World Cup is overrated

[nickdnz]

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.

Total rubbish. Every team prepares for a Rugby World Cup. If South Africa were so concerned with preparing for a RWC cycle - we wouldn't be seeing so many old players used for the Springboks and then retire from internationals prior to the tournament. If what you say is true, HM is obviously the dumbest human being alive. The only time a WC is relevant to a Rugby Championship is in years that the WC is on, as the tournament is not long before and so coaches rotate squads (thus teams played weaker squads and rotated more in 2011, coincidentally last time the ABs lost one...). Saying the reason South Africa lose Rugby Championships is because of RWC is farcical, particularly when they get knocked out in the QFs in the last tournament.

A Rugby World Cup may in fact mean more - calling yourself a world champion obviously is great, even if its a pretty meaningless ***le when you spend 44 months between tournaments not being the best - but that is not what I was arguing. It is simply easier to win a World Cup than a Rugby Championship - based on consistency of facing top opponents.

 

[valley commando]

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 started looking forward to the next World Cup as soon as the last one finished, just the same with the Lions Tours.Competitions in order of preference for me are as follows based on the enjoyment and entertainment factor -:

1. Welsh Premiership
2. French Top 14
3. World Cup
4. 6 Nations
5. French pro division 2
6. Lions Tour
7. European Club Championship.
8. Rabo Direct

 

[ENZED-88]

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.

Hope your not waiting for Ewis to reply to this post.

 

[ncurd]

Just seen he's banned my fault in getting involved in a months old conversation.

But anyone can reply

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Total rubbish. Every team prepares for a Rugby World Cup. If South Africa were so concerned with preparing for a RWC cycle - we wouldn't be seeing so many old players used for the Springboks and then retire from internationals prior to the tournament. If what you say is true, HM is obviously the dumbest human being alive. The only time a WC is relevant to a Rugby Championship is in years that the WC is on, as the tournament is not long before and so coaches rotate squads (thus teams played weaker squads and rotated more in 2011, coincidentally last time the ABs lost one...). Saying the reason South Africa lose Rugby Championships is because of RWC is farcical, particularly when they get knocked out in the QFs in the last tournament.

A Rugby World Cup may in fact mean more - calling yourself a world champion obviously is great, even if its a pretty meaningless ***le when you spend 44 months between tournaments not being the best - but that is not what I was arguing. It is simply easier to win a World Cup than a Rugby Championship - based on consistency of facing top opponents.

I disagree with this completely, there is a process in place where teams attempt to peak at a World Cup. It may not be a four year cycle but it certainly is about a two and a half year one and it doesn't mean out with the old and in with the new. If you look at the example of what Joe Schmidt is attempting to do you can see this easily. There was a lot of criticism for not dropping O'Driscoll last year but without him Ireland wouldn't have won a six nations and wouldn't have the winning mentality they have now, same with South Africa who very much believe in using older players to mentor younger ones.
The Rugby Championship, therefore is harder than the RWC to win for sides other than New Zealand because unlike NZ who always have an influx of world class players in every position and a set up to take advantage, Australia and South Africa don't have this luxury and can only compete around 50% of the time. I'd also suggest that this is why they have more World Cups than New Zealnd since the beginning of the Tri nations because when they peak it is generally at a higher level than New Zealand's constant level of excellence.

 

[nickdnz]

Total rubbish. Every team prepares for a Rugby World Cup. If South Africa were so concerned with preparing for a RWC cycle - we wouldn't be seeing so many old players used for the Springboks and then retire from internationals prior to the tournament. If what you say is true, HM is obviously the dumbest human being alive. The only time a WC is relevant to a Rugby Championship is in years that the WC is on, as the tournament is not long before and so coaches rotate squads (thus teams played weaker squads and rotated more in 2011, coincidentally last time the ABs lost one...). Saying the reason South Africa lose Rugby Championships is because of RWC is farcical, particularly when they get knocked out in the QFs in the last tournament.

A Rugby World Cup may in fact mean more - calling yourself a world champion obviously is great, even if its a pretty meaningless ***le when you spend 44 months between tournaments not being the best - but that is not what I was arguing. It is simply easier to win a World Cup than a Rugby Championship - based on consistency of facing top opponents.

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.

Well...technically they have been. Every year since the rankings were introduced the All Blacks have been the best team. The only interruptions in these were post 2003 Rugby World Cup (when they went down to their lowest ever position in third, as RWC matches are assigned double importance and both Australia and England contested the final), post 2007 Rugby World Cup until the start of the 2008 season, and during 2009 (the only time when the All Blacks rankings were below 1 outside of a RWC - in which we became #1 again later that year during the EOYT and have remained #1 since). So yes, technically the All Blacks have been the best team every year (for at least one moment). Technically we have been the #1 ranked team for over 85% of the times the ranks have been introduced.

I disagree with this completely, there is a process in place where teams attempt to peak at a World Cup. It may not be a four year cycle but it certainly is about a two and a half year one and it doesn't mean out with the old and in with the new. If you look at the example of what Joe Schmidt is attempting to do you can see this easily. There was a lot of criticism for not dropping O'Driscoll last year but without him Ireland wouldn't have won a six nations and wouldn't have the winning mentality they have now, same with South Africa who very much believe in using older players to mentor younger ones.
The Rugby Championship, therefore is harder than the RWC to win for sides other than New Zealand because unlike NZ who always have an influx of world class players in every position and a set up to take advantage, Australia and South Africa don't have this luxury and can only compete around 50% of the time. I'd also suggest that this is why they have more World Cups than New Zealnd since the beginning of the Tri nations because when they peak it is generally at a higher level than New Zealand's constant level of excellence.

cmac, I'm not sure how you are making the jumps in logic that you are.

You say "without O'Driscoll they wouldn't have won a 6 Nations". Sure. So they clearly decided that winning a 6 Nations was an important goal, regardless of winning a RWC. They could have used an additional 6 Nations to blood a centre who wouldn't be retired come a RWC, but instead they didn't. Because they wanted to win. Much like HM selecting an old as hell Bakkies Botha was an attempt to win. Now you can spin it that these players are to help develop younger ones (cause nothing helps younger players develop than missing out on test matches), but the reality is the short term goals of winning championships are not just valued, but you would well argue necessary to having success.

People discuss cycles a lot, and there is no doubt there are times when a team will perform better than previously. But I'm not convinced that there is this all pervasive master plan coaches have in regards to RWC. Look at England as an example, we're in a RWC year and they can't name a single guarenteed starter in their back-line other than presumably Brown. South Africa started selecting a 37 year old lock who had been out of playing pro rugby for two years, and I'm supposed to believe this was part of a well thought out cycle of player development? Good thing they planned on getting a world class 20 year old to play fly half, as if they weren't so forward thinking they'd be relying on a guy that isn't getting game time in the Top 14. Australia in their master plan of player cycles, thought they would fire two coaches between this and the last RWC. Sorry, but I don't buy it. If anything I would say attempting to be competitive at every tournament has put New Zealand in a much better and stable position than any other team in the world. Younger players have gradually received more game time over the course of the last three years - and its a blueprint which New Zealand have been very consistent in barring 1991. The reason why New Zealand haven't won more Rugby World Cup comes down to some terrible luck and simply not being the best team for 80 minutes of a tournament.

Your theory also is just inaccurate. Neither South Africa or Australia have more Rugby World Cups than New Zealand since the Rugby Championship. They have the same number with each having one (1999, 2007, 2011). I'm not sure how you would want to quantify Australia and South Africa peaking at a higher level? For example in 2007 - New Zealand scored the highest number of points and most tries in the tournament - despite losing in the QFs. This was also true in 2003 (although Australia had a 7 point better points differential). Presumably if these teams are peaking higher than these teams would have better statistics? New Zealand lead these statistics again in 2011...

 

[ncurd]

Well...technically they have been. Every year since the rankings were introduced the All Blacks have been the best team. The only interruptions in these were post 2003 Rugby World Cup (when they went down to their lowest ever position in third, as RWC matches are assigned double importance and both Australia and England contested the final), post 2007 Rugby World Cup until the start of the 2008 season, and during 2009 (the only time when the All Blacks rankings were below 1 outside of a RWC - in which we became #1 again later that year during the EOYT and have remained #1 since). So yes, technically the All Blacks have been the best team every year (for at least one moment). Technically we have been the #1 ranked team for over 85% of the times the ranks have been introduced.

I think that just goes to prove the fallacy of the ranking system to be honest. New Zealand lost both times in that period including the infamous home loss in 2002 against a 13 man England.

In cricket I believe the WIdies are technically not the best team in the world for a chunk of the period when they went undefeated in a Test series for a number of year as they had so few points.

On equal measure NZ are a good 5 points above everyone else currently (deservedly so) and even if they went to pot right after the next RWC (and win it) it'll probably take them quite a bit of time to drop to second.

Plus the ranking were introduced 1 month before the 2003 RWC with England top, anyone know what the retroactive ranking are? At least until the beginning of the professional era.

 

[nickdnz]

I think that just goes to prove the fallacy of the ranking system to be honest. New Zealand lost both times in that period including the infamous home loss in 2002 against a 13 man England.

In cricket I believe the WIdies are technically not the best team in the world for a chunk of the period when they went undefeated in a Test series for a number of year as they had so few points.

On equal measure NZ are a good 5 points above everyone else currently (deservedly so) and even if they went to pot right after the next RWC (and win it) it'll probably take them quite a bit of time to drop to second.

Plus the ranking were introduced 1 month before the 2003 RWC with England top, anyone know what the retroactive ranking are? At least until the beginning of the professional era.

I can certainly see why you would like to think so . The 2002 team England beat was simply one of the worst least experienced All Blacks teams ever, that totally disrespected England. I'm sure some of the more astute rugby fans will have forgotten All Blacks in that team such as Broomhall, Devine, Lowden, Blair, Mika, Mark Robinson, Danny Lee. Despite this England's "best team ever" won by three points. In 2003 we had a better team than in 2002 (against a 13 man England for 10 minutes...), and lost by 2 points. I don't think this possibly discredits the rankings - which have a very high prediction success rate.

New Zealand has lost 6 matches and drawn twice since taking over the #1 rankings. That's out of 74 matches. So I think it's reasonably to say the rankings are a fair indicator..

No idea what the retrospective rankings are. I'd argue looking back in the amateur era would be pretty futile considering some of the tendencies for non-neutral referees, and extremely long tours.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Take it any way you like Nick, I'm just saying how I see it. With that said, I'm not saying the Rugby Championships/Tri-nations are of no importance whatsoever, I'm just saying it's of a lower value.

When PDV parted ways with SARU as the head coach of the Springboks, there was a clear-cut request to appoint a coach that could win us a World Cup again. One of HM's very first interviews as appointed head coach was that he was appointed with the plan to take a team to a world cup and win it. HM used the periods after the World Cup to build a team, with very few World Cup winners left.

Morne Steyn was the incumbent fly half, and had a pretty good grouping of performances when HM took over. But Steyn began to underperform, and early on, HM saw that he needed to make a plan in getting a fly half to take to the World Cup. Now he has Pollard and Lambie who can easily slot in that spot and Johan Goosen at back-up, all of them with experience in playing top sides in the World.

Senior Players retirement can't be a way to point the finger at the coach. It is ultimately the player's choice when he wants to retire, and a coach can just probably prolong the inevitability of that. Picking "an old as hell Bakkies Botha" was a good move especially because players such as Etzebeth and PS Du Toit, and Flip v/d Merwe were injured at that time, and Andries Bekker was in Japan and not eligible to play for SA.

South Africa's contractual system is also way different to NZ's system, and IMHO I wish SA had the same system as NZ. But since we don't, HM has limited players to pick from, as in he can't pick players with certain clauses in their contracts with club commitments. So he has to try and pick a team that would/could cause the least disruptions.

I don't want to go into the whole political interference and other factors with which the SA coach had to deal with, because it has been discussed in depth in other threads. The point I'm trying to make is that with all these factors in consideration, the World Cup is the highest accolade for a SA coach to win. The Rugby Championship/Tri-nations is something to add to the mantlepiece, but it's not the main focus for an SA coach.

 

[ncurd]

I can certainly see why you would like to think so . The 2002 team England beat was simply one of the worst least experienced All Blacks teams ever, that totally disrespected England. I'm sure some of the more astute rugby fans will have forgotten All Blacks in that team such as Broomhall, Devine, Lowden, Blair, Mika, Mark Robinson, Danny Lee. Despite this England's "best team ever" won by three points. In 2003 we had a better team than in 2002 (against a 13 man England for 10 minutes...), and lost by 2 points. I don't think this possibly discredits the rankings - which have a very high prediction success rate.

No idea what the retrospective rankings are. I'd argue looking back in the amateur era would be pretty futile considering some of the tendencies for non-neutral referees, and extremely long tours.

Was more interested interested post '95 if everyone started on equal points. No idea how the original rankings were created.

The issue I have the rankings is team can be pretty much dominant for a short period of time and not be reflected in the overall result. If England/Ireland were to win every game this year and beat NZ in the final they'd probably still only be ranked 2nd. In fact in all likelihood they'd still be ranked 2nd is they completed a grand slam (please note I'm guessing with NZ's 8 point cushion they have on those two teams) next 6 nations only really be allowed to wrestle for it in the following summer internationals. Even then one loss during those internationals would probably leave NZ top.

The problem with a rankings system is whilst they work extremely well if teams are evenly matched but if a team build up a cushion it takes forever to topple them. Australia did it with Cricket. Between 2009-2011 England lost zero tests series (unless you include WIdies debarcle 2008/9) however despite this they were only made 1st in rankings at the end of that period and because they didn't build a cushion lost it pretty quickly.

The rankings work to some degree but will reward NZ for a long time even after this period of total dominance ends (which it will), there's where I have a problem with them. It's less now when it shows that NZ have been a dominant team for an extended period of time but 2 years from now and they still top ranked despite other teams having a better win %age than them and against them.

 

[tituslechmakus]

If WC is overrated, then the Olympics and World championships of every sports are the same ... This is silly ! Why is Hussein Bolt famous ? Because he's olympic champion, same as Carl Lewis or Michael Phelps. Same for the 92' Dream Team, they didn't win anything but the 92 Olympics ... But everyone remembers them !

A RWC, like all other tournaments is based on : be ready on that day, not before, nor after ! And the consistancy you gained over the past years before that event is there to serv you to achive it. If thez ABs are the best over a period of time, they must prove it by winning the WC. How can you claim being the best if you cannot beat anyone in a tournament where everybody is playing ? And winning this type of tournament requires a huge mental, way over your own technique ... Because you must be there on the day.

 

[TRF_heineken]

If WC is overrated, then the Olympics and World championships of every sports are the same ... This is silly ! Why is Hussein Bolt famous ? Because he's olympic champion, same as Carl Lewis or Michael Phelps. Same for the 92' Dream Team, they didn't win anything but the 92 Olympics ... But everyone remembers them !

A RWC, like all other tournaments is based on : be ready on that day, not before, nor after ! And the consistancy you gained over the past years before that event is there to serv you to achive it. If thez ABs are the best over a period of time, they must prove it by winning the WC. How can you claim being the best if you cannot beat anyone in a tournament where everybody is playing ? And winning this type of tournament requires a huge mental, way over your own technique ... Because you must be there on the day.

It's Usain Bolt...

And I agree with you. It's about peaking at the right time and keeping that peak for a certain period/performances.

 

[tituslechmakus]

Do you mean peaking, physically ? That is right, and explains why top teams are usually pretty bad at the begining of the competitions ... They are to peak by the end !

But as I said previously, to me, the most important is to be mentally prepared, you have to be able to raise your level above what you are used to.
In a league, if you miss a match, no worries, you can still be there at the end, in a WC, if you miss a match, you're out !

 

[nickdnz]

Was more interested interested post '95 if everyone started on equal points. No idea how the original rankings were created.

The issue I have the rankings is team can be pretty much dominant for a short period of time and not be reflected in the overall result. If England/Ireland were to win every game this year and beat NZ in the final they'd probably still only be ranked 2nd. In fact in all likelihood they'd still be ranked 2nd is they completed a grand slam (please note I'm guessing with NZ's 8 point cushion they have on those two teams) next 6 nations only really be allowed to wrestle for it in the following summer internationals. Even then one loss during those internationals would probably leave NZ top.

The rankings work to some degree but will reward NZ for a long time even after this period of total dominance ends (which it will), there's where I have a problem with them. It's less now when it shows that NZ have been a dominant team for an extended period of time but 2 years from now and they still top ranked despite other teams having a better win %age than them and against them.

You are right that regardless whether a team wins all their 6 Nations matches, they won't progress to #1 - simply because they points they gained were not against high enough opposition in the ranks in push past New Zealand. However you are wrong that high ranking points provide a cushion. As an example, had New Zealand lost one more match this year on the EOYT, and South Africa had won their match against Ireland, South Africa would have been the #1 team. The rankings are actually very dynamic, there has been only one occasion since NZ team became the #1 ranked team in 2009 that they lost two matches in a row, both were away games in the 2011 Tri Nations. Had Australia not lost to New Zealand in their first leg, they would have been the #1 ranked team. The reason that there isn't a lot of movement in the #1 rankings isn't because New Zealand have built a cushion, it's because they have consistently won series and not lost back to back matches (which would make the rankings fluctuate more even if it resulting in the same number of wins over a series.

To show how dynamic the rankings are, one simply has to look at the rankings of Australia and Ireland. It would only take a few key losses and a few wins for the second ranked team, for NZ to slip to second.

 

[goodNumber10]

It is simply easier to win a World Cup than a Rugby Championship - based on consistency of facing top opponents.

Easier for who though?

New Zealand seem to find wining the RC pretty easy, they have seemed to find the World Cup harder to come by because it's knock out rugby and one bad day rolls your chances compared to the RC where one bad day can be overcome.

Clearly the hardest thing in rugby is a winning lions tour

 

[valley commando]

I disagree with this completely, there is a process in place where teams attempt to peak at a World Cup. It may not be a four year cycle but it certainly is about a two and a half year one and it doesn't mean out with the old and in with the new. If you look at the example of what Joe Schmidt is attempting to do you can see this easily. There was a lot of criticism for not dropping O'Driscoll last year but without him Ireland wouldn't have won a six nations and wouldn't have the winning mentality they have now, same with South Africa who very much believe in using older players to mentor younger ones.
The Rugby Championship, therefore is harder than the RWC to win for sides other than New Zealand because unlike NZ who always have an influx of world class players in every position and a set up to take advantage, Australia and South Africa don't have this luxury and can only compete around 50% of the time. I'd also suggest that this is why they have more World Cups than New Zealnd since the beginning of the Tri nations because when they peak it is generally at a higher level than New Zealand's constant level of excellence.

I agree with your comments and add that Ireland and Wales are in a similar position to SA and Oz, England have an 80 to 1 ratio of players registered over Wales and I would guess at least the same ratio against Ireland, furthermore England have 12 teams in their premiership to pick players from, Ireland have 4 provinces and Wales 3 regions.
We do bloody well based on those numbers and have to develop players in a 4 year cycle to be able to compete on the world stage.

 

[tituslechmakus]

Easier for who though?

New Zealand seem to find wining the RC pretty easy, they have seemed to find the World Cup harder to come by because it's knock out rugby and one bad day rolls your chances compared to the RC where one bad day can be overcome.

Clearly the hardest thing in rugby is a winning lions tour

That's what I said ! NZ is not mentally prepared to win a WC ! They are not used to knock out competitions ! See last WC, they started to doubt after Weepu few misses, they started to doubt in 2007 because they weren't crushing the opponent ... When the level gets higher, you win the events on a stronger mental. That is why, to me the WC is the hardest ! The pressure is so high on just a 80' match. No right to miss/loose ! On a full season, you need to have the stronger side technically/physically.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I agree with your comments and add that Ireland and Wales are in a similar position to SA and Oz, England have an 80 to 1 ratio of players registered over Wales and I would guess at least the same ratio against Ireland, furthermore England have 12 teams in their premiership to pick players from, Ireland have 4 provinces and Wales 3 regions.
We do bloody well based on those numbers and have to develop players in a 4 year cycle to be able to compete on the world stage.

Where on earth do you get that figure from? Even back when the RFU were massively overstating participation numbers, I don't recall that lopsided a ratio. I would find that very hard to believe - that would mean that England (where large areas have little interest in rugby or play the 13 man version) would have many more players per capita than Wales, which is usually considered to be a rugby country.

The most recent numbers available appear to be from 2011. England reported 131k senior males players versus 22k in Wales. The ratio is higher (still nowhere close to 80:1) if you include women and juniors, but they don't tend to feature in the national team too often!

 

[goodNumber10]

Where on earth do you get that figure from? Even back when the RFU were massively overstating participation numbers, I don't recall that lopsided a ratio. I would find that very hard to believe - that would mean that England (where large areas have little interest in rugby or play the 13 man version) would have many more players per capita than Wales, which is usually considered to be a rugby country.

The most recent numbers available appear to be from 2011. England reported 131k senior males players versus 22k in Wales. The ratio is higher (still nowhere close to 80:1) if you include women and juniors, but they don't tend to feature in the national team too often!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries

England Registered players: 1,990,988 (includes Schools and women)
New Zealand Regi Players: 146,893
Wales Resgitered players: 50,557

 

[ncurd]

That's still only a ratio of 39:1 less than half