World Cup is overrated

[Mikel92]

For me it's also kind of like how the Kiwis won the League World Cup. Yeah, fantastic achievement! And we should be (and were at the time) very proud. But I had a hard time saying we were the best after that. Given how awesome the Kangaroos are and what ability they have to bounce back from that kind of thing. I kind of admire their consistency, just as I admire the AB's (although the Kangaroos weren't so hot this year!). Just my take on it.

 

[Big Ewis]

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

well the NBA is really basically the "world championship" as they like to call it, those really are the 30 best teams in the world (some with lots of int'l flavor like the champs Spurs) although it's true for most Americans the Earth is made of 51 US states, and maybe border areas with Canada and Mexico on a good day.

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.

yeah good point there, and there everybody will agree...:
you listen to pundits and fans, or even the very players themselves, and at the end of a World Cup you always hear that question "did the best team win the WC this year ?" which is decisive enough as far as this debate goes. It means we all accept and *know* the WC is this partial, quick run of a still artificial setup that certainly means something but that just by default can only be a very exciting, emotion-laden and obviously very high stake profile tournament, but that it's far too short lived to legitimately proclaim a team as the single best, and the runnerups as 2nd 3rd 4th etc...

Not to return to that discussion, but the circumstances in which the All-Blacks won the last RWC being ambiguous and very peculiar - every All-Black fan was defending his case, and also every neutral was conceding ultimately that "well at the end of the day, the best team won the Cup". Which says it all, and that's that for me as far as this conversation: nobody denies the WC is very important, exciting, puts the teams in a unique setting, it's exotic, fresh each year, rare (every 4 years) therefor the buildup to it is huge and a crescendo emotionally...etc...etc.....BUT - but but but ! - around that question of world rankings and which team is truly the best, the answer lies elsewhere, and we all know it. Everybody knows it. It may be a confirmation of things, but it may very well not.

- - - Updated - - -

I will add this:
the All-Blacks are the best team in the world each year, and they've only won 2 out of 7, and both times with an asterisk even (no Boks in '87 then the controversial final), let's be honest and real. So there is a certain added value to the WC as it does still represent the biggest stage, and seeing the very best has only won 2 and the second best only 2 (out of 6) also, something can be debated over that...

 

[TRF_heineken]

well the NBA is really basically the "world championship" as they like to call it, those really are the 30 best teams in the world (some with lots of int'l flavor like the champs Spurs) although it's true for most Americans the Earth is made of 51 US states, and maybe border areas with Canada and Mexico on a good day.



yeah good point there, and there everybody will agree...:
you listen to pundits and fans, or even the very players themselves, and at the end of a World Cup you always hear that question "did the best team win the WC this year ?" which is decisive enough as far as this debate goes. It means we all accept and *know* the WC is this partial, quick run of a still artificial setup that certainly means something but that just by default can only be a very exciting, emotion-laden and obviously very high stake profile tournament, but that it's far too short lived to legitimately proclaim a team as the single best, and the runnerups as 2nd 3rd 4th etc...

Not to return to that discussion, but the circumstances in which the All-Blacks won the last RWC being ambiguous and very peculiar - every All-Black fan was defending his case, and also every neutral was conceding ultimately that "well at the end of the day, the best team won the Cup". Which says it all, and that's that for me as far as this conversation: nobody denies the WC is very important, exciting, puts the teams in a unique setting, it's exotic, fresh each year, rare (every 4 years) therefor the buildup to it is huge and a crescendo emotionally...etc...etc.....BUT - but but but ! - around that question of world rankings and which team is truly the best, the answer lies elsewhere, and we all know it. Everybody knows it. It may be a confirmation of things, but it may very well not.

- - - Updated - - -

I will add this:
the All-Blacks are the best team in the world each year, and they've only won 2 out of 7, and both times with an asterisk even (no Boks in '87 then the controversial final), let's be honest and real. So there is a certain added value to the WC as it does still represent the biggest stage, and seeing the very best has only won 2 and the second best only 2 (out of 6) also, something can be debated over that...

Actually there is a world cup for Basketball. It was held last year.

I was talking about baseball and NFL

 

[Big Ewis]

Actually there is a world cup for Basketball. It was held last year.

I was talking about baseball and NFL

you said "American sports", couldn't have known but all the same. We actually had a FIBA World Cup thread on this very forum in the Other Sports category heineken, and although this is getting way off-topic, you should know that thing is mostly a joke as it is competitive all the way til you know who's playing Team USA in the final and getting smashed there, this year Serbia 129-92. The actual "world championship" is very, very much the NBA, and I reckon it's the same for baseball and the NFL. So as self-centered as Americans are for a fact, they actually have a bit of a point calling their competitions "world championships".

 

[Pampas]

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.

Lets see, the WC is the most prestigious international rugby championship, and any reasonable rugby union player/fan would prefer that throphy more than any other (or at least the vast majority would). So its not overrated.
Winning a 4-5 test match series is not, by any means, comparable to winning a WC, because its very different playing individual test matches than a tournament, where every game (or at least almost every one) counts, where the context and the pressure of playing such an important competition is overwhelming.
And we can see its not the same when the All Blacks have won hundreds of series and have been favourites to win the WC in several ocasions and they failed again and again (with the two obvious exceptions).
You can be the best, but to win a WC you have to be the best during that month and a half. And that`s not an easy task, even for the best team in the world. When Greece won the Euro in football, nobody thought for a minute that they were the best of Europe, but they managed to do what the big boys couldnt, and they deserved to be ranked as the best national team of Europe.
So yes, you may win the WC and not being the best team in the World, but if you did it, that should be enough to be reckoned as the best at that moment, and if there happens to be a better team, they will have to prove it again winning enough points in the ranking to get the #1.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Well, Argentina in that WC beat France 2 times (feat that NZ couldnt do even once), and beat Ireland and Scotland. In 2006 we beat Wales two times, and England in Twickenham.
So we can safely say that at that time, we were ahead of the NH nations, therefore, beating Argentina was quite an achievement for SA.

 

[LittleGuy]

Actually there is a world cup for Basketball. It was held last year.

I was talking about baseball and NFL

Baseball has the World Baseball Classic now, which has been growing slowly but steadily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Baseball_Classic. They don't call it the "World Cup" as some other event has that name and was basically holding them to a ransom to buy the rights so they named it to something else. Not really fair to call the World Series an American only event either, while all the clubs bar one are in the United States the rosters are actually very diverse particularly when compared to the closed ring of most rugby club rosters.

NFL well yeah, gridiron is only really big in two countries and the codes are different even between those two, it's like getting upset that Aussie Rules has no World Cup.

 

[CarferFragen]

Argentina should organize a Polo World Cup to be so bragging a bit about being the best at something. So far, the only undisputed dominance we could stable is the Sovereign Defaults

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Baseball has the World Baseball Classic now, which has been growing slowly but steadily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Baseball_Classic. They don't call it the "World Cup" as some other event has that name and was basically holding them to a ransom to buy the rights so they named it to something else. Not really fair to call the World Series an American only event either, while all the clubs bar one are in the United States the rosters are actually very diverse particularly when compared to the closed ring of most rugby club rosters.

NFL well yeah, gridiron is only really big in two countries and the codes are different even between those two, it's like getting upset that Aussie Rules has no World Cup.

Ahem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Football_International_Cup#History

This is what the rugby league world cup could be!

 

[Pampas]

Argentina should organize a Polo World Cup to be so bragging a bit about being the best at something. So far, the only undisputed dominance we could stable is the Sovereign Defaults

I dunno if you are refering to my posts, but if thats the case, I think your a little confused because I have never said nothing about Argentina being the best in the world at any sport, leave alone Rugby.
I just refreshed someone`s memory, and gave him results, facts, nothing less than that.
Now, if for you beating all the big guys of the six nations, and getting the third place of the WC is a minor thing, then you should come back to reality.

 

[LittleGuy]

Ahem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Football_International_Cup#History

This is what the rugby league world cup could be!

Well gridiron has one of those as well if you want to get pedantic but lets face it those are complete joke competitions.

The World Baseball Classic is reasonably serious though with decent sized crowds and a legitimate amount of professionals on all teams.

 

[CarferFragen]

I dunno if you are refering to my posts, but if thats the case, I think your a little confused because I have never said nothing about Argentina being the best in the world at any sport, leave alone Rugby.
I just refreshed someone`s memory, and gave him results, facts, nothing less than that.
Now, if for you beating all the big guys of the six nations, and getting the third place of the WC is a minor thing, then you should come back to reality.

I'm sorry if you could interpret that somehow my post made reference to their expressions. My darts were rather aimed at the particular propensity of the United States of being "world champions" of sports that they only practice professionally.

 

[Mikel92]

Lets see, the WC is the most prestigious international rugby championship, and any reasonable rugby union player/fan would prefer that throphy more than any other (or at least the vast majority would). So its not overrated.
Winning a 4-5 test match series is not, by any means, comparable to winning a WC, because its very different playing individual test matches than a tournament, where every game (or at least almost every one) counts, where the context and the pressure of playing such an important competition is overwhelming.
And we can see its not the same when the All Blacks have won hundreds of series and have been favourites to win the WC in several ocasions and they failed again and again (with the two obvious exceptions).
You can be the best, but to win a WC you have to be the best during that month and a half. And that`s not an easy task, even for the best team in the world. When Greece won the Euro in football, nobody thought for a minute that they were the best of Europe, but they managed to do what the big boys couldnt, and they deserved to be ranked as the best national team of Europe.
So yes, you may win the WC and not being the best team in the World, but if you did it, that should be enough to be reckoned as the best at that moment, and if there happens to be a better team, they will have to prove it again winning enough points in the ranking to get the #1.

Ok. You are using a certain kind of logic to reach one conclusion (which isn't wrong or whatever) and I am going a different route. The World Cup just represents something different to me I guess. In 2007 the Springboks had a scare against Fiji (Fiji buckled when the more classy players came on), and two slogs against the English. Outside of that, there were no real challenges. To me that's not enough to be the best in the world. Don't get me wrong, at the time I think they WERE, but for different reasons than that tournament. Especially for the records they smashed in the following years. In no other area of life does that happen. You don't have one good day at work, albeit an important day, and get promoted. You show a consistent performance over a period of time.

Just my view. Nothing more. I appreciate the majority think it's not overrated. But I say it is. End of discussion.

 

[William18]

I think it is fair enough to say that in 2007 South Africa had one of the easiest ever routes to winning the cup. I think it is difficult to argue that South Africa in that year would beat New Zealand more times than we beat them if we played 100 times. South Africa definitely still could have beaten us but I think we would have been deserved favourites in that game. Unfortunately we weren't able to test that proposition. In 2007 it could have been very different had Argentina not beaten France in pool play.

I remember once having a debate with some people and they said that for one World Cup win they would be willing to lose every single test match in the preceding or following four years. That seems like a very unbalanced view and one I doubt any New Zealander or most English would hold. If the World Cup becomes too big then we are more likely to see B teams and test matches down graded to friendlies. If the World Cup becomes so important than all other test matches become less important by comparison. Right now I think the World Cup provides a unique challenge and the positives of the tournament are huge. I must say I found 2012 a very enjoyable rugby year. It was the year after the cup and we could just enjoy rugby rather than always worrying about next year.

 

[Tony Manx]

Just my view. Nothing more. I appreciate the majority think it's not overrated. But I say it is. End of discussion.

Ah but the silent majority, which includes me, might just overwhelming agree with you for the very reason you set out!!!

 

[Rugga-lad]

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!

are you a chess player ?

 

[Jaguares]

ALL World Cups from ALL sports are overrated. They are competitions for a month every four years, don't show the full reality of a sport. But it's a good highlight about a sport for people who don't follow that sport every day.

 

[smartcooky]

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

I don't believe that is true.

All the travel involved, and the fact that Tier 1 teams at the top end of the World Rankings have to play each other twice makes The Rugby Championship a much tougher competition than any world cup. Compare any schedule for The Rugby Championship with that of RWC winners since the beginning of Tri-Nations/TRC

2011 New Zealand v France twice, v Australia, v Argentina

2007 South Africa v England twice, v Argentina (arguably the easiest run of any RWC winner)

2003 England v South Africa, v Wales, v France, v Australia (arguably the toughest run of any RWC winner)

1999 Australia v Ireland, v Wales, v South Africa, v France

 

[nickdnz]

I don't believe that is true.

All the travel involved, and the fact that Tier 1 teams at the top end of the World Rankings have to play each other twice makes The Rugby Championship a much tougher competition than any world cup. Compare any schedule for The Rugby Championship with that of RWC winners since the beginning of Tri-Nations/TRC

2011 New Zealand v France twice, v Australia, v Argentina

2007 South Africa v England twice, v Argentina (arguably the easiest run of any RWC winner)

2003 England v South Africa, v Wales, v France, v Australia (arguably the toughest run of any RWC winner)

1999 Australia v Ireland, v Wales, v South Africa, v France

It's funny but people use New Zealand's success record in the RWC as a reason why it's harder than other championships. It's funny because Australia have won 28% of rugby world cups they have entered, South Africa have won 40%. Compare this to Rugby Championships where Australia and South Africa have won 15% of all Rugby Championships each. So it has literally been harder for them to win in a competition that is on every year, than one that is on every four. In total there have been 19 Rugby Championships and 7 World Cups. Both Australia and South Africa have only won one additional Rugby Championship than World Cup, solely because there is no easy run. Technically speaking, France lost 3/7 of their Rugby World Cup matches - yet they were if a RWC standing is to be believed - the second best team in the world..

Even for New Zealand which generally dominate the Rugby Championship (and the IRB place in #1), our winning percentage per game is considerably lower in the Rugby Championship than the Rugby World Cup. The knock-out nature of the World Cup makes it arguably more difficult for the best team to win, but on a pure match by match basis the Rugby Championship is considerably harder.

 

[TRF_heineken]

It's funny but people use New Zealand's success record in the RWC as a reason why it's harder than other championships. It's funny because Australia have won 28% of rugby world cups they have entered, South Africa have won 40%. Compare this to Rugby Championships where Australia and South Africa have won 15% of all Rugby Championships each. So it has literally been harder for them to win in a competition that is on every year, than one that is on every four. In total there have been 19 Rugby Championships and 7 World Cups. Both Australia and South Africa have only won one additional Rugby Championship than World Cup, solely because there is no easy run. Technically speaking, France lost 3/7 of their Rugby World Cup matches - yet they were if a RWC standing is to be believed - the second best team in the world..

Even for New Zealand which generally dominate the Rugby Championship (and the IRB place in #1), our winning percentage per game is considerably lower in the Rugby Championship than the Rugby World Cup. The knock-out nature of the World Cup makes it arguably more difficult for the best team to win, but on a pure match by match basis the Rugby Championship is considerably harder.

Why compare those 2 events with one another??

The World Cup isn't played annually, so the stats isn't a fair comparison. The reason why Australia and South Africa haven't won so many Rugby Championship/Tri-nations trophies, is because of the World Cup. The reason being, the World Cup is the most coveted ***le to win in World Rugby, and nations and coaches prepare a 4-year programme to win the World Cup. They use tournaments like the Rugby Championship as preparation for that goal.

Ask any SA coach, which trophy would he rather win, and I promise you the answer will be the World Cup.

 

[ncurd]

the All-Blacks are the best team in the world each year, and they've only won 2 out of 7, and both times with an asterisk even (no Boks in '87 then the controversial final), let's be honest and real. So there is a certain added value to the WC as it does still represent the biggest stage, and seeing the very best has only won 2 and the second best only 2 (out of 6) also, something can be debated over that...

Sorry going to have to disagree there, I don't think many people would argue in 2003 (and with one loss to France in 2002) that England were the best team in world rugby.

Overall yup the all blacks dominate but they are not the best year on year....at the moment yes clearly the best.

---Updated---

Sorry just seen earlier post fair enough it's two losses I couldn't find for some reason the warm up games.

As to England's defense as noted '03 was the peak of that teams performance that was part of 4+year plan culminating in 2002-2003 arguably we peaked in the middle of that period ('02 autumn internationals, '03 6nations) and were already on the wane by the RWC. The following 6 nations was during the same NH season so no wonder the players that stayed on performed less well.

As to the team as whole 4 players who started in '03 final started in '07 final, 1 player who started on the bench in '03 started in '07 and another the other way around. That's 26% the same team over a 4 year period. Contrast that with New Zealand this year and you'll probably find the transition has been less dramatic.

So yeah England were one of the best sides in the world culminating in world cup win I don't think it lessens the RWC because they fell apart afterwards.