-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
World Cup Pools
- Thread starter Which Tyler
- Start date
Got England tickets vs Samoa at The Gardens. £20 each and really looking forward to it.
I would have loved Gloucester to have hosted, but I can see why they chose Bristol
More tickets released and still available for games including England today. England vs USA available for £10 etc if anyone is interested.
Last edited:
Moved here, from the England v USA thread where... it's less relevant
England were officially professional before anyone else - though messing about, alternating between XVs and 7s.
England were properly professional in approach before anyone else.
England have the only (?) fully professional league.
TBH, we only that one from 58 due to some horrendous decisions (in 2 matches) gifting the NZ RWC to NZ - the SF against France being particularly egregious.
On their day, all of France, NZ and Canada can beat us.
France have regressed since the last RWC (where they were arguably the best team there), and whilst they're better than anyone other than those 3, they're unlikely to challenge. Always seem happy to be 2nd best in the 6N. They can close down our outside backs, but are vulnerable to our steamrolling maul.
New Zealand are a great unknown - they just don't play enough against decent opposition to properly judge them. WXV should give us a better idea once properly established. Recent results have seen them draw (and lose) against Canada, beat France, but also lose to Ireland and England. They've got their taliswoman back for this, but at 33, and (I think) not having played XVs since the last RWC - they should need more.
Canada are good, with a powerful pack - they're probably best placed to stop England's rolling maul, but I'm not sure they've got the organisation in defence - or the pace out wide, to stop our back-3.
England have the best all-round game, but under Mitchell, we're not the best at bringing our speedsters into the game (though they're so good, they can often make it work anyway). We'd be so much more lethal if we used them a little more - especially if Kildunne could develop her passing game - love her, but she either scores, dies with the ball, or passes the ball as part of a set play, but often poorly, and whilst she may have scared a defender, if passing, she does so without committing them.
Of the rest:
USA (first RWC winners) has really moved backwards since other teams went even semi-pro. It used to be enough for them to simply have a huge population of excellent athletes, and spend a couple of months teaching them the laws of rugby. Not anymore, and they're dropping down the rankings.
Scotland and Wales, and they turned professional just in time for the last RWC, and between that and the PWC starting up, they've come on leaps and bounds - but they're still putting structures in place to actually develop and exploit talent.
Ireland are trying to go it alone with a professional league of their own - the last of the 6N teams to go pro, but they're doing the opposite of Wales & Scotland, starting with the structures, and building from the ground up. They can compete with Wales and Scotland, and on their day, with France and New Zealand, but it's a RWC too early for them to really think about not-losing a semi-final.
Italy - they've a few stars (Rigoni especially) but little depth. If all are fit, there's nothing really in it between Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Wales (but that order is about right).
Australia are also worth a mention in this "also-ran" bit. I've not seen enough of them recently to comment intelligently, but they're ranked between Ireland and Italy. I've only seen them lose to the other teams I've mentioned so far (except USA). If it wasn't for their ranking, I'd put them around USA, South Africa, Japan, Fiji as being there to make up the numbers. TBF, they did beat Wales and Scotland last year - I just missed them.
One thing I will really note about the improvement that professionalism has brought - is the kicking.
3 years ago a kick at the post from dead in front, and 22m out was still only a 60%(ish) chance. A kick to touch from around central in the field (laterally) was unlikely to make any ground at all - pretty much kick straight laterally.
Now you're seeing conversions even from tries in the corner (not as high a %age as the men, obviously), and a kick to touch from central location will make you a good 20m or territory gain with it.
Obviously, kicking is a skill that needs repetition, being professional, with the capacity to just spend a full hour every day doing it has brought incredible gains already, even for kickers who don't have an specialist kicking coach.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 22,592
- Reaction score
- 10,910
Will try to get into this. Can't say I'm a follower of women's rugby, it usually competes with golf and the men's game for my attention and loses out but there's next to no competition the next few weeks.
Women's golf is, on average, a better watch than the men's game, don't think I expect that from rugby just based on the aspects of the game I find entertaining but looking forward to it. Don't expect much from Ireland from what I know but as stated above, we've started the journey later than the competition so expectations have to be tempered.
Women's golf is, on average, a better watch than the men's game, don't think I expect that from rugby just based on the aspects of the game I find entertaining but looking forward to it. Don't expect much from Ireland from what I know but as stated above, we've started the journey later than the competition so expectations have to be tempered.
Don't expect the same levels of skills, or team cohesion as from the men who've been on professional tracks since they were 12 years old.
Don't expect the same impacts from the men who weight 2-3 times as much.
But it's helluva fun in its own right, and a bit of a throwback to the 90's mens game in terms of approach. Which makes sense for a sport in the infancy of professionalism.
Oh, and do expect some mismatches, where you see full time professionals up against some amateurs with nu funding and societal opposition to the idea of women playing a contact sport
Don't expect the same impacts from the men who weight 2-3 times as much.
But it's helluva fun in its own right, and a bit of a throwback to the 90's mens game in terms of approach. Which makes sense for a sport in the infancy of professionalism.
Oh, and do expect some mismatches, where you see full time professionals up against some amateurs with nu funding and societal opposition to the idea of women playing a contact sport
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 22,592
- Reaction score
- 10,910
Thanks for all the info. Expecting as much in terms of quality.
The game turned pro about a month after I was born and I live the pro aspects of it but will go in with an open mind to watch a different type of game.
The Mrs is definitely a bigger follower of England womens footie and rugby.
She really gets into it and it's kind of infectious. She knows who plays for what club, who's one to watch etc. Really helps watching when someone knows what they are on about.
She really gets into it and it's kind of infectious. She knows who plays for what club, who's one to watch etc. Really helps watching when someone knows what they are on about.
There's a lot more fun and joy and a lot less kicking in the women's game imho. Some of the best games I watched last season were women's premiership matches. Really looking forward to the cup.
bazwaz
Academy Player
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2014
- Messages
- 242
- Reaction score
- 22
"Over the past eight years there has not been a more dominant rugby team on the planet than the Red Roses," writes the British press....boy are they really talking them up..
What are some of the statistics saying though..?
Past winners
1991 - USA 19-6 England
1994 - England 38-23 USA
1998 - New Zealand 44-12 USA
2002 - New Zealand 19-9 England
2006 - New Zealand 25-17 England
2010 - New Zealand 13-10 England
2014 - England 21-9 Canada
2017 - New Zealand 41-32 England
2021 - New Zealand 34-31 England
New Zealand - six titles (1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2017, 2021)
England - two titles (1994, 2014)
USA - one title (1991)
What are some of the statistics saying though..?
Past winners
1991 - USA 19-6 England
1994 - England 38-23 USA
1998 - New Zealand 44-12 USA
2002 - New Zealand 19-9 England
2006 - New Zealand 25-17 England
2010 - New Zealand 13-10 England
2014 - England 21-9 Canada
2017 - New Zealand 41-32 England
2021 - New Zealand 34-31 England
New Zealand - six titles (1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2017, 2021)
England - two titles (1994, 2014)
USA - one title (1991)
I’m not English but the quote provided and the information you provided have nothing to do with each other.
The women’s game is actually quite fun as it retains a little more of the amateur spirit. Some of the lower ranked teams might be a rough watch but I’m looking forward to it. Alpha is right though that my sport calendar is already pretty packed. I have noticed that i am viewing less and less of the pop culture sports in order to watch women’s cycling, rugby, and hockey.
The women’s game is actually quite fun as it retains a little more of the amateur spirit. Some of the lower ranked teams might be a rough watch but I’m looking forward to it. Alpha is right though that my sport calendar is already pretty packed. I have noticed that i am viewing less and less of the pop culture sports in order to watch women’s cycling, rugby, and hockey.
Yeah who cares about winning 57 out of their last 58 games.
"Consequences" - World Rugby demand England must change stadium name for Rugby World Cup - Ruck
This means the Women’s World Cup will become the first major global event staged at the ground following the rebrand.
www.ruck.co.uk
In all fairness over the last 8 - 10 years there hasn't.
Don't know what you mean, they lost a game 34yrs ago and are therefore ****
