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
International Test Matches
New Biennial Global tournament from 2026
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="Which Tyler" data-source="post: 1136357" data-attributes="member: 73592"><p><strong>A]</strong> NZ have never finished low enough in the previous RWC to need to qualify.</p><p>Out of interest, and with insomnia tonight, I've had a look. in '91 and '95 the 8 QFs automatically qualified (+ hosts in '95). So it was only for '99 that had the reduced numbers (previous top 3, and Wales as official hosts). NZ were obviously finalists from '95. Australia, England, Ireland & Scotland all went through qualifying (yes, Scotland were good back then). If interested, here's who played whom: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Rugby_World_Cup_%E2%80%93_European_qualification" target="_blank">Europe</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Rugby_World_Cup_%E2%80%93_Oceania_qualification" target="_blank">Oceania</a></p><p></p><p><strong>B]</strong> I'm not convinced that that would help (especially whilst playing devil's advocate) - I'm genuinely not convinced that it would help the sport as a whole by more to play in front of 100 people in Copenghagen, instead of 80,000 in Cardiff.</p><p></p><p><strong>C]</strong> Agreed entirely, not sure the relevance to this discussion, but I absolutely agree.</p><p></p><p><strong>D]</strong> Again, I agree entirely, and I absolutely detest the "tournament" that this thread is dedicated to. But I don't think that the walk-overs and injuries implicit in this thread tangent is the answer. Also agreed in not working out the details for an alternative that's never going to happen (not unless it really piques my interest, anyway).</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>A]</strong> I guess it depends on where you put the break between tiers; so I just looked at the current set-up, and increased it a bit. Of course, currently, all qualifying teams get a LOT of WR help to improve them before the RWC happens. TBH, my ideal for just about any cup tournament is 4 pools of 4 - but with the RWC already being complained about for locking out less lights, I didn't that reducing it would fly.</p><p></p><p><strong>B]</strong> I will, but I guess the time-zones make it much less of a chore for me to do so. Having said that, I don't recall missing anything other than the pointless 3rd place play-off from any RWC since graduating - even if a reasonably number were watched "as live" later, with judicious use of the "skip forward 1 minute" button.</p><p></p><p><strong>C]</strong> I loved the old Churchill Cup - but IIRC it failed because USA and Canada didn't want to play everyone else's second teams, and demanded to play first XVs, even though they couldn't beat the 2nd XVs. Whilst I love the idea of that, and I love the idea of sending 2nd XVs out to tour Tier 2 nations whilst the big boys have their main tours; it seems like it's a solution that only the big boys (and not all of them) actually like, whilst the Tier 2 teams feel condescended to by the idea. I'd suggest that as the Tier 2 teams are getting ever more exposure to each other, it may also be harder for them to fit such a tour into their schedule as well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Which Tyler, post: 1136357, member: 73592"] [B]A][/B] NZ have never finished low enough in the previous RWC to need to qualify. Out of interest, and with insomnia tonight, I've had a look. in '91 and '95 the 8 QFs automatically qualified (+ hosts in '95). So it was only for '99 that had the reduced numbers (previous top 3, and Wales as official hosts). NZ were obviously finalists from '95. Australia, England, Ireland & Scotland all went through qualifying (yes, Scotland were good back then). If interested, here's who played whom: [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Rugby_World_Cup_%E2%80%93_European_qualification']Europe[/URL], [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Rugby_World_Cup_%E2%80%93_Oceania_qualification']Oceania[/URL] [B]B][/B] I'm not convinced that that would help (especially whilst playing devil's advocate) - I'm genuinely not convinced that it would help the sport as a whole by more to play in front of 100 people in Copenghagen, instead of 80,000 in Cardiff. [B]C][/B] Agreed entirely, not sure the relevance to this discussion, but I absolutely agree. [B]D][/B] Again, I agree entirely, and I absolutely detest the "tournament" that this thread is dedicated to. But I don't think that the walk-overs and injuries implicit in this thread tangent is the answer. Also agreed in not working out the details for an alternative that's never going to happen (not unless it really piques my interest, anyway). [B]A][/B] I guess it depends on where you put the break between tiers; so I just looked at the current set-up, and increased it a bit. Of course, currently, all qualifying teams get a LOT of WR help to improve them before the RWC happens. TBH, my ideal for just about any cup tournament is 4 pools of 4 - but with the RWC already being complained about for locking out less lights, I didn't that reducing it would fly. [B]B][/B] I will, but I guess the time-zones make it much less of a chore for me to do so. Having said that, I don't recall missing anything other than the pointless 3rd place play-off from any RWC since graduating - even if a reasonably number were watched "as live" later, with judicious use of the "skip forward 1 minute" button. [B]C][/B] I loved the old Churchill Cup - but IIRC it failed because USA and Canada didn't want to play everyone else's second teams, and demanded to play first XVs, even though they couldn't beat the 2nd XVs. Whilst I love the idea of that, and I love the idea of sending 2nd XVs out to tour Tier 2 nations whilst the big boys have their main tours; it seems like it's a solution that only the big boys (and not all of them) actually like, whilst the Tier 2 teams feel condescended to by the idea. I'd suggest that as the Tier 2 teams are getting ever more exposure to each other, it may also be harder for them to fit such a tour into their schedule as well. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
New Biennial Global tournament from 2026
Top