Originally posted by HentschelThe All Blacks ( New Zealand team) have gone soft since they started wearing the Nike busboy outfits. Next thing you know they will be poncing around like soccer players...
The shirts are skin tight to make it harder to tackle opponents by gripping thier shirts and pulling them down to ground. I do agree that the shirts don't seem durable enough and for the average person playing on a rugby team they are impractical. Still the slightest advantage could make all the difference. 😏
COME ON ENGLAND!
Originally posted by Hentschelthe canturbury ones are skin tight too-but i think they might be thicker and so warmer...but harder to tear...up the scots!...
The shirts are skin tight to make it harder to tackle opponents by gripping thier shirts and pulling them down to ground. I do agree that the shirts don't seem durable enough and for the average person playing on a rugby team they are impractical. Still the slightest advantage could make all the difference. 😏
COME ON ENGLAND!
Originally posted by D43M0NNamibia actually played in the local league (the Currie Cup) in SA - and couldn't even beat our provincial teams - so 142-0 sounds about right.
on another note, hoiws about Saturdays match Oz vs Nambiabia...(whatever.) 142-0!! OMG! 🙄
Yeah, the mismatches are putting a damper on the WC for me. But on the other hand, if some of these countries get a chance to play the better teams in world rugby, rugby might actually take more in those countries...
Originally posted by Crowleyit's the world cup. 32 (or however many) of the worlds greatest rugbying nations slugging it out for the top prize in the game. there shouldn't be and mismatches!...and in anycase, they're unavoidable-having pools of lower class teams will just postpone the mismatches to the finals...however, when reasonable teams like japan only just get into the competition because russia feilded 3 south african's, you begin to wonder about the selection process for the event...(i think it was japan, and they're not such a bad team...pretty crappy compared to australia etc, but still...142-0...i think not!...)
Yeah, the mismatches are putting a damper on the WC for me. But on the other hand, if some of these countries get a chance to play the better teams in world rugby, rugby might actually take more in those countries...
It's 20 of the world's "greatest" rugby playing nations.
My opinion is that only 12 of the nations in the WC belong there, and then, still there won't be too many upsets, because at the moment there only 4 or 5 real contenders for the WC in any case...
Maybe some restructuring of the pools are in order?
Something where the "lesser" nations of the rugby world have a pre-world cup (where there won't really be any mismatches) and then the 2 best teams get into the real tournament in some kind of wildcard system.
I think that could make the world cup much better in many ways:
1. Mismatches help no-one - if these developing countries rather play each other, it will help the development of rugby much more.
2. This system would actually make the watching of the WC more fun for the neutral supporter. I don't enjoy watching NZ run in 20 tries against another team.
3. If the best teams go through to the real WC there might actually be some upsets, because these tems will be feeling more confident after beating a few other teams and they'd have some real warm-up to play the traditional rugby nations.
Just some thoughts....
GO BOKKE! 😛
I think it's good that the smaller rugby nations are there at the RWC. I think that only Namibia have looked seriously out of teir depth - the other nations have performed creditably. Hopefully the experience gained, and the media exposure will be good for rugby in those countries.
On the other hand, I think that the scheduling of the matches for the smaller nations has been very poor. Although I can understand that the biggest half dozen teams generate the most tv money, it is simply not fair to organise the tournament schedule in a way that penalises the likes of Italy and Tonga.
I think it's also very unfortunate that some of the smaller teams were not able to bring a full complement of first choice players, due to lack of money to reimburse wages. I reckon the profits of the RWC should have been distributed more evenly so that all teams could bring the players they wanted.
I think it would have been good to have a "plate" competion for the teams knocked out at the first round stage, although I'm not sure how well it would have worked financially.
Mick 🙂
Originally posted by mikadoA good point I rekon, and not just for this tournament.
...
I think it's also very unfortunate that some of the smaller teams were not able to bring a full complement of first choice players, due to lack of money to reimburse wages. I reckon the profits of the RWC should have been distribute ...[text shortened]... that all teams could bring the players they wanted....
Mick 🙂
The money / big team situation also effects who players will play for. There have often been a few Samoans in the NZ team, not that the All Blacks really need 'em. Why? More cash. Same too for South Africans playing for Russia, NZs playing for Scotland, Argentinians playing for Italy... the list goes on and on.
Getting smaller rugby nations into the big event, having them play the big teams (a thrashing or not), improves their finances and maybe in the long run, might help reduce player migration from the stronger rugby nations swamping the teams of weaker ones. For example: Jamacans have actually started playing for the Jamacian football team in recent years, thanks in part to their involvement in Football world cups.
Frankly, the 'Forgien sporrans' (or 'kilted kiwis'😉 annoy me: yes they do improve what is a truely dire Scots team, and I've nothing against the players themseleves, but I just want my Scottish team to be Scottish.
Well, in a perfect world, I'd like to trust people's declaration of nationality: my general take on nationaility is "you are what you consider yourself to be", which might be anything from 'no nationality' to three or four for those with mixed parantage or whom have moved about a bit. But for sports, when money makes an enterence such notions won't and don't work: so "where were you born / where were your parents born: end of story, no more scottish grannies please". I mean, who doesn't have a Scottish granny? 🙂
Originally posted by ToeI know what you mean, with modern migration it's making a mockery of international sport.
A good point I rekon, and not just for this tournament.
The money / big team situation also effects who players will play for. There have often been a few Samoans in the NZ team, not that the All Blacks really need 'em. Why? More cash. Same too for South Africans playing for Russia, NZs playing for Scotland, Argentinians playing for Italy... the list goes o ...[text shortened]... tory, no more scottish grannies please". I mean, who doesn't have a Scottish granny? 🙂
Even in chess: Judit Polgar is now American although she was previously she was Hungarian. So when you can choose which country you play for you are obviously going to go for the ones with the most money or opportunities and the smaller/poorer countries will miss out.
PS. I don't have a Scottish grannie (not that I know of). 🙂