RWC-why?

The RWC is nearly upon us again,this thread is not about the usual suspects.
2007 was in many ways the worst and best of the RWCs,and this in no
way is meant to impute that South Africa were other than worthy champions.
The best because of the performances of Fiji,and Argentina in it.
The worst because Wales and Ireland did`nt qualify,France struggled out
of there group.Australia and New Zealand went out early andEngland lost twice.
The tactics of playing weakened S14 and 3Ns sides to save players stunk also.
That is the background,now if you take 2007 as an example any of the other top 7
World sides would have fancied there chances against the sides the Boks met and
beat.Again I re-iterate this is knocking the Boks they won fair and square.
Outside a RWC all of the top 5Ns sides would expect at least a chance of beating
any side in the World except maybe the All Blacks even on neutral territory.
Ireland and S cotland have beaten the Boks on 4 occassions,England have won against
all the top 3 sides.
As have France the Welsh 2005/8 triple crown squads would fancy there chances
ditto Irelands.
But come RWCs they seem to just under perform,tactical teams to get out of a group?
Underating the upcoming tier 2 sides?or just serendipity not there year.England alone of
the NH sides seem to have punched there weight.Why?please don`t drag up the
All Blacks chokers bit again 2007 aside there overall record is superior to any NH side.

Well, France have been in two Finals and went out in the Semis three other times. So, I would think their RWC history shows they are performing and they usually have a chance to actually win.

Unfortunately Wales were in only one Semi (1987), Scotland only one (1991), and Ireland none so far.

Its a good question. For example, in 2003 Ireland ran Aus razor-thin close and appeared good enough to advance. It is hard to explain really. Let's hope that changes in a big way in 2011.

The last World Cup was a very poor one, not to knock South Africa's route to winning it but it was farsical really.

England, Samoa, Tonga and Usa in the pool stages.
Fiji in the quarters
Argentina in the semis
and England (again) in the final.

Frankly no team is ever going to have an easier time of it. Especially as England were a team in transition.

The RWC games are played under different conditions to usual test matches.

Invariably the rules have been interpretted with subtle but important differences: who remembers how lineout throws were worse than scrum feeds prior to 2007? when the tournament arrived the TJs seemed to use laser technology and pinged almost every lineout throw? There are dozens of examples and I don't want to get side tracked on this one.

The games are played at different times of the day which affects handling conditions. It was odd for me to see SH sides playing each other in bright sunlight. Normally they play under floodlights when the air is dewey.

The referees themselves are human, and seem to be under a different level of pressure - as we've seen often they're the first to crack.

The majority of games tend to be on neutral ground which often creates an odd atmosphere.

We've also seen tournaments using different balls than the players are accustomed to which throws goal kicking and tactical kicking awry.

The random unfortunate occurance of injuries during what are otherwise utterly pointless pool games tend to "test the depth" of various sides - or unfairly handicap them depending on which side of the fence you're on.

Finally, the competition is a seeded knock-out contest with an un-even number of strong seeds. So the draw will always be lop-sided leaving teams reaching for the "untested and rusty" or "tired and injured" card.

In short. It's rugby, but not as we know it. The outcome is never going to be 100% fair or reflective of the best side.

But you can't have a go at South Africa for that, nor the teams they beat. South Africa's pool was no easier than New Zealand's or Australia's, and I'd go so far as to say it was harder than both. The fact that South Africa didn't have to beat New Zealand, Australia, France or Ireland is in no way a reflection on them, should the teams that did progress be booted out so that South Africa can have a more challenging run to the trophy? Of course not.

I think it's fair to say almost invariably that the best team at the tournament has won the World Cup. You do need a bit of luck, but as they say the harder you work the luckier you get.

TheGreyGhost wrote:The outcome is never going to be 100% fair or reflective of the best side.

That's pretty much true of all sport, all competitions and all games, except maybe tossing a coin to decide if it's heads or tails. If it was always reflective of the best side (on paper) then why would anyone watch it?

Weather....dewey!! They are professionals, they can train in all conditions and times of day can't they??

Ball's ... if new are given to every country to use, no excuse is there?

Injuries during pool games !! Same for everyone, but for the sake of GG let's dispense with them!!

Pretty dozy rant if you ask me or are you getting the excuses out in good time?

The outcome is never going to be 100% fair or reflective of the best side.

Utter stupidity

TheGreyGhost wrote:The RWC games are played under different conditions to usual test matches.

Invariably the rules have been interpretted with subtle but important differences: who remembers how lineout throws were worse than scrum feeds prior to 2007? when the tournament arrived the TJs seemed to use laser technology and pinged almost every lineout throw? There are dozens of examples and I don't want to get side tracked on this one.

The games are played at different times of the day which affects handling conditions. It was odd for me to see SH sides playing each other in bright sunlight. Normally they play under floodlights when the air is dewey.

The referees themselves are human, and seem to be under a different level of pressure - as we've seen often they're the first to crack.

The majority of games tend to be on neutral ground which often creates an odd atmosphere.

We've also seen tournaments using different balls than the players are accustomed to which throws goal kicking and tactical kicking awry.

The random unfortunate occurance of injuries during what are otherwise utterly pointless pool games tend to "test the depth" of various sides - or unfairly handicap them depending on which side of the fence you're on.

Finally, the competition is a seeded knock-out contest with an un-even number of strong seeds. So the draw will always be lop-sided leaving teams reaching for the "untested and rusty" or "tired and injured" card.

In short. It's rugby, but not as we know it. The outcome is never going to be 100% fair or reflective of the best side.

You're seriously the results aren't 100% fair because 'they had to play during the day' or 'slightly different balls are used'. Come on!

Rugby is and always has been about adapting to different conditions.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:The outcome is never going to be 100% fair or reflective of the best side.

That's pretty much true of all sport, all competitions and all games, except maybe tossing a coin to decide if it's heads or tails. If it was always reflective of the best side (on paper) then why would anyone watch it?

+1

welshjohn369 wrote:Weather....dewey!! They are professionals, they can train in all conditions and times of day can't they??

Ball's ... if new are given to every country to use, no excuse is there?

Injuries during pool games !! Same for everyone, but for the sake of GG let's dispense with them!!

Pretty dozy rant if you ask me or are you getting the excuses out in good time?

The outcome is never going to be 100% fair or reflective of the best side.

Utter stupidity

Perhaps you should think before you are so quick to dismiss ideas as "stupidity". Look at a percentages team such as the Bulls, and contrast that to a team like the Blues who like to play with no structure and run from everywhere. On a firm track with dry conditions the Blues are more likely to be successful than the Bulls. Under dewey conditions the up and under becomes more of a threat since catching the ball is harder, also passes are softer and have to be checked, running lines aren't as fast because the footing isn't as firm. At night time, a ball will tend to fly further and spin more. (please check this yourself before you slate me for saying it, it's a fact). What I'm saying is that if NZ tend to play South Africa at a certain time of day under predictable conditions, the guys get used to playing to their strengths; in different conditions the trends of history mean nothing.

AlynDavies wrote:The last World Cup was a very poor one, not to knock South Africa's route to winning it but it was farsical really.

England, Samoa, Tonga and Usa in the pool stages.
Fiji in the quarters
Argentina in the semis
and England (again) in the final.

Frankly no team is ever going to have an easier time of it. Especially as England were a team in transition.

But the only reason they didn't come up against Australia or New Zealand in later rounds is because those teams were knocked out - the WC is about beating the teams you are drawn against if you can do that and the other "best" teams can't then you are a well deserved winner in my opinion. It might have been an England team in transition but it was an England team that knocked out Australia and France, who finished behind Argentina in their group (and lost again to Argentina again in the 3rd place play off).

When I wrote this thread,it was to stimulate a discussion that teams who
would expect on neutral territory
They would expect to beat most of the teams in the world at least one in six.
What I did not intend was knocking of the Boks in 2007 or comments about playing condtions when matches are played.
I was bought up in a era when that was a 3 o`clock kick off in the afternoon.
Nothing to do with getting excuses in early,if the forecast is to be relied on teams should be packing wellington boots and souwesters,a load of mudlarks.

My point about South Africa's 2007 run was in response to Alyn, who called their run "farsical". They beat every team who earned the right to face them, and themselves earned the right to be called the 2007 World Champions.

In my opinion, it is a positive move that every match doesn't kick off at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon (as someone who is almost invariably playing at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon, I selfishly wish EVERY England match could kick off Saturday evening, around 5/6 o'clock). It's also positive that we can have a global tournament every four years, with every rugby playing nation eligible for qualification and (as johnpartle mentions) it is a great money-spinner and is essential to the future development of the game.

Rugby World Cups are a positive moves. You talk of teams "underestimating tier 2 nations", but what about those tier 2 nations who strongly up their game to compete with and sometimes beat tier 1 nations. In 2007 alone, we have Argentina reaching the semis, Fiji reaching the quarters, Georgia taking a bonus point from Ireland and 5th seed USA denying England the bonus point. Say what you want about France/Wales/Ireland/England under-estimating these teams, but those 4 teams really stepped up and deserve the chance to show what they have on a global stage.

I agree Rugby was made for daytime hours, wind, hail, rain, snow
or shine. Unfortunately the media have control of the games now and we are dictated by TV Big brother.

Firstly I see no problem with what time and it what conditions matches are played. It is the same for both teams. Some teams perform better in the dry than others, wet conditions often brings the scoreline closer as the dominant team struggles with conditions and therefor makes rugby more unpredictable.

Secondly, I want to question why is a world cup bad when teams don't make it past the quarter finals?

Why is it bad when a team struggles?

The whole point of the RWC is that teams know 4 years in advance they will be competing in it, that gives them 4 years to prepare, build a squad etc.

These teams come together and on the day can win or lose; These teams create upsets and lift themselves to higher levels of usually expected standards.

Take Argentina and how their passion but yet limited ability carried them all the way to the semi finals. I was listening to some of the Springbok squad players a week ago, and their opnion was that Argentina used the wrong tactics against them in the semi final. Their strngth was their forwards, but yet they didn't use them to dominate possession, they wanted to kick and use the same tactics as SA. So eventually the realisation that they could get into a final got to them, and tactically they played the wrong game.

Let's take England. On the day when they played their pool match against SA, everything went well for SA, and nothing went englands way. The bounce of the ball, the little kicks, the counter attacks all worked and England got a beating.

That didn't mean they were a poor team. Let's face it, none of the top 5 teams are ever poor. They may be underdone, ill prepared, but still remains a good team and can beat anyone on the day. After all they took Australia out, that tells me they couldn't have been that weak.

As far SA winning, perhaps only South Africans feel this way, but even though we beat England 36-0 in the pool stages, we weren't convinced we would win the final.

In 1995 we had australia in our pool, in 1999 we had scotland in our pool, in both 2003 and 2007 we had england in our pool. So 3 out of 4 tournaments the eventual RWC winner came from the pool we were in. Perhaps we shouldn't be in a pool then?

I just find it ridiculous that people compare RWC tournaments and then decide that this one was good or that one was bad based on an opinion that the "best" teams were knocked out and other teams didn't get through or the possibility that the eventual winners might not be deserved winners.

These are the facts of any world cup.

There are at least 5 teams who can win the RWC.
There are only 4 semi final spots.
On the day top teams can lose, and have.
This is not a round robin torunament like the Tri Nations or six Nations
So therefor you won't play all the sides.
The winner is always deserved champions, even if popular opinion disagrees.

Yep SA won all their games and none of the other teams did. There isnt anything more that they could have done.

lostinwales wrote:Yep SA won all their games and none of the other teams did. There isnt anything more that they could have done.

Maybe sides who win the World Cup without having played NZ should then have to play NZ (straight after the final, no subs) to decide if they really "deserve" it. If they lose it rolls over, like the EuroMillions.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Yep SA won all their games and none of the other teams did. There isnt anything more that they could have done.

Maybe sides who win the World Cup without having played NZ should then have to play NZ (straight after the final, no subs) to decide if they really "deserve" it. If they lose it rolls over, like the EuroMillions.

What if New Zealand win it? Oh wait, never mind.

At least NZ give themselves a chance...

I'm confused. Is it the All Blacks you mean? or the New Zealander's masquerading as "England"?

yet another thread ruined.....

When I wrote this thread i made it plain i was not knocking SA for there there victory.Hi Biltong,
Rather it was to discuss the relative lack of success of nations would expect to be more successful.specifically Ireland ,Wales,Scotland,France and of course New Zealand as well as England.
All these nations would expect to able to beat each other,Australia and South Africa and have done so recently more or less.
But in a RWC they often struggle to get out of there groups,by the way
Safe as Milk New Zealand HAVE met and beaten the reigning RWC holders straight after the World Cup in each case on every of the last 5 times.

I think New Zealands problem is they start World cups at 100 miles an hour and teams won't put their first choice teams out against them in pool games. Everyone knows New Zealand will win their pool so why not save your players and try and get second place?

emack2 wrote:Safe as Milk New Zealand HAVE met and beaten the reigning RWC holders straight after the World Cup in each case on every of the last 5 times.

emack, my remark was rather facetious and shouldn't be taken seriously Please don't make me explain it, as it wasn't very funny in the first place!