RugbyRebels

A bit early for this thread, but the draw is today!

https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/2023/pool-draw

Le bring it on!

Unlucky.

Puja

Could be worse. Could be Italy.

Is it just me or are the Welsh repeatedly lucky in these draws?

The Welsh are incredibly lucky that the seeding for the world cup took place when it did

Oh god.

I just hate Ireland so much, I can’t face it.

For anyone who can't see the link we have:

South Africa
Ireland
Asia/Pacific 1 - would say probably Tonga or Samoa - Fiji are already in with Wales and Australia
Europe 2 - maybe someone like Romania or Russia

Basically have to beat Ireland or SA. Tough group but that's just how it was gonna be. Could have had France and NZ!

Seeding is a load of bollocks. Just rigging in plain sight.

General Zod wrote:Seeding is a load of bollocks. Just rigging in plain sight.

It's bizarre doing it so far out. Wales are very lucky! We probably can't complain too much - could just about be ahead of Wales but that would be based on one game.

Hadn't fully appreciated the implications of the draw. If we manage to get through we have NZ or France in the quarters.

Does anyone else lack enthusiasm for the World Cup?

stevedog1980 wrote:Does anyone else lack enthusiasm for the World Cup?

Yes. It would be nice to beat Ireland and get out the group, but apart from that, I found myself bored by the vast majority of the games in the group stage.

General Zod wrote:

stevedog1980 wrote:Does anyone else lack enthusiasm for the World Cup?

Yes. It would be nice to beat Ireland and get out the group, but apart from that, I found myself bored by the vast majority of the games in the group stage.

I love it but from a Scottish perspective there is a limit to what we are realistically playing for. A bad world cup is going out at the group stage, a decent world cup is getting the through to the quarters, a great world cup is getting through to the semis.

I'd rather win or be in real contention to win a 6N come the final day rather than any of those outcomes.

Should say it depends how we play too. I can imagine a dull 6N where we come close through a few lucky wins and other people dropping points or a WC where we lose in the quarters but have won our group playing great rugby and making a bit of a statement.

General Zod wrote:
Yes. It would be nice to beat Ireland and get out the group, but apart from that, I found myself bored by the vast majority of the games in the group stage.

I think it's the fact the fixtures are regularly played already, between the 6N, Autumn Internationals and the 4N there really aren't a lot of fixtures that you haven't seen played during the 4 year cycle anyway.
With the FIFA World Cup it's teams that you hardly ever see playing each other that I think creates the atmosphere and the spectacle.

I'd rather see a NH v SH all star game or an annual 6N winner v 4N winner

stevedog1980 wrote:
I think it's the fact the fixtures are regularly played already, between the 6N, Autumn Internationals and the 4N there really aren't a lot of fixtures that you haven't seen played during the 4 year cycle anyway.
With the FIFA World Cup it's teams that you hardly ever see playing each other that I think creates the atmosphere and the spectacle.

I'd rather see a NH v SH all star game or an annual 6N winner v 4N winner

I still love the RWC, but your top paragraph there is on the money. Its a problem. For example when I was a kid you'd be lucky to see us play Aus or NZ at home once in 4 or 5 years. Plus we would do the off tour. Now its every other year. And World Rugby wants even more test rugby if you examine its recent proposal for a competition which would take place 3 out of every 4 years (replacing some/all AIs and tours maybe, but actually more games).
Familiarity does breed contempt for test rugby, and at the same time will kill club rugby. Why on earth invest in a test player you rarely have available?

I've no interest in NH v SH. World Champs are crowned once every 4 years at the RWC. Its enough. The rest is marketing hype and another game for players, another match away from their club either for that match or extended pre season

WR are trying to kill the golden goose by over cooking it

Part of the reason the games are so familiar is because WR don’t really allow it to grow to the point where the established order is threatened. Ignoring 6 Nations expansion for a minute, there’s not really scope in the World Cup itself to allow a nation (and its supporters) to dream of the title. Who really gives a fvck about a quarter final?

Imagine if one group contained NZ, SA, Eng, Fra and with our luck, probably Scotland. All the other teams (Fiji, Samoa, even minnows like Wales) would suddenly be more enthused by the tournament. Indeed, even the fans of the “big” countries would be right up for it, as the initial games would actually have some significance.

Agree it will never happen, but it would be a more interesting tournament and might spark an interest (and investment) in areas where the game can expand beyond its closed shop, like, say, the USA? As it is, those boys turn up and get paggered in the groups every time without fail.

General Zod wrote:Part of the reason the games are so familiar is because WR don’t really allow it to grow to the point where the established order is threatened. Ignoring 6 Nations expansion for a minute, there’s not really scope in the World Cup itself to allow a nation (and its supporters) to dream of the title. Who really gives a fvck about a quarter final?

Imagine if one group contained NZ, SA, Eng, Fra and with our luck, probably Scotland. All the other teams (Fiji, Samoa, even minnows like Wales) would suddenly be more enthused by the tournament. Indeed, even the fans of the “big” countries would be right up for it, as the initial games would actually have some significance.

Agree it will never happen, but it would be a more interesting tournament and might spark an interest (and investment) in areas where the game can expand beyond its closed shop, like, say, the USA? As it is, those boys turn up and get paggered in the groups every time without fail.

We don't need to have a rigged tournament to have fun like the league lot do. You say who cares about a quarter final, but the Japanese seemed quite keen. Fijians in 2007 as well.

Personally, I'd be in favour of expanding to 24 and having 6 groups of 4 with a second round. There's a tonne of advantages: actually reduces the amount of time the RWC would take in the calendar (1 less pool game, 1 more knockout, but even groups mean no need for byes and uneven fixture lists), more reward for teams like USA and Georgia as they'd have a chance to qualify for a knockout game, and opening up qualifying so we can't just name 18 of the 20 teams before anyone plays a game (and have a pretty solid guess at the other 2).

Puja

Puja wrote:

General Zod wrote:Part of the reason the games are so familiar is because WR don’t really allow it to grow to the point where the established order is threatened. Ignoring 6 Nations expansion for a minute, there’s not really scope in the World Cup itself to allow a nation (and its supporters) to dream of the title. Who really gives a fvck about a quarter final?

Imagine if one group contained NZ, SA, Eng, Fra and with our luck, probably Scotland. All the other teams (Fiji, Samoa, even minnows like Wales) would suddenly be more enthused by the tournament. Indeed, even the fans of the “big” countries would be right up for it, as the initial games would actually have some significance.

Agree it will never happen, but it would be a more interesting tournament and might spark an interest (and investment) in areas where the game can expand beyond its closed shop, like, say, the USA? As it is, those boys turn up and get paggered in the groups every time without fail.

We don't need to have a rigged tournament to have fun like the league lot do. You say who cares about a quarter final, but the Japanese seemed quite keen. Fijians in 2007 as well.

Personally, I'd be in favour of expanding to 24 and having 6 groups of 4 with a second round. There's a tonne of advantages: actually reduces the amount of time the RWC would take in the calendar (1 less pool game, 1 more knockout, but even groups mean no need for byes and uneven fixture lists), more reward for teams like USA and Georgia as they'd have a chance to qualify for a knockout game, and opening up qualifying so we can't just name 18 of the 20 teams before anyone plays a game (and have a pretty solid guess at the other 2).

Puja

Yep - rigged one sided tournaments are crap. They're only justified when you really have only two or three teams that can beat each other.

The RWC is a good tournament. Scotland are just in a frustrating middling zone. Not good enough to be a real contended, not bad enough that getting to the quarters feels like a huge victory.

Puja's idea sounds decent though it's always a bit awkward when you have to get 16 or 8 teams out of 6 groups. Can make it a bit of a lottery for those last few best loser spots

The more I think about it, the more I think splitting the tournament into a Cup, Shield and Bowl would do something to help develop lower level nations. Playing against the best in the world and getting a pasting might be good for a one-off spectacle but it doesn't do much for a national adoption of the game.

Cup tournament sees all Group winners and second place progress to QF of the main tournament

Shield is a smaller tournament consisting of 3rd place only and goes to SF stage. Reason for this is I think this is where the greatest disparity is likely to be in terms of ability and ideally this is to maintain a competitive game for all involved

Bowl is for the last 2 places. These are likely to be all qualifiers so giving them something meaningful to play for in the tournament and a chance to take home a winners medal of some description at the end should help increase their appetite for these games. Crucially though, it's meaningful games where the level of ability for the qualifiers won't be so stacked against them

I think the main problem is, as we have said above we know roughly how the top order is going to shake out before a ball is kicked. Shaking up the middle and lower end of the tournament could help to increase interest.

I'm sure this idea is going to get shot full of holes, it's something that's literally just come to mind so I am sure there are plenty of reasons why it's a bad idea!!

stevedog1980 wrote:The more I think about it, the more I think splitting the tournament into a Cup, Shield and Bowl would do something to help develop lower level nations. Playing against the best in the world and getting a pasting might be good for a one-off spectacle but it doesn't do much for a national adoption of the game.

Cup tournament sees all Group winners and second place progress to QF of the main tournament

Shield is a smaller tournament consisting of 3rd place only and goes to SF stage. Reason for this is I think this is where the greatest disparity is likely to be in terms of ability and ideally this is to maintain a competitive game for all involved

Bowl is for the last 2 places. These are likely to be all qualifiers so giving them something meaningful to play for in the tournament and a chance to take home a winners medal of some description at the end should help increase their appetite for these games. Crucially though, it's meaningful games where the level of ability for the qualifiers won't be so stacked against them

I think the main problem is, as we have said above we know roughly how the top order is going to shake out before a ball is kicked. Shaking up the middle and lower end of the tournament could help to increase interest.

I'm sure this idea is going to get shot full of holes, it's something that's literally just come to mind so I am sure there are plenty of reasons why it's a bad idea!!

Seems like a decent idea to me. More rugby on tv! I could imagine the absolute scenes if Uruguay won the bowl!

For the avoidance of doubt, I do enjoy the “lesser” pool games and despite it costing us, was pleased when Japan (and in previous editions, any PI team) get to the quarters. However, the tournament still comes across as a bit, well, rigged.

It's always nice when someone is able to string together a couple of shock results and disrupt the established order a bit, but it doesn't happen often enough to give anyone a real chance. Much like England had their RWC final against NZ in the semi's last time out, asking a team to get up for the next game and the next one is always going to be a big ask.

Would result in more rugby but hopefully more competitive rugby as well. If the standard is slightly below the 1st tier level I don't think it would be too much of a problem as the teams should be pretty balanced to make up for it. In the RWC a lot of the time you're watching as a neutral spectator and I think it's much easier to watch a full 80 minutes when you aren't sure who the eventual winner will be. If NZ are going to be putting 80+ on someone, to be honest I'd rather watch the highlights

stevedog1980 wrote:The more I think about it, the more I think splitting the tournament into a Cup, Shield and Bowl would do something to help develop lower level nations. Playing against the best in the world and getting a pasting might be good for a one-off spectacle but it doesn't do much for a national adoption of the game.

Cup tournament sees all Group winners and second place progress to QF of the main tournament

Shield is a smaller tournament consisting of 3rd place only and goes to SF stage. Reason for this is I think this is where the greatest disparity is likely to be in terms of ability and ideally this is to maintain a competitive game for all involved

Bowl is for the last 2 places. These are likely to be all qualifiers so giving them something meaningful to play for in the tournament and a chance to take home a winners medal of some description at the end should help increase their appetite for these games. Crucially though, it's meaningful games where the level of ability for the qualifiers won't be so stacked against them

I think the main problem is, as we have said above we know roughly how the top order is going to shake out before a ball is kicked. Shaking up the middle and lower end of the tournament could help to increase interest.

I'm sure this idea is going to get shot full of holes, it's something that's literally just come to mind so I am sure there are plenty of reasons why it's a bad idea!!

Mind, playing against the best in the world is how sponsors and eyes get drawn to the game in minor countries. Yes, you might get pasted by the All Blacks, but playing against them gets you a lot more attention than winning against Namibia would. Worth noting as well that there hasn't been a century conceded in a RWC match since 2007 (NZ vs Portugal) and the highest points difference in the last two tournaments was 64 points - the gap is definitely closing.

I'd be in favour of a Shield and Bowl tournament as well - I think it's a great idea. It works with a 24 team tournament with a round of 16 as well - 8 teams not qualifying from the groups who could go into the quarter finals of the bowl and 8 teams eliminated in the second round who could go into the quarter finals of the shield.

Puja

The one-off games against big teams I would imagine are a big part of the experience for the smaller nations and they would definitely need to stay. I would suggest a lot of the reason why winning against Namibia gets you little exposure is because in the scheme of things it doesn't mean anything. If you fail to qualify because your 4th or 5th in the group, really, what changed? Not only that, the fixture itself is likely to be buried in a schedule in amongst some more "attractive" fixtures that will absorb the viewership.

If your game against Namibia was at a reasonable hour, on a day where it's the only fixture and at the end of it someone is taking home a trophy (bowl or otherwise) I think it would attract much more attention than if it was just another group filler.

South Africa v Scotland - 10/9 - Marseille
Scotland v Asia/Pacific 1 - 24/9 - Nice
Scotland v Europe 2 - 30/9 - Lille
Scotland v Ireland - 7/10 - Paris, SdF

Ireland have SA on the 24/9 then a week off before the Scotland Game.

That is a fairly even split of fixtures could have been a lot worse.