Rugby WC

[Simster]

No rugby yesterday and I can't say I missed it. Why is this? Ah yes, because it's a tournament littered with one sided matches where the hard up nations couldn't afford to pick their best players by taking them out of lucrative club contracts.

Consequently, I have formulated my guide to the only rugby matches that I will bother watching.

Australia 24-8 Argentina - actually this was a shit game. Sadly Argentina did nothing to suggest they deserved to expand the annual tri-nations tournament although they did score one superb try. Very disappointing.

Saturday 18 October
1300: South Africa v England - this pick of the group games. The winners will end up playing a shit team like Wales or Italy in the QFs while the losers will face New Zealand.

Saturday 25 October
0930: Italy v Wales - who will qualify to play SA or Eng?
1130: France v Scotland - should determine who tops the group. It'll be France in truth.

Sunday 26 October
0730: Argentina v Ireland - more action from the most interesting group in the tournament. Probably the second place decider but we won't know for sure until the following Saturday...

Saturday 1 November
0500: Scotland v Fiji - Scotland are fortunate to be in a piss easy group (where have we heard that before). However, if they're going to f*** it up, this is the match in which it'll happen.

0935: Australia v Ireland - It's 2 from 3 with Argentina having already lost to Australia in the opening game but neither side took any bonus points. A win for Ireland here is the outside bet (but undoubtedly distinctly possible) and would really blow the group wide open.

Sunday 2 November
0935: New Zealand v Wales - a meaningless fixture because NZ are head and shoulders above Wales and Italy. But should be worth watching just to note the gulf in class between the joint favourites and the other rugby nation. NZ have already dicked Italy 70-7. Expect another 50 points on the board here.

Quarter-finals

Saturday 8 November
NZ will play SA or England in the pick of the quarter finals so as it turns out, none of the QFs should be foregone conclusions, although England really ought to beat Wales or Italy if that's how it turns out.

Semi-finals

Saturday 15 November
0900: Winner QF1 v Winner QF2 (SF1) Sydney

Sunday 16 November
0900: Winner QF3 v Winner QF4 (SF2) Sydney

Final - Saturday 22 November
0900: Winner SF1 v Winner SF2 (Final) Sydney


So there you have it, in a tournament comprising of 47 matches, I would say only 15 matches are worth watching, and that's being generous.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Very generous, Scotland v Fiji being a prime example. I haven't watched any of it. Can't say I feel I'm missing out, but I'd probably watch a semi against France or a final against the Aussies/All Blacks.

 

[fatbadger]

I would limit things even more - the only first round matches worth watching (seeing as each group has a guaranteed first-placed team) are those between the theoretically-secured 2nd place teams and their nearest competitors (i.e. Scotland v Fiji, Ireland v Argentina, SA v Samoa & Wales v Italy).

 

[CHAPPERS]

All the England games are worth watching, Rugby is a raelly good sport to watch and as we are the best in the world we hardly ever lose and are never as annoying as the footie team. I'll watch al of Englands games as se how the Aussies and kiwis are playing in their games to see what we'll be up against.

 

[Tooting Gull]

All the England games are worth watching, Rugby is a raelly good sport to watch and as we are the best in the world we hardly ever lose and are never as annoying as the footie team. I'll watch al of Englands games as se how the Aussies and kiwis are playing in their games to see what we'll be up against.

I know what you're saying Chappers, and if you like rugby obviously England games in the World Cup are (or should be) the tops. But from an admittedly non-rugby but sports enthusiast, what is the point of England 84 Georgia 6? That must be the equivalent of England 7 Luxembourg 0 in a football World Cup. The point being that Luxembourg aren't in the finals in football.

 

[fatbadger]

The point being that Luxembourg aren't in the finals in football.

The point being, rather, that Luxembourg's football team are better financed than the Georgian Rugby team, because UEFA helps spread wealth around its poorer members.

 

[Tooting Gull]

That's a point, probably a very fair one, but not my point. Which is one of a quality threshold. The reasons behind it I don't care about, that's for people who give a shit about world rugby. But I do care (and so should they) about what gets served up on TV in the name of competitive sport at a World Cup finals.

 

[CHAPPERS]

My favourite game so far was the Jockland v Japan game.

The scots are rubbish and the Japanese refused to kick the ball out of trouble, instead they used the Kamikaze approach and kept running into the Scottish line hoping that they might break through.

marvellous.

 

[Gotsmanov]

Er, Germany 8 - 0 Saudi Arabia....
The point is, and I know that the early stages seem a bit poo because of a few one-sided games, is that, like in Football, it's a CUP competition. In the same way that Saudi Arabia qualified for the world cup, so too have the likes of Romania, Namibia, Georgia etc, and, as such, deserve to be there, in the same way that minnows get the chance to take on bigger teams in the third round of the FA Cup. It's all about living the dream, of playing in big competitions, and, more importantly, about the progression of the sport. And from time to time, the lesser teams show occasional brilliance, such as Saed Owairan (goal of the tournament in 1994 world cup),or CauCau for Fiji, with both the try of the tournament and punch of the tournament v France.

 

[Seagull over NZ]

Surely the lesser nations in football get to play the bigger nations far more often through Euro and World cup qualifiers, hence they get a bigger income. The rugby lesser nations basically only get a look in at world cup time, hence they are not funded very well.

Also, since less people play rugby there is not the money in it. Just look at England's rugby players as well. If you compare what Jonny Wilinson gets compared to David Beckham they aren't even on the same page. Jonny Wilkinson may earn up to £500k a year or something like that, maybe a bit more with new endorsements.

Nations like New Zealand and Australia don't help either - they basically never go to places like Samoa and Fiji to play them (and generate income) but expect to use them for home friendlies as and when they want, not to mention trying to steal all their best players.

 

[fatbadger]

Georgia, Namibia, Romania etc aren't really minnows in the way that Luxembourg are. For a start, they are currently, respectively, 17th, 25th and 15th in the IRB world rankings, whereas Luxembourg are 151st in the Fifa rankings (and Saudi Arabia are 49th). 17th, 25th and 15th in the Fifa rankings are Portugal, Norway and Denmark. Can you imagine Fifa not ensuring that teams like that have the money to help them compete?

 

[Simster]

Gotsmanov, all that you say is true - it's just that it is so boring that I won't bother watching these one sided affairs.

I was waiting for the comparison with Germany - Saudi. But lets face it, until it became obvious that Saudi couldn't defend in the air we didn't have a clue what would happen. I sat down for that game hoping they might nick a point. It only became dull once the 3rd goal went in.

Rugby has to get its act together and somehow make the two yearly tournaments a little less exclusive, otherwise the sport will die in fringe nations like the USA, Canada, Romania and the Pacific islands. The fact that Argentina was excluded from the tri-nations at its conception is a disgrace.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Boring ... no don't think so. Georgia got 80 points stuck on them but they played with a spirit and skill level that is surprising for a 3rd world rugby country. I found it entertaining and I wasn't embarrassed for the Geogians, they played well.

Argentina not being invited into the try-nations, might have something to do with theiir inability to finish with 15 players on the pitch and the crap state of the Argentine RFU, corrupt etc. They will soon be involved.

Boring is watching the 2002/2003 European cup between the two best teams in Europe. It was arse, the LDV was more exciting.

As for the sport dieing out in the US, Canada etc unlikely, Rugby's more popular now than ever.

The problem with the pacific Islands is that they prefer 7's.

 

[perth seagull]

I'm going to see Uruguay vs. Samoa here in Perth tomorrow night. What a blockbuster...

The good thing is that hopefully it will be an evenly matched contest. I'll be cheering for Uruguay. Any team that hates Argentina is good in my book.

 

[Hannibal smith]

The problem with Rugby watching is the lack of upsets. Its not like footy where a fluke goal and an 11 men behind the ball alamo defense can hold out for the remainder - the best team normally wins. One only has to look at the prices in the betting to see who will win the group stage (New Zealand are 1-50 to win their group). Having said that I wouldn't class Japan V Scotland or Georgia V England as boring. Both minnows played well and made the games exciting to watch even if we knew all along who would win.

Simster : I would add to your list France V Fiji worth watching for the Fuji try alone.