I have just read an article on the BBC website about the potential plans the IRB have for 2011 world cup. They are thinking of having a two tier world cup, sort of a first competition as a qualifier where 4 teams get to qualify for the world cup, then the real world cup with 12 seeded teams plus the 4 qualifiers.
Not really sure about this format, many of the reports that I have read suggest that the players from the so called minnows have had an experience of a lifetime playing in this and previous world cups and relish playing the big teams, teams they may never come up against in the space of 4 years but only at the world cup. The argument for is obviously the big scores 80/90/100 odd points difference are not good spectacles. Personally I disagree, its rugby, from time to time teams are going to get big scores hit against them, no sport has a full field of teams or players where they can continually compete at the top level, there will always be an elite. Besides separating the two will just make the gulf get bigger. I believe to get better in sport you need to play people better than you, in games like these you learn so much. Italy are the best example, for years they got smashed in the six nations, now they are starting to compete, that’s down to I believe their inclusion into the six nations and everything that brought with it. On that note, the tri nations should now become the five nations, include Argentina and have one of the island teams involved, they can play a round robin qualifier.
Originally posted by 1WhiteKnightI agree Argentina should ideally be accommodated somewhere. But there are logistical problems. One of the big ones being that all their players play in Europe - it would actually make more sense for them to join the six nations.
On that note, the tri nations should now become the five nations, include Argentina and have one of the island teams involved, they can play a round robin qualifier.
Originally posted by 1WhiteKnightYeah, it's unfair to deny the likes of England a game against South Africa. OK so they didn't score a point but I'll bet they really enjoyed the experience.
Not really sure about this format, many of the reports that I have read suggest that the players from the so called minnows have had an experience of a lifetime playing in this and previous world cups and relish playing the big teams, teams they may never come up against in the space of 4 years but only at the world cup. The argument for is obviously th ...[text shortened]... or players where they can continually compete at the top level, there will always be an elite.
Originally posted by Tirau DanYep! Steyn is one of those players who makes a point of NOT eating breakfast before the games so that he can take a bite during the 1st ruck.
I think it's the IRB putting pressure on the refs to clean up the game and take total control rather than bias. The SA's are loud complainers and don't tend to endear themselves to refs which would naturally lose them 50-50 calls.
Steyn only got off because there was no video footage of the inside of the ruck. He had to be cited because the Tongan had teeth marks in his arm and I understand Steyn has form for biting. I think maybe he was lucky.
Don't be ridiculus!
Originally posted by 1WhiteKnightI'm more in favour if it staying the same but with the teams losing in the round robin going on to play for a plate. How's that?
I have just read an article on the BBC website about the potential plans the IRB have for 2011 world cup. They are thinking of having a two tier world cup, sort of a first competition as a qualifier where 4 teams get to qualify for the world cup, then the real world cup with 12 seeded teams plus the 4 qualifiers.
Not really sure about this format, ma ...[text shortened]... lude Argentina and have one of the island teams involved, they can play a round robin qualifier.
Originally posted by buffalobillNot interested in giving the lesser nations a chance to improve then, and thus benefiting the game as a whole?
I'm more in favour if it staying the same but with the teams losing in the round robin going on to play for a plate. How's that?
Originally posted by 1WhiteKnightEh? With what Bill suggested, these 'minnows' would play in a round-robin stage, as it is now, playing against the stronger teams.
Not interested in giving the lesser nations a chance to improve then, and thus benefiting the game as a whole?
They would then move onto a plate knock-out stage, meaning there would be something to play for, after the first round, instead of these guys getting drunk, taking a few photographs and jumping on a plane...
So, they would get exposure to the 'bigger' teams and then still play a few games against 'weaker' opposition.
Originally posted by CrowleyPrecisely. And the plate final could be a curtain-raiser to the main one. We can then drop the stupid, pre-match "entertainment".
Eh? With what Bill suggested, these 'minnows' would play in a round-robin stage, as it is now, playing against the stronger teams.
They would then move onto a plate knock-out stage, meaning there would be something to play for, after the first round, instead of these guys getting drunk, taking a few photographs and jumping on a plane...
So, they would g ...[text shortened]... xposure to the 'bigger' teams and then still play a few games against 'weaker' opposition.
Originally posted by buffalobillHa! Quality - heard the commentary during the afternoons footy coverage - was a great result for Fiji.
Not sure, but Fiji beat Wales 38-34 and are through to the Q/Fs. Big shock and I guess the only hopes for the northern hemisphere now lie in the hands of France.
As for Ireland, that'll be being sorted tomorrow:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/irish/7018298.stm