Are there too many lower-ranked teams in the World Cup?

First topic message reminder :

Thread title changed from "Should England be allowed into the next round early?" - KRD

Its clear Georgia, Romania and Scotland are really poor teams, is there any real point in these games going ahead, I mean England are going to win all three so is there any point in playing them and risk English players picking up injuries, which would ultimately rob the tournament of their skills and talent in the later stages.


These games are going to be cricket scores.

I of course realise this is a WUM article, but just to make the loner who wrote it smile, I will respond.

It will be interesting to see what the OP thinks when (almost certainly) the expansive England backs (Johnny Wilkinson see Dan Parks) struggle to overcome Georgia.

There have been no really hammerings yet, the lesser teams are improving, and the only way they will continue to do so, is by playing the so called established teams.

Lest we forget the French league if littered with georgian players, for no other reason than they are pretty good.

They do matter Hersh. There are quality players in the developing countries.

Quite a few would walk into your beloved Bath side as first choice.

Yes there are far too many lower ranked teams playing. 17 too many.

We should just have home and away matches between the top 3 in the world and see who the true World Champions are.

Sorry what was that?

The Tri-Nations you say? Oh, oopsie.

Come on Hersh, they don't matter in your greater scheme of things, simply because they won't qualify for the knock out rounds, but they do matter to the people of the respective minnow countries.

Think about it from their point of view, not your own.

LondonTiger wrote:Yes there are far too many lower ranked teams playing. 17 too many.

We should just have home and away matches between the top 3 in the world and see who the true World Champions are.

Sorry what was that?

The Tri-Nations you say? Oh, oopsie.

So I guess Australia are then the RWc champions?

greybeard wrote:If people aren't interested in the pool stages, for whatever reason, they're more than welcome to take up knitting until the knock-out matches take place.

Don't get more wrong - I love the world cup and enjoy watching ALL the games - yet I think it could be improved as well. I definately don't want to risk the development of lesser nations, but I do feel that about 80% of the matches in the world cup will be non contests.

Shop window a few of these developing nations players could well end up in our leagues after the world cup.

How the hell are smaller teams supposed to get better if they don't play better teams ?

France didn't start winning games in the 5 nations for ages when they first joined, neither did Italy.

Its complete eliteism and completely baseless considering England's current performance.

I do, however, think that the seeding needs to be sorted out. Some groups are walk overs and others very very difficult.

rugbyfan wrote:
how about keeping 20 teams but instead of going to quarter finals after the group stages the top two teams from each group would each go through to from two more groups of four, where they play each other. the winners of these secondary groups then play the final

So what do people think about this scenario? This way 20 teams are still involved, but the later stages become more competitive, with the big teams playing more games against each other?

you will have a much longer world cup because top teams will play 4 pool matches, then another set of 3 pool matches plus a semi and a final.

you will need much bigger sqauds.

rugbyfan wrote:

rugbyfan wrote:
how about keeping 20 teams but instead of going to quarter finals after the group stages the top two teams from each group would each go through to from two more groups of four, where they play each other. the winners of these secondary groups then play the final

So what do people think about this scenario? This way 20 teams are still involved, but the later stages become more competitive, with the big teams playing more games against each other?

Sounds similar to the "Big 8" idea they had in the Cricket World Cup in 2007. Except Ireland beat Pakistan and ended up in the Big 8 at their expense. Cue lots of loud complaints that Ireland didn't deserve to be there and the world cup had been robbed of seeing Pakistan playing in the serious second half of the tournament. This structure was then removed at the next world cup to avoid a major nation missing out on the cash.

How the hell are smaller teams supposed to get better if they don't play better teams ?

For one they could play each other more often, play the lower ranked teams such as Scotland, Italy etc and then the top two three ranked teams could enter the world cup for real, then maybe in 15-20 years the current format for the RWC might work but as it is these teams need to improve a lot to earn their spot in the RWC, the games are too one sided.

FACT!

HERSH wrote:They ADD nothing IMO

Fair enough, but in my opinion and many others, they add a lot. They add a bit of variety, they allow the lower teams to have their moment in the sun (the highlight of many of the lower teams players would surely be a try against say NZ - no matter what the final score was!) and for their supporters to see their teams playing against top quality opponents. The biggest thing though is that if they didn't ever play the top sides then how would we ever know when they ARE good enough? I think Georgia and Romania both played well against Scotland and will give England a good game. Yes I expect England to win, but there is a chance that they could slip up. I think there will be at least one surprise result this year, but even if there isn't it's good to have the chance of a surprise upset. Georgia's game against Ireland in 2007 was great to see, even though it didn't actually result in an upset for instance.

I don't see the point in getting rid of the minnows either. There are very few injuries against them (certainly no more than playing anyone else) and part of winning a world cup is about having a good squad of players, rather than the best XV first choicers. If you got rid of them you would be giving yet more ammunition to people saying that rugby is not a truly "world" sport. It would help keep rugby as a "closed" sport only for a few countries rather than attempting to expand its horizons a little.

HERSH wrote:How the hell are smaller teams supposed to get better if they don't play better teams ?

For one they could play each other more often, play the lower ranked teams such as Scotland, Italy etc and then the top two three ranked teams could enter the world cup for real, then maybe in 15-20 years the current format for the RWC might work but as it is these teams need to improve a lot to earn their spot in the RWC, the games are too one sided.

FACT!

Rugby is no where near as accessible or popular as a say football. The only way its going to grow in the smaller countries is by showcasing it at a world wide event.

Are you saying if England dropped a fair few places you wouldn't mind them having to earn a spot at your new elite Rugby Cup ?

Given England's form, and performance against Argentina, it will be England that will be playing the likes of Georgia and Romania, in these lesser matches.

Setting yourself up for a huge fall here HERSH

Past winners would already be in, even Scotland would would make it, but teams like Namibia, Russia etc should have to meet a higher standard to get in the finals of the RWC. These games are too easy for the real teams.

JDandfries wrote:Given England's form, and performance against Argentina, it will be England that will be playing the likes of Georgia and Romania, in these lesser matches.

Setting yourself up for a huge fall here HERSH

Englands Form??

We did beat Aus home and away, won the 6 nations, plus we beat Ireland and Wales in the RWC build up???? oh and we won against the 3rd placed team in the last WC?

I fail to see your point?

Every 4 years the games against the "minnows" get tighter and tighter, yet you want to get rid of them because there may be a couple of injuries.

If the teams are so awful then the "big" teams should easily put out their second team anyway and so injuries are not a concern.

HERSH wrote: why should English players risk getting injured to play lower grade teams?

Every four years!!!!

So maybe in 30-40 years the RWC might be worth watching!


If the format of the RWC was changed then the minnows might develop quicker, its not rocket science is it, these teams need competition that is true but they need to be able to win games as well, Namibia are never going to beat NZ no matter how many times they play them.

At least the changed title of this thread merits some discussion.

Sport is aspirational and not the preserve of the elite. We should celebrate the world cup format and that lesser rugby nations can participate on the same stage. If the only goal is to determine which of the top tier nations will lift the cup, small minded self centred people might be happy, but I think most of us would not.

If you don't like watching some teams play - turn off!

Of course what should happen is everyone should play everyone else home and away and just tally up the winners points. That way we can make the world cup last 760 games. Play one world cup international every 5 weeks and make the cup can last four years. The remaining four weeks are left for the domestic club games and a few weekends off for summer and Christmas. I work all year and so should they.

But isn't the Six and Tri Nations for the Elite?

It wouldn't feel like the RWC for me if you got rid of the minnows, it would just feel like the 6N and 4N put together - teams who all play each other almost every year between the 6N/4N, autumn internationals and summer tours. Seeing the same teams playing each other over and over can get pretty boring, and it's refreshing to look forward to a clash that I'm not used to seeing such as Russia v USA tomorrow, a much anticipated fixture.

At the end of the day, minnows rarely turn over the bigger teams in the RWC, but when they do, it can be more entertaining than the final itself.

I like the way you only ever answer half the questions/points made, selectively choosing to only answer the ones you find easiest.

Given that it is commonly accepted that the teams are getting better every four years and the fact that Georgia came within a whisker of beating Ireland, plus the fact that rugby is growing in many parts of the world (such as Russia) very quickly, at least partly off the back of the publicity generated from the RWC, it should be far fewer than 30-40 years and more of the scale of 4-8 years before we see regular upsets.

If you don't like these games, don't watch them. How many first choice players have been injured playing minnows? How many in training? I simply don't think your injury argument has much weight. It's a squad game now anyway, whether you like that or not.

HERSH wrote:But isn't the Six and Tri Nations for the Elite?

Yes - and that's why the WC should not be. It was great to get Italy involved and Argentina's inclusion is over due.

In previous RWC years there have been cricket scores in the minnow games. So far this year there have been quite respectable scores with the so-called minnows and they have been scoring points as well. Canada just beat Tonga today. Are you going to tell me that they shouldn´t have turned up for this World Cup.

Italy have been included in the 6N. They haven´t been wooden spoon every year and have pulled off a notable win against France last year. Should they be cut? Should any team who is unable to beat the SH teams be cut from the autumn series?

If rugby is serious about developing the game and getting more than a handful of serious contenders together then there needs to be something in it for the nations below and for them to have meaningful competition.

And it´s a bit rich to include a team you think is poor who has beaten you on more than a few occasions before and beat Argentina in Argentina twice last year. A team which England just managed to scrape by. If you think Georgia, Romania and Scotland are beneath you, then by all means put your B squad in and keep your A squad out of harm from injuries and fatigue. A good team should have enough depth to do that.

I personally wouldn´t mind just two groups and for there to be fewer teams. I think NZ might do a little better than they have in the past. But I also love seeing the little guys take on the big guns. They might not be tense games in terms of never quite knowing the end result but they embrace the principles of rugby: testing yourselves physically and tactically against your opponent and seeking to play your best. So far I´ve seen these so-called poor teams doing just that and should be commended. Posts like this do nothing to defeat the notion of English arrogance.

Shame on you!

I'm not saying to get rid of the minnows but they should have to play to a higher standard to get to the main event, a bit like the FA Cup.

As for Russia vs USA, you would see a better standard of rugby down your local rugby club, the Marketing men have worked there magic on yet another 606v2 poster.

HERSH wrote:But isn't the Six and Tri Nations for the Elite?

No. Its a 'regional' thing. As other 'regional' teams get better, then the 6 nations and Tri nations will get bigger.

Six Nations used to be just 4, Tri nations is becoming 4.

You can't just suddenly become good enough to compete with higher ranked teams, you have lose alot of games to them first, as I stated previosly, France then Italy used to get battered when they first joined.

And clearly mentioned England's CURRENT form, they scraped a win over a 'lesser' team.

offload wrote:

HERSH wrote:But isn't the Six and Tri Nations for the Elite?

Yes - and that's why the WC should not be. It was great to get Italy involved and Argentina's inclusion is over due.

So your saying its ok for these teams to have games against the big boy once every four years but the rest of the time they are swept under the carpet? Then how are these teams ever going to get better, one or two games every four years is never going to grow the game worldwide therefore the format of the RWC needs to change.

debate won

But Arg aren't a lesser team (2007 3rd place team), I knew how they where going to play, it was fans of other nations on here saying they were no good.

You might argue Argentina was a so-called poor nation last world cup. They were in the rugby wilderness without meaningful competition. Now their efforts have been rewarded with inclusion in next year´s 4N. Who´s to say another team like Samoa might be added if they do well?

Russia vs USA is a big marketing game but they´ve earned the right to be there. If USA were so poor, why did Ireland make a meal of that game? Are Ireland poor in your eyes as well? It didn´t seem like that this 6N.

No top team in this World Cup has played well. Probably the best team performance so far other than Canada was Wales and they lost.

Yes,Nz,Sa,Franceand Aus should playoff home and away,Lions plays the winners homeand away.THEN you `d have the REAL World Champions.
By the way let England win all there games before you start crowing.

USA vs Ireland, Ire can't play in the world cup, history doesn't lie.

As for Arg they have been a tough team for many years, so why has the IRB taken so long to include them in another competition?

As for Canada (ranked 14) v Tonga (ranked 12) hardley a shock.

Oh dear Hersh... that's not what I said and if you think your selective reasoning has won you a debate then your intellectual prowess is even less than most on this board would have credited. Still if it makes you happy...

emack2 wrote:By the way let England win all there games before you start crowing.

They won't be taking part. They might get hurt.

Hersh, you keep talking about past form, winning something in 2003 or getting to a semi in 2007 has very little relevance in 2011

And pot kettle, didn't England take out a few Argentinian players themselves ?

Offload how are these teams going to get better if they only have one maybe two chances against the big boys every four years?

munkian wrote:Hersh, you keep talking about past form, winning something in 2003 or getting to a semi in 2007 has very little relevance in 2011

apart form the seeding you mean?

HERSH wrote:Offload how are these teams going to get better if they only have one maybe two chances against the big boys every four years?

I would be in favour of more opprtunities being created for these teams to play representative teams of the major rugby nations more often, but that's wasn't you question. You asked about the number of minor teams at the WC. Anyway I respect your right to your opinion even if its wrong.

They have been getting better. Look at the results this year and look at previous World Cups. See any cricket scores so far? The fact is they are getting better by competitions like the Pacific Cup, Namibia playing SA teams etc. They only get every four years to prove it but they are improving. It´s just that you´re not aware of what´s happening in between.

rugbyfan wrote:

Think of two groups like this playing

Group 1

South Africa
New Zealand
France
Wales
Samoa
Argentina

Group 2

England
Australia
Ireland
Italy
Scotland
Fiji

That will never work either, you have put all the STRONG sides in Group 1 and the light weights in Group 2. Anything to allow England to progress eh...


Being serious though. There is nothing wrong with the structure of the tournament as it is. They tried a 5 Pool set up in 1999 (I think it was), with a QF Playoff situation. Really wasnt a good idea. The 4 Pools with top 2 going through is the best option. The only thing I would change is drop the seeding. That way, you could have the top 4 all in the same Group and all "developing" nations in another. Surely, this would help the developing nations, as they could get a realistic chance of progressing to the knock outs. Would also help the so called "bigger" sides, as they would have to play a stronger game from the off.

You cant have a World cup and alienate countries. If they play rugby, then they have the right to be there through the different qualifiers.

And on qualification, I think it should go back to the only automatic qualifying is through Hosting, Holders, 2nd and 3rd Place. Reason being :-

Hosts - Speaks for itself as does Holders.
2nd Place, as they will play their socks off to win anyway in the final, so no need to give any other incentive. But 3rd place, will give the 3rd/4th playoff some meaning. Imaging coming 4th and having to qualify for the next cup. They had this set-up before, and I never understood whey they got rid of it.

wow hersh is the only one with the brain power to resist advertising. The interest is nothing to do with advertising its purely for rugby. I enjoy watching womens, youth and any other rugby. If you don't then its your problem, don't watch it.

Its all part of the bigger picture Offload, try and keep up with the debate instead of throwing pointless insults.

Advertising and Marketing are two different things.

OMG

HERSH wrote:But they don't show or add anything to the RWC imo!

I'd rather watch a colts match.

In all seriousness the only way rugby will become a true 'World' Cup is if we give the minnows more chances at playing the so called bigger teams. And Samoa v Namibia aside there have been no trouncings yet.

If the IRFU are serious at spreading the game they should start to mandate that the 6 and 3 - nations play more friendlies against the minnows, and start to consider introducing mini-tournaments. Until that starts to happen these teams will only play a simple 10 man game of rugby.

In reality though the IRFU are more interested in filling stadiums and securing sponsors who only want marquee games....so the cycle will continue until the minnows start to win big games, doing so with brute force 10 man rugby...

Scotland 15 Georgia 6. Admittedly Hersh thinks these are both poor teams. Will be interesting to see the cricket scores England should be capable of then for their remaining games.

HERSH wrote:Its all part of the bigger picture Offload, try and keep up with the debate instead of throwing pointless insults.

Hersh, it takes a broad mind to see a bigger picture so I hope someone is there to help you. I'm now "foeing" you so I can avoid such drivel.

IRFU do you mean IRB?

But I agree the minnows need more meaningful games in between RWC's, then and only then will they improve, which in turn will lead to better world cups.