Rugby World Cup: And the Winner is...

LordShiva · October 17, 2007, 10:49

I don't know.

Caligastia · October 17, 2007, 11:43

I'd like to see England win it for the reasons Andydog outlined...before he went on to support SA. The Boks have indeed been the best team of the tournament, and deserve to win - which is precisely why I don't want them to. Finbar is right...the RWC has become far too overblown. Perhaps an England win would help highlight that fact.

Oh, and my Dad is English, so there's another reason.

LDiCesare · October 17, 2007, 12:07

I'm backing South Africa for a change. They got a backline.
I also hope the French will do something with the ball in the remake of the opneing match (for a change too).

finbar · October 17, 2007, 13:10

The way this tournament has unfolded, the fact that the Boks have a backline means they will undoubtedly kick the crap out of the ball - badly - and lose.

Havak · October 18, 2007, 04:01

Lets hope so

Seems unlikely though?

I have to hope that the Pumas can repeat the opening game result. I mean where is your European solidarity LdiC, in backing the Boks?

I really don't understand Caligastias contention that an outsider winning would somehow make the IRB think "good grief this RWC was overblown". I suspect the IRB are very happy with the tournament - it's been unpredictable, controversial in parts, thrilling at times and has two reasonably populous nations contesting the final (validating the TV rights packages they sold and thereby leveraging the figures they can levy on that front next time?)

finbar · October 18, 2007, 04:38

I'm sure the IRB are tickled with the event. More importantly, an outsider winning the tin trophy would undermine the common argument that the World Cup is a benefit event for the top handful of sides in the world. England, currently ranked somewhere around 197th in the world, just in front of the Maldives and Wales, qualifies as an outsider. Heck, if England win, imagine the encouragement it would give to all the other minnows.

I need another cappuccino.

Havak · October 18, 2007, 05:08

But surely the World rankings don't mean anything Finbar? I mean what criteria is used to calculate them?

Just look at this:

The Aussies have lost one game since the RWC began and lost how many places?

Whichever side wins on Saturday will replace NZ at the top for the first time in a very long time? And there is your best argument against the rankings - England could become the number one side in the world again only five weeks after losing 36-0 to the Boks!

*edit* Although can I stress again that I hope we might win as opposed to actually expecting it.

finbar · October 18, 2007, 05:53

Around four years ago, when I launched my first tirade against the meaningless of the World Cup - or the title, anyway - do you recall me also denouncing the ranking system? For precisely the reasons you indicate.

I remember citing cricket rankings - a win against Bangladesh counts exactly the same as a win against Australia. And cricket statistics - the Sri Lankan spear chucker posing as an off spinner will soon overtake Shane Warne as the leading wicket taker. The spear chucker has taken well over 100 wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in close to 20 Tests against them both. Warne might have played a total of two Tests against them. The meaninglessness of simple statistics.

People like to have lists of things. There must be some sort of comfort factor. Or perhaps it saves them having to think. Or even having to form an opinion.

Havak · October 18, 2007, 06:38

All three factors most probably.

I do indeed remember - I forgot to use my

smilie for the opening sentence of that post....

LDiCesare · October 18, 2007, 06:46

a win against Bangladesh counts exactly the same as a win against Australia

In the rugby ratings, that's not the case. A victory gives points based on the difference between the nations. It's skewed because World Cup counts twice as much and they add an arbitrary 3 points for 'home advantage', but it's relatively fair. A bit like chess' ELO system. Except in chess, you usually play a lot of games in one day, so that's more meaningful.
The ratings are poor because there aren't enough matches played in a short period to make them significant at any time. Add to that the fact that some teams fare better against other teams because of the style of rugby they play, and ratings won't tell you much. But they do tell something and aren't completely arbitrary.

finbar · October 18, 2007, 06:56

Even if they factor in opposition strength, there are still so many variables as to make the whole system dodgy, IMHO. The World Cup counts double? There's a ridiculous distortion in itself. I noticed in the rankings that the Argies are now two places below the French after having beaten them about a month ago. I rest my case.

Caligastia · October 18, 2007, 09:00

Originally posted by Havak
I really don't understand Caligastias contention that an outsider winning would somehow make the IRB think "good grief this RWC was overblown". I suspect the IRB are very happy with the tournament - it's been unpredictable, controversial in parts, thrilling at times and has two reasonably populous nations contesting the final (validating the TV rights packages they sold and thereby leveraging the figures they can levy on that front next time?)

Just wishful thinking I suppose. What you say makes sense...I didn't really think it through like that. Still...GO ENGLAND!

Caligastia · October 18, 2007, 09:09

Originally posted by finbar
Even if they factor in opposition strength, there are still so many variables as to make the whole system dodgy, IMHO. The World Cup counts double? There's a ridiculous distortion in itself. I noticed in the rankings that the Argies are now two places below the French after having beaten them about a month ago. I rest my case.

As a detailed and accurate list of rankings it certainly fails, but it does give the casual observer a vague idea of who the top teams are. It's hard to argue that the top 5 or 6 don't deserve to be there in comparison with the rest of the teams.

Andydog · October 18, 2007, 09:16

Originally posted by finbar
Which brings me to the whole World Cup myth. I said it about four years ago and I'll say it again. It's a meaningless title, a marketing - moneymaking - exercise. It's a glorified - in its latter stage - knockout competition which has no relationship to best - or otherwise - in the world. The real tragedy, to me, is that the World Cup has taken on such mythical proportions to the utter detriment of Test rugby. These days, particularly closer to the tournament, Tests have become secondary, trial and error events. I wish the World Cup had never been conceived.

Interesting comments, and I take many of your points. Me, I enjoy the RWC. I've come to love it for exactly what it is - a knock-out tournament held once every 4 years that requires a competitive team of talented players, who can deliver for 3 weeks in a row under immense pressure. Does it find the best team in the world at that point? Not often. But who cares, it's still a great spectacle, it promotes the game, and there is really no other way to run such a tournament. You can't have "Super 8's" or a "finals series", it just doesn't work. So the RWC format is what we have, and it takes a special team to win it. I just wish the part time rugby supporter would appreciate that it's extremely possible for the best team at the tournament to not win it. Some would say that is the drawback of the thing and others the beauty of it.

finbar · October 18, 2007, 09:41

I enjoy it too. I enjoy watching an Under 10s match in the park. What I resent most of all is the damage the carnival is doing - and will continue to do - to Test rugby.

Caligastia · October 18, 2007, 10:16

Wouldn't you say that the damage is limited to the year of the RWC Finbar?

finbar · October 18, 2007, 10:59

I don't think it's only the year of the event, but even if it were, that's still a lot of compromised Test matches.

Caligastia · October 18, 2007, 11:20

In what way does it affect other years? I've only noticed the sheltering of players in the actual year of the RWC.

MikeH · October 18, 2007, 11:43

The RWC is absolutely brilliant it brings Rugby to millions of people who'd otherwise never watch it. I've had loads of people watching rugby with me in the pub who I've had to explain most of the rules to but who've come to enjoy it. People who didn't even watch last time ('cause of time difference) and definitely the best two teams in World Rugby reach the final. -FACT!

MikeH · October 18, 2007, 11:45

And that's even watching allegedly boring old England.

I reckon some of the matches in this WC have been among the most entertaining games of international rugby I've watched. I love it and the atmosphere at games has been wonderful. Planning on going to NZ for 2011

Havak · October 19, 2007, 03:53

I just wish the part time rugby supporter would appreciate that it's extremely possible for the best team at the tournament to not win it.

Well MikeH has put it stronger than I would have but I do agree that this is a little counter intuitive as by the end of tomorrow the winner will top the world rankings.

And Mike your FACT can be argued to actually be a subjective opinion to a certain extent because the only performance based measure we have (flawed as they may be) is that same one – the IRB world rankings – and they disagree with you.

But how else do you judge ‘best’ if not on the results in the tournament? We enter the world of subjective opinion then don’t we? And part time fans don’t give a hoot about the subjective opinions of we ‘dedicated’ fans? And in all honesty why should they?

The statement could however still be true of course. If South Africa somehow manage to contrive to lose tomorrow. Because they have been the side of the tournament I believe? Consistently stronger opposition than anyone else and no lost games?

I personally don’t think for a moment that England are one of the top two sides in the world (I would make that SA and NZ myself). It would be rather silly to think so. What we have done is play superbly to our strengths in the knock out games. It’s mainly been choking the life out of the opposition (or letting them kick themselves to their doom before Finbar corrects me) but as an old grunter I really enjoy seeing that.

I just wish that those same part time rugby fans could understand that England’s win over Australia was a far more discerning game of rugby for those in the know than the Aussie demolition of Wales for example. Rugby isn’t just about fast flowing try fests. Good rugby thrives on the competition at the contact and the breakdown and I pray that Paddy’s Stellenbosch rubbish doesn’t kill the game stone dead.

I’ve never seen such a stupid justification as “some teams found it hard to obey this law so we are scrapping it” (regarding the collapsing of rolling mauls). Surely now if you want a law scrapped then you need to simply fail to observe it?

finbar · October 19, 2007, 04:49

Originally posted by Havak
I just wish that those same part time rugby fans could understand that England’s win over Australia was a far more discerning game of rugby for those in the know than the Aussie demolition of Wales for example. Rugby isn’t just about fast flowing try fests. Good rugby thrives on the competition at the contact and the breakdown and I pray that Paddy’s Stellenbosch rubbish doesn’t kill the game stone dead.

Couldn't agree more, especially about much of Paddy Prat's rubbish. Perverse peckerhead that I am, I thoroughly enjoyed the England demolition of the Wallabies at contact and breakdown. You don't see it much anymore, especially against a supposedly top team. Pity for the part-time rugby fan, though, that nothing flowed from the demolition job. Normally, such superiority in contact and at the breakdown should result in demolition on the score sheet too.

But I might have mentioned that before. Thought I'd just mention it. In case I hadn't. Mentioned it before. My memory isn't all that flash until I've had my second cappuccino for the day.

EDIT. Just licked the last of the froth out of the bottom of my second cappuccino for the day. I recall now that I had mentioned it before. Sorry.

I’ve never seen such a stupid justification as “some teams found it hard to obey this law so we are scrapping it” (regarding the collapsing of rolling mauls). Surely now if you want a law scrapped then you need to simply fail to observe it?

Don't get me started!

I might be wrong, but from my observation, the maul hasn't been as effective in this tournament as it has in the past. Yes, there have been some corkers, but defences seem finally to have realised that the only counter is to shift the maul sideways.

Havak · October 19, 2007, 08:34

Sorry what was that you had mentioned? My memory is about as good as England's try scoring ability.

And yes shift it sideways - or fall underneath it with those refs that don't penalise such.

MikeH · October 19, 2007, 08:46

Originally posted by Havak

And Mike your FACT can be argued to actually be a subjective opinion to a certain extent because the only performance based measure we have (flawed as they may be) is that same one ï¿½ the IRB world rankings ï¿½ and they disagree with you.

There may have been a teeny tiny troll at the end of my post...

All my non-Rugby watching friends appreciate fully that the best team in a knockout tournament doesn't always win. It's the same in football and any other sport. That's not really the point though, you do have to beat everyone in front of you, and if you can't do that you don't deserve to be champions or to be known as the best team in the world. IMO.

Who have South Africa actually played? New Zealand? Australia? France? Nope. They've thrashed an England side playing some of the worst rugby I've ever seen from them, beaten a decent Fijian side and taken advantage of a sub-par Argentinian performance where they almost literally threw the game away.

So how good are they really? They appear to be very good, but I'm not sure we'll find out for sure even if they win tomorrow.

I'd like to second what Havak said about England vs Australia too. I thoroughly enjoyed the English performance in that game, we didn't run in many tries, but seeing forwards so dominant was beautiful in itself.

Havak · October 19, 2007, 09:29

teeny tiny? Like an elephant you mean?

How good are the Boks? I take your points above but they are still pretty good. Solid scrum, superb line out, best scrum half of the tournament, a pair of superb on the deck scavengers, a functional stand off, talented centres, superstar winger and another who knows how to finish plus a fullback who kicks with considerable accuracy unless you can rattle him.

So not too shabby.

Which is not to say we have no chance - IF we can rattle James, Montgomery and Du Preez we have a good chance. James may slip back to the biff style he prefers, Monty can go to pieces (how many times did we see that when he played in welsh club sides that couldn't protect him?) and if the scrum and Gomersall can apply pressure to Du Preez then all to the good.

It's a long shot - but I'll not rule us out.

*edit* We probably need to keep the ball away from that chap Habana too....

MikeH · October 19, 2007, 10:19

Yeah, I think they are very good but I'm sure if they beat us by 36 points again the Kiwis will still say they are the best team in the world.

And on Habana... why Cueto?! ARGH.

finbar · October 19, 2007, 10:23

I'd've said a scrum half capable of greatness who has really only produced it once in the event. I think Senor Pichot produced more often until everything caught up with him and them. The Bok pack bothers me. They're not the rock they once were, at least they haven't been in this event. If A. Sheridan scoffs his Mars Bars before the match he will upset them. The mobility of the Bok back row will help. Though I think I recall saying that about another mob who ran into England during the event.

Oh, and Forza Francia stasera.

Havak · October 19, 2007, 10:32

Does that mean you want France to win or that you believe they will (or both)?

*edit* I should point out that I am aware the Pumas are using the game to give the squads fringe players a game.

The selection of Cueto is quite inexplicable MikeH. Officially he wasn't dropped at all but had a hamstring tweak (despite Ashton saying before the France game that the whole squad was fit and available for selection).

The option many had called for - including myself - was Hipkiss to 13 and Tait to the wing. Cueto is a gamble - and he now faces the ultimate test (if you will forgive the cliche) as he hasn't shown a sniff of form since the 6N (and arguably not even then).

MikeH · October 19, 2007, 11:09

Totally agree. Apparently Ashton said it was because they expected to deal with a lot of aerial ball and Cueto was more experienced on the wing, but as you say he hasn't even been playing that well and he probably couldn't beat Habana's granny in a sprint.

Ah, here's the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugb...sh/7046466.stm

Then again, before the last game chatting in the pub I wasn't exactly complimentary about Lewsey's form, and he scored almost immediately, much to the amusement of my friends.

finbar · October 19, 2007, 11:38

Both.

Forza [INSERT WHATEVER OR WHOMEVER YOU WANT TO SUCCEED] is such a lovely Italian expression. The tragedy is that the appalling S. Berlusconi appropriated it for his ugly coalition of cheats, thieves and conmen.