Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Does Africa deserve a second spot in RWC
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Big Ewis" data-source="post: 607449" data-attributes="member: 57076"><p>ah, come on, you got my point. I'm saying a World Cup, just like World Wars, don't need to include absolutely everyone. In fact since we're speaking of the African continent, African nations as nations played no role in WWI, but we weren't going to not call it a WW because of that or the myriad of other countries that had no role.</p><p>At least South Africa play in the RWC, and they more than make up for a potential absence of any other African nation and the African continent has a worthy champion to show on the world Rugby platform.</p><p></p><p>And the whole "it's a WORLD cup, it should include teams from all over the world, at least two per continent" argument is just completely irrelevant with all due respect because: </p><p>Rugby doesn't have to be and in fact isn't part of all the world's regions' culture. Obviously, African nations aren't particularly crazy about it, and Asian nations are even less that. So it's really forcing the issue when we say "but......but we MUST have participants from all over the world because it's a WORLD cup". </p><p>That, backed by the fact that African teams really are nowhere near all the other nations who participate. And how does even one justify Namibia's presence when they constantly lose by 70-10 scores ? Aren't those playing devil's advocate ? Is it a real stance to genuinely desire Namibia in the RWC ? I don't think so.</p><p></p><p>Those were my reasons not to have Namibia, and here are my reasons to pick another nation:</p><p></p><p>there actually is one nation, if not more, that simply *deserves*, as in legitimately merits to take Namibia's place. Uruguay are currently 21st vs 23rd for Namibia, which isn't even the point. They're not only "officially better" according to the IRB ranking, they're also a team that's had much better results in the RWC (at least the 1999 one) and haven't had a chance to prove their worth since the 2003 RWC, their second and last appearance.</p><p>The IRB easily dismisses the idea that South America is a continent of its own and simply throws everybody in the "Americas" category, along with Canada and the US who are sure to make it. Argentina is the only nation we've seen consistently from that continent really, with those two Uruguay appearances. Uruguay even won a game.</p><p></p><p>In fact:</p><p>I think if we only had European + 4nations + select exceptions like Canada, US, Japan...i.e. all nations with a real Rugby culture and a capable team then we would still proudly call this our Rugby World Cup. After all, that includes at least one team from each continent, all the while insuring a good level of play and none of those apocalyptic destructions of a side in every single Pool game.</p><p>But that's too late now, and we have to include a couple of those Tier 4 nations still, even though it is utterly incoherent from a sports POV since those teams aren't actually competing for anything, if we want to look at reality as it is and as it has actually been.</p><p></p><p>So I'm saying: at least put Uruguay. Namibia has had their chance, and they're currently lower than Uru in the rankings. Give the South American continent its chance.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Big Ewis, post: 607449, member: 57076"] ah, come on, you got my point. I'm saying a World Cup, just like World Wars, don't need to include absolutely everyone. In fact since we're speaking of the African continent, African nations as nations played no role in WWI, but we weren't going to not call it a WW because of that or the myriad of other countries that had no role. At least South Africa play in the RWC, and they more than make up for a potential absence of any other African nation and the African continent has a worthy champion to show on the world Rugby platform. And the whole "it's a WORLD cup, it should include teams from all over the world, at least two per continent" argument is just completely irrelevant with all due respect because: Rugby doesn't have to be and in fact isn't part of all the world's regions' culture. Obviously, African nations aren't particularly crazy about it, and Asian nations are even less that. So it's really forcing the issue when we say "but......but we MUST have participants from all over the world because it's a WORLD cup". That, backed by the fact that African teams really are nowhere near all the other nations who participate. And how does even one justify Namibia's presence when they constantly lose by 70-10 scores ? Aren't those playing devil's advocate ? Is it a real stance to genuinely desire Namibia in the RWC ? I don't think so. Those were my reasons not to have Namibia, and here are my reasons to pick another nation: there actually is one nation, if not more, that simply *deserves*, as in legitimately merits to take Namibia's place. Uruguay are currently 21st vs 23rd for Namibia, which isn't even the point. They're not only "officially better" according to the IRB ranking, they're also a team that's had much better results in the RWC (at least the 1999 one) and haven't had a chance to prove their worth since the 2003 RWC, their second and last appearance. The IRB easily dismisses the idea that South America is a continent of its own and simply throws everybody in the "Americas" category, along with Canada and the US who are sure to make it. Argentina is the only nation we've seen consistently from that continent really, with those two Uruguay appearances. Uruguay even won a game. In fact: I think if we only had European + 4nations + select exceptions like Canada, US, Japan...i.e. all nations with a real Rugby culture and a capable team then we would still proudly call this our Rugby World Cup. After all, that includes at least one team from each continent, all the while insuring a good level of play and none of those apocalyptic destructions of a side in every single Pool game. But that's too late now, and we have to include a couple of those Tier 4 nations still, even though it is utterly incoherent from a sports POV since those teams aren't actually competing for anything, if we want to look at reality as it is and as it has actually been. So I'm saying: at least put Uruguay. Namibia has had their chance, and they're currently lower than Uru in the rankings. Give the South American continent its chance. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Does Africa deserve a second spot in RWC
Top