RWC 2023 Predictions

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I don't think the Boks starting XV is OP, but their depth is a bit stupid. I am very impressed with what the coaches are getting out of their centres, who I have never really rated. I imagine the halfbacks deserve some credit for enabling the centres also. I think they are far ahead of the pack because they are the only side I see with all of the following:

- an A grade defence
- top tier ability at set piece and in open play
- top tier ability to defend a lead and to come from behind
- a proven coaching team

I think the existing Bok flyhalf options are criminally overlooked and that Pollard is a high 70s% kicker and game manager who got pushed aside by Garbisi (who I do not particularly rate that highly either). Pollard is not the saviour (Faf kicks just fine) and the Boks fortunes here are not dependent on him. By all means, if he is fit to play his return is a boost to the squad he is an excellent professional that probably fits in better with a Boks playing more conservatively.

The Boks PPG has ballooned since last November, so in the unlikely event they need to break the glass and face an emergency (e.g. an early red card) then they can cut loose.

I do think all the other top 4 can all beat the Boks on their day. Possibly Scotland also if they start George Horne and somehow have a perfect performance (neither of which will happen).

I think Ireland break the QF hoodoo and reach the final (if Sexton plays). If they get there, they are guaranteed a tough QF. They will have to fight for the full 80 and that should keep any nerves in check and keep them in 'battle mode'. They have also been way above 90 ranking points for quite some time now, so should have a level of consistency to help keep any jitters at bay.

I think the ABs come out snarling against France, get a win on opening night but fail to step up to the level of Ireland or the Boks in the QF. They will reap what they sow in keeping Foster, even in a diminshed capacity).

I think France are possibly going to the poop the bed and be booed/jeered in the pool stages (hopefully against Italy, but Italy are a bit banged up). France are relying on individual brilliance and flair and I think that melts like ice-cream infront of a demanding home crowd quite when things start to take a bad turn.

QFs
Ireland vs France (Ireland win group)
Boks vs NZ
Pumas vs Wallabies
England vs Wales

SFs
Ireland vs Wales
Boks vs Pumas

Final
Boks beat Ireland

 

[Jimbo]

It's hard to see past a SA win, their depth in the forwards is insane, on both recent occasions they lost to France and Ireland it was narrow and (if memory serves correctly) down to 14 due to reds, this was probably a valuable discipline lesion, provided they learned from it and keep them on (descent more resent record) it's hard to see past them, I'd also add they didn't look at their absolute best in those games but have defiantly moved on since.

 

[Welsh Exile]

As long as it's not Ireland or England I don't care.

Actually and also Scotland, France, NZ, SA, Australia or Argentina.

 

[Welsh Exile]

If you put £100 on England, Wales and Ireland to get knocked out at group stage you can pocket yourself £33k.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

So many of you are putting yourselves on my enemies lost before I even get highly irrational.

I do prefer the hate first approach though.

Anyone but: England, Argentina
I'd rather **** in my hands, clap and eat a blt: Wales, South Africa
I'd really want to ruin their fans day through effective trolling: NZ, Scotland
I wouldn't really mind but I wouldn't celebrate: Australia and Italy
I'd drunkenly sing their national anthem cuz I know it for some reason: France

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Anyone but: England

England fans reading people wanting them to lose



Join the queue!

 

[AlRums]

As long as it's not Ireland or England I don't care.

Actually and also Scotland, France, NZ, SA, Australia or Argentina.

Add Fiji to that list and you've got everyone ranked above Wales

 

[Brigantine]

Add Fiji to that list and you've got everyone ranked above Wales

add Georgia and Samoa and at the end of the group stage you'll still have everyone ranked above Wales. Although 3 of them won't be in the running any more

 

[SG59_]

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Ah you got me on a boring Monday morning, I was about 4 years sober from them.

Their unanimous disagreement with Matt Williams makes me think that a mandatory 6-2 split is the only answer. 5-3 can't be right if Matt suggests it and 7-1 can't be right if they like it, so by process of elimination...

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Actually and also Scotland, France, NZ, SA, Australia or Argentina.

I guarantee it won't be Scotland.

 

[SG59_]

Ah you got me on a boring Monday morning, I was about 4 years sober from them.

Their unanimous disagreement with Matt Williams makes me think that a mandatory 6-2 split is the only answer. 5-3 can't be right if Matt suggests it and 7-1 can't be right if they like it, so by process of elimination...

You know how you get a vibe off some people without really knowing them?
I think JB drives an audi. He seems that type of person.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

It's amazing how little credit World Rugby gets for all the funding, administrative help, coaching assistance, player availability, and setting up of competitive(ish) rugby it's put in place for the 2nd tier nations over the last 20+ years.

I genuinely can't tell if you are being serious or not. I can't think of another (not small) team sport that talks so much about development while doing everything it can to resemble an old boys' club.
When you think about it, it actually takes quite the effort and planning to achieve such a level of mischievousness. It's actually quite impressive.

Talk to some people involved in rugby in tiers 2/3: Roumania, Georgia, Chile, Uruguay, Spain. Ask them about WR, and listen to what they have to say. Or, just for kicks, look at things like dunno, the referees present at the current RWC. Fifa, as corrupt an org as it gets, wouldn't even dare to do something like that.

 

[Which Tyler]

Of course I'm serious - there is ALWAYS room for nuance.

Saying that WR deserve "no credit" in developing tier 2 nations means that the European/Pacific Nations Cup, Americas Rugby Championship, Rugby Africa Cup are all bad things.

Saying that WR deserve "no credit" in developing tier 2 nations means that championing for Italy to join the 5nations, and Argentina to join the Tri Nations, and clubs from both of those nations (and Dura, and Moana) to joint the club competitions is a bad thing.

Saying that WR deserve "no credit" in developing tier 2 nations means that giving professional coaches to nations that previously had no coaches is a bad thing.

Saying that WR deserve "no credit" in developing tier 2 nations means that instigating international windows where clubs HAVE to release players to their international teams is a bad thing.

Saying that WR deserve "no credit" in developing tier 2 nations means that handing a RWC to Japan, and another to USA are bad things.

Saying that WR deserve "no credit" in developing tier 2 nations means that instigating, then stiffening residency requirements for international representation is a bad thing, as is instigating a way to switch once capped (bear in mind, we're talking about "bad thing for tier 2 nations" here).

Saying that WR deserves "no credit" in developing tier 2 nations means that rugby being an Olympic sport is a bad thing.



It is perfectly possible to say "WR deserve credit for things they do well, and castigation for things they do badly" and to sincerely mean it.
It's also perfectly possible to think that, AND think that there's (a lot of) room for improvement.
If you believe that WR has done one, single thing to benefit tier 2 rugby in the last... let's say 36 years, (since the first RWC), then the credit they deserve is greater than zero.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I guarantee it won't be Scotland.

True. We'll easily beat them in the semi.

 

[Stade Rochelais]

Ah you got me on a boring Monday morning, I was about 4 years sober from them.

Their unanimous disagreement with Matt Williams makes me think that a mandatory 6-2 split is the only answer. 5-3 can't be right if Matt suggests it and 7-1 can't be right if they like it, so by process of elimination...

So my little Irishman, what stage do you see the Irish rugby team reaching in the competition? And lose against whom if you see them fall ?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

So my little Irishman, what stage do you see the Irish rugby team reaching in the competition? And lose against whom if you see them fall ?

Already posted

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Of course I'm serious - there is ALWAYS room for nuance.

Saying that WR deserve "no credit" in developing tier 2 nations means that the European/Pacific Nations Cup, Americas Rugby Championship, Rugby Africa Cup are all bad things.

Saying that WR deserve "no credit" in developing tier 2 nations means that championing for Italy to join the 5nations, and Argentina to join the Tri Nations, and clubs from both of those nations (and Dura, and Moana) to joint the club competitions is a bad thing.

Saying that WR deserve "no credit" in developing tier 2 nations means that giving professional coaches to nations that previously had no coaches is a bad thing.

Saying that WR deserve "no credit" in developing tier 2 nations means that instigating international windows where clubs HAVE to release players to their international teams is a bad thing.

Saying that WR deserve "no credit" in developing tier 2 nations means that handing a RWC to Japan, and another to USA are bad things.

Saying that WR deserve "no credit" in developing tier 2 nations means that instigating, then stiffening residency requirements for international representation is a bad thing, as is instigating a way to switch once capped (bear in mind, we're talking about "bad thing for tier 2 nations" here).

Saying that WR deserves "no credit" in developing tier 2 nations means that rugby being an Olympic sport is a bad thing.



It is perfectly possible to say "WR deserve credit for things they do well, and castigation for things they do badly" and to sincerely mean it.
It's also perfectly possible to think that, AND think that there's (a lot of) room for improvement.
If you believe that WR has done one, single thing to benefit tier 2 rugby in the last... let's say 36 years, (since the first RWC), then the credit they deserve is greater than zero.

I give World Rugby credit for:
i) getting 7s into the olympics to popularise the sport
ii) reasonably effective/sensible rule changes to try and ensure 8 man rugby does not become the sole dominant / viable tactic and keeping the sport attractive for viewers

It is true WR hand out development funds to some Tier2 unions. This is better than nothing but goes disproportionately to favoured unions ($3.5million to the PIs for Super Rugby for example).

Almost everything WR has done in my lifetime before and after the influence of Pichot (and excluding the Olympics) appears driven at favouring Tier1 and maintaining a bunch of friendly playthings (PIs and North America) to keep international participation levels respectable. These are the desired Tier2 guests to the WR club. Japan may or may not be in the favoured group because of their commercial potential but Tier1 appears to prefer a parasitic relationship with them where player salaries can be topped up and coaches can increase their pension pot.

Even cricket recently risked Sri Lanka missing out on World Cup qualification by having to compete against the likes of Netherlands in a qualifiers. I doubt we will see such a thing in rugby in my lifetime.

To pick out some of your random points. I would argue Italy 6N membership and Japan / US RWC were all done out of self serving greed by WR due to commercial opportunity in those specific nations. Thats why it wasn't Romania to the 6N plus Russia and Brazilian world cups for example). The 6N has been closed for 23 subsequent years to teams better than Italy so isn't the greatest example or WR ambition.

Argentina were only permitted TRC membership after somehow getting to 2x RWC semifinals despite effectively being exlcuded from the club (a miracle to this day). So the motivation there was the extreme embarassment of excluding such a top side. WR were more than happy for Argentina to be excluded when they were only a 1x RWC seminfinalist. They were also happy for Argentina to leave SR at the same time as WR subsidised PI joining SR.

Now we have World Rugby on the cusp of intentionally removing any oversight it has over mid year and EOY test windows in terms of who Tier1 unions play. Handing this over to 6N and SANZAAR. Combine that with the bizarrely skewed voting rights in the World Rugby Council (where unions like Scotland that do not even have a 7s programme still get the full 3 votes) and you have a setup aimed at self preservation of the status quo and insulated from the threat of the loss of control which may come from the game being truly global and democratic (e.g. one union = one vote).

 

[Which Tyler]

Just a couple of points, because I do agree with the overall thrust, and am not interested in defending WR any more than I feel I have to...

Even cricket recently risked Sri Lanka missing out on World Cup qualification by having to compete against the likes of Netherlands in a qualifiers. I doubt we will see such a thing in rugby in my lifetime.

England played the Netherlands in order to qualify for the 1999 tournament - it was frankly dangerous, even with England being particularly good at voluntarily holding back. So you probably already have seen such a thing in rugby.

To pick out some of your random points. I would argue Italy 6N membership and Japan / US RWC were all done out of self serving greed by WR due to commercial opportunity in those specific nations. Thats why it wasn't Romania to the 6N plus Russia and Brazilian world cups for example). The 6N has been closed for 23 subsequent years to teams better than Italy so isn't the greatest example or WR ambition.

WR doesn't run the 6N (or the 3N) they're are private events, WR can't force them to invite anyone they don't want to, but did work hard behind the scenes to get Italy and Argentina in. I'm not aware of WR earning a single penny out of the 6N or 3N, in which case, those decisions are commercially neutral for WR. IT's reminiscent of blaming the RFU for PRL being a bunch of dicks.

It was Italy into the 6N, not Romania, because Italy was good, and was the 6th best team in Europe by a very long way in the second half of the 90s.
As for RWC hosts - yep, again, we live in a world where money is important, Japan, and USA are huge risks for WR.

Argentina were only permitted TRC membership after somehow getting to 2x RWC semifinals despite effectively being exlcuded from the club (a miracle to this day). So the motivation there was the extreme embarassment of excluding such a top side. WR were more than happy for Argentina to be excluded when they were only a 1x RWC seminfinalist. They were also happy for Argentina to leave SR at the same time as WR subsidised PI joining SR.

Again, the 3N (and SR) was a private entity, WR had no authority to impose team on them. They did spend over a decade lobbying on behalf of Argentina to join the 3N though - which is hardly "WR were more than happy for Argentina to be excluded"
I'm going to need to see some evidence that WR were happy for Argentina to leave SR, rather than just a claim. "Happy" being significantly different to "Had no say in" - of course, nobody is obliged to hunt for evidence.

Now we have World Rugby on the cusp of intentionally removing any oversight it has over mid year and EOY test windows in terms of who Tier1 unions play. Handing this over to 6N and SANZAAR. Combine that with the bizarrely skewed voting rights in the World Rugby Council (where unions like Scotland that do not even have a 7s programme still get the full 3 votes) and you have a setup aimed at self preservation of the status quo and insulated from the threat of the loss of control which may come from the game being truly global and democratic (e.g. one union = one vote).

Yep, fully agreed, and I think I'm on record here as being pissed off about it.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I'm back on eggchasers after a year since my last hit and probably not listening weekly since 2016. JB is such a tool but they do talk rugby better than anyone.