• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Tokyo Olympics Rugby 7s

Hang on, is samoa really not as good as korea these days, or is there some unfair qualifying process? Or does samoa just nit have the money to compete?
Ok, so learnt the qualifying process had different regions. Frankly thats ridiculous for the olympics, the best teams should be allowed to attend.

so ireland v kenya for a place in the quarters, and three teams from pool A looks like whats happening.

None of the quarterfinals will be obvious, so placings going into that dont matter too much, just have to win three games once you are there. In saying that, id prefer we finish in top spot and get to play ireland or kenya.

Four of the 6 remaining pool games will be interesting to watch too.
 
Ok, so learnt the qualifying process had different regions. Frankly thats ridiculous for the olympics, the best teams should be allowed to attend.

so ireland v kenya for a place in the quarters, and three teams from pool A looks like whats happening.

None of the quarterfinals will be obvious, so placings going into that dont matter too much, just have to win three games once you are there. In saying that, id prefer we finish in top spot and get to play ireland or kenya.

Four of the 6 remaining pool games will be interesting to watch too.

You know that is literally the case for pretty much every global competition.
RWC is regional based and that is the top of the XV's game so why shouldn't the 7's be?
 
You know that is literally the case for pretty much every global competition.
RWC is regional based and that is the top of the XV's game so why shouldn't the 7's be?
Yes i know that, but i dont believe its generally the case for the olympics? Global sports can do what they want, its a business. The olympics isnt supposed to be about the money aspect, its supposed to be about working out what countries or persons/teams are the best.

in at least some other olympic events the attendance of a lesser natiin diesnt prevent a better nation from attending. They can either bith attend, or the best gets to attend.
 
Last edited:
Yes i know that, but i dont believe its generally the case for the olympics? Global sports can do what they want, its a business. The olympics isnt supposed to be about the money aspect, its supposed to be about working out what countries or persons/teams are the best.

in at least some other olympic events the attendance of a lesser natiin diesnt prevent a better nation from attending. They can either bith attend, or the best gets to attend.

80% sure that every team sport has regional qualifications
The aim isn't so much money more covering more areas.
 
Yes i know that, but i dont believe its generally the case for the olympics? Global sports can do what they want, its a business. The olympics isnt supposed to be about the money aspect, its supposed to be about working out what countries or persons/teams are the best.

in at least some other olympic events the attendance of a lesser natiin diesnt prevent a better nation from attending. They can either bith attend, or the best gets to attend.
Even in individual competitions nations are limited to number of entries no matter how good their athletes are. It's pretty much par for course in just about every everything not to mention the host gets a berth in all sports regardless of how shite they are at it.
 
80% sure that every team sport has regional qualifications
The aim isn't so much money more covering more areas.
Why though? What have areas got to do with anything? I can understand for a business, for gaining a wider audience, but not fir the olympics. I could also understand if it was about being inclusive, but regions dont achieve that either. Id rather samoa, a small and poor country who has only one olympic medal in its history, were given their fair chance of getting a medal rather than korea due to some random criteria - they are located in a certain region
Even in individual competitions nations are limited to number of entries no matter how good their athletes are. It's pretty much par for course in just about every everything not to mention the host gets a berth in all sports regardless of how shite they are at it.
yes within a country, but nit between countries. and thars fine because the olympics is a competition between countries, in fact id rather inly one participant from a given country can participate in any given event.
 
Why though? What have areas got to do with anything? I can understand for a business, for gaining a wider audience, but not fir the olympics. I could also understand if it was about being inclusive, but regions dont achieve that either. Id rather samoa, a small and poor country who has only one olympic medal in its history, were given their fair chance of getting a medal rather than korea due to some random criteria - they are located in a certain region

yes within a country, but nit between countries. and thars fine because the olympics is a competition between countries, in fact id rather inly one participant from a given country can participate in any given event.

That's what the regions do though.

France finished 6th last year in the world rugby series and didn't make it.
 
That's what the regions do though.

France finished 6th last year in the world rugby series and didn't make it.
I dont agree that regions are achieving that goal. Looking at the olympics as a whole, samoa's exclusion from this event makes a big difference to how included they are in the olympics as a whole. Even not looking at the olympics as a whole, why should there be two asian teams rather than two pacific island teams in the sevens?

Nor do i believe its the rationale behind it, i believe the rationale is money - having a diverse audience. Believe is a strong word, im just speculating here.

Why not have a gdp based qualifier instead, for instance, as an inclusion objective?
 
New Zealand is a pacific team also.
Also in a normal competition they would be only 1 Asian team BUT Japan qualify automatically due the home nation rule for all sports.

Countries miss out, but all regions are represented along with having the top 4 teams in the world.
 
New Zealand is a pacific team also.
Also in a normal competition they would be only 1 Asian team BUT Japan qualify automatically due the home nation rule for all sports.

Countries miss out, but all regions are represented along with having the top 4 teams in the world.
Maybe you could explain why you think the current approach is a good one. The only argument you have made (?) is that a regional approach is inclusive. You havent said in what way a regional approach is inclusive. Would it also be inclusive if you randomly allocated countries inti groups, rather than geographically? Or is there something more to regions than geography? Are south korea and republic of korea somehow the same in a mire important way than say japan and the usa are? You also imply (?) that from an inclusion perspective new zealand and samoa should be lumped together. Why?
 
Well done canada, didnt pick them making the quarters. New zealand should be relatively strong favourites against them, though its not a given they will win. All the other games pretty hard to pick, such is the nature of sevens these days.

fiji made a big statement against great britian and so must be favourites now, if they werent already.
 
Tough ending to the match vs Kenya, didn't build on the quick start and a few blown scoring opportunities from guys who were key in getting us there.
 
Deliberate knock on costing USA massively here.
 
Our cable, phone and internet bundle was down for almost 24 hours due to a storm and I missed the USA vs South Africa match. I figured SA would win but I still wanted to watch it. The cable always seems to go down when you're really looking forward to watching something. o_O It's frustrating!
 
Did not expect us to win that at all,
Strong start by USA

Not sure who we'll have in the semis
 
Didnt one of the gbr players literally jumped a tackle in the play that lead to gbr's last try?
 

Latest posts

Top