Draw for future tournaments will be held closer to event to avoid group of death

[Canadian_Rugger]

I think that's fantastically optimistic.

Glad to see this place hasn't changed much, back to t2rugby.com then. See yah later!

 

[MLB3BB2]

I think they can make other improvements to the draw to give a better mix of different regions. E.g., Group D is boring, frankly, with 4 European teams plus another from the Northern Hemisphere. I'd like to see the top 4 from the Southern Hemisphere spread across the groups as well as the top 4 from the Northern Hemisphere. It could be 1&4, 2&3, etc. Then some up-front rules about grouping teams, e.g., no more than 2 European teams per group, etc., and the groups would be even in strength and all would have an interesting regional mix.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Glad to see this place hasn't changed much, back to t2rugby.com then. See yah later!

Sorry for not mindlessly agreeing with you! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[j'nuh]

I'm happy with two methods:
1. Proper, robust seedings
2. A completely random draw

Both systems are fair.

But the current system sucks. Rather than ranking teams appropriately, it seeds the teams through a snapshot from an extremely small time frame within the whole WC cycle, so it isn't resistant towards temporary blips from teams (as happened with Wales). If you're going to seed, take an average of a team's ranking over several periods.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

Sorry for not mindlessly agreeing with you! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Don't worry tatter tot, I won't

 

[smartcooky]

2007 - You didn't think SA were the best team that year ?? I thought they clearly were . Definitely the best drilled forward pack and set piece in this cup added with the right amount of sparkle in the backs I thought they were well worth their win .

Well, lets see.

They started the tournament as the 4th ranked team in the world.

They played the following teams
Samoa (11th) 59-7
England (7th) 36-0

Then they struggled against teams ranked 10 places below them
Tonga (15th) 30-25
USA (14th) 25-21

Then the playoffs
Fiji (13th) 37-20
Argentina (6th) 37-13

Essentially, they got to the final without ever playing any of the top three teams in the world, and played the 7th ranked team in the final, which had more in common with a game of school-yard force-back than it did with rugby... 92 aimless back & forth kicks in 80 minutes, one every 52 seconds. Watching paint dry would have been more exciting.

 

[ncurd]

Let's be honest 2007 was hardly a vintage year for any rugby team...

 

[smartcooky]

Let's be honest 2007 was hardly a vintage year for any rugby team...

Agree mate... it was a case of crap v sh¡te

 

[Feicarsinn]

Don't worry tatter tot, I won't

And yet, here you are responding.

 

[The Jones Boy]

The reason they want to do it, is of course money, getting the 8 biggest teams In the last 8 will attract more viewings and more revenue than for example having Tonga and Georgia in the last 8, that's the truth as far as I see it..

This is the truth. The RWC needs to pay bills and generate money, having the 'biggest' 8 teams in the quarters, teams that have the 'brands' (Boks, Wallabies, Pumas, AB's etc) that draw the crowds and TV audience is what the RWC needs to make moolah.

Regarding the group of death I would say to the likes of Wales and those looking to get in and stay in the top 8, simply play consistently to a higher level.
If you're not in the top eight at any given time of choosing the seeds then you're not good enough.
Wales knew the seeds were going to be chosen and they should have lifted themselves to get a better seeding.
Sure , bring the seed allocation timing closer to the tournament but the same issues can arise if a team loses form prior to the seeding choice and then some will start clamouring that the powers shift the seeding allocation process back.
Play consistently and try your best.
I'm glad my team is not in the Group of Death, but it is also the group that I will watch the most. Many other group games will not be watched but the 'GoD' will be watched by everyone.
It's been a point of interest for over a year already.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Well, lets see.

They started the tournament as the 4th ranked team in the world.

They played the following teams
Samoa (11th) 59-7
England (7th) 36-0

Then they struggled against teams ranked 10 places below them
Tonga (15th) 30-25
USA (14th) 25-21

Then the playoffs
Fiji (13th) 37-20
Argentina (6th) 37-13

Essentially, they got to the final without ever playing any of the top three teams in the world, and played the 7th ranked team in the final, which had more in common with a game of school-yard force-back than it did with rugby... 92 aimless back & forth kicks in 80 minutes, one every 52 seconds. Watching paint dry would have been more exciting.

As opposed to NZ and France in the "thrill-a-minute" 2011 final?

Lets be honest here all RWC finals are interesting for the occasion rather than the rugby on offer. And then almost only so for the fans of the teams involved rather than the neutral. Its just set up to be like that. Also rugby was different in 2007 and you can't blame the teams that played to the situation the best (SA, England and Argentina) for the context in which the tournament took place.

And lets not discount Argentina in 2007. They came in with a golden generation of players and at the end were 3rd overall of the RWC and rankings (not that I am willing to put too much emphasis on the rankings as its a mere snapshot and teams' approaches differ in the lead up) and SA thrashed them 37-13 in the SF. Argentina in turn annihilated France 34-10 for 3rd place, that same France that did for NZ in the QF.

So what am I getting at; its just too easy to take a string of one-off results and string them together in order to illustrate whatever you want. On the whole and all factors considered SA were good value for their ***le in 2007.

Edit:
Now if the RWC was awarded to the team that was the best across the 4 years leading up to the tournament then fine, give it to NZ. But its not. Its a tournament. And its played across less than 2 months. NZ just weren't their best right then and there. SA were.

 

[TRF_heineken]

As opposed to NZ and France in the "thrill-a-minute" 2011 final?

Lets be honest here all RWC finals are interesting for the occasion rather than the rugby on offer. And then almost only so for the fans of the teams involved rather than the neutral. Its just set up to be like that. Also rugby was different in 2007 and you can't blame the teams that played to the situation the best (SA, England and Argentina) for the context in which the tournament took place.

And lets not discount Argentina in 2007. They came in with a golden generation of players and at the end were 3rd overall of the RWC and rankings (not that I am willing to put too much emphasis on the rankings as its a mere snapshot and teams' approaches differ in the lead up) and SA thrashed them 37-13 in the SF. Argentina in turn annihilated France 34-10 for 3rd place, that same France that did for NZ in the QF.

So what am I getting at; its just too easy to take a string of one-off results and string them together in order to illustrate whatever you want. On the whole and all factors considered SA were good value for their ***le in 2007.

Edit:
Now if the RWC was awarded to the team that was the best across the 4 years leading up to the tournament then fine, give it to NZ. But its not. Its a tournament. And its played across less than 2 months. NZ just weren't their best right then and there. SA were.

Yeah well, I think that counts for every WC, not just 2007. Every team adapts their gameplan for the World Cup. Ensuring that the play the game in a manner that will cause their team to win and have the best defensive structure in the tournament. The World Cup final match has hardly been a try-fest in it's history, because both teams have battled through weeks of tough competition to get where they are. Both teams have sorted out all the kinks their might have been in their armour. And both teams try to play to get penalties for easier points.

It's rather unfair to any team, not just the 2007 Springboks to say that they weren't the best team in the tournament. If other teams were better, then they would have been in the final and would've beaten the opposition. But they weren't so we will never know.

 

[William18]

Yeah, but for how long??

Sure the top tier sides will power their way through to reach the QF's, but there is no denying the improvements in some of the lower tier countries and their performances. With rugby growing more popular over the world, their is a sense of inevitability that at some stage, all the pools could be groups of death.

I don't think things will change much any time soon. There are six teams in the Six Nations but Scotland and Italy are generally rubbish. Neither side has a great domestic set up and neither side seems to be improving at the youth level. The four Rugby Championship teams are always up there. The Pacific Islands are hit and miss. They never have a great build up between cups so it is all about how they can pull together. You would never count them out of the odd upset but they are just as likely to turn around and lose to Georgia. The USA/Canada are improving but need regular games against higher quality opposition.

In short, for a team to make the step up they need to be in the Rugby Championship or the Six Nations. That leaves only Scotland and Italy who can step up and neither seems likely at the moment. The Rugby Championship will almost certainly not be expanding and Six Nations expansion to include Georgia is not generally popular here. Besides, there are questions about how high Georgia's ceiling could be.

 

[Shaggy]

I don't think things will change much any time soon. There are six teams in the Six Nations but Scotland and Italy are generally rubbish. Neither side has a great domestic set up and neither side seems to be improving at the youth level. The four Rugby Championship teams are always up there. The Pacific Islands are hit and miss. They never have a great build up between cups so it is all about how they can pull together. You would never count them out of the odd upset but they are just as likely to turn around and lose to Georgia. The USA/Canada are improving but need regular games against higher quality opposition.

You mean, like the All Blacks playing the US last year, and the Wallabies playing them this year?

 

[HowieLO6]

You mean, like the All Blacks playing the US last year, and the Wallabies playing them this year?

These games are important in terms of raising the profile of the game, but I'd love to see them line up against the likes of Georgia, Japan, Uruguay, etc. While it can only be of benefit to play against the finest teams around, getting the chance to compete on a level playing field is just as important.

 

[RugbyWarfare_UK]

Wales England and Australia in one group is both exciting and disappointing. Having all 3 teams in the knock outs would be best.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Would love to see the summer rugby being more about Top tier teams playing lower league teams.

Would give season international players from a top team a rest for the summer and lesser experience game time they would not have gotten otherwise.

Might require the PNC being moved around to the AI time which IMO makes more sense.

Or at the very least get the Saxons touring again like we did with the Churchill cup.

Send the Saxons on a summer tour to the PI, or Eastern Europe or the Americas.

 

[McTallshort]

What's the problem with having a group or a number of groups of death?

 

[Peat]

The USA topic has been moved, so on with discussion of draws and groups of death.

I wish rugby had more groups of death tbh. But for that we need more strong teams. Right now, group rugby feels a wee bit of a farce to me.



p.s. That was a bit of an annoyance to do; there's no split function, I had to copy and then delete posts in both threads. I will not be in a hurry to do it again and will generally only respond to requests for a split in relatively short threads with wildly divergent tangents like these. Just so everyone's clear on that - and that's an announcement, anyone who wishes to reply to this bit should do so somewhere else, so as not to drag things off topic again.

 

[HowieLO6]

The USA topic has been moved, so on with discussion of draws and groups of death.

I wish rugby had more groups of death tbh. But for that we need more strong teams. Right now, group rugby feels a wee bit of a farce to me.



p.s. That was a bit of an annoyance to do; there's no split function, I had to copy and then delete posts in both threads. I will not be in a hurry to do it again and will generally only respond to requests for a split in relatively short threads with wildly divergent tangents like these. Just so everyone's clear on that - and that's an announcement, anyone who wishes to reply to this bit should do so somewhere else, so as not to drag things off topic again.

Fair play, thanks for that.

I like the competitiveness at the group stages, but when was there last a legitimate upset? They do seem like a foregone conclusion. This isn't like football, where a freak goal can change a result. The better teams can take their time and turn the screw.

Aside from changing the format to fewer groups with more teams in them, I'm not sure how this can be replicated on a regular basis.