[RWC2023] France vs Italy (06/10/2023)

[Umaga's Witness]

Overreaction to the pandemic by World Rugby is largely to blame.

How so?

 

[Tooting Carmen]

How so?

Because quite a few countries were not able to play in 2020 and to a lesser extent 2021, World Rugby surreptitiously decided to base the seedings on how the countries ranked at the end of the penultimate World Cup, rather than anything since.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Because quite a few countries were not able to play in 2020 and to a lesser extent 2021, World Rugby surreptitiously decided to base the seedings on how the countries ranked at the end of the penultimate World Cup, rather than anything since.

Oh. Regardless, there can only be one winner.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Saying Sexton is levels above every other flyhalf is more ridiculous tbh.

Nothing about my post was ridiculous tbh.

 

[Lé Ddanno]

Nothing about my post was ridiculous tbh.

Quiet you.

 

[Derpus]

I usually watch the replay, and I refuse to watch these cricket score matches.

Been a lot of them. Thought rugby was supposed to be getting more competitive.

 

[Derpus]

I Feel sorry for two of france South Africa and Ireland that they won't win the World Cup. They all deserve to

This is by definition not how a world cup works.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

This is by definition not how a world cup works.

But they still get participation medals right?

 

[Which Tyler]

How so?

Haven't you noticed? everything has to be the authority's fault (whether WR or RFU, or...)
Even basic maths.

 

[General Melchett]

Because quite a few countries were not able to play in 2020 and to a lesser extent 2021, World Rugby surreptitiously decided to base the seedings on how the countries ranked at the end of the penultimate World Cup, rather than anything since.

The draw for the 2019 RWC was made 2.5 years in advance with the seedings locked in before that and so WR have form here regardless of what line they roll out about teams not being able to play due to pandemics. Not sure what their motive is. Perhaps they don't want ranking points gained through tournaments like the 6N counting so much because they don't control those. The line about giving teams time to prepare is nonsense.

Going forward they need to announce well in advance when seedings will be locked and when the draw will be made so everyone knows where they stand. The lopsided draw in this year's has been a disappointment. Personally I think the draw should be made about a year out from the actual comp itself. Plenty time for teams to organise travel, training facilities etc. and less likelihood of a lopsided draw.

 

[Jimbo]

The draw for the 2019 RWC was made 2.5 years in advance with the seedings locked in before that and so WR have form here regardless of what line they roll out about teams not being able to play due to pandemics. Not sure what their motive is. Perhaps they don't want ranking points gained through tournaments like the 6N counting so much because they don't control those. The line about giving teams time to prepare is nonsense.

Going forward they need to announce well in advance when seedings will be locked and when the draw will be made so everyone knows where they stand. The lopsided draw in this year's has been a disappointment. Personally I think the draw should be made about a year out from the actual comp itself. Plenty time for teams to organise travel, training facilities etc. and less likelihood of a lopsided draw.

I still think far too much is made of seedings and draws, if you want to be crowned World champions you need to be prepared to take on all comers at what ever stage, if you can't do that the chances are your not champion quality. Sure there are some nuances like having a depleted squad from the pool stages and could cause later problems in the knock outs but failing to exit the pool implies your simply not at the top of the table as painful as it maybe to admit.

 

[General Melchett]

I still think far too much is made of seedings and draws, if you want to be crowned World champions you need to be prepared to take on all comers at what ever stage, if you can't do that the chances are your not champion quality. Sure there are some nuances like having a depleted squad from the pool stages and could cause later problems in the knock outs but failing to exit the pool implies your simply not at the top of the table as painful as it maybe to admit.

Don't disagree but the whole point of having seedings is that we don't have a lopsided draw and the top sides are kept apart to ensure mouth watering QFs, SFs. If you're going to have seedings at least make sure they don't go well out of date before the main event otherwise may as well make it an open draw.

 

[Which Tyler]

I think it's one of those times where two things can both be true.

Seedings are made too early - IMO 12-18 months in advance is the sweet spot.
But also, regardless of the draw, if you can't come top 2 in your pool, you can't claim you "deserve" a shot at being the top 1 all-in.

 

[Jimbo]

Don't disagree but the whole point of having seedings is that the top sides are kept apart to ensure mouth watering QFs, SFs. If you're going to have seedings at least make sure they don't go well out of date before the main event.

I get that, with the land scape as it currently is, I don't think anyone outside of the top 3 can compete with them so your pretty unlikely to be able to have mouth watering QFs, then Semis and finals. The nice thing about having 2 of the top teams in the same pool is it gives them a descent chance of both being in the final without oppertunity to knock each other out in the quarters. I get that if it's you team failing to exit the group it feels like an injustice, but not to the point it's likely to be the difference between winning it and not.

 

[Tooting Carmen]

Don't disagree but the whole point of having seedings is that we don't have a lopsided draw and the top sides are kept apart to ensure mouth watering QFs, SFs. If you're going to have seedings at least make sure they don't go well out of date before the main event otherwise may as well make it an open draw.

Curiously, a book I have called The Worst of Rugby argues roughly the opposite for the inauguaral 1987 World Cup - that New Zealand's pool was far too easy for them, and at least the other three pools had match-ups of more similar quality: Wales-Ireland, Australia-England, France-Scotland.

 

[BrokenWing]

I still think far too much is made of seedings and draws, if you want to be crowned World champions you need to be prepared to take on all comers at what ever stage, if you can't do that the chances are your not champion quality. Sure there are some nuances like having a depleted squad from the pool stages and could cause later problems in the knock outs but failing to exit the pool implies your simply not at the top of the table as painful as it maybe to admit.

I'd say it has more of an implication to the teams below the genuine contenders. In terms of measurements of success, it could mean the difference between a group stage exit (getting lumped in with the lowest ranked teams) and knock out rugby (getting yourself noticed).

Although you're right in that the winner has to be prepared to beat all teams, it's not great for raising the profile of the game when the final (which you'd assume is being watched by casual observers that maybe haven't taken an interest before) is effectively a foregone conclusion.

 

[Mr.cyclopede]

France and New Zealand will be going into the QF having had almost zero physical challenge or defensive pressure for a month. I don't think that's a good thing.

Well, that was also the case for SA in the previous RWC, we know how it ended…

 

[General Melchett]

I'd say it has more of an implication to the teams below the genuine contenders. In terms of measurements of success, it could mean the difference between a group stage exit (getting lumped in with the lowest ranked teams) and knock out rugby (getting yourself noticed).

Although you're right in that the winner has to be prepared to beat all teams, it's not great for raising the profile of the game when the final (which you'd assume is being watched by casual observers that maybe haven't taken an interest before) is effectively a foregone conclusion.

Exactly. The RWC is an inclusive tournament. Some teams may be targeting a QF or a SF as a means of lifting the profile of the game in the nation and potentially getting more funding.Some teams may be targeting one win. Some head coaches may lose their jobs if they underachieve and not meet performance targets. Some players only get one or two shots at realising whatever goals they have.

The concept of seedings isn't specific to the RWC. I'm all for giving teams the chance to cause upsets but if you're going to use seedings then do it right like most other sports.

 

[Tooting Carmen]

Well, that was also the case for SA in the previous RWC, we know how it ended…

Um, they had NZ in their opening match (and lost)...

 

[Jimbo]

I'd say it has more of an implication to the teams below the genuine contenders. In terms of measurements of success, it could mean the difference between a group stage exit (getting lumped in with the lowest ranked teams) and knock out rugby (getting yourself noticed).

Although you're right in that the winner has to be prepared to beat all teams, it's not great for raising the profile of the game when the final (which you'd assume is being watched by casual observers that maybe haven't taken an interest before) is effectively a foregone conclusion.

Might be missing the point but as it set up a final of SA and Ireland is a real possibility how does that equate to a final with a foregone conclusion?