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

Would it better if the rugby World Cup was every two or three years?

  • 15-09-2018 6:35pm
    #1
    Dots1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,957 ✭✭✭


    The soccer World Cup is every 4 years because it has large confederation tournaments and an extensive qualification process.

    Rugby doesn’t and for me struggles for truly meaningful games between the best teams. Tests are not friendlies but they aren’t of huge significance once it comes to comparing to the World Cup.

    So would it work better if the World Cup was every 2 or 3 years?


Comments

  • #2
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    It’d be the end of the Lions if it change.


  • #3
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,799 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Dots1982 wrote: »
    The soccer World Cup is every 4 years because it has large confederation tournaments and an extensive qualification process.

    Rugby doesn’t and for me struggles for truly meaningful games between the best teams. Tests are not friendlies but they aren’t of huge significance once it comes to comparing to the World Cup.

    So would it work better if the World Cup was every 2 or 3 years?

    No. It takes away from the event to have it on too often. Plus, player welfare. Years with a world cup are incredibly long and have a big physical impact on the bodies of top players


  • #4
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Dots1982 wrote: »
    The soccer World Cup is every 4 years because it has large confederation tournaments and an extensive qualification process.

    Rugby doesn’t and for me struggles for truly meaningful games between the best teams. Tests are not friendlies but they aren’t of huge significance once it comes to comparing to the World Cup.

    So would it work better if the World Cup was every 2 or 3 years?
    The top countries play each other enough. The tests are still highly significant and rugby certainly doesnt struggle for meaningful games between best sides. The tests between the best sides are extremaly good games most of the time and a world cup every second or third year would have to be smaller and if every third year would clash in same year as soccer world cups/olympics which wouldnt be good for rugby.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    No. It takes away from the event to have it on too often. Plus, player welfare. Years with a world cup are incredibly long and have a big physical impact on the bodies of top players
    And would make qualification smaller and growth of tournament would slow


  • #5
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,171 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Dots1982 wrote: »
    The soccer World Cup is every 4 years because it has large confederation tournaments and an extensive qualification process.

    Rugby doesn’t and for me struggles for truly meaningful games between the best teams. Tests are not friendlies but they aren’t of huge significance once it comes to comparing to the World Cup.

    So would it work better if the World Cup was every 2 or 3 years?

    If you think "friendlies" aren't of huge significance, ask England and Wales after the last World Cup......


  • #6
    Dots1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,957 ✭✭✭Dots1982


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Dots1982 wrote: »
    The soccer World Cup is every 4 years because it has large confederation tournaments and an extensive qualification process.

    Rugby doesn’t and for me struggles for truly meaningful games between the best teams. Tests are not friendlies but they aren’t of huge significance once it comes to comparing to the World Cup.

    So would it work better if the World Cup was every 2 or 3 years?

    If you think "friendlies" aren't of huge significance, ask England and Wales after the last World Cup......

    I explicitly said they weren’t friendlies.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Dots1982 wrote: »
    I explicitly said they weren’t friendlies.
    And also said they werent meaningful. They very much are considering results in them dictate how tough your world cup pool will be. We will play top southern hemisphere sides home or away every season and then the 6 nations. We dont need a world cup on a more regular basis. What we need is more games against the next tier of countries to help improve standards in the hope that we can get more countries up to higher standard


  • #8
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,171 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Dots1982 wrote: »
    I explicitly said they weren’t friendlies.

    Way to completely miss the point


  • #9
    TCM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 736 ✭✭✭TCM


    Dots1982 wrote:
    So would it work better if the World Cup was every 2 or 3 years?


    To call the "rugby world cup" a World Cup in the first instance is comical. Approx 8 teams compete, the rest are not up to 4th division if there were such a standard.


  • #10
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    TCM wrote: »
    To call the "rugby world cup" a World Cup in the first instance is comical. Approx 8 teams compete, the rest are not up to 4th division if there were such a standard.
    Thats nonsense. Saying 8 compete is completely ignorant and 4th division?


  • #11
    Dots1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,957 ✭✭✭Dots1982


    Ireland could lose every test between world cups and still qualify for it? Tests are important but they aren’t do or die.

    In any case the point about the Lions and player welfare are fair.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Dots1982 wrote: »
    Ireland could lose every test between world cups and still qualify for it? Tests are important but they aren’t do or die.

    In any case the point about the Lions and player welfare are fair.
    That isnt true. If Ireland were to lose a lot of tests they wouldnt.
    Watch the tests against New Zealand and Argentina in November and you will see they are do or die.


  • #13
    stephen_n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    Dots1982 wrote: »
    Ireland could lose every test between world cups and still qualify for it? Tests are important but they aren’t do or die.

    In any case the point about the Lions and player welfare are fair.

    Ireland could lose every test and end up third seed in a group with NZ and England, but no those “friendlies” don’t matter at all.


  • #14
    Dots1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,957 ✭✭✭Dots1982


    stephen_n wrote: »
    Dots1982 wrote: »
    Ireland could lose every test between world cups and still qualify for it? Tests are important but they aren’t do or die.

    In any case the point about the Lions and player welfare are fair.

    Ireland could lose every test and end up third seed in a group with NZ and England, but no those “friendlies” don’t matter at all.

    Jesus, Reading difficulties on this forum? I explicitly said in two posts they weren’t friendlies.


  • #15
    stephen_n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    Dots1982 wrote: »
    Jesus, Reading difficulties on this forum? I explicitly said in two posts they weren’t friendlies.

    And you have explicitly ignored the point being made in two posts, which is’nt the “friendlies” bit! So maybe re-read the posts and address your reading difficulties ;)


  • #16
    Dots1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,957 ✭✭✭Dots1982


    stephen_n wrote: »
    Dots1982 wrote: »
    Jesus, Reading difficulties on this forum? I explicitly said in two posts they weren’t friendlies.

    And you have explicitly ignored the point being made in two posts, which is’nt the “friendlies” bit! So maybe re-read the posts and address your reading difficulties ;)

    If I have to address points I haven’t made then I’m out.

    The first two replies raised good points.


  • #17
    stephen_n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    Dots1982 wrote: »
    If I have to address points I haven’t made then I’m out.

    The first two replies raised good points.

    Ah right so you simply wanted to state your opinion and not discuss things counter to it. So any points that disagree with you are irrelevant, strange attitude for an Internet forum, but sure each to their own.


Advertisement