Rugby World Cup 2007

[Јas]

The hosts are screwed.

Maybe, or maybe Ireland will now be going home after Round 1.

[Јas]

Before tonight's game I would've ranked the likelihood of World Cup victory something like:

1. New Zealand
2. France
<gap>
3. South Africa
4. Australia
<gap>
5. Ireland
with only negligible chances for anyone else.

Now, it's very hard to look past New Zealand overall, and both France and Ireland will be under huge strain to even get out of their group.

[Јas]

The World Cup would be far nicer if it weren't for New Zealand and Australia stealing all the best pacific players.. Fiji and Samoa (and to a lesser degree, Tonga) would be pretty competitive then.

Agreed. But also, the World Cup really shouldn't have the utterly hopeless sides which really can't even dream of making an upset against the B or C sides of the better nations. The US, Portugal, Namibia, etc. really have no business being in the competition as it doesn't help them or their competitors.

I also think that Argentina should be brought into the 6 Nations so that they can get regular competitive games at the highest level. Their success despite their isolation is a testament to their efforts.

[Јas]

To go off on a tangent here, It would make much more sense to put Argentina into the Tri nations, where then we would have at least have two hemisphere-based tournaments both with an even number of countries competing.

I can understand that viewpoint.
The reason I suggested they play in Europe instead is simply because just about their entire squad play in the European leagues.

Of the Argentine squad at the World Cup, they are divided by where they play their club rugby as follows:
France: 15
Argentina: 8
England: 6
Ireland: 1

Given that 22 of them are European based, it might make more sense to be in sync with the European schedules for club and international games and be less temultuous as far as individual travel is concerned.

[Јas]

Right now I rate NZ as #1 and Italy as #10

Interestingly, the Argentine win will lift them above Ireland in the World Rankings.

Current Top 20 (With Ratings Point):
1 NEW ZEALAND 93.38
2 AUSTRALIA 87.03
3 FRANCE 86.90
4 SOUTH AFRICA 85.40
5 IRELAND 81.12
6 ARGENTINA 81.05
7 ENGLAND 78.89
8 WALES 76.45
9 ITALY 75.37
10 SAMOA 74.97
11 SCOTLAND 74.95
12 FIJI 70.52
13 CANADA 70.06
14 TONGA 67.52
15 USA 67.20
16 ROMANIA 66.79
17 GEORGIA 66.38
18 JAPAN 65.85
19 RUSSIA 64.37
20 URUGUAY 62.66

[Јas]

What is with the Six Nations teams and the major suckage so far?

Lack of access to a regular supply of good players from a collection of tiny little islands?

In which case the Aran Islands, Shetlands, Channel Islands and Ynys Môn have a lot of questions to answer.

[Јas]

at this point I actually think England might lose to Samoa.

If that happens, then tis time for all fans of Welsh Rugby to engage in some revenge-gloating...

I haven't seen the Samoans so far, but based solely on the English performances against the US and South Africa, a Samoan victory is a real possibility. Might depend on whether one Mr. Wilkinson is fit to play.

[Јas]

Lame.

Did Ireland manage to beat Georgia in the end?

Officially, the moral victory was Georgia's though.
They were a matter of inches from a winning try at the end.

[Јas]

Lame.

Did Ireland manage to beat Georgia in the end?

Officially, the moral victory was Georgia's though.
They were a matter of inches from a winning try at the end.

Inches? More like the hands of super-Leamy.

Exactly...a few inches

It's actually amazing how close we've come to having a huge upset.. yet there has been none yet (France - Argentina was an upset, but not a huge one) - I mean Italy - Romania, Georgia - Ireland, Wales - Canada - all those games could have ended with different teams winning.. plus USA - England and Ireland - Namibia were much, much closer than first imagined.

So... eh.. Come on Samoa!

I think that Argentina's win against France counts as a huge upset (and I actually don't think Romania beating Italy would have been on the same scale) but I take your point.

The 6 Nations are making a show of themselves and the "minnows" are doing themsleves proud. Given the respective displays of Romania and Georgia, I'd be all the more in favour of 6 Nations expansion - possibly bringing in a promotion/relegation system with the European Nations Cup teams.

[Јas]

An upset, yes. But nothing on the scale Georgia beating Ireland would have been.

Yep, no question.

As for expanding the Six Nations all I would state is that it would be extremely damaging for any country which would be relegated from such a system. But Romania, Georgia and Russia (who apparently according to the IRB site ranked higher than Georgia; and there was 45,000(!) attendance for the WC qualifier between the two teams last year which saw Georgia qualify) should be more encorporated into the European system. As should to a lesser extent - Portugal, Spain, Germany.. and any other non-professional nation.

Damaging? Possibly. But the extent of such damage, and also of the potential benefit to the new nations , would depend on how exacting it would be structured. (Say just a plain 7 or 8 nations top tier, or maybe 2 pools of 4 teams or something.)

A year in a lower league, say for Ireland, would increase the profile of the lower division. And if they couldn't get back out of it, it would presumably be deserving for them to stay there.

[Јas]

Big game tonight.. So I expect us to show up.

But we'll still lose though.. wouldn't be surprised at another last minute try for the French. Something like 29-26.

Judging by the performances so far, I'd suggest your scoreline predicition is optimistic.
I'll predict a late French score to deprive Ireland of a bonus point, something like 22-10.

[Јas]

25-3; so endeth the Irish World Cup effort...

[Јas]

Aer Lingus! No, no - surely Ryanair!

[Јas]

 

Why can't we have a British national team ?

Dave

It would significantly reduce the number of regular competitive games playable in the Northern hemisphere. The 6 Nations (or whatever it would then become) would presumably be dominated by such a team with only France able to compete against them.

[Јas]

Well, England disgraced themselves by winning without scoring a single try

[Јas]

It's not uncommon to hear support for Anyone but England around this country, and certainly I have been known to be not entirely displeased when England are less than  sucessful, but the level and vociforousness of comment in this thread has been quite remarkable - especially towards Mr. Wilkinson.

[Јas]

England deserve to get pummelled by the saffies, for three reasons:

1. They're English, and they play ugly rugby, and acknowledge it themselves
2. They're English, and they base their whole game on one type of play with no flexibility
3. They're English, and the English automatially deserve to lose to any of the ex-colonies, even the South Africans.

1. Somewhat Disagree - they may play ugly rugby, but this isn't gymnastics, points aren't awarded for style.
2. Strongly Disagree - it may not be pretty, it may be dull and boring, but it's effective. They will only change (and tactically speaking, should only change) when an opposition can render it ineffectual.
3. Agree