IRB criteria for RWC

[shazbooger]

recent losses in the six nations not included[/b]

Form is everything. Your only as good as your last game

Nahh I think the point here is that either Ireland, France or Argentina wont make the quarters this year, which means they wont be seeded for the next WC (regardless of results). If the format of the draw doesnt change they will be in a group with two other seeded teams next time around. Form, or the rankings wont have a bearing on it. Its an antiquated system that needs to be overhauled.

 

[SPIDER18]

<div class='quotemain'>
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. [/b][/quote]

how can you say no one benefitted when if wales swapped with arg, wales wouldn't make the quarters and arg would? if you honestly believe wales could lose to fiji then that only confirms that arg are better than wales because they wouldn't lose to fiji. i.e if wales are so **** they could lose to fiji(which i doubt) then they don't deserve to be in an easier pool than arg.

 

[RC]

It baffles me that people keep using the word "deserve".

"Wales don't deserve to be in an easier group than Argentina."

If you use this word in relation to this topic you truly don't understand rugby. You must see it [Wales' pool selection] as something that Wales has achieved thanks to brownie points.

Give it a rest. This argument is getting quite tired already.

 

[PeeJay]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
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. [/b][/quote]

how can you say no one benefitted when if wales swapped with arg, wales wouldn't make the quarters and arg would? if you honestly believe wales could lose to fiji then that only confirms that arg are better than wales because they wouldn't lose to fiji. i.e if wales are so **** they could lose to fiji(which i doubt) then they don't deserve to be in an easier pool than arg.

[/b][/quote]
Look, the fact of the matter is that there are only 8 spots in the quarter-finals, and so two of the top ten teams in the world (which in my book are the Tri-Nations teams, the Six Nations teams and Argentina) will be drawn into a group with two other nations from the top ten. This time, Wales got lucky and only got one of the top ten in their group, while Argentina got two. But so what? If Argentina play well, then they will reach the quarter finals, and if they don't, they wont; and the same goes for every other team.

 

[kodos]

agreed with above.

 

[Melhor Time]

The draw was not random at all. It was based on seeding and seeding which benefits the old club of the IRB. The IRB simply grouped teams according to how the finished in 2003. The top 4 were the first tier, the losign quarter finalists the sceond, third in each pool then third, fourth the fourth and fifth the fifth.

It was convenient that the teams had finished as they did for comerical means as it enabled the teams to be perfectly split according to economic attraction.

Do you believe the IRB would have done the draw this way if Italy had beaten Wales and Argentina had beaten Ireland?

Similar what about the announcement for 2011 qualification? It comes at a time when the same two latin teams have risen at the expense of the same two Celtic teams.

Fiji almost beat Scotland too. Scotland would have been beaten by Argentina and probably Italy too. they got to the qf's after a last minute win over Fiji. Hardly enough to justfiy seeding them for the draw is it?

The unfair schedule that Wales had over Italy and Ireland over Argentina would not have been accepted by Wales or Ireland if reversed. John Kirwan wanted it changed but by then it was too late. Thankfully it won'ty happen for France.

 

[shazbooger]

Similar what about the announcement for 2011 qualification? It comes at a time when the same two latin teams have risen at the expense of the same two Celtic teams. [/b]

What announcment?

Edit, sorry was being Lazy

http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/161828/c...fying-structure

The qualifying structure for future Rugby World Cups is to be changed to better reflect the modern Game and to increase the profile of one of the world's largest sporting events.

Following a meeting of the Rugby World Cup Board it was announced that changes will be made to the tournament's qualification process for RWC 2011 onwards and that the number of automatic qualifiers will increase to 12 places.

"In recognition of the amount of Rugby now being played and the implications on the establishment of an integrated season the RWC Board has decided that there should be 12 automatic qualifying places for future tournaments. This will serve to reduce the potential number of international matches that would have to be played in the years before a tournament by those teams who did not make the quarter-finals of the previous RWC, reducing fixture congestion," said IRB Chairman, Dr Syd Millar.

"With the top three teams in each pool qualifying directly to the next RWC this new process raises the prospect of several Tier 2 Unions obtaining automatic qualification. This does not happen at present and it will add excitement and relevance to more pool matches at each tournament, including RWC 2007," added Dr Millar.

The qualification process will see greater recognition given to the major regional championships in the Americas, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania. In another exciting development, the introduction of a World Trophy qualifying tournament the year before RWC, will provide matches at an appropriate level for Tier 2 and 3 Unions with the added incentive of qualification to Rugby World Cup. Such a move is the culmination of the IRB's Strategic Initiatives, aimed at increasing the overall competitiveness of international Rugby and RWC.

The exact number of qualifiers from the regional championships and the World Trophy qualifying tournament will depend upon the number of teams that will participate in each RWC finals tournament. The RWC Board is presently reviewing this number that presently stands at 20 teams, along with the use of the IRB World Rankings to determine the seedings and draw for the tournament.

"The World Trophy tournament, played at one venue, with places determined from the regional championship competitions will be highly competitive. The tournament along with the upgrading of the regional championships will replace the existing qualifying process that has in the past duplicated existing match schedules and the repechage process that sees teams qualify very late in the lead up to RWC," added Dr Millar.

[/b]

The use of the WC rankings would make perfect sense really. I think thats what everyone would like to see the draw being based on. It wont be 100% accurate of course, but in conjunction with a global season it would be a hell of a lot better then it currently is.

 

[Melhor Time]

I agree.

Done as late as possible, preferably 12 monmths before the World Cup. The draw for this year was done in 2004.

 

[ospreys1987]

I dont get how people can say that Argentina are a better team than Wales. Admittedly Wales havent been playing to thier full capabilities in the past two years, but that is down to injuries and more recently a shite coach, but a full strength Welsh team, I'm more than sure would beat the Argentinians. And the Argies can bring up the past two tours but Wales dont send a full strength team over there, its used to bleed in the young players

 

[Kiwi Londoner]

I dont get how people can say that Argentina are a better team than Wales. Admittedly Wales havent been playing to thier full capabilities in the past two years, but that is down to injuries and more recently a shite coach, but a full strength Welsh team, I'm more than sure would beat the Argentinians. And the Argies can bring up the past two tours but Wales dont send a full strength team over there, its used to bleed in the young players [/b]

Oi, don't nab Irelands' well thoughtout excuse!

 

[shazbooger]

Admittedly Wales havent been playing to thier full capabilities in the past two years[/b]

Not to bash Wales but thats exactly why Argentina are ahead of you in the rankings. You've had a fairly miserable two years, and youve been playing no where near your potential.

Oi, don't nab Irelands' well thoughtout excuse! [/b]

lol, you just wont let it go will you.

 

[SPIDER18]

I dont get how people can say that Argentina are a better team than Wales. Admittedly Wales havent been playing to thier full capabilities in the past two years, but that is down to injuries and more recently a shite coach, but a full strength Welsh team, I'm more than sure would beat the Argentinians. And the Argies can bring up the past two tours but Wales dont send a full strength team over there, its used to bleed in the young players [/b]

so we should ignore results, form and world rankings and decide who the best teams are by asking a welshmen because your the on ly one capable of deciding. honestly a lack of form is two or three games not two years. also coming 5th in the sixnations is pathetic.

 

[Kiwi Londoner]

<div class='quotemain'> Oi, don't nab Irelands' well thoughtout excuse! [/b]

lol, you just wont let it go will you. [/b][/quote]

Not in a million years .

I'm all up for the new draw, however the current system of using the previous results in the last WC is not sole to blame. Lets face it, Rugby just doesn't have as many 'big' names as football. Although pushing hard to find the most suitable way to get top rugby in a WC is one part of it, developing the sport across the globe alone would solve this problem (its one of those 'Easier said than done' cliches I know, but its a goal that rugby really needs to succeed in).

 

[Hory]

I think it would have been fairer had Ireland or Argentina replaced Scotland in New Zealand's group.
And the All Blacks would get to face some quality opposition before the semi-finals.

 

[RC]

<div class='quotemain'> I dont get how people can say that Argentina are a better team than Wales. Admittedly Wales havent been playing to thier full capabilities in the past two years, but that is down to injuries and more recently a shite coach, but a full strength Welsh team, I'm more than sure would beat the Argentinians. And the Argies can bring up the past two tours but Wales dont send a full strength team over there, its used to bleed in the young players [/b]

so we should ignore results, form and world rankings and decide who the best teams are by asking a welshmen because your the on ly one capable of deciding. honestly a lack of form is two or three games not two years. also coming 5th in the sixnations is pathetic. [/b][/quote]

Bloody hell, Spider you don't half blow things out of proportion.
That's exactly what he's saying, don't go on rankings...ask a Welshman.
:wall:
You've got the social tact of a rapist in a schoolyard.

 

[paco1]

Guess my friend was wrong...

 

[Rikeka]

Well... err... this is... err... LOLOLOL