world cup 2015 squad size.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Has there been any announcement as to squad sizes in rwc 2015?

The reason why I am asking is 23 man match day squads. I would imagine that with 4 props per game most teams would want 6 props in their world cup squads. Fitting 6 props into a 30 man squad would leave things tight for other positions.

Swiwi.

I don't think announced yet. The RWC is unique in that the coaches have to be canny with their selections due to the rules: eg last RWC McCaw was carrying an injury, and the choice was between having him lame in the squad, or ruling him out with injury, but in this case he was barred from all further games even if he recovered.

Grimebox

Why does that restriction even exist? Why not have an infinitely large squad available to each country?

thomond2006

Grimebox wrote: »

Why does that restriction even exist? Why not have an infinitely large squad available to each country?

To stop the top tier nations playing A sides against the minnows I imagine.

ionadnapokot

Its an interesting one. Last World Cup we brought Hooker (x3) THead (x2) LHead (x2) (*No jokes about Court or Mushy please!)
In a 16 forwards and 14 backs squad split with a 22 match day squad.

With 23 match day squads id imagine the Wcup squads will be increased to 31 at least. You are allowed to bring in replacements for your front row during the WCup. e.g. Varley replace dFlannery during the last WCup.

Although, thinking about it a bit more you prob will need the 6 props. 32 man squad it is!

ionadnapokot

Thats a good point by Thomond tho. Back to 31? No 32!

pickarooney

thomond2006 wrote: »

To stop the top tier nations playing A sides against the minnows I imagine.

Is that really a bad thing? Slightly more competitive matches rather than the demoralising thrashings the smaller teams regularly get on the one occasion they get to play a big side.

thomond2006

pickarooney wrote: »

Is that really a bad thing? Slightly more competitive matches rather than the demoralising thrashings the smaller teams regularly get on the one occasion they get to play a big side.

From a sponsor/money point of view though you want at least relatively strong sides playing in every match.

Larbre34

Not really an issue, especiallly for Ireland being so close to the host this time around. We'll have 40 odd lads in training, replacements can be brought in any time if injuries require.

desertcircus

thomond2006 wrote: »

From a sponsor/money point of view though you want at least relatively strong sides playing in every match.

Not to mention the fact that unlimited squads would be a huge advantage to certain teams. A New Zealand squad that could rotate to its heart's content would obliterate any NH team, and a Springbok squad with fifty forwards would be able to keep the biggest monsters fresh for the business end of the tournament. It might make for (slightly) less uneven group games, but nobody except SA and NZ would ever win the tournament.

Dravokivich

pickarooney wrote: »

Is that really a bad thing? Slightly more competitive matches rather than the demoralising thrashings the smaller teams regularly get on the one occasion they get to play a big side.

I can agree to your point, in a way making the match up somewhat fairer and likely to be more balanced. But I think an argument could be made that the RWC is to be the pinnacle of international Rugby. Someone fielding a development/training team against a minnows doesn't really meet that. If anything it makes it more of a joke.

jacothelad

pickarooney wrote: »

Is that really a bad thing? Slightly more competitive matches rather than the demoralising thrashings the smaller teams regularly get on the one occasion they get to play a big side.

Ah but it would allow the dastardly Irish to rest their top players while everyone else would have to struggle manfully against top opposition every week.....Oh! HANG ON. I made a mistake. They won't be facing sides like the MIGHT of Worcester, Sale and Newcastle.

Fireball07

I think 30 is a bit of a silly restriction anyway. 33 or 35 is a better number. It's not like it's an overload, but it allows you to have players in camp training in case there are any injuries.

You'd need 3 hookers, 6 props, probably 3 scrum-halves and 3 out-halves.

Swiwi.

Fireball07 wrote: »

I think 30 is a bit of a silly restriction anyway. 33 or 35 is a better number. It's not like it's an overload, but it allows you to have players in camp training in case there are any injuries.

You'd need 3 hookers, 6 props, probably 3 scrum-halves and 3 out-halves.

Ahem. 5 outhalves

Buer

Fireball07 wrote: »

I think 30 is a bit of a silly restriction anyway. 33 or 35 is a better number. It's not like it's an overload, but it allows you to have players in camp training in case there are any injuries.

You'd need 3 hookers, 6 props, probably 3 scrum-halves and 3 out-halves.

Interestingly, it's very strictly enforced. Given the location of the 2015 RWC, it won't have as much of an impact for us but when guys like Mike Sherry went out there as cover in 2011 but weren't officially in the squad, he couldn't actually join up with the group. I remember Thomas Waldrom was in the same boat with England and had to stay in a completely different hotel to the squad and have no involvement in the set up whatsoever unless he was officially called in.

padser

Fireball07 wrote: »

I think 30 is a bit of a silly restriction anyway. 33 or 35 is a better number. It's not like it's an overload, but it allows you to have players in camp training in case there are any injuries.

You'd need 3 hookers, 6 props, probably 3 scrum-halves and 3 out-halves.

I think 30 is a great number actually.

It makes the squad selection very very interesting. Every single spot is valuable. With 22 men match day squads you had one match day squad, a spare hooker, a spare prop and then just 6 other slots. It meant every team had to leave behind about 5 to 7 people they really wanted to bring.