Lessons from the RWC

irishbucsfan

Coburger wrote: »

I wonder if there were four teams in a group, e.g. France, England, Ireland, and Wales, and they play home and away like the South Hemisphere teams.

And then there is another group with Italy, Scotland (sorry), Georgia, and Romania, and the top team from the bottom group plays the lowest team in the top group for a play off place.

I like playing each team once. I think 6 teams is a fine size.

Just make it division 1 and make the ENC 1A division 2 and so on. (That's Georgia, Romania, Spain, Germany, Russia, Portugal) and have a playoff each Autumn for a place in the top tier. It'll never happen of course but I can dream.

irishbucsfan

I really can't help but feel that it'd be great for rugby to have a 2nd tier knockout stages for the world cup. I know a lot of people disagree with that idea but I just think it'd be so good for developing the game in the countries and taking maximum advantage of the exposure the competition brings to the sport in smaller countries.

Have it between the 3rd/4th place group finishers and match them up the same way. We had 20 million viewers in Japan for the Samoa game, that'd be a brilliant way to give them something further to watch and even some silverware to play for. I don't see why it wouldn't work, even if you just had 4 teams progressing to it.

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

What would you consider real, useful change and at what levels of the game are you talking about needing real, useful change?

Re-organise the AIL to make it more viable and a better avenue for allowing players to develop, move the schools game away from the knock out, win or go home model we have now. Push to change the focus on skills development from the youth set up onward. Weight gating for teams rather than age.

Push for a European league, similar to the Super 15 set up, closed shop or one with promotion relegation. Restructure the seasons to be played in separate blocks rather than the set up we have now?

AbusesToilets

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I really can't help but feel that it'd be great for rugby to have a 2nd tier knockout stages for the world cup. I know a lot of people disagree with that idea but I just think it'd be so good for developing the game in the countries and taking maximum advantage of the exposure the competition brings to the sport in smaller countries.

Have it between the 3rd/4th place group finishers and match them up the same way. We had 20 million viewers in Japan for the Samoa game, that'd be a brilliant way to give them something further to watch and even some silverware to play for. I don't see why it wouldn't work, even if you just had 4 teams progressing to it.

Didn't the RFU propose this previously, during one of their WC bids? I think it would be a great idea. Say a shield competition for teams finishing 3&4 in their pools and maybe something else for the teams finishing last. Would keep them playing, give them more exposure and something else to compete for.

nehe milner skudder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree with everything you have said Molloy. But at the same time, I can't help but think that with two different coaches leading France and England this tournament would look very different.

Despite this though, the Aviva and the Top14 are not a breeding ground for talent at the moment and I think you mentioned in a different thread (or at least someone did) that the preferential play styles of leading teams in these tournaments (size, power, bosh) does not lend itself well to the national stage.

I think one of the benefits Ireland has had in not producing the most massive possible players is that we've developed more nuance to our game that has allowed us to punch above our weight.

Another point that occurred to me watching the France game, and this is as good a place to make it as any is this. New Zealand don't scare me anymore tonight than they did last week. John Tracey was a great Irish athlete that had limited speed, so when he competed, he ran out hard and kept it up throughout to make sure no one could live with him and he didn't need speed at the end of the race. When he came up against someone that had the same endurance but also a kick he would run that little bit harder to take the sting out of their tail. Ireland don't have much of a kick, were not an afterburner team. But, we have intense mental concentration and clinical line speed and discipline that forces us to work that little bit harder, but allows us to live with those teams that have a kick.

Australia and New Zealand seem to have so much time on the ball, their skills are so developed they almost seem to slow down time, their offloading from impossible positions and contortions are weighted perfectly to land consummately into the hands of supporting runners. It's irresistible. We can't do it.

But that's the great thing about rugby. It's a game of variety, and whilst we don't have any Julian Saveas, we have players that know well enough to tackle him at knee height. We don't have any Milner-Skudders, but we have players that have enough in the engine room to chase kicks for 70 minutes and still reach extraordinary heights to take possession.

We're not a country of fast paced rabbits like New Zealand. We're turtles, but we know we're turtles so we work with our strengths. Will we score loads? Nope. Will anyone score loads against us? Not a chance. The Northern Hemisphere might need a rethink, and I think an injection of self believe would go along way, but I actually think Ireland is doing all the right things. We'll win tomorrow, and we have two pretty special players to come back into the squad a week later to face a team that are just as good as the All Blacks are right now.

We win that, we enter the finals as equals and everyone knows the story about the turtle and the rabbit.

I'm drunk.

Incorrect

irishbucsfan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Didn't the RFU propose this previously, during one of their WC bids? I think it would be a great idea. Say a shield competition for teams finishing 3&4 in their pools and maybe something else for the teams finishing last. Would keep them playing, give them more exposure and something else to compete for.

They proposed breaking the entire competition into two I believe, two much smaller competitions, which I'd hate!

AbusesToilets

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They proposed breaking the entire competition into two I believe, two much smaller competitions, which I'd hate!

Ah, fair enough. I would agree with you, it would be good for everyone I would think to have more games. More incentive for teams, more opportunities to grow the game, more ad revenue to sell.

Similar set up works well for U20 level etc, why not have something like that for the senior game?

Bridge93

As a result of this World Cup do we think we now have a 5th team in the six nations who can compete for games.
Scotland were immense yesterday and clung on in a way Ireland France and England couldn't

vienne86

If we're going to have any hope of beating the SH teams, I think we're going to have to find some way of playing them more often. When will Ireland play NZ next??? Not for years and years. One year in four of travel to the SH gets used up with a Lions tour.....which lets face it, is not much benefit to the individual national teams.

Bridge93

Not saying I would personally but do people think that the Lions Tour may be adding fuel to the problem? It encourages the thought that these guys are on a step above us and we must join forces to breach them

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Re-organise the AIL to make it more viable and a better avenue for allowing players to develop, move the schools game away from the knock out, win or go home model we have now. Push to change the focus on skills development from the youth set up onward. Weight gating for teams rather than age.

Push for a European league, similar to the Super 15 set up, closed shop or one with promotion relegation. Restructure the seasons to be played in separate blocks rather than the set up we have now?

Topic better discussed elsewhere but ....
How would you reorganise AIL?
Much more than changing schools cups from straight knock out needs to be done but that would be a start
Weight grading rather than age grading isn't needed.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Ah, fair enough. I would agree with you, it would be good for everyone I would think to have more games. More incentive for teams, more opportunities to grow the game, more ad revenue to sell.

Similar set up works well for U20 level etc, why not have something like that for the senior game?

I don't see a need for putting in a plate/bowl grading competition at the senior world cup. The competition is 6 weeks long as it is and the non union clubs have issues with the world cup as it is and we don't need to make that an issue.

nehe milner skudder wrote: »

Incorrect

What is incorrect?

irishbucsfan

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I don't see a need for putting in a plate/bowl grading competition at the senior world cup. The competition is 6 weeks long as it is and the non union clubs have issues with the world cup as it is and we don't need to make that an issue

The plate/bowl would not make it any longer. And I don't see how the non union clubs would be affected at all in any way.

Let's say you just have a semi-final and final between the 3rd place teams.

It could easilly be scheduled like this:

17th/18th October: World Cup Quarter Finals

20th October: England v Japan - Plate Semi 1

21st October: Georgia v. Italy - Plate Semi 2

24th/25th October: World Cup Semi Finals

28th October: Winner Semi 1 v Winner Semi 2 - Plate Final

31st October: World Cup Final

Would be a great opportunity for those tier 2 teams and take further advantage of the great publicity this competition brings to the game in these countries. More needs to be done for tier 2 and 3 and this would be a great way to help fund that.

stadedublinois

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The plate/bowl would not make it any longer. And I don't see how the non union clubs would be affected at all in any way.

Let's say you just have a semi-final and final between the 3rd place teams.

It could easilly be scheduled like this:

17th/18th October: World Cup Quarter Finals

20th October: England v Japan - Plate Semi 1

21st October: Georgia v. Italy - Plate Semi 2

24th/25th October: World Cup Semi Finals

28th October: Winner Semi 1 v Winner Semi 2 - Plate Final

31st October: World Cup Final

Would be a great opportunity for those tier 2 teams and take further advantage of the great publicity this competition brings to the game in these countries. More needs to be done for tier 2 and 3 and this would be a great way to help fund that.

It would affect the French and English clubs. Quite a few players at the world cup played for their clubs at the weekend (albeit England going out increased that).

Doesn't mean it's not a good idea, but it would affect the clubs.

The Lost Sheep

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Would be a great opportunity for those tier 2 teams and take further advantage of the great publicity this competition brings to the game in these countries. More needs to be done for tier 2 and 3 and this would be a great way to help fund that.

Everywhere ive seen from tier 2 forum users etc they all don't want these kind of games. They don't want more games at world cup time they want more games in November/june each year.
Just adding more games for tier 2 sidesat world cup time and tier 1 sides ignoring them for the 4 year cycle in between world cups does not help the sport.

irishbucsfan

stadedublinois wrote: »

It would affect the French and English clubs. Quite a few players at the world cup played for their clubs at the weekend (albeit England going out increased that).

Doesn't mean it's not a good idea, but it would affect the clubs.

It would affect them a little bit, but the majority of players in the tier 2 teams are based domestically.

Premiership clubs at least got paid in cash to be without their players until the end of the World Cup, so they don't have much grounds to complain!

irishbucsfan

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Everywhere ive seen from tier 2 forum users etc they all don't want these kind of games. They don't want more games at world cup time they want more games in November/june each year.
Just adding more games for tier 2 sidesat world cup time and tier 1 sides ignoring them for the 4 year cycle in between world cups does not help the sport.

Sorry I can't believe that.

Can you show me one example of someone saying they wouldn't want this game? Are you saying Japanese rugby fans wouldn't want a shot against England in a knockout game?

I don't know why you bring up November/June in response to this idea? It has nothing to do with it, they should also be given better games in those periods but that's an entirely different conversation. It's pretty weird.

The Lost Sheep

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Sorry I can't believe that.

Can you show me one example of someone saying they wouldn't want this game? Are you saying Japanese rugby fans wouldn't want a shot against England in a knockout game?

I don't know why you bring up November/June in response to this idea? It has nothing to do with it, they should also be given better games in those periods but that's an entirely different conversation. It's pretty weird.

Mentioning November and June has everything to do with this. The "tier 2" sides wont improve by playing a few extra games at the time of a world cup every 4 years without year in year out games in both November and june against 6 nations and 4 nations sides.
Look through countless threads on this forum as to why this proposal isn't wanted
http://t2rugby.com/viewforum.php?f=3

irishbucsfan

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Mentioning November and June has everything to do with this. The "tier 2" sides wont improve by playing a few extra games at the time of a world cup every 4 years without year in year out games in both November and june against 6 nations and 4 nations sides.
Look through countless threads on this forum as to why this proposal isn't wanted
http://t2rugby.com/viewforum.php?f=3

You still haven't provided an example.

Yes it's important that they play regularly in June or November. You're arguing with yourself, it's a complete straw man. I agree with that. We should be doing that in conjunction with my suggestion.

captbarnacles

The number 1 lesson imo is that the Sanzar nations are very good at using restarts to gain prime attacking position in the opposition half and NZ are the masters of this. No reason why the Six nations teams can't work on this. That to me has been the biggest advantage they have right now.

irishbucsfan

captbarnacles wrote: »

The number 1 lesson imo is that the Sanzar nations are very good at using restarts to gain prime attacking position in the opposition half and NZ are the masters of this. No reason why the Six nations teams can't work on this. That to me has been the biggest advantage they have right now.

Using restarts as an attacking set piece has been around a long time to be fair. Lewis Moody for England was the best I ever saw at it. Shane Horgan was dominant at it when Leinster used to use him that way.

I think it just comes down to athleticism. You need someone who has the pace to get into the opposition half as well as the aerial ability to win the ball in the air. Those sorts of guys are pretty rare I suppose.

daheff

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with everything you have said Molloy. But at the same time, I can't help but think that with two different coaches leading France and England this tournament would look very different.

Agreed... that and picking their best players all the time. England dont pick players playing in France, France dont pick players outside France either (Michelak was excluded from a previous WC squad when he was playing in SA)

lunarhog wrote: »

Let's not forget that england under Lancaster have beaten the all blacks. I know we got agonisingly close in 2013 but we have beaten oz and sa. that does show NH sides can mix it with the SH

Alot of these games are meaningless friendlies (Tests!) without a full team/intensity. Had to judge.

Legalfarmer89 wrote: »

I think that we will definitely see 6 nations teams touring Japan as part of their tours to the Southern hemisphere now that Japan will provide meaningful competition and most importantly to the touring sides and World rugby "Money". Japans rugby market has been awoken as a result of there performances in this tournament I believe.
The Islanders will still get the odd international against tier one sides, especially Fiji who look impressive. Samoa and Tonga, its hard to know, their such small countries that they provide very little in the way of finance for sides to tour them!

I thought that the IRB had the final say in organising these Tests (hence we are back to 3 test series from next year on??)

ixus wrote: »

Six nations at season end, takes clubs out of equation and played in better weather. Opens the game up more. Home & away takes out Summer tours.

I think playing the 6 nations either in Sept or April (Start/end season) is probably the best way to go. Not sure about Home & Away schedules though. Summer tours wont be scrapped...our summer tour is their November (Autumn) tour.


I think NH teams need to change the way they play. Its too much bosh bosh rugby...not enough fluid offload/wide rugby.

I do think that the 6 nations needs to be changed to include teams like Georgia (just look how Italy have come on.) Maybe split the competition into 2 groups of 8 and have a playoff for teams that finish 1st in each group (1st v1st, 2nd v 2nd...etc)? they wont though, because the tv money isnt there for Georgia or Russia or Spain/Portugal/Holland/Germany. Same as why SANZAUS refused to allow Argentina into their competition for so long. It was only Argentina got to the semi finals of the last worldcup that made the IRB put them into that competition.

crisco10

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Using restarts as an attacking set piece has been around a long time to be fair. Lewis Moody for England was the best I ever saw at it. Shane Horgan was dominant at it when Leinster used to use him that way.

I think it just comes down to athleticism. You need someone who has the pace to get into the opposition half as well as the aerial ability to win the ball in the air. Those sorts of guys are pretty rare I suppose.

For all the arguments over the penalty to Australia, nobody is talking about Scotlands restart after. They just hoofed it long, giving the receiever plenty of time on a wet day to steady himself for catch. It was awful. Can't imagine a SH team doing that!

The Lost Sheep

daheff wrote: »

Alot of these games are meaningless friendlies (Tests!) without a full team/intensity. Had to judge.

The November tests ETC are not without full teams/intensity.

I thought that the IRB had the final say in organising these Tests (hence we are
back to 3 test series from next year on??)

They have the main voice but unions determine who they play

I think playing the 6 nations either in Sept or April (Start/end season) is probably the best way to go. Not sure about Home & Away schedules though. Summer tours wont be scrapped...our summer tour is their November (Autumn) tour.

6 nations wont move due to tv and financial reasons. There is fewer other major sporting events on at the time the 6 Nations is played currently and by moving the 6 nations there is no way tv companies would pay as much

I think NH teams need to change the way they play. Its too much bosh bosh rugby...not enough fluid offload/wide rugby.

How do you propose NH teams change how they play?

I do think that the 6 nations needs to be changed to include teams like Georgia (just look how Italy have come on.) Maybe split the competition into 2 groups of 8 and have a playoff for teams that finish 1st in each group (1st v1st, 2nd v 2nd...etc)? they wont though, because the tv money isnt there for Georgia or Russia or Spain/Portugal/Holland/Germany. Same as why SANZAUS refused to allow Argentina into their competition for so long. It was only Argentina got to the semi finals of the last worldcup that made the IRB put them into that competition.

How do you change the 6 Nations to include Georgia. Current 6 Nations teams wont change things for less games or not having games against traditional rivals due to money etc

captbarnacles

That was inexplicable. All Aus had to do was catch, ruck and kick it out.

daheff

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

How do you propose NH teams change how they play?

As I said, they need to play more fluid, offloading wide rugby. Its telling that England & Wales warmup for the world cup was to practice playing hard forward dominated games to practice for their game against each other (and to some extent Aus/Fiji).

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

How do you change the 6 Nations to include Georgia. Current 6 Nations teams wont change things for less games or not having games against traditional rivals due to money etc

As I said...2 groups of 8

Money is the key thing here...if a big,rich country (like Germany) were to suddenly be interested I'm sure they would be accepted with open arms. Georgia/Romania arent rich countries so 6N dont really care about them.

crisco10

captbarnacles wrote: »

That was inexplicable. All Aus had to do was catch, ruck and kick it out.

I know, surely put it high down the middle, landing short of 22 and put aussie catchers under pressure and maybe force a knock on. Never know, could get a penalty from obstruction or something.

The Lost Sheep

daheff wrote: »

As I said, they need to play more fluid, offloading wide rugby. Its telling that England & Wales warmup for the world cup was to practice playing hard forward dominated games to practice for their game against each other (and to some extent Aus/Fiji)

How do you propose sides play more fluid, offloading wide rugby. Look at Schmidt and what he had Leinster playing to what he had Ireland playing. International Rugby in NH just doesn't totally suit this more fluid game for a variety of reasons like availability to players, player skills etc etc

As I said...2 groups of 8

Money is the key thing here...if a big,rich country (like Germany) were to suddenly be interested I'm sure they would be accepted with open arms. Georgia/Romania arent rich countries so 6N dont really care about them.

2 groups of 8???? I assume you mean 4 but for financial reasons that wont happen as IRFU/RFU/WRU/SRU wont ever vote for change that will affect their main source of income each year
Ive seen German national side play etc. It will be a long time for sides like them to ever be near 6 Nations standard for a variety of reasons, playing standard in country, support base, backing

captbarnacles

crisco10 wrote: »

I know, surely put it high down the middle, landing short of 22 and put aussie catchers under pressure and maybe force a knock on. Never know, could get a penalty from obstruction or something.

Aye anything would have been better to what they did which was equivalent to an NFL team blasting an onside kick through the endzone.

Even a scoop up in the air that went only 20 yards would have given them a chance to get possession.

Beery Eyed

vienne86 wrote: »

If we're going to have any hope of beating the SH teams, I think we're going to have to find some way of playing them more often. When will Ireland play NZ next??? Not for years and years. One year in four of travel to the SH gets used up with a Lions tour.....which lets face it, is not much benefit to the individual national teams.

Bridge93 wrote: »

Not saying I would personally but do people think that the Lions Tour may be adding fuel to the problem? It encourages the thought that these guys are on a step above us and we must join forces to breach them

It's by no means the single, simple fix solution, but the Lions tour is problematic for the development of the individual nations. It's difficult to knock, because I grew up loving the whole idea & ethos of the tour, but over the years I've come to realise that it's not ideal for us at all.

It's a potential tour of NZ/SA/Aus taken away, which hinders squad development & the time that the coach has with his full team, but more than that it's problematic in terms of the mindset that it encourages.

On one side you have the home nations, who are putting all of their best players together to try and beat one of these teams, which is very belittling.

On the other, the host nation gains a mentality of "us against the world" and still winning more often than not. This is hugely galvanising for team spirit & belief. Even if they lose it's still a case of "well, it took all four of your countries to beat us", which definitely gives them a mental edge when they face the individual team next time around.

Finally, I have also come to realize that having the Lions as the "pinnacle" of a professional career for players from Britain & Ireland is belittling of the honour of representing your national team. It's implying that selection to the national team is not the pinnacle, which it certainly is in the southern hemisphere. So if you're a player who has played several times for Ireland, but never got selected for the honour of playing with the Lions, are you a lesser player? If you get selected for the All Blacks, it's the ultimate honour, end of story.

I'm not entirely against it continuing somehow, but when you step back & look at it it's far from ideal from our side. The southern hemisphere teams benefit from it far more. If you think about it, if Ireland was never included in the setup, wouldn't you like a pop against a British Lions team every four years in Dublin? I'd certainly fancy our chances, and it would be hugely galvanising for the team & supporters alike.

aimee1

one thing from saturday nights game. there was 1 scrum in the first half which meant the ball was in play a lot more [mostly with NZ scoring tries] This world cup has been fairly good especially since the new engagement came in 2 [?] years ago