• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A RIDICULOUS text against the Pumas' perfomance in the RWC 2015

Jaguares

International
TRF Legend
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
5,081
Country Flag
Argentina
Club or Nation
Argentina
Talking about people who born to be losers, in the last October of 2014, in the same website, hours after the artificial win of the Pumas in Mendoza against an unmotivated Australia I wrote: "Stand is not walking ..." wrote:

"Less than a year for the World Cup and if the participation of the Pumas in the rUGBY Championship (...) is learning, it's clear that Argentina would finish fourth (...). They have the easiest pool(...) the fixture ensures the second place in pool C. Lose against New Zealand and then beat Georgia, Namibia and Tonga: Three countries that never got beyond the pool stage. Thus, the Pumas are going to face France in the quarter, probably first in the pool D: Ireland should play much rugby if they want that position (...) That is, to be fourth Argentina must win one big game. Is it too much to ask? (...) Unless it smell like another failure ... "

One, two, Three. Obviously it not stopped being descriptive quasi impeccable. TA Ta ta. I hit every step of the Pumas, only he played less than France and Ireland course more than thought (defensively). So we met in the quarterfinal with Éire leaving the 'Frenchies' to the All Blacks. Beyond the details of who would be the opponent, Argentina just won a big game against a weak Ireland without their four best players: O'Connell, Sexton, O'Mahony and O'Brien. Simple, ridiculously easy. Pure tin, say the singer.

Ridiculous, yes, but don't ask for more. It is what it is. Dismissing to Italy, which wants but can not, there are only nine nations, really interested and playing professional rugby betting chips to their talents. As the ninth is Argentina, in any World Cup pools divided four for five here and there. What would be nice if there were only two pool stages. But there are four pool stages! And that's because of the television rights. As absurd as that -from 2003 - play five teams per pool for show an expansion that rugby hasn't (again the culprit is the TV advancing destroying everything).

For this reason arrive to the Quarter finals ALWAYS eight of the nine nations which play rugby professionally. Always the same. Sabina would say disappointing. Two zone. The ninth falls before because mathematics requires that a group has three of them: one has to go before the bystanders. It fell to England this year (at home!). In 2011 Scotland. In 2007 Ireland. In 2003 the Argentina ... But the other eight get out of the pool stage.

There were only a rarity so far this century: 2007 when Fiji, which could well be the historic tenth, although very minor, eliminated Wales. But so long and boringly well. It's a tournament of nine participants, three or four candidates and a dozen kids no other aim than to receive slaps and improve foreign statistics, the records of the 'ball-owners' deeds of others, the egos of Up and economies of the usual. More tin.

That's a Rugby World Cup. Disappointment. And so the nine professional country just have to win a game, not only the Pumas, who won a only a big game, this is one of the brotherhood, who will stay with the quarter-final, it claims to be in the top four and having fortnight, with any payment, in the host country.

There is no merit in being fourth. Honestly, there is not in who takes the podium. Third means having won one big game 'to enforce', having lost the previous game and recovered with another loser now will be fourth. Runner-up be not worth much more: to be a runner-up you just have to win two big games, Quarter final and Semifinal. With that being returned home with the pompous ***le of 'Runner-up'. A charade. The road is minimal. Today, to get there, almost-almost enough not to face the All Blacks before.

And the glory for the champion if he beats three equal rivals. Nothing impossible. With that little 'incredible' consecration is celebrated. Nearly a game without much effort against a PlayStation. But the Pumas and Argentina, asking them what they can not deliver, their dream.

To beat those who know how to win - even more than play - we would need the luck we had, the having aligned to all the top players together: Hugo Porta, Pichot, Hernandez and Sanchez on the same starting XV coinciding generationally.

In 2011 New Zealand won the World Cup without facing South Africa or any of the four British; they only beat France twice... A joke. When at some future winter Piri Weepu's grandson ask to his grand father how many points he scored against England, the grandfather will tell him that he didn't play against the Englishmen at the WC 2011, he will tell that they just smashed to the tiny Tonga.

Beyond the losing team, Argentina reached to the semifinals for the second time because the fixture is too easy. South Africa won an easily WC in 2007: They didn't play against New Zealand or Australia; Neither against Ireland, Wales, Scotland or France. They beat anyone. Only twice against England ... The Rugby World Cup is anomalously great. It is made 'by them and for them' but they don't play between them (The 9 professional nations). In 2003 England won the WC without beat the All Blacks, or confront their neighbors Scottish or Ireland or, even, to our Pumas...

Everything is so pathetically predictable that the champion was always a winner of pool stage, never a runner up of a pool stage.

http://442.perfil.com/2015-10-27-395819-hojalata-los-pumas/
 
Last edited:
Well, the website is for soccer (because with only 8 winners over the course of 80 years, that's not at all predictable lol) so it's not terribly surprising. Seriously, the Rugby World Cup has been 4 nations win the RWC in its 28 year history, which is precisely the number of countries which managed to win the first 8 soccer world cups.

Also, have a look at the spread of soccers winners:

World_cup_winners.png


Doesn't really look more "worldly" to me compared to Rugby's winners which are actually spread over more continents:

Rugby_world_cup_countries_best_results_and_hosts_rev1.png
 
Last edited:
Did we ever mention that we have won both the Rugby World Cup AND the Football World Cup?

ENGERLERND
 
In fairness, there's not all that much to disagree with on that article.

Most of us could have guessed at least 7 of the 8 quarter finalists (although in fairness Samoa were capable of much more, and Fiji may have had an outside chance in a different pool). And most of us could have guessed who the 3 or 4 sides that could win the cup were.

But the articles underlying point that the RWC is relatively predictable and an overhyped achievement is a fair one. The pool stages for most of the major players is a formality. After that it's basically just a series of knockout style matches where ability to grind out wins comes to the fore.

If Argentina had an Autumn International run where they faced Ireland (coming off a physically gruelling match with France), Australia and South Africa and won one of the three. Then there wouldn't be dozens of articles praising them and puff pieces on their system.
 
In fairness, there's not all that much to disagree with on that article.

Most of us could have guessed at least 7 of the 8 quarter finalists (although in fairness Samoa were capable of much more, and Fiji may have had an outside chance in a different pool). And most of us could have guessed who the 3 or 4 sides that could win the cup were.

But the articles underlying point that the RWC is relatively predictable and an overhyped achievement is a fair one. The pool stages for most of the major players is a formality. After that it's basically just a series of knockout style matches where ability to grind out wins comes to the fore.

If Argentina had an Autumn International run where they faced Ireland (coming off a physically gruelling match with France), Australia and South Africa and won one of the three. Then there wouldn't be dozens of articles praising them and puff pieces on their system.

It's a fair one to a point, but ignores major upsets like Japan over South Africa and the PI nations. Moreover, one suspects the author wouldn't be so happy to admit that soccer's World Cup is pretty predictable on getting to the pointy end
 
It's a fair one to a point, but ignores major upsets like Japan over South Africa and the PI nations. Moreover, one suspects the author wouldn't be so happy to admit that soccer's World Cup is pretty predictable on getting to the pointy end

Japan's win was special though, and likely to remain an anomaly, and in the end had no effect on the predicted final placings in the pool. Even after that loss, most would have still been able to predict the 1-2 in that pool.

The football world cup is substantially less predictable overall. From the reigning champions bombing out in the group stage last time, or the hosts getting murdered in their own backyard, to several different nations reaching the last 8 compared to the previous editions of the tournament.
 
Was it all that predictable?

Japan beting the Bokke but there were other upsets.
England not going through to the group stages few predicted and then probably not because that was what they really believed.
I doubt very many had Argentina in the Semi's prior to the tournament.
Most didn't have Australia making it past the pool stage nevermind the final.
South Africa had to do well to get out of the group stages after round 1.
Japan were a whisker away of a QF while Scotland the same and could've made a SF were it not for fine margins.

Not all that predictable IMO. Relatively speaking of course. I mean we tend to find enjoymet in order, order with some room for upsets. If we prefered 'total' unpredictability paper-rock-scissors or coin-tossing would be major sports but its boring watching something where there is no expected outcome since the results are near enough random because you don't invest anything into it and every result is equally expected and unexpected so there's no point in actually watching. I'm rambling now..
 
Was it all that predictable?

Mostly yes. If you told everybody here to pick 9 sides who you thought most likely to make the QF, then most would have got all 8 of them.

But that article's actual main point that the actual achievement in the RWC gets somewhat overhyped, and they're right.

New Zealand go on tours annually that consist of runs of Australia - England - France - Ireland all away from home.

That's a harder run than you would see at a RWC. The only difference is the pressure and tension is altered to knockout rugby which changes the dynamic a bit, but still gets overhyped.
 
I dislike the tone of the article, but i'm with duck here.
Not all that predictable IMO. Relatively speaking of course. I mean we tend to find enjoymet in order, order with some room for upsets.
Not sure i agree. I think people find more enjoyment in unpredictability than in order in World Cups, pretty much in any sport.
One of the reasons football is the most popular sport in the planet is precisely that, in knock out style tournaments (meaning not leagues), the results are harder to predict than in most sports. People like upsets when their team is not playing (and not the favourite). That means that other than when your team is playing (minor part of total games played), statistically, most people will be happy to see an underdog get away with victory.

Look at the odds of winning Brazil or Germany get before a football world cup and compare it to the ones NZ gets before a RWC. The difference is considerable.

Most didn't have Australia making it past the pool stage nevermind the final.
Bit of a stretch if you ask me. They won the RC before the WC.

I doubt very many had Argentina in the Semi's prior to the tournament.
Argentina was pretty much guaranteed a second place in the group from day one and they had to face either Ireland or France, both of which we've beaten before in World Cups. I wouldn't say we were favourites but i'd say from day one our chances to reach semis were 30-40%.
 
Japan's win was special though, and likely to remain an anomaly, and in the end had no effect on the predicted final placings in the pool. Even after that loss, most would have still been able to predict the 1-2 in that pool.

The football world cup is substantially less predictable overall. From the reigning champions bombing out in the group stage last time, or the hosts getting murdered in their own backyard, to several different nations reaching the last 8 compared to the previous editions of the tournament.

Yeah, the hosts have never been murdered in their own back yard in the Rugby World Cup thankfully *cough* England :cool:

I get that soccer has more upsets, but ultimately the winners always tend to be from the same crop of Euro or South American countries every single time, so it's still a bit rich for a soccer site to by complaining about Rugby's set-up.
 
Yeah, the hosts have never been murdered in their own back yard in the Rugby World Cup thankfully *cough* England :cool:

I get that soccer has more upsets, but ultimately the winners always tend to be from the same crop of Euro or South American countries every single time, so it's still a bit rich for a soccer site to by complaining about Rugby's set-up.
That's misleading. It is a small club but one that rotates a lot and has changed quite a lot. Uruguay hasn't won it since 1950, Argentina since 1986.
Both France and Spain are relatively new members of that club.
If you look at the list of finalists you have Hungary, Sweden, Czechoslovakia. Semi finalists: Belgium, Turkey, Chile, Croatia, Bulgaria, South Korea. just to name a few.

Argentina lost the final of the America cup (equivalent would be RC) to Chile last year (first time ever Chile wins it).
Greece won the Euro cup (equivalent would be the 6N) against all odds. Russia has won it, Denmark, too.

Let me put it this way: before the RWC begins i'm sure most of us can predict the outcome of say, 70% of the pool matches (W-D-L).
That percentage is extremely difficult to achieve in a football world cup.
 
Yeah, the hosts have never been murdered in their own back yard in the Rugby World Cup thankfully *cough* England :cool:

I get that soccer has more upsets, but ultimately the winners always tend to be from the same crop of Euro or South American countries every single time, so it's still a bit rich for a soccer site to by complaining about Rugby's set-up.

It is just a ludicrous comparison, in football teams can play a completely negative style and park the bus as it were to try and cause an upset. Where as Rugby if a team is strong they will most often come out on top because they have the skill to do so. When upsets in Rugby do happen it is because a team plays out of their skin (Japan) and it is truly amazing to watch. As you say this argument is ridiculous because over all that time there still haven't been many different winners. Rugby enables a team with genuine qualities to shine through and therefore puts emphasises on teams actually going out to win and smash the opposition where as Football often encourages negative play that isn't enjoyable to watch or how the game is intended to be played from a fans perspective.
 
Most of us could have guessed at least 7 of the 8 quarter finalists (although in fairness Samoa were capable of much more, and Fiji may have had an outside chance in a different pool). And most of us could have guessed who the 3 or 4 sides that could win the cup were.

True.
The RWC is a great competition and this one was a sell-out. But there's lots of games that go under the radar like Canada v Romania, with little bearing on final pool winners and runner-ups.

It's true most fans knew the outcome of virtually each pool. And we knew virtually all the Q/F teams.
It's predictable as hell.

It was almost a given the big SH 3 would make the last 4. There was only room for 1 team to create surprise (Arg or Ire or Wal).

6N CCup and T14 are far more open.
 
Well, the website is for soccer (because with only 8 winners over the course of 80 years, that's not at all predictable lol) so it's not terribly surprising. Seriously, the Rugby World Cup has been 4 nations win the RWC in its 28 year history, which is precisely the number of countries which managed to win the first 8 soccer world cups.

Also, have a look at the spread of soccers winners:

World_cup_winners.png


Doesn't really look more "worldly" to me compared to Rugby's winners which are actually spread over more continents:

Rugby_world_cup_countries_best_results_and_hosts_rev1.png

This old man isn't a sports journalist. He's a gossip journalist, he runs a tabloid magazine (Caras) that talks about the lives of celebrities (like The Sun).

The gossips say that he's the boyfriend of the founder of the newspaper "Perfil". The business group handles the daily "Perfil", the magazine "Caras", this sports website among other means.

There is a rumor that his son played in a rugby club, "Deportiva Francesa" the same club of Juan Martin Hernandez.

Apparently his son is an overprotected child and rugby was a sport very hard for him. In a game he took a beating and for that reason, his father hates rugby and always write things against the Pumas and rugby
 
Soccer is much more spread and developed globally in comparison so obviously there is a higher quantity of nations that are quality and that's why more upsets.
Also, in soccer, since the scores are always low, one kick of luck can decide a match, and give a team a unfair result more often than Rugby.

You will NOT see a small nation outside the traditional european ones or Argentina and Brazil win the soccer World Cup though ! Not gonna happen, even Uruguay will never win one again. I guessed right the last soccer world cup winner, it was clear that Germany was the favorite, of at least one of the 3 favorites, even before the beggining.

- - - Updated - - -

And, it's easier to make a good team in soccer where there are less injuries and you need only 11 players to have a good team for a 7 matches tournament.
 
Last edited:
I really don't get this discussion at all. What is all the fuzz about ?
I think Rugby is more balanced than football plus / because there a bigger difference where the money is, than in Rugby.
No sports in the world is 100% completely balanced, but that's fine with me.
Not every sport is being played in every country and/or by the same number of people.
I think football is even way more unbalanced, as it's being played in so many countries and still there's only a handful really contending for a World Cup.
Rugby might be played in less countries / by less people and still there's some balance in it.
But as not every sport is as big in a country, than in another, what do we expect ?
Germany e.g. probably will never, ever beat New Zealand in Rugby, but I think in football NZ would never beat Germany. So what ?
What about hockey ? Canada, Russia, Sweden, USA - power houses - where are they in Rugby ?

I just want to say, that it's perfectly normal that there are countries, that are pretty good in some sports and bad in others. That's what makes it fun. I love watching Samoa + Fiji in the RWC, as you won't see anything from them in any other sports, e.g.
 

Latest posts

Top