Rugby Union 21/22/23 Discussion | RWC time!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,735
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
OK, cold light of morning review of this world cup.

First game between NZ and France was tense but ultimately low quality, lots of long kicking down the middle back and forth. Other notable group stage games were Ireland v SA (again tense, low scoring bit gripping more than entertaining), and what else? Wales hammering Australia? The group stages will ultimately be remembered for the lack of trepidation, huge blow-outs in the majority of games involving tier 1 countries, and more alarmingly - a real regression in the likes of Japan, Argentina, Italy. Include Scotland in that too, especially when you see how bad they've been at u20 level.

i think its fair to say that it hadnt been a good world cup for spotting improvement or growth in the game. Obviously you could argue Portugal looked like entering maybe tier 2? Fiji should be happy enough but difficult to see how they grow further.

Quarter finals - SA France was game of the tournament, great to watch. Ireland NZ also a good game, first half especially, but Ireland failing to win after playing against 14 for 20 mins and getting a penalty try kind of sums Iteland up at QF stage. The two other QFs were also good games in and of themselves, but very much in a way that everyone knew the winners weren't coming from those games.

One awful SF which was never in danger of being a contest, one close nail biter of very low quality. A final that was close and tense and gripping but ultimately had one try (despite rarely having 30 players on the pitch) and a result heavily influenced by red and yellow cards.

I think that's a fair summary.
I don’t really see why you’re blaming the tournament for not seeing any improvement/growth in the lower tier countries? If they are going to improve that’s an issue which is completely separate to a tournament that comes around once every few years.

Plus we’ve seen with Italy that even going to great lengths to accommodate them and give them opportunity to hone their skills against bigger teams, over a very long period of time, might not make much difference.Maybe some countries are just not that into rugby and that’s ok?
 

Gee Male

Full Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
4,307
I don’t really see why you’re blaming the tournament for not seeing any improvement/growth in the lower tier countries? If they are going to improve that’s an issue which is completely separate to a tournament that comes around once every few years.

Plus we’ve seen with Italy that even going to great lengths to accommodate them and give them opportunity to hone their skills against bigger teams, over a very long period of time, might not make much difference.Maybe some countries are just not that into rugby and that’s ok?
Then maybe... don't have 20 teams?

It's not rocket science.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,735
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Then maybe... don't have 20 teams?

It's not rocket science.
Don’t worry. They’re going to have 24 teams at the next World Cup!

At the end of the day rugby is a niche sport, with only a few teams who are ever going to be any good. So you’re left with a decision between including very weak teams in a competition knowing they’ll get a hiding vs not giving them that opportunity to be involved. I lean towards giving them the opportunity.
 

T00lsh3d

T00ly O' Sh3d
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
8,395
You're basically agreeing with everything I said but are happy with it, while I wasn't. Maybe my expectations were too high, maybe yours were too low. Either way, there you go.

I don't really see what happens next in rugby. The changes being brought in for 2027 make literally no objective sense, it just seems the stronger nations who have more voting power are just happy with the status quo.

Meanwhile on the club front, Australia's demise is pretty devastating and the state of play in England is pretty brutal too. I don't really see what's being done to address any of it.
I think the RFU and WRU, when they go into their post-world-cup rebuilding phase could do with taking a look around. There are 2 nations in the northern hemisphere where the game is blossoming, Ireland and France. By no strange coincidence, these are the 2 sides that have embraced running multiphase rugby.
When both sides shuffle out the retirees and the new guard come through, it might not be a bad idea to move towards a modernised version of the game rather than the set-piece and territory games these 2 sides are built on
 

Gee Male

Full Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
4,307
Don’t worry. They’re going to have 24 teams at the next World Cup!

At the end of the day rugby is a niche sport, with only a few teams who are ever going to be any good. So you’re left with a decision between including very weak teams in a competition knowing they’ll get a hiding vs not giving them that opportunity to be involved. I lean towards giving them the opportunity.
Again, you can lean towards giving them the opportunity and that's fair enough. It does mean that the first 5 weeks of an 8 week tournament is essentially a waste of time, and that's on the tournament organisers.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,735
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Again, you can lean towards giving them the opportunity and that's fair enough. It does mean that the first 5 weeks of an 8 week tournament is essentially a waste of time, and that's on the tournament organisers.
Yeah, true. Although not a problem unique to rugby. The group stages of the CL are just as much a waste of everyone’s time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.