds, not made-up stuff) on Scotland being eliminated at the group stage are variously 4/1 and 5/1 meaning implied probability that Scotland will not progress from the group stage is 20% or less. Hardly consistent with your comments.
-
Oh dear.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49322030
Back to more interesting matters that NS making up odds.
I hope there aren't too many top players injured for the tournament. I think most major sporting tournaments suffer from injuries (recent example being Jimmy Anderson's injury) and you really want to see the very best players against the very best.
Not sure whether the timing - starting in Sept - helps or hinders. In one respect (certainly for the NH sides) there has been a largely off season period for recovery, although the SH sides will be coming straight out of a truncated Rugby championship tournament. However sometimes I think there is a greater risk of injury early season when players are perhaps not at peak fitness.
That said I think the Autumn timing of the world cup helps the SH teams who will have had a relatively recent and highly competitive Championship against the rest of the best. The NH sides wont have had anything properly competitive for 6 months (and that's if you consider the 6 nations to be a competitive tournament ;))
-
Oh dear.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49322030
Not sure how comprehensive this is:
https://www.rugbyworld.com/tournaments/rugby-world-cup-2019/rugby-world-cup-injuries-96775
But currently doesn't look too bad in terms of current injuries threatening to rule out players from the world cup. You will always get at least one big name ruled out through injury in any sporting tournament. I think Wales are probably worst affected currently with both Anscombe and Faletau definitely out.
-
What error?
'Can see Scotland getting knocked out in the group stage.'
'Likely loss to Ireland. And quite possible loss against the hosts in what looks like being a qualifier for the quarters in the last of all the group matches. Scotland not known as the best travellers.'
Are not comments that can reasonably be interpreted as anything other than you thinking Scotland going out at the group stages is a likely outcome, despite your later denial. I did not misinterpret what you wrote regardless of whether that is what you actually meant.
Actually I concur with NS on this one. His comments imply plausibility rather than better than 50% chance. The “I can see” bit is not inconsistent with that, but does suggest a fan resigned to his team screwing it up.
Anyway, I wish you guys would sometimes just let it go.
-
Actually I concur with NS on this one.
Including him simply making stuff up - in other words making up odds, where they clearly don't exist.
You are of course correct (as I suggested previously) that his overly pessimistic view is probably a negative emotional response, while his rational head tells him something different. But of course when you are a fan it is easy to let your non rational emotional gut reaction take over, regardless of whether it is overly optimistic or (as in NS's case) overly pessimistic.
Back on odds - I think the odds of Scotland going out at the group stage of between 15-20% seems about right to me. Real odds of course - not just made up stuff.
-
Including him simply making stuff up - in other words making up odds, where they clearly don't exist.
Your own link currently has Ireland winning against Scotland 85% and Japan winning against Scotland 33%. Odds move.
Back on odds - I think the odds of Scotland going out at the group stage of between 15-20% seems about right to me. Real odds of course - not just made up stuff.
Well, if we assume that Scotland need to win one of those two games (or not lose), the odds are around 30% as I write.
-
Your own link currently has Ireland winning against Scotland 85% and Japan winning against Scotland 33%. Odds move.
Sorry can you provide the link please - certainly last week I was unable to find betting odds on the specific Japan v Scotland match - one of the links was a nominal 'prediction' not betting odds.
And you are right, odds move, and the odds on Scotland being eliminated at group stage have drifted out since last week, so more likely less than 20% chance according to the odds (typically 5:1 and 9:2 now).
None of which changes the fact that NS's 'odds' weren't actually real odds at all but completely made up.
-
Sorry can you provide the link please
The one in your reply #24
Out of interest, where did you gets those odds from. I'm struggling to find odds on the match, but where I have it seems nearer to 70:30 in favour of Scotland - e.g.:
https://rugby4cast.com/events/rugby-world-cup/
Anyway, I see I have inadvertently reopened a side discussion that had just about died, so let's call it a day on this one.
-
Not sure how comprehensive this is:
https://www.rugbyworld.com/tournaments/rugby-world-cup-2019/rugby-world-cup-injuries-96775
But currently doesn't look too bad in terms of current injuries threatening to rule out players from the world cup. You will always get at least one big name ruled out through injury in any sporting tournament. I think Wales are probably worst affected currently with both Anscombe and Faletau definitely out.
Yes, it's particularly unfortunate that it happened in a World Cup warm up match. The players must be absolutely gutted.
Chris Jones made the point that Wales usually have strong second choice options (e.g. Dan Biggar for Gareth Anscombe) but their third choice options are a bit more limited. If Biggar picks up a knock in the RWC, they don't really have a world class replacement.
-
The one in your reply #24
As I pointed out those aren't betting odds - the reason being that I cannot find any betting odds on that specific match, and nor it would appear could NS although in reply 7 he boldly proclaimed the odds to be 60:40, when no such odds existed and he'd just made them up.
-
Yes, it's particularly unfortunate that it happened in a World Cup warm up match. The players must be absolutely gutted.
Chris Jones made the point that Wales usually have strong second choice options (e.g. Dan Biggar for Gareth Anscombe) but their third choice options are a bit more limited. If Biggar picks up a knock in the RWC, they don't really have a world class replacement.
It is certainly unfortunate, but dealing with injuries before and during a tournament is part of tournaments. Teams will always have injuries but managing those injuries and selecting your tournament players is a key part of management at that level, to provide the best strength in depth. Sometimes that means selecting the odd utility player - maybe not the best in any particular position but able to play well enough in a number of positions to cover for likely injury.
On the warm up match. Sometimes I think players are perhaps most likely to get injured in these kind of matches as I think they hold back a little specifically because it is a warm up match and that can lead to more injuries than if you go full tilt. The very nature that players are scared of getting injured just before a tournament and adjust their play accordingly leads to greater likelihood of injury.
Also not sure playing other top teams at this stage is smart - the final few warm up games for a top side are probably better against lesser sides. You'll meet the big boys in due course, what's the point of testing yourself against them in non competitive warm up matches.
-
As I pointed out those aren't betting odds
Well spotted.
Now why don't you find the post where I ever claimed they were betting odds. Why would I use betting odds when you yourself posted something a bit more scientific?
-
On the warm up match. Sometimes I think players are perhaps most likely to get injured in these kind of matches as I think they hold back a little specifically because it is a warm up match and that can lead to more injuries than if you go full tilt. The very nature that players are scared of getting injured just before a tournament and adjust their play accordingly leads to greater likelihood of injury.
An interesting hypothesis. I wonder if anybody has done any statistical analysis on it.
Also not sure playing other top teams at this stage is smart - the final few warm up games for a top side are probably better against lesser sides. You'll meet the big boys in due course, what's the point of testing yourself against them in non competitive warm up matches.
Well somebody has got to play the top teams, unless you are suggesting that the likes of England and Wales should be playing teams that didn't qualify. I don't think they'd learn much from matches like that.
-
Well spotted.
Now why don't you find the post where I ever claimed they were betting odds. Why would I use betting odds when you yourself posted something a bit more scientific?
You did refer to odds in reply34 as follows:
'Your own link currently has Ireland winning against Scotland 85% and Japan winning against Scotland 33%. Odds move.'
But the predictions in the link referred to isn't about odds at all.
-
You did refer to odds in reply34 as follows:
'Your own link currently has Ireland winning against Scotland 85% and Japan winning against Scotland 33%. Odds move.'
But the predictions in the link referred to isn't about odds at all.
Yes it is, it’s just not about odds derived from bets.
-
Yes it is, it’s just not about odds derived from bets.
In terms of sport I think it is pretty well universally accepted that when people talk about the 'odds', they mean betting odds.
The only other general use of the term odds is in statistics in relation to events of known probability - e.g. spinning a coin.
If an individual predicts the result of a sporting event we wouldn't describe that as 'odds' merely as a prediction.
-
An interesting hypothesis. I wonder if anybody has done any statistical analysis on it.
No idea whether anyone has analysed it, but I suspect that when an elite athlete holds back in some respect they will be altering how their body has been trained to compete and that may cause problems
Well somebody has got to play the top teams, unless you are suggesting that the likes of England and Wales should be playing teams that didn't qualify. I don't think they'd learn much from matches like that.
Warm up games are more about getting players match fit after a lay-off and getting the team familiar with each other and tactics etc. And so you can learn plenty by playing lesser teams (as I think the SH teams are largely doing in their non competitive warm up games). I'm not sure what England (or Wales) will have learned from their two warm up games against each other specifically related to that opponent, given that in each team won a game when at home (and the world cup will be being played on neutral ground).
I suspect have these 'warm-up' games against each other (and other 6 nations teams) is more about revenue and profile raising that genuinely being any more useful in warm up terms than playing a lesser team.
-
No idea whether anyone has analysed it, but I suspect that when an elite athlete holds back in some respect they will be altering how their body has been trained to compete and that may cause problems
I don’t disagree with you, but it is something that can be tested fairly easily to find out if it is true.
Warm up games are more about getting players match fit after a lay-off and getting the team familiar with each other and tactics etc. And so you can learn plenty by playing lesser teams (as I think the SH teams are largely doing in their non competitive warm up games). I'm not sure what England (or Wales) will have learned from their two warm up games against each other specifically related to that opponent, given that in each team won a game when at home (and the world cup will be being played on neutral ground).
I would say that England could field a B team made up of players not in the World Cup squad that would beat any team that has failed to qualify. If the objective was simply match fitness or improving tac tics etc hat would IMO be a better option than playing minows. Of course, there is a benefit to the minows to having matches against England.
I suspect have these 'warm-up' games against each other (and other 6 nations teams) is more about revenue and profile raising that genuinely being any more useful in warm up terms than playing a lesser team.
I suspect you are right.
-
I don’t disagree with you, but it is something that can be tested fairly easily to find out if it is true.
I would say that England could field a B team made up of players not in the World Cup squad that would beat any team that has failed to qualify. If the objective was simply match fitness or improving tac tics etc hat would IMO be a better option than playing minows. Of course, there is a benefit to the minows to having matches against England.
I suspect you are right.
I suppose that the relatively small pool of rugby teams and the big drop off in quality, combined with geography means that there isn't much choice.
-
So the kick off is nearing. I have studied the pools and the routes to the final. Here are my predictions (which are, of course, just my opinions).
New Zealand will win
South Africa will be the second finalist
England will wi their pool and be knocked out by New Zealand in the semifinal
Ireland will win their pool and be knocked out by South Africa in the quarter finals
Scotland will be knocked out by NZ in the quarter finals
I think the winner of Pool D is the hardest to call. The winner (probably Australia) will probably be knocked out by England in the quarter finals. The second placed team(probably Wales) will be knocked out by SA in the semis
The most likely pool to have an upset is C where Argentina could beat either England or France. I think Fiji beating Wales or Australia is also worth a shout and Japan might just beat Scotland with home advantage.
-
So the kick off is nearing. I have studied the pools and the routes to the final. Here are my predictions (which are, of course, just my opinions).
New Zealand will win
South Africa will be the second finalist
England will wi their pool and be knocked out by New Zealand in the semifinal
Ireland will win their pool and be knocked out by South Africa in the quarter finals
Scotland will be knocked out by NZ in the quarter finals
I think the winner of Pool D is the hardest to call. The winner (probably Australia) will probably be knocked out by England in the quarter finals. The second placed team(probably Wales) will be knocked out by SA in the semis
The most likely pool to have an upset is C where Argentina could beat either England or France. I think Fiji beating Wales or Australia is also worth a shout and Japan might just beat Scotland with home advantage.
Despite the current ranking that have variously had NH sides top I think the SH teams tend to rise to the occasion of the world cup.
I think this is fundamentally because they are better sides, but there are two other factors to play to their favour. First they tend to be better prepared and more 'tournament fit' not least because that have recently come through their own competitive tournament, while the NH side have had nothing competitive since March. Secondly I think they travel better - don't forget that in a standard 4 nations rugby championship the SH teams have to travel effectively to the other side of the globe to compete, while the NH sides at most play a couple of hours flight away in Italy.
With this tournament being in Japan all the leading sides will have considerable travel/adjustment and I suspect the SH sides will do this better as they have much greater experience in this respect.
-
Wears me out this world cup rugby I can't sit down to watch it and have scored so many tries for England all without leaving my living room and I don't get any recognition for my hard works.
The ITV commentary is better than the BBC's they haven't got that intensely irritating squeaky voiced Welsh git, I'm not bothered about the Welsh, it's him I've tried the radio 5 live commentary that unfortunately the voice doesn't sync, all I've got left is the mute button or subtitles and turn him off.
How about a kidnap until the games're over? How old is he?
Regards, ippy.
-
Despite the current ranking that have variously had NH sides top I think the SH teams tend to rise to the occasion of the world cup.
I think this is fundamentally because they are better sides, but there are two other factors to play to their favour. First they tend to be better prepared and more 'tournament fit' not least because that have recently come through their own competitive tournament, while the NH side have had nothing competitive since March. Secondly I think they travel better - don't forget that in a standard 4 nations rugby championship the SH teams have to travel effectively to the other side of the globe to compete, while the NH sides at most play a couple of hours flight away in Italy.
With this tournament being in Japan all the leading sides will have considerable travel/adjustment and I suspect the SH sides will do this better as they have much greater experience in this respect.
I agree with your first point, but by the time the knock out stages come around, everybody will have played four competitive matches in Japan. If the NH sides that make it to the QFs aren't match fit and adjusted to the environment by then, they will deserve what they get.
-
I agree with your first point, but by the time the knock out stages come around, everybody will have played four competitive matches in Japan. If the NH sides that make it to the QFs aren't match fit and adjusted to the environment by then, they will deserve what they get.
A number of those group stage games will be against minnows, so although part of a competitive tournament, not very competitive as matches.
The SH sides have just come out of a competitive tournament that took place from late July to mid August, involving the best teams in the world and involving significant travel and adjustment to traveling across the world to play. Perfect preparation for the world cup. The NH sides haven't played competitively since March and their warm up games were played at the same 'home or just down the road' stadiums as the 6 nations. Not great preparation.
-
See that Robert Howley has been sent home over alleged betting breaches
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49737691
Not good preparation for Wales
-
A number of those group stage games will be against minnows, so although part of a competitive tournament, not very competitive as matches.
I'm not so sure. England's group contains Argentina, Wales' group contains Fiji. Scotland's and Ireland's group contains Japan (home advantage) and Samoa. Many of those matches will be hard.
The SH sides have just come out of a competitive tournament that took place from late July to mid August,
You said that once already. It doesn't negate my point.
-
See that Robert Howley has been sent home over alleged betting breaches
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49737691
Not good preparation for Wales
I think that's an understatement.
I find it hard to believe a coach would do such a thing at such a critical time, so I'm guessing that he'll turn out to be innocent.
-
I think that's an understatement.
I find it hard to believe a coach would do such a thing at such a critical time, so I'm guessing that he'll turn out to be innocent.
There are a couple of occasions in the past where major tournament performances have been overtaken by 'scandals' completely distracting from the performance - most notably in football in 1970 for England and 1978 for Scotland. Let's hope this isn't what is in store for Wales - frankly if the allegations are true this is naive in the extreme at best. What would possess a professional coach to risk the stable preparation of their team for the biggest tournament in this manner.
-
There are a couple of occasions in the past where major tournament performances have been overtaken by 'scandals' completely distracting from the performance - most notably in football in 1970 for England and 1978 for Scotland. Let's hope this isn't what is in store for Wales - frankly if the allegations are true this is naive in the extreme at best. What would possess a professional coach to risk the stable preparation of their team for the biggest tournament in this manner.
Not sure that the scandal in 70 'completely distracted' from England's performance at the WC the images of Banks' save and Moore and Pele swapping shirts are iconic, and I only wish that it had for Scotland in 78.
Agree that if true, it's at best utterly stupid.
-
Not sure that the scandal in 70 'completely distracted' from England's performance at the WC the images of Banks' save and Moore and Pele swapping shirts are iconic,
Yes probably the case for 1970 although I don't think that the whole Moore incident helped their preparations one iota. Hugely distracting. Lets not forget he was their captain and talisman.
... and I only wish that it had for Scotland in 78.
Was a disaster from start to finish - there was a fantastic documentary on it a few months ago.
But there is perhaps an underlying 'truth' in both England 70 and Scotland 78 - both involved teams who thought they were better than they were and therefore weren't ruthlessly professional in their preparation and approach. Had they been neither the Moore incident nor any one of the off field nightmares that beset the Scotland 78 team would have occurred. Pride comes before a fall. And there are plenty of Wales fans who genuinely think they are going to win the world up - my Facebook feed was full of them when they (for a few days) attained number one status in the world a couple of weeks ago. Are we seeing something similar - who knows?
Agree that if true, it's at best utterly stupid.
See above
-
There are a couple of occasions in the past where major tournament performances have been overtaken by 'scandals' completely distracting from the performance - most notably in football in 1970 for England and 1978 for Scotland. Let's hope this isn't what is in store for Wales - frankly if the allegations are true this is naive in the extreme at best. What would possess a professional coach to risk the stable preparation of their team for the biggest tournament in this manner.
If this is the extent of the problems i.e. they don't find out other people were involved, it'll all be forgotten by the end of the tournament when Wales either win or destroy their fans' dreams. Perhaps that is why the WRU moved so quickly - to get it out of the way before everything kicks off.
-
If this is the extent of the problems i.e. they don't find out other people were involved, it'll all be forgotten by the end of the tournament when Wales either win or destroy their fans' dreams. Perhaps that is why the WRU moved so quickly - to get it out of the way before everything kicks off.
Not sure how quick is appropriate, but I'm not convinced they moved especially quickly as I gather the WRU knew about this last Wednesday and Howley was only sent home yesterday - so 6 days.
I've no idea whether it would have been appropriate to have acted quicker, and I think this came to light as the team were flying to Japan, but I can't imaging this wont have had an effect on the top management of the team over the past few days, even if the actually players knew nothing until yesterday.
-
There are a couple of occasions in the past where major tournament performances have been overtaken by 'scandals' completely distracting from the performance - most notably in football in 1970 for England and 1978 for Scotland. Let's hope this isn't what is in store for Wales - frankly if the allegations are true this is naive in the extreme at best. What would possess a professional coach to risk the stable preparation of their team for the biggest tournament in this manner.
What was the 1978 scandal? All I remember was everybody going absolutely bonkers about Scotland qualifying (when England didn't) and then them not doing very well. I was 12 at the time.
-
What was the 1978 scandal? All I remember was everybody going absolutely bonkers about Scotland qualifying (when England didn't) and then them not doing very well. I was 12 at the time.
Willie Johnston and the pills
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2008/dec/23/rangers-celtic
-
Willie Johnston and the pills
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2008/dec/23/rangers-celtic
This may be the documentary - although doesn't seem to be available as current content.
If so it is fascinating. The whole thing was a car wreck start to finish, regardless of wee Willie Johnston and the pills. The team were woefully underprepared both in terms of their knowledge and respect for the opposition but also the professionalism of their preparation with, I think, their base being totally unsuited because no one had properly checked it out.
You can feel the slow relentless momentum in ever so slow motion toward the car wreck moments on the field.
-
If this is the extent of the problems i.e. they don't find out other people were involved, it'll all be forgotten by the end of the tournament when Wales either win or destroy their fans' dreams.
It will certainly be forgotten if Wales win, but not if they fail to live up to expectations (whatever they may be). Regardless of whether this incident really had an effect (it has to be distracting at the very least) it will form part of the narrative around the post mortem of a failed world cup bid. The kind of 'had it not been for Howley, we'd have won' mentality.
We've seen it so many times before - the 'Beckham pulled out of the tackle against Brazil because he was still recovering from the metatarsal injury and that lead to the goal that knocked us out' mentality. That was 2002 by the way.
-
This may be the documentary - although doesn't seem to be available as current content.
If so it is fascinating. The whole thing was a car wreck start to finish, regardless of wee Willie Johnston and the pills. The team were woefully underprepared both in terms of their knowledge and respect for the opposition but also the professionalism of their preparation with, I think, their base being totally unsuited because no one had properly checked it out.
You can feel the slow relentless momentum in ever so slow motion toward the car wreck moments on the field.
And yet it left us with Archie Gemmill's goal.
-
And yet it left us with Archie Gemmill's goal.
Indeed - and essential for the complete arch of the narrative, from pride and hubris to despair and humbling with a little glimmer of redemption at the end. Not enough to reverse the pathos of the story, but enough to give some hope ;)
-
And yet it left us with Archie Gemmill's goal.
Just watched it again - a really great goal.
-
Just watched it again - a really great goal.
one of the best. One of the lovely thing about it is is if you listen to the BBC commentary is Bobby Charlton excited by it.
-
Indeed - and essential for the complete arch of the narrative, from pride and hubris to despair and humbling with a little glimmer of redemption at the end. Not enough to reverse the pathos of the story, but enough to give some hope ;)
it's a beautiful story.
-
So the World Cup kicks off today - but looking at the fixtures what strikes me is what a long drawn out affair it is. The final isn't until 2nd Nov - so 43 days.
Compare that with this year's cricket world cup (complete in similar days despite the teams playing far more games), and last year's world cup with more teams, far more games yet complete in just 31 days.
-
Surely the length is a factor of the perceived need for longer recovery time?
-
Surely the length is a factor of the perceived need for longer recovery time?
In part - also due to the group stage having an odd number of team in each group so there is always one team not playing in any 'round' of matches. We don't actually get to the sharp end of the tournament, the knock out stages, for basically a month. The football world cup was effectively complete start to finish in a month.
And I think the key word in your post is 'perceived' and actually part of the excitement and challenge of tournament sport is that games come thick and fast and one of the aspects that defines winning teams is their strength in depth and ability to deal with those rapid fire games. I simply don't buy into this notion that rugby players need a week to recover. Other sports that are just as demanding don't come close to that. In tennis you can play a gruelling 5 hour match and be expected to be back on court the next day. In cycling you might cycle hundreds of km and up a couple of mountains, be half dead at the end, and be back on your bike doing it again next day.
-
But neither of those are full contact sports.
-
But neither of those are full contact sports.
True - but I don't think that necessarily explains the differences in recovery time allowed. Interestingly I was reading an article on team sports recovery time and that indicated that recovery from football and rugby were longer than for other team sports, yet effectively the same as each other, with 48 hours minimum needed. Doesn't explain why footballers are routinely expected to play every 4 days in a major tournament, yet somehow rugby players need 6-7 days. It makes no sense.
-
Actually looking at the fixture list the weird format throws up more anomalies. In some cases a team may have a recovery period of just 4 days between games, but in other cases as much as 9 days. I know in football there is often discussion at the knockout stage of the effect of one fewer day of recovery, but in this tournament you may have a team with only 4 days of recovery playing one with 9. That doesn't seem particularly fair.
-
Looking at the timings of past World Cups with 20 teams this is going to be the 2nd shortest. The 1999 version finished in 37 days, all the rest since then have been longer. The 16 team WCs took 30/31 days.
-
Looking at the timings of past World Cups with 20 teams this is going to be the 2nd shortest. The 1999 version finished in 37 days, all the rest since then have been longer. The 16 team WCs took 30/31 days.
Which rather proves my point - so by adding 4 additional teams (who will likely lose all their games and by nigh on cricket scores) you need to extend the tournament from less than a month to over 6 weeks.
The world cup should revert back to 16 teams, which would provide benefits all round, not least a genuinely competitive qualifying tournament to get to the finals in the first place.
-
Depends on what you see as the aim of the World Cup.
-
Depends on what you see as the aim of the World Cup.
Struggling to see any aims that are helped by a 20 team world cup - not least helping to develop rugby in lesser nations. They aren't helped by the current situation in which the qualifying tournament is ridiculously easy (and therefore not particularly competitive) but having qualified the finals tournament itself is ridiculously hard and therefore also not competitive.
Much better to have a much more competitive qualifying tournament and thereby ensure that those teams that do make it to the finals aren't simply whipping boys. Bit by bit those teams will develop and get better.
-
That's surely just a question of whethwr you think (a) the quality drop is at a specific level, and (b) that not appearing at a WC and having a tougher qualifying is better for participation in the sport than an appearance there.
-
That's surely just a question of whethwr you think (a) the quality drop is at a specific level, and (b) that not appearing at a WC and having a tougher qualifying is better for participation in the sport than an appearance there.
I think it is pretty hard to argue that there are more than 16 teams in the world that are in any way competitive in the world cup, and by that I mean have any likelihood of progressing from the group stage (i.e. finishing in the top 2 in a group) or automatically qualifying for the next tournament as a third placed side in a group.
And we've had 20 team tournaments since 1999 and this hasn't really changed, so there isn't really evidence that increasing the size of the tournament to 20 teams has been successful in helping develop those lesser sides to be more competitive.
So as an example - Namibia - comfortably qualified for every 20 nation world cup (sometimes unbeaten) yet their record in the finals is played 19, lost 19 - and conceding over 1100 points in the process.
-
So your idea of going to back to 16 is based around the 'We should do something. This is something. Let's do this.'approach?
-
Struggling to see any aims that are helped by a 20 team world cup - not least helping to develop rugby in lesser nations. They aren't helped by the current situation in which the qualifying tournament is ridiculously easy (and therefore not particularly competitive) but having qualified the finals tournament itself is ridiculously hard and therefore also not competitive.
Much better to have a much more competitive qualifying tournament and thereby ensure that those teams that do make it to the finals aren't simply whipping boys. Bit by bit those teams will develop and get better.
In order to raise the quality of the game in the currently less-successful countries, it needs to be in the public eye more, in order to gain converts. Four-yearly festivals, whilst the pinnacle of the game, do not replace strong national or international leagues with week-in, week-out competitions building up a fanbase. Even the annual international competitions aren't that successful at this - look at Italy's performance in the six nations, especially when you consider that a significant portion of the team that's fielded when they do play are nationalised Italians from other countries.
O.
-
So your idea of going to back to 16 is based around the 'We should do something. This is something. Let's do this.'approach?
Not really it is based on:
1. Making the tournament format cleaner and fairer - fewer anomalies in terms of rest between fixtures and crucial allowing the final group games to be played at the same time (which has been standard in other tournaments for years)
2. Making the tournament drag less - shorter, more intense - game after game - over in a month or less.
3. Narrowing the gap between the competitiveness of the qualifying tournament and the actual finals - so you can't have a team that has easily qualified for the past 6 finals (with 28 wins and just 7 defeats) yet are so poor that the've failed to win a single game in the finals after 19 attempts.
4. And in doing 3 actually support the development of those lesser teams so that if you can be successful in qualifying you are likely to have a decent chance of some success in the finals.
5. Fewer pointless (or rather cricket score by one team) and completely one sided games in the finals which rather undermine the credibility of the tournament.
6. Fewer games involving minnow vs minnow that hardly anyone is interested in and are played in grounds one third full.
-
In order to raise the quality of the game in the currently less-successful countries, it needs to be in the public eye more, in order to gain converts. Four-yearly festivals, whilst the pinnacle of the game, do not replace strong national or international leagues with week-in, week-out competitions building up a fanbase. Even the annual international competitions aren't that successful at this - look at Italy's performance in the six nations, especially when you consider that a significant portion of the team that's fielded when they do play are nationalised Italians from other countries.
O.
That's right - rugby really has failed to develop any team beyond the big 9. Italy have been in the 6 nations for years but haven't really contributed or developed. But that isn't helped by its non-competitive nature - by that I mean that there is simply no down side to finishing bottom - you are back in the tournament next year come what may. Perhaps relegation would shake things up.
Actually I think the situation is getting worse. In the first few world cups (87, 91, 95) there was always one team from outside the big 9 involved in the knockout stages. Since 1995 this has only happened once in 6 tournaments.
-
1. Making the tournament format cleaner and fairer - fewer anomalies in terms of rest between fixtures and crucial allowing the final group games to be played at the same time (which has been standard in other tournaments for years)
If the groups were to be more competitive that might be more of an issue, but I agree the last games in each group should ideally be played at the same time. As it is, though, with a higher priority on trying to capture TV audiences, they don't want to split smaller nations' audiences between the big team in their group and their national team.
2. Making the tournament drag less - shorter, more intense - game after game - over in a month or less.
With the physicality of the game these days, unless you make fundamental changes to the laws of the game, you need to have those sort of gaps in order to avoid serious injuries.
3. Narrowing the gap between the competitiveness of the qualifying tournament and the actual finals - so you can't have a team that has easily qualified for the past 6 finals (with 28 wins and just 7 defeats) yet are so poor that the've failed to win a single game in the finals after 19 attempts.
4. And in doing 3 actually support the development of those lesser teams so that if you can be successful in qualifying you are likely to have a decent chance of some success in the finals.
Whilst the IRU does need to address that, there's not very much in the format of the World Cup itself that would help. If the tournament were to be downsized to just the 'major' nations, it would be the old politics of the established nations crowding out the smaller, developing countries. I think more needs to be done to develop the game in the Pacific Islands, where it's fanatically followed but the talent has a tendency to flow to other places. A better publicised and maintained second tier of international competitions and trans-continental club competitions would also help, but then you start to run into the problem of a congested fixture list again.
5. Fewer pointless (or rather cricket score by one team) and completely one sided games in the finals which rather undermine the credibility of the tournament.
6. Fewer games involving minnow vs minnow that hardly anyone is interested in and are played in grounds one third full.
You can't have both of these - if you aren't going to have 'minnow vs minnow' games, then you're either only going to get cricket scores (and trouble arranging the tables?) or you're going to exclude the smaller nations from the top event which is going to reduce interest in the game in those places.
The best thing that's been done is to finally break the stranglehold the established nations had on hosting the tournament, let's hope that continues, because having a local involvement builds interest. I think it would also be useful - certainly in the European game - to ditch the Six Nations once every four years to hold a European Rugby Championship and give the Russias and Georgias of the continent a chance to compete. Perhaps having relegation and promotion from the Six Nations based upon that tournament would live things up, give more teams a chance to compete at the top level more regularly and start to bring up the standards across the continent.
O.
[/quote]
-
If the groups were to be more competitive that might be more of an issue, but I agree the last games in each group should ideally be played at the same time.
You can only have the last games played at the same time if you have groups with an even number of teams. Removing the weakest team will undoubtedly make the overall group more competitive
As it is, though, with a higher priority on trying to capture TV audiences, they don't want to split smaller nations' audiences between the big team in their group and their national team.
I can't image there is much TV audience for, lets say, Namibia vs Canada. I doubt that removing the weakest team from the group would have meaningful impact on overall tournament audience and income and that will be massively tipped toward games between the big teams.
With the physicality of the game these days, unless you make fundamental changes to the laws of the game, you need to have those sort of gaps in order to avoid serious injuries.
Perhaps so, but the current format means that the gap between games is being driven by the lop-sided format rather than the needs for recovery hence the huge difference in time between games from 4 days to 9 days. With 16 teams and 4 them groups and a consistent 5 or 6 days between games in the group stage you could comfortably have that part complete in less than 3 weeks with greater guaranteed rest between games than we have now with the group stage taking a month.
Whilst the IRU does need to address that, there's not very much in the format of the World Cup itself that would help. If the tournament were to be downsized to just the 'major' nations, it would be the old politics of the established nations crowding out the smaller, developing countries.
But I'm not suggesting reducing the tournament so much that it would be just the established nations, there are 8 of those (or 9 if you include Argentina). With 16 teams there would still be 7-8 positions for non established teams. And I'd prefer only the teams who get through to the knockout stages to automatically qualify for the next world cup. That would mean there would be at least on established team in the qualifying and potentially not making the finals with a non established team taking their place.
I think more needs to be done to develop the game in the Pacific Islands, where it's fanatically followed but the talent has a tendency to flow to other places.
I agree and the asset stripping of these teams to established nations doesn't help.
A better publicised and maintained second tier of international competitions and trans-continental club competitions would also help, but then you start to run into the problem of a congested fixture list again.
Again I agree but you have to make it mean something. And a more competitive qualifying tournament for the world cup would be exactly that - the second tier teams playing their hearts out for finals qualification, rather than currently where a team that has lost all 19 of their finals games has sailed through qualification unbeaten or (in the case of 2019) with a 100% record.
You can't have both of these - if you aren't going to have 'minnow vs minnow' games, then you're either only going to get cricket scores (and trouble arranging the tables?) or you're going to exclude the smaller nations from the top event which is going to reduce interest in the game in those places.
I'd only exclude the four current weakest sides, so down to 16 teams from 20. And yes you can have both - going down to 16 teams would reduce the number of completely one sided games and also remove the minnow vs minnow (which actually are also often one sided and also irrelevant as the weakest team is often so much worse than even the fourth placed side.
The best thing that's been done is to finally break the stranglehold the established nations had on hosting the tournament, let's hope that continues, because having a local involvement builds interest. I think it would also be useful - certainly in the European game - to ditch the Six Nations once every four years to hold a European Rugby Championship and give the Russias and Georgias of the continent a chance to compete. Perhaps having relegation and promotion from the Six Nations based upon that tournament would live things up, give more teams a chance to compete at the top level more regularly and start to bring up the standards across the continent.
O.
Yup all good suggestions. Something needs to be done to shake up the system and my biggest bug bears aren't the World cup which apart from the weird 20 team, 5 team group format is by far and away the best tournament in rugby and the only one that looks appropriate to the 21stC rather than being perpetually stuck in the amateur age. No my biggest bug bears are the endlessly tedious, repetitive and non-competitive (in world terms) 6-nations and the non-sense that is the British Lions, where we effectively capitulate to the dominance of the SH teams by accepting that we can only have a hope of beating one of them by putting together 4 NH teams.
-
I can't image there is much TV audience for, lets say, Namibia vs Canada. I doubt that removing the weakest team from the group would have meaningful impact on overall tournament audience and income and that will be massively tipped toward games between the big teams.
World-wide, probably not, in the current 'rugby playing' nations, certainly not. In Canada, though? In Namibia? Why make the fans there choose between their national side and the perennial powerhouses when at this stage the tournament is still about trying to reach out to those smaller nations?
Perhaps so, but the current format means that the gap between games is being driven by the lop-sided format rather than the needs for recovery hence the huge difference in time between games from 4 days to 9 days. With 16 teams and 4 them groups and a consistent 5 or 6 days between games in the group stage you could comfortably have that part complete in less than 3 weeks with greater guaranteed rest between games than we have now with the group stage taking a month.
At the expense of having fewer of the tier 2 and 3 nations taking part, and failing to reach as much of the potential new audience.
But I'm not suggesting reducing the tournament so much that it would be just the established nations, there are 8 of those (or 9 if you include Argentina).
Nine if you include Italy...
With 16 teams there would still be 7-8 positions for non established teams.
So, conceivably, with a missed tournament because they fail to qualify, no top-class international competition for your home tier 3 team for an entire generation's schooling? That's a lot of potential players to miss out on inspiring during the age-range you really need to get them hooked.
And I'd prefer only the teams who get through to the knockout stages to automatically qualify for the next world cup. That would mean there would be at least on established team in the qualifying and potentially not making the finals with a non established team taking their place.
I'm not sure I like the idea of automatic qualification at all, but with the top-tier nations playing as much as they do already I don't see a way around that.
Something needs to be done to shake up the system and my biggest bug bears aren't the World cup which apart from the weird 20 team, 5 team group format is by far and away the best tournament in rugby and the only one that looks appropriate to the 21stC rather than being perpetually stuck in the amateur age.
See, for me the World Cup isn't the pinnacle, it's equal parts festival and competition - it's as much about getting those odd mismatches, the tier 3 nations against a leading light. Yes they're likely to lose, heavily, but it may be the only chance some people have to see their country play the All Blacks, or France, especially for the African and American teams. The World Cup is a global advertising campaign, and only really gets into being a competition in the latter stages.
No my biggest bug bears are the endlessly tedious, repetitive and non-competitive (in world terms) 6-nations and the non-sense that is the British Lions, where we effectively capitulate to the dominance of the SH teams by accepting that we can only have a hope of beating one of them by putting together 4 NH teams.
Except that the Lions haven't done particularly well against the Southern Hemisphere, certainly not significantly better than the individual nations. That said, I'd be perfectly happy to ditch the Lions tours in exchange for the European championship.
The six-nations is a fantastic championship, but I think it needs a relegation place to Tier 2 to spice it up - there's no penalty to being the wooden spoon, and no way in for the 2nd tier. With a 6/5/5/4 championships record for England/France/Wales/Ireland, it's competitive - certainly by comparison with the All Blacks taking something like 15 of the last 20 Rugby Championships/Tri-Nations titles. As to whether the Northern Hemisphere is competitive against the Southern Hemisphere that's not the fact that they don't play each other itself (although that would help) so much as the ethics and style of the game are different - in the Northern Hemisphere we don't typically try to walk the line of laws, we don't constantly try to work at the edge of what's acceptable in the same way that the Southern Hemisphere sides do. Arguably that's the 'professional' vs 'amateur' argument, but there's something to be said for not adopting the 'win at all costs' mentality.
Northern Hemisphere rugby is a nicer game to watch, and a better version of the game to introduce your children to the sport with. Southern Hemisphere rugby is approaching football levels of cynicism, deception and just plain arseholery, and if you have to adopt that to win the game, then it's a Pyrrhic victory.
O.
-
Nine if you include Italy...
Nope - Italy are only 'established' because some committee decided to expand the 5 nations and allow them in (just as the tri-nations did with Argentina) - they aren't established in quality terms. They have never got out of the group stages of the world cup. Argentina on the other hand have been in the knockout stage in each of the last 3 world cups and in the semis twice in that time.
In recent years Argentina's record is as good as any of the NH sides.
-
World-wide, probably not, in the current 'rugby playing' nations, certainly not. In Canada, though? In Namibia? Why make the fans there choose between their national side and the perennial powerhouses when at this stage the tournament is still about trying to reach out to those smaller nations?
I'm not really sure that is how it works for minority sports in a country. Those who are keen fans will be watching the biggest tournament regardless of whether their team is in the competition or not. Those who aren't rugby fans wont be watching whether or not their nation is in the world cup, not least because as a minority sport there will be pretty well zero publicity and coverage in those countries. It may be that the tournament isn't even available to watch.
To give an example - the Basketball world cup has just finished (who knew) - I'm sure hardcore basketball fans in England were glued to it, regardless of the fact that England didn't make the tournament. However I cannot see that loads of non basketball fans would have sought out the matches and sat glued to their tvs had England been there.
-
Northern Hemisphere rugby is a nicer game to watch, and a better version of the game to introduce your children to the sport with. Southern Hemisphere rugby is approaching football levels of cynicism, deception and just plain arseholery, and if you have to adopt that to win the game, then it's a Pyrrhic victory.
Disagree on this.
Who knows what will happen in this tournament but one of the things I love about the world cup is watching SH teams who simply are in a different league - their technical ability is awe inspiring so often. Something that NH teams might aspire to, but cannot replicate. Kind of the difference between watching Man C in their pomp tearing a team apart, or Barcelona, compared to a plodding mid table team - lots of hard work but without the technical skills and talent.
And on cynicism etc - rugby is full of it world wide. The game is riddled with professional technical infringements - but at least the SH teams can actually play.
-
See, for me the World Cup isn't the pinnacle, it's equal parts festival and competition - it's as much about getting those odd mismatches, the tier 3 nations against a leading light. Yes they're likely to lose, heavily, but it may be the only chance some people have to see their country play the All Blacks, or France, especially for the African and American teams.
Frankly I cannot see the point in watching South Africa beating the USA 64-0 or Namibia losing 87-7 to Wales or (the Daddy of them all) Australia beating Namibia 143-0. These kind of mismatched games have no place in a elite finals tournament (not qualifiers). It is embarrassing.
And why is it the only chance to see their team playing the big boys - there are friendlies and other exhibition or warm up matches. But if they want to play the big teams in the world cup they need to be good enough - not necessarily to win but to be competitive. And reducing the number of teams incentives them - they need to be in the top 16 teams, not the top 20 to get into the tournament. And to do that they need to be better and that cannot be a bad thing.
-
True - but I don't think that necessarily explains the differences in recovery time allowed. Interestingly I was reading an article on team sports recovery time and that indicated that recovery from football and rugby were longer than for other team sports, yet effectively the same as each other, with 48 hours minimum needed.
I am pretty sure that survey of yours is problematic even without looking at it. You only have to look at a football match and a rugby match to realise that the results are superficially absurd.
What is this recovery time defined as? Is it the time required to "recharge the batteries" or does it include recovering from minor knocks (rugby players have many more of those than footballers)?
How are they measuring that 48 hours? Are they looking at a load of players and taking the average time to recover? If so, it is plausible that football is more demanding in fitness terms - after all footballers spend more time running about the pitch in a game - but rugby player recovery times are made longer by the two or three players with bumps and bruises who take longer to recover.
I take your point about proving strength in depth and being able to sub players but I see two problems with that:
1. The fans play to see the best teams in the World play each other, not their second teams.
2. It reduces further the number of teams that have a chance of winning. Wales have a chance of winning this tournament. However, that would probably disappear if they had to stress their players further. They don't have huge strength in depth.
Maybe they should reduce the number of teams in the tournament. That would also reduce the problem of the no hoper games. But on the other hand it also reduces the possibility of no-hopers ever becoming hopers.
I agree with you that the tournament goes on for too long but there are pros and cons to any of the ways to resolve that issue. Maybe reduce the entry to sixteen teams but only the top eight ranked teams get in automatically. The other eight places are decided in a preliminary tournament.
-
Nope - Italy are only 'established' because some committee decided to expand the 5 nations and allow them in (just as the tri-nations did with Argentina) - they aren't established in quality terms. They have never got out of the group stages of the world cup. Argentina on the other hand have been in the knockout stage in each of the last 3 world cups and in the semis twice in that time.
In recent years Argentina's record is as good as any of the NH sides.
Sorry, that was the point I was trying to make, I just didn't do the counting :) I was intending to imply that it would Italy that was questionable instead of Argentina...
O.
-
I'm not really sure that is how it works for minority sports in a country. Those who are keen fans will be watching the biggest tournament regardless of whether their team is in the competition or not. Those who aren't rugby fans wont be watching whether or not their nation is in the world cup, not least because as a minority sport there will be pretty well zero publicity and coverage in those countries. It may be that the tournament isn't even available to watch.
If the tournament isn't available to watch, that's again a failure on the part of the IRU, this is supposed to be their showcase event they should be out touting it everywhere. The established fans will watch who they want to watch and the uninterested will watch football or basketball or somesuch, but there's always going to be some, kids maybe, who hear their country is playing and tune in to see what it's about. Social media gets a hold of it, they get the bug and watch the rest of the tournament - that's part of how sports take a hold in new places.
To give an example - the Basketball world cup has just finished (who knew) - I'm sure hardcore basketball fans in England were glued to it, regardless of the fact that England didn't make the tournament. However I cannot see that loads of non basketball fans would have sought out the matches and sat glued to their tvs had England been there.
I knew - I didn't watch, I'm not a basketball fan but I have tried it, but I kept up enough to know that the US got knocked out much to everyone's surprise and that Spain took the title in the final against Argentina. My youngest two are a little young for sport just now, but in a few years time it's the sort of thing that would get mentioned, and if they show an interest we'll see if we can find a way to watch.
And why is it the only chance to see their team playing the big boys - there are friendlies and other exhibition or warm up matches.
But in the money-making world of test match rugby New Zealand, England, Australia, even Scotland and Italy don't play the likes of Namibia or Zimbabwe at friendlies.
Who knows what will happen in this tournament but one of the things I love about the world cup is watching SH teams who simply are in a different league - their technical ability is awe inspiring so often.
That's been the case for about thirty or forty years, up until the last five or six - the professional leagues in Europe, particularly England and France, have made a step-change in the technical capability. We still don't have the youth and school set-up to mass-produce them (or the links to steal them so effectively from the Pacific Islands) to have the strength in depth, yet, but we can compete on technique. What we still lag behind on is the instinct, the ability to react to the situation without having to think - the few that have it don't have team-mates around them with the same nous to be able to so ruthlessly take advantage of it. On the other hand, what we do have that the Southern Hemisphere doesn't is a level of tactical and strategic discipline - if we can hold our shape, if we can maintain the concentration we can starve them out - but that's hard to keep up for eighty minutes and more, and it's doubly difficult if you're having to chase the game.
And on cynicism etc - rugby is full of it world wide. The game is riddled with professional technical infringements - but at least the SH teams can actually play.
I'd have to disagree - there's a level of cynicism, there's always the flankers who are proud of being an inch from off-side, but there isn't the same level of cynicism. The two-man spear tackle on Brian O'Driscoll at the start of the Lions tour in 2005 is the epitome of the All Black attitude - he was a threat, and they were willing to risk two cards in the first game to take him out of the series. You just don't get that level of criminality in the game in the north.
O.
-
I am pretty sure that survey of yours is problematic even without looking at it. You only have to look at a football match and a rugby match to realise that the results are superficially absurd.
Then I suggest you take it up with the academic researchers of that study - because clearly you think you know better than leading researchers who based their findings on a range of additional academic studies.
Actually re-reading the paper it took 72 hours for test results (which were both physical activity and biochemical) to return to baseline for football and rugby, not 48 hours. The point is that it was the same for both although longer than for other team sports. Sure the physical demands of football and rugby are different but that doesn't mean that one might take less time to recover from than the other. Sure there is more 'contact' in rugby but football players play a longer game and will travel far greater distances during the match.
But that isn't really the point - I was talking about h world cup format. The current format (due to the 5 team groups) limits recovery to just 4 days in some circumstances yet allows up to 9 days in others. This seems unfair and also potentially dangerous if you consider 4 days to be too short between games. A 4 team group format would allow a consistent 5-6 day rest (fairer and safer) while still keeping the games coming thick and fast and taking less time to get through the group stage overall.
-
The two-man spear tackle on Brian O'Driscoll at the start of the Lions tour in 2005 is the epitome of the All Black attitude - he was a threat, and they were willing to risk two cards in the first game to take him out of the series.
It was an awful tackle no doubt about it but awful tackles aren't confined to the SH teams.
You just don't get that level of criminality in the game in the north.
Really - clearly you didn't watch the 2011 world cup semi final and Sam Warburton's equally awful spear tackle - arguably worse as there was far greater momentum involved.
Bad tackles aren't the preserve of teams in one hemisphere only.
-
Some good matches so far. Having the NZ v SA match so early was an interesting marker. The France Argentina result makes it tough for Argentina to get through group stage. And the Aus Fiji match should have had a red card for Australia.
-
So it was the shite Scotland that turned up
-
Messy win for England.
-
The France Argentina result makes it tough for Argentina to get through group stage.
They will have to beat England I think, but they were always going to have to beat one of England or France. At least they got the bonus point.
-
They will have to beat England I think, but they were always going to have to beat one of England or France. At least they got the bonus point.
And of the 2 France looked the more likely option. Good draw in terms of the match order for England.
-
Messy win for England.
Didn't watch any of the England game but saw some of Ireland/Scotland which was littered with errors even before the weather really deteriorated. I know there has been discussion about the humidity and conditions making the ball very greasy plus also its flight being different. So this might explain things - hope teams can adapt to the conditions and that matches are won by good play rather than errors.
-
Well, the first round of matches are now complete and no real surprises.
-
Well, the first round of matches are now complete and no real surprises.
The result of every match pretty well perfectly predicted by looking at the world rankings on the eve of the tournament.
Let's hope for some upsets soon.
-
Brutal but correct
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49788522
-
The result of every match pretty well perfectly predicted by looking at the world rankings on the eve of the tournament.
Let's hope for some upsets soon.
Let me try to guess some upsets in the pool stages (defined as team beats a team higher in the rankings)
Wales might lose to Fiji (outside chance)
Wales might lose to Australia (strong chance)
Australia might lose to Fiji (outside chance)
Scotland might lose to Japan (low chance)
England might lose to Argentina (low chance)
England might lose to France (strongish chance)
There are probably other possibilities involving non top tier teams, but I think that's it in terms of teams expecting to get into the knock out stage.
-
Brutal but correct
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49788522
Maybe I'll upgrade Japan's chance of beating Scotland.
-
Let me try to guess some upsets in the pool stages (defined as team beats a team higher in the rankings)
Wales might lose to Fiji (outside chance)
Wales might lose to Australia (strong chance)
Australia might lose to Fiji (outside chance)
Scotland might lose to Japan (low chance)
England might lose to Argentina (low chance)
England might lose to France (strongish chance)
There are probably other possibilities involving non top tier teams, but I think that's it in terms of teams expecting to get into the knock out stage.
Those seem pretty reasonable suggestions to me although I wonder whether 'strongish chance' of France beating England is more down to emotional nervousness of England supporters than rational assessment. England should beat France - I hope :P
I think you are right that the most likely upset vs rankings is Wales vs Australia although I think the rankings struggle when comparing NH vs SH sides as they only play each other in proper competitive matches once every 4 years. I think the ranking within the pool of NH sides and within the pool of SH sides is OK but that the SH sides are better than their immediate pre-tournament ranking suggests.
-
Those seem pretty reasonable suggestions to me although I wonder whether 'strongish chance' of France beating England is more down to emotional nervousness of England supporters than rational assessment. England should beat France - I hope :P
Yeah,in my scale "strongish" means England will probably win but there is a non trivial chance they will fuck it up. (c.f. Scotland in the Six Nations).
I think you are right that the most likely upset vs rankings is Wales vs Australia although I think the rankings struggle when comparing NH vs SH sides as they only play each other in proper competitive matches once every 4 years. I think the ranking within the pool of NH sides and within the pool of SH sides is OK but that the SH sides are better than their immediate pre-tournament ranking suggests.
Totally agree with that.
-
Totally agree with that.
I think it is really hard to sort proper world rankings when you haven't had a competitive game between the SH teams and the NH ones for 4 years.
And at this stage I think it is even harder as there are usually a set of Autumn friendlies in the NH and Summer ones in the SH. While these aren't properly competitive (the SH teams use it as a useful training exercise) at least you get some feeling for relative strength, with typically the NH teams getting slaughtered playing away, while the SH teams usually achieve par in the Autumn games. But this year there are no Summer games in the SH to get any kind of feel.
I suspect we may already have seen the final lineup playing each other, namely NZ vs SA.
-
First upset of the world cup - Uruguay beating Fiji - well done to them.
Wondering about our discussion previously on recovery time between games - Uruguay, first game of the tournament, completely rested having played their last warm up game on 7th Sept vs Fiji just four days after a bruising encounter with Australia. Have to wonder whether this played a part.
-
Agree, And for Fiji a win for them v Australia was the 'cup final'. And for Uruguay winning that match was their cup final
-
Agree, And for Fiji a win for them v Australia was the 'cup final'. And for Uruguay winning that match was their cup final
Not sure that's true - certainly not for Fiji, whose priority will be finishing at least 3rd in the group to ensure automatic qualification for the next world cup. Big blow to them yesterday in that goal.
-
Not sure that's true - certainly not for Fiji, whose priority will be finishing at least 3rd in the group to ensure automatic qualification for the next world cup. Big blow to them yesterday in that goal.
I think that must be their priority objective but their aspiration would have been to beat one of Australia or Wales. They could still beat Wales, I guess. In fact, they'll probably need to now.
-
Well there's your upset. Japan to top the group?
-
Well there's your upset. Japan to top the group?
It was a superb effort from Japan.
Ireland were simply outplayed.
-
Well there's your upset. Japan to top the group?
Only if they beat Scotland. If they don't, it comes down to bonus points but I think Scotland are in trouble.
-
Only if they beat Scotland. If they don't, it comes down to bonus points but I think Scotland are in trouble.
Yep, I know. That is what the ? Is for. Given Ireland's easy victory over Scotland, Japan must be looking for the win.
-
Given Ireland's easy victory over Scotland, Japan must be looking for the win.
I think they were always looking for the win against Scotland. They would have looked at the group before it started and said "this is our chance to beat one of the big teams". They were probably not expecting to also win against Ireland.
I have to say though, whoever wins the group is likely to meet South Africa in the QF and whoever comes second will probably meet the All Blacks. If Scotland do fail to qualify, they will only be missing one match.
-
Might need to rethink my opinion that Scotland 'should' beat Japan ;)
-
That was a bit better from Scotland. Odd group now.
-
That was a bit better from Scotland. Odd group now.
We couldn't have been any worse.
We have to hope for a five pointer against Russia, then cross our fingers that Japan is played out by the end.
-
We couldn't have been any worse.
We have to hope for a five pointer against Russia, then cross our fingers that Japan is played out by the end.
I've put some thought into it because I need to make a prediction for the match in another forum. I think Scotland will beat Japan. Whether they do enough to edge them in bonus points remains to be seen though.
-
Fascinating little story
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/49878877
-
And a bit of a team.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49877206
-
In addition to the issue of games being spread out that Prof D highlighted earlier in the thread, the odd flow of the games seems to me to undermine what is going on. Why have one game some days, and not 2 from each group on one day?
-
In addition to the issue of games being spread out that Prof D highlighted earlier in the thread, the odd flow of the games seems to me to undermine what is going on. Why have one game some days, and not 2 from each group on one day?
And sometimes we get three games and some days there are no games. It seems somewhat bizarre to me too.
-
And sometimes we get three games and some days there are no games. It seems somewhat bizarre to me too.
And when you do get 3 games they are from 3 different groups. If they had had 2 games from Group A on day 1, 2 from group B on Day 2 etc it would have seemed more of a flow. I suspect TV has had something to with it.
-
And when you do get 3 games they are from 3 different groups. If they had had 2 games from Group A on day 1, 2 from group B on Day 2 etc it would have seemed more of a flow. I suspect TV has had something to with it.
I suspect tv may play a role - and they, not unreasonably, want to have greater density of matches over the weekends.
However I think the main problem is the 5 team groups. What this means is in each 'round' of games you will have 3 teams who played in the previous round and one who didn't. Add in:
1. The need to prevent teams playing a game less than 4 days after their previous game
2. The format which means that a 'big' team only ever plays a minnow if they've only had 4 days rest
3. The need to avoid excessively long gaps between games for individual teams
4. The need to complete the group stage in a reasonable overall time
And you get a complex multi factor problem which leads to days which are required to be 'cold' spots (we can't have any games this day as there has been too little rest period) and others required to be 'hot' spots (we've got to have 3 games this day to avoid an overly long gap for particular teams and to keep the tournament moving).
None of this would be an issue with a sensible 4-teams per group format.
-
As already pointed out, my comment was in addition to what Prof D already raised about the 5 team groups.
-
As already pointed out, my comment was in addition to what Prof D already raised about the 5 team groups.
But I think the 5 team groups is the reason for the weird hot/cold fixture list. It isn't just that it takes a long time to get through the fixtures - it is that it creates days where you cannot have games and days where you must have several.
-
But I think the 5 team groups is the reason for the weird hot/cold fixture list. It isn't just that it takes a long time to get through the fixtures - it is that it creates days where you cannot have games and days where you must have several.
I dont't see why though it leads to the individual groups running on such weird schedules. As already covered, you could have 2 matches from Group A on Day 1, 2 from B on Day 2 etc. You then just have a pattern that even with cold days can be repeated. The groups will have some matches where one team have had a break that is double the other team, but that's built in because of the 5 team groups.
-
I dont't see why though it leads to the individual groups running on such weird schedules. As already covered, you could have 2 matches from Group A on Day 1, 2 from B on Day 2 etc. You then just have a pattern that even with cold days can be repeated. The groups will have some matches where one team have had a break that is double the other team, but that's built in because of the 5 team groups.
See my list of criteria:
So lets say you have a group with 2 Big teams (A, B), one middling (C) and 2 minnows (D,E):
So let say in round 2 we have
A vs D and
C vs E
and B hasn't played for 6 days prior to that day and the next round has
B vs E and
A vs C
As B haven't played for 6 days they will need to play their game against E 4 days later, but A cannot play C 4 days later as that is insufficient gap for a big club to play any team other than a minnow. So you cannot have the next round of games on the same day. That's the problem. And it gets more complicated as the next round couldn't involve A vs B as B must play 4 days later, but A cannot play B 4 days later due to insufficient gap so it is an impossible fixture.
So doubt they had a very complicated algorithm which worked all this out, but the result is the weird fixture schedule involving days with no games and others with three.
Now B will need to play
-
That only matters if you decide 10 days as opposed to 9 which happens in the current fixtures is excessively long.
Group A play 2 matches day 1
B 2 matches day 2
C 2matches day 3
D 2 matches day 4
Day 5, cold day
-
That only matters if you decide 10 days as opposed to 9 which happens in the current fixtures is excessively long.
Group A play 2 matches day 1
B 2 matches day 2
C 2matches day 3
D 2 matches day 4
Day 5, cold day
No that unravels as the a group A big team could only play a group A minnow after such a short rest period on the 6th day (while 4 days is the shortest, I don't think a big team plays another big team with less than 6 days rest).
-
No that unravels as the a group A big team could only play a group A minnow after such a short rest period on the 6th day (while 4 days is the shortest, I don't think a big team plays another big team with less than 6 days rest).
But they only are ever playing any team after 4 days rest. Group A play 1st' 6th 11th 16th and 21st day. Group B 2nd 7th 12th 17th 22nd, etc etc..
The 6 days rule for larger teams wasn't in your criteria.
-
That only matters if you decide 10 days as opposed to 9 which happens in the current fixtures is excessively long.
Group A play 2 matches day 1
B 2 matches day 2
C 2matches day 3
D 2 matches day 4
Day 5, cold day
You also have the problem that rotating in that manner will mean you'll inevitably end up with cold days at a weekend which the organisers aren't going to go for as it is much easier to get an audience in Europe and SA if morning games (our time) are on a Saturday or Sunday than a day in the working week.
-
But they only are ever playing any team after 4 days rest. Group A play 1st' 6th 11th 16th and 21st day. Group B 2nd 7th 12th 17th 22nd, etc etc..
The 6 days rule for larger teams wasn't in your criteria.
There are 4 day gaps but the big teams will only play a minnow. For a big team to play another big team as far as I'm aware there is always a 6 day gap for both teams prior to that match.
-
You also have the problem that rotating in that manner will mean you'll inevitably end up with cold days at a weekend which the organisers aren't going to go for as it is much easier to get an audience in Europe and SA if morning games (our time) are on a Saturday or Sunday than a day in the working week.
Yes, i know which is why I suggested that it was TV that lead to the mess they have now when I repled to jeremyp.
-
There are 4 day gaps but the big teams will only play a minnow. For a big team to play another big team as far as I'm aware there is always a 6 day gap for both teams prior to that match.
That's nice, as already pointed out you hadn't put that as a criterion in the post I replied to.
-
And of course in terms of TV we have Japan appearing in the opener on a Friday at a peak time, then Saturday, Saturday, ans Sunday.
-
That's nice, as already pointed out you hadn't put that as a criterion in the post I replied to.
Sorry, oversight on my part - but the tournament will not allow a match between 2 of the big 9 unless both have had at least 6 days rest.
-
One thing triggered by watching and the discussions here, is that it seems to me that due to the different scoring systems between rugby and foot balland that the scoring is by nature more likely, whether relatively small differences in ability are magnified. Further that that makes development of smaller nations harder since the scores seem to show a bigger gap, and therefore good matches look like walkovers.
Also when watching the England Argentina match, when the sending off haooened, I immediately thought that's it over unless England lose a player. While in football, I would think that makes it harder I wouldn't immediately write it off.
-
Good match between Japan and Samoa. Disappointed about the last minute bonus point in part because of its impact on Scotland but also because if Scotland get the bonus point tomorrow it means that the Japan Scotland game isn't a clear winner takes all scenario. Part of me would love Japan to go through top of the group.
-
Bonus points? What's all that about?
-
Bonus points? What's all that about?
In the RWC pool stages, the winner gets 4 points and the loser gets 0. However, if the winner scores four tries, they get a one point bonus. Also, if the loser finishes within seven points (in the game) they get a bonus point. The idea is to make it
For context, seven points in the game is the same as a converted try (a try is when your player touches the ball down behind the opponents goal line (5 points), your team then has an opportunity to kick a goal which adds two more points, if successful).
The pool that Scotland are in is unexpectedly tight because Japan beat Ireland and have won their other games fairly convincingly. If Scotland beat Japan, (which they should based on World rankings) there will b e three teams with three wins and one loss. i.e. three teams on 12 points + bonuses. So, it will all come down to bonuses that currently stand as follows:
- Japan: 2
- Ireland: 3
- Scotland: 1
Ireland and Japan have one game left and Scotland has two games. So Scotland's maximum bonus haul is 3. Ireland's maximum bonus haul is 4 and Japan's is 3.
Scotland needs to get a bonus against Russia, or their goose is cooked, unless they beat Japan by enough for them to get a bonus point and Japan not.
Ireland should beat Samoa and, if they get a bonus point, they will top the group. If they don't get a bonus point, we get into the interesting scenario. It's possible that all three teams could end up with three wins and three bonus points. Normally, you choose the ranking order by who won in the match between the two teams on equal points. However, Japan beat Ireland and Ireland beat Scotland and (for this scenario to happen) Scotland will have beaten Japan. Then it comes down to points (in games) difference and Scotland are at a disadvantage there, but they haven't played the worst team in the pool yet.
Anyway, all of the above is moot because the winners of the group meet South Africa in the quarter finals and the runners up meet New Zealand from which South Africa and New Zealand will almost certainly progress to the semi finals.
-
One thing triggered by watching and the discussions here, is that it seems to me that due to the different scoring systems between rugby and foot balland that the scoring is by nature more likely, whether relatively small differences in ability are magnified. Further that that makes development of smaller nations harder since the scores seem to show a bigger gap, and therefore good matches look like walkovers.
Yes that is a challenge for rugby - the sport is very predictable in terms of winners. I think on the 6-nations thread I linked to research demonstrating that the winner of individual rugby matches was far more easily predicted from prior ranking (taking any home advantage into account) than for most other sports.
And so it has proved this world cup. I think of the 28 matches played so far just two have gone against expectation, based on pre-tournament ranking, Ireland v Japan and Fiji v Uruguay. And in both cases there were clear mitigations, firstly with Japan having home advantage and in the second Fiji playing just 4 days after a bruising encounter with Australia against Uruguay who were completely fresh.
And actually the bonus point system kind of accept this - effectively, we know who the winner will be so we need to incentivise teams to win better and to lose less badly.
-
Yes that is a challenge for rugby - the sport is very predictable in terms of winners. I think on the 6-nations thread I linked to research demonstrating that the winner of individual rugby matches was far more easily predicted from prior ranking (taking any home advantage into account) than for most other sports.
And so it has proved this world cup. I think of the 28 matches played so far just two have gone against expectation, based on pre-tournament ranking, Ireland v Japan and Fiji v Uruguay. And in both cases there were clear mitigations, firstly with Japan having home advantage and in the second Fiji playing just 4 days after a bruising encounter with Australia against Uruguay who were completely fresh.
And actually the bonus point system kind of accept this - effectively, we know who the winner will be so we need to incentivise teams to win better and to lose less badly.
I think the bonus system is trying to do that, also it's trying to create more open rugby in those cases where the teams are well matched. And I agree with your points, but I was making a related point which is that even where inferior teams make a game of it the scores often look one sided because of the system itself, and indeed upsets are far more unlikely because of that and the nature of the game. It makes it harder to develop because of the perception it creates.
-
I think the bonus system is trying to do that, also it's trying to create more open rugby in those cases where the teams are well matched. And I agree with your points, but I was making a related point which is that even where inferior teams make a game of it the scores often look one sided because of the system itself, and indeed upsets are far more unlikely because of that and the nature of the game. It makes it harder to develop because of the perception it creates.
The rugby administrative authorities haven't really developed the game since the world cup came in in the late 80s. Indeed, arguably it has gone backwards. Over the years there have been a few 'insurgent' teams from outside the established elite that have occasionally caused upsets. So this tournament it is Japan, in the early years it was the Pacific nations, but none has really shifted gear sufficiently to be considered a genuine contender, either for the tournament itself or finalist. The nearest has been Argentina but they aren't as good as they were a few years ago.
Now in my opinion part of the reason is the gulf in quality between the qualifying tournament and the finals tournament itself. There is a real problem where a team like Namibia can breeze through qualifying tournament after tournament, indeed for this final with a 100% record in qualifying, yet lose every single game they have ever played in the finals tournament. That doesn't help that side (or others like them) develop. What is needed is a genuinely competitive qualifying tournament, such that if you actually get through it and make the finals you have a decent chance of non being constantly on the wrong end of cricket score defeats. And to do that you have to reduce the number of teams in the finals tournament (at least for a while) as there simply aren't 20 nations in the world good enough to deserve a place in the finals tournament.
-
Of course another factor here is that for the Pacific Islands in particular, they have had their squads gutted by larger teams and the qualification rules to play for other nations.
-
The rugby administrative authorities haven't really developed the game since the world cup came in in the late 80s. Indeed, arguably it has gone backwards. Over the years there have been a few 'insurgent' teams from outside the established elite that have occasionally caused upsets. So this tournament it is Japan, in the early years it was the Pacific nations, but none has really shifted gear sufficiently to be considered a genuine contender, either for the tournament itself or finalist. The nearest has been Argentina but they aren't as good as they were a few years ago.
Now in my opinion part of the reason is the gulf in quality between the qualifying tournament and the finals tournament itself. There is a real problem where a team like Namibia can breeze through qualifying tournament after tournament, indeed for this final with a 100% record in qualifying, yet lose every single game they have ever played in the finals tournament. That doesn't help that side (or others like them) develop. What is needed is a genuinely competitive qualifying tournament, such that if you actually get through it and make the finals you have a decent chance of non being constantly on the wrong end of cricket score defeats. And to do that you have to reduce the number of teams in the finals tournament (at least for a while) as there simply aren't 20 nations in the world good enough to deserve a place in the finals tournament.
But, again, how are you going to encourage grass-roots activity in these tier 2 and tier 3 nations if they aren't seeing their teams competing at the top level? How are you going to build interest, get the word out and about in Namibia, Canada, the US and Russia - in competition against their aggressively marketed traditional sports - in order to get enough people playing to be able to gather a decent crop of players?
There's enough evidence from post football world-cup and post Olympic surges in interest to show that these showcase events pique interest - of course, better than having these countries attend is hosting the event in the developing countries. It's been far too long coming that the tournament was hosted outside of the Tier 1 nations, and there's no immediate sign of it happening again.
O.
-
But, again, how are you going to encourage grass-roots activity in these tier 2 and tier 3 nations if they aren't seeing their teams competing at the top level? How are you going to build interest, get the word out and about in Namibia, Canada, the US and Russia - in competition against their aggressively marketed traditional sports - in order to get enough people playing to be able to gather a decent crop of players?
There's enough evidence from post football world-cup and post Olympic surges in interest to show that these showcase events pique interest - of course, better than having these countries attend is hosting the event in the developing countries. It's been far too long coming that the tournament was hosted outside of the Tier 1 nations, and there's no immediate sign of it happening again.
O.
I get what Prof D is saying about a decent qualification round but it has problems that I order to do that you have a tournament between 'minor' teams which there will be substantial travel involved, and is unlikely to get large attendances. Given that many of the second and third tier countries struggle for cash as it is not sure that will solve it.
-
Of course another factor here is that for the Pacific Islands in particular, they have had their squads gutted by larger teams and the qualification rules to play for other nations.
I thought that, but having looked at the figures it's not as bad as I'd suspected. There are quiet a few countries with a number of overseas-born players (I was looking at my team, Scotland, as a key example) but for most of the countries the qualification is by parents and grand-parents nationality - which is fairly common across sports.
The residency requirement, as I recall, was only a really significant issue for two of the higher performing teams, Australia and Japan. The Pacific Islanders, given the economic interdependency with New Zealand and Australia, often have at least one parent or grandparent born in one of the other countries - that does lead to the better players being swept up by the more significant nations, but Rugby doesn't have the capacity to fundamentally alter the financial and social realities of small nations like that.
O.
-
I thought that, but having looked at the figures it's not as bad as I'd suspected. There are quiet a few countries with a number of overseas-born players (I was looking at my team, Scotland, as a key example) but for most of the countries the qualification is by parents and grand-parents nationality - which is fairly common across sports.
The residency requirement, as I recall, was only a really significant issue for two of the higher performing teams, Australia and Japan. The Pacific Islanders, given the economic interdependency with New Zealand and Australia, often have at least one parent or grandparent born in one of the other countries - that does lead to the better players being swept up by the more significant nations, but Rugby doesn't have the capacity to fundamentally alter the financial and social realities of small nations like that.
O.
Which may be the real problem with development here. The combination of the teams that play and their relationship may mean that it's not really a sport that will develop much beyond where we are. I think there is an argument for some form of relegation from the 6 nations to a second tier European league but as soon as anyone other than Italy and whoever cam up in their place were to go down we would have huge issues about the loss of revenue and tradition.
-
But, again, how are you going to encourage grass-roots activity in these tier 2 and tier 3 nations if they aren't seeing their teams competing at the top level? How are you going to build interest, get the word out and about in Namibia, Canada, the US and Russia - in competition against their aggressively marketed traditional sports - in order to get enough people playing to be able to gather a decent crop of players?
I cannot see how (in the case of Namibia) playing qualifying games that you always win and then getting humiliated in the finals when you always lose is going to engage the grass roots. And clearly it isn't as Namibia have made the past 6 finals but are still to win a single match.
I think for lesser nations (in any sport) being successful in a tough qualifying tournament is likely to garner more grass roots support and interest than endlessly qualifying easily and then getting humiliated in match after match at the finals.
-
There's enough evidence from post football world-cup and post Olympic surges in interest to show that these showcase events pique interest
But those are huge events with massive global reach. You can't compare them with the Rugby World Cup, which is a minority sport played to any meaningful degree in a handful of countries.
So for example in Russia, I suspect those you already play and are interested in rugby (not your target audience if you want to expand participation etc) will be watching, the rest of the people in Russia (your target audience for expanding the game) probably have no idea that the tournament is even on, let alone any interest in seeking out TV coverage etc.
-
I cannot see how (in the case of Namibia) playing qualifying games that you always win and then getting humiliated in the finals when you always lose is going to engage the grass roots. And clearly it isn't as Namibia have made the past 6 finals but are still to win a single match.
Except that they don't always win - they've had a particularly good run in the qualifying for this tournament, and the scores suggest that they're doing better this time than they have in the past. It remains to be seen if this is just a blip in their performance, or if it's evidence of the start of a sustained improvement.
I think for lesser nations (in any sport) being successful in a tough qualifying tournament is likely to garner more grass roots support and interest than endlessly qualifying easily and then getting humiliated in match after match at the finals.
Where, though, will the funding come for a second-tier world-wide or even continent- or hemisphere-spanning tournament outside of Europe? Rugby is trying to step up into the big-leagues of sport, but until it gets there the money is going to have to be invested strategically, and if enough of it isn't pushed the way of the established nations then there is the risk they'll break away and abandon the smaller nations to look after themselves.
O.
O.
-
Except that they don't always win - they've had a particularly good run in the qualifying for this tournament, and the scores suggest that they're doing better this time than they have in the past. It remains to be seen if this is just a blip in their performance, or if it's evidence of the start of a sustained improvement.
Where is the evidence of improvement - as I said in reply 81 (now updated)
'So as an example - Namibia - comfortably qualified for every 20 nation world cup (sometimes unbeaten) yet their record in the finals is played 19 (now played 22), lost 19 (now lost 22) - and conceding over 1100 (nigh on 1300 point now as they've shipped 175 points already in their 3 games so far) points in the process.'
Who knows - perhaps they'll end their 22 game losing streak against Canada, in what will be a pointless (literally up to that point unless you think Canada will get a point against South Africa) dead rubber match.
There is too wide a gap in quality between the qualifying tournament and the finals proper.
-
Rugby is trying to step up into the big-leagues of sport ...
But it wont achieve this while there are only 9 countries in the world who are competitive, and (arguably) only one where rugby union could be considered the leading national sport. And that country has a population of just 5 million people.
Rugby will always remain a niche sport, but it could be more competitive if the lower ranked sides are provided with a genuinely competitive competition (a proper qualifying tournament) with a shiny and valuable prize at the end (the world cup finals).
-
Where, though, will the funding come for a second-tier world-wide or even continent- or hemisphere-spanning tournament outside of Europe?
Where it currently comes from.
The issue isn't that the smaller nations aren't globetrotting to play games - they are. The issue is that their globetrotting isn't focussed on a competitive qualifying tournament.
So as an example, Namibia over the past couple of years (including their 100% record in the current non-competitive qualifying tournament) have played in Tunisia, Spain, Portugal, Uruguay, Russia, Morocco and Romania - and of course have been hosting those teams in reverse.
-
... and if enough of it isn't pushed the way of the established nations then there is the risk they'll break away and abandon the smaller nations to look after themselves.
But that is the situation currently. The big 9 have organised themselves into 2 annual competitions where they only play themselves (plus Italy). The powers that be have created a situation where no major club will ever have to qualify for the world cup (as even 3rd placed teams in the world cup automatically qualify for the next one). At least there is some movement with the notion or a regular global league, with some of the non established nations perhaps involved. But the current position, and one that the authorities aren't addressing, is that the big rugby playing nations have completely crowded out the smaller ones.
Compare with the football world cup where no-one (except the host nation) is too special that they don't have to qualify for the tournament. And the result is more competitive matches, for everyone, and far more competitive teams in the finals. Sure it tends to be the same nations that rise to the very top, but the equivalent of Croatia reaching the final or Iceland a semi final is impossible to contemplate in rugby.
-
But that is the situation currently. The big 9 have organised themselves into 2 annual competitions where they only play themselves (plus Italy). The powers that be have created a situation where no major club will ever have to qualify for the world cup (as even 3rd placed teams in the world cup automatically qualify for the next one). At least there is some movement with the notion or a regular global league, with some of the non established nations perhaps involved. But the current position, and one that the authorities aren't addressing, is that the big rugby playing nations have completely crowded out the smaller ones.
Some of the money from the two main hemispheric annual competitions, though, flows through to lower tier nations and development funds - if the top nations broke away entirely that would no longer be the case.
Compare with the football world cup where no-one (except the host nation) is too special that they don't have to qualify for the tournament. And the result is more competitive matches, for everyone, and far more competitive teams in the finals. Sure it tends to be the same nations that rise to the very top, but the equivalent of Croatia reaching the final or Iceland a semi final is impossible to contemplate in rugby.
The global reach of football, though, is such that not nearly as much work is needed to get people interested in the grass roots game - there's always work to do in improving early coaching and the like, but the background social drive to take part in football is already there across the majority of the world; for rugby that simply isn't the case at the moment.
O.
[/quote]
-
Some of the money from the two main hemispheric annual competitions, though, flows through to lower tier nations and development funds - if the top nations broke away entirely that would no longer be the case.
And if they allowed those lower tier nations to actually play with them in a proper competitive environment more than once every four years, then more would flow.
-
The global reach of football, though, is such that not nearly as much work is needed to get people interested in the grass roots game - there's always work to do in improving early coaching and the like, but the background social drive to take part in football is already there across the majority of the world; for rugby that simply isn't the case at the moment.
I agree and that is why your comparison with football and the olympics is erroneous.
You seemed to be implying that simply by virtue of (say) Russia being in the rugby world cup that rugby would get greater profile and more grass roots support. I don't think that is true unless there is already significant profile for the sport, which there isn't - it is a circular argument. To provide an analogy - due you think that England's involvement in the Lacrosse world cup in Israel last year (yup, who knew) would have got more people into lacrosse in England. Hmm well no, because the only people who would have known that England were in the Lacrosse world cup would already be interested in ... err ... lacrosse.
Until you hit a tipping point of profile there is very limited meaningful value of presence at the world tournament in terms of grass roots as people don't know about it.
-
And if they allowed those lower tier nations to actually play with them in a proper competitive environment more than once every four years, then more would flow.
I agree (and as a Scotland fan this is dangerous territory) that the Six Nations and Rugby Championship should have a relegation place in principle - at the practical level, though, it would be a continual cycle through two or possibly three teams with the bigger nations not really worried. Italy would have been relegated in 14 of the 20 six nations championships - and it's entirely possible that the likes of Georgia who are probably the 'best of the rest' in Europe would have lost the other years instead of Scotland, Wales and France. The stranglehold in the Southern Hemisphere is even stronger, with Argentina coming last in each of the seven competitions they've been included in.
Has being in the six nations significantly improved the quality of Italian rugby? It's difficult to say, but it doesn't appear to have done so in a meaningful way. The Six Nations and the Rugby Championship, though, are competitions followed by people who are already fans, in the main. A World Cup is a chance to attract attention from those people who aren't already fans, that's why I think it needs to involve some of the lesser nations - it's not about making the whole tournament ultra competitive, it's about showcasing rugby, and part of that is having the top teams battle it out, and part of it is allowing the less established nations their moment in the sun.
O.
-
A World Cup is a chance to attract attention from those people who aren't already fans, that's why I think it needs to involve some of the lesser nations -
And it will do that in nations where rugby already has a significant profile. So I'm sure there are plenty of non regular fans watching in New Zealand, for example, or even England although the time difference isn't in our favour.
However even if the matches are available on a sensible tv channel, who but the most hard core rugby fan in Uruguay would have been watching as they beat Fiji in a match that kicked off at about 3am Uruguay time!
Back in July 2018 were you suddenly glued to the lacrosse world cup that was going on at the time, and involved England, Wales and Scotland? Were you even aware it was happening?
-
The stranglehold in the Southern Hemisphere is even stronger, with Argentina coming last in each of the seven competitions they've been included in.
They've actually played in eight tournaments and come last in all but one. That said coming last in a tournament that includes New Zealand, Australia and South Africa is no disgrace and Argentina have more than held their own in the last few world cups, the current one withstanding. But arguably Argentina were admitted into the SH championship when they were past their peak (see below).
Has being in the six nations significantly improved the quality of Italian rugby? It's difficult to say, but it doesn't appear to have done so in a meaningful way.
No - but then why would they - losing and coming bottom has no consequences. Next year regular as clockwork they're back in the 6 nations. If there are no consequences for failure then you can hardly expect a team to improve.
-
Outrider - I wonder how many people in Vancouver who aren't currently hard-core rugby fans have got up at 3am to watch their team ship 30 points to South Africa in the first 20 minutes of their current match (assuming the match is even available to watch there) .
-
So Scotland did what was needed against Russia but now need to beat Japan by more than 7 point, or score 4 tries in beating them on Sunday. Current odds are Japan 6/4 on to qualify, Scotland 13/10.
-
So Scotland did what was needed against Russia but now need to beat Japan by more than 7 point, or score 4 tries in beating them on Sunday. Current odds are Japan 6/4 on to qualify, Scotland 13/10.
That last gasp bonus point that Japan gained against Samoa may prove decisive in the group.
There is also the possibility that all three teams (Scotland, Ireland and Japan) could end up on 15 points. Not quite sure how they'd pluck 2 from 3 then as each would have beaten each other.
-
That last gasp bonus point that Japan gained against Samoa may prove decisive in the group.
There is also the possibility that all three teams (Scotland, Ireland and Japan) could end up on 15 points. Not quite sure how they'd pluck 2 from 3 then as each would have beaten each other.
Points difference is the first criterion. If they were to all end up on 15 points Scotland and Ireland will go through as they currently have better points difference than Japan and would only have improved that with wins in their last matches. I do find it a shame that it isn't just winner takes all in the Scotland Japan match.
-
That last gasp bonus point that Japan gained against Samoa may prove decisive in the group.
There is also the possibility that all three teams (Scotland, Ireland and Japan) could end up on 15 points. Not quite sure how they'd pluck 2 from 3 then as each would have beaten each other.
Points difference. Japan will go out in that scenario.
-
That last gasp bonus point that Japan gained against Samoa may prove decisive in the group.
There is also the possibility that all three teams (Scotland, Ireland and Japan) could end up on 15 points. Not quite sure how they'd pluck 2 from 3 then as each would have beaten each other.
Points difference, tries difference, points scored, tries scored, IRB ranking as of 14th October 2019.
O
-
Points difference, tries difference, points scored, tries scored, IRB ranking as of 14th October 2019.
O
It won’t get beyond points difference. Japan’s is already the worst and if they lose to Scotland, it won’t get better.
-
Points difference, tries difference, points scored, tries scored, IRB ranking as of 14th October 2019.
O
I've just read that points difference will decide the top team if all teams finish on 15 points, having each beaten each other. Then second and third are decided on head to head result.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/07/rugby-world-cup-pool-permutations
See section on pool A.
If that is the case if Scotland beat Japan and Ireland fail to overtake Scotland's points difference (currently 19 better than Ireland), then Scotland win the group and who goes through would be based on the result of the Ireland/Japan game, which would be Japan.
-
I've just read that points difference will decide the top team if all teams finish on 15 points, having each beaten each other. Then second and third are decided on head to head result.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/07/rugby-world-cup-pool-permutations
See section on pool A.
If that is the case if Scotland beat Japan and Ireland fail to overtake Scotland's points difference (currently 19 better than Ireland), then Scotland win the group and who goes through would be based on the result of the Ireland/Japan game, which would be Japan.
So theoretically, given the Ireland match is on Saturday and the Scotland Japan game is on the Sunday, Scotland and Japan could arrange the score for both to go through, if Ireland don't get a bonus point.
-
So theoretically, given the Ireland match is on Saturday and the Scotland Japan game is on the Sunday, Scotland and Japan could arrange the score for both to go through, if Ireland don't get a bonus point.
If those are the correct criteria then, yes.
If Ireland fail to get a bonus point and haven't massively overtaken Scotland's points difference (which would probably be the case if they don't get a bonus point) Scotland and Japan can contrive a result that gets them both through. The interesting thing would be what would happen if early in the second half Scotland were no more than 7 points up and had scored 4 tries to get their own bonus point - would either side do anything to rock the boat? If Scotland push for a greater victory (which would achieve nothing, they'd be top anyway) they'd risk shipping a try or two and perhaps lose or draw meaning elimination. For Japan, sure they could push on to try to win or draw or get a 4 try bonus point themselves, but all they'd gain is a different quarter final draw but if while pressing they let Scotland win by more than 7 they are out.
Football got rid of this non-sense back in the 80s after the West Germany/Austria game in the 1982 world cup.
-
If those are the correct criteria then, yes.
If Ireland fail to get a bonus point and haven't massively overtaken Scotland's points difference (which would probably be the case if they don't get a bonus point) Scotland and Japan can contrive a result that gets them both through. The interesting thing would be what would happen if early in the second half Scotland were no more than 7 points up and had scored 4 tries to get their own bonus point - would either side do anything to rock the boat? If Scotland push for a greater victory (which would achieve nothing, they'd be top anyway) they'd risk shipping a try or two and perhaps lose or draw meaning elimination. For Japan, sure they could push on to try to win or draw or get a 4 try bonus point themselves, but all they'd gain is a different quarter final draw but if while pressing they let Scotland win by more than 7 they are out.
Football got rid of this non-sense back in the 80s after the West Germany/Austria game in the 1982 world cup.
-
Wales through although Fiji gave them quite a game. More concerning is that they seem of have several potentially serious injuries.
-
So all the Group A permutations may be made moot by Hagibis
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49984703
-
I've just read that points difference will decide the top team if all teams finish on 15 points, having each beaten each other. Then second and third are decided on head to head result.
Yes, that's different from what I thought. I've just checked the official page and it does explicitly call that situation out.
https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/tournament-rules
If that is the case if Scotland beat Japan and Ireland fail to overtake Scotland's points difference (currently 19 better than Ireland), then Scotland win the group and who goes through would be based on the result of the Ireland/Japan game, which would be Japan.
Ireland could fail to overtake Scotland's points difference but still earn a bonus point against Samoa. Then they would top the group unless Japan wins against Scotland.
-
Wales through although Fiji gave them quite a game. More concerning is that they seem of have several potentially serious injuries.
According to the BBC text updates, Jonathan Davies was looking like his world Cup was over when sat on the bench.
I thought Dan Biggar's injury didn't sound too bad as he went off for a head injury and as long as he passed the concussion tests would be OK for the next game. However, it is apparently his second head injury of the tournament, so he might be in some trouble.
I'm not sure about the status of Josh Adams.
The BBC were saying that Jonathan Davies would be a huge loss, but I think they might feel the loss of Biggar more because he was already Wales's second choice.
-
Yes, that's different from what I thought. I've just checked the official page and it does explicitly call that situation out.
https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/tournament-rules
Which seems to confirm the position I indicated, namely that if all three teams have 15 points, then the team with the biggest points difference will top the group and the second and third place will be determined on the basis of the results between those two teams.
Ireland could fail to overtake Scotland's points difference but still earn a bonus point against Samoa. Then they would top the group unless Japan wins against Scotland.
Yup if Ireland win and get a bonus point they are through.
-
So all the Group A permutations may be made moot by Hagibis
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49984703
Turning into an utter fiasco.
How on earth the organisers are unable to move venues or shift the games forward or back a day is beyond me.
Scotland could well be eliminated if (as appears likely from the radio item) their game is cancelled.
Italy already have been eliminated by that method, although their chances of progression were slim.
-
And you would have thought this would be one of the easier matches to move given it's the last one of the pool games.
-
And you would have thought this would be one of the easier matches to move given it's the last one of the pool games.
The downside of moving it to Monday (and perhaps a different venue) will be less rest time for the qualifying team prior to the quarter finals. But as the New Zealand game is cancelled (so they wont have played for 2 weeks) and South Africa played their last pool game on Tuesday, there was always going to be a huge mismatch in rest time.
Although I suspect it isn't the Japanese organisers in control of the decision the suspicion will be that cancelling the match guarantees that Japan go through.
And the other aspect is that this was the only group with something meaningful to play for in the final round of matches - the rest being dead rubbers, so we will just got rid of the only real excitement at the end of the group stages if the match doesn't go ahead.
-
Yep, agree with all of that. And of course should it be called off, then Japan will top the group
-
Yep, agree with all of that. And of course should it be called off, then Japan will top the group
Sure - I don't think Japan will care too much about that - I suspect they'd happily take a quarter final regardless of whether it is against NZ or SA.
However Ireland wont be happy about having to face NZ in the quarters regardless of how well they beat Samoa. To an extent, though, they have themselves to blame for losing to Japan in the first place.
-
The downside of moving it to Monday (and perhaps a different venue) will be less rest time for the qualifying team prior to the quarter finals. But as the New Zealand game is cancelled (so they wont have played for 2 weeks) and South Africa played their last pool game on Tuesday, there was always going to be a huge mismatch in rest time.
Although I suspect it isn't the Japanese organisers in control of the decision the suspicion will be that cancelling the match guarantees that Japan go through.
And the other aspect is that this was the only group with something meaningful to play for in the final round of matches - the rest being dead rubbers, so we will just got rid of the only real excitement at the end of the group stages if the match doesn't go ahead.
Apparently, Monday is a national holiday in Japan. That means they might not be able to find enough people to staff the venue.
Anyway, Scotland are suing
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50011693
-
Japan will top the group
I don't think that really matters. I don't think any team in Pool A would beat South Africa, let alone New Zealand.
-
I don't think that really matters. I don't think any team in Pool A would beat South Africa, let alone New Zealand.
Ireland could beat either if they play well - they have the all-round game to do so. Scotland and Japan would both struggle - Scotland's forwards do not secure enough ball, and quick enough ball, to unleash their back line enough to worry either of those sides; Japan rely to an extent on wearing opposition out, and I suspect South Africa and New Zealand have enough gamecraft to slow the pace of the game and play to something approximating their own tempo a little more.
O.
-
Ireland could beat either if they play well
Any team can beat any other team if they play well enough and the other side plays badly enough. Ireland have played well in the past but in 2019 they have been patchy at best. I don't think they will beat South Africa.
-
So Ireland are through and who they play next, while some that is academic, will be what happens tomorrow.
If the match is cancelled, it will mean that Greig Laidlaw will be retired
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50020483
-
And match going ahead, and I fins myself supporting Japan.
-
And match going ahead, and I fins myself supporting Japan.
Great that the match is going ahead.
-
As I write it is 28-21 to Japan. If I am reading the rules correctly,
https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/tournament-rules
If Japan end up losing by 7 points or less, they will still top the group because they will have two bonus points.
-
Well that's moot. Well done Japan.
-
Oh
https://www.checkiday.com/7f513f44e219e0fe8bb74e10b1b132d1/international-day-for-failure
-
Well that's moot. Well done Japan.
Absolutely. I will console myself with the money on the bet I made a few weeks ago.
-
Absolutely. I will console myself with the money on the bet I made a few weeks ago.
So one of the teams ranked 1st and 2nd immediately pre-tournament wont be making it beyond the quarter final.
-
So one of the teams ranked 1st and 2nd immediately pre-tournament wont be making it beyond the quarter final.
My money is on it being Ireland.
-
So one of the teams ranked 1st and 2nd immediately pre-tournament wont be making it beyond the quarter final.
And I made money from it
-
My money is on it being Ireland.
Agreed - in which case the Irish curse of not making it beyond the quarters will continue.
-
Agreed - in which case the Irish curse of not making it beyond the quarters will continue.
What about Japan - RSA then? I'm fairly confident that it will be South Africa that wins but Japan played so well against Scotland, that I don't think it is a dead cert that South Africa will win.
-
What about Japan - RSA then? I'm fairly confident that it will be South Africa that wins but Japan played so well against Scotland, that I don't think it is a dead cert that South Africa will win.
Japan have beaten SA in the world cup in the past, but I think this will be a step too far for them.
-
Japan have beaten SA in the world cup in the past, but I think this will be a step too far for them.
I agree, South Africa are a much better side than the previous one that lost to Japan.
-
Current odds see a Japan win at 7/1.
-
Interesting article on the gap between Tier 1 and Tier 2 nations
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50026631
-
Interesting article on the gap between Tier 1 and Tier 2 nations
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50026631
I wonder how much of the difference between 2015 and 2019 is accounted for by the performance of the hosts of 2019 and tier 2 nation Japan. Also, given that Japan still has to play South Africa, that could improve the margin of victory for this year.
The larger step between 2011 and 2015 could be accounted for by Argentina's admission into the Rugby Championship in 2012 which "promoted" them to tier 1. If they had been classified as tier 2 for this tournament, the graph would definitely look worse for the tier 2 nations.
-
I wonder how much of the difference between 2015 and 2019 is accounted for by the performance of the hosts of 2019 and tier 2 nation Japan. Also, given that Japan still has to play South Africa, that could improve the margin of victory for this year.
The larger step between 2011 and 2015 could be accounted for by Argentina's admission into the Rugby Championship in 2012 which "promoted" them to tier 1. If they had been classified as tier 2 for this tournament, the graph would definitely look worse for the tier 2 nations.
Can't see much evidence of progress from that article - quite the reverse.
In the first four world cups there were seven tier 2 victories over tier 1 sides in 66 matches. In the most recent 5 world cups the have just five tier 2 victories over tier 1 sides in 120 matches - and two of those victories are Japan in this tournament with the benefit of home advantage.
-
So the various comments from rugby professionals can be dismissed because...
-
So the various comments from rugby professionals can be dismissed because...
of evidence ... as always.
-
So the various comments from rugby professionals can be dismissed because...
Are you talking about the ones at the bottom of the article? Because none of them said that the gap has got narrower. Paul Grayson and Eddie Jones both said that tier 2 nations have improved, but not that they are closer to challenging tier 1 nations.
I suppose you could argue that, in context, they were saying the gap was narrowing but neither are involved in coaching tier 2 nations at the moment and despite Eddie's comments, Tonga and USA lost all of their matches against tier 1 nations, including against Argentina which is one of the weakest tier 1 nations.
-
Are you talking about the ones at the bottom of the article? Because none of them said that the gap has got narrower. Paul Grayson and Eddie Jones both said that tier 2 nations have improved, but not that they are closer to challenging tier 1 nations.
I suppose you could argue that, in context, they were saying the gap was narrowing but neither are involved in coaching tier 2 nations at the moment and despite Eddie's comments, Tonga and USA lost all of their matches against tier 1 nations, including against Argentina which is one of the weakest tier 1 nations.
Yep, fair points.
-
Are you talking about the ones at the bottom of the article? Because none of them said that the gap has got narrower. Paul Grayson and Eddie Jones both said that tier 2 nations have improved, but not that they are closer to challenging tier 1 nations.
I suppose you could argue that, in context, they were saying the gap was narrowing but neither are involved in coaching tier 2 nations at the moment and despite Eddie's comments, Tonga and USA lost all of their matches against tier 1 nations, including against Argentina which is one of the weakest tier 1 nations.
I think it is difficult to argue that the gap has narrowed, looking at the victory rate of tier 2 nations over tier 1 nations over the history of the world cup. Has the gap widened - well the results in terms of likelihood of victory suggest so, taking the most recent few world cups and comparing with the first few.
The article makes a point about reduction in average size of defeat (somewhat clutching at straws), but doesn't go all the way back. I think there is likely a trend here, but not sure it is related to the gap narrowing. I think it may be due to changes in the rules of the tournament.
First the introduction of bonus points has made points difference almost irrelevant, so once you are assured of victory and have scored four tries there is limited value in stacking up more and more points (particularly at the risk of injury), so I suspect teams take their foot off the pedal more than they might have done once.
Secondly (and probably more importantly) the number of replacements allowed has changed dramatically. So back in the days of 100+ points the weaker side would be playing the final quarter with largely the same team as started, with the stronger and fitter team running riot - now half the team can be fresh.
-
I think that last point from Prof D is a very good one.
-
I think that last point from Prof D is a very good one.
I think also players, even from the lesser teams, are fitter now even if the gulf in quality and training is as great as ever. This plus the ability to change over half your side limits the likelihood of conceding at the levels we used to see.
-
I think also players, even from the lesser teams, are fitter now even if the gulf in quality and training is as great as ever. This plus the ability to change over half your side limits the likelihood of conceding at the levels we used to see.
And the ability to have multiple replacements may while overall reducing the score differential also affect the ability of Tier 2 teams to win in circumstances where Tier 1 team loses better players.
-
And the ability to have multiple replacements may while overall reducing the score differential also affect the ability of Tier 2 teams to win in circumstances where Tier 1 team loses better players.
As the tier 1 teams tend to have greater strength in depth greater numbers of replacement probably also makes it harder for the tier 2 side to win, even if their fresh legs can prevent a massive mauling. It takes some of the uncertainty out of the equation which is often required for a giant killing upset.
-
As the tier 1 teams tend to have greater strength in depth greater numbers of replacement probably also makes it harder for the tier 2 side to win, even if their fresh legs can prevent a massive mauling. It takes some of the uncertainty out of the equation which is often required for a giant killing upset.
Yes, that was my point since we need to explain both the number of victories and points differential changes.
To go back to the article, what is your take on Tier 2 coaches looking for more playing with Tier 1 sides?
-
I think it is difficult to argue that the gap has narrowed, looking at the victory rate of tier 2 nations over tier 1 nations over the history of the world cup. Has the gap widened - well the results in terms of likelihood of victory suggest so, taking the most recent few world cups and comparing with the first few.
The article makes a point about reduction in average size of defeat (somewhat clutching at straws), but doesn't go all the way back. I think there is likely a trend here, but not sure it is related to the gap narrowing. I think it may be due to changes in the rules of the tournament.
First the introduction of bonus points has made points difference almost irrelevant, so once you are assured of victory and have scored four tries there is limited value in stacking up more and more points (particularly at the risk of injury), so I suspect teams take their foot off the pedal more than they might have done once.
Secondly (and probably more importantly) the number of replacements allowed has changed dramatically. So back in the days of 100+ points the weaker side would be playing the final quarter with largely the same team as started, with the stronger and fitter team running riot - now half the team can be fresh.
All very good points. And another one about bonus points: the losing side has an incentive to keep within seven points of the winning side. This means that, while the winning side, having got its four tries and a bonus point may take its foot off the gas, there is still something the losing side can aim for.
So with all these issues:
- bonus points
- more replacements
- Argentina's promotion to tier 1
- Japan doing well in a home competition.
we should really be concerned about why the gap hasn't closed more.
-
To go back to the article, what is your take on Tier 2 coaches looking for more playing with Tier 1 sides?
Well they have to for two reasons.
1. It helps them understand better what the quality is that they have to beat so it doesn't come as so much of a shock when the RWC comes around.
2. It'll help improve visibility of the sport in their home country and hopefully improve revenues for the sport.
In any sport, the two drivers for success are how many people participate and how much money you spend on them.
-
Well they have to for two reasons.
1. It helps them understand better what the quality is that they have to beat so it doesn't come as so much of a shock when the RWC comes around.
2. It'll help improve visibility of the sport in their home country and hopefully improve revenues for the sport.
In any sport, the two drivers for success are how many people participate and how much money you spend on them.
Yes, I agree with that, I was asking Prof D because his plans seem to reduce the likelihood of that.
-
Yes, I agree with that, I was asking Prof D because his plans seem to reduce the likelihood of that.
You mean his plan for reducing the number of teams in the World Cup?
I was thinking that tier 2 nations and tier 1 nations need to be playing each other more often outside the World Cup. The World Cup only happens once every four years. there needs to be more tier 1/tier2 matches in the other three years.
-
You mean his plan for reducing the number of teams in the World Cup?
I was thinking that tier 2 nations and tier 1 nations need to be playing each other more often outside the World Cup. The World Cup only happens once every four years. there needs to be more tier 1/tier2 matches in the other three years.
Not just that but also the idea that there needs to be an increase in competitive games for Tier 1 teams with some sort of international competition linking the north and south hemispheres more frequently than the World Cup. I'm not sure how that would get more Tier 1, Tier 2 matches happening given the reduction from reducing the numbers in the World Cup. There might be something in some form of promotion/relegation approach but that has its own problems.
-
Not just that but also the idea that there needs to be an increase in competitive games for Tier 1 teams with some sort of international competition linking the north and south hemispheres more frequently than the World Cup. I'm not sure how that would get more Tier 1, Tier 2 matches happening given the reduction from reducing the numbers in the World Cup. There might be something in some form of promotion/relegation approach but that has its own problems.
That would be the proposed Nations championship or cup or whatever (which is dead). And it would have addressed the fact that NH sides only play SH sides competitively in the RWC and that often turns out to be a bit of a shock for the NH sides. There would also have been relegation and promotion for the Six Nations and the Rugby Championship which would provide three tier 2 sides with tier 1 games (or more realistically, two tier 2 sides that would alternate by year). That wouldn't be enough, I agree, but it would be something.
-
That would be the proposed Nations championship or cup or whatever (which is dead). And it would have addressed the fact that NH sides only play SH sides competitively in the RWC and that often turns out to be a bit of a shock for the NH sides. There would also have been relegation and promotion for the Six Nations and the Rugby Championship which would provide three tier 2 sides with tier 1 games (or more realistically, two tier 2 sides that would alternate by year). That wouldn't be enough, I agree, but it would be something.
I would say that we need a major reform that somehow gives more games and a bigger spread of money but I suspect that the word money here is the problem.
-
Yes, I agree with that, I was asking Prof D because his plans seem to reduce the likelihood of that.
I don't want to see fewer competitive games against the big 9 and the rest - I want to see more. That's why we need to have a proper and properly competitive qualifying tournament for the world cup, but that can only really happen if you reduce the number of teams as currently the teams that fail to qualify are so, so poor that even teams like Namibia sail through qualifying.
-
Yes, that was my point since we need to explain both the number of victories and points differential changes.
To go back to the article, what is your take on Tier 2 coaches looking for more playing with Tier 1 sides?
I agree, but those matches need to be both competitive (i.e. they mean something if you win or if you lose, not meaningless friendlies) and also competitive (in that the teams are closely enough matched to have some reasonable chance of tier 2 vs tier 1 victory increasingly regularly). So this means being more nuanced that just 'tier 1' and 'tier 2' - it means the bottom of tier 1 and the top of tier 2.
So Japan or Fiji or Samoa regularly playing Argentina or Scotland or Italy in matches where the winner might qualify for the world cup will help them develop. I don't think regularly pitching Namibia against New Zealand will achieve anything much until Namibia improve, but they may do so by regularly playing Georgia or Canada in matches that matter, not pointless friendlies.
-
I don't want to see fewer competitive games against the big 9 and the rest - I want to see more. That's why we need to have a proper and properly competitive qualifying tournament for the world cup, but that can only really happen if you reduce the number of teams as currently the teams that fail to qualify are so, so poor that even teams like Namibia sail through qualifying.
As noted, that needs a proper change. If the participation is reduced, it automatically reduces the games between Tier 1 and Tier 2. And any reorganisation of the various competitions need to take that into account.
-
I agree, but those matches need to be both competitive (i.e. they mean something if you win or if you lose, not meaningless friendlies) and also competitive (in that the teams are closely enough matched to have some reasonable chance of tier 2 vs tier 1 victory increasingly regularly). So this means being more nuanced that just 'tier 1' and 'tier 2' - it means the bottom of tier 1 and the top of tier 2.
So Japan or Fiji or Samoa regularly playing Argentina or Scotland or Italy in matches where the winner might qualify for the world cup will help them develop. I don't think regularly pitching Namibia against New Zealand will achieve anything much until Namibia improve, but they may do so by regularly playing Georgia or Canada in matches that matter, not pointless friendlies.
I think there is a whole question here about what regular means. Every 8 or so years for Namibia v NZ isn't that. But yes, i think you are right that the Tier 1 Tier 2 split is blunt however without a fully thought out idea we end up with just a different form of the problem we currently have.
-
As noted, that needs a proper change.
Absolutely
If the participation is reduced, it automatically reduces the games between Tier 1 and Tier 2. And any reorganisation of the various competitions need to take that into account.
No it doesn't - currently there are no competitive games between tier 1 and tier 2 sides except in the world cup finals proper - so that means they play 2 or 3 games once in 4 years. The teams that qualify for a reduced size world cup finals will still be playing those 2 or 3 games in the finals proper (the game that would be missing would be tier 2 vs tier 2), but there would be other games in the intervening 4 years, ideally linked to qualifying for the finals, between the tier 1 and 2 sides.
-
Absolutely
No it doesn't - currently there are no competitive games between tier 1 and tier 2 sides except in the world cup finals proper - so that means they play 2 or 3 games once in 4 years. The teams that qualify for a reduced size world cup finals will still be playing those 2 or 3 games in the finals proper (the game that would be missing would be tier 2 vs tier 2), but there would be other games in the intervening 4 years, ideally linked to qualifying for the finals, between the tier 1 and 2 sides.
Sorry not getting this, if you reduce the Tier 2 teams you reduce the number of matches with Tier 1 sides unless you make a major change to the matches in between.
-
Sorry not getting this, if you reduce the Tier 2 teams you reduce the number of matches with Tier 1 sides unless you make a major change to the matches in between.
But you are seeing all tier 2 sides as being similar, while they are not - some (e.g. Japan, Fiji, Samoa) are or are close to being competitive against some of the tier 1 sides. Other's (e.g. Namibia, Russia, Uruguay's) aspirations aren't at that level yet and their best result would be a victory against a good tier 2 side. So the latter really shouldn't be in the world cup (and wouldn't be under a 16 team format). But for the former they would still be playing exactly the same number of world cup matches against tier 1 opponents - so for Japan the 'lost' match in a 16 match format compared to the current 20 team format would be against Russia.
And of course the world cup finals are currently the only time tier 2 sides play tier 1 sides in anything other than meaningless friendlies. I want to see a proper qualifying tournament - perhaps not all teams would have to qualify (minus hosts, as in football) but under a 16 team format I'd like to see only the quarter finalists, or maybe even better, the semi-finalists, qualify automatically. If that happened, then Japan and Fiji would be playing Scotland, Argentina (maybe even Ireland and France) in meaningful qualifying matches in the intervening 4 years between world cups.
So the number of meaningful tier 2 vs tier 1 games would increase significantly.
I think also that there should be layers of qualifying tournament - each broadly competitive within itself. So below the final qualifying we might have Namibia and Uruguay having to compete hard in a proper tournament against teams of similar quality to get through to the final qualifying tournament.
At the moment, below the top tier there are far to many teams who are either playing meaningless friendlies and the the only time thy play competitive games they are totally one sided - in both directions - as an example see Namibia, qualifying tournament was piss easy for them playing teams massively worse than them. But in the finals they are playing games against teams far too good for them (the only match outside that category, arguably, was the dead rubber against Canada that was cancelled). Teams develop by playing regularly and competitively against other teams of similar quality or a little better.
-
I thought England played well today. Unfortunately, Ireland put up hardly any resistance to the All Blacks, so I think our run will be over next weekend.
-
I thought England played well today. Unfortunately, Ireland put up hardly any resistance to the All Blacks, so I think our run will be over next weekend.
Looking forward to the match.
-
Summary of quarter finals so far:
England very impressive
NZ awesome - is there any point in continuing with the tournament, just give them the trophy now ;)
Wales - really fortunate - I cannot see how they would have won had France had 15 men - and what gross stupidity on the part of Vahaamahina
-
Brilliant performance from England.
-
Brilliant performance from England.
Four years ago the press was lamenting the fact that there were no NH sides in the semi finals. Now there is a real possibility of an all NH final, for the first time ever. I wonder if the press in the antipodes will manufacture an equivalent crisis to 2015.
Although, it occurs to me that all four coaches in the semis are from the SH.
-
Sadly not an all NH final.
-
An interesting factoid for you.
Just up the road from me in Harpenden there is a non-selective secondary state school called St Georges - a far few of my friends send their kids there. No less than three members of the current England team went there - Owen Farrell, George Ford and Maro Itoje.
So looking at the scorers on Saturday the result was actually St Georges School, Harpenden -14: New Zealand -7 ;D
I'm sure that's how they will be billing it up the road.
If England win I wonder whether there has ever been a world cup winning side with 3 players from the same school.
-
An interesting factoid for you.
Just up the road from me in Harpenden there is a non-selective secondary state school called St Georges - a far few of my friends send their kids there. No less than three members of the current England team went there - Owen Farrell, George Ford and Maro Itoje.
So looking at the scorers on Saturday the result was actually St Georges School, Harpenden -14: New Zealand -7 ;D
I'm sure that's how they will be billing it up the road.
If England win I wonder whether there has ever been a world cup winning side with 3 players from the same school.
That's very impressive. You should raise it on ITV's twitter coverage of the World Cup, and ask them to get their researchers to see if it has happened - even playing in the final.
-
That's very impressive. You should raise it on ITV's twitter coverage of the World Cup, and ask them to get their researchers to see if it has happened - even playing in the final.
May well do.
Actually Farrell and Ford ended up at St Georges for the same reason - both had Dads who were professional Rugby League players who converted to Union and joined Saracens, who play not far away, in the same year - the older Farrell as a player, the older Ford as a coach.
St Georges is a very peculiar state school. First it is a Christian faith school but non denominational, so not CoE or RC etc - one of just a handful in the country. Secondly it is one of a tiny number of state schools who have a small number of boarding places available (I think about 20).
-
An interesting factoid for you.
Just up the road from me in Harpenden there is a non-selective secondary state school called St Georges - a far few of my friends send their kids there. No less than three members of the current England team went there - Owen Farrell, George Ford and Maro Itoje.
So looking at the scorers on Saturday the result was actually St Georges School, Harpenden -14: New Zealand -7 ;D
I'm sure that's how they will be billing it up the road.
If England win I wonder whether there has ever been a world cup winning side with 3 players from the same school.
The current New Zealand squad has three brothers in it that could potentially play at the same time. Probably they all went to the same school, so they could be an exa-... oh wait. New Zealand can't win the World Cup. That's such a shame.
-
The current New Zealand squad has three brothers in it that could potentially play at the same time. Probably they all went to the same school, so they could be an exa-... oh wait. New Zealand can't win the World Cup. That's such a shame.
Indeed ;)
Yes I had thought about the issue of brothers and it isn't uncommon to have brothers in teams. I guess the perhaps unique point here is three unrelated players from the same school.
-
I see that England have been fined for their actions during the haka:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50229807
Not for their V-sign, but because a couple of players encroached slightly into the opposition half. Seems rather petty to me.
However my point is a more general one about the haka - I've long thought it wrong that NZ get two motivational set pieces prior to a match, the national anthem and the haka, while other teams get just one. Seems fairer to me that NZ should have to choose which one they want, either the national anthem or the haka, but not both.
I'm also glad that we are much more accepting of a robust response to the haka (e.g. England, or turning back or simply continuing to lightly practice). The old approach where the opposition were obliged to simply stand respectfully and watch as NZ built themselves up for the start of the match was wrong.
-
An interesting factoid for you.
Just up the road from me in Harpenden there is a non-selective secondary state school called St Georges - a far few of my friends send their kids there. No less than three members of the current England team went there - Owen Farrell, George Ford and Maro Itoje.
So looking at the scorers on Saturday the result was actually St Georges School, Harpenden -14: New Zealand -7 ;D
I'm sure that's how they will be billing it up the road.
If England win I wonder whether there has ever been a world cup winning side with 3 players from the same school.
Article about link between England team and St Georges School in the Times today (may be behind pay wall)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rugby-world-cup-final-st-georges-school-harpenden-claims-a-hat-trick-of-england-rugby-stars-mtvn9p9j9
I'd not realised, but apparently there is a fourth ex pupil in the squad, Jack Singleton, although I suspect he's unlikely to play on Saturday.
-
I can't believe it. They scheduled the third place playoff on a Friday. It was over before I knew it was on. Entirely predictable result.
-
I can't believe it. They scheduled the third place playoff on a Friday. It was over before I knew it was on. Entirely predictable result.
Yes - seems strange - don't know why they didn't have the 3rd place match on Saturday and the final on Sunday.
Agree, entirely predictable result.
-
However my point is a more general one about the haka - I've long thought it wrong that NZ get two motivational set pieces prior to a match, the national anthem and the haka, while other teams get just one. Seems fairer to me that NZ should have to choose which one they want, either the national anthem or the haka, but not both.
I was quite amused some years ago by an interview ahead of the Calcutta Cup, I don't recall which player it was with, where the interviewer was attempting to agitate some anti-English sentiment, and the player pointed out he wasn't upset at the anthems, it just meant there were two anthems that applied to him rather than simply the one, but that ultimately that didn't make the blindest bit of difference.
I'm also glad that we are much more accepting of a robust response to the haka (e.g. England, or turning back or simply continuing to lightly practice). The old approach where the opposition were obliged to simply stand respectfully and watch as NZ built themselves up for the start of the match was wrong.
I believe - although I'm prepared to be proven wrong - that you aren't permitted to turn your back or walk away from the Haka (or the Sipi Tau, or the others) or it's another offence that can be met with a fine.
And, to hear a Maori I used to play with, that sort of disrespect would rile them up more than meeting the Haka head on. I'm not sure that's wise :)
O.
-
I believe - although I'm prepared to be proven wrong - that you aren't permitted to turn your back or walk away from the Haka (or the Sipi Tau, or the others) or it's another offence that can be met with a fine.
Which I think is wrong - the haka is highly aggressive and inherently confrontational (just watch it) and it is one way - the opposing side don't get their own opportunity to respond. So I think, in the interests of fairness, that the opposition should be able to do what they want while the haka is ongoing in their own half. And if that means turning their backs, then so be it.
And, to hear a Maori I used to play with, that sort of disrespect would rile them up more than meeting the Haka head on. I'm not sure that's wise :)
Sure it may rile them up but this is all part of the mind games, and each side should get an equal chance to play those mind games.
-
Which I think is wrong - the haka is highly aggressive and inherently confrontational (just watch it) and it is one way - the opposing side don't get their own opportunity to respond. So I think, in the interests of fairness, that the opposition should be able to do what they want while the haka is ongoing in their own half. And if that means turning their backs, then so be it.
Sure it may rile them up but this is all part of the mind games, and each side should get an equal chance to play those mind games.
I think England should be allowed to do the Morris Dance with the sticks.
However, I think the Haka might have a limited lifetime. Somebody is bound to object given that it is a Maori dance being done by mostly white men partaking in a sport that was imported from the colonial oppressor.
-
I think England should be allowed to do the Morris Dance with the sticks.
Absolutely - actually perhaps they should be able to do the haka too as they have a significant number of pacific islanders in their team ;)
However, I think the Haka might have a limited lifetime. Somebody is bound to object given that it is a Maori dance being done by mostly white men partaking in a sport that was imported from the colonial oppressor.
You may be right - it seems somewhat anachronistic and not in keeping with top level professional sport. Also the slightly uncomfortable colonial aspect is certainly there. It feels like something that still sits in the old amateur days of rugby, alongside the Barbarians and the Lions, but that seems ill fitting today.
-
Predictions for tomorrow anybody? I'm a bit nervous that England might choke. I think SA may win.
-
Predictions for tomorrow anybody? I'm a bit nervous that England might choke. I think SA may win.
20 - 10 to England. I get the nerves but can't quite see how Sth Africa win.
-
Predictions for tomorrow anybody? I'm a bit nervous that England might choke. I think SA may win.
Me too.
My head says England win, my heart worries.
-
This isn't going well
-
This isn't going well
stop with the negative vibes man !!!
-
Very important kick.
-
Oooof
-
Very important kick.
oh fof...!
-
Had to have a toot on my nitro spray 😱
-
That was brilliant
-
That was brilliant
the replay from above , wow !
-
Sth Africa done to England what England did to NZ
-
Sth Africa done to England what England did to NZ
as the tears evaporate on my cheeks ,
I can say " I dared to dream "
W
-
First time a country has won the World Cup having lost a match.
-
The best team won. ;D ;D ;D
-
That interview with Siya Kolisi was beautiful
-
The best team won. ;D ;D ;D
That's true but there's no need to be happy about it.
-
That's true but there's no need to be happy about it.
I couldn't care less who won, having no interest in any sport?
-
I couldn't care less who won, having no interest in any sport?
deep joy 😤
-
I couldn't care less who won, having no interest in any sport?
Why are you posting on this thread then?