RWC 2015 - build-up thread

Buer

jacothelad wrote: »

In what way? He is a great addition to the team. If you had said we would have done better signing a high quality back row player I would agree. However, nothing mental about signing a 23 ? y.o current All Black. If you had a choice between Ludik or Peter nelson or Ch. Piatau, you would choose Nelson? Really Now that would be mental.

I see two elements of the deal being a bit off the wall:

- Ulster are supposedly making him one of the top 5 paid players in the world which to me is way overpaying for him given he's a utility back and Ulster have some very good options there already. Even if the cupboard was bare, I don't think he's worth that as a member of the extended NZ panel as opposed to someone who's in their 23.

- As you say, Ulster's need for players is much greater elsewhere, specifically the back row. That's the area where they've struggled year on year yet they keep signing these Payne/Ludik/Piutau type players who cover the backfield.

desertcircus

thomond2006 wrote: »

Positive discrimination isn't the way to deal with it. IMO it only furthers segregation. By all means invest time and money into developing the game among non-white communities but don't impose a quota. What about the non-white players who would get selected anyway? Doesn't something like this demean their selection by merit? This copperfastens the fact that skin colour matters when it shouldn't.

It's only political posturing anyway. The rugby is only a sideshow and the timing of this is no coincidence.

What is the way to go, then? The South African government has spent two decades trying to get the SARU to improve its record on integration, and yet despite the white population declining to only nine percent, the Boks could field a starting fifteen with thirteen white players. Do they impose quotas at Super Rugby level? Currie Cup? Underage? Unless white kids are taking up rugby in numbers vastly outstripping non-white kids, something is going wrong.

irishbucsfan

desertcircus wrote: »

What is the way to go, then? The South African government has spent two decades trying to get the SARU to improve its record on integration, and yet despite the white population declining to only nine percent, the Boks could field a starting fifteen with thirteen white players. Do they impose quotas at Super Rugby level? Currie Cup? Underage? Unless white kids are taking up rugby in numbers vastly outstripping non-white kids, something is going wrong.

They don't need to impose quotas anywhere. They need to offer black player equal opportunities to play rugby and if they get involved then more of them will be selected.

What percentage of African rugby players are white? I think you'll find that a number is much more relevant than the overall population.

Positive discrimination is a complete waste of time. The advantage of increased playing numbers should be incentive enough for the SARU to spread the game.

Yes the South Africans could start a team with 13 white players, and that team could be the best team available to them. Just as Ireland could start a team with 10 or more Leinster players and it could be the best team available to us, comparing the breakdown to the general population is barmy.

desertcircus

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They don't need to impose quotas anywhere. They need to offer black player equal opportunities to play rugby and if they get involved then more of them will be selected.

What percentage of African rugby players are white? I think you'll find that a number is much more relevant than the overall population.

Positive discrimination is a complete waste of time. The advantage of increased playing numbers should be incentive enough for the SARU to spread the game.

Yes the South Africans could start a team with 13 white players, and that team could be the best team available to them. Just as Ireland could start a team with 10 or more Leinster players and it could be the best team available to us, comparing the breakdown to the general population is barmy.

Comparing the racial composition of the South African rugby team to the provincial composition of the Irish team is asinine. There's an ugly tendency, whenever player quotas come up, to talk about it in abstract terms and behave as though everything is fine the way it is and efforts to change things are a blight on the game. The Springboks were a disgrace to rugby in every game they played for decades, and they were a disgrace specifically because black players were treated unfairly. Disregarding that context and insisting that a nine-tenths white Springbok side is no different to a two-thirds Leinster Irish side is crassly dismissive of the history of South African rugby.

English Lurker

Buer wrote: »

I see two elements of the deal being a bit off the wall:

- Ulster are supposedly making him one of the top 5 paid players in the world which to me is way overpaying for him given he's a utility back and Ulster have some very good options there already. Even if the cupboard was bare, I don't think he's worth that as a member of the extended NZ panel as opposed to someone who's in their 23.

He was just in their 23 and looked immense, to be fair. I think he'd have travelled if he hadn't signed a contract to put himself outside NZ - he's certainly the unluckiest man in NZ to miss out for my money. I think his value is actually higher since he's a utility back. A player who can play another 1 or 2 positions as well or nearly as well as his specialist position offers a lot more to a squad when the injuries start to bite.

He's a player good enough to shine in a NZ starting line-up in his prime. I think you have to go back to Carl Hayman or Nick Evans to find the last one of those. It's not a common signing and, imo, well worth having a go at it; I think basically every big club in Europe would have wished they'll pulled that one off, contractual delays or no.

There is a question regards whether the money and NIQ slot could have been spent better elsewhere. But I don't think it's been badly spent.

Yeah_Right

desertcircus wrote: »

Comparing the racial composition of the South African rugby team to the provincial composition of the Irish team is asinine. There's an ugly tendency, whenever player quotas come up, to talk about it in abstract terms and behave as though everything is fine the way it is and efforts to change things are a blight on the game. The Springboks were a disgrace to rugby in every game they played for decades, and they were a disgrace specifically because black players were treated unfairly. Disregarding that context and insisting that a nine-tenths white Springbok side is no different to a two-thirds Leinster Irish side is crassly dismissive of the history of South African rugby.

If they want more blacks and coloured players in the Boks then they have to get more of them playing the sport at a younger age. There is no way there should be quotas at national team level.

Just because only 9% of the population is white does not mean that whites should be a minority in the Boks. As someone else said, you have to look at the ethnic make up of the rugby playing population not the whole population. If you are going to start basing the make up of the national team on a county's ethnic make up then surely Ireland will need to set aside some places for people of Polish descent. And Travellers. Also NZ will have select 4 Asians for their squad.

Flipper22

desertcircus wrote: »

Comparing the racial composition of the South African rugby team to the provincial composition of the Irish team is asinine. There's an ugly tendency, whenever player quotas come up, to talk about it in abstract terms and behave as though everything is fine the way it is and efforts to change things are a blight on the game. The Springboks were a disgrace to rugby in every game they played for decades, and they were a disgrace specifically because black players were treated unfairly. Disregarding that context and insisting that a nine-tenths white Springbok side is no different to a two-thirds Leinster Irish side is crassly dismissive of the history of South African rugby.

So are you suggesting that they should be forced to pick black players over white players even if they are inferior? That actually would be a disgrace to the game. Or are you suggesting that racial discrimination is behind the lack of black players currently in the side? I see no evidence of that currently, though obviously there was in the past. Rugby in Ireland is historically a middle class sport, which explains the high number of players who went to private schools. Should we impose a public school quota?

It's very much in the interest of SA rugby to spread the game to non-traditional black communities.

irishbucsfan

desertcircus wrote: »

Comparing the racial composition of the South African rugby team to the provincial composition of the Irish team is asinine.

It's not asinine in the slightest, you have to think about it critically. Unless the selectors are racist then it's based on the exact same criteria. IE, these are the players who are most deserving of the positions in the squad.

If there is an imbalance in selection it's because there's an imbalance in the players available. If there's an imbalance in the players available then there's an imbalance in the source and development of these players. Just as there's a lot less rugby played in Connacht and a lot less development done around it, there's less rugby played in the black areas of Jo'burg or the coloured areas of Cape Town.

We actually want to expand rugby in non-traditional areas of Ireland for the exact same reasons the South Africans should want to expand rugby non-traditional areas in their own country.

The only semi-decent reason for applying a quota would be if quality players from minority groups were being dismissed for non-rugby reasons at the point of selection. If the South African team were all white despite all the best players being coloured/black. Or if the Irish team were all from Leinster despite all the best players coming from Connacht. If the cause of the issue existed in selection then you can consider regulating selections.

However selection bias is not causal in this instance in my opinion, the selection itself is symptomatic of a lack of development in non-traditional areas of South African rugby. So the question moves down the chain, is the non-development in these areas down to a bias in how the resources are being used? Maybe it is, I have no idea I admit, but regulating selection of the national team won't fix that, it will only exacerbate it. If that is the problem then regulating development might be the answer (or just basic education for the decision-makers!). Maybe that's not the problem, it may just be a cultural thing, like trying to convince an old man in Kerry to watch an "English sport," rugby is seen as a white sport in large areas of the country and it may remain that way for a long time.

I adore South Africa, it's such a profoundly amazing country for many reasons, when/if they do develop rugby further across the nation it will give me or my kids (who don't exist yet, but it may be a long time before this is resolved...) an amazing reason to travel around it even more. Regulating selection is going to do very little to help with that and I think it's more likely it'll have the opposite effect.

Coburger

If, by any chance, Wales or Scotland finished fourth in their group, e.g. the group finishing Australia, England, Fiji and then Wales,, does anyone think that the rules would be changed so that they don't have to qualify for the next World Cup.

CatFromHue

I doubt it.

Ireland had to play to qualify for the 03 RWC

Ceadog

Coburger wrote: »

If, by any chance, Wales or Scotland finished fourth in their group, e.g. the group finishing Australia, England, Fiji and then Wales,, does anyone think that the rules would be changed so that they don't have to qualify for the next World Cup.

Been thinking about this a bit myself. Wales in particular are in real danger considering Fiji are their bogey team.

It'd be beautiful seeing the Welsh get taken down a peg or two

penybont exile

Ceadog wrote: »

Been thinking about this a bit myself. Wales in particular are in real danger considering Fiji are their bogey team.

It'd be beautiful seeing the Welsh get taken down a peg or two

If you are of the opinion Fiji are Wales bogey team you obviously know very little about the sport.

Review the 2011 RWC. Sure we lost to them in 07 but I can't see it happening this year.

The Lost Sheep

Coburger wrote: »

If, by any chance, Wales or Scotland finished fourth in their group, e.g. the group finishing Australia, England, Fiji and then Wales,, does anyone think that the rules would be changed so that they don't have to qualify for the next World Cup.

No as its not in the interest of World Rugby to do that. World Rugby wont change things so 16/20 teams qualify for the next competition

Ceadog

penybont exile wrote: »

If you are of the opinion Fiji are Wales bogey team you obviously know very little about the sport.

Review the 2011 RWC. Sure we lost to them in 07 but I can't see it happening this year.

In the past 10 years they've played 5 times. Wales have won 3, Fiji 1, and 1 draw. All bar one of those games were decided by less than 5 points. Considering Wales are a top ranked team, their form against Fiji is fairly woeful. That 2011 RWC result is an exception rather than the norm.

penybont exile

Ceadog wrote: »

In the past 10 years they've played 5 times. Wales have won 3, Fiji 1, and 1 draw. All bar one of those games were decided by less than 5 points. Considering Wales are a top ranked team, their form against Fiji is fairly woeful. That 2011 RWC result is an exception rather than the norm.

The non WC games were Friday night fillers in the autumn series, watched by school kids with noisy horns where Wales fielded scratch sides and sported dubious change kit.

In other words no-one gave a flying-****.

razorblunt

Cowan and Barclay both out of the Scotland squad apparently, Barclay is probably expected but Cowan seemed to be a stalwart under Cotter.
Not fully released yet but the above is going round twitter and also chatted about by the lads in work.

aimee1

AWJ has a medial ligament injury and will miss the uruguay game according to bbc website.

J Davies out, liam williams an injury doubt, AWJ out for 2-3 weeks. Not a great way to be preparing to play england especially with samson Lee only coming back from injury and warburton injured too.

sydthebeat

razorblunt wrote: »

Cowan and Barclay both out of the Scotland squad apparently, Barclay is probably expected but Cowan seemed to be a stalwart under Cotter.
Not fully released yet but the above is going round twitter and also chatted about by the lads in work.

sounds like hardie has made it then... Total former will go mental :P

total former

sydthebeat wrote: »

sounds like hardie has made it then... Total former will go mental :P

This is confirmed, I'm disgusted.

WP Nel in, Josh Strauss in too.

They're sticking with Laidlaw as captain, which presumably means he'll play despite the noted handicap of being the third-best SH in the squad.

Jim Hamilton left out, the Gray brothers, Swinson and Gilchrist are ahead of him.

Yeah_Right

Have to say I'm surprised Cowan and Hamilton missed out. I think they both would be good assets for a tournament like this.

Sangre

I can't imagine Hardie will be worth the flak Cotter will have to field for his inclusion.

snotboogie

desertcircus wrote: »

Comparing the racial composition of the South African rugby team to the provincial composition of the Irish team is asinine. There's an ugly tendency, whenever player quotas come up, to talk about it in abstract terms and behave as though everything is fine the way it is and efforts to change things are a blight on the game. The Springboks were a disgrace to rugby in every game they played for decades, and they were a disgrace specifically because black players were treated unfairly. Disregarding that context and insisting that a nine-tenths white Springbok side is no different to a two-thirds Leinster Irish side is crassly dismissive of the history of South African rugby.

Blacks make up 13% of the U.S. population but made up 91% of the U.S. Basketball team at the last Olympics. Should there be quotas in basketball too?

thomond2006

total former wrote: »

This is confirmed, I'm disgusted.

WP Nel in, Josh Strauss in too.

They're sticking with Laidlaw as captain, which presumably means he'll play despite the noted handicap of being the third-best SH in the squad.

Jim Hamilton left out, the Gray brothers, Swinson and Gilchrist are ahead of him.

Well at least that will keep the penalty and yellow card count down.

razorblunt

Richie Gray is bloody fortunate, you could argue Barclay over Strokosch too but it would probably be too much to bring him in from the cold to a QC squad. Only 2 centers of note too (Scott & Bennett) Horne is a fly half I would have thought and Vernon, is, well Vernon. I guess Lamont can cover round too.

Interesting to see how Strauss goes, seems to have given Denton a kick up the arse at least anyway.
I thought this was the opportunity to take the captaincy off Laidlaw, pretty much undroppable now, which is mad.

McInally picked a hooker, how many professional games has he had there? He's good, don't get me wrong but it's a hell of a leap up.

Ceadog

Heard that Gatland never informed the Welsh players that weren't going, all of them found out off of the TV, on the plane or no.

Is it just me or is that a bit ****?

Stheno

Ceadog wrote: »

Heard that Gatland never informed the Welsh players that weren't going, all of them found out off of the TV, on the plane or no.

Is it just me or is that a bit ****?

that's crappy if true

sydthebeat

Ceadog wrote: »

Heard that Gatland never informed the Welsh players that weren't going, all of them found out off of the TV, on the plane or no.

Is it just me or is that a bit ****?

heard from? man in the pub?

Ceadog

sydthebeat wrote: »

heard from? man in the pub?

Read it on a forum yesterday and didn't pay much mind to it but then I saw a Welsh journo mention it earlier so there must be something to it. Wouldn't surprise me anyway.

Ceadog

www. walesonline .co.uk/ sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-rugby-world-cup-squad-9960044

Coach Warren Gatland will be present but the job of announcing the squad will actually fall to WRU chairman Gareth Davies.

One by one, he will announce the names of the players who have made it. They will find out at the same time you do

Standard Gatty.

The Pheasant2

Ceadog wrote: »

Heard that Gatland never informed the Welsh players that weren't going, all of them found out off of the TV, on the plane or no.

Is it just me or is that a bit ****?

That's how it's done with the Lions apparently - Gats obviously has issues with letting go