2023 World Cup Draw

[Reiser99]

Reality is that there is still a huge funding gap between the top teams and those further down. Japan have really supported their domestic and international teams, but not many other countries can do the same. Italy for example still only have two fully professional teams competing at close to a high level. For other countries many players have to go abroad to get high quality rugby. TBH there aren't many countries you can argue should have performed too much better. You could argue that France should have won a tournament by now given their resources. Ireland definitely should have reached a SF. Wales were unlucky not to reach a final, however generally the teams that reach the knock out stages are those who are better funded.

 

[Leinster Fan]

It's not really true to say there hasn't been one new country. Argentina are an example of a team who have gone from minnow to genuine competitors. Outside of that, Wales and Ireland have improved significantly and Japan have gone from nothing to quite good.

I'm not sure what people expect to be honest. Sport growing is pretty slow and the first world cup was only 33 years ago. It'd be ideal if someone was challenging the all blacks but all things considered we've done pretty well.

Sure things get repetitive but that's inevitable and true for every sport outside soccer. Cricket has roughly the same number of countries, ice and field hockey are similar. Basketball is probably pretty popular worldwide but at a world cup the US would win with their eyes closed and the list of countries who could finish second won't be long either.

Even football only has 8 world cup winners and that's been going since the 1930. They've only had 5 winners since the first rugby world cup too, which would be the same anount as us with competent reffing. Their world cup is much more interesting than ours to be fair but we can't compare ourselves to them. Cricket is a fairer comparison and we'ce done fine relatively to them.

Now I'd agree that the world cup itself isn't a great competition, it's not got anything on the Six Nations as a tournament (or plenty of other competetions). But at the same time while rugby hasn't exploded I don't think we've done awful on the growth of the sport

 

[BPM]

Same with tennis. I mean with Nadal and Djokovic dominating the slams. Was great to see Thiem finally Nick one this year. First time a new male player has won one for 6 years. Samey does get dull. Women's game more interesting with different winners.

I think France have got a very good chance of being a new winner.

The age profile of the side is already very good and their recent success at U20 level suggests that they'll keep improving.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

SO, whats the deal with france? are they largely improved recently? or are we thinking just because they've been a boogie team for us that they could be again and therefore may have a better run to the final?

 

[Reiser99]

SO, whats the deal with france? are they largely improved recently? or are we thinking just because they've been a boogie team for us that they could be again and therefore may have a better run to the final?

France are currently looking very good. Got a young, skillful team including players who won the previous junior world cup. They are building towards 2023 and have a good core of players to do that around.

 

[Leinster Fan]

SO, whats the deal with france? are they largely improved recently? or are we thinking just because they've been a boogie team for us that they could be again and therefore may have a better run to the final?

Much better side already than they were for pretty much the entire 2010s. ,

They've a really young team that's already very good, a lot to improve to be WC contenders but they're young enough that they should be getting a lot better and they're at a decent stage already. At home they're a decent WC bet at this stage.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Home advantage is big, but it's whether this France side mature enough in 3 years time to handle the pressure of being the host nation. We should know in England it can work against the home nation, as for. In fact, only NZ and SA have won their home tournament.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Home advantage is big, but it's whether this France side mature enough in 3 years time to handle the pressure of being the host nation. We should know in England it can work against the home nation, as for. In fact, only NZ and SA have won their home tournament.

fair enough if theyre on the improve, we'll have to take that serious.

we've beaten them in paris 8 of the last 9 games so im hoping pure home advantage wouldn't be a huge issue

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Even football only has 8 world cup winners and that's been going since the 1930.

If you look at winners, yes. If you look at last 8, football is not comparable with rugby. Football by its very nature is a more luck-oriented game. That favours smaller/upcoming teams, but then again anyone in the top 30 could beat anyone else with a bit of luck and has done so.
In Rugby we still consider it the greatest upset in RWC history when #9 beats #3.
In football every single world cup there are 1/2 tier one nations that dont even make it to the wc. France, England, the Netherlands, Italy, Uruguay have all been absent from at least one WC in the last 30 years (to make it comparable with rugby).

I do agree that the expectations were probably silly to begin with and that these things take time, but Italy, which was set up to be the landmark case, has not been a success story. I am not just talking about their current state, but the trend they've shown over the last 2 decades.
After all that was given to them, are they head and shoulder ahead of say, Fiji or Japan? I don't think they are.

SO, whats the deal with france? are they largely improved recently? or are we thinking just because they've been a boogie team for us that they could be again and therefore may have a better run to the final?

They've won the last two editions of U20 wc. The infrastructure is there, the development is there, they are importing a lot of talent to their domestic league. They have everything they need to take it to the next level (so does England)

 

[Leinster Fan]

If you look at winners, yes. If you look at last 8, football is not comparable with rugby. Football by its very nature is a more luck-oriented game. That favours smaller/upcoming teams, but then again anyone in the top 30 could beat anyone else with a bit of luck and has done so.
In Rugby we still consider it the greatest upset in RWC history when #9 beats #3.
In football every single world cup there are 1/2 tier one nations that dont even make it to the wc. France, England, the Netherlands, Italy, Uruguay have all been absent from at least one WC in the last 30 years (to make it comparable with rugby).

I mean, I'm not (and clearly wasn't) trying to compare rugby and football in terms of competitiveness. The point is more that football, which is way more competitive than rugby (and every other sport), there still haven't had that many winners. In those terms, rugby only having four winners isn't too bad.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Much better side already than they were for pretty much the entire 2010s. ,

They've a really young team that's already very good, a lot to improve to be WC contenders but they're young enough that they should be getting a lot better and they're at a decent stage already. At home they're a decent WC bet at this stage.

France is definitely a gathering storm.They have talent to burn, always have had. Harnessing that talent is another matter and one of their big issues might be too much choice.

They went too far from their roots by playing an overly structured game for a while that didn't really suit either their talent or temperament.

I think they are now starting to work out the right balance between elan and structure. And with Sergeant Major Edwards cracking the defensive whip you can see them becoming very hard to beat while always carrying that attacking threat. And while fitness has sometimes seemed a bit optional in the Top 14 there is no way that they won't be ready for a home RWC.

Whether they can cope with the mental pressure is another matter. But that's where it's made sense to get the youngsters bedded in early in the cycle so that they get some good experience under their belts. If Jones does decide to change Binny, Youngs or Fazlet it will be in 6N 23.

If you have to have a single world class player in a team SH isn't a bad position. It's the heartbeat of the team, especially so in France, and DuPont is already one of the best and is likely to be at his absolute peak in 23.

No guarantees, but it looks like Fra are doing everything right at the moment. They're not in a bad place now - but for a daft red card they would almost certainly be reigning GS champions and we couldn't even put away their B team with our most experienced side ever.

 

[ncurd]

They resemble England a lot from the last cycle, huge talent coming up with youth success behind thier belts. I don't think they'll win it as I think if they get through the QF they'll be utterly bruised already from two of NZ/Ire/SA, if the schedulers are sensible for Fra NZ/Fra will be the opening match to give Fra a rest. But previous world cups show they like to serve a soft ball to the hosts in the first game. Plus if they come win their group they'll likely be looking at a very England side that has been steadily building all tournament.

As always its hard to tell this far out.

On current form winning group A or 2nd group B looks like the extremely hard run to the final. You'll get a tough QF regardless but its SF of likely Eng or one of Wal/Aus/Arg/Jap.



I'm actually quite bullish about England's chances of making another Final with this draw unless any of those teams have a sudden upturn. A SF has to be an absolute minimum goal.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Isn't that because of the sample size though like if you take 120 people 1/3 of potential days are covered there 1/365 only works if you pick two random from that people in a group not if your trying to work out if any two people in that group. So you actually have 119 attempts at that 1/365 chance.

Where as in this your working a basic lottery system your in one band (doesn't matter), and your working out the chances one ball i pulled from one bag and another is pulled from another. That doesn't change, its the same chance as rolling 8 on 2 4 sided dice. There are 16 possible outcomes and this only works once. I'm 99% sure that's right, where I might be wrong is the chances of it happening more than once. But I can't find anything that suggests otherwise.

It doesn't quite work like that because the probability isn't quite 1/4 each time (as who you are paired with is dependent on who has already been selected). The maths is a fair bit more complex but essentially the chance ends up being a bit higher because Wales is in the latter pool to be selected.

 

[ncurd]

It doesn't quite work like that because the probability isn't quite 1/4 each time (as who you are paired with is dependent on who has already been selected). The maths is a fair bit more complex but essentially the chance ends up being a bit higher because Wales is in the latter pool to be selected.

I don't think that has any bearing on the model were saying it doesn't matter which group Wales are pulled into. What matters are the other two slots in group and the chances for any team other to be pulled into those group is 1/4 before the lottery begins. That doesn't change, once you start pulling balls odds do change......Duck it I'm writing some python.....

See you a few hours...

 

[ncurd]

Its alot easier when your start actually writing it out, basically I think your right the, the odds essentially shorten because you have to fill 4 groups (which was the bit I was missing) so whilst the chance of all being in the first group is 1/16 if they didn't get picked there is a smaller chance they'll be picked in the second group (which was the bit I was missing). I'm carying on with it just to what the actual chance is (far easier to write a script and run it 1,000,000 times).

 

[ncurd]

Well running it a million times, still a 1/16 chance any given year. Result was 6.2401%

Here's my code snippet, note this website removed the tabs

import random

success = 0
runs = 1000000

random.seed()

for i in range( runs ):
bandA = ['SA', 'NZ', 'ENG', 'WAL']
bandB = ['IRE', 'AUS', 'FRA', 'JAP' ]
bandC = ['SCO', 'ARG', 'FIJ', 'ITA' ]
groupA = []
groupB = []
groupC = []
groupD = []

groupA.append(bandA[random.randint(0,3)])
bandA.remove(groupA[0])
groupB.append(bandA[random.randint(0,2)])
bandA.remove(groupB[0])
groupC.append(bandA[random.randint(0,1)])
bandA.remove(groupC[0])
groupD.append(bandA[0])
bandA.remove(groupD[0])

groupA.append(bandB[random.randint(0,3)])
bandB.remove(groupA[1])
groupB.append(bandB[random.randint(0,2)])
bandB.remove(groupB[1])
groupC.append(bandB[random.randint(0,1)])
bandB.remove(groupC[1])
groupD.append(bandB[0])
bandB.remove(groupD[1])

groupA.append(bandC[random.randint(0,3)])
bandC.remove(groupA[2])
groupB.append(bandC[random.randint(0,2)])
bandC.remove(groupB[2])
groupC.append(bandC[random.randint(0,1)])
bandC.remove(groupC[2])
groupD.append(bandC[0])
bandC.remove(groupD[2])

if groupA[0] == 'WAL' and groupA[1] == 'AUS' and groupA[2] == 'FIJ':
success+=1

if groupB[0] == 'WAL' and groupB[1] == 'AUS' and groupB[2] == 'FIJ':
success+=1

if groupC[0] == 'WAL' and groupC[1] == 'AUS' and groupC[2] == 'FIJ':
success+=1

if groupD[0] == 'WAL' and groupD[1] == 'AUS' and groupD[2] == 'FIJ':
success+=1

print ((success/runs)*100, "%")

 

[Goodey]

if the schedulers are sensible for Fra NZ/Fra will be the opening match to give Fra a rest. But previous world cups show they like to serve a soft ball to the hosts in the first game.

Ever since France last hosted, for some unknown reason...

Argentina were in the opening game three times in a row from 1999-2007. I guess they were seen as the happy medium between a top drawer game and giving yourself a win. South Africa beating Australia in '95 is the only time a host took on a real cup contender and won.

List of opening games

1987 NZ-Italy
1991 Eng-NZ*
1995 SA-Aus
1999 Wal-Arg
2003 Aus-Arg
2007 Fra-Arg*
2011 NZ-Ton
2015 Eng-Fiji
2019 Jap-Rus

*games the host lost

I'm actually quite bullish about England's chances of making another Final with this draw unless any of those teams have a sudden upturn. A SF has to be an absolute minimum goal.

Generally agree, despite getting Argentina again from band 3 which is the traditional bad news. I would expect Japan to be the unofficial band 3 team by the time 2023 rolls around. In that sense England and Argentina are both lucky, when they could have been in a group with, say, Ireland as well as each other.

Like 2019, we don't fear any team in the other group for a quarter (because, y'know, it's the same group)

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

They resemble England a lot from the last cycle, huge talent coming up with youth success behind thier belts. I don't think they'll win it as I think if they get through the QF they'll be utterly bruised already from two of NZ/Ire/SA, if the schedulers are sensible for Fra NZ/Fra will be the opening match to give Fra a rest. But previous world cups show they like to serve a soft ball to the hosts in the first game. Plus if they come win their group they'll likely be looking at a very England side that has been steadily building all tournament.

As always its hard to tell this far out.

On current form winning group A or 2nd group B looks like the extremely hard run to the final. You'll get a tough QF regardless but its SF of likely Eng or one of Wal/Aus/Arg/Jap.



I'm actually quite bullish about England's chances of making another Final with this draw unless any of those teams have a sudden upturn. A SF has to be an absolute minimum goal.

Maybe although Fra in 07 and Eng in 91 would definitely beg to differ!

True, but in practice that only means winning one match of consequence. And always will unless falling foul of a 2015 style group of death.

Reflecting on my predictability grizzle. As rugby goes with the form book more than many other sports, it would definitely make things more interesting to do away with seeding and the groups just be drawn at random.

 

[Goodey]

Reflecting on my predictability grizzle. As rugby goes with the form book more than many other sports, it would definitely make things more interesting to do away with seeding and the groups just be drawn at random.

That's really not true at all. World cup rugby is defined by big teams, middle teams and minnows. The winner of New Zealand vs Italy and England vs Uruguay is not going to be decided on form.

This is as oppose to the soccer world cup where big teams go home early all the time.

 

[ncurd]

A 1/16 chance you get Wales, Australia and Fiji all together? That seems higher than I would have expected but would explain why it's now happened so much. In theory as there are 4 groups that would imply every year there is a 1/4 chance that at least one of the groups will be the same as the year before?

That's is a given year the chances of it occuring multiple year in a small time frame are a lot less. I think it's 1 in 16^3 for 3 year in a row which is what happened. I may have play with the model later but it becomes a bit harder because what do you classify it as if it happens 4 times in a row (and it has happened 4 time just not in consecutive years).

I think the 1/4 is right though so one thing that I had not taken into consideration are the chances any group would be the same just if one is. That explains after a world cup the high chance any group is the same as the previous one. However the chances you can predict which group it will be is 1/16 which makes sense two years a single group consecutive is 1/4^2 and we've just proven that. My god Maths it works! So for any group to get three years as happened here is 1/4^3 so it was a 1/64 chance it would ever happen (get the same group 3 consecutive world cups). To be able to predict the 3 teams would be extremely high but any of the teams is lower.

Still whilst 1/64 is far lower that it would happen it was still quite unlikely.