RWC Week 3: England v Chile

Jailbreak7

What an excellent raking kick from Chile from the 22...if only we could do that....

Bones

20 minute build up required for England to work it to their wing in space.

Borthwick is a genius. Bore the other team to sleep.

Bones

Farrell looks like he was hitting the boulangerie in his time off.

Jailbreak7

England look like they are sealing off at every ruck

sparky

Marc Ellis must be getting nervous that Henry Arundell will match or break his record.

Bones

Monye needs to calm down a little. Yeah Ford is a good player mate, but all he's done is throw a pass against a dog tired defence from the worst team at the RWC.

MN5

@Bones said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

Monye needs to calm down a little. Yeah Ford is a good player mate, but all he's done is throw a pass against a dog tired defence from the worst team at the RWC.

Are you saying they’re worse than Namibia ? Crikey

MajorRage

Best commentary when England were scoring plenty.

“Where has this England team been!!!”

Er…. Not playing Chile?

Duluth

NTA

@Jailbreak7 said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

England look like they are sealing off at every ruck

It was Jaco Peyper. Every ruck is a lottery.

Chile probably could feel hard done by at a couple of rucks, certainly.

NTA

I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.

Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.

Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.

Not exactly fair.

MN5

@NTA said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.

Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.

Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.

Not exactly fair.

I think the organisers just think ‘They’re minnows, fuck them’

Such is life in pro sport I guess.

Catogrande

@MN5

Yeah, I think we’ve had the same discussion during each RWC. It smacks of “you’re a minnow, you should be thankful to be here”.

MajorRage

@NTA said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.

Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.

Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.

Not exactly fair.

What are world rugby supposed to do? Make the tournament last 3 months?

In every pool, two teams have to play 4 weeks in a row. Why not decide it by seedings? Alternative take is also that if you are in a tough pool, you might prefer to take 4 weeks in s row, then a week off pre QF.

Rugby has a lot of issues but Chiles turnaround times are not one of them.

Machpants

@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

@NTA said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.

Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.

Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.

Not exactly fair.

What are world rugby supposed to do? Make the tournament last 3 months?

In every pool, two teams have to play 4 weeks in a row. Why not decide it by seedings? Alternative take is also that if you are in a tough pool, you might prefer to take 4 weeks in s row, then a week off pre QF.

Rugby has a lot of issues but Chiles turnaround times are not one of them.

Even numbers in pools then everyone plays every weekend. Simples

MN5

@Machpants said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

@NTA said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.

Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.

Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.

Not exactly fair.

What are world rugby supposed to do? Make the tournament last 3 months?

In every pool, two teams have to play 4 weeks in a row. Why not decide it by seedings? Alternative take is also that if you are in a tough pool, you might prefer to take 4 weeks in s row, then a week off pre QF.

Rugby has a lot of issues but Chiles turnaround times are not one of them.

Even numbers in pools then everyone plays every weekend. Simples

In saying all that it seems a bit ridiculous that many teams have played three times and Scots have only played once.

Machpants

@MN5 said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

@Machpants said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

@NTA said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.

Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.

Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.

Not exactly fair.

What are world rugby supposed to do? Make the tournament last 3 months?

In every pool, two teams have to play 4 weeks in a row. Why not decide it by seedings? Alternative take is also that if you are in a tough pool, you might prefer to take 4 weeks in s row, then a week off pre QF.

Rugby has a lot of issues but Chiles turnaround times are not one of them.

Even numbers in pools then everyone plays every weekend. Simples

In saying all that it seems a bit ridiculous that many teams have played three times and Scots have only played once.

Same bunch that did the draw over 3 years before the tournament, so not hugely surprising

MajorRage

@Machpants said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

@NTA said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.

Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.

Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.

Not exactly fair.

What are world rugby supposed to do? Make the tournament last 3 months?

In every pool, two teams have to play 4 weeks in a row. Why not decide it by seedings? Alternative take is also that if you are in a tough pool, you might prefer to take 4 weeks in s row, then a week off pre QF.

Rugby has a lot of issues but Chiles turnaround times are not one of them.

Even numbers in pools then everyone plays every weekend. Simples

Then you need either

More teams, more stupid results
Less teams, not growing the game.

Can’t win.

Machpants

@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

@Machpants said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

@NTA said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

I have a lot of admiration for Chile - they've played some nice footy but their ranking outside the top 20 is starting to show.

Poor bastards have played pretty much their 1st XV through two matches in the heat, and a third over the course of 14 days. They have to face a rested Argentina on a 6 day turnaround.

Chile's pool match turnarounds were 6 days, 7 days, and 7 days.
Argentina get 13 days, 8 days, and 9 days.

Not exactly fair.

What are world rugby supposed to do? Make the tournament last 3 months?

In every pool, two teams have to play 4 weeks in a row. Why not decide it by seedings? Alternative take is also that if you are in a tough pool, you might prefer to take 4 weeks in s row, then a week off pre QF.

Rugby has a lot of issues but Chiles turnaround times are not one of them.

Even numbers in pools then everyone plays every weekend. Simples

Then you need either

More teams, more stupid results

Less teams, not growing the game.

Can’t win.

I am of the opinion that the extra 4 teams getting pasted in one tournament every four years isn't 'growing the game' Consistent opportunities would, and even a same time as Lions Plate champs of lower teams, would be better. They need to consistently play, and the new world nations cup championship league (or whatever it is called) with relegation/promotion one day, is not going to help

NTA

@MajorRage said in RWC Week 3: England v Chile:

0. More Tests between nations at all levels
1. More teams ~~, more stupid results~~
2. ~~Less teams, not~~ growing the game.
3. Awesomeness.

~~Can’t~~ win.

Fixed!

The Silver Fern

RWC Week 3: England v Chile