World Cup is overrated

[Rugga-lad]

It's brilliant from a marketing point of view for the game. But i do find it a very strange competition. You play a couple of teams over a month period, and suddenly you are crowned World Champions. The strangest was, Argentina in 2007, where they won 3rd place, and suddenly they were 3rd in the world rankings, and everybody knows they were never 3rd in the world when RWC 2007 arrived.

I say you are the best team in the world if you prove it over a 4 or 5 year period of consistency. The All Blacks have been doing that for years. You don't need a month competition to prove that. In actual fact, a world cup tells you nothing except that there's a competition winner and the rest are losers. LOL!

 

[BakkiesBokke]

It's brilliant from a marketing point of view for the game. But i do find it a very strange competition. You play a couple of teams over a month period, and suddenly you are crowned World Champions. The strangest was, Argentina in 2007, where they won 3rd place, and suddenly they were 3rd in the world rankings, and everybody knows they were never 3rd in the world when RWC 2007 arrived.

I say you are the best team in the world if you prove it over a 4 or 5 year period of consistency. The All Blacks have been doing that for years. You don't need a month competition to prove that. In actual fact, a world cup tells you nothing except that there's a competition winner and the rest are losers. LOL!

I disagree. I love the World Cup. It is great to see how teams perform under pressure in a knock out situation - until last time, the ABs were chokers! The "minnows" get greater exposure also - I'd like to see how Japan is getting on, as their league is on the up.

Sport is about leagues and cups. The IRB rankings are the league if you like, and the WC the cup. It also punctuates time into neat 4 year cycles.

 

[William18]

At the moment I feel we have the best of both worlds. The World Cup is the most important event but every match is still a test match and not a friendly. I think the World Cup gets overrated because a lot of people don't follow rugby for 4 years and then do for one tournament. The World Cup winners certainly aren't always the best team though.

 

[Phlegm & Poise]

At the moment I feel we have the best of both worlds. The World Cup is the most important event but every match is still a test match and not a friendly. I think the World Cup gets overrated because a lot of people don't follow rugby for 4 years and then do for one tournament. The World Cup winners certainly aren't always the best team though.

I can't remember the last time the winners weren't the best team around? 1995? Although I get that it's easier to win 1 or 2 big games at a World Cup than it is to come out on top of the Rugby Championship.

I like the RWC because it gives nations like Fiji/Samoa/previously Argentina the chance to play the Tier One nations with parity in terms of preparation times and time to work on routines, etc. Every team and squad is together for basically the same amount of time unlike the November/June Tests where each side is at different stages of their season.

I also like seeing how nations like Japan/Georgia/Canada get on. Hopefully there'll be less 100-0 scorelines next year.

 

[Big Ewis]

I agree with the OP. It should be added the RWC is a completely artificial addition to the world Rugby landscape as it only started in 1987. I remember when I started documenting about Rugby as my interest for it peaked, I went to wiki and was stunned to learn the RWC was even younger than myself and had started as crazy late as 1987. For me, in the back of my mind, I knew Rugby was this old old sport with England France an age old rivalry, the AB vs Springboks a legendary fixture...and then I learn it was invented in 1987...like, Freddy Kruger is older...

So it is an artificial entity in the world Rugby landscape, includes such aberrations as Namibia playing Australia or New Zealand playing Portugal, and although it's fun because those are exotic matchups they're still ridiculously, ridiculously unfair.
Like at football/soccer, you can play the match of your life and survive a 1-0 victory and pull off the amazing upset against a world power, but at Rugby, your forwards will get smashed for 80min, you'll get dominated in every sector of the game, and your guys even in the most valiant of efforts will tire after around the 50th. So it's not that entertaining and intellectually interesting to watch South Africa play, say, Namibia. No.

I agree with the OP's reasons also: a team's quality isn't measured by what it produces in some tournament that resurfaces every FOUR YEARS, and lasts about a month.
Obviously, I'm not anti-RWC, it's fkng awesome, I LOVE it and am very very grateful it was invented at all. But is it overheated ? Absolutely, and microwaving your food is very unhealthy.

 

[j'nuh]

Let's just get rid of competitions everywhere.

No Six Nations. No Super Rugby. No club tournaments.
No Grand Slams or Masters Tournaments.
No World Cups, Champions League, or divisional football.
No Superbowl. No NBA playoffs.
Definitely no Olympics.

Elo rankings for everyone!

 

[goodNumber10]

I'm more interested in test series wins than the World Cup, it's a nice couple of days out but, for me personally, I want to see England and other NH teams go down and take a test series.... It's a much bigger challenge than winning the World Cup.

The World Cup can be won by an average team with good defence and some guts on the day, Test series cannot be taken like that.

 

[nickdnz]

I love the Rugby World Cup. Does it always prove who the best team is? No, but it's still more interesting than the rust of the rugby year. For the last few years the All Blacks have won the RC reasonably comfortably, seeing as its not a knock out tournament. But the fact that you can't afford to lose one RWC game come the KO stages, it makes it a really tense three weeks. I think there is also this expectation that the All Blacks HAVE to win the thing or else the nation goes into depression. Like actual depression. The years a write off. That amount of expectation and pressure is extremely exciting. On top of that you just get a tonne of rugby matchups that you often don't get to see. People claims that 'it's not great seeing South Africa verse Namibia' but I do find it amazing. It's amazing as its a platform to show just how out of the ordinary the top teams are - and it also can produce moments of magic, unveiling talent no one really knew about. Ngwenya in 2007 being a great example. Then there is the fact one country is hosting all the matches, just produces a festival feeling to it.

Nope, as cool as it is to say 'the rugby world cup is overrated/not a great addition to rugby' I'm going to have to disagree.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I'd rather Ireland win the World Cup than beat New Zealand. It's the peak of rugby and in years to come, when it has more history, it will become what the soccer World Cup is. We don't have enough moments to talk about in our main event. Lomu running riot, Nelson Mandela, France beating NZ and Jonny's drop goal don't compare to things like Pele and Garrincha, the hand of God and that goal, the great Dutch sides, Zidane's Headbutt and the ghost goal in 66 but we'll get that in time and we'll look back on World Cup winning teams as the best team at the time whether they are or not and, so far, they are at least 6 times out of 7. Great entertainment, great rugby, great for the growth of the sport, there is literally no downside to the RWC.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I'd rather Ireland win the World Cup than beat New Zealand.

I agree (though with England, obviously).
World Cup wins have much more longevity in bragging rights than test/series wins. Would you rather say "Yeah, but we beat New Zealand in 2012!" or "Yeah, but we won the World Cup in 2015!"?

Being a sports fan is all about the bragging rights.

 

[j-dawg]

I disagree, for me it's world cups then lions tour then test series wins.

World cups hold absolutely unforgetable moments in rugby that rarely pop out at other times - just look at my picture for reference. What a day that was for Rugby, the aussies and the kiwis dumped out by the no hopers!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

The only addition I would make to World Cup is all but the current champ and host has to qualify, use to to give more meaning to the games in between, then it would have the little thing I feel it's missing

 

[Mikel92]

I can't remember the last time the winners weren't the best team around? 1995? Although I get that it's easier to win 1 or 2 big games at a World Cup than it is to come out on top of the Rugby Championship.

Exactly. It is not an unknown occurrence that a team wins the world cup and is, in all actuality, an absolute rabble or trash heap who got a flukey result. Not necessarily winning the world cup either, but progressing to the next stage and there's this big pretend-game that they move up the rankings and rugby hierarchy when the simple fact is they got lucky. But you can never say that because it's just "making excuses". To me, if you're going to be known as the best - do it for 12 months a year with consistency. Not a couple of tough knock out games. It's good and bad. The good side is that unpredictability factor. On paper you would think New Zealand would romp home every 4 years, but that just isn't the case. The bad side....although it's not really bad, just silly really, is that a team like England in 2003 can win the thing yet sports fans on forums and certain people in the media during the years afterwards masquerade them as something awesome when they're not. The results following that tournament for them were pathetic. Yes, ok, bragging rights are cool. But the hype just gets carried away.

I also love that our world cup is more inclusive than other world cups. Such as rugby league. It allows countries to show their flair on the international stage through anthems, crowd interactions, team patterns on the field, chanting, etc.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Exactly. It is not an unknown occurrence that a team wins the world cup and is, in all actuality, an absolute rabble or trash heap who got a flukey result. Not necessarily winning the world cup either, but progressing to the next stage and there's this big pretend-game that they move up the rankings and rugby hierarchy when the simple fact is they got lucky. But you can never say that because it's just "making excuses". To me, if you're going to be known as the best - do it for 12 months a year with consistency. Not a couple of tough knock out games. It's good and bad. The good side is that unpredictability factor. On paper you would think New Zealand would romp home every 4 years, but that just isn't the case. The bad side....although it's not really bad, just silly really, is that a team like England in 2003 can win the thing yet sports fans on forums and certain people in the media during the years afterwards masquerade them as something awesome when they're not. The results following that tournament for them were pathetic. Yes, ok, bragging rights are cool. But the hype just gets carried away.

I also love that our world cup is more inclusive than other world cups. Such as rugby league. It allows countries to show their flair on the international stage through anthems, crowd interactions, team patterns on the field, chanting, etc.

England were the best in '03, the decline was due to a high number of retirements, losing their coach and injuries to the likes of Wilkinson. They were easily the best team in the world in 2002 and 2003.

 

[Big Ewis]

Being a sports fan is all about the bragging rights.

* and British.

 

[Jbobo]

I love the Rugby World Cup. Does it always prove who the best team is? No, but it's still more interesting than the rust of the rugby year. For the last few years the All Blacks have won the RC reasonably comfortably, seeing as its not a knock out tournament. But the fact that you can't afford to lose one RWC game come the KO stages, it makes it a really tense three weeks. I think there is also this expectation that the All Blacks HAVE to win the thing or else the nation goes into depression. Like actual depression. The years a write off. That amount of expectation and pressure is extremely exciting. On top of that you just get a tonne of rugby matchups that you often don't get to see. People claims that 'it's not great seeing South Africa verse Namibia' but I do find it amazing. It's amazing as its a platform to show just how out of the ordinary the top teams are - and it also can produce moments of magic, unveiling talent no one really knew about. Ngwenya in 2007 being a great example. Then there is the fact one country is hosting all the matches, just produces a festival feeling to it.



Nope, as cool as it is to say 'the rugby world cup is overrated/not a great addition to rugby' I'm going to have to disagree.

Hear hear!

 

[j'nuh]

Exactly. It is not an unknown occurrence that a team wins the world cup and is, in all actuality, an absolute rabble or trash heap who got a flukey result. Not necessarily winning the world cup either, but progressing to the next stage and there's this big pretend-game that they move up the rankings and rugby hierarchy when the simple fact is they got lucky. But you can never say that because it's just "making excuses". To me, if you're going to be known as the best - do it for 12 months a year with consistency. Not a couple of tough knock out games. It's good and bad. The good side is that unpredictability factor. On paper you would think New Zealand would romp home every 4 years, but that just isn't the case. The bad side....although it's not really bad, just silly really, is that a team like England in 2003 can win the thing yet sports fans on forums and certain people in the media during the years afterwards masquerade them as something awesome when they're not. The results following that tournament for them were pathetic. Yes, ok, bragging rights are cool. But the hype just gets carried away.

I also love that our world cup is more inclusive than other world cups. Such as rugby league. It allows countries to show their flair on the international stage through anthems, crowd interactions, team patterns on the field, chanting, etc.

Revisionist as hell? The 2003 England team was the most consistent and the best team in the world back then.

2002:
Scotland 3-29 England
England 45-11 Ireland
France 20-15 England
England 50-10 Wales
Italy 9-45 England

(Summer)
Argentina 18-26 England

(End of year)
England 31-28 New Zealand
England 32-31 Australia
England 53-3 South Africa

2003
(6N)
England 25-17 France
Wales 9-26 England
England 40-5 Italy
England 40-9 Scotland
Ireland 6-42 England

(Summer tests)
New Zealand 13-15 England
Australia 14-25 England

(World Cup warm-ups)
Wales 9-43 England
France 17-16 England
England 45-14 France

(World Cup)
England 84-6 Georgia
South Africa 6-25 England
England 35-22 Samoa
England 111-13 Uruguay
England 28-17 Wales
France 7-24 England
Australia 17-20 England

Two losses in two years. One of which was a second-string game to give the wider squad some game time in the lead up to the WC.

 

[Big Ewis]

England were the best in '03, the decline was due to a high number of retirements, losing their coach and injuries to the likes of Wilkinson. They were easily the best team in the world in 2002 and 2003.

I've exposed my pov on England during those years in a previous thread, but about the coach, Woodward was still there by 2004. Who do you mean they lost ?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I've exposed my pov on England during those years in a previous thread, but about the coach, Woodward was still there by 2004. Who do you mean they lost ?

RWC Final 2003 side:

15. Lewsey
14. Robinson
13. Greenwood
12. Tindall
11. Cohen
10. Wilkinson
9. Dawson
8. Dallaglio
7. Back
6. Hill
5. Kay
4. Johnson
3. Vickery
2. Thomson
1. Woodman

Compare that to the side that lost their 1st game after winning that world cup

vs Ireland 2004:

15. Balshaw
14. Lewsey
13. Greenwood
12. Robinson
11. Cohen
10. Grayson
9. Dawson
8. Dallaglio
7. Hill
6. Worsley
5. Kay
4. Borthwick
3. Vickery
2. Thompson
1. Woodman

In my opinion the difference between those two sides is that they lost three, Johnson, Back and Wilkinson of their five best players, Greenwood and Robinson the other two, and Robinson was out of position. These players weren't replaced simply because they couldn't be which led England to lose momentum and grind to a halt offering up very average to poor rugby until the knock-out stages of the next world cup, they were in the start of a new cycle having had their best group of players ever peak at the same time and the RFU handled it very poorly.

 

[Big Ewis]

no no but you say "losing their coach", what do you mean ? As far as I know Woodward was still with them around 2004, and I just checked he was indeed.
P.S.: and yes they basically lost the good pieces of their 10-man game