Find TRF at:
The final results from the weekend are in, in Asian qualifying India have defeated Guam 18-16 and Thailand emerged victorious 22-19 over Malaysia in two excitng games. Guam and Malaysia are eliminated from the RWC while India and Thailand will face off to determine further advancement.
In the NACRA qualifying zone Guyana blanked Trinidad and Tobago 20-0, T and T are eliminated while Guyana will face either Bermuda or the Cayman Islands depending on the next round of games.
Always appreciate your updates Little (Big) Guy.
[CENTER]
Thanks admartian I'll try and summarize all the eliminated and advancing teams in a couple of weeks once this series of Spring games is complete.Originally Posted by admartian
Sorry about the tardy reporting about this game but last weekend, Bermuda beat the Bahamas 16-8 to advance to the final of the first NACRA stage where they will face Guyana.
List of teams eliminated so far and date eliminated in chronological order:
1 4/7/2012 Jamaica
2 4/21/2012 Singapore
3 4/21/2012 St. Vincent & the Grenadines
4 4/21/2012 Mexico
5 5/19/2012 Barbados
6 5/26/2012 Bahamas
7 5/30/2012 Indonesia
8 5/30/2012 Pakistan
9 5/31/2012 Iran
10 5/31/2012 China
11 6/1/2012 Guam
12 6/2/2012 Malaysia
13 6/2/2012 Trinidad & Tobago
14 6/9/2012 Cayman Islands
15 6/23/2012 Guyana
Last edited by usausa; 24-06-12 at 12:33 AM.
Big game this weekend to determine who advances to next round the NACRA final is tommorow, Bermuda vs. Guyana winner will play the champion of CONSUR B.
Top 5 Point Scorers in Qualifiers (All Regions):
Pos. Name T-C-P-DG=PTS
10 Oliver Saunders, PHI 2-7-5-0=39
15 Walongkorn Khamkoet, THA 2-1-7-1=36
15 Zulkifli Azmi, MAL 2-4-5-0=33
15 Riza Mubarak, SRL 1-9-3-0=32
10 Miguel Carner, MEX 1-7-4-0=31
Top Tries (All Regions):
Pos. Name T-C-P-DG=PTS
6 Dwight Forde, BRB 4-0-0-0=20
14 Paul Eustaquio, GUM 4-0-0-0=20
9 Juan Pablo Andrade, MEX 3-0-0-0=15
8 Ben Blair, CAY 3-0-0-0=15
14 Joseph Matthews, PHI 3-0-0-0=15
11 Dinesvaran Krisnan, MAL 3-0-0-0=15
19 Timoci Nacocula, MAL 3-0-0-0=15
In 14 qualification games in Asia, there has been 96 tries, 57 conversions (59.4% success rate), 34 penalties, and 1 drop goal (from FB Walongkorn Khamkoet
of Thailand. In total, that is 699 points (49.9 points per match).
In 11 qualifier matches in the Americas, there has been 57 tries, 29 conversions (50.9% success rate), 22 penalties, and 0 drop goals. In total, that is 409 points (37.2 points per match).
So in total:
25 matches played
14 eliminated nations
153 tries
86 conversions (56.2% success rate)
56 penalties
1 drop goal
1108 points scored
Team Most Points Scored: Malaysia, 108 (2 matches)
Most Points per match: Malaysia, 54
Least Points Scored: St. Vincent & the Grenadines; China , 3 (2 matches each)
Best Pt Diff: Malaysia, +86 (2 matches)
Worst Pt Diff: China, -138 (2 matches)
Best Pt Diff Avg.: Malaysia, +43 (2 matches)
Worst Pt Diff Avg.: China, -69 (2 matches)
Most Tries: Barbados, 17 (4 matches)
Most Tries per match: Malaysia, 7.5 (2 matches)
Least Tries: St. Vincent & the Grenadines; China , 0 (2 matches each)
Best Try Differential: Barbados, +10 (4 matches)
Worst Try Differential: China, -22 (2 matches)
Best Try Diff Avg.: Malaysia, +7 (2 matches)
Worst Try Diff. Avg: China, -11 (2 matches)
Say, wwwhhhhy does Jamaica even bother ??...
they're never getting anywhere, so they might as well just concentrate their efforts efficiently in other sports they're..."decent" at ?
Bleh.
Bermuda have defeated Guyana 18-0 to advance to the next round and are crowned NACRA champions. They will face off against the winner of CONSUR B(South America), which goes later this year.
RWCQ 2015 Playoff/NACRA Championship Game write up.
http://bernews.com/2012/06/bermuda-w...n-rugby-title/
Guyana is the 15th squad eliminated.
Next phase of Americas: Bermuda will play the winner of Consur B 2012 at the country with the highest rank. Consur B will have Paraguay vs. Columbia and Peru vs. Venezuela in first round September 9. The winners will square off for the Consur B title September 12, while the losers play a consolation match. Matches will be played in Valencia, Columbia.
Winner of Bermuda/Consur B match will play Brazil for the right to compete in the 2013 Consur A Championship.
Next RWCQ match will take place Saturday July 14, where Thailand will host India in Bangkok. One-off match here, winner promotes to Division 1 for 2013 while loser is eliminated from RWC 2015. Don't know what protocol will be if Div 3 winner India promotes to Div 1 (will Div 2 feature 3 teams or will China stay up?). Match not listed yet on IRB's site...found this news on the Rugby India facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/rugbyindia
Support both Philippines Volcanoes and USA Eagles. Play blinside flanker for Old Blue RFC (NY, USA) B-Side, aim is to work hard and go as far as I can. http://www.freewebs.com/rugbystats/RWC2015Q.xlsx
Surprising result in Africa. Madagascar (ranked 56) beat Morocco (ranked 27) with a late match winning try to win 35-28. Also Senegal (ranked 52) nearly beat Namibia (ranked 21), Senegal were leading 18-10 late on but Namibia came back to win 20-18.
No disrespect intended but hopefully someone else qualifies for 2015 as Africa 1. Iīve just had enough of Namibia at World Cupīs as there are a number of other Tier Three sides who donīt qualify as they are not from Africa. Spain, Portugal, Uruguay and Chile being the best examples.
The rankings in the Third Tier are volatile and hard to really take at face value. Everyone in Brazilian rugby circles expected Brazil vs Hong Kong to be like France vs England in terms of competitiveness but HK smashed Brazil despite World Rankings saying they were as good as eachother. Returning to Namibia, I wonder whether it would be in the Top 25 if it were to face the same teams each year as Russia does.
Morocco v. Senegal in the consolation match where the loser will become the 17th nation eliminated from the 2015 RWC; and Namibia v. Madagascar for promotion to 2013 Division 1A (top division). Both matches on Sunday the 8th.
2nd and 3rd place will still be eligible to qualify for RWC 2015, but they will have to win this division next year.
Impressive result for Senegal, named a very solid squad. Most players are in Top14 in France, in ProD2 academies, or have Top14 experience from what I read. Huge result for Madagascar, home field advantage surely must have been that extra little bit to help get that W. Madagascar lost 0-49 to Zimbabwe and 30-58 to Uganda last year in this division, so either improvement + home field advantage for them, or Morocco fielded a weak side without much/if any of their French based players.
Details from Senegal twitter:
Morocco-Madagascar 7-5 HT
Morocco-Madagascar 14-5, Morocco second try, converted
Morocco-Madagascar 14-8, Madagascar penalty
Morocco-Madagascar 21-8, Third try to Morocco
Morocco-Madagascar 21-15, converted try to Madagascar
Morocco-Madagascar 21-18, penalty for Madagascar
Morocco-Madagascar 21-21, 60th min penalty for Madagascar
Morocco-Madagascar 28-21, Fourth try to Morocco, converted
Morocco-Madagascar 28-28, Third try to Madagascar, converted
Morocco-Madagascar 28-35, Fourth try to Madagascar, converted, in injury time/last play!
Madagascar squad: http://www.midi-madagasikara.mg/inde...maine-decisive short names
http://www.lexpressmada.com/rugby-ca...-legende-.html real LONG names
Morocco squad: unavailable and unknown
Senegal-Namibia 3-0, Maxime Boyer penalty
Senegal-Namibia 6-0, Aldric Folliot penalty
Senegal-Namibia 6-7, Namibia first try, converted
Senegal-Namibia 9-7, Steeve Sargos (captain) penalty
Senegal-Namibia 12-7, Sargos drop goal
Halftime
Senegal-Namibia 15-7
Senegal-Namibia 18-10
Senegal-Namibia 18-20
These are all the game details I could find so far.
Senegal lineup vs Namibia
1 Ousmane N'Diaye
2 Sam Ciré
3 Antoine Laporte
4 Yoganne Correa
5 Magnamé Koita
6 Omar Sy
7 Mohamed Samba
8 Charles Preira
9 Demba Kane
10 Maxime Boyer
11 Mouhamadou Diarra
12 Aldric Folliot
13 Victor Samb
14 Moussa Koita Gros
15 Steeve Sargos (c)
Namibia played without stud Jacques Burger.
1 Johnny Redelinghuys
2 Callie Swanepoel
3 Collen Smith
4 Henk Franken
5 Heinz Koll
6 Tinus du Plessis (captain)
7 Morné Blom
8 PJ van Lill
9 Eugene Jantjies (vice captain)
10 Theuns Kotzé
11 Chrysander Botha
12 Rodger Thompson
13 Anthony Jevu
14 Danie Dames
15 Justin Nel
Reserves
Martin Goeieman
Shaun du Preez
Herald Kasera
Petrus Human
Arthur Bouwer
Lean Stoop
Godwin Walters
Herman Ströh
Shaun Esterhuizen.
Last edited by usausa; 04-07-12 at 05:14 PM.
Support both Philippines Volcanoes and USA Eagles. Play blinside flanker for Old Blue RFC (NY, USA) B-Side, aim is to work hard and go as far as I can. http://www.freewebs.com/rugbystats/RWC2015Q.xlsx
Madagascar had a 2 preparation matches before the tournament (that I can find), and let's just say that even though maybe it wasn't the best team to go up against before a tough tournament, they sure as hell must have gotten a confidence boost from it:
http://www.starafrica.com/en/more-sp...gb-238633.html
http://www.starafrica.com/en/more-sp...-8-240705.html
Yep, a 99-8 win and 146-8 win over a Malagasy club squad, the second result apparently had reinforcements from other clubs.
EDIT: Photo album from Senegal rugby from today's first games
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?s...3&l=09af583cc1
Last edited by usausa; 04-07-12 at 08:40 PM.
Support both Philippines Volcanoes and USA Eagles. Play blinside flanker for Old Blue RFC (NY, USA) B-Side, aim is to work hard and go as far as I can. http://www.freewebs.com/rugbystats/RWC2015Q.xlsx
Stop spitting on Namibia. No they are not good, no they don't have much potential either, and yes they get easy street to the World Cup. But don't wish ill on them.
I don't see your logic for being "fed up" with Namibia. You can be fed up with the qualifying system, but it's not Namibia's fault that they are the second best in Africa, they have the geographical and cultural advantage of being next to Namibia and that basically is what puts them above the rest of the African zone.
True.
Don't be ridiculous. I normally find your arguments have some logic even if I don't always agree, but here I simply can't agree that this is anything other than pure dislike of Namibia and the qualifying system. Of course Namibia are a top 25 team, and they are on the level of the teams you mentioned above (Spain, Portugal, Uruguay, Chile).
You portray Namibia as if they should be ranked 50. But the fact is if the qualifying system were changed so there was a playoff tournament between Africa 1, Americas 3 and Europe 4. It would not be fait accompli as you and some others think. It would be a close match, Namibia would have a chance.
You often use Namibia's poor World Cup record to base your argument that they are not as good as Uruguay and others, but how many matches from Namibia's four World Cup draws would have Uruguay won? Answer = 0. It's not as if Portugal, Spain and Uruguay didn't also suffer some heavy defeats in World Cups either.
Like it or not, Namibia are the second best in Africa, and will remain like that until other nations have improved their organisation sufficiently, and they are also on the level of the nations you referred to, their results support this.
I'm not saying they are in the top 20 nations in the world, nor am I a Namibia fan, but I do think you are far too harsh on Namibia and seem to want them to miserably fail all the time.
In my opinion based on seeing the teams play in the RWC, ENC and Nations Cup this year, I would rate it at the moment.
20. Spain
21. Uruguay
22. Namibia
23. Portugal
(not seen Chile play)
Interesting, I wonder whether Madagascar can pull off an unlikely upset?
Madagascar squad:
Donald Rakotomialoha, Rodolphe Andriambololona, Christian Andrianjaka, Tolotra Ramaromiantso, Tahina Herizo Andrianarisoa, Hasina Rakotoarivelo, Vonjiniaina Marson Andriamananjara, Toussaint Boniface Rabearilala, Simeon Heritiana Randriamanantena, José Rakoto Harison, Benjaniaina Rakotoarivelo, Rija Edmond Rakotoarimanana, Bienvenu Andrianavalona Mananjarasoa, Alain Rakotonirina, Jacquot Harinirina, Dimbiniaina Jean, Willy Rabemananjara, Rodolphe Randriama*nantena, Henri Bruno Rakotonirina, Tolotra Claudio Ravelonomenjanahary, Tinanirina Ravelomanantsoa, Herizo Rasoanaivo, Sidonie Rakotoarisoa, Bernard Razafindranaivo, Herilaza Ramanoelina
Coaches: Berthin Rafalimanana, Mboazafy Noé
That squad would cause more bother to the commentators than the Georgian one.
Andriambololona, Ramaromiantso, Ravelomanantsoa, Razafindranaivo, Ravelonomenjanahary and Rakotoarimanana don't exactly roll off the tongue easily.
A few Fédérale 1 players there. Shame they couldn't hold onto the victory, would have been huge for them. They nearly beat Namibia in 2008 as well.
From what I read earlier, Namibia actually scored a try to make it 18-17 Senegal then hit a drop goal near full time (probably from RWC standout Thuens Kotze). Hopefully Madagascar can make a game of it although I expect Namibia to come out with something to prove.
As for the names, I remember watching the African basketball championship last summer also hosted in Madagascar. Commentator said he had a list of nicknames for the Malagasys because their names were so long.
And as for the US commentators, they are awful. No knowledge of the players and sometimes the rules. They don't show enough passion either. I could go on forever about how I dislike that broadcast team.
Support both Philippines Volcanoes and USA Eagles. Play blinside flanker for Old Blue RFC (NY, USA) B-Side, aim is to work hard and go as far as I can. http://www.freewebs.com/rugbystats/RWC2015Q.xlsx
[QUOTE=psychic duck;515341]I am not spitting on Namibia, or not intending to anyway. Nor am wishing bad things for the rugby team. Just saying that I would prefer another team to qualify. Its common in sports. Everyone wanted Ireland to beat Australia at the World Cup for the same reason. However I am, indeed, fed up with the qualifying system. I am using Namibia as an example of what is wrong rather than attacking Namibia itself.Stop spitting on Namibia. No they are not good, no they don't have much potential either, and yes they get easy street to the World Cup. But don't wish ill on them.
I don't see your logic for being "fed up" with Namibia. You can be fed up with the qualifying system, but it's not Namibia's fault that they are the second best in Africa, they have the geographical and cultural advantage of being next to Namibia and that basically is what puts them above the rest of the African zone.
I feel it cannot be known how good a country is exactly when it plays so infrequently against anyone from outside of the CAR... It simply canīt be known. Most feel that Sper Rugby is better than the Heineken Cup but we acnpt know if the Bulls are better than Leinster unless there is a match. Namibiaī wins between RWC 2003 and RWC 2007 were against Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. There are two things to note from this: 1 All are from the Third Tier, 2 All are from Africa.Don't be ridiculous. I normally find your arguments have some logic even if I don't always agree, but here I simply can't agree that this is anything other than pure dislike of Namibia and the qualifying system. Of course Namibia are a top 25 team, and they are on the level of the teams you mentioned above (Spain, Portugal, Uruguay, Chile).
You portray Namibia as if they should be ranked 50. But the fact is if the qualifying system were changed so there was a playoff tournament between Africa 1, Americas 3 and Europe 4. It would not be fait accompli as you and some others think. It would be a close match, Namibia would have a chance.
I would like one of these teams to qualify ahead of Namibia simply because the same team winning can be tedious and given Namibiaī record at World Cupī I feel justified in wanting someone else there even if the results are no different. Again, this is not wanting Namibia to fail. Rather it is wanting someone else to do better and if this happens thats enough for me. Wanting a team to come along and win RWC matches is a tough ask but wanting to see fresh faces is a humble wish and one that I believe the majority would like too.
Officially Namibia is a Tier Three not a Tier Two side. During the same period Namibia lost against Kenya, Morocco, Tunisia, Uganda, Georgia, Romania and South Africa. Between 2007 and 2011 Namibia got wins over Georgia and Romania and I got excited... until I saw the team sheets with Romania and Georgia both making the mistake of fielding weakened sides. This was in June 2010. I then focused on Namibiaī November tour that year and Namibia were defeated by Spain and Portugal. Again, one can use this to prove whatever one wants to. But it did suggest that the progress of Africaī best was not satisfactory enough considering the path of Romania to qualify. Now, Romania had a tougher Pool than Namibia but did better. England, Argentina and Scotland vs South Africa, Wales and Samoa is a fair split but Georgia in 2011 were better than Fiji. Namibia lost by much more vs Samoa than Romania did vs Scotland.
You agreed with me..... World Rankings can be hard to trust. I gave the Brazil vs Hong Kong point earlier. Morocco were 20th five years ago. Yed Morocco were no match for Namibia when it counted as a full strength Namibia is better than the ones Morocco had defeated. While both results since then and World Rankings suggest fairly conslusively that Namibia is better than Morocco there is no way of knowing who is better out of Namibia, Chile, Uruguay, Spain and Portugal without matches between them.
I have never tried to say Namibia is not as good as Uruguay. The luck of the draw has not been good but Romania and Georgiaī wins in Australia and France were far too large. Both by 30 points. For the record, Uruguay did better against South Africa in 1999 than Namibia did against Canada at the same RWC. Statistics are suggestive not conclusive. I learned this as a student. Numbers can lie but sticking to the point my argument has always been that the South Americans deserve an automatic qualification spot if Africa 1 is to continuehas one. The problem is this that neither can be confidently said as being better than Russia or Romania who were not Europe 1. Both for RWC 2011. I outlined my suggestion to fix the problem in March when I argued for the creation of a Confederations Cup with the first to be held in Japan in 2017.You often use Namibia's poor World Cup record to base your argument that they are not as good as Uruguay and others, but how many matches from Namibia's four World Cup draws would have Uruguay won? Answer = 0. It's not as if Portugal, Spain and Uruguay didn't also suffer some heavy defeats in World Cups either.
I am wanting World Rankings to really matter. Argentinaīs reserves lost 49-10 vs France yet Argentina dropped. Its much the same as Georgiaīloss to Namibia mentioned above. We all know that there is little to take out of the Argentine loss just like the Wallabies loss vs Scotland which, similarly, saw a depleted Australian side losing. These matches, however, are not the key ones. These sides have already qualified. Its just a qestion of who they are drawn with and there is not a lot that can really change between now and December. Hence the key is the 8 places on the line for RWC 2015 not the Top 12. The IRB should alter the system for qualification with more matches between teams from more regions being the way forward. As I talked about this would help the rankings in addition to having a better set up for the second and third tier. The Confederations Cup would be designed to have the sides roughly ranked 13th to 32nd in the World. The rankings do show a good mix in this range in terms of geography.
The 8 teams from the previous World Cup would automatically qualify leaving 12 places for the regional qualifiers. i.e. After initial regional qualifying each region would contribute teams. For 2015 it would mean Canada, Fiji, Georgia, Japan, Namibia, Romania, Russia and the USA would qualify for the Con. Cup. The 12 qualifyers could well be Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Papua New Guinea, Portugal, Spain, Tunisia, Uruguay and Zimbabwe.
I donīt disagree at all. This does not, however, justify the difference between Namibia and Uruguay in qualification which is why I have argued for significant change in the form of a Con. Cup.Like it or not, Namibia are the second best in Africa, and will remain like that until other nations have improved their organisation sufficiently, and they are also on the level of the nations you referred to, their results support this.
You may well be right but its not possible to know since they donīt play each other. The IRB have made a mess of qualification. Have I lost the plot or does Japan have to host a global Tier 2 - Tier 3 event?I'm not saying they are in the top 20 nations in the world, nor am I a Namibia fan, but I do think you are far too harsh on Namibia and seem to want them to miserably fail all the time.
In my opinion based on seeing the teams play in the RWC, ENC and Nations Cup this year, I would rate it at the moment.
20. Spain
21. Uruguay
22. Namibia
23. Portugal
(not seen Chile play)
Namibia need to tour South America. A four test tour of Chile, Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. BTW, Brazil has not played a home test in four years.
Then why do you say things like being "fed up" with Namibia? And always note their failures at every opportunity.
I understand routing for the underdog, I too am routing for the Madasgascar Makis to make an upset against Namibia! And normally support the underdog if it as a match where no sides mean anything to me.Just saying that I would prefer another team to qualify. Its common in sports. Everyone wanted Ireland to beat Australia at the World Cup for the same reason.
But when Namibia inevitably qualify again, I won't begrudge them qualifying through the system they have been given as they are the second best team in Africa.
Fair enough. But as you have said, there is little indication to suggest any other nation would have had much more success in Namibia's slot at the World Cup as they haven't played. I reckon Uruguay were stronger in the 1999 World Cup, in 2003 Uruguay were still better who had a handful of useful players around then whilst Namibia 37-7 loss to Romania is pretty heavy against a low Tier 2 side, but by 2007 and 2011 they have lost a few players (Lemoine, Brignoni, Bado, Aguirre, Menchaca and Capo Ortega rarely plays). Namibia are better in 2007 and 2011 than 1999 and 2003, Uruguay are the opposite better in 1999 and 2003 and the gap is pretty even.However I am, indeed, fed up with the qualifying system. I am using Namibia as an example of what is wrong rather than attacking Namibia itself.
To be honest I would back Uruguay to beat Namibia in a tight match after watching them in the IRB Nations Cup, Namibia have a decent hard working back row and a good kicker, but apart from that not much is going for them. Uruguay would get on top at the scrum.
In your writing, it seems you portray Namibia as about 50th in the world and get an easy route to qualification against teams about 70th in the world, whilst Uruguay who won 2 World Cup matches and are better than Namibia have to play harder teams like Chile, USA and Romania.
Some of this is truth (the difference of routes to qualification) but portraying Namibia (although undeniably they are worst team in the past four RWC's) as worse than Uruguay is unfair. This is not like Zebre in the Heineken Cup in place of Stade Franįais.
True, the lack of matches for teams outside their regions is what makes the IRB rankings pretty poor indication outside the top 18.I feel it cannot be known how good a country is exactly when it plays so infrequently against anyone from outside of the CAR... It simply canīt be known.
Yes it would be interesting to see a fresh face at the World Cup. But when Namibia inevitably do get past their easy qualification route, I would hope for the best for them (apart from against nations who I have allegiance to), you seem to want them fail and get thrashed as much as possible.I would like one of these teams to qualify ahead of Namibia simply because the same team winning can be tedious and given Namibiaī record at World Cupī I feel justified in wanting someone else there even if the results are no different. Again, this is not wanting Namibia to fail. Rather it is wanting someone else to do better and if this happens thats enough for me. Wanting a team to come along and win RWC matches is a tough ask but wanting to see fresh faces is a humble wish and one that I believe the majority would like too.
Georgia never manages to put out a strong side in June, I can hardly remember once where that has happened. You say Namibia beat a weakened Georgia side, but when Spain beat Georgia reserves, you were saying how this backs up that Namibia aren't in the strongest 20.Between 2007 and 2011 Namibia got wins over Georgia and Romania and I got excited... until I saw the team sheets with Romania and Georgia both making the mistake of fielding weakened sides. This was in June 2010. I then focused on Namibiaī November tour that year and Namibia were defeated by Spain and Portugal. Again, one can use this to prove whatever one wants to. But it did suggest that the progress of Africaī best was not satisfactory enough considering the path of Romania to qualify. Now, Romania had a tougher Pool than Namibia but did better. England, Argentina and Scotland vs South Africa, Wales and Samoa is a fair split but Georgia in 2011 were better than Fiji. Namibia lost by much more vs Samoa than Romania did vs Scotland.
Also Namibia beat Portugal soon after that loss to them as well, backing up that the teams are on the same level and can beat each other.
Then why do you say things like "I doubt Namibia would in be in the Top 25"?You agreed with me..... World Rankings can be hard to trust. I gave the Brazil vs Hong Kong point earlier. Morocco were 20th five years ago. Yed Morocco were no match for Namibia when it counted as a full strength Namibia is better than the ones Morocco had defeated. While both results since then and World Rankings suggest fairly conslusively that Namibia is better than Morocco there is no way of knowing who is better out of Namibia, Chile, Uruguay, Spain and Portugal without matches between them.
Without matches it is just guessing. Judging from the South American Championship, Uruguay have normally been a tiny bit ahead of Chile. Judging from the ENC, Spain were a better side throughout the tournament, but lost to Portugal away. Judging from the IRB Nations Cup, Uruguay were better than Portugal. Apart from that it is all just guessing.
Hopefully soon there will be better fixtures for Tier 2, and Tier 3 sides. If a team like Chile could tour every other year, and receive a team every other year that would be good. Chile has had barely any matches outside South America. The language and cultural connection between South America and Iberia should help matches. It would be good also if Namibia could face sides outside Africa outside World Cups.
I also very much think that since the IRB are so keen on "traditional tours" that these countries should be included as midweek matches. Namibia actually used to be a fixture of the Lions tour once upon a time.
For example, England on their tour to South Africa played two random "SA Barbarians" sides, it would have been much better if they had played Namibia and All African XV midweek instead. When teams tour Argentina they should play Uruguay and Chile midweek, Buenos Aires to Montevideo is very close (30 minutes flight, 3 hours by boat), Mendoza to Santiago isn't too far either, much closer than some of the commutes between matches in Australia. I think this would be a great move by sides like England to add small matches like these in midweek and they would do a lot more for rugby than the SA Barbarians matches did.
Uruguay were better than Namibia in 1999 and 2003. But now it's not so sure. You have tried to say Namibia aren't as good Uruguay by statements like they are not top 25 in the world, and Uruguay's better World Cup record.I have never tried to say Namibia is not as good as Uruguay. The luck of the draw has not been good but Romania and Georgiaī wins in Australia and France were far too large. Both by 30 points. For the record, Uruguay did better against South Africa in 1999 than Namibia did against Canada at the same RWC. Statistics are suggestive not conclusive. I learned this as a student.
The Confederations Cup is okay in principle but I think it is too ambitious. Firstly there is little time for a 20 team tournament, with the way international rugby is setup (with 1 league style tournament a year + friendlies) I couldn't see that happening. I think you would have to scale down your ambitions a bit and get something smaller more the size of Churchill Cup or IRB Nations Cup than a Rugby World Cup format.Numbers can lie but sticking to the point my argument has always been that the South Americans deserve an automatic qualification spot if Africa 1 is to continuehas one. The problem is this that neither can be confidently said as being better than Russia or Romania who were not Europe 1. Both for RWC 2011. I outlined my suggestion to fix the problem in March when I argued for the creation of a Confederations Cup with the first to be held in Japan in 2017.
A smaller option would be to have a mini tournament between Africa 1 (Namibia), Americas 3 (Uruguay/Chile), Europe 3 (Russia/Spain/Romania), Oceania 2 (PNG?), Asia 2 (South Korea/HK).
Because nothing is being done.
I understand routing for the underdog, I too am routing for the Madasgascar Makis to make an upset against Namibia! And normally support the underdog if it as a match where no sides mean anything to me.
But when Namibia inevitably qualify again, I won't begrudge them qualifying through the system they have been given as they are the second best team in Africa.
Thats your call. I respect it.
It was clear that Uruguay were better in 2003 and 1999 than Namibia at the same time. In 2007 Iīd dare say yes, Uruguay were better. But in 2011 and 2012 there is no way of knowing. Its so vague.Fair enough. But as you have said, there is little indication to suggest any other nation would have had much more success in Namibia's slot at the World Cup as they haven't played. I reckon Uruguay were stronger in the 1999 World Cup, in 2003 Uruguay were still better who had a handful of useful players around then whilst Namibia 37-7 loss to Romania is pretty heavy against a low Tier 2 side, but by 2007 and 2011 they have lost a few players (Lemoine, Brignoni, Bado, Aguirre, Menchaca and Capo Ortega rarely plays). Namibia are better in 2007 and 2011 than 1999 and 2003, Uruguay are the opposite better in 1999 and 2003 and the gap is pretty even.
Capó Ortega has come out of retirement. He will feature in the RWC qualifying campaign. The side that lost to Romania was missing him and a number of others due to a massive dispute with the Carrasco Polo club which he is from.
The good news for Uruguay is the team is starting to play differently. Also the team at the Nations Cup was weakened.To be honest I would back Uruguay to beat Namibia in a tight match after watching them in the IRB Nations Cup, Namibia have a decent hard working back row and a good kicker, but apart from that not much is going for them. Uruguay would get on top at the scrum.
In your writing, it seems you portray Namibia as about 50th in the world and get an easy route to qualification against teams about 70th in the world, whilst Uruguay who won 2 World Cup matches and are better than Namibia have to play harder teams like Chile, USA and Romania.
Some of this is truth (the difference of routes to qualification) but portraying Namibia (although undeniably they are worst team in the past four RWC's) as worse than Uruguay is unfair. This is not like Zebre in the Heineken Cup in place of Stade Franįais.
You can reach your own conclusions. If Namibia had achieved results I would be happy. Had Japan not drawn vs Canada in 2007 and 2011 I would be questioning the Asian qualification - likely arguing for Asia and Ocania to to combined just like the Americas are. However, despite not winning, Japan did play well in bth tournaments, albeit not regularly enough. Japan should have defeated Fiji in 2007 and Tonga + Canada in 2011. Returning to Namibia, I have no issue with the team at all. I would just like a level playing field. Geography does not justify Namibia qualifying but Uruguay or Spain missing out.
Something has to be done about it. Everyone in Brazil was saying that the progess here is so good that brazil are closing in on the top 25 in the world. Then Brazil got monstered by Kenya and Hong Kong in Dubai. I hope for a Tier 2 and Three Confederations Cup for qualifying.True, the lack of matches for teams outside their regions is what makes the IRB rankings pretty poor indication outside the top 18.
I went to Namibia vs Wales at the World Cup and supported Namibia. I didnīt want to see a loss by the scoreline that panned out. I was wanting something more like th Ireland vs Namibia one from Bordeaux in 2007. Unfortunately I donīt have photos as I left the camera with my wife in Wellington while I did the long drive north. It was the day after Argenitna vs Scotland and the day before Italy vs USA. As I attended both games also it was a mess!Yes it would be interesting to see a fresh face at the World Cup. But when Namibia inevitably do get past their easy qualification route, I would hope for the best for them (apart from against nations who I have allegiance to), you seem to want them fail and get thrashed as much as possible.
I stand by what I said. Spain, also got a win over Uruguay and Romania. Despite not being full sides I think the results do have some value to them. For a team unable to qualify for the RWC since 1999 it is an indication of progress and, indeed, asks questions about non-European sides. How good are they when they never play Tier Two sides? Nobody really knows. Any side has got to win intercontinental matches. Japan as the king of Asia goes on to lose all its games in the Pacific Nations Cup. Africa needs the same thing.Georgia never manages to put out a strong side in June, I can hardly remember once where that has happened. You say Namibia beat a weakened Georgia side, but when Spain beat Georgia reserves, you were saying how this backs up that Namibia aren't in the strongest 20.
Also Namibia beat Portugal soon after that loss to them as well, backing up that the teams are on the same level and can beat each other.
Then why do you say things like "I doubt Namibia would in be in the Top 25"?
Yes.Without matches it is just guessing. Judging from the South American Championship, Uruguay have normally been a tiny bit ahead of Chile. Judging from the ENC, Spain were a better side throughout the tournament, but lost to Portugal away. Judging from the IRB Nations Cup, Uruguay were better than Portugal. Apart from that it is all just guessing.
I know a number of key people in Brazilian rugby circles and can confirm that the governing body here, the CBRu rejected a request from a notable person in Brazilian rugby for Brazil to set up contacts with Portugal to have regular international competition. Uruguay and Chile are a different case in regards to Spain thankfully. Namibia has got to work with South Africa to hsot mid week matches. Tier Two sides like the Pacific Islands need to play both teams.Hopefully soon there will be better fixtures for Tier 2, and Tier 3 sides. If a team like Chile could tour every other year, and receive a team every other year that would be good. Chile has had barely any matches outside South America. The language and cultural connection between South America and Iberia should help matches. It would be good also if Namibia could face sides outside Africa outside World Cups.
Samoa played in Windhoek in 2003.I also very much think that since the IRB are so keen on "traditional tours" that these countries should be included as midweek matches. Namibia actually used to be a fixture of the Lions tour once upon a time.
Yes.For example, England on their tour to South Africa played two random "SA Barbarians" sides, it would have been much better if they had played Namibia and All African XV midweek instead. When teams tour Argentina they should play Uruguay and Chile midweek, Buenos Aires to Montevideo is very close (30 minutes flight, 3 hours by boat), Mendoza to Santiago isn't too far either, much closer than some of the commutes between matches in Australia. I think this would be a great move by sides like England to add small matches like these in midweek and they would do a lot more for rugby than the SA Barbarians matches did.
Uruguay were better than Namibia in 1999 and 2003. But now it's not so sure. You have tried to say Namibia aren't as good Uruguay by statements like they are not top 25 in the world, and Uruguay's better World Cup record.
What I have really been trying to say is now we have no way of knowing who is better. I use the World Cup records to illustrate my firm belief that the IRB have done a crappy job with RWC qualification.
Sounds outdated to me. Rugby is global. I play in a Tier Three country. Look at the IRB Junior World Cup and IRB Junior World Trophy. They have more teams than the Churchill Cup. This tells me that, in the least there should be 12 teams playing - the same number. So this would mean the eight non-qualifying sides from the last RWC and four more. Clearly, not enough. So the minimum needs to be 16 with pools of four. This would work with eight qualifying teams should 20 be deemed too many.The Confederations Cup is okay in principle but I think it is too ambitious. Firstly there is little time for a 20 team tournament, with the way international rugby is setup (with 1 league style tournament a year + friendlies) I couldn't see that happening. I think you would have to scale down your ambitions a bit and get something smaller more the size of Churchill Cup or IRB Nations Cup than a Rugby World Cup format.
The IRB has the money and the Second and Third Tiers need more tests. Moreover, having Japan host such an event would be a huge investment in time for RWC 2019. The USA would be an ideal place too. Not to mention Canada. Interestingly, the IRB wants the United States to bid for RWC 2023.A smaller option would be to have a mini tournament between Africa 1 (Namibia), Americas 3 (Uruguay/Chile), Europe 3 (Russia/Spain/Romania), Oceania 2 (PNG?), Asia 2 (South Korea/HK).
Video found from a poster in the FIRA-AER forum featuring some footage from the Madagascar-Morocco match, it's only the first three minutes and it's french. Luckily I can understand a little bit of it! Even some clips of the Madagascar 'haka'!
http://vimeo.com/45209022#
Support both Philippines Volcanoes and USA Eagles. Play blinside flanker for Old Blue RFC (NY, USA) B-Side, aim is to work hard and go as far as I can. http://www.freewebs.com/rugbystats/RWC2015Q.xlsx
I didn't know rugby union was so popular in Madagascar. Looks like there are about 40.000 people in the stands. The news opens with coverage of the match before other news and according to Wiki there are about 22.500 amateur players and 410 clubs.
A post on the official Rugby World Cup Facebook page put the numbers at 35,000. I was surprised, too.
It was a double header as well, and looks like the crowd got to see some good rugby. Things are really looking up world wide for Tier Two and Three crowds, with records being set in tons of countries lately.
Then why do you always portray Namibia as worse than Uruguay, Chile, Portugal and Spain when you admit it is vague. I read a comment yesterday on your Confederations Cup article saying they wanted Namibia "to go down the drain", comments like that are just too harsh on Namibia.
I can see the arguments for a guaranteed African spot like is done in football (Russia missed out whilst New Zealand qualified), but also it is unfair in my opinion on South America to not get one when they are a continent too. I would probably be for Uruguay/Namibia playoffs for the 20th spot to be honest.Geography does not justify Namibia qualifying but Uruguay or Spain missing out.
Namibia actually had a good 20 minutes in that match, but then tired massively as they were given perhaps the worst schedule of any team and played the same team throughout the tournament.I went to Namibia vs Wales at the World Cup and supported Namibia. I didnīt want to see a loss by the scoreline that panned out.
So when Namibia beat Georgia reserves and then lose to Portugal you think it means they aren't nearly in the top 20 as they lost to Portugal, but when Spain beat Georgia reserves and lose to Portugal you think it means they are better than Namibia and should be taking there place at the World Cup.I stand by what I said. Spain, also got a win over Uruguay and Romania. Despite not being full sides I think the results do have some value to them. For a team unable to qualify for the RWC since 1999 it is an indication of progress and, indeed, asks questions about non-European sides. How good are they when they never play Tier Two sides? Nobody really knows. Any side has got to win intercontinental matches. Japan as the king of Asia goes on to lose all its games in the Pacific Nations Cup. Africa needs the same thing.
You sound unrealistic to me. Georgia have already wasted enough time thrashing Ukraine/Czech Republic/Germany and also Spain until they started selecting a Sud de Francia XV with the Georgia reserve team these past years (a far greater gap than the difference between top and bottom of the 6N), no need for more matches with teams ranked 30th in the world, look how Japan annually thump Hong Kong and South Korea. Canada/USA/Fiji likewise shouldn't have to play those teams either.Sounds outdated to me. Rugby is global. I play in a Tier Three country. Look at the IRB Junior World Cup and IRB Junior World Trophy. They have more teams than the Churchill Cup. This tells me that, in the least there should be 12 teams playing - the same number. So this would mean the eight non-qualifying sides from the last RWC and four more. Clearly, not enough. So the minimum needs to be 16 with pools of four. This would work with eight qualifying teams should 20 be deemed too many.
The IRB has the money and the Second and Third Tiers need more tests. Moreover, having Japan host such an event would be a huge investment in time for RWC 2019. The USA would be an ideal place too. Not to mention Canada. Interestingly, the IRB wants the United States to bid for RWC 2023.
It is also obvious that the French/English teams would be delighted about a 5/6 week tournament and would gladly release players. Not. Look how much those clubs moan when there is just one 20 team tournament. Also this tournament would be played in front of a two men and a dog (especially if in Japan) and would make a big loss.
Make a small tournament to decide Repechage places fine, a 20 team tournament mid World Cup won't happen.
Not really. Georgia and Madagascar are the only teams who can get more than 20,000 crowds, and get crowds like that against Tier 2 teams as well.
Japan got awful crowds and embarrassingly got about a quarter of the amount of fans who watched a Japan women's football match at the same time as a Japanese men's rugby match. Russia get pathetic crowds (less than 1000) at Sochi, Romania, Spain and Portugal would be lucky to get over 10,000.
The USA and Canada only get decent crowds when they play Tier 1 sides (which isn't exactly regularly, and Canada were still said to be disappointed with their turnout this June), when they play other Tier 2 they also get not much past 5,000 if they're lucky.
Last edited by psychic duck; 07-07-12 at 12:16 PM.
I fear for the crowds at RWC 2019.
Are you scared of Japanese people?
I agree, 2012 has been a poor year for Japan on the field with five losses (although by close margins in the PNC), and in the crowds also. They have 7 stadiums of over 40,000 to fill (see link http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/s...d-Cup-in-Japan) and their national team is getting between 3,000 to 6,000 attendances, general average being 5,500 from a 27,000 stadium. It doesn't sound promising.
At the same time as Japan playing the French Barbarians in front of 5,628 fans, there was a Women's club football match which was just under 17,000.
Here is a picture of the 80% empty stadium.
Not ideal.
While there'll be a fair few travelling fans, there won't be enough to fill those stadiums.
I only see people from NZ and Australia making the trip. Making some Americans and Canadians but The European teams and South Africa won't be represented very well.
On the other hand, it's 7 years to go still. A lot can change.
Madagascar beat Namibia 57-54.
Madagascar were leading 29-14 at half time, but Namibia came back and led 43-29 with just 5 minutes left, but Madagascar scored two tries in three minutes to draw level 43-43 and the match went to extra time. Namibia led 54-50 with just a few minutes left, but Madagascar scored late on (just like they did to beat Morocco) to win 57-54.
This must have been an incredible match to watch, the crowd must have been going crazy.
In the undercard match of the day to decide elimination from World Cuup qualifying, Senegal beat Morocco 26-25, eliminating Morocco.
Crazy results, when Madagascar and Namibia last met in Windhoek in 2005, Namibia won 55-17, the time before that in 2002 Namibia won 116-0.
Madagscar ranked 56 beat Namibia ranked 21
Senegal ranked 52 beat Morocco ranked 27
This is great news for African rugby, and the region now looks to have got a lot more exciting compared to previous years, and a lot more competitive, which should hopefully improve the region as a whole. It is also one of the first times a black African side has taken a step forward in rugby for a long time.
Madagascar are far from qualified though, and Namibia, and Senegal also aren't eliminated.
Captains of Namibia, Senegal, Morocco and Madagascar with the Webb Ellis Cup
Reply With Quote
