Do we need a World cup?
-
@geebee said in Do we need a World cup?:
@booboo said in Do we need a World cup?:
@geebee said in Do we need a World cup?:
@Kirwan said in Do we need a World cup?:
@geebee said in Do we need a World cup?:
@booboo said in Do we need a World cup?:
@geebee said in Do we need a World cup?:
@booboo said in Do we need a World cup?:
As for SA having an easier knockout run this time:
They beat all three winners of the other Pools in consecutive weekends.
I buy the 2007 run was less challenging than some, but not this time.
Our perceptions of current Japan and Wales need to re-read somewhat I think.
Just because they didn't beat us (who lost to the losers of the final) doesn't mean they had it easy.
lol we d give the Japs a hiding. We smacked Wales around with ease. Have you been watching at all? Im all for giving the opposition credit where its due,but this is too far man. SA got lucky,we should of thrown the pool game if we knew how it was going to go.
We didn't play Japan. So we didn't get that option.
We lost a match that counted.
SA didn't.
Can I also suggest you stop being so patronising?
Share your opinion by all means. Even start a hashtag (#notmyworldchamps). But just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you're right.
So you are saying a test match and a good test victory against South Africa doesnt count? More reason to get rid of this current format in favour of something that makes all test matches and test caps meaningful again.
Just because we didnt play against Japan,that all of a sudden makes them good somehow? I have a fair idea what the historical results are vs Japan,they are easybeats.
Reeks of sour grapes to suggest getting rid of an entire format because we lost.
Well sorta maybe,but with a league style format based on home and away and point differential theres no guarantee that the ABs would win that either. Its much fairer though. It eliminates the vagaries of knock out tournaments and a more worthy winner based on performance over a longer period of time is found. It does away with northern hemisphere teams attempting to send weaker squads south so its a win for the paying public.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. Hence why I think having both would be good.
But knockout footy is what the World Cup is about. We've dealt with it for 32 years.
South Africa arent true world champions in my book,they are World cup winners. Theres a difference. In order to assess who the best team is,you would draw conclusions based over a longer period of time than a few weeks. A team could lose 50% of its games over the intervening 4 years between cups then make a run having an inferior draw or a biased ref. Nah thats not a champion.
First bold: Semantics. But correct.
Second bold: let's look at World Rankings then...
-
@booboo said in Do we need a World cup?:
@geebee said in Do we need a World cup?:
@booboo said in Do we need a World cup?:
@geebee said in Do we need a World cup?:
@Kirwan said in Do we need a World cup?:
@geebee said in Do we need a World cup?:
@booboo said in Do we need a World cup?:
@geebee said in Do we need a World cup?:
@booboo said in Do we need a World cup?:
As for SA having an easier knockout run this time:
They beat all three winners of the other Pools in consecutive weekends.
I buy the 2007 run was less challenging than some, but not this time.
Our perceptions of current Japan and Wales need to re-read somewhat I think.
Just because they didn't beat us (who lost to the losers of the final) doesn't mean they had it easy.
lol we d give the Japs a hiding. We smacked Wales around with ease. Have you been watching at all? Im all for giving the opposition credit where its due,but this is too far man. SA got lucky,we should of thrown the pool game if we knew how it was going to go.
We didn't play Japan. So we didn't get that option.
We lost a match that counted.
SA didn't.
Can I also suggest you stop being so patronising?
Share your opinion by all means. Even start a hashtag (#notmyworldchamps). But just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you're right.
So you are saying a test match and a good test victory against South Africa doesnt count? More reason to get rid of this current format in favour of something that makes all test matches and test caps meaningful again.
Just because we didnt play against Japan,that all of a sudden makes them good somehow? I have a fair idea what the historical results are vs Japan,they are easybeats.
Reeks of sour grapes to suggest getting rid of an entire format because we lost.
Well sorta maybe,but with a league style format based on home and away and point differential theres no guarantee that the ABs would win that either. Its much fairer though. It eliminates the vagaries of knock out tournaments and a more worthy winner based on performance over a longer period of time is found. It does away with northern hemisphere teams attempting to send weaker squads south so its a win for the paying public.
I don't disagree with a lot of that. Hence why I think having both would be good.
But knockout footy is what the World Cup is about. We've dealt with it for 32 years.
South Africa arent true world champions in my book,they are World cup winners. Theres a difference. In order to assess who the best team is,you would draw conclusions based over a longer period of time than a few weeks. A team could lose 50% of its games over the intervening 4 years between cups then make a run having an inferior draw or a biased ref. Nah thats not a champion.
First bold: Semantics. But correct.
Second bold: let's look at World Rankings then...
Rankings are all shite too,need i remind you Ireland and Wales were numero uno for periods of time leading into this cup and they certainly didnt live up to their rate. Its winning test match% and home and away that counts.
-
The thing that irritates is that England never have a decent squad for their end of year tests away. The players schedules are such that lots are munted. It would be good if there was some genuine test ranking based on matches that involved the major nations playing each other with a consequence worth competing for within the 4 year period (every 2 years say).
How are the seeding for World Cups determined?
-
@kev said in Do we need a World cup?:
The thing that irritates is that England never have a decent squad for their end of year tests away. The players schedules are such that lots are munted. It would be good if there was some genuine test ranking based on matches that involved the major nations playing each other with a consequence worth competing for within the 4 year period (every 2 years say).
How are the seeding for World Cups determined?
World Rankings at the time of the draw, about two years out.
Random draw in bands of 4.
-
@booboo said in Do we need a World cup?:
NZ in 2019: played 11 won 8 lost 2 drew 1 (82%)
SA in 2019: played 12 won 10 l lost 1 drew 1 (88%)Arselicking the boks. Add the results of 2016 17 and 18 as well. You know full well you cant get a comprehensive statistical analysis of home and away results in 1 year,its not physically possible to play everyone.
-
@gt12 said in Do we need a World cup?:
I find it perplexing that some seem to think we were the best team at the WC but were screwed by the scheduling. We weren’t, and we weren’t.
Pool games only get you to the main dance, where we got dumped. No one could have really predicted the cancellations or Ireland losing to Japan. If SA got an easy road, good on them. They still won 3 on the trot, which is what it takes.
That doesn't mean we weren't the best team though - it just means that being the best team is meaningless.
-
@hydro11 said in Do we need a World cup?:
@gt12 said in Do we need a World cup?:
I find it perplexing that some seem to think we were the best team at the WC but were screwed by the scheduling. We weren’t, and we weren’t.
Pool games only get you to the main dance, where we got dumped. No one could have really predicted the cancellations or Ireland losing to Japan. If SA got an easy road, good on them. They still won 3 on the trot, which is what it takes.
That doesn't mean we weren't the best team though - it just means that being the best team is meaningless.
I was in Yokohama for the SF. We were definitely not the best team the way we got owned
-
@canefan I could tell that from my lounge in Whangarei, saved thousands
-
@canefan said in Do we need a World cup?:
@hydro11 said in Do we need a World cup?:
@gt12 said in Do we need a World cup?:
I find it perplexing that some seem to think we were the best team at the WC but were screwed by the scheduling. We weren’t, and we weren’t.
Pool games only get you to the main dance, where we got dumped. No one could have really predicted the cancellations or Ireland losing to Japan. If SA got an easy road, good on them. They still won 3 on the trot, which is what it takes.
That doesn't mean we weren't the best team though - it just means that being the best team is meaningless.
I was in Yokohama for the SF. We were definitely not the best team the way we got owned
For sure. It isn't obvious that we were the best team at the World Cup but it is possible to be the best team and not win it.
-
@taniwharugby said in Do we need a World cup?:
@canefan I could tell that from my lounge in Whangarei, saved thousands
The way we played we barely managed to be the second best team on the track that night
-
@hydro11 said in Do we need a World cup?:
@canefan said in Do we need a World cup?:
@hydro11 said in Do we need a World cup?:
@gt12 said in Do we need a World cup?:
I find it perplexing that some seem to think we were the best team at the WC but were screwed by the scheduling. We weren’t, and we weren’t.
Pool games only get you to the main dance, where we got dumped. No one could have really predicted the cancellations or Ireland losing to Japan. If SA got an easy road, good on them. They still won 3 on the trot, which is what it takes.
That doesn't mean we weren't the best team though - it just means that being the best team is meaningless.
I was in Yokohama for the SF. We were definitely not the best team the way we got owned
For sure. It isn't obvious that we were the best team at the World Cup but it is possible to be the best team and not win it.
Only as good as your last game. We were not as good as we thought. But yes, we were best in 1995 but gastroenteritis and the boks conspired to beat us
-
i like the world cup , take it away , what do we have to look forward to ?
The rest of what we play can get a bit repetitive IMO
-
WC is fine and is a showpiece event. The issue is the intervening years are now pretty much pointless bar the BIL.
Currently none of the non Rugby Championship games mean anything, the NH sides usually send their shit sides and I never feel they really want to be here. When we head north the players have travelled a million miles and played so many minutes it can be hard for them to get up for it.
I really thought the League system was a great idea that should have been fleshed out. Perhaps they should have had it in between WC much like the Euro in soccer.
I don't have the answers but the current system is not working in between WCs.
-
Just had a thought.
What if you had the Rugby Championship have 6 sides (Add Japan and Fiji)
Six Nations is left as is.
You have a global season where the RC and Six Nations are played at the same time. 5 games for all teams. This keeps the NH sides happy.For the second half of the year you had say 3 Tiers of 6 based off current World Rankings.
Gold Tier (1-6)
Silver Tier (7-12)
Bronze Tier (13-18)Those 6 teams from each tier go to a nominated host country and play each other once over 5 weeks. The top team wins the Gold Tier, Silver or Bronze tier.
This would leave perhaps 2 or 3 tests each country can organise themselves maybe vs t2 or other countries, not sure.
Biggest possible issue with this system is getting a fair and accurate ranking system, because that would ultimately dictate the 3 tiers. Other issue is if one hemisphere is dominant in rankings it could be a bit shit if the Gold Tier had 4 or 5 sides from that hemisphere.
Bonus would be the games in theory be pretty competitive, the Silver and Bronze teams would all get good games against equal opposition.
Thoughts?
-
Yes, it is a fantastic showcase for the sport and winning the RWC is a pinnicle of a player's career.
A RWC every two years would mean no more British and Irish Lions tours.
Two problems that need fixing in international Rugby IMHO.
-
Inconsistent and poor refereeing. A short law book would help here.
-
Teams deliberately sending under-strength teams.
-
-
@sparky said in Do we need a World cup?:
Yes, it is a fantastic showcase for the sport and winning the RWC is a pinnicle of a player's career.
A RWC every two years would mean no more British and Irish Lions tours.
Two problems that need fixing in international Rugby IMHO.
-
Inconsistent and poor refereeing. A short law book would help here.
-
Teams deliberately sending under-strength teams.
A bit like the new UEFA Nations League, actually having points on games might reduce the amount of tanking that goes on.
Just have to convince the NH nations that balked at the idea that this is the way forward
-
-
Other thing I would fix in payments between sides playing in the same international.
If England play Samoa at Twickenham why should the England players get £10,000 each and the Samoa £150 each. Gate receipts need to be shared more equally with touring teams given a minimum 30% share.
UEFA Nations League - Wikipedia
