World Cup is overrated

[Leonormous Boozer]

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

Yeah, I had it in my head that Woodward left after the win... It seems as if I was wrong!

 

[psychic duck]

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.

Wasn't just players they lost straight after, but the declines of a few as well. Greenwood, Dawson, Hill and to an extent Dallaglio were all over the hill post 2003, and were all massively faded forces by the time Woodward backed them to bring the Lions to victory in New Zealand.

 

[Big Ewis]

Yeah, I had it in my head that Woodward left after the win... It seems as if I was wrong!

I didn't mean to expose you or anything, in fact I thought I was missing something bad myself, that's why I asked. Thought you were going to tell me this or that assistant coach left and a difference was noticed in this or that sector of their game, or smt...

 

[TRF_Olyy]

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.

Replacing Johnson with Borthwick is easily worth 30+ pts to the opposition :lol:

 

[Pampas]

No its not.

And Argentina in 2007 was a great team, perhaps not third in the World, but definately top 5.

 

[McTallshort]

Does anyone remember were England were ranked in 2007 when after stuffing the french in Paris we made the final.

 

[Jaguares]

What are u talking about? In 2007, The Pumas were at least, a Top 5 team

 

[Big Ewis]

What are u talking about? In 2007, The Pumas were at least, a Top 5 team

No its not.

And Argentina in 2007 was a great team, perhaps not third in the World, but definately top 5.

uhmm ok can we PLEASE stop it with those 2007 RWC Pumas !!!!!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i'll also add that the World ranking are calced over a couple of years (i think) so the fact the pumas were third in the world after the world cup suggests getting third in the world cup isn't far from the truth

 

[TRF_heineken]

The World Cup tests a team way more than any other series.

For the competitive teams it comes down to having a good squad and performing week-in and week-out on a consistent basis. Something no other series in World Rugby has. Every other tournament has byes. the World Cup doesn't.

I love it for all the sports, football, cricket, rugby, hockey etc.

Except for the American sports, they call it a world series, yet only they compete...

 

[gaston le gaff]

have to agree with heineken to win, it's 7 games over a month + so it takes stamina and as soon as the knock out stages come around its win move on or go home so every match becomes massive. In a test series of 3 you can always lose one and still win!!!! i know France lost in the series and got to the final but it's very rare.

 

[TRF_heineken]

have to agree with heineken to win, it's 7 games over a month + so it takes stamina and as soon as the knock out stages come around its win move on or go home so every match becomes massive. In a test series of 3 you can always lose one and still win!!!! i know France lost in the series and got to the final but it's very rare.

Actually it happened to England in 2007 too!

Their opening game was also against SA where we smashed them 36-0!

 

[Icemn]

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!

someone give this man a fcking bells.... I've been saying this for years now...

these knockout tournaments are won on defense in anycase...

 

[gaston le gaff]

Actually it happened to England in 2007 too!

Their opening game was also against SA where we smashed them 36-0!

very true i should really remember glorious events like that!!!! must be age !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mikel92]

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.

Why are you quoting those figures to me? I was referencing the hype that came with the win afterwards and my feelings about the World Cup itself in general. To me, just too short a tournament to parade around as the best. I'm sure there are probably some clever analogies out there where you have to do something for more than such a short period of time. (short in the context of the rugby calendar anyway).

 

[goodNumber10]

Why are you quoting those figures to me? I was referencing the hype that came with the win afterwards and my feelings about the World Cup itself in general. To me, just too short a tournament to parade around as the best. I'm sure there are probably some clever analogies out there where you have to do something for more than such a short period of time. (short in the context of the rugby calendar anyway).

pretty sure results wise England have been the worst defending champions in the history of the world cup, something like 23 losses from 40 games.

 

[Mikel92]

The World Cup tests a team way more than any other series.

For the competitive teams it comes down to having a good squad and performing week-in and week-out on a consistent basis. Something no other series in World Rugby has. Every other tournament has byes. the World Cup doesn't.

Not sure if I'd be trumpeting the week in - week out basis thing if the teams you're facing go by the name Namibia, Russia and Portugal. Even okay-ish teams like Italy and Fiji are pretty questionable. Unless you're in a pool of death, you have 1 hard to mildly challenging pool game. Yeah you don't get a bye, but if you're exhausted facing Namibia then you probably shouldn't be there. These top teams can afford to tinker and put out a C team if they wanted to.

It's not unusual that the only "challenging" games are the semi final and final. I don't really think a semi against Argentina proves you're the best at anything. You won a couple of very intense matches, and congrats for that .. but is that all it takes? A gold cup and a match here and there. Every sport has to have a holy grail, I get that, but just trying to put some context on it.

Not being negative for the sake of it, just trying to be realistic. There are plenty of brilliant points to the tournament and of course everyone would love it win it, it brings nations together and will continue to grow which is great. But, at least at this stage, I just question the hype and prestige. Just my opinion though, not scripture or anything haha.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Not sure if I'd be trumpeting the week in - week out basis thing if the teams you're facing go by the name Namibia, Russia and Portugal. Even okay-ish teams like Italy and Fiji are pretty questionable. Unless you're in a pool of death, you have 1 hard to mildly challenging pool game. Yeah you don't get a bye, but if you're exhausted facing Namibia then you probably shouldn't be there. These top teams can afford to tinker and put out a C team if they wanted to.

It's not unusual that the only "challenging" games are the semi final and final. I don't really think a semi against Argentina proves you're the best at anything. You won a couple of very intense matches, and congrats for that .. but is that all it takes? A gold cup and a match here and there. Every sport has to have a holy grail, I get that, but just trying to put some context on it.

Not being negative for the sake of it, just trying to be realistic. There are plenty of brilliant points to the tournament and of course everyone would love it win it, it brings nations together and will continue to grow which is great. But, at least at this stage, I just question the hype and prestige. Just my opinion though, not scripture or anything haha.

You are missing the point. At a world cup you can't put in a C-squad. You are limited at having only 36 players in your squad at World Cup time. yeah, these minnows provide your star players some rest. But it's usually these games that can cause upsets and injuries. Look at the Boks in 2007, they nearly lost against Fiji in the Pool stages. These matches are also usually played in the weekday. Like SA vs USA in next year's tournament and that is 3 days after the Scotland game.

With a 36-man squad and having 23 guys playing in a match gives you 13 extra players. So that leaves you with having 10 guys who was involved in the previous game to feature in the "minnow" game too.

 

[Mikel92]

B teams... C team, whatever you want to call it.

If you think Reuben Thorne at lock isn't reflective of a second rate team (I'd argue third rate) to rest players then something is wrong. And that wasn't the only tournament where that sort of thing happens. You aren't gonna play your top guys against mega-minnows like Russia. Not all of them anyway. That's why the week in week out thing falls to bits.

I don't consider the All Blacks the best because they won a semi final against the Wallabies and a tough Final against a resurgent France. I consider them the best because they are consistent and do what they do every year, in each series. The World Cup is nice to shut the critics up, but if it means being diatribe over the next 4 years following it then no thanks, you can keep it. If the World Cup was all it was cracked up to be, and all NZ ever did was win that and nothing else then our brand would be something different .. we wouldn't be considered the best and have the reputation we do. We don't have the major sponsorship deals and heavy fandom because we happened to win a Cup. We created a style of rugby that is fierce and constantly seeks to be innovative, and it usually works. To me that's what the best means.

Definitely not saying we shouldn't have it, or that's it's bad. But the original question was, do I think it's overrated. And yeah, certainly would.

 

[TRF_heineken]

B teams... C team, whatever you want to call it.

If you think Reuben Thorne at lock isn't reflective of a second rate team (I'd argue third rate) to rest players then something is wrong. And that wasn't the only tournament where that sort of thing happens. You aren't gonna play your top guys against mega-minnows like Russia. Not all of them anyway. That's why the week in week out thing falls to bits.

I don't consider the All Blacks the best because they won a semi final against the Wallabies and a tough Final against a resurgent France. I consider them the best because they are consistent and do what they do every year, in each series. The World Cup is nice to shut the critics up, but if it means being diatribe over the next 4 years following it then no thanks, you can keep it. If the World Cup was all it was cracked up to be, and all NZ ever did was win that and nothing else then our brand would be something different .. we wouldn't be considered the best and have the reputation we do.

yeah it's easy for the All Blacks because you guys have the backing of the entire nation and have the necessary structures in place to flourish.

SA have a few battles no other country has, like the enforced quota system, the government, our history, and our weak currency, to name a few.

This is not something I'm going to go into with much detail, as we have discussed this quite a few times before. But the World Cup is the only tournament that gives you a clear measurement of how good your team/squad is at a specific time where all the other teams are also present. Every team starts as an equal, and apart from the host nation, every time plays on neutral ground. It brings new challenges which nobody can prepare you for.

Yes it's prestigious, but that's the whole point! Every person who plays proffessional sports wants to go to the Olympics/World Cup of their sport. They look forward to the extravaganza that comes with it and the preparation that goes with it. I have never heard of a proffessional player saying, "screw the World Cup, I'm looking forward to our one-off matchup against Iran in 2016"...