The slaughter of the Innocents

Apologies if thread has been done before (in which case the mods will no doubt merge it).

But If Herod hadn't had his hand in the RWC scheduling, then why are his dabs all over it?

As if the tier two nations hadn't already got next to no chance of prevailing through the group stages, their chances are absolutely nilled by the absurd recovery periods allowed between their first two games.

I see the commercial imperative to see the larger, more saleable nations to get through to the quarters but the minnows are just being slung on the barbie to provide an unappetising contribution to the feast.

Future RWCs must address this grossly unfair distribution of games.

It's a disgrace and the IRB should be ashamed of themselves. It shouldn't be difficult to give all teams equal time between matches.

I fully agree with you. these teams have a massive challenge already, and are further handicapped by this.

If anyone should be handicapped it should be the top teams.

I think many of us agree with this. Hear hear. It is all very unfair and of course the bleating that would have been heard if it was Wales only having 4 days in between playing Samoa and South Africa or any top nation having 4 days between hard matches would be loud. Add this to the continuing unfair treatment of the minor nations (i.e. those that don't attract top TV dollars) throughout the year and the IRB should hang their heads in shame. Argentina only 1 game in the last 12 months! Pacific Island teams continually disadvantaged. No exposure recently for Romania and Georgia at the top level.

They wont extend the world cup if anything they will shorten it and this is the reason the smaller nations are not making a fuss they are worried they will not be allowed to join the party if they stir the pot.

Scotland only had a few days rest between their first two games, so its not only the Tier 1 nations that are affected. Unless of course we have sunk so low that we are now Tier 2.

Dorothy......as an England supporter I would never call Scotland that as you love to give us a regular bashing at Murrayfield

but your games were the 2 easy (far from it I know) ones and hopefully you have proper preperation time for the Argentina and England matches?

Cymroglan wrote:They wont extend the world cup if anything they will shorten it and this is the reason the smaller nations are not making a fuss they are worried they will not be allowed to join the party if they stir the pot.

Many of the T2 nations players are are amateurs and as such have to take unpaid leave. So they should be given their chance to at least recover between games. Make the T1 teams take the strain of minimal recovery periods.

It is tantamount to sporting cruelty.

Portnoy I was not suggesting it's a fair system.

I understand that 'roglan, but in future RWCs I think that it's not fair to burden the t2s with an unbearable handicap.

I think there are some points to be made the other way, and I think hanging the head in shame is probably going a bit far - at least on this issue.

1) Someone has to play the short turnaround games and the minnows doing so distorts the competition less than the top seeds having to do so. And there's less whinging.

2) If we make the competition much longer we get trouble with tv - and the competition itself loses intensity. Believe me - they've done it in cricket and it struggles to work.

3) The format we've got is a compromise as it is - NZ wanted to reduce the comp to 16 teams which would have avoided this problem at the cost of the smallest sides. If we want the smaller sides (and I do) then this is the price.

4) I would like to see a Plate competition for the junior sides that don't get out of the pools.

Cowshot wrote:I think there are some points to be made the other way, and I think hanging the head in shame is probably going a bit far - at least on this issue.

4) I would like to see a Plate competition for the junior sides that don't get out of the pools.

Who is going to keep the amateurs' jobs secure for another extended period?

Who is going to keep the amateurs' jobs secure for another extended period?

It might not be easy. But they are already getting time or have given up jobs. Would it really be that much more difficult in sufficient numbers to make a plate impractical? Given how difficult it is for these sides to play internationals in general, it seems such a waste when they are all in the same place anyway.

Cowshot, why does the world cup have to be played almost every day in the pool rounds?

If you look at it this way. the whole problem occured because there are 5 teams in a pool. so they want to make up for that odd team in every pool.

either then let them have 3 match days per week, where it is scheduled that the teams who play on the sunday, can only move to the saturday the next week, this way everyone has at least 5 off days between matches.

By trying to have as many match days per week, they are having these problems.

Cowshot wrote:Someone has to play the short turnaround games and the minnows doing so distorts the competition less than the top seeds having to do so. And there's less whinging.

That's an appalling attitude to take. There's less whinging because these nations have less of a voice, but that's no reason why the rest of us can't see the inequality here and add our voices to theirs.

either then let them have 3 match days per week, where it is scheduled that the teams who play on the sunday, can only move to the saturday the next week, this way everyone has at least 5 off days between matches.

By trying to have as many match days per week, they are having these problems.

Sounds like a solution to me - assuming you are right that there's no reason except spreading the matches over the week for tv.

I don't, btw way regard the current formula as fixed. I hope perhaps in 2023 or 2027 we are having 32 teams in 8 pools of 4 and full Plate and Bowl competitions. Optimistic, I know.

That's an appalling attitude to take. There's less whinging because these nations have less of a voice, but that's no reason why the rest of us can't see the inequality here and add our voices to theirs.

Steady on there! If you find my attitude "appalling" your life must be a series of terrible shocks! We're just having a discussion here.

I said it's a compromise. I would prefer an entirely equitable situation, if such theoretical perfection could ever exist! But given we have to compromise between different interests in the real world, this one is better than the top seeds being affected, in my opinion.

I can't approve of a setup that favours established sides and makes it even harder for 'lesser' teams to break through.

I don't suppose there's someone who works in tv on here who could tell us if there are solid commercial tv reasons the games are spread as they are?

Because if not, Biltongbek's suggestion seems good to me. Why aren't the games played Fri Sat Sun only?

Cowshot wrote:I don't suppose there's someone who works in tv on here who could tell us if there are solid commercial tv reasons the games are spread as they are?

Because if not, Biltongbek's suggestion seems good to me. Why aren't the games played Fri Sat Sun only?

I'm not a TV expert but (controversially) I don't consider myself an idiot.

The spread of games is matched to potential markets. So TV captures the expected optimal games.

Why is it that the games are delivered to the largest markets at their most optimal socially acceptable hours?

The commercial driver of the RWC is TV (thank god looking at the ground attendances in NZ). However it would not take a genius to schedule a t2 game or two in the stupid slot of 4am on a Saturday/Sunday morning. Where the poor old Welsh were scheduled last week-end.

There must be sufficient flexibility in the TV schedules to permit the minnows to have sufficient recovery time AND to feed the essential demand of the European audience.

I do actually think we need midweek games to keep the tournament flowing. It an't be that hard for none of the teams to ever have less than 5 days rest and for ALL to have approximately the same available rest.

The cricket world cup has failed to work a few times because it lasted about 1000 years or so, it was so long that you kind of forgot it was happening. Games on Tues, Fri, Sat and Sun would be my preferred option - with no notice taken of IRB ranking. Just set the fixtures up with notional team names then, once the schedule is set randomly draw out the teams to match.

... I wonder how many people would have watched Russia Italy if it had been part of a crowded weekend of games instread of stuck out on it's own...?

ports: We're all guessing about tv's motivations. We may or may not be right. I was hoping there might be someone in the industry who would know.

screamingaddabs wrote:I do actually think we need midweek games to keep the tournament flowing. It an't be that hard for none of the teams to ever have less than 5 days rest and for ALL to have approximately the same available rest.

The cricket world cup has failed to work a few times because it lasted about 1000 years or so, it was so long that you kind of forgot it was happening. Games on Tues, Fri, Sat and Sun would be my preferred option - with no notice taken of IRB ranking. Just set the fixtures up with notional team names then, once the schedule is set randomly draw out the teams to match.

The last CWC was a shambles in every way imaginable from location to self-abusing arrogance of the big-wigs the believed it could ever work.

Nice couple of months for the fortunate pico-minority. Send complaints to PO Box ICCB, Dubai.

There is a point about specifying a fixed minimum prep time - be it 5 days or whatever. A mathematician with time on my hands (which I am but lets not go there) might be able to put together some sort of optimisation program to do that.

The other thing is to stop teams getting done twice. I believe there are teams with 2 short turnarounds in their 4 games.

Even if they aren't able to give longer recovery periods by elongating the tournament, I think there is definitely room to make sure those short recovery periods aren't before the more pivotal matches.

niwatts wrote:Even if they aren't able to give longer recovery periods by elongating the tournament, I think there is definitely room to make sure those short recovery periods aren't before the more pivotal matches.

or that the game beforehand isnt against the worst team in the competition?

I don't it affected the result, and they should be good enough to win anyway.

Sorry, I thought that was the standard IRB response to gross disparity during World Cups.

Comfort wrote:or that the game beforehand isnt against the worst team in the competition?

Games against the worst team in the competition can be easily won, but result in just as many, if not more scrapes, bruises & injuries than games against more testing teams, the opposition feeling they have a point to prove. Teams like Romania, Georgia & Namibia may not be the highest ranked sides in the competition, but they still have players like Tincu, Gorgodze & Burger who play top level rugby and are just as physical 1-on-1 as any other player in the tournament. And how many times have we seen suspect sporting behaviour from a team getting frustrated by the pasting it is receiving?

niwatts wrote:

Comfort wrote:or that the game beforehand isnt against the worst team in the competition?

Games against the worst team in the competition can be easily won, but result in just as many, if not more scrapes, bruises & injuries than games against more testing teams, the opposition feeling they have a point to prove. Teams like Romania, Georgia & Namibia may not be the highest ranked sides in the competition, but they still have players like Tincu, Gorgodze & Burger who play top level rugby and are just as physical 1-on-1 as any other player in the tournament. And how many times have we seen suspect sporting behaviour from a team getting frustrated by the pasting it is receiving?

I was only replying in jest.

I understand where everyones coming from and I agree, but (and maybe its my extreme paranoia) this wouldnt be an issue if Samoa had beaten Wales.

A quick analysis of rest days between games based on rankings coming into the RWC (5/9/11)

rkg/nat/1st/2nd/3rd/total/average

1 nzl 7 8 8 23 7.7
2 aus 6 6 8 20 6.7
3 saf 6 5 8 19 6.3
4 fra 8 6 7 21 7
5 eng 8 6 6 20 6.7
6 wal 7 8 6 21 7
7 sco 4 9 6 19 6.3
8 ire 6 8 7 21 7
9 arg 7 8 7 22 7.3
10 sam 4 7 5 16 5.3
11 ita 9 7 5 21 7
12 ton 5 7 10 22 7.3
13 jap 6 5 6 17 5.7
14 can 4 9 5 18 6
15 fij 7 8 7 22 7.3
16 geo 4 10 4 18 6
17 rom 7 7 4 18 6
18 usa 4 8 4 16 5.3
19 rus 5 5 6 16 5.3
20 nam 4 8 4 16 5.3

Hmmm, I thought SA was getting a rough deal.

Out of the top seeds it's nice to see the Saffers getting short changed on their rest days, it's probably down to the IRB deciding that some kind of reparation has to be made for all those years of cheating and downright thugger........

Oh, hi Biltong errrr..... How's tricks

Howsit PJ, no comment.

Didn't I read somewhere though that teams with fewer rest days also have less travel? I know a day on a coach travelling the length of South Island is still a day off rugby, but it isn't all that relaxing!

I'm not trying to make excuses here, just want to capture the whole picture.

Rollmeister wrote:Didn't I read somewhere though that teams with fewer rest days also have less travel? I know a day on a coach travelling the length of South Island is still a day off rugby, but it isn't all that relaxing!

I'm not trying to make excuses here, just want to capture the whole picture.

I have heard this aswell, its probably all relative.

All good Biltong.

Rollmeister, that may be the case but sitting on a coach can't really be compared to having to get yourself match ready again a day or two early after almost destroying yourself over 80mins of rugby.

Some of the Tier 2 nations have had to play 4 games in 14 days and that's practically inhuman, not to mention inhumane.

The sad fact of the matter is that this all boils down to commerciality and is based on the time difference between New Zealand and the majority of the rest of the rugby playing world.

ITV would NOT pay anything like the same money for games involving the 6N teams, and particularly the British members, for games that were played midweek at 4am. It's not by pure good fortune, for instance, that England games (that would draw the highest viewing figures) were all scheduled for weekend mornings no earlier than 7am.

It's a sad fact that the RWC is primarily a commercial exercise that is worth millions to the IRB, and is run on an entirely commercial basis all the way down to the actual scheduling of fixtures.

The very least the IRB could do is ensure that the Tier 2 nations get a disproportionate slice of the funding cake to make up for this, if only as an acknowledment to their stated intentions of growing the sport on a global level.

PJHolybloke wrote:

Rollmeister, that may be the case but sitting on a coach can't really be compared to having to get yourself match ready again a day or two early after almost destroying yourself over 80mins of rugby.

Some of the Tier 2 nations have had to play 4 games in 14 days and that's practically inhuman, not to mention inhumane.

The sad fact of the matter is that this all boils down to commerciality and is based on the time difference between New Zealand and the majority of the rest of the rugby playing world.

I agree with you entirely, I wasn't saying it was anywhere near the same, but it's not just sitting around in a hotel either! As long as the commercial aspect drives the game we will always end up in this situation, at least until the IRB starts backing themselves and say "Look, this *is* the third most watched sporting event in the world, people will find a way to watch top teams play, even if the kick off is at evil hours." They're happy to make that claim, but their actions don't back it.

niwatts wrote: how many times have we seen suspect sporting behaviour from a team getting frustrated by the pasting it is receiving?

Oh dont go bringing up that Byrne dive again

of those with the fewest (16) rest days:

Sam - nam (4) wal (7) fij (5) saf
Usa - ire(4) rus (6) aus (4) ita
Rus - usa (5) ita(5) ire(6) aus
Nam - fij (4) sam (8) saf (4) wal

Rollmeister wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

Rollmeister, that may be the case but sitting on a coach can't really be compared to having to get yourself match ready again a day or two early after almost destroying yourself over 80mins of rugby.

Some of the Tier 2 nations have had to play 4 games in 14 days and that's practically inhuman, not to mention inhumane.

The sad fact of the matter is that this all boils down to commerciality and is based on the time difference between New Zealand and the majority of the rest of the rugby playing world.

I agree with you entirely, I wasn't saying it was anywhere near the same, but it's not just sitting around in a hotel either! As long as the commercial aspect drives the game we will always end up in this situation, at least until the IRB starts backing themselves and say "Look, this *is* the third most watched sporting event in the world, people will find a way to watch top teams play, even if the kick off is at evil hours." They're happy to make that claim, but their actions don't back it.

I know that's not what you were suggesting Rollmeister, but I think for the purpose of this discussion, travelling can be entirely discounted and that was what I intended to get across, I wasn't having a personal dig .

There isn't really a suitable answer to the problem at present, there may be a case for expanding the Pools to 6 teams and playing more games at the weekends, but that would surely prolong the tournament and perhaps further impede some of the Tier 2 nations that consist of amateur players, I'm not sure there would be a massive problem in terms of lack of momentum or loss of interest by doing that, as a weekend festival of rugby sounds like a quality idea to me!

In short, this is something we all have to live with for now, but there should be some kind of recognition for those teams that have had to endure such a punishing schedule, and the best way of doing that is by funding their development and possibly even paying their expenses to play at the RWC - it's not as if the IRB are skint like the rest of us, is it?

Some of the teams in NZ have had to raise funds from their public at home just to get there, shame I say.

Portnoy wrote:of those with the fewest (16) rest days:

Sam - nam (4) wal (7) fij (5) saf
Usa - ire(4) rus (6) aus (4) ita
Rus - usa (5) ita(5) ire(6) aus
Nam - fij (4) sam (8) saf (4) wal

My bad Portnoy, 4 games in 16 days it is - but that's STILL way too few.

PJHolybloke wrote:

Portnoy wrote:of those with the fewest (16) rest days:

Sam - nam (4) wal (7) fij (5) saf
Usa - ire(4) rus (6) aus (4) ita
Rus - usa (5) ita(5) ire(6) aus
Nam - fij (4) sam (8) saf (4) wal

My bad Portnoy, 4 games in 16 days it is - but that's STILL way too few.

I've heard 14 on the media. sort of tells you how much to trust them.

PJHolybloke wrote:

In short, this is something we all have to live with for now, but there should be some kind of recognition for those teams that have had to endure such a punishing schedule, and the best way of doing that is by funding their development and possibly even paying their expenses to play at the RWC - it's not as if the IRB are skint like the rest of us, is it?

Some of the teams in NZ have had to raise funds from their public at home just to get there, shame I say.

This I definitely agree with. No-one should be out of pocket because they're representing their country at the World Cup. I know the IRB already uses some of the proceeds from the RWC to help develop rugby, but it seems that helping the amateur teams out with expenses would be a minor amount that could make a big difference.

"Time spent on reconnaisance is seldom wasted"

British Army Service Manual - 1912.

Sorry but the USA is 4 in 14 days according to your figures

Rollmeister wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

In short, this is something we all have to live with for now, but there should be some kind of recognition for those teams that have had to endure such a punishing schedule, and the best way of doing that is by funding their development and possibly even paying their expenses to play at the RWC - it's not as if the IRB are skint like the rest of us, is it?

Some of the teams in NZ have had to raise funds from their public at home just to get there, shame I say.

This I definitely agree with. No-one should be out of pocket because they're representing their country at the World Cup. I know the IRB already uses some of the proceeds from the RWC to help develop rugby, but it seems that helping the amateur teams out with expenses would be a minor amount that could make a big difference.

The teams get money upfront to help prepare and pay for it. Not sure what they manage to blow all theirs on if they are having to sell raffle tickets to raise funds for beer and midgets. Samoa of course (allegedly ...i notice all reference has been deleted form news websites) just used it to line the pockets of offcials and nearly got excluded as a result.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Sorry but the USA is 4 in 14 days according to your figures

I saw that and corrected my fault in mental arithmetic if you look back.

IRB (untailored extract):

11/09 - 18:00
IrelandIreland
22 - 10
USAUSA

15/09 - 19:30
RussiaRussia
6 - 13
USAUSA

23/09 - 20:30
AustraliaAustralia
67 - 5
USAUSA

27/09 - 19:30
ItalyItaly
-
USAUSA

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Rollmeister wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

In short, this is something we all have to live with for now, but there should be some kind of recognition for those teams that have had to endure such a punishing schedule, and the best way of doing that is by funding their development and possibly even paying their expenses to play at the RWC - it's not as if the IRB are skint like the rest of us, is it?

Some of the teams in NZ have had to raise funds from their public at home just to get there, shame I say.

This I definitely agree with. No-one should be out of pocket because they're representing their country at the World Cup. I know the IRB already uses some of the proceeds from the RWC to help develop rugby, but it seems that helping the amateur teams out with expenses would be a minor amount that could make a big difference.

The teams get money upfront to help prepare and pay for it. Not sure what they manage to blow all theirs on if they are having to sell raffle tickets to raise funds for beer and midgets. Samoa of course (allegedly ...i notice all reference has been deleted form news websites) just used it to line the pockets of offcials and nearly got excluded as a result.

Do the IRB publish their accounts? If so, are funds to aid development of the sport displayed as a lump sum or by individual nation? I'd be interested to see how much teams like Namibia, Samoa, Fiji, Georgia, Romania and Tonga actually get, if they're given funds to "help" prepare and pay for it, it's not the same as having the costs covered.

If I gave you a fiver I'd be helping you to pay for a round the world cruise.... not that I'm going to or owt.

PJHolybloke wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Rollmeister wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

In short, this is something we all have to live with for now, but there should be some kind of recognition for those teams that have had to endure such a punishing schedule, and the best way of doing that is by funding their development and possibly even paying their expenses to play at the RWC - it's not as if the IRB are skint like the rest of us, is it?

Some of the teams in NZ have had to raise funds from their public at home just to get there, shame I say.

This I definitely agree with. No-one should be out of pocket because they're representing their country at the World Cup. I know the IRB already uses some of the proceeds from the RWC to help develop rugby, but it seems that helping the amateur teams out with expenses would be a minor amount that could make a big difference.

The teams get money upfront to help prepare and pay for it. Not sure what they manage to blow all theirs on if they are having to sell raffle tickets to raise funds for beer and midgets. Samoa of course (allegedly ...i notice all reference has been deleted form news websites) just used it to line the pockets of offcials and nearly got excluded as a result.

Do the IRB publish their accounts? If so, are funds to aid development of the sport displayed as a lump sum or by individual nation? I'd be interested to see how much teams like Namibia, Samoa, Fiji, Georgia, Romania and Tonga actually get, if they're given funds to "help" prepare and pay for it, it's not the same as having the costs covered.

If I gave you a fiver I'd be helping you to pay for a round the world cruise.... not that I'm going to or owt.

From memory the articles mentioned 2 million goign to samoa as their upfriont share of teh revenue which was suppossed to be invested in preparing the team and devloping their infrastructure. That is by no means the only money that they are getting from teh IRB of ocurse. Nor would they be totally reliant on eth IRB for revenue.
How it compare to the Namibians I havent a clue, but the expenses for a side of part timers would be a lot less than someone like England who choose to pay a cast of thousands to go over whilst subsidising the poor.
Complain about the TV times screwing the "lesser" nations, but they are the ones who benefit more from an extra tenner in the pocket from it assuming it then gets reinvested in the game rather than staying in the pocket.

Hmmmmm

That's a lot more than I thought they'd be getting from the WC, that's a serious slice of dough.

If you looked at a potential pool of 50 players that would figure out at £20,000 per player for development and preparation, leaving £500,000 to cover coaches and support staff, and £500,000 to cover the expense of getting the squad and incumbents to NZ for 3-4 weeks.

If you then amortise that "investment" over the 4 years between WCs that works out at £5000 per player pa and £125,000pa to cover coaching and support staff.

Doesn't look so much now does it?