why do they bother with the rugby world cup?

[danger zone]

What is the point? So far there has been one close game, the USA -Fiji one I think. Every time it's the same lopsided nonsense. In the inaugral tournament in 1987 the All Blacks beat Italy 70-6. Sixteen years later they beat them 70-7. Where's he progression? The only reason the Black's got by Italy 31-21 in 91 is because that team was so old and tired. Just like Canada 29-13. Aside from that whats the point. Why dont they just add England and France to the tri nations. I know the same teams always win the soccer wc, but at least it truly is a world game, with real competition. How much enjoyment does a 100-0 game bring? England vs SA will be the only big game of the first round. And the tourney runs longer than the soccer wc. And for gods sake the rights to show the games in the usa were given to pubs and restaurants!

 

[Greidie]

I like watching Rugby even when the games are unbalanced!

 

[John_Arne_Riise]

Yeah i dont see the point in the Rugby World Cup to be honest, its a debatable issue, but i dont see the value in so many lop-sided scores.

I mean even before the tournament started, you know that its only out of 3 teams that will win it, being NZ, South Africa and Australia with about 2 dark-horses in France and England.

I dont watch it all that much, but there is no chance that any team outside the 5 i mentioned above will win it.

 

[rhizome17]

Realistically, a truly competitive World Cup would really only have 10 teams in it - members of the Six nations, the tri-nations, and Argentina. Even then there is a massive gulf, exemplified in the fact that NZ can put 70 points on Italy. So yeah, 2 pools of 5, with the teams drawn from these 10, and it would be game on.

But I guess that having the world cup does at least give the minnows a chance to play against the likes of the All Blacks and the Wallabies when under normal circumstances they wouldn't get a chance because of crowded domestic calanders and prior international engagements.

But I do accept that if basketball scores continue to be the mainstay, then there is little point in bashing the confidence of the smaller teams.

But what it indicates to me is that the IRB continues to completely stuff up the expansion of the game of rugby. Just as they did when it was amateur, they continue to do now it is professional. The IRB is making heaps out of this cup, and pocketing the lot. There is not even any prize money for the winners, with bonuses having to be paid by the relevant home union.

Basically, the IRB can harp all they like about the WC being a showcase for international rugby, but early rounds are little more than training matches with the exception of tonights game between South Africa and England, which is essentially a battle to avoid facing New Zealand.

The IRB need to loosen up eligibility rules for a start - the smaller nations simply don't have the depth to compete at this stage so an injection of talent from Aussie or NZ into some of the teams could do them well. Also, the bulk of the profits form the WC should go directly into expanding the game in the so-called minnow nations, because it is ridiculous that we see amateurs versus pros in what is meant to be a professional tourny.

But anyway, I still get thrilled watching Rokocoko or Howlett steaming down the wing, regardless of the opposition.

 

[Larry]

Its great to watch...

The knockout stages are gonna be awesome games..

 

[Alistair]

Yeah although rugby doesn't have the depth that the soccer world does, i still feel it's a great, entertaining sport. And it's also the 3rd biggest sporting event in the world behind the Olympics and the Soccer World Cup I've been told..

Rugby is a great game to watch, no matter what some of the critics think.. There may only be around 10 competitive teams to win the trophy at the end, but also the minnows are in it for the experience etc and to give the sport more profile in their respective countries.. I was told that in Georgia, one of the minnows of the tournament (defeated 84-6 in the first round by england), that 60,000 people attended the qualifying match against Russia which enabled them to enter the cup so its good to see that Rugby is becoming more popular in other countries... If you think about it, there a many other sports with even less depth than rugby....

 

[zul-aid]

Actually Japan are playing really well - they gave to France just before and Scotland i think earlier.

I can see people laugh at the minnows but really - when else are they going to get the chance?

Whats the difference between Germany 8 Saudi Arabia 0 and Australia 90 Romania 8?

 

[danger zone]

Originally posted by zul-aid
Actually Japan are playing really well - they gave to France just before and Scotland i think earlier.

I can see people laugh at the minnows but really - when else are they going to get the chance?

Whats the difference between Germany 8 Saudi Arabia 0 and Australia 90 Romania 8?

How many other 8-0 scorelines were there at wc 2002? That was the only real humiliation of its kind since Hungary pasted El Salvador 10-1 in 1982. On the other hand how many 72-0 scores have there already been at the rugby WC? Come on man that was a futile point.

 

[John_Arne_Riise]

His screen name explains it all. :funny:

Sorry man, its cruel i know, but i couldnt resist myself.

 

[zul-aid]

There is some large scorelines yes - however how many RWC games have you been too?

So far I have worked 3 - and the crowd loved every minute of it. Up here in Brisbane we have had Fiji vs France - Fiji vs USA - and Australia vs Romania. Now two big games and one close one.

Fiji vs France wasnt a floggin Fiji were in with 10mins to go. Fiji vs USA was ofcouse the close game (however it wasnt the closet game look at Scotland vs Japan and France vs Japan).

Rugby always produces big scorelines no matter what its a more free flowing game - as the Romanian captain said after being beaten 90-8 by Australia "This is the highlight of my career to come here and play the world champions, yes we got thrased however its games like these that have you test your own performances against the best in the world".

You can look at the floggins but please look at Japanes progress over the years - Wales and Scotlands has fallen somewhat but Japan and USA are coming through and you cant take the WC away from them because they wouldnt have been able to produce the performances they have in any other competiton.

Also look at Italy's performance in the previous six nations - didnt they beat Scotland and Wales?

 

[danger zone]

So what? That doesnt mean anything, because at the end of the day the same teams will still be the best. In 1995 the AB's beat Japan 145-17. In 1987 they beat them 106-4. If they played them with their best side right now they would win 200-0. Come on, Japan were never going to beat those sides. Whenever Italy beat anyone they say they are making progress. What progress? Progress is beating NZ,Aus or Eng. Fact, in 1987 NZ beat Italy 70-6. In 2003 they beat them 70-7. Progression there? One point and thats because of the five point try rule change! Wales and Scotland have fallen you say. They've been crap since the 80's. International rugby's a one way street and always will be.

 

[zul-aid]

Originally posted by danger zone
So what? That doesnt mean anything, because at the end of the day the same teams will still be the best. In 1995 the AB's beat Japan 145-17. In 1987 they beat them 106-4. If they played them with their best side right now they would win 200-0. Come on, Japan were never going to beat those sides. Whenever Italy beat anyone they say they are making progress. What progress? Progress is beating NZ,Aus or Eng. Fact, in 1987 NZ beat Italy 70-6. In 2003 they beat them 70-7. Progression there? One point and thats because of the five point try rule change! Wales and Scotland have fallen you say. They've been crap since the 80's. International rugby's a one way street and always will be.

So is soccer - so according to you USA and Senegal havent made progress becasue they havent beaten England, Brazil or Germany?

 

[danger zone]

Actually the USA has beaten all three of those teams.

 

[danger zone]

While I'm at it, didnt South Korea and Turkey reach the semis of the WC last year? Next thing you'll be telling me the USA and Namibia will be doing the same at the rugby wc.

 

[zul-aid]

Originally posted by danger zone
Actually the USA has beaten all three of those teams.

So did Italy beat Scotland and Wales in Six Nations but as you said it only matters in the world cup

So therefore USA and Senegal in soccer havent made it (according to you and your rubbish theory)

Same with Turkey and Korea it doesnt matter because they would have to beat those teams in the world cup like you said.

Its the 5th rugby world cup - its time for the minnows to find out what professionalism was all about.

 

[danger zone]

You're full of crap pal. Soccer is the worlds game and has about every nation involved. There's a lot more competition involved than rugby, where the same teams are always the best. Even if Brazil have made three cup finals in a row you don't know before the tournament that they would make it that far do you? Did anyone think Argentina would get knocked out of the first round? For gods sake man Holland never even made it to WC 2002. At the rugby WC you know NZ, Aus, Eng, SA, Fra will all make it to quarters. Italy will never be a rugby power because Italy doesn't care about rugby. Just like the USA. Italy can beat Scotland all they want. but no one cares. They've been saying Italy are a rising force since the 87 wc, but where have they gone? Nowhere. Rugby's never going to change, it'll always be the same teams on top and it will continue to be a farce in the early rounds at every WC. And if you seriosuly think the USA will ever improve then you are what your name suggests. Come and live over here, where the Rugby WC has all the profile of underwater nude tractor racing.

 

[zul-aid]

Originally posted by danger zone
You're full of crap pal. Soccer is the worlds game and has about every nation involved. There's a lot more competition involved than rugby, where the same teams are always the best. Even if Brazil have made three cup finals in a row you don't know before the tournament that they would make it that far do you? Did anyone think Argentina would get knocked out of the first round? For gods sake man Holland never even made it to WC 2002. At the rugby WC you know NZ, Aus, Eng, SA, Fra will all make it to quarters. Italy will never be a rugby power because Italy doesn't care about rugby. Just like the USA. Italy can beat Scotland all they want. but no one cares. They've been saying Italy are a rising force since the 87 wc, but where have they gone? Nowhere. Rugby's never going to change, it'll always be the same teams on top and it will continue to be a farce in the early rounds at every WC. And if you seriosuly think the USA will ever improve then you are what your name suggests. Come and live over here, where the Rugby WC has all the profile of underwater nude tractor racing.

Yeah and this is only the 5th World Cup of Rugby not 30th of Soccer or whatever.

90 teams entered the qaulifiers for the WC. Norway vs Luxembourg was the first match in November 2000. Ireland didnt get automatic qaulification *(yes they had to play Georgia and Spain but they still had to qualify and they are third best team in the world according to rankings).

Ofcourse Brazil were going to make it as was Germany look at the history of the WCR you say well look at the WCS and tell me you dont see a pattern of Brazil Germany and Italy?

The rugby world cup is third best tornament beghind Soccer and Olympics and the greatest sporting event this year (hell if it only has the appeal of nude tractor racing then why did you make a thread about it?)

But ofcousre im full of **** - I only work at the WC and see for my self the mangatude of the event. Rugby is third on the list of all time sporting events thanks to audience numbers in part.

You say it has no appeal? look how many threads are in a soccer forum.

Soccer has a headstart I know that but Rugby is coming... 220 or so nations play Soccer 90 play Rugby also.

To those who say WC should only be 10 teams

OK you got Six Nations + Tri Nations + Argentina?

What about the USA probably the best performers so far that isnt recognised professionally
Japan who took it to both France and Scotland
Fiji Somoa and Tonga all have rugby history
Fiji are World Seven champions for 5 years running
Somoa has been to the quarter finals and even a Semi final in the first World Cup i believe
Tonga has taken many scalps over the years.


so thats 15 teams with merit of being there

which leaves only 5 teams
Romaina (have been to 2 WC's and are Six Nation B winners)
Georgia (A fourth team from Europe not from UK and are learning the ropes of International Rugby)
Namibia (a second team from Africa and second WC beat both Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe both have made it to WCs)
Canada (have produced their own scalpes over the years and are just as powerful was Wales is)
Uruguay (still learning the ropes 2nd WC).

You can say "ohh but Soctland and Wales performances are on the waine in Rugby" well so are England Scotland etc etc powerhouse of soccer who wont win either so stop making pathetic excuses for poorly minded remakes.

EDIT: Uruguay nearly knocked USA out of qualifingonly for USA to come back through a repecharge against Spain.


LETS TAKE A LOOK AT TEAM USA
While continually improving year-on-year, the US is a typical example of a country that has still to reach its potential as a possible rugby power.
There is no question of this vast nation has the athletes to rival any rugby playing nation has 60,000 players registered (double that for social players) also David Lye has played for the Barbarians (2000 - prop) and David Hughes plays for Llanelli (in Wales).

I dont know how many play soccer in the USA but 60,000 is a high number for a country that likes Baseball, NFL and basketball

Also their goalkicker comes from here in Queensland and has even played for Super 12 side QLD Reds.

 

[danger zone]

Ahh whatever son. I live in the USA and know firsthand rugby doesnt exist. And when I mean DOESN'T EXIST
, thats precisely what I mean. And as a New Zealander I know a bit about rugby my good man. I still watch it, and have perfect knowledge of the sport. And actually I recall attending a game in the first tournament in 1987 between Tonga and Wales.

BTW didn't England just reachEuro 2004 as top of their group? And Scotland the playoffs? Not winning eh? Or maybe you just cant express your ideas in a coherent manner. Thats the problem with rugby fanatics, they can't see the truth, that no one gives a crap about it outside of the test playing nations. I mean take this. I was watching Sky Sports England today and the Englans-SA game was recapped near the end of the show, a distant second to the days football. You cant convert people buddy. A die hard soccer fan is never going to suddenly say, 'hey rugby's my favourite sport now, forget soccer'. You can throw all the meaningless stats about how the rugby wc is the third biggest sporting even in the world all you want. VBut until you leave the sanctuary of your cozy worl you'll see this is bollocks. Rugby is nothing, has been nothing. It'll always be at the stage it is. Come on do you honestly think Norway will ever be a rugby power? Or Georgia? What world are you living in? Brazil barely made it to WC 2002 anyway! As for 60,000 rugby players in the USA, so what out of a population of 280 million thats weak. Rugby will never have a profile here. Ever!

Oh as for the line about how many rugby threads are in a soccer forum, well take a look at this forum pal. its called 'other sports'. See? It's for other sports apart from soccer. Get it? Dumbo?

 

[zul-aid]

currently im watching Sky News and its the number 3 story behind Tony Blair (1 & 2)... oh well nice try though

Well since supposedly Americans knowing nothing about Union go over to nonfootball discussion forum and check out "National Anthems" and see comments made by 'Elder'

Again this is a soccer forum hence the name "soccer"gaming

Also here are the results from google 72 pages discuss USA rugby
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=USA+rugby&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&start=700&sa=N

while here are the results from www.ask.com
another 20 pages

http://web.ask.com/web?q=USA+rugby&...e=20&qid=8CB5F112C25E774F90CAFB087D13F4B5&s=a

Also those numbers 60,000 play rugby is in the official magazine and also on the USA rugby site

Also check todays Sky News UK poll i think it reads:

Will England win the Rugby World Cup?

well lok at this CNN world Sport
Major news Story

http://edition.cnn.com/SPORT/

 

[danger zone]

You just don't get it do you? No one cares.