The General RWC 2023 draw discussion thread

[Which Tyler]

What gives with those world rankings? Are they decided by Beauden Parrot as well?
-Australia are up a place, I guess because they've realised Eddie Jones is shouting at the sky, and will swap him for a proper coach after the world cup. -Fiji down two places to below Australia, because they upset the odds when Bill Beaumont had a bet with Macron that they'd go out in the groups.
-And Spain have gone up a place by watching one of the Ireland games in a bar in Seville.

Erm.
Neither Australia nor Spain changed their rankings this week.

If you for this time last week, then Fiji lost to Portugal; with a lot of ranking points on the line, so it's not that Australia overtook Fiji, but that Fiji dropped below Australia.
Equally, it's not that Spain overtook Romania, but that Romania lost (to Tonga, so fewer ranking points up for grabs), so Romania drop below Spain.

If you're interested in the rankings, here's the explanation: https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/rankings/explanation
And here's a calculator for future reference: https://rawling.github.io/wr-calc/

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

The QFs were good entertainment, but completely underlined what a mess the draw was. QFs should be there to reward pool winners with an easier fixture and route to the final, whilst still giving a pool runner up a fighting chance of an upset. The SFs should be where the best four teams compete in close contests as a tournament reaches its climax.

For the QFs to see 3x pool winners sent home is a bit of a travesty that undermines the entire five week long pool stage. The pool stage was almost for nothing for any true RWC contender which is why I was arguing at the start for top teams to rest players more in the pools and focus exclusively on peaking for the QFs. Thankfully World Rugby's player safety u-turn means red cards in the pool stage did not impact on the QFs and there weren't many key injuries from sides that were chasing irrelevant pool victories. So these factorz were not as important as they might otherwise have been.

However, I think counter arguments that winning your group gives you confidence and increases the chance of success in the QF were not borne out at the weekend. 3 of the sides that went in with elevated confidence were sent packing.

 

[Herman the German]

The QFs were good entertainment, but completely underlined what a mess the draw was. QFs should be there to reward pool winners with an easier fixture and route to the final, whilst still giving a pool runner up a fighting chance of an upset. The SFs should be where the best four teams compete in close contests as a tournament reaches its climax.

For the QFs to see 3x pool winners sent home is a bit of a travesty that undermines the entire five week long pool stage. The pool stage was almost for nothing for any true RWC contender which is why I was arguing at the start for top teams to rest players more in the pools and focus exclusively on peaking for the QFs. Thankfully World Rugby's player safety u-turn means red cards in the pool stage did not impact on the QFs and there weren't many key injuries from sides that were chasing irrelevant pool victories. So these factorz were not as important as they might otherwise have been.

However, I think counter arguments that winning your group gives you confidence and increases the chance of success in the QF were not borne out at the weekend. 3 of the sides that went in with elevated confidence were sent packing.

After all in an ideal draw the best 8 teams in the world would advance to quarters and the best 4 to semis (viewed from before quarters). We got 8 teams from Top 10 advancing, regarding the matchup there were playing No1 / No4, No 2 / No3, No6 / No 10 and No7 / No 8. So statistically every pool winner got "rewarded" with a lower ranked team. After all you'll have to beat a Top 10 side in the quarters, there's nothing else to expect.

And when one views the current Top10 of rugby as a wider Tier 1 (in this case including Fiji), it's obvious that there'll be two groups with three teams from Top10 (in this case B and C). The thing that was not perfect though, was that 1 / 2 / 5 and 3 / 4 (rankings before the group) were in the same group. Still a balanced group stage (Ireland, Scotland and Australia / SA, Argentinia and Wales / France and Fiji / NZ and England) could still provide similar quarters than we have. It's just top tier in rugby being close by (which also makes games from quarters onward so tense).

 

[General Melchett]

If SA win it nobody can say they don't deserve it. I could be wrong but it must be up there with the toughest routes to the trophy.

World no.1 and 5 in the group stage. Then France (as hosts) in the QF, England (new world no. 5) in the SF and then (likely) the ABs in the final. That's a brutal run.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

So I predicted the ABs to win the whole thing, albeit my logic was just a teeny bit flawed bar my Nostradamus moment that they'd narrowly do Ire in the QF.

Having seen the semis I'd now have them as pretty firm favourites. Only 2 really tough matches compared to the Boks 3 and an extra rest day. Scoring tries for fun. I think this will just be a step too far for an aging Boks team.

 

[bapean]

I hope ABs to win, but both teams have great players !

 

[Half Pint]

If SA win it nobody can say they don't deserve it. I could be wrong but it must be up there with the toughest routes to the trophy.
.

I can definitely say that they don't deserve it.
The <<Edit - pejorative accusation withdrawn - World Rugby have dropped charges for lack of evidence>> have been second best in three of their last four games. Massive credit to them that they find a way to win in those crucial knockout games, but you'll never convince me that they're the best team in the world, however many times you make me re-watch their recent games against Ireland, France and England (England! Ranked - what -ten in the world?). They've been consistently and repeatedly outplayed, except for in one single facet - the scrum. Each of those games was so tight that could play them all again and all three would be different results. So they're in the final purely by luck. (I won't mention referees). But I stand by my opinion that each of those three teams above were better than SA on that day. They clearly are not deserving "world champions" (with heavily ironic air quotes).
Also, just in case you're in any doubt, I hate the way they play the game. Boring and predictable.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

The Breakdown | No country for old men? Last dance for Rugby World Cup’s elder statesmen

New Zealand and South Africa’s veterans have overcome mental and physical adversity to lead their teams to the World Cup final

www.theguardian.com

Good point but this RWC does feel like an end of an era for many of them.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

The Breakdown | No country for old men? Last dance for Rugby World Cup’s elder statesmen

New Zealand and South Africa’s veterans have overcome mental and physical adversity to lead their teams to the World Cup final

www.theguardian.com

Good point but this RWC does feel like an end of an era for many of them.

I'd completely lost track of how old some players are. I was going to say on another thread that I wouldn't be surprised if Cole was still around in 4 years - given props tend to mature later. Had no idea he was 36. I guess it makes sense as he looks about 70.