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

[Shaggy]

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.

I agree with your "go under the radar" comment; even though they have no bearing on the pool winners and runners up, they are often some of the most entertaining/closely fought games at the RWC.

Yes, it was mostly predictable who the quarter finalists would be, but Samoa were a chance at the expense of Scotland pre-tournament, and Japan almost made it.

As for the big three SH making the last four, I wouldn't have said pre-tournament, that Australia were a certainty of making it out of pool play (particularly prior to Cheika taking over), but their stocks did rise with their performance in the RC; this has also only happened once (in 1999) in previous tournaments since South Africa joined in 1995. If you look at history (relevant because of the predictability argument), you would expect England and/or France to make the top four.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

To be fair before the football World Cup 2014, I predicted 3 out of the 4 semi finalists: Brazil, Germany, Argentina. The only one I didn't get was Spain. Couldn't have predicted that they would fail to get out of the group stages.

For this RWC I thought the semis would be NZ v SA and England v Ireland. So only got 2/4 right.

For me it's the process that's interesting, as well as the eventual outcome of the RWC, as I've followed the cycle of teams in the 6Ns and RC and the RWC is the ultimate result of the last 4 years of work these teams have put in.

 

[YoungScud]

I just did a quick scan of player numbers in several countries, to see if there's a correlation between player numbers and relative success. these figures are simply numbers of registered players (approximately).

Italy 73,000
Scotland 38,000
NZ 147,000
Wales 80,000
Ireland 153,000
England 2,000,000
France 390,000
Australia 42,000
SA 651,000
Japan 122,000
USA 45,000

Going just by finishing places in the recent RWC (which is by no means the only measure of success), and by relative player numbers, the most successful sides might not always be the ones expected to be. Clearly, at least in RWC terms, England have vastly underperformed as have France. Relative to Scotland, Italy did very poorly too. Wales and Ireland certainly don't shine either. The one which leaps off the page at me, though, is Australia, however grudgingly I find myself saying that. Interestingly too, we may actually have expected more rather than less of Japan.

Now, I'm not nearly naive enough to suppose that player numbers are anywhere near the only criteria to be used when measuring success, and I am aware that it might seem that my country looks good in that light, but nevertheless it's an interesting comparison. Others might be, growth in player numbers (growing the game, which WR likes to say it's all for), player numbers as a percentage of population, world rankings, player numbers relative to other sports or even win rates. However we measure it, I guess we will never all agree what success is, but it's fun to point at other nationalities and say, "Look how well we did against you, and you have far more players than us". In that regard, I suppose NZ did OK...

 

[Josht36]

I just did a quick scan of player numbers in several countries, to see if there's a correlation between player numbers and relative success. these figures are simply numbers of registered players (approximately).

Italy 73,000
Scotland 38,000
NZ 147,000
Wales 80,000
Ireland 153,000
England 2,000,000
France 390,000
Australia 42,000
SA 651,000
Japan 122,000
USA 45,000

Going just by finishing places in the recent RWC (which is by no means the only measure of success), and by relative player numbers, the most successful sides might not always be the ones expected to be. Clearly, at least in RWC terms, England have vastly underperformed as have France. Relative to Scotland, Italy did very poorly too. Wales and Ireland certainly don't shine either. The one which leaps off the page at me, though, is Australia, however grudgingly I find myself saying that. Interestingly too, we may actually have expected more rather than less of Japan.

Now, I'm not nearly naive enough to suppose that player numbers are anywhere near the only criteria to be used when measuring success, and I am aware that it might seem that my country looks good in that light, but nevertheless it's an interesting comparison. Others might be, growth in player numbers (growing the game, which WR likes to say it's all for), player numbers as a percentage of population, world rankings, player numbers relative to other sports or even win rates. However we measure it, I guess we will never all agree what success is, but it's fun to point at other nationalities and say, "Look how well we did against you, and you have far more players than us". In that regard, I suppose NZ did OK...

I'm always a little hesitant to believe these numbers.

Admittedly I am from a part of the Midlands that isn't a major rugby hotspot but it is very very rare that I meet anyone that plays rugby. 2 million indicates a fairly significant portion of the population are registered players and from my experience this simply isn't true.

Does anyone know these how numbers are collated? Is it purely registered clubs? Or does it count schools such as mine did which play rugby once or twice a year in PE towards being registered players in order for the teacher to tick off a sport. Noone knew the rules, we ran around like headless chickens and then we were glad to get back to a proper sports like rounders the next lesson. Clearly these lessons weren't designed to produce england rugby's next generation. I'd be quite interested if anyone has any background on this .

 

[RoosTah]

I just did a quick scan of player numbers in several countries, to see if there's a correlation between player numbers and relative success. these figures are simply numbers of registered players (approximately).

Italy 73,000
Scotland 38,000
NZ 147,000
Wales 80,000
Ireland 153,000
England 2,000,000
France 390,000
Australia 42,000
SA 651,000
Japan 122,000
USA 45,000

Going just by finishing places in the recent RWC (which is by no means the only measure of success), and by relative player numbers, the most successful sides might not always be the ones expected to be. Clearly, at least in RWC terms, England have vastly underperformed as have France. Relative to Scotland, Italy did very poorly too. Wales and Ireland certainly don't shine either. The one which leaps off the page at me, though, is Australia, however grudgingly I find myself saying that. Interestingly too, we may actually have expected more rather than less of Japan.

Now, I'm not nearly naive enough to suppose that player numbers are anywhere near the only criteria to be used when measuring success, and I am aware that it might seem that my country looks good in that light, but nevertheless it's an interesting comparison. Others might be, growth in player numbers (growing the game, which WR likes to say it's all for), player numbers as a percentage of population, world rankings, player numbers relative to other sports or even win rates. However we measure it, I guess we will never all agree what success is, but it's fun to point at other nationalities and say, "Look how well we did against you, and you have far more players than us". In that regard, I suppose NZ did OK...

Yeah, The Wallabies are a bit of an anomaly really. The game isn't very big here at all. In fact it's arguably only our 4th biggest football code after Rugby League, Australian Football, and now even soccer (which has a bigger pro league from a professional player numbers standpoint than rugby here now).

With all that in mind, it's pretty incredible we've won 2 world cups and made 4 finals.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I just did a quick scan of player numbers in several countries, to see if there's a correlation between player numbers and relative success. these figures are simply numbers of registered players (approximately).

Italy 73,000
Scotland 38,000
NZ 147,000
Wales 80,000
Ireland 153,000
England 2,000,000
France 390,000
Australia 42,000
SA 651,000
Japan 122,000
USA 45,000

Going just by finishing places in the recent RWC (which is by no means the only measure of success), and by relative player numbers, the most successful sides might not always be the ones expected to be. Clearly, at least in RWC terms, England have vastly underperformed as have France. Relative to Scotland, Italy did very poorly too. Wales and Ireland certainly don't shine either. The one which leaps off the page at me, though, is Australia, however grudgingly I find myself saying that. Interestingly too, we may actually have expected more rather than less of Japan.

Now, I'm not nearly naive enough to suppose that player numbers are anywhere near the only criteria to be used when measuring success, and I am aware that it might seem that my country looks good in that light, but nevertheless it's an interesting comparison. Others might be, growth in player numbers (growing the game, which WR likes to say it's all for), player numbers as a percentage of population, world rankings, player numbers relative to other sports or even win rates. However we measure it, I guess we will never all agree what success is, but it's fun to point at other nationalities and say, "Look how well we did against you, and you have far more players than us". In that regard, I suppose NZ did OK...

We had a similar argument in the other thread. Looking at the player numbers is the wrong approach. Quality is arguably more important than quantity. I always use the same example: football (soccer) in the US and Argentina. The US has more registered players than Argentina. The thing is Argentina's football gets to pick the best of the lot, while the US gets to pick Athletes who didn't make it in American Football, NHL, Basket, Baseball, etc.
The US is a crystal clear example: the guys who make it in Rugby are, very often, guys who couldn't make it in Top tier American Football or athletics.

 

[RoosTah]

We had a similar argument in the other thread. Looking at the player numbers is the wrong approach. Quality is arguably more important than quantity. I always use the same example: football (soccer) in the US and Argentina. The US has more registered players than Argentina. The thing is Argentina's football gets to pick the best of the lot, while the US gets to pick Athletes who didn't make it in American Football, NHL, Basket, Baseball, etc.
The US is a crystal clear example: the guys who make it in Rugby are, very often, guys who couldn't make it in Top tier American Football or athletics.

It's not just that though - Australia is probably the only country in the world with 4 fully pro leagues covering 4 different codes of football, meaning they all effectively compete for talent. But the strength of their development systems dictate to some degree just how much they can do with that talent, and for rugby we do have some really top class development pathways in spit of the small size of the sport.

 

[Jaguares]

England 2,000,000

That's a joke. Even the Englishmen said that the numbers are exaggerated. When the figures were a million.

2 million is clearly a joke

 

[YoungScud]

That's a joke. Even the Englishmen said that the numbers are exaggerated. When the figures were a million.

2 million is clearly a joke

Yes, of course, and someone with no access to the most accurate figures can make statements like that, while the rest of us can't argue because neither have we. It's a lovely way to convince yourself you're right, but hardly debate. Now, I've found another source based on registered player numbers, spilt into different categories. You're right, England doesn't have 2 million players registered. It has 1990988. Hence my use of the word approximate. Of course, they're not senior male players, far from it, but I have no real reason to doubt those figures, and "It's a joke" isn't likely to change that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries

 

[HowieLO6]

Yes, of course, and someone with no access to the most accurate figures can make statements like that, while the rest of us can't argue because neither have we. It's a lovely way to convince yourself you're right, but hardly debate. Now, I've found another source based on registered player numbers, spilt into different categories. You're right, England doesn't have 2 million players registered. It has 1990988. Hence my use of the word approximate. Of course, they're not senior male players, far from it, but I have no real reason to doubt those figures, and "It's a joke" isn't likely to change that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries

When significantly more than half of those numbers are u13s, I'll reserve judgement as to how much those inflated numbers mean.

Plus, take a look at the original list of player numbers above; while the US figure above is close to the senior male figures, the 2million that is attributed to England accounts for our world-beating 12D teams. Compare like for like.

And find a better source than Wikipedia. Unless all the federations are calculating in the same way, I'm not sure how you can attribute any value to the figures.

 

[Maverick1987]

Yes, of course, and someone with no access to the most accurate figures can make statements like that, while the rest of us can't argue because neither have we. It's a lovely way to convince yourself you're right, but hardly debate. Now, I've found another source based on registered player numbers, spilt into different categories. You're right, England doesn't have 2 million players registered. It has 1990988. Hence my use of the word approximate. Of course, they're not senior male players, far from it, but I have no real reason to doubt those figures, and "It's a joke" isn't likely to change that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries

Imo playing numbers mean nothing . As you can see from your reference only 130,000 out of 2 million are senior males which is probably about 7% or so . For some reason there's not a lot of kids that continue playing into the senior ranks

 

[YoungScud]

When significantly more than half of those numbers are u13s, I'll reserve judgement as to how much those inflated numbers mean.

Plus, take a look at the original list of player numbers above; while the US figure above is close to the senior male figures, the 2million that is attributed to England accounts for our world-beating 12D teams. Compare like for like.

And find a better source than Wikipedia. Unless all the federations are calculating in the same way, I'm not sure how you can attribute any value to the figures.

Didn't I point out the disparity between player and senior player numbers? I was very careful to also suggest that player numbers are't the only measure of success. In fact, that's pretty obvious, given the way the RWC went. However, if one of the ways to sigbnify success is growing the game, then player numbers are crucial. Clearly, winning major ***les is a different kettle of fish.

 

[YoungScud]

Imo playing numbers mean nothing . As you can see from your reference only 130,000 out of 2 million are senior males which is probably about 7% or so . For some reason there's not a lot of kids that continue playing into the senior ranks

Indeed, as I myself pointed out. However, while that brings South Africa and England much closer together, that still leaves England with around 4 times the number of senior players as NZ, so obviously there is no direct correlation. However, 'resources' has more than one meaning. France and England clearly have a load of money swilling around in the game, although it would seem that a great deal of that isn't targeted where it should be, instead lining a handful of pockets. It's a sad fact that this is inevitable when money enters sport. So, the question remains as to what is different about SH rugby that appears to make it so much 'better' than that of the NH. This might not sound a popular view, but until the Laws of the Game are applied as written and not as interpreted by organisation trying to make the game 'saleable', there can be no level playing field. I am in no doubt that, in an effort to seel the game to sponsors, WR has purposefully moved from a competition to an attempt at making the game faster, with bigger hits and with lots of scores. To that end, interpretation of the Laws has made the game largely one of attack, while depowering defence. Scrums are unattractive, and so an abortive attempt at legislating much more heavily has been made, when all that was required was to do what refs did years ago and let forwards take responsibility for scrummaging. Meanwhile, let's not bother with straight feeds, let's just accept 'credible feeds'. So many arears of the game have been altered in this way, and the SH teams , it seems to me, are better at adapting to this. I suspect there is no way back from this situation, and so I fear that Rugby League Union is on its way. The money boys will love it.

 

[profitius]

Senior males playing in Ireland is 13,200 I believe. They are updated figures. Its in the interest of some unions to exaggerate the numbers because they get more government grants etc.

 

[Manuar]

Jaja this text is ridiculous. Foot and Rugby is different, his mind is that of a footballer, Wordless....