World Cup is overrated

[RedruthRFC]

Indeed. Looking at the numbers, either the RFU is really good at attracting female / youth players or really bad at retaining them as adult players. All irrelevant to valley commando's my point, as the player pool that valley commando was talking about is for men's international rugby, which are the figures I quoted.

 

[smartcooky]

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

That is exactly the opposite of the way the ranking system works.

Firstly, you cannot "build a cushion" because there is a limit to how far ahead of other teams you can get (about 7 ranking points at home, 12 ranking pints away) before beating them by less that a 15 point margin) doesn't gain you any points, and the losing team doesn't lose any. The limits are slightly higher for winning margins over 15 points. As things currently stand, New Zealand can only gain ranking points in home matches from South Africa and England (by less than a 15 point margin) and Ireland and Wales (by more than a 15 point margin). The remaining teams carry no ranking point values for New Zealand

Secondly, the top team, even if they are a long way ahead, will fall a lot faster if they lose a match to a much lower ranked team, and that will also depend on other results around them, for example, here are the current rankings as of this post


[TABLE="class: fullRankings"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]1[/TD]
[TD]

• (1)

[/TD]
[TD]

• New Zealand

[/TD]
[TD]93.70[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]2[/TD]
[TD]

• (2)

[/TD]
[TD]

• South Africa

[/TD]
[TD]88.23[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]3[/TD]
[TD]

• (3)

[/TD]
[TD]

• England

[/TD]
[TD]85.83[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]4[/TD]
[TD]

• (4)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Ireland

[/TD]
[TD]85.66[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]5[/TD]
[TD]

• (5)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Australia

[/TD]
[TD]82.95[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]6[/TD]
[TD]

• (6)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Wales

[/TD]
[TD]81.71[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]7[/TD]
[TD]

• (7)

[/TD]
[TD]

• France

[/TD]
[TD]80.09[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]8[/TD]
[TD]

• (8)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Argentina

[/TD]
[TD]78.23[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]9[/TD]
[TD]

• (9)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Scotland

[/TD]
[TD]77.11[/TD]
[TD="class: detailsCol"][/TD]
[TD="class: addToFavourite"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: firstColumn"]10[/TD]
[TD]

• (10)

[/TD]
[TD]

• Samoa

[/TD]
[TD]75.39[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

The first three matches of the coming SH season are

Samoa v New Zealand
New Zealand v Argentina
Australia v South Africa

Of New Zealand were to lose either of these two matches by 15 or more points (winning the other one gains them nothing) they would drop to 90.70. And then if South Africa were to beat Australia by 15 or more points, they go to 89.39. NZ remain top, but they have dropped from 5.47 points ahead of South Africa to only 1.31 points ahead.

The next weekend, its South Africa v New Zealand at Ellis Park. If South Africa win they will go top (90.22) and NZ will drop to second (89.87)

This illustrates that your assertion of a "cushion" for the top team making it difficult to topple them is just plain wrong. The All Blacks have won 38 out of the 42 matches they have played since the last world cup, losing only twice, yet it would only take two losses in a row to knock them off the top.


---------


Some of the posters here are saying that a competition being "harder to win" is the same thing as being "tougher". It isn't.

The World Cup is harder to win, mostly because of its knock out nature, but the Ruigby Championship is a much tougher competititon because of the travel and time difference between matches and the higher percentage of matches against top teams. There are no minnows like Portugal, Namibia, Japan, USA or Canada. In the Rugby Championship, every game is a tough game to win.

 

[OneBlackEye]

There are many positives about the WC but personally I dont rate it. Im glad the ABs finally won it so I can ***** about it and not be called a sore loser.

For me, first and foremost it should be a competition to find the best team, which it isnt. The pool games are a total waste of time in that regard, either minnow teams get destroyed by 60 points or they pull off a great win (e.g Tonga v France) and its completely meaningless (e.g France make it to the final and Tonga go nowhere).

I know its pointless dragging out a bunch of "what-if" scenarios but the last WC could have very easily seen France being heralded as the best team in the world 1 month after losing to Tonga. Tonga!? Come on, that in itself shows what a joke this "competition" is.

Ironically someone used Olympic sprinters as an example of why these world competitions are so great. To me that highlights the very problem. To win a WC you dont have to beat the 8 next best teams. If you are a genuine contender you can just stumble your way through 4 pool games then if you can handle the pressure the next 3 games could easily come down to single ref decision or the bounce of the ball.

The WC should be a 2 tier competition. The IRB can use its precious rankings systems to determine who is in what tier or have more qualifying games before hand.

 

[nickdnz]

Ehh, I like the Rugby World Cup. No, I love the Rugby World Cup. It's great for a lot of reasons and I'm glad it exists and is even seen as a pinnacle. But I think people just need to keep in mind that in order to be "the best team in the world', you need to win three knock out games in a row, historically not against the consistently best team in the world. Sometimes the best team in the world do win it, but as an example previously used - in order for South Africa to win in 2007 they had to beat Fiji, Argentina and England. Two teams the All Blacks have never lost to, and one that they have against England (which for the All Blacks head to head have won 14/17 matches in the last 15 years). There is simply more luck and other variables to determine who is the winner.

 

[ENZED-88]

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.

Now your just making stuff up champ. Ireland have similar numbers to NZ, SA have well over half a million registered players. I don't see how Wales have done "bloody well"? They have never won the thing, where Aussie who have the same registered playing numbers have won it twice, that's what you call doing bloody well.

 

[OneBlackEye]

Ehh, I like the Rugby World Cup. No, I love the Rugby World Cup. It's great for a lot of reasons and I'm glad it exists and is even seen as a pinnacle. But I think people just need to keep in mind that in order to be "the best team in the world', you need to win three knock out games in a row, historically not against the consistently best team in the world. Sometimes the best team in the world do win it, but as an example previously used - in order for South Africa to win in 2007 they had to beat Fiji, Argentina and England. Two teams the All Blacks have never lost to, and one that they have against England (which for the All Blacks head to head have won 14/17 matches in the last 15 years). There is simply more luck and other variables to determine who is the winner.

So I need to keep in mind that the best team wont necessarily win?

I find that far too frustrating to enjoy all the things I like about the World Cup.

I say this but I literally watched every single game of the last one and will do the same this year, maybe I do love it but I just find the (my) expectation that NZ will win too anxiety provoking.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Ehh, I like the Rugby World Cup. No, I love the Rugby World Cup. It's great for a lot of reasons and I'm glad it exists and is even seen as a pinnacle. But I think people just need to keep in mind that in order to be "the best team in the world', you need to win three knock out games in a row, historically not against the consistently best team in the world. Sometimes the best team in the world do win it, but as an example previously used - in order for South Africa to win in 2007 they had to beat Fiji, Argentina and England. Two teams the All Blacks have never lost to, and one that they have against England (which for the All Blacks head to head have won 14/17 matches in the last 15 years). There is simply more luck and other variables to determine who is the winner.

Nick, while this may be true, there is one thing to consider. If we take the 2007 World Cup for example, before the Knockout stages started, there was a possibility that SA could have played against both Australia and New Zealand. That is a possibility all teams face ahead of the knockout stages. Every team prepares themselves to play 5+ games, with the idea of winning. Not about getting bonus points, travelling vast distances, jetlag or any other things which might shift focus. They concentrate solely on winning. While SA might have had an easier run towards the final in that tournament, it's not due to favouritism or any other factor, it's due to other teams losing their games and not progressing. SA had no influence whatsoever in the draw of the World Cup and in which pool they will end up. They didn't have homeground advantage either. I personally think that playing the same opponent twice in one tournament makes the chance of winning the trophy so much more difficult. The losing team knows what they did wrong the first time round, and will do whatever they can to improve on their mistakes. Which England did in the final. They prevented us from scoring tries, something we did very freely the first time round.

Also, you New Zealanders should stop with this downplaying of the World Cup, At least until you can manage to win the ***le outside of NZ...

 

[valley commando]

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!

Sorry my mistake meant to put 50 to 1,
Based on IRB figures from 2011 (posted on this link http://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1fkvei/)
England total players registered 2,549,196.
Wales total players registered 50,557
These are total figures including women and minis etc

- - - Updated - - -

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!

Sorry my mistake meant to put 50 to 1,
Based on IRB figures from 2011 (posted on this link http://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1fkvei/)
England total players registered 2,549,196.
Wales total players registered 50,557
These are total figures including women and minis etc

 

[goodNumber10]

Sorry my mistake meant to put 50 to 1,
Based on IRB figures from 2011 (posted on this link http://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1fkvei/)
England total players registered 2,549,196.
Wales total players registered 50,557
These are total figures including women and minis etc

still wrong.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Sorry my mistake meant to put 50 to 1,
Based on IRB figures from 2011 (posted on this link http://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1fkvei/)
England total players registered 2,549,196.
Wales total players registered 50,557
These are total figures including women and minis etc

I suspect that these are the figures the RFU were giving out before Sport England suggested that ought to be able to prove that they're accurate in order to receive funding (hence the more up to date figures I quoted)! Once again, surely the relevant figure is the number of adult male players.

Back to the main point of the thread, a lot of very verbose posts could be replaced with a simple sentence - "Cup rugby is higher variance than league rugby". That being the case, a cup competition is less likely to produce the "correct" result than a league format, but in sporting terms, this is part of the appeal to many people. I can understand why people are arguing that it is overrated, but if you want a worrld competition what ticks all the boxes for World Rugby, what's the alternative?

 

[valley commando]

still wrong.

Do the maths

 

[ncurd]

Do the maths

As noted many times the RFU figures were deliberately inflated and included numbers the other union's were not using which is why they are still wrong.

Plus those numbers come from a page that no longer exists and put no context to how those were obtained.

The whole bloody argument about players number is stupid anyway, it doesn't put into context popularity of the sport in that country compared to other sports. Spending per head at each level and quality of the structure beneath them. If numbers were king China and India would dominate at every bloody sport.

 

[goodNumber10]

Do the maths

I don't need to mate.

I get what you're trying to say but your source material is wrong, as @ncurd says the numbers were inflated and the ones i posted are more accurate and current.

- - - Updated - - -

The whole bloody argument about players number is stupid anyway, it doesn't put into context popularity of the sport in that country compared to other sports. Spending per head at each level and quality of the structure beneath them. If numbers were king China and India would dominate at every bloody sport.

Additionally a large issue is these number crunching games don't take into account the structures and pathways in place in their respective countries, NZ excel at talent identification and that's why they make the most of their numbers..

In reality you really have to isolate and look at the elite level and how many England qualified players compared to NZ and Wales there are...So for example if you say only eligible for England are from the 12 premiership teams, and then remove all non-England Qualified Numbers, compared to Wales four Regions and players in France and England, and same with NZ.

Which reduces the numbers drastically.

 

[ncurd]

Australia - 42,100
Wales - 50,557
Malaysia - 60,030
Italy - 66,176
United States - 88,151
Argentina -102,790
Sri Lanka -103,325
Japan - 122,368

Why are none of these teams consistently beating Wales? Sri Lanka have double the players of Wales! Japan has three times as many as Australia for god sakes!

 

[goodNumber10]

I would say it's because for the most part they are social players, with little impact on the elite level of the game.

 

[ncurd]

Sorry was just pointing out how stupid the numbers game by bringing countries like Sri Lanka into the mix I was trying to point out how sill the argument is.

Your never really going to ascertain which country is best by numbers alone, or trying to make it our as some great giant killing every time England loose as they have access to 'more players' at the end of the day it's 23men vs 23men and if those men are of the calibre it doesn't matter if one country had an additional 1.5million players to pick from as the players picked are on the same level.

A giant killing is when teams of completely different qualities of 23 men beat someone better than them. For example nobody would be saying ah Sri Lanka should beat Wales they have twice as many players to pick from

 

[goodNumber10]

Sorry was just pointing out how stupid the numbers game by bringing countries like Sri Lanka into the mix I was trying to point out how sill the argument is.

Your never really going to ascertain which country is best by numbers alone, or trying to make it our as some great giant killing every time England loose as they have access to 'more players' at the end of the day it's 23men vs 23men and if those men are of the calibre it doesn't matter if one country had an additional 1.5million players to pick from as the players picked are on the same level.

A giant killing is when teams of completely different qualities of 23 men beat someone better than them. For example nobody would be saying ah Sri Lanka should beat Wales they have twice as many players to pick from

I know mate, i'm completely in agreement.

 

[jonny24]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's over rated. You get to see lots of countries play each other that don't, theoretically anyone could win it, it IS difficult to win so there is a lot of excitement. It actually makes it onto TV here... I love it, even though I'll be surprised if Canada wins two games this time.

Side note, just because it was bolded:

Sometimes the best team in the world do win it...

Why do British English speakers (and NZ apparently) use "do" in this context? A team is singular. The best team does win it. Players, for example, is plural. The best players do win it. Not trying to be the grammar police, just curious where it comes from.

 

[Horacito]

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!

Fantastic example of a self-answering question:

If Argentina didn't made it to the third spot, they wouldn't have gotten the RC, neither the Super Rugby, neither the improvement of their league; Rugby wouldn't change even a little bit, great payers would still be underrated because they would have to play for a bad national side, and before you can think, boys would inmigrate to England to make a life out of playing rugby and punching people: the Contepomi brothers singing God Save the Queen, is that what you want to see? is that what the english want to see?

The World Cup (World Rugby World Rugby Cup now, I guess) is an opportunity for small teams to get recognised, for big teams to reunite and play glorious games, like, for example, Argentina vs France 2007 or Argentina vs Ireland 2007: is a chance to join us all together and believe rugby is a biggest deal than it actually is, and to get free Range Rovers over the raffles.

Don't mess with the World Cup yo.

 

[Jaguares]

Australia - 42,100
Wales - 50,557
Malaysia - 60,030
Italy - 66,176
United States - 88,151
Argentina -102,790
Sri Lanka -103,325
Japan - 122,368

Why are none of these teams consistently beating Wales? Sri Lanka have double the players of Wales! Japan has three times as many as Australia for god sakes!

That shows how important it is the genetic. Countries like Japan and Sri Lanka have many players, but their average male size is smaller than other rugby countries like the Pacific Islands.

And to think that some here treated me like a racist just for telling the truth.