Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

World Cup let down

  • 18-10-2011 6:28pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,742 ✭✭✭✭


    I was so looking forward to this WC , particularly an Irish success (semi final) , but also some memorable matches -

    Whether its the let down of Ireland , the red card , dan carters withdrawal and particularly the early starts - this WC has left me very flat - thinking back to the wonder of the '95 WC - the brilliance of the '99 semi (best match ever! ) - even the English success of '03 and the emergence of argentina in '07 - My memories of this WC pale in comparison - anyone else feal similar


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,207 ✭✭✭durkadurka


    I can't see rugby gaining any new fans from it .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45 bandit14


    durkadurka wrote: »
    I can't see rugby gaining any new fans from it .
    shocking to hear what Gatts had to say tonight!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,463 ✭✭✭Kiwi_knock


    The rugby has not been good enough, been a few good moments but no games that will go down as classics (yet). The early exit of Ireland probably skews my views but I felt this WC was a disappointment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,460 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    Very poor WC, in fact it was awful. No real classic game.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,889 ✭✭✭tolosenc


    None of the big teams have been involved in decent games. Poor tournament all in all.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,266 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Ireland v Oz and Wales v SA were decent games. In the pool stages you had a "group of death" in pool D with 3 teams all going for qualification, the Tongans beat the French and then there was the whole French saga to keep people interested. The early starts didn't help at all as people missed a lot of games cos of it.

    I'm guessing when you say the wonder of 95 that it was a) your first world cup or b) cos it had the South Africans back in it. I also think when you look back at the 99 World Cup you may have rose tinted glasses on.

    It's had enough to keep me interested anyway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭Superbus


    Feels much like the soccer last year - especially if New Zealand win it, much like Spain, it'll feel like the entire tournament was only staged for the purpose of their victory.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,208 ✭✭✭T-Maxx


    Agreed. Most all the games I watched were disappointing one way or the other, a few good minutes here or there but in general it left me just cold.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70 ✭✭Wishful Thinking


    thebaz wrote: »
    I was so looking forward to this WC , particularly an Irish success (semi final) , but also some memorable matches -

    Whether its the let down of Ireland , the red card , dan carters withdrawal and particularly the early starts - this WC has left me very flat - thinking back to the wonder of the '95 WC - the brilliance of the '99 semi (best match ever! ) - even the English success of '03 and the emergence of argentina in '07 - My memories of this WC pale in comparison - anyone else feal similar

    Think you have a touch of the rose tinted glasses. 07 was pish on the whole. Horrid kicking rugby & from an Irish point was horrid. Final & semi finals were fairly boring. The only fantastic game was France v NZ in 1/4s & France v Argentina in opener.

    This RWC has had some fantastic matches albeit not high try counts but that's not what rugby is about. 3 very closely matched 1/4 finals with Aus v SA fantastic entertainment with comical error rates.

    The group stages were better as well with Ireland beating the Aussies, Wales SA and Samoa producing riveting rugby and again Scotland v Argentina & England was very exciting rugby.

    The minnows too were very entertaining with good games between Tonga v Japan & Canada and let's not forget Tinga beating France.

    We have a final of France v NZ and while if NZ run away with it, it certainly will be a shame for neutrals, this match could potentially be the best final EVER!


  • Site Banned Posts: 5,346 ✭✭✭wixfjord


    Second bad WC in a row.
    A Welsh or Irish win would have made it imo.
    Hopefully France can come out with a swagger and take it to the Kiwis.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    I think everyone is a bit down-beat

    Ok the semis were poor but the group stages had a few good games and upsets

    Still think it was better than 07

    If France and England had bothered to turn up we could have a had a few more cracking games


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,791 ✭✭✭theoneeyedman


    Ireland leaving at quarter final stage is hardly early sure, as per seeding and better than 07. Poor concept tbh : tri nations way ahead of 6 nations and the minnows following behind
    IMO the orb if they are serious need to tighten up on qualification criteria to prevent in particular the Pacific nations players being pillaged by the bigger nations


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    Ireland leaving at quarter final stage is hardly early sure, as per seeding and better than 07. Poor concept tbh : tri nations way ahead of 6 nations and the minnows following behind
    IMO the orb if they are serious need to tighten up on qualification criteria to prevent in particular the Pacific nations players being pillaged by the bigger nations

    I don't think so, maybe the kiwis but any of the northern hemisphere sides but Italy and Scotland are more than capable of beating Australia or SA


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,791 ✭✭✭theoneeyedman


    Fishooks12 wrote: »
    Ireland leaving at quarter final stage is hardly early sure, as per seeding and better than 07. Poor concept tbh : tri nations way ahead of 6 nations and the minnows following behind
    IMO the orb if they are serious need to tighten up on qualification criteria to prevent in particular the Pacific nations players being pillaged by the bigger nations

    I don't think so, maybe the kiwis but any of the northern hemisphere sides but Italy and Scotland are more than capable of beating Australia or SA

    Ya think? Consistently? If Australia or SA played a 6 nations team in a knock out game who would win 9 times out of 10. They are still ahead in terms of preperation and skills with Tremane NH teams following on


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    Ireland v Oz and Wales v SA were decent games. In the pool stages you had a "group of death" in pool D with 3 teams all going for qualification, the Tongans beat the French and then there was the whole French saga to keep people interested. The early starts didn't help at all as people missed a lot of games cos of it.

    I'm guessing when you say the wonder of 95 that it was a) your first world cup or b) cos it had the South Africans back in it. I also think when you look back at the 99 World Cup you may have rose tinted glasses on.

    It's had enough to keep me interested anyway.


    1999 was awfull bar the NZ france game


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,460 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    So what we are saying is basically every WC has been pretty ****


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,074 ✭✭✭Digifriendly


    2 paltry tries in 160 miniutes at Eden Park last weekend - rather poor fare despite the drama of the Wales vs France match. I'm a rugby fanatic but for those who only tune in every 4 years this was a turn off IMHO.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Fight_Night


    Ya think? Consistently? If Australia or SA played a 6 nations team in a knock out game who would win 9 times out of 10. They are still ahead in terms of preperation and skills with Tremane NH teams following on

    Dunno, SA would win more than they lose, but Australia are a bit hit and miss, they certainly wouldn't be consistently dominating the 6N if they played in it anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,742 ✭✭✭✭thebaz


    I really think the organisers will need to shake it up a bit - it has become so predictable - how great it would be to see Tonga or Samoa reaching a semi - but with schedule and some of the decisions never going to happen - failing that a tournament of 12 with groups of 3 - that way all games would become must wins


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    So what we are saying is basically every WC has been pretty ****

    most soccer world cups are so so aswell , the one last year was crap and then we had the vuvuzeulas :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,615 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Organisers might consider the Rugby League World Cup model where the groups are 'reverse seeded' to keep the stronger teams together.

    So this World Cup would have been something like.
    Group A. NZ, Australia, England, Ireland, Scotland.
    Group B. South Africa, Argentina, France, Wales, Italy.
    Group C. Fiji, Romania, USA, Tonga, Georgia.
    Group D. Samoa, Canada, Russia, Namibia, Japan.

    Top 3 in groups A and B reach quarter finals. Joined by winners of Groups C & D.

    Quarter finals. A1 v C1. B1 v D1, A2 v B3, B2 v A3.

    So you have 20 heavyweight mega clashes in the first 2 groups. Meanwhile the weaker teams have competitive groups with a realistic chance of a quarter final place.

    There are drawbacks obviously, the teams ranked 9th and 10th (Scotland, Italy ???) are being given a harder path than the current system. And the winners of groups C and D are going to be lower ranked teams that those eliminated from Groups A and B.

    But I think as a structure it would create a huge buzz around the group games.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    Organisers might consider the Rugby League World Cup model where the groups are 'reverse seeded' to keep the stronger teams together.

    So this World Cup would have been something like.
    Group A. NZ, Australia, England, Ireland, Scotland.
    Group B. South Africa, Argentina, France, Wales, Italy.
    Group C. Fiji, Romania, USA, Tonga, Georgia.
    Group D. Samoa, Canada, Russia, Namibia, Japan.

    Top 3 in groups A and B reach quarter finals. Joined by winners of Groups C & D.

    Quarter finals. A1 v C1. B1 v D1, A2 v B3, B2 v A3.

    So you have 20 heavyweight mega clashes in the first 2 groups. Meanwhile the weaker teams have competitive groups with a realistic chance of a quarter final place.

    There are drawbacks obviously, the teams ranked 9th and 10th (Scotland, Italy ???) are being given a harder path than the current system. And the winners of groups C and D are going to be lower ranked teams that those eliminated from Groups A and B.

    But I think as a structure it would create a huge buzz around the group games
    .

    I'd rather have uncompetitive group stages than the one-sided quarters that kind of system would lead to. Not to mention it would be a disaster for Ireland!:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,615 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Fishooks12 wrote: »
    I'd rather have uncompetitive group stages than the one-sided quarters that kind of system would lead to. Not to mention it would be a disaster for Ireland!:D

    Ach, you 'only' have 2 potentially uncompetive quarter finals, and Ireland would have beaten Italy and one of England or Australia (or even both) to get minimum 3rd in the group and a quarter final slot. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Plenty of light and not much heat in this RWC.

    Loads of drama around the periphery of the tournament and a few of the wrong kind of talking points from games but aside from some notable examples already mentioned, the rugby has been staid - I wouldn't like to be the guy who has to compile the highlights DVD!

    I don' think the final will provide a classic- but I hope to be proven wrong.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,266 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    If you look at the quarter finals Ire v Wal, Eng v Fra, Oz v SA, and NZ v Arg on paper are all good games.

    If you look at the groups

    We had on paper 2 tough games in Oz and Ita and Italy would have fancied their chances against us if we had lost to Oz.
    In group B there was Eng, Scot, and Arg all with strong chances of making it of their group.
    In group D you had on paper a great pool with SA, Wal, Samoa, and Fiji all with strong possibilities of getting out.

    So on paper this was a very competitive comp.

    There isn't too much the IRB can do if SA, Fra, Eng, and Fiji show up with poor teams or poor form.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,695 ✭✭✭Thud


    I think they'll need to treat the smaller nations fairly at the next world cup, tv revenue can't dictate things if you want a fair tournament.

    Maybe also give lower ranked sides a larger squad size limit to even things up slightly.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,266 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Thud wrote: »
    I think they'll need to treat the smaller nations fairly at the next world cup, tv revenue can't dictate things if you want a fair tournament.
    I believe the IRB said there would be no short turn around times between games for the smaller nations in 2015.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,074 ✭✭✭Digifriendly


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    I believe the IRB said there would be no short turn around times between games for the smaller nations in 2015.

    If this is the case there will almost certainly be no Midweek games and tournament will be streched out for another 1-2 weeks will it not?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 643 ✭✭✭swordofislam


    IMO the orb if they are serious need to tighten up on qualification criteria to prevent in particular the Pacific nations players being pillaged by the bigger nations
    In fairness to the Kiwis alot of those Tongan, Samoan and Fijian players are New Zealand born. They are probably helping island rugby more than hindering it. The islanders should have a pacific islands team (they tried it before and they weren't enough better to make it worth cheering for 'Islands' rather than Samoa, Tonga, Fiji).
    CatFromHue wrote: »
    I believe the IRB said there would be no short turn around times between games for the smaller nations in 2015.
    I understood it to be that everyone would be treated the same.

    It has all been a bit anticlimactic. The bloody Kiwis are going to win this and with the 'choke' off their backs will win every bloody RWC for the rest of my life.

    That said we had a pretty good time and the win is no more than the ABs deserve. I'm just jealous really, really jealous.
    Thud wrote: »
    I think they'll need to treat the smaller nations fairly at the next world cup, tv revenue can't dictate things if you want a fair tournament.

    Maybe also give lower ranked sides a larger squad size limit to even things up slightly.
    Wales, Ireland and NZ are smaller nations surely?


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    If you look at the quarter finals Ire v Wal, Eng v Fra, Oz v SA, and NZ v Arg on paper are all good games.

    If you look at the groups

    We had on paper 2 tough games in Oz and Ita and Italy would have fancied their chances against us if we had lost to Oz.
    In group B there was Eng, Scot, and Arg all with strong chances of making it of their group.
    In group D you had on paper a great pool with SA, Wal, Samoa, and Fiji all with strong possibilities of getting out.

    So on paper this was a very competitive comp.

    There isn't too much the IRB can do if SA, Fra, Eng, and Fiji show up with poor teams or poor form.

    Also, Italy were talking themselves up the whole week before the Ireland game even though we beat Oz. Plus, in spite of us beating Oz, it did end up coming down to the wire for us, with winner take all game with Italy. IMO, a very competitive group overall !!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 912 ✭✭✭endabob1


    France have been brutal, England game aside they have yet to string a decent half hour of rugby together and are somehow in the final having lost to Tonga on the way.

    Four years ago a ramshackle England side made the final and might even have snook home but for an alert touch judge.

    2 world cups in a row where you've ended up with one very weak finalist, NZ will possibly win it haven only had to beat one decent team. The Boks won it 4 years ago without having to beat either of their tri-nations partners or either of the top 2 from that years 6N.

    It's a world cup but the cream is not rising to the top.


Advertisement