RWC Review: No. 18 Romania

[Shaggy]

The 2011 Rugby World Cup has ended and unfortunately for the rugby faithful, this means that we'll have to wait four years once again, but don't be disappointed, this was a special tournament. New Zealand hosted this time around, and with that, we realize that we may not see the rugby mad country host again for a very long time.

We hope that you all savored every moment and every match, no matter what the outcomes were, the disappointments or heartache. What impressed us the most is how well second tier nations developed over the past four years, which is great news for the sport on a worldwide scale.

Development is the key to this game, as any, and this world cup has opened the door to a large number of new fans.

As we take a look back, Shaggy, psychic duck and M Two One review the twenty participants from worst to first over the next week. The rankings were put together through several opinions based on performances.

Feel free to debate and discuss. The 2011 Rugby World Cup may have ended, but rugby lives on 24/7.

Romania was the last side to qualify for the 2011 Rugby World Cup by winning their return match against Uruguay in late November last year. While they were expected to be competitive in their matches against fellow Pool B teams Argentina, England and Scotland, they would have undoubtedly targeted their game against Georgia as the game that they could win. Unfortunately they didn't manage to win that match, or any of the others, despite pushing Scotland to the limit in their opening match in Invercargill.

Scheduling may have again played a part in their final rankings, as the compressed nature of the scheduling only gave them four days break between their match with England and a crucial last match with Georgia, where as Georgia had an eight day break. Taking nothing away from Georgia, had the scheduling been around the other way, Romania may have won, and their ranking would have been higher.

Romania's strength lies in its forward pack and that definitely caused problems for Scotland in the opening match, but inevitably they were found wanting as the tournament progressed. The toll of playing so many matches in such a short space of time affected all teams, but for sides such as Romania, the effect was greater, as they lack the quality players to substitute as injuries and fatigue set in.

The Oaks played with a lot of heart, but their inexperience in making correct decisions at crucial times in attack and defensive lapses, ultimately cost them. This was particularly evident in the matches against the pool heavy weights, England and Argentina, where those teams were able to easily rack up the points, despite Romania being generally competitive around the park. The good news is that some of the tier one nations support taking their share of short turnaround games during the next tournament.

Romania placed much of their faith in their veteran players, such as hooker Marius Tincu and loose forward Ovidiu Tonita. The age of quite a few of their players suggest that many of these players won't be around in 2015. However, they do have a number of players that play professionally in Europe and play regularly in the European Nations Cup, which they have won nine times. They have been at every world cup so far, so it might be surprising that they didn't perform a little bit better. It may be more of an indication of the general strength and improvement in European Rugby, rather than an indictment of how poorly they may or may not have played. While this is good news for European Rugby in general, it may make qualifying for future World Cups for Romania more difficult.

Teams like Romania would undoubtedly benefit from a revamp of the tournament structure, not just to allow their front line players time to recouperate, but also if the tournament adopted a format where the eliminated teams get to play in shield and plate competitions at the conclusion of pool play. - S

 

[psychic duck]

Scheduling may have again played a part in their final rankings, as the compressed nature of the scheduling only gave them four days break between their match with England and a crucial last match with Georgia, where as Georgia had an eight day break. Taking nothing away from Georgia, had the scheduling been around the other way, Romania may have won, and their ranking would have been higher.

whilst Romania undoubtedly had a tough schedule, they can't say that they were tired for the Georgia match as they played their 2nd XV for the England match and rested their strongest team for the Georgia match

 

[beerholder]

whilst Romania undoubtedly had a tough schedule, they can't say that they were tired for the Georgia match as they played their 2nd XV for the England match and rested their strongest team for the Georgia match

That's true, they inexcusably underperformed.

 

[DaniBM8]

The match against Georgia could have been won but that's it. Anyway we have to admit that the match against Scotland was great. If they would have played against Georgia like they did against Scotland...It would have been an other story...
Good job Oaks!