IRB criteria for RWC

[galota]

Well, we all know what will happen: Wales although loosing 1 match will walk easily to the quarter finals while, in group D , Argentina , France and Ireland will tear themselves apart for 1 of the 2 places. Most will agree that Pumas, Ireland and "les bleus" are better teams than Wales, at least , this is what the results show. This makes me wonder,



1 This benefit to Wales by the IRB; makes it a better team? brings back the glory of the 70´s. Definitely no. Welsh team will be only as bad or good as it is.



2What is the criteria of the IRB? Entretainment value? Not likely when the quarter finals will miss for sure , att least 1 of the best 8 teams in the world (Argentina, France or Ireland) Economic value? More likely

 

[DonBilly]

Well, we all know what will happen: Wales although loosing 1 match will walk easily to the quarter finals while, in group D , Argentina , France and Ireland will tear themselves apart for 1 of the 2 places. Most will agree that Pumas, Ireland and "les bleus" are better teams than Wales, at least , this is what the results show. This makes me wonder,



1 This benefit to Wales by the IRB; makes it a better team? brings back the glory of the 70´s. Definitely no. Welsh team will be only as bad or good as it is.



2What is the criteria of the IRB? Entretainment value? Not likely when the quarter finals will miss for sure , att least 1 of the best 8 teams in the world (Argentina, France or Ireland) Economic value? More likely

[/b]

The pools were composed from the results of the RWC 2003 as far as I remember.

 

[Mr. Laxative]

Correct! A random draw put two quarter finalists from 2003 in each pool, the other three spaces were filled by qualifiers. I am a bit bemused that Ireland and Argentina are in the same group again. Their world cup rivalry however is great to watch and usually the winner of their match will take second... mayebeven first place in the group.

 

[galota]

Correct! A random draw put two quarter finalists from 2003 in each pool, the other three spaces were filled by qualifiers. I am a bit bemused that Ireland and Argentina are in the same group again. Their world cup rivalry however is great to watch and usually the winner of their match will take second... mayebeven first place in the group. [/b]

If the pools are made based in the 2003 RWC, then I rest my case. It shows the intention of the IRB to mantain the satu quo. Let us say :

Home nations + France + Aus, SA, and NZ to the quarter finals



Anyway it seems hard to understand for some people , who see this as "normal" regardless the real level of he teams.

And don´ forget what some referees had done to help to this cause. I can name 2 cases against Argentina.



If the level of some teams like Pumas or Italy keeps rising I wonder what the iIRB will do to protect their commercial interests

 

[Ripper]

Yes, its a big plot - the IRB would rather a nation of a couple of million English Serfs have success at the World Cup rather than 2 massive sporting markets like Argentina and Italy which must have close to a combined population of 100,000.

 

[O'Rothlain]

I do wish the pools were plotted out more carefully...
I think the IRB actually shoot themselves in the foot by this years pools...especially Ireland, Argentina and France. They should be spread out...IMO.

 

[Cymro]

Well, we all know what will happen: Wales although loosing 1 match will walk easily to the quarter finals while, in group D , Argentina , France and Ireland will tear themselves apart for 1 of the 2 places. Most will agree that Pumas, Ireland and "les bleus" are better teams than Wales, at least , this is what the results show. This makes me wonder,



1 This benefit to Wales by the IRB; makes it a better team? brings back the glory of the 70´s. Definitely no. Welsh team will be only as bad or good as it is.



2What is the criteria of the IRB? Entretainment value? Not likely when the quarter finals will miss for sure , att least 1 of the best 8 teams in the world (Argentina, France or Ireland) Economic value? More likely

[/b]

I dont see the group as an easy one! Fiji are good enough to cause an upset and so are Canada so I wont count them out! To be honest you cant blame Wales for this! Its down to the people who draw up the rules for the groups and also the people who draw them. At the end of the day Wales are led by a Donkey of the coach so it wont matter!

 

[galota]

<div class='quotemain'>

Well, we all know what will happen: Wales although loosing 1 match will walk easily to the quarter finals while, in group D , Argentina , France and Ireland will tear themselves apart for 1 of the 2 places. Most will agree that Pumas, Ireland and "les bleus" are better teams than Wales, at least , this is what the results show. This makes me wonder,



1 This benefit to Wales by the IRB; makes it a better team? brings back the glory of the 70´s. Definitely no. Welsh team will be only as bad or good as it is.



2What is the criteria of the IRB? Entretainment value? Not likely when the quarter finals will miss for sure , att least 1 of the best 8 teams in the world (Argentina, France or Ireland) Economic value? More likely

[/b]

I dont see the group as an easy one! Fiji are good enough to cause an upset and so are Canada so I wont count them out! To be honest you cant blame Wales for this! Its down to the people who draw up the rules for the groups and also the people who draw them. At the end of the day Wales are led by a Donkey of the coach so it wont matter!
[/b][/quote]



My friend; I agree that Fiji can cause an upset, but that`s not likely to happen. canada though is far behind Wales. I am not blaming Wales team for the groups , only the IRB and their economic interests. What would you say if Wales were grouped along with Wallabies, All Balcks and England? I think Wales is a good team as Argentina , France and Ireland, but this three have a small advantage in level and are in the same group.

 

[Cymro]

But you are making the point that Wales did get lucky, maybe they did?

 

[gregor]

the pools should be done on a basis of world rankings or something like that (argentina are 2 places higher than wales) ie the top four in the rankings at the time of the draw go into seperate pools,then teams ranked 5-8 should each be drawn into a different pool. etc.....

 

[galota]

the pools should be done on a basis of world rankings or something like that (argentina are 2 places higher than wales) ie the top four in the rankings at the time of the draw go into seperate pools,then teams ranked 5-8 should each be drawn into a different pool. etc..... [/b]

Agree 100%. Besides: what is the ranking for if they don´t use it as a qualifying reference, anyway?

 

[PeeJay]

Well, we all know what will happen: Wales although loosing 1 match will walk easily to the quarter finals while, in group D , Argentina , France and Ireland will tear themselves apart for 1 of the 2 places. Most will agree that Pumas, Ireland and "les bleus" are better teams than Wales, at least , this is what the results show. This makes me wonder,



1 This benefit to Wales by the IRB; makes it a better team? brings back the glory of the 70´s. Definitely no. Welsh team will be only as bad or good as it is.



2What is the criteria of the IRB? Entretainment value? Not likely when the quarter finals will miss for sure , att least 1 of the best 8 teams in the world (Argentina, France or Ireland) Economic value? More likely

[/b]

What is your problem with Wales? Seems like every chance you get you'll slide in a cheap dig at us. Is it cos we own Patagonia?

 

[galota]

<div class='quotemain'>

Well, we all know what will happen: Wales although loosing 1 match will walk easily to the quarter finals while, in group D , Argentina , France and Ireland will tear themselves apart for 1 of the 2 places. Most will agree that Pumas, Ireland and "les bleus" are better teams than Wales, at least , this is what the results show. This makes me wonder,



1 This benefit to Wales by the IRB; makes it a better team? brings back the glory of the 70´s. Definitely no. Welsh team will be only as bad or good as it is.



2What is the criteria of the IRB? Entretainment value? Not likely when the quarter finals will miss for sure , att least 1 of the best 8 teams in the world (Argentina, France or Ireland) Economic value? More likely

[/b]

What is your problem with Wales? Seems like every chance you get you'll slide in a cheap dig at us. Is it cos we own Patagonia?
[/b][/quote]



It isn´t personal, if it was Scotland the benefited team it would be the same.

So you own Patagonic region?' I was planning to go there this summer? Can I go?? please, please.

Besides Wales can´t own any territory because its not an independent state

 

[Cymro]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>

Well, we all know what will happen: Wales although loosing 1 match will walk easily to the quarter finals while, in group D , Argentina , France and Ireland will tear themselves apart for 1 of the 2 places. Most will agree that Pumas, Ireland and "les bleus" are better teams than Wales, at least , this is what the results show. This makes me wonder,



1 This benefit to Wales by the IRB; makes it a better team? brings back the glory of the 70´s. Definitely no. Welsh team will be only as bad or good as it is.



2What is the criteria of the IRB? Entretainment value? Not likely when the quarter finals will miss for sure , att least 1 of the best 8 teams in the world (Argentina, France or Ireland) Economic value? More likely

[/b]

What is your problem with Wales? Seems like every chance you get you'll slide in a cheap dig at us. Is it cos we own Patagonia?
[/b][/quote]



It isn´t personal, if it was Scotland the benefited team it would be the same.

So you own Patagonic region?' I was planning to go there this summer? Can I go?? please, please.

Besides Wales can´t own any territory because its not an independent state

[/b][/quote]

Grow up will u?

 

[PeeJay]

It isn´t personal, if it was Scotland the benefited team it would be the same.
[/b]

To be quite honest, no team has benefited. Sure, the group with France, Ireland and Argentina in it is tough, but the other three groups are fairly similarly weighted, with two favourites to qualify, one who has an outside chance and two more just to make up numbers. Tbh, I don't even know who you support, but I'm guessing it's either France or Argentina, because otherwise you wouldn't be *****ing as much. Either way, you're paying special negative attention to Wales for no apparent reason, and I don't like it.

 

[BigTen]

The way that the IRB sets up the groups is a bit ... well ... dodgy.



It always seems that the same teams play each other.



There are loads of other ways that they could do it.



I think that if they had a ranking system that evaluated all of the teams before the world cup and just seeded the top four teams and then everybody else was distributed into the groups with a random draw. That way it would be possible to truely have a real group of death with say (New Zealand, England, Ireland, Argentina and Italy) and that would open up some of the groups for some minor nations to go through to the quarters. This would also mean that games outside of the world cup would mean something as every team would want to get into that top four seeded group.



Alternatively the IRB, in addition to the top four, could create two other seeded pots just to make sure that no group contained just top nations and another group had one top-four rated side and then four of the worse remaining sides.



So many other options and the IRB just goes by the boring results from the last world cup. Yawn!

 

[shazbooger]

I dont see the group as an easy one! Fiji are good enough to cause an upset and so are Canada so I wont count them out! [/b]

****** myself when I read that, but you are right that its got nothing to do with the Welsh. The rest is nonsense mate

For the argentinians though, it continues to be difficult for them to get anywhere.

In 1999 they got to the Quarter Finals after beating Ireland in the second round play-offs. Some achievement at the time and thouroughly deserved. As a reward for this, in 2003 they got dumped into the group of death a group with Ireland and Australia and failed to get out of that group (by one point!). Now they are in the latest group of death with Ireland and France. They could certainly be excused for doubting the integrity of the "draw".

The reality is, if they were in a group with Wales or Scotland they would without doubt, fancy their chances to get through. As it is, they will go into this group with some confidence, but for the second time in two world cups, they will be the underdogs in the group of death.

If the draw system stays the same, were going to have (according to the seeding) either Ireland or Argentina going through the qualifying process and being drawn in another group of death in four years time. The cycle needs to be broken but its not really in anyones interest to do this at the moment. The only teams that have suffered are Ireland and Argentina, the two smaller players on the world scene.

I'm not saying this is a Welsh conspiracy, in fact I dont see how it has anything to do with them, but the problem seems to be that all the main unions (the Irish union too) are happy with the status quo cause the chances are they will get a favourable draw one WC after another.

 

[diom]

It is ridiculous. But there is no point is shoite-talking about it here.

Let's just hope Argentina and Ireland both beat France!
The draw scheme will be changed before LaPortes glasses hit the ref.

 

[paco1]

It is ridiculous. But there is no point is shoite-talking about it here.

Let's just hope Argentina and Ireland both beat France!
The draw scheme will be changed before LaPortes glasses hit the ref.
[/b]

I think that some people misunderstood what Galota said. It´s just unfair for Argentina and specially if compared with other teams (he took Wales as example) which have a softer pool, while not achieving great results as Pumas in international rugby.

Some people may be offended. I agree. No wonder why he has been censored. Cheers,

 

[tomsi_wyn]

Although I can't argue that the three top teams in the "pool of death" are better than Wales, surely you'll agree that Wales are better than Italy and Scotland, (recent losses in the six nations not included :-( ) which are drawn in the same group as the AB's. Surely it'd make sense to swap either Italy or Scotland for one of France, Ireland or Argentina? It's a pretty unsound argument, but i'm just trying to justify Wales having a ridiculously easy group compared to Argentina!