Rugby World Cup 2019

[Nearly Sane]

Fascinating little story

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/49878877

[Nearly Sane]

And a bit of a team.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49877206

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

As already pointed out, my comment was in addition to what Prof D already raised about the 5 team groups.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ad_orientem]

Bonus points? What's all that about?

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.