Why so few 'Shock results' in Rugby?

Hoopshead11

Hi Everyone,i'm enjoying the World Cup at the moment with the highlight the Irish result vs Aus. . I suppose i'm like a lot of Irish people,i only really watch Rugby when Ireland are playing. So i'm no expert. But i was wondering why there are so few shock results in Rugby matches. Ireland beating the Aussies is being treated as a shock but they are only a couple of places apart in the World Ranking's. Wales nearly beating South Africa in the Pool game was also treated as a major shock yet there was only 3 places between them in the World Rankings.

thomond2006

Rankings are very misleading when it comes to test rugby. I personally don't care about them. While teams might look close mathematically on the rankings, the reality is normally very different.

There's a big difference between the "haves" and the "have nots" if you like when it comes to international rugby.

Sabre0001

Unlike soccer, you can rarely just park the bus and hope to nick a goal...You might be able to put up a fight, hopefully rattle them...but often around the 60min mark, you see the bigger nations just hit a higher gear (or the effort take it's toll on the "minnow")

eyescreamcone

A lot of the countries playing in the RWC should not be left near it because they are so uncompetitive at the top level.
There are too many teams in the RWC.

After all there are only 10 real rugby countries in the world...at a push!

The RWC could be restricted to 8 teams with all having to qualify properly.

This would make the tournament a lot more competitive and eliminate the boring games where the result is known before the start...and the games where the result doesn't matter.

tolosenc

Basically, only very few nations can field fully professional squads. Ireland beating Oz was only a shock because we'd been playing terribly for a year or more. On paper, it was anything but a foregone conclusion. I had money on Wales to beat SA, wasn't at all surprised bye the result. Also, the SH media almost ignores NH rugby, so any result for a NH team is a shock!

evil_seed

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Unlike soccer, you can rarely just park the bus and hope to nick a goal...You might be able to put up a fight, hopefully rattle them...but often around the 60min mark, you see the bigger nations just hit a higher gear (or the effort take it's toll on the "minnow")

Exactly right. Another way a shock result can happen is if the team expected to win expects to win themselves and feel as though all the have to do is turn up. But it's mainly what Sabre said.

Also, you said

Hoopshead11 wrote: »

I suppose i'm like a lot of Irish people,i only really watch Rugby when Ireland are playing.

No, you are like a lot of Irish fans. There's plenty of lads on here, and not on here, who are rugby fans and watch a lot more than most. Hell they watch more than I do and I'd consider myself mad about rugby

Hoopshead11

No, you are like a lot of Irish fans. There's plenty of lads on here, and not on here, who are rugby fans and watch a lot more than most. Hell they watch more than I do and I'd consider myself mad about rugby[/QUOTE]

What i said was i was like a lot of Irish 'people',not Irish fans. I would class a fan as someone that has an interest in their chosen sport or sports 52 weeks of the year. That's why i made it clear that i only watch Rugby when Ireland are playing,like a lot of irish people that don't watch Rugby week in,week out but still want Ireland to win. For example there is major interest in work about the Irish games but only about 4 of my co workers has ever been to a Rugby match

CatFromHue

Rugby is a game ruled by class. You don't want to be ungentlemanly by giving your betters a bloody nose.

:pac:

Sandwlch

There is less luck involved in rugby and it is less subject to variations in the on-the-day form of a team - basically the fundamentally better team normally wins. Similar to tennis or athletics, but unlike soccer or golf where the range of best to worst performance if bigger, or the scoring system is 'coarse' leading to a greater random contribution to the result.

Digifriendly

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A lot of the countries playing in the RWC should not be left near it because they are so uncompetitive at the top level.
There are too many teams in the RWC.

After all there are only 10 real rugby countries in the world...at a push!

The RWC could be restricted to 8 teams with all having to qualify properly.

This would make the tournament a lot more competitive and eliminate the boring games where the result is known before the start...and the games where the result doesn't matter.

I think 8 would be a bit small but take your point. IMHO Namibia (from this morning's evidence) would stuggle in the Pro 12 League/Aviva Premiership/Top 14 and would probably be on a level with British/Irish Cup teams and level below top French division. Francois Pienaar made the point afer the game this morning that 60+ scorelines did nothing for either team and I tend to agree. I would certainly reduce the nos in RWC and possibly have some of the smaller countries touring Europe more regularly the way they used to and pit them against e.g. England Saxons/Irish Wolfhounds and some of the club sides.

Stev_o

Mainly because "International" Rugby is more akin to a Gentlemen's club in terms of who plays who. A lot of teams ranked outside of the Top10 will be lucky to play 2 matches against teams ranked inside the Top 10. Not only that but does teams that are considered quite strong outside the Top 10 (Pacific Island Teams) rarely get to host matches, they are always a travelling team.

The gap between the Top 10 and everyone else is just ridiculously big to the point of being a farce.

endabob1

Namibia (without their couple of full time players) play in the Vodacom cup in SA, which is the level below Currie Cup, and they are whipping boys in that.
They are a long way from being competitive at the top table, but they have a very limited pool and those who can play are sometimes (Percy Montgomery) snatched by the Springboks.

overshoot

Digifriendly wrote: »

IMHO Namibia (from this morning's evidence) would stuggle in the Pro 12 League/Aviva Premiership/Top 14 and would probably be on a level with British/Irish Cup teams and level below top French division. .

4 years ago they almost bet ireland though. they need more time against the 'haves' or rugby. if the summer/autumn internationals both included one game for each country against a country outside the top 10 it would be a great help.
even dividing the second tier below the 6n into 2 and including the wolfhouds, saxons etc.... although that could help the likes of ireland/england more than the others. or a touring wolfhounds alongside the summer/autumn internationals might help too