RWC`s past.present,and future

Since the RWC was introduced in 1987 at the instigation of the Sanzar nations[although for political reasons SA were`nt there or in 1991].
To replace the traditional tours,and spread Rugby Union world wide,this to some extent has been successful,it has risen to be for good or
ill.The perceived Premier Rugby Union tournament,and winners gets a trophy and the name World champions for 4 years .It has only had
4 Countries winning and 5 Countries in the final,no country failing to win there group has won the trophy.So far so good,since the first
one the norm of Test matches has risen from about 7 to 14 or 15.There has also been a relative increase in domestic matches in other
tournaments as well.This has had the ineveitable consequence of more injuries and rest ing of players to take up the workload staleness etc.
Since 2007 it has been taken to extremes in a RWC ,when instead of having core squad and resting and rotating a few players per test.
We have come down to teams having there complete Squad down with injuries,or in secret rehabilitation camps.Resting and rotating
players ,coping with injuries is acceptable and sensible.Deliberately devaluing tournaments to hide players in cotton wool,is neither good
for the game.Nor the paying public or Tv sponsors who expect the best to say,we are doing it to win a RWC is wearing thin only ONE
side can do that.This year already sponsors are making noises about it.
This year Tier 2 sides have been penalised by 4 day turn arounds,as opposed to 7 or 8 for tier 1 sides that is un acceptable,it was found
so in 1987.It has [I think] not occurred again till this year.
It was shown in the first games that the Tier2 sides could give a good account of them selves,but after that they did not have the
squad depth to continue that progress.
This has mean`t teams playing seriously weakened teams in subsequent games,to try to gain automatic selection at the next RWC.
This has mean`t ridiculous bonus points wins for strong teams.Not only has it devalued the RWC as a spectacle it may make the
difference between.Winning,qualifying,or being knocked out at of te RWC,because of it Group B could come down to Points difference.
How do you win a RWC,luck with injuries or Refs decisions or whatever,there is no magic formula or way of playing you have to beat
whoever is in front of you.
One of the ironies of the RWC,is THE most stastically Successful RWC side,and THE Best side in world rugby by result since 1987[80.80 % wins]
has only lifted thetrophy once.
In my Opinion the IRB needs to simplify the laws in Scrum.Maul/Tackle/breakdown area.Weakened sides and qualification for and seedings
for the RWC.Revert to a full week between matches in future,and that Quarter-final draw not be made UNTIL the pools are settled.
That way there could be no case of Pool manipulation,nor a guaranteed soft side to a draw.

emack2 wrote:Quarter-final draw not be made UNTIL the pools are settled.

That is a very good idea in terms of pool manipulation. But it ruins ticket sales as people need to book accommodation etc. They need to be able to assume to some extent that their team might be playing here or there, at this or that time, months in advance. whether we like it or not revenue gathering is part and parcel of a successful world cup.

But something in between might help. Some flexibility around the ticket sales.

"We have come down to teams having there complete Squad down with injuries,or in secret rehabilitation camps.Resting and rotating
players ,coping with injuries is acceptable and sensible.Deliberately devaluing tournaments to hide players in cotton wool,is neither good
for the game."

You see this is where administration, marketing and practicality collides. If the sponsors, media moguls and rugby unions didn't sell their souls to the devil then coaches wouldn't have to make decisions like that. I dislike the fact that other tours and tournamnets have to be compromised for the sake of a RWC just as distasteful as anyone. But it has now been proven that SA is still struggling with injuries, coincidently most of the players in the secret rehabilitation camp has carried injuries during this world cup and has not been 100% fit. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Look at australia now, they played their top players during the Tri Nations and deservedly won the trophy, but now 6 tests later after a hard super XV as well, they are struggling.

Taylorman wrote:

emack2 wrote:Quarter-final draw not be made UNTIL the pools are settled.

That is a very good idea in terms of pool manipulation. But it ruins ticket sales as people need to book accommodation etc. They need to be able to assume to some extent that their team might be playing here or there, at this or that time, months in advance. whether we like it or not revenue gathering is part and parcel of a successful world cup.

But something in between might help. Some flexibility around the ticket sales.

I totally disagree with that, if you are going to have random draw for quarter final clashes you are going to end up where top seeded team will meet each other in the first knock out round.

Imagine the following happen, SA vs NZ and Scotland vs Wales. You'll have a team ranked 7 or 8 make a semi final and a team ranked 1 or 2 eliminated.

It should work like tennis, your performances in between world cups or in this case the rankings is earned and therefor if no upsets take place in pool rounds work out the way it should.

You said it...beat whoever is in front of you. its that simple. Are you inferring that because NZ are consistently and statistically the best side in the world, but unable to win it again, somehow that makes it an irrelevance.
I don't buy this 'devaluation' its entirely subjective. How , exactly, is it devalued and compared to what?
It is the RWC and the best we have got, to award one of 20 sides, tested on a somewhat level playing field, over a specific period with the ultimate rugby accolade. From what i have read of your posts it is you who devalue RWC emack. I for one do not.

What is wrong with coaches managing their resources to achieve the top honour in rugby? I don't think any players are being hidden, the fact is that the injury rate in modern rugby is horrendous due to the size and speed of payers hitting tackles and rucks...the rotation of players has become a modern feature of the game because it is a necessity. Ask Gatland or Robbie Deans.

I like the idea regarding the 1/4s but again it is not realistic for the reason quoted above....and i agree that 4 day breaks are unacceptable but disagree that the lack of progression is squad depth,. I would like to see a plate knockout for the 3rd placed teams in each group.
Faced with the overwhelming statistical success of NZ you may well ask the question how do you win an RWC? RWC proves everything and nothing.You can't constantly claim to be the best if you fail when tested, anyone could win but of course only a few teams are in the running, that's true of any sport.

good luck to both sides this evening. i hope they make it the event it could be.

Biltong i didnt say random draw. Just the quarter final draw.
All i meant was winner pool A would play a runner up. But no one knows whether it would be pool b c or d. Agree it is random in that sense but winners always stil play runner ups.
Runner up would play winner of the same section.
It would mean all teams would try to top the pool at all costs
It would mean france wouldnt necessarily want to throw tonights match as they could draw SA by coming second.
By coming first you are likely to play an original likely runner up.
Oz result would still throw that off but at least teams couldnt say with certainty theyll meet x or y.
Nor should teams be able to 'choose' who they play by losing.

So yes you could get SA vs NZ, but only if one, and not both were unable to win their pool. So my point was it was a good idea 'in terms of pool manipulation'. Deliberately coming second shouldn't benefit a team where possible. And like I said, the logistics of fans not knowing beforehand where their team is going to be playing makes this a flawed reasoning in terms of planning, ticket sales etc.

Oh, so teams ranked 1 to four gets preference in the draw and they second placed teams are drawn?

Yeah you could split into 2 groups- a and b from c and d.
Draw say a then draw say c.
Winner a plays runner up c. R/ up a plays winner d.
Winner b plays r/up d.
R/up b plays winner c.
All from the one draw.

That way you keep some semblence of the seedings but also remove the manipulation.

But fans need to book flites tikets so it wont wash.

It seems I have opened a can of worms here,so a team can only be considered the best if it passes a test.
I devaluing the worlds Premier tournament,because I believe that in such a tournament.
That ALL teams should have an equal chance to win it,that it should be decided by luck not seedings in any form.
That it is unthinkable for a All Black or Bok select teams in one tournament
in order to try and win another.
That a team is prepared to deliberatly field a weakened team in order to enhance there chances of some future qualification.Which may effect the qualification of a team already in the tournament.
Or for an All Black or Bok side deliberately throwing a match,is unthinkable.
Or that a Test match should be just that THE best available side.Or that the Public and Sponsors should get what they pay for to see there stars whenever possible.
That to be a World Champion ,you walk the walk ,not talk the talk.NOT just once every 4 years.BUT every time you play,and if some other side can beat you twice as many times ,As he beats you makes ME wrong and You Right.
That a player with a RWC winners medal,is better than any player without one.
Ireland have had two Grand Slams nearly sixty years apart,Wales have`nt
beaten the All Blacks since 1953.
Does that make them inferior,or that they were`nt trying to win .
I wrote the article late last night to foster debate,THERE is NO right or wrong it is the basis for sensible debate.
THe IRB needs to address the weakened/devalued 4/6Ns by not contesting
them in RWC years maybe.Look at decreasing the workloads of players,of maybe intro ducing a a two tier 4Ns/6Ns and domestic tournaments to support it.Currie Cup and ITM has gone down that road already .
That a Plate,and Shield be introduced which could be played mid week for non QF or SF teams giving the minnows something to aim at.
Seeding if you must have them IRB ratings 1-4 pool leaders,5-8 go into a hat. The rest go into the hat aferwards.
ALL teams play the same game time/rest periods .The Quarter final draw POST pool stage,it could still be made but kept secret.
THAT way EVERY team tries there is no advantage in just qualifying.
Also may be reduce the number of teams by 4 at pool stages.
Obviously the marketing etc ,practicalities of workloads,etc would have to be gone into.
I am well known on my thoughts on RWCs,but I sense from the recent posts
many here tacitly agree with me.
The concept of a RWC is great,and until 2003 fair[relatively speaking.
Rugby Union has now become a Cash Cow,bigger and better Tournaments,more and more test matches,so to manage the workload it is a question of practicality or morality.It has become like a snake eating its own tail.
It has become THE only tournament of value to the great unwashed,anything else can be sacrificed in the name of it.
For all the shenanigans only 4 Sides have won it,only 5 look capable of it and that is WRONG.
IT should be possible for any side to win it,if not to find out why?

Yes but you cant expect it to be equal in all respects. You cant draw sa nz oz and eng in the same pool. Same as putting nadal and federer at positions 131 and 132 in tennis.
Seedings are there for a reason. Usually on an attempt to get the best 2 into the final.
Not about seedings its about manipulation of them
you should avoid manipulation while at the same time retaining as much of the integrity of the seedings as is possible.

That is what I have just said,seeds would be probably.All Blacks,Boks,.Wallabies,A.N.Other in the pools the rest would fall by luck of draw.
Much as I dislike seedings they have to be there in some form.

emack2 wrote:It seems I have opened a can of worms here,so a team can only be considered the best if it passes a test.
I devaluing the worlds Premier tournament,because I believe that in such a tournament.
That ALL teams should have an equal chance to win it,that it should be decided by luck not seedings in any form.
That it is unthinkable for a All Black or Bok select teams in one tournament
in order to try and win another.
That a team is prepared to deliberatly field a weakened team in order to enhance there chances of some future qualification.Which may effect the qualification of a team already in the tournament.
Or for an All Black or Bok side deliberately throwing a match,is unthinkable.
Or that a Test match should be just that THE best available side.Or that the Public and Sponsors should get what they pay for to see there stars whenever possible.
That to be a World Champion ,you walk the walk ,not talk the talk.NOT just once every 4 years.BUT every time you play,and if some other side can beat you twice as many times ,As he beats you makes ME wrong and You Right.
That a player with a RWC winners medal,is better than any player without one.
Ireland have had two Grand Slams nearly sixty years apart,Wales have`nt
beaten the All Blacks since 1953.
Does that make them inferior,or that they were`nt trying to win .
I wrote the article late last night to foster debate,THERE is NO right or wrong it is the basis for sensible debate.
THe IRB needs to address the weakened/devalued 4/6Ns by not contesting
them in RWC years maybe.Look at decreasing the workloads of players,of maybe intro ducing a a two tier 4Ns/6Ns and domestic tournaments to support it.Currie Cup and ITM has gone down that road already .
That a Plate,and Shield be introduced which could be played mid week for non QF or SF teams giving the minnows something to aim at.
Seeding if you must have them IRB ratings 1-4 pool leaders,5-8 go into a hat. The rest go into the hat aferwards.
ALL teams play the same game time/rest periods .The Quarter final draw POST pool stage,it could still be made but kept secret.
THAT way EVERY team tries there is no advantage in just qualifying.
Also may be reduce the number of teams by 4 at pool stages.
Obviously the marketing etc ,practicalities of workloads,etc would have to be gone into.
I am well known on my thoughts on RWCs,but I sense from the recent posts
many here tacitly agree with me.
The concept of a RWC is great,and until 2003 fair[relatively speaking.
Rugby Union has now become a Cash Cow,bigger and better Tournaments,more and more test matches,so to manage the workload it is a question of practicality or morality.It has become like a snake eating its own tail.
It has become THE only tournament of value to the great unwashed,anything else can be sacrificed in the name of it.
For all the shenanigans only 4 Sides have won it,only 5 look capable of it and that is WRONG.
IT should be possible for any side to win it,if not to find out why?

I don't think you have any grasp of professional rugby and the issues coaches face in the modern era. Rugby is now big business and the glory years of amateurism that you seem to be lamenting are long gone.

Said this a few times today, but I think it's worth repeating here - go back to 5 groups of 4 and use the 1999 format. It rewards winning the group too.

@Gatts Well said ,this is the pro era end of story. For rugby to become global the administrators need to make money to improve the game around the world , more money made in rugby ,more people wanting to join rugby , sport grows .

Dave wrote:Said this a few times today, but I think it's worth repeating here - go back to 5 groups of 4 and use the 1999 format. It rewards winning the group too.

Dave that's lunacy, the reason they stopped that system is there were quarter final play off games before the quarter finals themselves, and it results in some teams playing 3 games in 8 days!


Every team that was forced into a quarter final play off got hammered in the quarter final, because of the system.

People complain about Samoa etc playing games 4 days apart, but try playing 3 games in 8 days like Scotland did!

England, Scotland and Argentina were stuffed out of sight as a result of this system, what we have isn't perfect but it much fairer than the 1999 system.

Please give me credit for knowing what i`m talking about,of COURSE Rugby is big business.Paid for by sponsorships,Television Rights,fans paying to watch live or perhaps on a closed circuit TV channel.
Gatts,I don`t know who you support,as a Country or even a Club.
BUT,are you among those who complained when the RWC was held,because your star players are missing?
Do you genuinely believe that entering,let alone winning a RWC,justifies picking deliberately Weak touring sides.OR NH sides facing weakened touring sides for 4 years,then expect to win a RWC.
That teams like Ireland,Wales,Scotland,France,the Pacific island sides or Argentina .Have NEVER won a RWC or under the current terms are likely too.
This RWC has seen Tier 2 sides dis advantaged by the turn around,but things like Japan or USA fielding weaker teams against Tier I sides .
So they can qualify auto matically for the next RWC,instead of giving there best shot ,is Sad.
When I posted the thread it was sponsor sensible debate to try and find a solution to these anomalies.
It does`nt MATTER if I loveor hate RWCS,they are a fact of life,BUT he who pays the Piper calls the tune.
AT some point sponsors will say we are paying for a product,we are sponsoring Sanzar in Super Rugby or 4Ns,6Ns,Heineken Cup whatever.
Now put up or shut up,Iam neither fool nor Hypocrite,I`m not sitting in front of an old Bakelite wireless listening to winston mcCarthy,Bill McLaren or whoever.
I have made several practical suggestions that may help,the relative unions
re-arranging tournaments could help.
A Coach in modern Rugby is measured by his wins,trophys or lack of them.
Unless your Rugby Club is in Japan or Top14 it is financed by Big Business,or Billionaires using Clubs probably as a tax loss.
The Reference to whole squads disappearing was it is true a swipe at PDV.
NOT for his man management strategy,but for not admitting it,it may well be some were genuinley injured.BUT as Sir Colin Meads said of the All Blacks
leaving out 4 players after naming the team.
HE thought it a tactical ploy ,and as he said when you cry wolf,no one will believe in Genuine injuries .
There is a case for bigger RWC squads say 40.,in many of the bigger
countries it is a case of who to leave out.
As has been proven both SA and Aus have injury problems,BUT cynics say are they really injured.
Bakkies Botha one night was on his way home with achilles tendon trouble
overnight he was playing next day.
There is no easy way of doing it but more and more IF they continue to ask more and more from players. It will not just be the players lost,it will be fans walking with there feet.
4Ns,6Ns,RWCs,Heineken Cup,Super Rugby,they are BRAND NAMES,not Tesco`s Budget best buy.
There has been 6 RWC`s to date only one won by a NH side,since the IRB ratings system was adopted.Except for a brief period SH teams have been
1,2,3.
IT is a fact
New Zealand Maori`s have a marginally better win rate than the Boks,I
know the facts of life. I don`t haveto like them.
IF as could happen a group in a RWC is decided on points difference,and YOUR team goes out.
Just because a Tier 2 side has a hidden agenda,again I am trying to make a serious effort to find solutions.NOT just sit on my hands,say everythings all right when they are not.

AlynDavies wrote:

Dave wrote:Said this a few times today, but I think it's worth repeating here - go back to 5 groups of 4 and use the 1999 format. It rewards winning the group too.

Dave that's lunacy, the reason they stopped that system is there were quarter final play off games before the quarter finals themselves, and it results in some teams playing 3 games in 8 days!


Every team that was forced into a quarter final play off got hammered in the quarter final, because of the system.

People complain about Samoa etc playing games 4 days apart, but try playing 3 games in 8 days like Scotland did!

England, Scotland and Argentina were stuffed out of sight as a result of this system, what we have isn't perfect but it much fairer than the 1999 system.

Win the group then!

Alan I think you just need to sit down and enjoy the tournament or if you can't do that, don't watch it.

Comment on the matches by all means but this ongoing crusade about how things should be done, who should pick what players is just a waste of energy.

For an AB supporter the enjoyment of watching them win or perform sure isnt obvious. Come on. How about we just accept it for what it is and just enjoy it. I sure am and Kiwis are loving it here.

On one of our past...Not good news on the Lomu front as he went into hospital yesterday with renal complications.

All the best Lomu...Kia kaha.

Better news is across the fence the Warriors have just made the Oz based NRL league final next week for the second time ever so along with their Juniors, who won their semi 64-0, our leaguies are flying the flag across the Tasman.

Mind you...they HATE playing Manly...

Yes sad about Jonah a great Player and gentlemen,sad seeing him turn out in Wales a few years ago .Overweight and not really fit,sort of doing it by numbers.Oh and talking of RWC surprises the Kiwi`s as reigning League Champions.Don`t often watch League but I did that one.
Taylorman I thing you are right,my ideas won`t be implemented any way
As to the Rugby most I have enjoyed immensly,especially today a humorous sledging of the All Blacks RWC record on ITV.
Fiji v Samoa and Argentina v Scotland.
One thing that is significant the Teams that played the minnows first up,then the second matchs for tier 1 sides .
Are very different.

Taylorman wrote:Alan I think you just need to sit down and enjoy the tournament or if you can't do that, don't watch it.

Comment on the matches by all means but this ongoing crusade about how things should be done, who should pick what players is just a waste of energy.

For an AB supporter the enjoyment of watching them win or perform sure isnt obvious. Come on. How about we just accept it for what it is and just enjoy it. I sure am and Kiwis are loving it here.

Is that directed at me?
I do enjoy the tournament, I was simply telling Dave why the tournament was changed from the 1999 format...
2 games in 4 days and a week off for recovery, is much better than 3 games in 8 days.

That was basically why the organisers changed the tournament format, though I think England had the best idea in 2003. Have a 16 team tournament and then have another Tier B 16 tournament below it. Let the weaker countries have something to play for and let them win their own trophy. Lineing them up to be slaughtered with 3 days breaks doesn't do anyone any good, and better still more countries can still see their own players in games and probably ones that are more competitive.
If you were a young Russian kid and watched this new game on Tv for the first time, would you be interested if you saw a close hard fought game against Morocco, or would your interest be peaked when you saw them getting smashed off the park by Italy, Ireland and australia.

In 1999 rugby in Germany kicked off after the World Cup, there was LOADS of interest, but the people asked 1 question... "Where was Germany?"

No Alyn it is directed at me[Emack2]we have a sort of running battle i`m leading on points.

emack2 wrote:No Alyn it is directed at me[Emack2]we have a sort of running battle i`m leading on points.

damn... Theres another point...touchez!

Sorry alyn... Ill do my 100 lines i promise!