Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:38 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16004
I was looking at the 2019 qualifiers. I was working out likely results and pathways and if Romania qualify as expected there is only ever likely one other European spot left. And with a few teams developing in Europe it seems tragic they can't sample a World Cup basically unless they jump ahead of ot Romania go backwards (which is undesirable) or the same for a Pacific Island team. Also we cant have Namibia and Kenya both qualify and Asia basiclaly has no chance without going through one of the established order which is unlikely.

Given very little in Rugby gets global headlines outside of the traditional nations, the world cup can be the chance to create more attention and help expansion in those countries outside of the established Rugby order or on the cusp of it but unable to break in. It would also create a buzz and financial windfall for Rugby in those countries. The downside would be the possibility of triple didget blowouts. But looking at the medium term, a team like Georgia went to the 2003 world cup, got blown out by everybody but seemed intent on learning from the big Rugby nations. they came back in 2007, they almost beat Ireland and have posted some competative scores ever since despite basically being shafted in test matches. Japan is another example.

I wouldn't suggest jumping to 32 teams (certanly not yet) but add 4 or 8 teams with 6 or 7 pools of 4 nations might work. You'd have winners and best placed 2nd's going through. Alternatively as that loses a pool game add in a R16 and do it liek the Euro's.

Yes the Euro's model seemed bonkers at first but it did create hugh positive excitement and attention. The fact is the world cup creates a huge financial windfall for countries involved, it provides the opportunity to promote the game to a wider audience and capture the hearts and minds of countries that could only ever dream of competing in Rugby. There aren't realistic opportunities for non-traditional countries to get exposure. Both hemsphere have closed off competitions and the test arrangements are just as closed off. It needs to expand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:45 am
Posts: 5538
I don't know if this works. Ever. The concept of simply getting others involved to get them interested. For e.g. there's been that South American championship for decades now I believe, and Brazil and Chile and whoever still get 70 points put on them by Argentina C. You could go on that way ad vitam aeternam, to no end. Just including a nation, especially in a 4-year cycle venue, won't make a significant change. And pro RU is far too demanding a sport. The national side needs to actually achieve sth big while at the event, and to do that you need to build from all the way down, up. No shortcuts or quick fixes.

Didn't Portugal score a couple of tries vs the AB in like 2003 ? So they not only participate, but their team actually affords a moment of glory, and surely they're about the same right now 15 yrs later. It's just not in the culture, they'd clap a bit then go play some soccer that same afternoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6202
It's the exclusivity of the tournament that gives it its magic. Anyone can take part as long as they're good enough. Compare and contrast to the Olympic Sevens competition, where the need to share out places evenly between continents means that giants of the game like Ireland are unlikely ever to qualify.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 10866
Not yet. Atm it's still a lopsided RWC, with top teams making it through to the qtrs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19809
Quote:
and Brazil and Chile and whoever still get 70 points put on them by Argentina C.


Not so much anymore and I also don't think that Argentina won the recent Americas Six Nations


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 264
Dork Lard wrote:
I don't know if this works. Ever. The concept of simply getting others involved to get them interested. For e.g. there's been that South American championship for decades now I believe, and Brazil and Chile and whoever still get 70 points put on them by Argentina C. You could go on that way ad vitam aeternam, to no end. Just including a nation, especially in a 4-year cycle venue, won't make a significant change. And pro RU is far too demanding a sport. The national side needs to actually achieve sth big while at the event, and to do that you need to build from all the way down, up. No shortcuts or quick fixes.

Didn't Portugal score a couple of tries vs the AB in like 2003 ? So they not only participate, but their team actually affords a moment of glory, and surely they're about the same right now 15 yrs later. It's just not in the culture, they'd clap a bit then go play some soccer that same afternoon.


Then you have a side like Georgia who moved upwards in leaps and bounds after making their first world cup in 1999.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16004
Dork Lard wrote:
I don't know if this works. Ever. The concept of simply getting others involved to get them interested. For e.g. there's been that South American championship for decades now I believe, and Brazil and Chile and whoever still get 70 points put on them by Argentina C. You could go on that way ad vitam aeternam, to no end. Just including a nation, especially in a 4-year cycle venue, won't make a significant change. And pro RU is far too demanding a sport. The national side needs to actually achieve sth big while at the event, and to do that you need to build from all the way down, up. No shortcuts or quick fixes.

Didn't Portugal score a couple of tries vs the AB in like 2003 ? So they not only participate, but their team actually affords a moment of glory, and surely they're about the same right now 15 yrs later. It's just not in the culture, they'd clap a bit then go play some soccer that same afternoon.


It' not just competition though, it's exposure and widening the interest, play base, knowledge and coaching levels in those countries. As I pointed out, Georgia, while not there yet are certainky knocking on the door becasue they chose to learn and developed their Rugby culture which they did have a bit of a quite history of anyway). I recall in Martn Johnson's autobiography how in 2003 Georgia copied everything they saw England do to train and prepare for matches. He thought it was cute but I see that's the mindset of a nation who are clearly aiming to go places and improve. And they clearly have improved a lot since 2003.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 8694
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
Quote:
and Brazil and Chile and whoever still get 70 points put on them by Argentina C.


Not so much anymore and I also don't think that Argentina won the recent Americas Six Nations

You are correct, the USA Eagles won it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11255
IMO yes. A 24 team RWC would mean 6 pools of 4 instead of 4 pools of 5. The current format leads to unbalanced rest time, forcing teams to effectively field B sides or run out of steam in the second game while also introducing player welfare issues*. This hits the T2 teams even harder than the T1 as the T2 teams have far less depth. IMO the talent dilution of adding 4 more teams would be offset by eliminating the unbalanced rest times.

*Look at what happened to Japan last time. They chose to field their best team against South Africa, despite having to play Scotland 4 days later in a game that would effectively decide the 2nd spot in the group. They beat the Boks in an all time classic but ran out of steam around the 50 minute mark against Scotland and ended up missing the quarters as a result. With a 20 team RWC and the short rests it forces, how many teams will end up resting players in a similar situation in the future? And how many classic moments will we be denied as fans? Instead they'll do what the US did when faced with a match against SA and a more win-able match against Japan. And that USA-SA match was probably the worst, most boring match of the last RWC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18426
Location: Centre of the Universe
Shrink it instead. Will be more competitive without the bottom four.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3498
Location: Queensland!
eldanielfire wrote:
Dork Lard wrote:
I don't know if this works. Ever. The concept of simply getting others involved to get them interested. For e.g. there's been that South American championship for decades now I believe, and Brazil and Chile and whoever still get 70 points put on them by Argentina C. You could go on that way ad vitam aeternam, to no end. Just including a nation, especially in a 4-year cycle venue, won't make a significant change. And pro RU is far too demanding a sport. The national side needs to actually achieve sth big while at the event, and to do that you need to build from all the way down, up. No shortcuts or quick fixes.

Didn't Portugal score a couple of tries vs the AB in like 2003 ? So they not only participate, but their team actually affords a moment of glory, and surely they're about the same right now 15 yrs later. It's just not in the culture, they'd clap a bit then go play some soccer that same afternoon.


It' not just competition though, it's exposure and widening the interest, play base, knowledge and coaching levels in those countries. As I pointed out, Georgia, while not there yet are certainky knocking on the door becasue they chose to learn and developed their Rugby culture which they did have a bit of a quite history of anyway). I recall in Martn Johnson's autobiography how in 2003 Georgia copied everything they saw England do to train and prepare for matches. He thought it was cute but I see that's the mindset of a nation who are clearly aiming to go places and improve. And they clearly have improved a lot since 2003.


Equally it devalues the competition leading to reduced viewers, essentially what has happened to Super rugby over various expansions, witness small crowd sizes in Oz, and even the rabid Cantabs not turning out in droves for a Semi in Christchurch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:45 am
Posts: 5538
eldanielfire wrote:
It' not just competition though, it's exposure and widening the interest, play base, knowledge and coaching levels in those countries. As I pointed out, Georgia, while not there yet are certainky knocking on the door becasue they chose to learn and developed their Rugby culture which they did have a bit of a quite history of anyway). I recall in Martn Johnson's autobiography how in 2003 Georgia copied everything they saw England do to train and prepare for matches. He thought it was cute but I see that's the mindset of a nation who are clearly aiming to go places and improve. And they clearly have improved a lot since 2003.


No but Georgia have a real Rugby culture. And that's the whole point I'm making. I remember someone telling me the 'legend' stated they trained with old former-USSR tank type vehicles for scrummaging. I don't know the history of Georgian Rugby well enough, but there's evidently a true Rugby culture there, they actually have a trademark/stereotypes, like they'll smash you in the scrum, have a big pack but no backs - and you talk about 2003, the fact that a Mamuka Gorgodze was a world class blindside starting the mid 2000's isn't due to a supposed growth through the 2003 RWC. They were very poor and extremely limited in the past decades, but Rugby at least had a genuine potential to grow, and they'll produce good enough forwards who will then play in neighboring France in the professional league that is Top 14 (well, let's say "professional"...). But adding remote nations to a WC isn't going to do any actual good to the sport or those specific nations in a significant, long term type way. Even a nation like Italy has not worked out, and they're neighbors with France, were added to the 5N in 2000 in a competitive setting... but the culture isn't very strong there and the players aren't coming about.

There's a great sterility in trying to add buddies to the party on such a superficial level, just the one invitation to a big house party, do your best there, and then go home hoping your people saw you and want to imitate you. RU isn't football, at football you need really good talent with that round kicking ball. At Rugby today, you need to be big, fit, capable of lasting 80min of competitive battling, you need the culture in many sub-divisions to be instilled...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 10:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16004
Salient wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Dork Lard wrote:
I don't know if this works. Ever. The concept of simply getting others involved to get them interested. For e.g. there's been that South American championship for decades now I believe, and Brazil and Chile and whoever still get 70 points put on them by Argentina C. You could go on that way ad vitam aeternam, to no end. Just including a nation, especially in a 4-year cycle venue, won't make a significant change. And pro RU is far too demanding a sport. The national side needs to actually achieve sth big while at the event, and to do that you need to build from all the way down, up. No shortcuts or quick fixes.

Didn't Portugal score a couple of tries vs the AB in like 2003 ? So they not only participate, but their team actually affords a moment of glory, and surely they're about the same right now 15 yrs later. It's just not in the culture, they'd clap a bit then go play some soccer that same afternoon.


It' not just competition though, it's exposure and widening the interest, play base, knowledge and coaching levels in those countries. As I pointed out, Georgia, while not there yet are certainky knocking on the door becasue they chose to learn and developed their Rugby culture which they did have a bit of a quite history of anyway). I recall in Martn Johnson's autobiography how in 2003 Georgia copied everything they saw England do to train and prepare for matches. He thought it was cute but I see that's the mindset of a nation who are clearly aiming to go places and improve. And they clearly have improved a lot since 2003.


Equally it devalues the competition leading to reduced viewers, essentially what has happened to Super rugby over various expansions, witness small crowd sizes in Oz, and even the rabid Cantabs not turning out in droves for a Semi in Christchurch.


The super rugby isue is different. It's every year. I've often seen it pointed out the issue with super rugby is it's the same players playing the same players all the time for 5 months and then doing it again for the national side for a few more. That issue isn't so pronounced in the Northern hemisphere.

More importantly a Rugby World Cup is once every 4 years. Also, as myself and others have proposed, the new structure will mean one less meaningless group game, so fewer B team runouts and more important games for each country. Plus in these countries where Rugby is growing, a chance to encourage more media attention and thus increase interest and playing numbers and the chance for greater financial rewards. As I said, it's worked well for the Euros.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16004
Dork Lard wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
It' not just competition though, it's exposure and widening the interest, play base, knowledge and coaching levels in those countries. As I pointed out, Georgia, while not there yet are certainky knocking on the door becasue they chose to learn and developed their Rugby culture which they did have a bit of a quite history of anyway). I recall in Martn Johnson's autobiography how in 2003 Georgia copied everything they saw England do to train and prepare for matches. He thought it was cute but I see that's the mindset of a nation who are clearly aiming to go places and improve. And they clearly have improved a lot since 2003.


No but Georgia have a real Rugby culture. And that's the whole point I'm making. I remember someone telling me the 'legend' stated they trained with old former-USSR tank type vehicles for scrummaging. I don't know the history of Georgian Rugby well enough, but there's evidently a true Rugby culture there, they actually have a trademark/stereotypes, like they'll smash you in the scrum, have a big pack but no backs - and you talk about 2003, the fact that a Mamuka Gorgodze was a world class blindside starting the mid 2000's isn't due to a supposed growth through the 2003 RWC. They were very poor and extremely limited in the past decades, but Rugby at least had a genuine potential to grow, and they'll produce good enough forwards who will then play in neighboring France in the professional league that is Top 14 (well, let's say "professional"...). But adding remote nations to a WC isn't going to do any actual good to the sport or those specific nations in a significant, long term type way. Even a nation like Italy has not worked out, and they're neighbors with France, were added to the 5N in 2000 in a competitive setting... but the culture isn't very strong there and the players aren't coming about.

There's a great sterility in trying to add buddies to the party on such a superficial level, just the one invitation to a big house party, do your best there, and then go home hoping your people saw you and want to imitate you. RU isn't football, at football you need really good talent with that round kicking ball. At Rugby today, you need to be big, fit, capable of lasting 80min of competitive battling, you need the culture in many sub-divisions to be instilled...


I'd say it has worked for Italy, but they came in at the worst era, at a time the major Rugby nations were going professional pushing ahead in many areas. Italy ahs still beaten France a few time sin the 6 nations and finished ahead of Scotland a fair few times. Just remember in the 5 nations era France were gash for so long. You can't deny it did work for Argentina.

In reality I don't expect these teams to be competitive anytime soon but their standards can improve, the participation rates can go up and the culture can improve. A good generation can push through later on. The quality gap can be improved at tier 2, making a better quality global Rugby game. As I said in my first post, if a Romania, or Samoa have a bad time qualifying on one occasion that is a significant injury to the Rugby world, which is so small as it is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:26 am
Posts: 197
Fenman wrote:
It's the exclusivity of the tournament that gives it its magic. Anyone can take part as long as they're good enough. Compare and contrast to the Olympic Sevens competition, where the need to share out places evenly between continents means that giants of the game like Ireland are unlikely ever to qualify.

I thought Ireland didn't qualify for 2016 Olympics just because it didn't took Sevens seriously enough, even though Rugby Europe built a qualifying path for them, not because of the share of places between continents. By the way, the repechage Olympic spot went for a European nation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:26 am
Posts: 197
Either reduce it to 16 or expand it to 24. Differences between 18th and 24th ranked nations are ridiculously small and the fact that Namibia has an almost guaranteed spot in the RWC while European path to RWC is terrifying leaves European teams with big potential markets like Germany, Russia or Spain without barely any chance of reaching RWC on a regular basis (key to build some sustainable interest, not just a Spain 1999, Portugal 2007 or Russia 2011 moment).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16004
Laszlo wrote:
Either reduce it to 16 or expand it to 24. Differences between 18th and 24th ranked nations are ridiculously small and the fact that Namibia has an almost guaranteed spot in the RWC while European path to RWC is terrifying leaves European teams with big potential markets like Germany, Russia or Spain without barely any chance of reaching RWC on a regular basis (key to build some sustainable interest, not just a Spain 1999, Portugal 2007 or Russia 2011 moment).


Yes but a 'world cup' does need to have a global base of competition. Your point about sustainable interest is exactly why I believe the RWC needs to expand, Growing Rugby nations will rapidly find no room for progression rendering all the "growing the game" programs useless.

BTW I also think teir 2 teams of merit should be given more matches against the big 10 teams. There has been talk of getting rid of the two windows of rest in the 6 nations. IMO only one is needed, why not let all the 6 Nation sides have a warm-up match with the tier 2 European nations or USA/Canada/Uruguay/Japan etc.

Even if they field a second XV and tickets are cheap, it will still be a money earner for both teams (and that will really benefit the tier 2 nations), serve as a warm-up or run-out for new test players and tactics etc. Do it again as a warm-up to the summer tests or Championship down south and maybe again for the autumn tests. It might also remove the constant familarity of the same teams and the same players playing over and over again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:45 am
Posts: 5538
eldanielfire wrote:
Just remember in the 5 nations era France were gash for so long.
You can't deny it did work for Argentina.
BECAUSE they had a very strong Rugby culture growing.

eldanielfire wrote:
You can't deny it did work for Argentina.

because they had a very old, and strong Rugby culture, brewing from decade to decade.

Pro modern Test RU is just impossible to produce in nations that are so-so with Rugby as a sport in their culture, let alone cultures who do not have it in them at all. Too many mandatory requirements there are no ways around. In sense, you can work on a nation like Georgia yes. The Pacific nations are sth to seriously consider eventually at some point. Japan is on the rise but haven't they just done EVERYTHING possible in that endeavor !!... But the rest don't nearly have the money, culture, etc etc ... being a top RU nation right now, there are basic requirements to even start existing in such quality.
It's either (lack of) money, or cultural appeal, or both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16004
Dork Lard wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Just remember in the 5 nations era France were gash for so long.
You can't deny it did work for Argentina.
BECAUSE they had a very strong Rugby culture growing.

eldanielfire wrote:
You can't deny it did work for Argentina.

because they had a very old, and strong Rugby culture, brewing from decade to decade.

Pro modern Test RU is just impossible to produce in nations that are so-so with Rugby as a sport in their culture, let alone cultures who do not have it in them at all. Too many mandatory requirements there are no ways around. In sense, you can work on a nation like Georgia yes. The Pacific nations are sth to seriously consider eventually at some point. Japan is on the rise but haven't they just done EVERYTHING possible in that endeavor !!... But the rest don't nearly have the money, culture, etc etc ... being a top RU nation right now, there are basic requirements to even start existing in such quality.
It's either (lack of) money, or cultural appeal, or both.


My point is with more exposure and the increase in participation that usually occurs with world cup presence, those countries can grow their Rugby culture. You act as if it can't be done in the modern era. I'm not claiming that there will be sudden changes to the top, I'm saying it will greatly improve the standard of tier 2 nations, increase their financies, interest, participation and infrastructure with the world cup windfall and make Rugby's global health at tier two healthier and better off, Right now, say compared with football, Rugby has a steep drop-off outside the traditional Rugby nationals. That isn't healthy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6278
Where you look at the world rankings it shows there are show clear groupings:

1-10 - so NZ to Fiji - then it's a large drop to Japan.
11-16 - Japan to Samoa - real second countries - some going forward (Japan & Georgia), some going backwards (Italy, Samoa)
17-20 - the edge - USA / Uruguay / Spain & Russia - the first two not really going anywhere - been to loads of RWC's. Spain and Russia - improving, slowly, but improving.

After that do they really deserve to go?
> 20 shows lack of Africa depth (Nambia and Kenya), Canada (going backwards), and the beginning of the European (Germany and Portugal) and Asia (Korea and HK) development.

I agree with Neighorn - i think they should restrict the RWC to 1-16 - 4*4, top two going through. Based on current 1-16 (on a 1-8,9-16 type draw) that would be:

Pool 1 - NZ, France, Arg, Samoa [loving this pool]
Pool 2 - Eng, Wales, Fiji, Romania
Pool 3 - Ire, Scot, Japan, Italy
Pool 4 - Aus, SA, Georgia, Tonga [loving this pool]

I would then play a second tournament to build depth and give these guys (i) more games and (ii) more exposure.
Pool A - USA, HK, Kenya, Czech/Dutch
Pool B - Uruguay, Canada, Portugal, Korea,
Pool C - Spain, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland
Pool D - Russia, Namibia, Chile, Brazil
Second tournament concurrent with first / maybe slight collapsed time frames to have semi's & finals earlier.

Each team plays 3 games, max 6 games. Total games = 48+4+2+2 = 56 games in both comps.
2015 was 48 games over 44 days. This would be 44/6 = 7+ days between games.

KG


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4809
Location: STRAYA CUNT!!!
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
Quote:
and Brazil and Chile and whoever still get 70 points put on them by Argentina C.


Not so much anymore and I also don't think that Argentina won the recent Americas Six Nations


The last ARC was actually a much more competitive tournament than it was even compared to its first edition. Canada stunk up the place but the Eagles, Uruguayans, Chileans and even Brazilians all provided competitive on their day which turned out to be more regular than last year. As you say, the Eagles XV (not near their strongest squad either by the way) took the title. So things are progressing quite well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4809
Location: STRAYA CUNT!!!
As for expanding it beyond the current 20. I'd say they should look to do so in 2027. But before that look to get a number of the major targeted unions competing against higher level competition in order to prepare them for the transition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16004
kiwigreg369 wrote:
Where you look at the world rankings it shows there are show clear groupings:

1-10 - so NZ to Fiji - then it's a large drop to Japan.
11-16 - Japan to Samoa - real second countries - some going forward (Japan & Georgia), some going backwards (Italy, Samoa)
17-20 - the edge - USA / Uruguay / Spain & Russia - the first two not really going anywhere - been to loads of RWC's. Spain and Russia - improving, slowly, but improving.

After that do they really deserve to go?
> 20 shows lack of Africa depth (Nambia and Kenya), Canada (going backwards), and the beginning of the European (Germany and Portugal) and Asia (Korea and HK) development.

I agree with Neighorn - i think they should restrict the RWC to 1-16 - 4*4, top two going through. Based on current 1-16 (on a 1-8,9-16 type draw) that would be:

Pool 1 - NZ, France, Arg, Samoa [loving this pool]
Pool 2 - Eng, Wales, Fiji, Romania
Pool 3 - Ire, Scot, Japan, Italy
Pool 4 - Aus, SA, Georgia, Tonga [loving this pool]

I would then play a second tournament to build depth and give these guys (i) more games and (ii) more exposure.
Pool A - USA, HK, Kenya, Czech/Dutch
Pool B - Uruguay, Canada, Portugal, Korea,
Pool C - Spain, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland
Pool D - Russia, Namibia, Chile, Brazil
Second tournament concurrent with first / maybe slight collapsed time frames to have semi's & finals earlier.

Each team plays 3 games, max 6 games. Total games = 48+4+2+2 = 56 games in both comps.
2015 was 48 games over 44 days. This would be 44/6 = 7+ days between games.

KG


I seriously doubt a second tournament would work. It also won't benefit the the tier 2 teams in terms of exposure and finances.

Though a tournament like foballs Confedarations Cup, e.g. a less serious world tournament could work between world cup years. It might be tier one nations send B teams to it, but that would be perfect for the tier 2 teams for the moment. I genuinely think tier 2 nations would benefit from the test windows expandig by a week or two and tier one nations using them as warn-ups for the traditional test run or series.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6278
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwigreg369 wrote:
Where you look at the world rankings it shows there are show clear groupings:

1-10 - so NZ to Fiji - then it's a large drop to Japan.
11-16 - Japan to Samoa - real second countries - some going forward (Japan & Georgia), some going backwards (Italy, Samoa)
17-20 - the edge - USA / Uruguay / Spain & Russia - the first two not really going anywhere - been to loads of RWC's. Spain and Russia - improving, slowly, but improving.

After that do they really deserve to go?
> 20 shows lack of Africa depth (Nambia and Kenya), Canada (going backwards), and the beginning of the European (Germany and Portugal) and Asia (Korea and HK) development.

I agree with Neighorn - i think they should restrict the RWC to 1-16 - 4*4, top two going through. Based on current 1-16 (on a 1-8,9-16 type draw) that would be:

Pool 1 - NZ, France, Arg, Samoa [loving this pool]
Pool 2 - Eng, Wales, Fiji, Romania
Pool 3 - Ire, Scot, Japan, Italy
Pool 4 - Aus, SA, Georgia, Tonga [loving this pool]

I would then play a second tournament to build depth and give these guys (i) more games and (ii) more exposure.
Pool A - USA, HK, Kenya, Czech/Dutch
Pool B - Uruguay, Canada, Portugal, Korea,
Pool C - Spain, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland
Pool D - Russia, Namibia, Chile, Brazil
Second tournament concurrent with first / maybe slight collapsed time frames to have semi's & finals earlier.

Each team plays 3 games, max 6 games. Total games = 48+4+2+2 = 56 games in both comps.
2015 was 48 games over 44 days. This would be 44/6 = 7+ days between games.

KG


I seriously doubt a second tournament would work. It also won't benefit the the tier 2 teams in terms of exposure and finances.

Though a tournament like foballs Confedarations Cup, e.g. a less serious world tournament could work between world cup years. It might be tier one nations send B teams to it, but that would be perfect for the tier 2 teams for the moment. I genuinely think tier 2 nations would benefit from the test windows expandig by a week or two and tier one nations using them as warn-ups for the traditional test run or series.


Maybe .. i clearly don't actually know so it's aspirational in terms of a two tier RWC. I agree with more chance to play top teams.

Scheduling for me:

Week 1 Fri -> Sun – Opening Game & commencement of Pool Games – 16 games [Fri – 5 / Sat – 6 / Sun – 5]
Week 2 Fri -> Sun – Pool Games – 16 games [Fri – 5/ Sat – 6 / Sun – 5]
Week 3 Fri -> Sun – Pool Games – 16 games [Fri – 5 / Sat – 6 / Sun – 5]
Week 4 Sat & Sun – QF’s – 4 games [Two each day]
Week 5 Sat & Sun – Semi’s – 2 games [One each day]
Week 6 Fri -> Sun – 3rd/4th and Final – 2 games [One each day]
Play the second tournament Thursday and Friday (so all games are Thurs & Fri for second tournament / all games for main tournament are Fri (pools only), Sat & Sun).

Tough on scheduling but Friday & Sun – 10 hours rugby – start at 12 and play to 10 pm – 12pm, 2pm, 4pm, 6pm and 8pm start
On Sat it’s a bit stupid – 12 hours rugby - start at 11 and play to 11pm – 11am, 1pm, 3pm, 5pm, 7pm and 9pm start or have a couple of overlapping games ( I would do this and have 1*3&4 placed games overlap with other games in each weekend)

Need to hold in real rugby country/countries with lots of stadium and depth of supporters. I would look at:
- France & Italy pitch
- Ireland & UK pitch
Given the smaller teams and need to get supporters along from European third / 4th tier teams...

KG


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 3391
Not expanded in terms of number of teams, but I'd like to see a Plate comp, always seems a shame for half the teams to go home at the halfway point. Would be an excellent chance to put more games out into the provinces and to have midweek games in the final couple of weeks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16004
TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:
Not expanded in terms of number of teams, but I'd like to see a Plate comp, always seems a shame for half the teams to go home at the halfway point. Would be an excellent chance to put more games out into the provinces and to have midweek games in the final couple of weeks.


Good idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11255
Plate competition is a terrible idea. Playing for nothing and requires even more time away from either pro clubs or jobs than the current RWC requires. T2 teams play each other all the time. It's nothing special to play for 9th place or whatever in the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1512
Too early to expand now. Some teams are still too weak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:26 am
Posts: 197
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Too early to expand now. Some teams are still too weak.

And most of them will always be if they never face the biggest names in international rugby. I don't see Germany growing too many years at this rate is they always play the same teams and never reach RWC because of European qualifying process bottleneck.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6055
World Cup 4 x 4 and Minnow Cup 4 x 4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1512
kiwinoz wrote:
World Cup 4 x 4 and Minnow Cup 4 x 4


Who wants to play in a minnow cup? No one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:26 am
Posts: 197
If you want to review a two-tier tournament first expand again U20 World Cup to 16 teams. Its reduction to 12 teams back in 2010 hurt a lot of teams, for example Romania who has just qualified and was left in the Trophy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6055
Sensible Stephen wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
World Cup 4 x 4 and Minnow Cup 4 x 4


Who wants to play in a minnow cup? No one.


Who wants to see 80+ point floggings? Its the international version of the Sunwolves and Kings


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:26 am
Posts: 197
kiwinoz wrote:
Who wants to see 80+ point floggings?

It didn't happen in 2015 and some of the teams left out of RWC are as good or even better than some of those qualified (Namibia and Uruguay) due to regional qualifying process inequalities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16004
kiwinoz wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
World Cup 4 x 4 and Minnow Cup 4 x 4


Who wants to play in a minnow cup? No one.


Who wants to see 80+ point floggings? Its the international version of the Sunwolves and Kings


If it's your team you generally don't mind. It's also once every 4 years. However an expanded World Cup with more groups will actually mean we might get fewer of these with maybe one tier one tea, in each group. It will also allow the perma stayers at the RWC to get more competition

Don't get me wrong, I do believe more frequent tests need to be p;ayed between tier one and two and ter 2 nd those just below to close the gap. But Rugby is such a small club at the moment all we get is the same things/players/teams etc over and over. That is equally as bad as the odd flogging. I also think people are to worried about one sided floggings, it happens in all sports, even football.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16004
Laszlo wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Who wants to see 80+ point floggings?

It didn't happen in 2015 and some of the teams left out of RWC are as good or even better than some of those qualified (Namibia and Uruguay) due to regional qualifying process inequalities.


Who was better then Uruguary?

Beides that I agree. I think the time is right because it's obvious lots of tier 2 sides have improved a lot and I think a goal of RWC entry will raise the profile of Rugby these countries widen global media interest and increase the health of Rugby worldwide. The financial boosts can also help build pathways to professionalism in talented players.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:45 am
Posts: 5538
eldanielfire wrote:

My point is with more exposure and the increase in participation that usually occurs with world cup presence, those countries can grow their Rugby culture. You act as if it can't be done in the modern era. I'm not claiming that there will be sudden changes to the top, I'm saying it will greatly improve the standard of tier 2 nations, increase their financies, interest, participation and infrastructure with the world cup windfall and make Rugby's global health at tier two healthier and better off, Right now, say compared with football, Rugby has a steep drop-off outside the traditional Rugby nationals. That isn't healthy.


I understood your point from the start, and totally disagree with it...for the reasons mentioned.
About your last sentence I believe I even brought up the example of football. You can generate football players with practically nothing, in terms of logistics and infrastructure, with absolutely minimal means you can produce world beaters. You can't with modern RU. You just can't ! You NEED your players to be a certain weight, a certain size, a certain stamina/cardio, so on...let alone actually be a good Rugby player, and the very drop-off you talk about is precisely occurring because of those insane requirements nobody can keep up with. You say "outside traditional Rugby nations", but even WITHIN traditional Rugby nations this is a problem (!). Look at France, they haven't been able to keep up with where the modern game is heading.
It "isn't healthy", but it's the way it is, and throwing random nations to the lions at a WC isn't going to change that, not short term, not long term.

More broadly, I'd say R.U. today is the most demanding pro sport out there. Easily. Football is pretty much accessible to anyone, even in shitpoor third world countries. You don't need to be 7 feet to play basketball and you'll find hoops easily around the globe and can hone your skills on your own like crazy if wished... but Rugby U requires a full-team setup and a physical dimension tailor-made to even allow for any serious level of play. Those nations need wayyyyyyyyy more than a WC to get anything started I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16004
Dork Lard wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:

My point is with more exposure and the increase in participation that usually occurs with world cup presence, those countries can grow their Rugby culture. You act as if it can't be done in the modern era. I'm not claiming that there will be sudden changes to the top, I'm saying it will greatly improve the standard of tier 2 nations, increase their financies, interest, participation and infrastructure with the world cup windfall and make Rugby's global health at tier two healthier and better off, Right now, say compared with football, Rugby has a steep drop-off outside the traditional Rugby nationals. That isn't healthy.


I understood your point from the start, and totally disagree with it...for the reasons mentioned.
About your last sentence I believe I even brought up the example of football. You can generate football players with practically nothing, in terms of logistics and infrastructure, with absolutely minimal means you can produce world beaters. You can't with modern RU. You just can't ! You NEED your players to be a certain weight, a certain size, a certain stamina/cardio, so on...let alone actually be a good Rugby player, and the very drop-off you talk about is precisely occurring because of those insane requirements nobody can keep up with. You say "outside traditional Rugby nations", but even WITHIN traditional Rugby nations this is a problem (!). Look at France, they haven't been able to keep up with where the modern game is heading.
It "isn't healthy", but it's the way it is, and throwing random nations to the lions at a WC isn't going to change that, not short term, not long term.

More broadly, I'd say R.U. today is the most demanding pro sport out there. Easily. Football is pretty much accessible to anyone, even in shitpoor third world countries. You don't need to be 7 feet to play basketball and you'll find hoops easily around the globe and can hone your skills on your own like crazy if wished... but Rugby U requires a full-team setup and a physical dimension tailor-made to even allow for any serious level of play. Those nations need wayyyyyyyyy more than a WC to get anything started I think.


All of this is irrelevant. these countries are already playing Rugby. For all the strength and fitness stuff you spewed youa re acting like these countries don't have nutrition plans or gyms. FFS Russia went to the last RWC and coped fine with absolutely no history of Rugby in that country. These countries cope regularly with Georgia and Romania who in turn cope fine with tier one countries. None of these is a case for why there are any negatives to expanding the world cup. yes they will be the worst teams for a while, but some one is going to be the worst teams. Japan were duds for ages, with no Rugby history of note has managed to beat South Africa after 20 years. Nobody is claiming a regular RWC place will be a magical spell for improvement but it will grow the game, widen the financial benefits which in turn will potentially improve the quality of tier two rugby so there is less of a drop off to that level.

Japan with no Rugby history of note has managed to beat South Africa after 20 years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11255
On a semi-related note, World Rugby needs a re-think of its U20 tournaments. IMO the changes that should be made:

-Expand back to 16 at the JWC, keep the JWRT at 8. This gets you 24 teams between the two, which is what the target should be for the RWC, regardless of whether you think a 24 team RWC is a good idea today.

-Re-think the qualification process for the JWRT. Currently the 8 teams that qualify are the relegated team from the previous JWC, the host and then the 6 regional qualifiers. This makes the composition of the qualifier teams heavily dependent on the success of higher echelon teams, rather than their own ability. USA and Tonga will sit at home this year while Hong Kong (Asian qualifier because Japan was the relegated team) plays in the JWRT next month. This is not a good use of development funds. Just as RWC qualification is re-worked each RWC based on the quality of the qualifiers and regions, so should be the JWRT.

-Use the same laws and regulations for the JWRT as for the JWC. 22 man rosters in this day and age are nonsense. Also, the JWRT, or any 2-3 week tournament, is not a good place to test out trial laws. Trial laws need a full season, where teams have more time to spend on tactics adjusting to and probing the new laws for weaknesses.

Edit to add that some of the junior results are a good example of why a 24 team RWC would be a good thing. Back in the 2013 JWRT, Chile beat RWC regulars Japan and Namibia. Their captain and best player from that team Sebastian Kalm chose to get his education in the US and now wants to play for the US instead of Chile because his dream is to play at a RWC. Losing players like him to both other countries and simply to other things in life is a killer for countries like Chile and actually acts as a disincentive to spend development money for their union. Expanding to 24 would make Chile a realistic qualifier and give them a much better chance to retain that talent and be more competitive at RWCs than they would otherwise appear to be at first glance.


Last edited by goeagles on Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15718
Location: #68
A grand total of 25 nations have qualified for the tournament and we want to expand to 24. :?

A competitive qualification process is a good thing.

All expansion will lead to is a greater number of cricket scores and devaluing the competition.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 8dog, A5D5E5, Backwoodsman1, badmannotinjapan, BBB, Bert, Bing [Bot], capt hurricane, croyals, danthefan, dargotronV.1, Diego, DragsterDriver, EverReady, Farva, fatheralice, Flametop, Flockwitt, franch fan, Gavin Duffy, Google Adsense [Bot], GWO2, Jay Cee Gee, JB1981, Jeff the Bear, Jim Lahey, jinxed, jolindien, Joost, Keith, le chat, Lorthern Nights, Margin_Walker, mr bungle, Mr Tims, narmer, New guy, Nolanator, not_english, panamax, pjm1, Raggs, saffer13, Saint, SaintK, Salanya, Sandstorm, Sards, Seez, Sonny Blount, Southernscot, Taranaki Snapper, Tehui, Theflier, TheMantis96, The Native, TheSmurf, TokenSarriesFan, Toulon's Not Toulouse, unseenwork, Waka Nathan, Wallah, Wendigo7, Wilderbeast, World Class Phil, Yer Man and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group