Rugby World Cup 2019

[jeremyp]

  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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

  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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[Nearly Sane]

Brilliant performance from England.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

Sadly not an all NH final.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[jeremyp]

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

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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. 

[ProfessorDavey]

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

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.

[jeremyp]

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.