Rugby Union

[tigerburnie]

I'm disappointed by the disparaging remarks here, for anything to grow there has to be inclusion, there are qualifying tournaments for nations to join and to be given a chance, as with any sport in the world there will be winners and plucky losers, that's life. But to ring fence a competition, making it an old pals act is wrong on every level. Sport is meant to be inclusive, it should be on a level playing field, but NZ and Australia have been fiddling with the laws of the game since Noah was a lad, so find themselves elevated to an abnormal position. We may well see the levelling of the game when the Pacific Islanders actually play for their home nation, the Scots stop scouring the world for someone with a grannie who was born in Auchtermuchty and if the refs just applied the current laws of the game instead of "interpreting them" in favour of the so called chosen elite, the sport will be worth watching, at present some of the games look like a Harlem Globetrotters game because that is what World Rugby wants.

[whart57]

There will always be sides in a tournament who have no chance of winning the thing. The questions is, are they competitive? The relative ease with which Italy, not the strongest of the Six Nations, disposed of Uruguay is probably more indicative of the RWC having expanded too fast than France's demolition of Namibia. The problem with the present format is that a lot of rugby gets played to get the answer everyone expected to see in terms of the eight quarter finalists.

[tigerburnie]

You keep using Italy as an example, they have beaten all the 6 nations teams except England, they have as much right to be part of the competition as any of the so called tier 1 sides, not so long ago Argentina couldn't buy a win, but are improving by playing in all the competitive matches. The football FA Cup would be of no interest to anyone were it not for the format that allows "minnows" to have their day and occasionally win an unexpected victory against so called fancied sides. How dreary would a world cup be with only your 8 preferred sides in it, just like when the African teams first joined the soccer world cup, it gave the competition the lift it needed.

Elitism is what kills peoples interest in sport, people are turning towards womens' sports teams as they are bored with the same old from the men's teams, everyone the world over loved it when under dogs Leicester City won the league, breaks the monotony of the same old all the time..

[rockershovel]

Looking at results so far, I'd say that Chile, Romania, Namibia are completely outclassed and should not have been allowed to qualify.

 

70 and 80 point margins aren't "development", they are pure commercialism. Pushing walk-overs like this onto the paying supporters does no-one any favours. 

 

Italy have never qualified from the group stages, and haven't won a match in 6N for several years. Georgia are a similar standard. Uruguay clearly aren't up to it. 

 

The tournament could be reduced to 16 sides and would be materially improved by doing so. 

 

Let's talk about development. Tonga put up a solid show the other night, and their outing in the Amazon 8N wasn't so dusty. It's no secret that there are a LOT of South Seas players kicking their heels in Aus/NZ for reasons of money. Let the IRB take that bull by the horns, and we'll see some fun.

 

Let's define development. Let's have any team claiming to be "developing" produce a credible development plan, with costs.

 

Let's ditch the ideologically-motivated women's game and reinstate the A Internationals, make a proper presentation of the U20s again. 

 

Rugby isn't soccer. The RWC isn't the FA Cup. 

 

 

[tigerburnie]

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Looking at results so far, I'd say that Chile, Romania, Namibia are completely outclassed and should not have been allowed to qualify.

 

70 and 80 point margins aren't "development", they are pure commercialism. Pushing walk-overs like this onto the paying supporters does no-one any favours. 

 

Italy have never qualified from the group stages, and haven't won a match in 6N for several years. Georgia are a similar standard. Uruguay clearly aren't up to it. 

 

The tournament could be reduced to 16 sides and would be materially improved by doing so. 

 

Let's talk about development. Tonga put up a solid show the other night, and their outing in the Amazon 8N wasn't so dusty. It's no secret that there are a LOT of South Seas players kicking their heels in Aus/NZ for reasons of money. Let the IRB take that bull by the horns, and we'll see some fun.

 

Let's define development. Let's have any team claiming to be "developing" produce a credible development plan, with costs.

 

Let's ditch the ideologically-motivated women's game and reinstate the A Internationals, make a proper presentation of the U20s again. 

 

Rugby isn't soccer. The RWC isn't the FA Cup. 

 

 

Wow, I'm not a woke snowflake, but just wow there's no answer to that diatribe.

[rockershovel]

.... but none of this is new.

 

The RWC has struggled since its inception with the conflict between maximising revenue and maintaining quality. 

 

The conflict of interest between NZ in particular, and the South Seas sides is decades old. 

 

The promoters of the 6N are floundering over Italy. They are committed to having 6 sides but can't find a sixth, by their own admission. 

 

For all the money expended promoting Italy, they just aren't ringing the bell; meanwhile Japan and Argentina are making progress and look at Fiji and Tonga now. 

 

The women's game, for all the effort expended is now in the position where they have literally been unable to give away broadcasting rights for free. 

 

We HAD a successful two-tier international system and we HAVE a successful U20 system, but there seems to be no way to successfully translate players from the U20 to the senior side. 

 

The Prem is (again) in chaos. God alone knows what is happening at Twickenham. 

 

The clear and obvious conclusion is that rugby has an organic structure which has developed over a long period of time. Various financial and ideological interests, with no common agenda are trying to push the game in directions it is unsuited to. 

 

This can't end well. 

 

 

[jjb1970]

I guess it depends on what is meant by world cup. If it's meant to indicate a global competition then all countries with a national team should be allowed to enter the qualifiers and go through to the finals if they do well. If they get hammered in the finals then that's just the way it is, some teams will treat it as learning and use the experience to develop, and I am guessing for smaller nations there'll be a financial benefit. I remember when African and Asian countries were dismissed as a joke in football and with similar arguments that the world Cup should be the preserve of European and South American teams.

[Joseph_Pestell]

12 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Looking at results so far, I'd say that Chile, Romania, Namibia are completely outclassed and should not have been allowed to qualify.

 

70 and 80 point margins aren't "development", they are pure commercialism. Pushing walk-overs like this onto the paying supporters does no-one any favours. 

 

Italy have never qualified from the group stages, and haven't won a match in 6N for several years. Georgia are a similar standard. Uruguay clearly aren't up to it. 

 

The tournament could be reduced to 16 sides and would be materially improved by doing so. 

 

Let's talk about development. Tonga put up a solid show the other night, and their outing in the Amazon 8N wasn't so dusty. It's no secret that there are a LOT of South Seas players kicking their heels in Aus/NZ for reasons of money. Let the IRB take that bull by the horns, and we'll see some fun.

 

Let's define development. Let's have any team claiming to be "developing" produce a credible development plan, with costs.

 

Let's ditch the ideologically-motivated women's game and reinstate the A Internationals, make a proper presentation of the U20s again. 

 

Rugby isn't soccer. The RWC isn't the FA Cup. 

 

 

 

I can agree with most of that. But why abandon the womens/ game?

[Joseph_Pestell]

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

.... but none of this is new.

 

The RWC has struggled since its inception with the conflict between maximising revenue and maintaining quality. 

 

The conflict of interest between NZ in particular, and the South Seas sides is decades old. 

 

The promoters of the 6N are floundering over Italy. They are committed to having 6 sides but can't find a sixth, by their own admission. 

 

For all the money expended promoting Italy, they just aren't ringing the bell; meanwhile Japan and Argentina are making progress and look at Fiji and Tonga now. 

 

The women's game, for all the effort expended is now in the position where they have literally been unable to give away broadcasting rights for free. 

 

We HAD a successful two-tier international system and we HAVE a successful U20 system, but there seems to be no way to successfully translate players from the U20 to the senior side. 

 

The Prem is (again) in chaos. God alone knows what is happening at Twickenham. 

 

The clear and obvious conclusion is that rugby has an organic structure which has developed over a long period of time. Various financial and ideological interests, with no common agenda are trying to push the game in directions it is unsuited to. 

 

This can't end well. 

 

 

 

The women's games were well attended. Perhaps surprising in the macho world of Australia.

 

I think that the TV rights issue was caused by the time difference, not any intrinsic lack of quality/interest, although it is true that France and England are much stronger than the other European nations.

[rockershovel]

58 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I can agree with most of that. But why abandon the womens/ game?

Leave it to find its own level. 

 

Ready there are two separate issues. 

 

The first is that the A Internationals had a place which was generally understood. There were people who enjoyed it, and countries where it had a natural constituency. 

 

The second is that the womens game is, how can we say, supported by a certain world view among broadcasters. If you want to fill stadia by giving away tickets, or selling them very cheaply, fine. If you want to run a women's world cup, fine. If you want to appeal to that rugby constituency who will support a party accompanied by rugby of a reasonable standard - the Barbarians/minor international tours/Varsity Match/ Sevens market - fine, do that. 

 

The current situation appears to be that certain broadcasters, notably the BBC, supported the womens game along with the football equivalent for "world view" reasons, and now they have turned their attention elsewhere. The women's game now find that the fairy dust hasn't stuck, that they are still some considerable way short of having a viable product. Well, so it goes. 

 

I don't actually think the time difference was critical, although it didn't help. Broadcasters could have shown a recorded package in the time zone of their choice. They just didn't regard it as viable. 

Edited September 24, 2023 by rockershovel

[rockershovel]

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I guess it depends on what is meant by world cup. If it's meant to indicate a global competition then all countries with a national team should be allowed to enter the qualifiers and go through to the finals if they do well. If they get hammered in the finals then that's just the way it is, some teams will treat it as learning and use the experience to develop, and I am guessing for smaller nations there'll be a financial benefit. I remember when African and Asian countries were dismissed as a joke in football and with similar arguments that the world Cup should be the preserve of European and South American teams.

Football and rugby are fundamentally different. You can play football on almost any surface, from hard dirt to grass, AstroTurf or concrete. 

 

It is also a very simple game, apart from the offside rule and occasional aberrations like goals scored by obvious hand-ball.

 

Anyone can play football. Also, it is much easier to integrate individual players or assemble a team in that fashion. 

 

Broadcasters - the agents of development of the current "world sport" which is football - knew all that. 

[jjb1970]

Football is obviously different from rugby, just as it's different from cycling, endurance running, sailing and every other sport but it doesn't alter the arguments around accessibility to major competitions and providing opportunities to other countries with national teams. 

[tigerburnie]

The rugby world cup has it's system to promote the game and select participants, you have to have that in order for it to be a "world cup", you cannot seriously turn round and say you can't join in. Now there might be an argument for a system where, some further qualifying games could take place before the main event, but the only place to exclude a nation is on the pitch, not in an office with the stroke of a pen.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I think that we have a sort of consensus here. Allow any country to try and qualify for the mens' World Cup but only have 16 teams in the finals rather than 20.

 

The womens' game is at a different stage of development - just as it is for soccer. But the better womens' teams play a great game and are good to watch. I would hope that TV execs come back to supporting them.

[tigerburnie]

36 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I think that we have a sort of consensus here. Allow any country to try and qualify for the mens' World Cup but only have 16 teams in the finals rather than 20.

 

The womens' game is at a different stage of development - just as it is for soccer. But the better womens' teams play a great game and are good to watch. I would hope that TV execs come back to supporting them.

Looks like a lot of effort going in from the Premiership clubs to give the ladies game a fair go, be interesting to see how it goes, I've only watched the internationals and have to say there's some decent talent on show.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Just finished watching Australia Wales - did not expect that. All those years that we kept getting beaten by a few points with no wins at all. Now a 34 point margin. Are the Welsh forwards really that good or could the Aussies really be so weak?

[rockershovel]

6 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I think that we have a sort of consensus here. Allow any country to try and qualify for the mens' World Cup but only have 16 teams in the finals rather than 20.

 

The womens' game is at a different stage of development - just as it is for soccer. But the better womens' teams play a great game and are good to watch. I would hope that TV execs come back to supporting them.

Well, yes. 

 

England have again produced the sort of semi-serendipitous "muddling through" at huge expense which they often do. 

 

They have shed their controversial coach, who (on present showing) has crashed and burned elsewhere. They were without their controversial captain when his detractors say his limitations would have been most evident, and re-introduced him in a game where it just didn't matter. None of the feared brown stuff will stick to any of the pilots of large mahogany desks in Twickenham, and the gravy train will roll on for another four years. 

 

Fact is, they have a soft group. Wales, Australia and Fiji have a group where one of the three will go out. 20 teams is clearly too many. 

 

Run an A International World Cup in between. The top two play in the RWC proper. Run the U20 World Cup and 6N with proper publicity. 

 

If the season was 6N, one or other of the World Cups or a Lions tour, Amazon 8N / Autumn Internationals / whatever, all of which exist already then the womens game would fade away. It just isn't a good enough product. It would also mean the Prem could shrink to its natural size of about 6 teams, allowing central contracting of players. If that meant the Prem became a de-facto extension of the RFU, what would really be lost? 

 

[tigerburnie]

You don't have a club to follow do you, otherwise you would be aware of what is going on, I can see the ladies game drawing bigger crowds than some men's before long. Rugby is fine at club level if the RFU would do it's job, they let anyone from a spiv to a down right crook run teams whilst hiding behind a statement that they done a "fit and proper" test first. The whole malaise in English rugby sits firmly with Carlings old farts and with them in situ the game will continue to fail. Happily everyone from Championship down is thoroughly enjoying their rugby and most have little interest in the National team these days.

[whart57]

On 23/09/2023 at 20:00, rockershovel said:

Italy have never qualified from the group stages,

 

The tournament could be reduced to 16 sides and would be materially improved by doing so. 

 

Let's talk about development. Tonga put up a solid show the other night, and their outing in the Amazon 8N wasn't so dusty. It's no secret that there are a LOT of South Seas players kicking their heels in Aus/NZ for reasons of money. Let the IRB take that bull by the horns, and we'll see some fun.

 

Let's define development. Let's have any team claiming to be "developing" produce a credible development plan, with costs.

 

 

Not qualifying from the group stage is not a problem, after all few get further than the quarter finals anyway. The problem is when the only relevance of some mismatch is the bonus points scored.

 

Most tournaments, including FIFA's World Cup, would be materially improved by reducing them to 16 sides. Bloated tournaments are cash cows rather than sporting events. In the case of the FIFA tournament the bloating is entirely due to the corrupt leadership chasing the votes of African, Asian and Central American associations to keep their place on the gravy train. However the result is that only dodgy regimes can afford to host these things. Unless, like England and France, the sports stadiums are already there.

 

I don't think there is a one size fits all development strategy. South America, the Pacific islands and Europe beyond the 6N are all different. The Pacific islands would benefit from administrative changes regarding players, and the sons of players, attracted to New Zealand and their ability to play for their ancestral home. Portugal, Georgia and the other smaller (in rugby terms) European countries might benefit by English and French professional clubs adopting local clubs as feeder clubs, lending out coaches and giving opportunities in the development sides to promising young players, and should they make the grade, professional contracts. How that would be funded is a mystery of course.

[tigerburnie]

Another thing is that players want to showcase themselves in front of a bigger audience, not that long ago there were no African soccer players playing outside of Africa, now the Premier league has loads of them, I think that is not a bad thing. In rugby it's the same, there were no Argentinian players around in europe not so long ago, now the individual players have gained, the european clubs gained and the players home country gained having players with professional training behind them.

Money is now the be all and all of it, players play for it, clubs will do anything for it as do the relevant RFU's. The game that I played alongside the likes of Dean Richards and Les Cusworth no longer exists, it may be played on the same sort of pitch with the same shaped ball and posts, but everything else is different.

[St Enodoc]

On 23/09/2023 at 21:16, whart57 said:

There will always be sides in a tournament who have no chance of winning the thing.

Australia.

 

On 25/09/2023 at 07:29, Joseph_Pestell said:

could the Aussies really be so weak?

Yes.

[Joseph_Pestell]

47 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Australia.

 

Yes.

 

What is the reaction of your Aussie neighbours? Or have they just ignored the rugby union in favour of league and Rules?

 

I am still struggling to understand the weakness of those Australian forwards. With another performance like that, they will struggle against Portugal.

[tigerburnie]

Sport is cyclical to a certain extent, no-one keeps winning(apart from the Harlem Globetrotters) which is why we like sport, sure the Australians will find a decent coach in the future.

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

What is the reaction of your Aussie neighbours? Or have they just ignored the rugby union in favour of league and Rules?

At this time of year their focus is mostly on the rugby league (NRL) and Australian Rules (AFL) grand finals, so normally it would largely be under the radar. This week, however, it has made front-page news. Even by current Australian standards, that was a dire performance.

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, tigerburnie said:

Sport is cyclical to a certain extent, no-one keeps winning(apart from the Harlem Globetrotters) which is why we like sport, sure the Australians will find a decent coach in the future.

The underlying problem is the inherent incestuousness of the Super Rugby competition, which has no focus on developing players to international level.