World Cup is overrated

[smartcooky]

That shows how important it is the genetic. Countries like Japan and Sri Lanka have many players, but their average male size is smaller than other rugby countries like the Pacific Islands.

And to think that some here treated me like a racist just for telling the truth.

That is likely so true, and it is also very funny (and you have no idea why!!!)

 

[msf]

I don't really get this argument, in that the challenge is to win the World Cup, rather than to be the best team in the world for 4 years. If you think this is a better aim, why pick 4 years? The only reason is it is 4 years is because it is one World Cup cycle. The only alternative would be a cricket (test match) style system where it's all about the rankings, but I doubt that help to make rugby more popular. If you want something even more unnatural, how about the Lions? If you got rid of both of these I would definitely be less into international rugby.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and I was really expecting the person who started the thread to be an NZ supporter getting there excuses in early, I guess they must be confident this year (as they should be).

 

[Jaguares]

I don't really get this argument, in that the challenge is to win the World Cup, rather than to be the best team in the world for 4 years. If you think this is a better aim, why pick 4 years? The only reason is it is 4 years is because it is one World Cup cycle. The only alternative would be a cricket (test match) style system where it's all about the rankings, but I doubt that help to make rugby more popular. If you want something even more unnatural, how about the Lions? If you got rid of both of these I would definitely be less into international rugby.

The Rugby World Cup is successful, should not be changed. We have more supporters and more sponsors than almost any other World Cups, except FIFA World Cup.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't really get this argument, in that the challenge is to win the World Cup, rather than to be the best team in the world for 4 years. If you think this is a better aim, why pick 4 years? The only reason is it is 4 years is because it is one World Cup cycle. The only alternative would be a cricket (test match) style system where it's all about the rankings, but I doubt that help to make rugby more popular. If you want something even more unnatural, how about the Lions? If you got rid of both of these I would definitely be less into international rugby.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and I was really expecting the person who started the thread to be an NZ supporter getting there excuses in early, I guess they must be confident this year (as they should be).

In Sevens we have a World Championship every year and a World Cup every four years. Some other sports have a similar arrangement. Rowing have both every year, but one is a single hosted tournament, the other is a series of smaller regattas with accumulated points.

Personally, I would like to see a World Championship or Champion of Champions play-off match every year (Rugby Championship winners v Six Nations Champions). It has actually happened "accidentally" eight times since the 3N/RC started in 1996 at the outset of the professional game

1996 No match
1997 No match
1998 No match
1999 RWC year
2000 England v Australia (22-19)
2001 England v Australia (21-15)
2002 France v New Zealand 20-20 draw
2003 RWC Year
2004 No match
2005 Wales v New Zealand (3-41)
2006 France v New Zealand (3-47) and a second match (11-23)
2007 RWC year
2008 Wales v New Zealand (9-29)
2009 Ireland v South Africa (15-10)
2010 No match
2011 RWC year
2012 Wales v New Zealand (10-33)
2013 No match
2014 No match
I think there has been a missed opportunity to market these games as a World Championship play-off. It cannot be too hard to arrange for this to happen every year (except World Cup years since no EOYT matches are played). Make it always on the last weekend of the Autumn Internationals. IMO this would be the ideal thing to make international rugby a little more meaningful between World Cups.

 

[tituslechmakus]

I'd prefer an all star game every year or 2 : NH all star vs SH all star, rather than a Lion's tour. This would make rugby more popular ! And on at the same period, having a Super rugby winner vs Hcup winner could be also fun !

But this type of event is faaaaar too new and inovativ for those dinosaurs leading World Rugby ...

 

[Feicarsinn]

In Sevens we have a World Championship every year and a World Cup every four years. Some other sports have a similar arrangement. Rowing have both every year, but one is a single hosted tournament, the other is a series of smaller regattas with accumulated points.

Personally, I would like to see a World Championship or Champion of Champions play-off match every year (Rugby Championship winners v Six Nations Champions). It has actually happened "accidentally" eight times since the 3N/RC started in 1996 at the outset of the professional game

1996 No match
1997 No match
1998 No match
1999 RWC year
2000 England v Australia (22-19)
2001 England v Australia (21-15)
2002 France v New Zealand 20-20 draw
2003 RWC Year
2004 No match
2005 Wales v New Zealand (3-41)
2006 France v New Zealand (3-47) and a second match (11-23)
2007 RWC year
2008 Wales v New Zealand (9-29)
2009 Ireland v South Africa (15-10)
2010 No match
2011 RWC year
2012 Wales v New Zealand (10-33)
2013 No match
2014 No match
I think there has been a missed opportunity to market these games as a World Championship play-off. It cannot be too hard to arrange for this to happen every year (except World Cup years since no EOYT matches are played). Make it always on the last weekend of the Autumn Internationals. IMO this would be the ideal thing to make international rugby a little more meaningful between World Cups.

Dilutes the World Cup as an event. The reason why the WC is a special tournament is because it's seven games to decide who gets to call themselves the world champions for the next four years.

I think the last thing union should be doing is borrowing structures from sevens.

 

[goodNumber10]

I'd prefer an all star game every year or 2 : NH all star vs SH all star, rather than a Lion's tour.

No! Just no!

 

[tituslechmakus]

No! Just no!

Why ?

 

[goodNumber10]

Because the Lions is the best thing in rugby bar none.

 

[Peat]

You can see why a Frenchman might disagree though...

I wouldn't watch an All Star game. It just simply wouldn't matter enough to the players.

 

[goodNumber10]

You can see why a Frenchman might disagree though...

I wouldn't watch an All Star game. It just simply wouldn't matter enough to the players.

completely understand, and all star games have very little interest to me.

 

[msf]

If France ever get their act together and exploit the potential they have, there could be a Lions tour of France every 16 years (assuming England don't get their act together). I know we have the 6 nations, but none of the Home Nations play a series against France, and it would be good to see the Lions against the best team in Europe, i.e. Toulon.

- - - Updated - - -

Although I guess Toulon are the best team in Europe because they are full of Southern Hemisphere players, so maybe it's better to just go there to play them.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway, seems a bit unfair that France doesn't get to enjoy the Lions.

 

[tituslechmakus]

completely understand, and all star games have very little interest to me.

And what's the difference between an all star game and a Lion's tour ? Aren't the Lions a British Isles all star team ?

 

[goodNumber10]

And what's the difference between an all star game and a Lion's tour ? Aren't the Lions a British Isles all star team ?

100+ years of History.

 

[Peat]

And what's the difference between an all star game and a Lion's tour ? Aren't the Lions a British Isles all star team ?

The difference between tour and game. A tour creates a story and more importantly, it creates a team; you just stick 15 players on the pitch, and the results usually underwhelm (as proven by the Barbarians repeatedly). No one-off game between brand new teams will ever interest me that much. The tour avoids that.

And, as noted, the other difference is a hundred years of history. There is a huge emotional weight and honour to playing for and against the Lions that means you get a real test match intensity - if not higher - that you tend not to see in one-off games with one-off teams.

 

[Feicarsinn]

The NFL Pro Bowl is viewed as something of a joke. I have no doubt a rugby equivalent would be treated similarly. Nothing on the line, no real back story.

Take a look at the story of a Lions tour. You have a bunch of players from the the British Isles, countries that are traditionally fierce rivals and at the end of gruelling international and domestic seasons you pick the best that are available and you send them down to the three hardest places to go in the game and tell them to win a series against one of the three best sides in the world. You have to bond rivals in a matter of weeks and form a team that can compete. You have to convince players that have only known defeat at the hands of the southern hemisphere that they can win. For the players it's a once in a career opportunity. They may never wear a Lions jersey again and will almost certainly never tour the same country twice. There'll be personal tragedies through injury and unexpected stars will be born. It's two months of rugby drama and intrigue and it's brilliant. Best game I've ever seen? 2009 2nd test. For me it's what The Lions is all about. Pure Hollywood.

On the other hand an All Star game would probably be very similar to a modern Barbarians game. Poo..

 

[psychic duck]

You can see why a Frenchman might disagree though...

I wouldn't watch an All Star game. It just simply wouldn't matter enough to the players.

Cricket tried an equivalent 'all star series' back in 2005 with a World XI playing Australia and it was a horrendously awful.

 

[goodNumber10]

If France ever get their act together and exploit the potential they have, there could be a Lions tour of France every 16 years (assuming England don't get their act together). I know we have the 6 nations, but none of the Home Nations play a series against France, and it would be good to see the Lions against the best team in Europe, i.e. Toulon.

- - - Updated - - -

Although I guess Toulon are the best team in Europe because they are full of Southern Hemisphere players, so maybe it's better to just go there to play them.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway, seems a bit unfair that France doesn't get to enjoy the Lions.

they did once. they played a British and Irish Lions XV in 1989 (it was basically the test team from the Aussie tour that summer), we won 29-27.

there was an interesting article about all this in Rugby World recently.

 

[ncurd]

win a series against one of the three best sides in the world.

I don't think we can really push to say Australia are one of three best sides in the world whilst they are up there in the best sides in world they mix it up with England, Ireland a bit too much. To be honest apart from saying NZ are the best side in world consistently SA are a tiny bit ahead in 2nd place and it's pretty even amongst the rest until you get to Scotland/Argentina.

 

[Feicarsinn]

I meant in a general sense.