Rugby World Cup 2019

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

... 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.

[Outrider]

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]

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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) .

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Outrider]

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