Rugby World Cup Draw - Explained

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

thebaz

so your saying its just pure luck we draw Argentina 3 competitions in a row !
And why Scotland are ranked ahead of Argentina baffles me , even if it is based on results from 4 years ago -- the seeding should be based on more recent results , and that might help mix things up a bit -- one of the flaws of competetive rugby , is results can be very predictable unlike other sports , so anything to channge things should be considered -- although the powers that be are ultra conservative , judging by there treatment of the likes of Argentina and the Pacific Islanders !

TarfHead

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

That surprises me. IIRC we were hockeyed by France in the QFs. We scored all or most of our 21 points after France had raced away with the game. Yet, in the wisdom of the IRB, we're deemed the best of the QF losers ? After Wales had been heroic in their loss to England ? I can't remember how SA did in losing to the ABs, but sufficiently bad to be ranked 8th !

Glenbhoy

1. Just because we had an apparent 1 in 4 chance of drawing the Argies, does not mean we had a 1 in 4 chance. (See the Euro 2000 qualifying draw - playoffs)
2. The seedings were bull****, because they only served to reinforce the injustice served on Argentina at the time by placing them in the most difficult group. Why do they have to use the world cup form of 4 yrs ago to decide pools, do they not trust the IRB world rankings? Essentially what I'm saying is that, because Argentina had a more diffcult group than Scotland and Wales last time, they had less chance of securing a top 8 seeding, imo, they were far superior to both Wales and Scotland in 2001.

Other points, I say all this from the point of view of bias against the Argentinians, as I feel Ireland and France will come through easily enough anyway, but it must be very disheartening for Argentinian rugby. It's also disgraceful that they haven't been invited into the tri-nations, failing that perhaps the six nations? (although logistics might be difficult, but can you imagine telling herself you're off for a weekend in Buenos Aires:D ).

RuggieBear

Glenbhoy wrote:

Why do they have to use the world cup form of 4 yrs ago to decide pools, do they not trust the IRB world rankings? Essentially what I'm saying is that, because Argentina had a more diffcult group than Scotland and Wales last time, they had less chance of securing a top 8 seeding, imo, they were far superior to both Wales and Scotland in 2001.

I actually agree with this bit.

Kojak

Is it the top 2 out of each group that progress to the quarter-finals??

Also is this already pre-determined?? - i.e 1st in A plays 2nd in B etc. etc.

I'm not the biggest rugby expert (as you probably can guess)

marius

Kojak wrote:

Is it the top 2 out of each group that progress to the quarter-finals??

Also is this already pre-determined?? - i.e 1st in A plays 2nd in B etc. etc.

I'm not the biggest rugby expert (as you probably can guess)

Yep - the top two from each group qualify. Ireland/France/Argentina will play the winners and second placed teams in the NZ/Scotland group.

The main problem with the seeding is that it is done 4 years before the draw - which is total idiocy. It should be done a few months before the start of the competition and based on world rankings at the time. Which would prevent the situation we have now with 2nd 5th and 6th in the world in the same group (and could be 2nd 3rd and 6th by the end of this week!)

Peter B

marius wrote:

The main problem with the seeding is that it is done 4 years before the draw - which is total idiocy. It should be done a few months before the start of the competition and based on world rankings at the time.

Could it be that the IRB don't have complete faith in their own ranking system and so do not want to rank countries on that for the WC?

thebaz

Peter B wrote:

Could it be that the IRB don't have complete faith in their own ranking system and so do not want to rank countries on that for the WC?

whose ever fault it is , it is a complete mess -- more than likely either the strongest Irish or Argentina team of all time won't make it into the last 8 , or get a consolation prize of the All Blacks in the quarters -- they both deserve a better shot of reaching the semis .

zAbbo

Don't know what the problem is

1- Ireland
2- Argies
3- France

Sangre

I really don't know why people are assuming they won't go through. They've looked very strong the last year.

Also the WC seedings are a total joke, completely self perpetuting that teams always end up in roughly the same seeding.

Chucky the tree

Dont worry lads. We'll the ones who will finish thrid so cheer up. Those argies will get to play in a 1/4 final.

Chucky the tree

thebaz wrote:

whose ever fault it is , it is a complete mess -- more than likely either the strongest Irish or Argentina team of all time won't make it into the last 8 , or get a consolation prize of the All Blacks in the quarters -- they both deserve a better shot of reaching the semis .

:rolleyes:


Sure why bother with the word cup group stages. We just have a world cup final with the number 1 and 2 seeds.


Can you please tell me why we somehow deserve special treatment that would allow us a easier draw into the semi's?

thebaz

Chucky the tree wrote:

:rolleyes:


Sure why bother with the word cup group stages. We just have a world cup final with the number 1 and 2 seeds.


Can you please tell me why we somehow deserve special treatment that would allow us a easier draw into the semi's?

I'm not lookin for special treatment just fair treatment -- if you compare the groups Ireland have been in, to say the Scots or Welsh , we have had dreadfull draws - Argentina 3 competetions running , when Argentina have been way stronger than any other 3rd ranking nations . As an Irish fan and a rugby fan , it seams neither have a realistic chance of making there first ever semi , due solely to the unfavourable draw, with a decent draw both countries could have done so ... i think rugby in general would benefit from a few new faces in the semis.

bucks73

Sure both teams might beat France. :eek:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

thebaz

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

''
99 was the year we lost to them in France

RuggieBear

thebaz wrote:

''
99 was the year we lost to them in France

that was a 2nd round/quaterfinal playoff game

Glenbhoy

RuggieBear wrote:

that was a 2nd round/quaterfinal playoff game

Yeah, and it would be better if that round still existed. As for a situation where France bow out in the pool stage, as hosts, that wouldn't be great 4 the tournament.

thebaz

RuggieBear wrote:

that was a 2nd round/quaterfinal playoff game

fair eneough -- but we still have had to overcome Argentina 3 competitions in a row to get to last 8 -- personally i don't think weve had any luck in the world cup, certainly since '91 when we nearly beat Australia.

Nosh*tsherlock

thebaz wrote:

fair eneough -- but we still have had to overcome Argentina 3 competitions in a row to get to last 8 -- personally i don't think weve had any luck in the world cup, certainly since '91 when we nearly beat Australia.

But does it matter how many times you meet them, there aren't that many Rugbying nations in the world and if you want to win the competition you have to beat them all!

thebaz

Nosh*tsherlock wrote:

But does it matter how many times you meet them, there aren't that many Rugbying nations in the world and if you want to win the competition you have to beat them all!

As much as i'd like it to happen , i just can't see Ireland ever actually winning the trophy , certainly in my lifetime.
I'd settle for a place in the final , - we've never beaten the All Blacks ever , and i don't think we have the resources to win it outright -- but i can keep dreaming.
Certainly we have a better chance of winning at rugby , than soccer, and we really would need a decent draw , thats probably why i'm so pissed about the draw for 2007 .

Erin Go Brath

The draw is poxy alright. The group of death again!!! Also being in the same half of the draw as NZ. We certainly didn't get the rub of the green for this one. It does seem unfair that 3 teams ranked in the top 6 are in the same group, and it does highlight that the seeding/ranking system for the tournament needs to be seriously looked at. Especially with only a few top teams in the tournament capable of doing anything. The other 3 groups look boring and predictable http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/EN/Home/Pools/ with Pool D the only one generating any excitement.

At the moment I don't think theres too much between Fra/Irl/Arg. France should have an advantage playing at home though, and I sincerely doubt they'll be as awful as they were last w.end come next September.

1)France
2)Ireland
3)Argentina

Thats my prediction for this group, and if it is the case youd have to feel sorry for the Argies, as theyd probably have qualified from any of the other groups even as third seeds!!!!

Chucky the tree

thebaz wrote:

fair eneough -- but we still have had to overcome Argentina 3 competitions in a row to get to last 8 -- personally i don't think weve had any luck in the world cup, certainly since '91 when we nearly beat Australia.

How else have we been unlucky? In 99 we were a disgrace. A team relying on a 15 man maul to score a try in the last minute is a joke.


We beat the argies last time around in the group, then we decided not to bother turning up for the 1/4's with France and got hockeyed. Nothing about our World cups have been unlucky, its just been abysmal performances that have cost us.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

thebaz

Chucky the tree wrote:

How else have we been unlucky? In 99 we were a disgrace. A team relying on a 15 man maul to score a try in the last minute is a joke.


We beat the argies last time around in the group, then we decided not to bother turning up for the 1/4's with France and got hockeyed. Nothing about our World cups have been unlucky, its just been abysmal performances that have cost us.

Argentina would be traditionally ranked 9th in world , next in line to the big 8 , we have required to beat them 3 competitions in a row to reach last 8 , that is bad luck in my estimation.
Argentina in '99 were a reasonable team , not in the Aussie/ Frannce/ NZ league , but at the same level as ourselves, Wales and Scotland -- if my memory is correct.

Erin Go Brath

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well spotted. Was just checking if you were awake:D

What I meant was the probable outcomes are NZ winning Pool C, and Irl coming 2nd in Pool D. Should that transpire we'd be unfortunate to get NZ in the QFs and not at a later round. But lets not split hairs. We've been unlucky with this draw and thats the bottom line.

Diamondmaker

In all fairness the draw being based on 4 year old standings really is daft.....

This is ( conspiracy theory coming up ) to ensure the big nations always get in. It is conceivable that if it was based on more current form that some of the top teams would not make it at some point in time........

There are 8 euro teams 5 from SH and 3 Americas. that only laves 4 for the rest of the world. hardly a fair split really.......

If it was not based on last WCs standing would it not be a bit unfair to allocate spaces based on that regional split. This does nothing to promote the game outside of the 6N + 3 really.

Its set up so that the top guys will always make it and the firnge contienennts, not even countries, are left fighting for a tiny amount of places.

Its not unfathomable to see a top team at some point in the longterm fail to qualify, if there were say 7euro 4 SH and a further 2 spaces for rest of world to compete for.

thirdmantackle

Word to the wise

The Argies have beaten France the last three times they've played (someone correct me if i'm wrong)

The state France are in at the moment, they will be under immense pressure to win their games in the pool to avoid New Zealand, but I can actually see them finishing 2nd or 3rd in the group

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

strassenwolf

Diamondmaker wrote:

In all fairness the draw being based on 4 year old standings really is daft.....

I agree. I've never understood why they need to do the draw so far in advance, typically two to three years before the competition? If they did the draw, say, 7 months before the tournament, it would be easier to base it all on current world rankings. They'd know all the qualifiers at that stage. Assuming that the hosts and holders were two of the top four seeds, all other seedings could be based on world ranking, and we might end up with more evenly matched groups.

Having the draw about 6-7 months before the tournament seems to work fine for soccer in things like the world cup and European championship. Why not with rugby?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

MarVeL

Argentina are nearly 3 to one to beat France this weekend on Betfair. Looks like an interesting bet to me.

strassenwolf

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

In soccer there is one automatic qualifier, there used to be two. One, two, eight, whatever number of automatic qualifiers there are, if indeed any, it is possible to do the draw as far in advance as the organisers wish. FIFA, for example, know how many qualifiers will be produced from each region of the world. They could do the draw for the next world cup finals tomorrow if they wanted. They just don't.

daveirl wrote:

It'd be more daft to have 8 automatic qualifiers and then have some of them unseeded in the competition.

Why is it daft? The reward for reaching the quarter finals of the RWC is qualification for the next one. I would think that's enough reward. I'm not sure why these eight teams also need to be seeded in the next RWC, though it's possibly for commercial reasons.

Even if they do need to be seeded, why it has to be in the order in which they were perceived to have finished in the last world cup 4 years ago is beyond me. As was pointed out above, the fact that Ireland (who lost to France) are believed to have finished 3 places higher than South Africa (who lost to NZ) shows that the seeding system may be somewhat flawed. I would think that world rankings 6-7 months before the tournament might be a better guide.

Diamondmaker

strassenwolf wrote:

Why is it daft? The reward for reaching the quarter finals of the RWC is qualification for the next one. I would think that's enough reward. I'm not sure why these eight teams also need to be seeded in the next RWC, though it's possibly for commercial reasons.

.

Why are they seeded also? As I said above to keep the big guys safe!;)

Once you get your 1st seeding its much easier to keep qualifying and hence continue being seeded. But if it was based on current rankings some top teams may not get seeded, as a result may jusyt not get out of the group, then lose seeding for next time.........

thebaz

Diamondmaker wrote:

Why are they seeded also? As I said above to keep the big guys safe!;)

Once you get your 1st seeding its much easier to keep qualifying and hence continue being seeded. But if it was based on current rankings some top teams may not get seeded, as a result may jusyt not get out of the group, then lose seeding for next time.........

Its this conservatism that blights rugby, and stops the game seriously developing - the treatment of Argentina and Samoa is shocking , they should be competing in the tri nations and Super 14 respectivly --
IMO there is only a requirement to seed the semi finalists , in soccer its only the winner !

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

thebaz

sorry - meant automatic qualification -- i agree that seeding is necessary - but only semi finalists should get exemption from qualifing !

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

strassenwolf

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well, on current world ranking, with England at #7, South Africa at #5 and NZ at #1 (total 13), that would seem to be an easier group than France at #2, Ireland at #3 and Argentina at #6 (total 11).

Diamondmaker

dave, no one is suggesting Ireland or any other "senior" team have to qualify V the likes of georgia ( in fact I remeber we DID go throught that process last time, Russia too if I remember correct ).

What is reasonable is that winner qualifies and top 7 or 13 or whatever ....seeds are seeded. This means that current form is required for a "handier" draw and not historic merits.
Not that you were a QF in 1987 and as a result you always have a better chance of progressing, ubnless you do an Ireland in Lens...which is why we ended up going thro' the qulaifing rounds lat time round.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Diamondmaker

Im 100% we had to qualify because of that WC 15 man maul performance..

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

thebaz

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Think i'd prefer Samoa , than France in France somehow !
Were expected to be beat the best of the Pacific Islanders with a weakened team , France hosting the World Cup will be a different proposition !

daveirl

This post has been deleted.