Rugby World Cup: And the Winner is...

[LordShiva]

I don't know.

[Caligastia]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

All three factors most probably.

I do indeed remember - I forgot to use my smilie for the opening sentence of that post....

[LDiCesare]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.