Thoughts on the one-sided results

[Which Tyler]

This is the first world cup where we've got sides who've been professional for a few years, playing against amateurs largely lacking in centralised (WR) support.
Which makes it the equivalent of the 1999 men's world cup (also 4 pools of 4).
Which saw results like:
Pool A:
Scotland 43–12 Uruguay
South Africa 47–3 Spain
South Africa 39–3 Uruguay
Scotland 48–0 Spain

Pool B:
England 67–7 Italy
New Zealand 45–9 Tonga
New Zealand 101–3 Italy
England 101–10 Tonga

Pool C:
Fiji 67–18 Namibia
France 47–13 Namibia
Canada 72–11 Namibia

Pool D:
Samoa 43–9 Japan
Wales 64–15 Japan

Biggest score so far this RWC is England 92-3 Samoa; it took until 2011 before the men didn't beat that as a hammering (biggest score NZ 83 - 7 Japan), excluding purely amateur RWCs. I believe the men's record RWC score stands as Australia 142 - 0 Namibia from 2003.

Of course, none of this means that anyone has to enjoy the less-competitive matches; or the rugby itself that's on display. But please acknowledge that A] these mis-matches were all known beforehand, B] they are not unique to the women's game, and C] that the game is capable of growing beyond them.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I don’t think anyone would argue with A and B.

But I’m doubtful on C for countries that struggle to even support the men’s game. Hope I’m wrong, but unfortunately all I see is an increasing gap between a very very few ‘haves’ and the rest.

All 6 finals since 2002 have been Eng v NZ bar 2014 when it was Eng v Canada. It’s hard to see the dial being materially shifted any time soon.

 

[Reiser99]

Unfortunately rugby seems to have a much larger gap between professional teams and amateur teams than other sports, for example football. Yes we've had a few upsets, but they are very rare. Hopefully more teams can close the gap, but if the men's game is an example then it will be a long time if ever.

 

[9215.]

Good points, a lot of people seem to conveniently forget about the one-sided men’s games.
Not really the same point, but scoreline related, I found it interesting that many were saying that England looked average against Australia and NZ looked outstanding against Ireland when both games had the same winning margin.

 

[Jimbo]

I don't think anyone would argue with A and B.

But I'm doubtful on C for countries that struggle to even support the men's game. Hope I'm wrong, but unfortunately all I see is an increasing gap between a very very few 'haves' and the rest.

All 6 finals since 2002 have been Eng v NZ bar 2014 when it was Eng v Canada. It's hard to see the dial being materially shifted any time soon.

I’ve pretty much been following the women’s game since the last WC, NZ whilst still extremely good are probably not the force they were, France were getting better and on their day a force to be reckoned with, Canada very good but from what I’d gathered (largely through commentary) maybe don’t have a new generation and their current one is aging, SA aren’t there yet but are much improved they were not previously on my radar but have definitely cemented themselves as chasers behind the normal lot. USA not where they perhaps were. Spain and some other nations have taken heavy defeats but shown a lot of heart and after the game the amount of respect and enjoyment is next level. Really it’s all guess work ultimately the next WC cycle, an honoury mention probably needs to go to Ireland and Scotland they may not currently compete with the top four but feel like they are a lot better than 4 years ago.