Is the Rugby World Cup a Farce of a International Tournement

Stev_o

*To begin with this isn't a thread that is supposed to diminish Ireland's victory over Australia this is a post about someone who is a bit dismayed at the this tournament's offering*

First problem for me had to be the opening "game* between New Zealand and Tonga one of the pathetic ways to open up a international tournament to have the No 1 ranked seed against a side that has not played against any top 10 ranked nation since 2007. To me it just seemed dumbed and really undermined the "opening" of the tournament in the first place.

But then the fixture list.

Oh my god the fixture list.

So far only one team from the Top 10 has had to put up with a 4 day turn around but they so happen to be a third Tier rank in their Pool (Scotland). Meanwhile every other Top 10 Nation has 5 day + resting grace between each match.

The farce of Samoa having their first pool game on Wednesday and having their biggest game then on Sunday just takes the biscuit and really leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Im happy to see teams make some great progress in this tournament but the fact is they are being ****ed over before a match has even kicked off.

*/rant*

robd

Stev_o wrote: »

Im happy to see teams make some great progress in this tournament but the fact is they are being ****ed over before a match has even kicked off.

From a purely selfish perspective I don't think I/we can complain. Ireland are a great beneficiary of good match timings. Don't think we could have asked for better. Nice opener practice match, toughest match, nice recovery match, toughish match. 6/8/7 days for turnaround.

irishbucsfan

The IRB aren't hiding the fact that Tier Two teams are forced to play games closer together. It's intentional. It's the only way to make the fixtures work and the best way to maximise revenue from TV. Which, by the way, goes back into rugby in those nations.

JustinDee

Options:
You can have either a diminished tournament of say 12 teams with lesser revenue from TV and sponsors playing over 5-6 weeks.
OR
You can have the same number as is playing over an overlong 11 weeks.

Also, you're talking about respect to the lower-tier nations but after having a blast at the NZ v Tonga game not being a good enough opener for the tournament. Considering there was an average of around 25 Kiwis on-field throughout the game, I think it was a good crowd-puller.

I think its been very good this time around. Aussie, thanks to the NZRFU not handling its role very well at all, showed us how to pack stadia in 2003 With this in mind, I think the crowds could have been worked upon a little better. However, they're probably bumped out by pricing along the lines as Carribbean residents were during the 2007 Cricket World Cup.

PhatPiggins

JustinDee wrote: »

Options:
You can have either a diminished tournament of say 12 teams with lesser revenue from TV and sponsors playing over 5-6 weeks.
OR
You can have the same number as is playing over an overlong 11 weeks.

Also, you're talking about respect to the lower-tier nations but after having a blast at the NZ v Tonga game not being a good enough opener for the tournament. Considering there was an average of around 25 Kiwis on-field throughout the game, I think it was a good crowd-puller.

I think its been very good this time around. Aussie, thanks to the NZRFU not handling its role very well at all, showed us how to pack stadia in 2003 With this in mind, I think the crowds could have been worked upon a little better. However, they're probably bumped out by pricing along the lines as Carribbean residents were during the 2007 Cricket World Cup.

What are you're thoughts on the tier one teams not having any 4 day turnarounds are is it tied to your answer on tv revenues i.e midweek games make less?

thebaz

taking my Irish glasses off, it is very worring , apart from Argentina , no other team has come though , to the big 8 - i'd love to see another power come through , America / Canada / Russia - having played in North America, can't understand why they dont come through , certainly the rugby board are slow to help - look how long it took to get argentina into the tri-nations - Italy just aren't there yet in my mind, and the pacific islanders are too small as countrys, and lack the finances to really succeed at international level

durkadurka

The problem with the fixture list is 5 team groups. This means that there's one left over team every round which causes the inequities in the fixture list.

I would favour moving to a 24 team tournament, which would give us 6 groups of 4. That means the fixtures would be more fairly laid out.

Then the top 2 from each group go into playoffs, with the best 4 qualifiers straight into the quarter final and the next 8 in a playoff. The tournament would be the same length as now.

Riskymove

durkadurka wrote: »

The problem with the fixture list is 5 team groups. This means that there's one left over team every round which causes the inequities in the fixture list.

indeed trying to run 5 team groups over 4 weeks is the issue resulting in some mid-week games, after that its probably TV money driving the top teams only playing weekend

conf101

durkadurka wrote: »

The problem with the fixture list is 5 team groups. This means that there's one left over team every round which causes the inequities in the fixture list.

I would favour moving to a 24 team tournament, which would give us 6 groups of 4. That means the fixtures would be more fairly laid out.

Then the top 2 from each group go into playoffs, with the best 4 qualifiers straight into the quarter final and the next 8 in a playoff. The tournament would be the same length as now.

Not a bad idea.

I know it would depend on qualification but what 4 extra teams do you reckon we'd see along with the 20 already there?

marco_polo

durkadurka wrote: »

The problem with the fixture list is 5 team groups. This means that there's one left over team every round which causes the inequities in the fixture list.

I would favour moving to a 24 team tournament, which would give us 6 groups of 4. That means the fixtures would be more fairly laid out.

Then the top 2 from each group go into playoffs, with the best 4 qualifiers straight into the quarter final and the next 8 in a playoff. The tournament would be the same length as now.

Spread the top 12 in the world out over 6 groups though, and bad enough as things are now you would be lucky to get any groups where second place was even remotely in doubt.

durkadurka

marco_polo wrote: »

Spread the top 12 in the world out over 6 groups though, and bad enough as things are now you would be lucky to get any groups where second place was even remotely in doubt.

Definitely true but they'd be playing for seeding in the play offs, a bit like the HEC.

marco_polo

durkadurka wrote: »

Definitely true but they'd be playing for seeding in the play offs, a bit like the HEC.

I take your point but that is not quite as exciting all the same . Hopefully a few tournaments down the line, if the likes of the PI teams, Georgia, Romania etc can close the gap even more, they could seriously look at something like that.

GetWithIt

durkadurka wrote: »

The problem with the fixture list is 5 team groups. This means that there's one left over team every round which causes the inequities in the fixture list.

I would favour moving to a 24 team tournament, which would give us 6 groups of 4. That means the fixtures would be more fairly laid out.

Then the top 2 from each group go into playoffs, with the best 4 qualifiers straight into the quarter final and the next 8 in a playoff. The tournament would be the same length as now.

Urgh, could be a disaster.

The gap between the top teams and the minnows - physically - has narrowed somewhat in the last couple of cups. I think this is partly due to minnows catching up, or at least individuals from those teams playing at a higher level, but also due to the game and the rules moving away from 7 foot bean poles and 20 stone backs.

I wouldn't want to see any of the tops teams playing a Portugal or a Uruguay. I remember that Ivory Coast player lying at the bottom of a scrum with his neck broken and think you're only inviting a repeat if you expand the competition beyond it's current 20 teams.

durkadurka

You would have some legitimate battles for top stop in the group - eg Ireland could be a tier one team versus say Wales who might be tier 2.

Rough tiers outlined below

NZ, SAF, OZ,ENG,FRA, ARG
IRL, SCO,WAL,ITAL,FIJ,SAM
JAP,TON,CAN,USA,RUS,Georgia,
NAMIB,Romania,Holland, Spain,uruguay,errrmmm...,

scraping the barrel at the end I'll admit....


Brian Moore suggested a plate competition too for those teams failing to make the quarters.

Fight_Night

I find a lot of flaws in the way rugby tries to help out developing rugby nations and this impacts the world cup because there is a huge gulf in standard between the top and bottom teams, but as a tournament I see nothing wrong with it.

Kayless

I think it's a little bit unfair, even if we are the beneficiaries, if anything the tournament should've been prolonged on longer period to give the smaller teams a better chance, I can understand fuimaona-sapolu's rant but this is in no way on par with the kind of ridiculous game fixing FIFA get up too.

Het-Field

Rugby Union is developing, and it has to be given an opportunity to develop. Bear in mind, this is only the 5th World Cup since the advent of the professional era, and the true benefits of that era have only come to the fore since the turn of the millenium.

First, save for the introduction of Russia (in lieu of Uruguay and Portugal) to the Tournament, 19 of the 20 teams which competed in the 2007 and 2003 World Cups have returned, while Georgia have replaced Spain as mainstays in the competition since 2003. This demonstrates that roughly 20 nations have taken professionalism by the scruff of the neck. Prior to that, the Tournament was smaller, and the weaker teams were fairly interchangable.

Second, it has become clear that the most likely challange to the Top 8 is likely to come from Eastern Europe. Notwithstanding poor results sustained in RWC matches, it has become clear that nations like Romania, Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine are developing at a speed. Once they have had an opportunity to fully bed down in the International Rugby arena, and they start beating teams like Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, they will become strong nations capable of challanging.

Stev_o

Teams like Japan, Georgia or Romania doing well in the RWC will hardly see any improvement to their schedule. It's a travesty that this international sport has 14 teams it will play against and only those 14 teams. It's actually pathetic espeically how much the IRB will sh*t that Rugby is the X biggest sport in the world. Mean ffs it's taken Argentina FIVE YEARS to get into the 3N after they finished THIRD OVERALL in 2007 RWC.

allimac

durkadurka wrote: »

The problem with the fixture list is 5 team groups. This means that there's one left over team every round which causes the inequities in the fixture list.

I would favour moving to a 24 team tournament, which would give us 6 groups of 4. That means the fixtures would be more fairly laid out.

Then the top 2 from each group go into playoffs, with the best 4 qualifiers straight into the quarter final and the next 8 in a playoff. The tournament would be the same length as now.

That is a ridiculous idea.Aren't there enough one sided non matches already.And someone else on here complaining about rte's half hour highlight show,you'd struggle to find a half hours highlights in the entire competition so far.Everyone knows thst the competion doesn't even begin until the knockout stages.

marco_polo

Stev_o wrote: »

Teams like Japan, Georgia or Romania doing well in the RWC will hardly see any improvement to their schedule. It's a travesty that this international sport has 14 teams it will play against and only those 14 teams. It's actually pathetic espeically how much the IRB will sh*t that Rugby is the X biggest sport in the world. Mean ffs it's taken Argentina FIVE YEARS to get into the 3N after they finished THIRD OVERALL in 2007 RWC.

To be fair in the case of Argentina the entry conditions were set entirely by the SANZAR nations rather than the IRB. The IRB have underwritten Argentinas entry into the Tri nations to the tune of $10 million dollars up to 2015 and changed the rule so that NH clubs have to release their Puma players for the duration of the competition, so that is hardly doing nothing.

tolosenc

We see teams like Canada, Japan, Georgia, Romania, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji getting more and more competitive. Soon enough there'll be enough quality that it can grow to a 24 team tournament, with 6 groups of 4, making the fixture list a little easier to draw up.

ArmaniJeanss

The failure of England/Scotland/Ireland etc to play even one full international game a year in Bucharest, Tbilisi or Moscow is actually embarassing.

Drop just one of the glamour Autumn Internationals ties each year and play an away test match against a Tier 2 European team - it would do far more for the game there than inviting them to the top table once every four years and then sending them back under their rocks.

And there should be a definitive promotion/relegation path between the 6N and its second division, possibly a two-legged playoff. But obviously the money men would shudder at the thought of Scotland and its 15,000 army of travelling fans and lucrative TV rights being replaced by Romania bringing zilch money to the table.

Fight_Night

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

And there should be a definitive promotion/relegation path between the 6N and its second division, possibly a two-legged playoff. But obviously the money men would shudder at the thought of Scotland and its 15,000 army of travelling fans and lucrative TV rights being replaced by Romania bringing zilch money to the table.

Yep, there lies the problem unfortunately.

CatFromHue

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The failure of England/Scotland/Ireland etc to play even one full international game a year in Bucharest, Tbilisi or Moscow is actually embarassing.

Drop just one of the glamour Autumn Internationals ties each year and play an away test match against a Tier 2 European team - it would do far more for the game there than inviting them to the top table once every four years and then sending them back under their rocks.

And there should be a definitive promotion/relegation path between the 6N and its second division, possibly a two-legged playoff. But obviously the money men would shudder at the thought of Scotland and its 15,000 army of travelling fans and lucrative TV rights being replaced by Romania bringing zilch money to the table.

This year we played 4 November internationals for the first time. Usually we only play 3. Two big games and 1 smaller one. If we drop one of the big games and play it away from home it would have big financial repercussions for us. Not only would we be losing 1 full stadiums worth of income but we'd have to pay all the costs associated with transporting the team to Eastern Europe.

If a play off were put in place it would be Italy who would be playing in it. They've finished bottom for the last 4 years. Now that they've gotten 2 teams in the Pro12 it would be best to wait a couple of seasons to see any possible improvements gained from this.

Also I'm not fully sure of the benefit of a smaller team playing against a bigger team. The real improvements in Irish rugby have come from the Heineken cup. Celtic league and Ireland doing well in the 6 Nations. Not from any games played against the big 3.

I agree with Stev_o's original point. The World Cup didn't kick off proper until the Wales South Africa. New Zealand should have started against the French.

It is unfair to have some teams have only 4/5 days between games but I'm not sure how it can be avoided.

ArmaniJeanss

CatFromHue wrote: »

This year we played 4 November internationals for the first time. Usually we only play 3. Two big games and 1 smaller one. If we drop one of the big games and play it away from home it would have big financial repercussions for us. Not only would we be losing 1 full stadiums worth of income but we'd have to pay all the costs associated with transporting the team to Eastern Europe.

So we can't do anything for them as it would hurt us financially - this is the 'back under your rock' until 2015 thing I alluded to.
It would be just one game every two years by the way (i.e., France, Wales, Ireland do it one year, Scotland, Italy, England the following year).

CatFromHue wrote: »

If a play off were put in place it would be Italy who would be playing in it. They've finished bottom for the last 4 years. Now that they've gotten 2 teams in the Pro12 it would be best to wait a couple of seasons to see any possible improvements gained from this.

So we shouldn't do anything for them here either, so as to protect an existing member. Back under your rock boys.
And whilst I accept it would most likely be Italy who would be currently at risk of relegation, some day eventually it would be Scotland or Ireland or England. And the money men couldn't have that.

CatFromHue wrote: »

Also I'm not fully sure of the benefit of a smaller team playing against a bigger team. The real improvements in Irish rugby have come from the Heineken cup. Celtic league and Ireland doing well in the 6 Nations. Not from any games played against the big 3.

I can't quantify the benefits myself so you could well be right.
But I suspect the reason for not playing against them is more to do with the finacial aspect than any altruistic 'sure it really wouldnt help them' reason.

Amazotheamazing

I don't think relegation from the six nations would really solve much for whoever went down.

A better plan would be to aggressively help the Russian pro league and establish a 6 nations in the east with (let's say) Russia, Romania, Georgia, the Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Moldova, all in the top 30 or thereabouts.

The professional league in Russia has a far greater capacity to help all these nations than anything else.

CIARAN_BOYLE

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

So we shouldn't do anything for them here either, so as to protect an existing member. Back under your rock boys.
And whilst I accept it would most likely be Italy who would be currently at risk of relegation, some day eventually it would be Scotland or Ireland or England. And the money men couldn't have that.

I think the point is that Italy has the potential to become a true big boy and if they were faced with relegation that would be cut off at the knees

ArmaniJeanss

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I don't think relegation from the six nations would really solve much for whoever went down.

A better plan would be to aggressively help the Russian pro league and establish a 6 nations in the east with (let's say) Russia, Romania, Georgia, the Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Moldova, all in the top 30 or thereabouts.

To an extent this already happens, there is a seven division structure below the 6N with four of the countries you named currently in the top tier of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union))

There is full promotion/relegation between all these division, either directly or through a playoff, and sometimes its done over a two year period.

But the very top tier, the 6 Nations, is a closed shop, invite only.
Dress it up whatever way you want, but its fairly indefensible.

Amazotheamazing

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

To an extent this already happens, there is a seven division structure below the 6N with four of the countries you named currently in the top tier of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union))

There is full promotion/relegation between all these division, either directly or through a playoff, and sometimes its done over a two year period.

But the very top tier, the 6 Nations, is a closed shop, invite only.
Dress it up whatever way you want, but its fairly indefensible.

I know about that comp, what I'm suggesting is different. I don't think relegation does much right now.

.ak

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

To an extent this already happens, there is a seven division structure below the 6N with four of the countries you named currently in the top tier of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union))

There is full promotion/relegation between all these division, either directly or through a playoff, and sometimes its done over a two year period.

But the very top tier, the 6 Nations, is a closed shop, invite only.
Dress it up whatever way you want, but its fairly indefensible.

I was never aware of that competition.. I'd say it'd be pretty interesting to follow actually considering some of teams in there..

marco_polo

.ak wrote: »

I was never aware of that competition.. I'd say it'd be pretty interesting to follow actually considering some of teams in there..

I think it is usually shown on ESPN 8 "The Ocho" Eurosport 2.

CatFromHue

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

So we can't do anything for them as it would hurt us financially - this is the 'back under your rock' until 2015 thing I alluded to.
It would be just one game every two years by the way (i.e., France, Wales, Ireland do it one year, Scotland, Italy, England the following year).



So we shouldn't do anything for them here either, so as to protect an existing member. Back under your rock boys.
And whilst I accept it would most likely be Italy who would be currently at risk of relegation, some day eventually it would be Scotland or Ireland or England. And the money men couldn't have that.



I can't quantify the benefits myself so you could well be right.
But I suspect the reason for not playing against them is more to do with the finacial aspect than any altruistic 'sure it really wouldnt help them' reason.

The tickets for a major autumn international would be similar to the prices for the Wales game in 2012.

http://www.irishrugby.ie/tickets/

If you look at the stadium map by far the most amount of tickets are in the Cat 1 section.

http://www.irishrugby.ie/tickets/aviva_stadium_map.php

To do a very quick approx ticket income calculation we can assume an average ticket price of a Cat 2 of 65 x 55000 = 3,575,000. Even if this is on the high side it still illustrates how much money the union would lose by not hosting the game i.e. a hell of a lot. Then there is the fact that if we play in Eastern Europe the game will not be televised. Add in the cost of getting there and it becomes a huge deal.

While in an ideal world it would be a nice to go and play in Eastern Europe we are constrained by the Pro game. It would be very much not in our interests to play them financially or even in rugby terms as we or they would learn very little from such a match. What did we learn from being walloped by New Zealand in 1998 in Lansdowne?

Regarding relegation / promotion. I would be in favour of this but not just yet. I think the Italian team needs to feel the benefit of having teams in the Pro12 first. In many ways they are only now on a level footing with the other 6 Nations teams by having a high level club competition for its teams.

I think Italy could be a good example of why a proper club structure needs to be put in place more than having a few international games a year. They have had the international games for 12 years now in the 6 Nations but haven't really gotten anywhere. 20 of their players play for Treviso or Aironi (in 2007 Italy had 14 players playing in Italy. They are a lot more competitive now as could be seen from their game against Australia when they had 10 players from Aironi and Treviso starting)They will benefit hugely from regular games in the Pro 12.

wonton

I actually thougth tonga vs new zealand was a very good opening match, from the two war dances at the start, to the skillful handling from SBW and Dagg, to Carter getting smashed by the tongan prop, which led to the try.


much better than some of the other matchs, such as england vs argentina.

CatFromHue

I was a good enough game but the result was never in doubt. It was more a case of by how much would NZ win.

Whereas if they started with a NZ v France game it would be a different story completely.

ArmaniJeanss

CatFromHue wrote: »

The tickets for a major autumn international would be similar to the prices for the Wales game in 2012.

http://www.irishrugby.ie/tickets/

If you look at the stadium map by far the most amount of tickets are in the Cat 1 section.

http://www.irishrugby.ie/tickets/aviva_stadium_map.php

To do a very quick approx ticket income calculation we can assume an average ticket price of a Cat 2 of 65 x 55000 = 3,575,000. Even if this is on the high side it still illustrates how much money the union would lose by not hosting the game i.e. a hell of a lot. Then there is the fact that if we play in Eastern Europe the game will not be televised. Add in the cost of getting there and it becomes a huge deal.

I think we at least agree that it comes down primarily to money; it's tricky to help the developing European Nations without affecting our bottom line. Its sad but I guess thats the way it goes.

***********
An alternative (and I'm getting a bit radical here!) is to scrap the 6Nations in 2013, 2017, 2021 etc (i.e., 2 years after each World Cup).
And instead run an 8 team European Championships that year with the Big6 and the top 2 from the previous years B division.
Two groups of four, two semifinals and a final. 5 match days needed and the same 5 dates reserved for the 6N could be used.

So that way the emerging nations would have a World Cup and a Europeans to aim at in each 4 year cycle.

Podge_irl

While I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of European championship, which would essentially a 6N in all but name with a couple extra tests thrown in, at least for now, I would be fairly dead set against relegation in the 6N.

Look how long it took Italy to get up to speed in the 6N. It would do Georgia no good whatsoever to be yo-yoing in and out of the 6N every year. If it's done on two-leg playoff basis then they're highly unlikely to ever get in and it's just a pointless calendar clogging exercise. And I would hate to see a 6N without Scotland, or Wales or even Ireland in it. There is far too much history there, and it would be ruined if one of the teams dropped out.

Guy:Incognito

With regard the openign game. The RWC is hardly unique. The football WC gnerally has a weak first game too. The hosts/previous winners (it changed about 3 tournaments ago) generally play someone they should beat (though some will endevour to **** it up )

MrDerp

It's a nice idea, minnows getting more regular games against bigger nations, but regular thrashings wouldn't help IMO.

A seemingly logical next step would be A team involvement in lower tier competitions, but that would put further strain on the 3 NH pro leagues so that's a non runner as the clubs would have kittens.

I like the idea of a European competition involving us, but it would have to be Saxons, Wolfhounds etc and not compete with 6N schedule. Give them a shot at development teams and they might just nick the odd result against us on the hop.

Ultimately you want their supporters excited about playing eachother competitively and winning trophies. That means improving the standard gradually, not throwing them to the lions. The RWC can then provide the gauge of how well they are doing.

Another possibility would be 'sponsoring' professionals to play for these countries. They would train and play as professionals both in the leagues and internationally for minnow nations under, say, 2 year contracts - paid centrally by the IRB. Opportunity could be given to e.g. failed academy players to take a couple of years extra development abroad a la the NFL Europe. Each Minnow nation could have 3 designated players at any one time like MSL soccer

pickarooney

CatFromHue wrote: »

I was a good enough game but the result was never in doubt. It was more a case of by how much would NZ win.

Whereas if they started with a NZ v France game it would be a different story completely.

That group would then effectively be over as a competition, with the QF places decided and the other fixtures a foregone conclusion. At least this way there's some interest in watching the two big teams prepare for the showdown on Saturday.

endabob1

The IRB are developing the game very well imo, not perfectly and the way Argentina have been forced to sit on the outside looking despite their competitiveness on the last 3 (now 4) world cups shows that the old school set ups are hard to break down.

There is the Churchill Cup, the Pacific 4 Nations & the Nations Cup which are all aimed at developing the tier 2/3 nations. The fully professional test nations need to be more inclusive if the game is really to expanded.
I like the idea of moving the 6 Nations to every other year and having a European Championship in the Non RWC season but in all honesty that is some way away. Getting the Wolfhounds & Saxons playing the likes of Georgia, Romania & Russia in an annual tournament or even bi-annual would benefit the emerging nations a huge amount.

Thud

The Sevens game in the Olympics will draw a lot of players to Rugby.
It's high scoring and easy to get into, can see a lot of Americans taking up Sevens, that could lead to the Chinese competing...

GerM

endabob1 wrote: »

There is the Churchill Cup, the Pacific 4 Nations & the Nations Cup which are all aimed at developing the tier 2/3 nations. The fully professional test nations need to be more inclusive if the game is really to expanded.
I like the idea of moving the 6 Nations to every other year and having a European Championship in the Non RWC season but in all honesty that is some way away. Getting the Wolfhounds & Saxons playing the likes of Georgia, Romania & Russia in an annual tournament or even bi-annual would benefit the emerging nations a huge amount.

It would but there's only so much money. Who is going to pay for the Wolfhounds to travel to eastern Europe to play these guys? The IRFU are a small union and it would be a massive ask of them to commit to such a thing. Whilst the likes of Georgia and Romania are solid outfits relatively and have been steadily improving (or getting back to where they were for Romania), a team like Russia is still well off the standard of the Saxons and Wolfhounds who would give them a solid beating every time. The same is true with all the other sides in the top flight of the FIRA tournament. Russia, Ukraine, Portugal and Spain make up the top flight and would learn nothing from being tonked by professional sides.

Georgia and Romania are unfortunate as they tend to fall a little in between the two levels. They're generally too good for the likes of Spain but not good enough to be playing the 6N sides. They can raise their games for one off matches but over a tournament, they'd be beaten soundly. They'd be well off playing against sides like the Argentine Jaguars and Italy A. These teams have to walk before running. Push them too fast and it will do them and the sport in their respective countries no good. Georgia beating Russia at home in front of 10k does far more for the sport in the country than losing by 20 points to the Saxons.

hypermuse

Stev_o wrote: »

*To begin with this isn't a thread that is supposed to diminish Ireland's victory over Australia this is a post about someone who is a bit dismayed at the this tournament's offering*

First problem for me had to be the opening "game* between New Zealand and Tonga one of the pathetic ways to open up a international tournament to have the No 1 ranked seed against a side that has not played against any top 10 ranked nation since 2007. To me it just seemed dumbed and really undermined the "opening" of the tournament in the first place.

But then the fixture list.

Oh my god the fixture list.

So far only one team from the Top 10 has had to put up with a 4 day turn around but they so happen to be a third Tier rank in their Pool (Scotland). Meanwhile every other Top 10 Nation has 5 day + resting grace between each match.

The farce of Samoa having their first pool game on Wednesday and having their biggest game then on Sunday just takes the biscuit and really leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Im happy to see teams make some great progress in this tournament but the fact is they are being ****ed over before a match has even kicked off.

*/rant*

YOur not wrong with your assessment of the fixtures! its great to have Ireland having bout a week off between fixtures but the reason most of the big teams have better fixtures is because of revenue from TV.

If Ireland/england etc are playing at 9 on a wednesday morning the viewings would be millions down!! they have to play weekends to get the bigger money into the IRB.. Rugby is huge in these nations so you have to give the people the chance to watch it!

But a huge chunk of the money made goes into investing the 2nd and 3rd tier teams! IRB have invested something like €150 million into the 2nd/3rd tier rugby nations over last 3 years!

Yea it sucks for Samoa how have had to play games without only 3 day rest but Pacific Island countries can also watch these matches mid-week much easier than their European counterparts.

endabob1

GerM wrote: »

Georgia beating Russia at home in front of 10k does far more for the sport in the country than losing by 20 points to the Saxons.

Georgia had 20k plus for their game against Romania in the Nations Cup :eek:

The IRB are pumping money into the 2/3rd tier so it wouldn't need to be at the IRFU's expense to send a wolfhounds side out there for a couple of games.

Generally I think the IRB are doing a good job in developing these sides, I think we'd all just like to see a bit more of them outside of world cups

GerM

endabob1 wrote: »

Generally I think the IRB are doing a good job in developing these sides, I think we'd all just like to see a bit more of them outside of world cups

I would agree to a point. I'd like to see Georgia and Romania given an international against a top 10 side every second autumn to boost their profile and showcase their talents somewhat. A side like Scotland or Italy. I don't think there's much point giving much more currently or you would risk a negative impact. The fact that Georgia haven't played a single side in the top 10 of the world since the last WC is harsh though.

I think the IRB are doing a brilliant job. Romania were decimated in the revolution in the 1980s and lost most of their players so had to start from scratch. Georgia only formed a side in 1989. Russia and Portugal have made massive strides in the past decade.

CIARAN_BOYLE

GerM wrote: »

The fact that Georgia haven't played a single side in the top 10 of the world since the last WC is harsh though.

Same with Tonga as well I think

Piliger

It is irrelevant.

The World Cup has an important role in spreading the game. Just like Ireland being in the Cricket World Cup and the African countries in the soccer world cup. . it is important to bring the lesser nations to the competition and give them a chance to play against the top teams.

They pay a small price in having to play games closer together - but better they do it than the top teams.

I think all the criticism of the tournament is rubbish. The opening game was a brilliant game.

circos

Ive really enjoyed the tournament on a whole, i think it's been the best standard ive seen at a world cup. Lesser nations doing well.

Theres always going to be lesser nations is the thing though.

Would it not be up to the country itself to get up to standard, then once strong enough the IRB would consider entry to the tier 1 tournaments or even friendlys with tier 1 teams.

Russia seem to have taken to the sport in recent years by re-introducing it to schools etc, which has been their own initiative and it has resulted in them being in the world cup (due to qualification of course but still)

Podge_irl

endabob1 wrote: »

Georgia had 20k plus for their game against Romania in the Nations Cup :eek:

Pretty sure Georgia - Russia games have drawn crowds in the vicinity of 40,000.

Stev_o

Piliger wrote: »

It is irrelevant.

The World Cup has an important role in spreading the game. Just like Ireland being in the Cricket World Cup and the African countries in the soccer world cup. . it is important to bring the lesser nations to the competition and give them a chance to play against the top teams.

They pay a small price in having to play games closer together - but better they do it than the top teams.

I think all the criticism of the tournament is rubbish. The opening game was a brilliant game.

What it spreads is a stupid message to the countries that are ranked below the Top10.

You'v qualified to take part in this tournament that's fantastic, now please sit in the corner while we horrendously **** you up with our fixture list in where your team will play 2 games in one week against a Top 10 nation that has had a week off. Hope you enjoy it.

It's f*cking awful and sums up how out of touch rugby is outside of the top10. Doesn't matter how well the likes Japan, Georgia, Romania, Samoa play in these tournaments because they are pretty much f*cked from the start in competing with the higher teams because they are forced to play 2 games in one week.

Stev_o

Stev_o wrote: »

What it spreads is a stupid message to the countries that are ranked below the Top10.

You'v qualified to take part in this tournament that's fantastic, now please sit in the corner while we horrendously **** you up with our fixture list in where your team will play 2 games in one week against a Top 10 nation that has had a week off. Hope you enjoy it.

It's f*cking awful and sums up how out of touch rugby is outside of the top10. Doesn't matter how well the likes Japan, Georgia, Romania, Samoa play in these tournaments because they are pretty much f*cked from the start in competing with the higher teams because they are forced to play 2 games in one week.

I think you might be overthinking a bit.

Do you think that the results would be any different if every team was afforded the same gap?