World cup Squads

With the RWC just around the corner there is a lot of angst about players being culled down to 31.

This in itself is a strange number either 2 full teams 30 or more logical 32 allowing cover in all positions
plus an extra Hooker and Scrumhalf.

So teams will need players comfortable in several positions to make up the numbers BUT presumably
a wider squad of say 40 will travel to England to cover injuries.

As I understand it any injured player can be replaced from outside the named squad BUT then if
the injured player recovers.HE is no longer able to play in the Tournament am I correct.?

Pretty sure you are right, from a practical point of view.

Since some sides have a ridiculously short period between games, which in my view completely negates the sense of it being a level playing field, the squads should in my opinion be 35 players.

emack2 wrote:...presumably a wider squad of say 40 will travel to England to cover injuries...

Tournament rules say that only the named 31 players can use tournament facilities. An existing player has to officially leave the squad, with a confirmed injury, before another player can join.

In 2011, England put Thomas Waldrom on standby when Nick Easter was an injury doubt, but he could not have any direct contact with the squad until he was officially named. Since he was born in NZ, he probably stayed with relatives. He could actually have been included instantly, since Andrew Sheridan had already dropped out, and England didn't need another prop at that stage.

European teams are all close enough not to need to have a pod of players on hand nearby but I'm not sure tournament rules would allow any teams to park a group of squad replacements somewhere handy.

Gwlad wrote:Since some sides have a ridiculously short period between games, which in my view completely negates the sense of it being a level playing field, the squads should in my opinion be 35 players.

That extra four players could cost the guts of £50,000 per team - a significant amount.

The finals should be only 16 teams so everyone would have exactly the same rest periods during the pool stages.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Since some sides have a ridiculously short period between games, which in my view completely negates the sense of it being a level playing field, the squads should in my opinion be 35 players.

That extra four players could cost the guts of £50,000 per team - a significant amount.

The finals should be only 16 teams so everyone would have exactly the same rest periods during the pool stages.

Which would be more acceptable to you - uneven rest periods or even higher ticket prices? Because I'm not sure you can have both.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Since some sides have a ridiculously short period between games, which in my view completely negates the sense of it being a level playing field, the squads should in my opinion be 35 players.

That extra four players could cost the guts of £50,000 per team - a significant amount.

The finals should be only 16 teams so everyone would have exactly the same rest periods during the pool stages.

Agree with you in principle but in practice no. Rugby is a developing sport, they need to develop the game in non rugby nations so keeping the  sport insular to its core nations isn't going to build the game. 20 is a good platform at the moment, anything else and there is no goal for nations such as USA, Canada, Russia.

That's why I'm proposing a 32 team pre-tournament with 8 pools, each held in a different country. World Rugby gets to grow the game and increase their revenue with overall more games and broadcast rights etc.
The finals are for the top 16 so no need to increase ticket prices. In fact with one pool game less it's more fan friendly as well as player friendly.

An interesting thought.

Growing the game and growing the financing of good teams that struggle, Pacific Island teams come most frequently to mind, is one of the most import wider issues in our sport

Samoa Rugby World Cup squad:

Props: Viliamu Afatia, Jake Grey, Logovii Mulipola, Anthony Perenise, Sakaria Taulafo
Hookers: Wayne Ole Avei, Manu Leiataua, Motu Matu'u
Locks: Faatiga Lemalu, Filo Paulo, Kane Thompson, Joe Tekori
Loose forwards: Maurie Faasavalu, Alafoti Faosiliva, TJ Ioane, Jack Lam, Vavae Tuilagi, Ofisa Treviranus (Captain)

Scrum-halves: Vavao Afemai, Kahn Fotuali'i
Fly-halves: Patrick Faapale, Tusiata Pisi, Mike Stanley
Centres: Rey Lee Lo, Johnny Leota, George Pisi, Paul Perez
Outside backs: Faatoina Autagavaia, Ken Pisi, Tim Nanai Williams, Alesana Tuilagi

Cant believe they didn't take Sinoti...

The Great Aukster wrote:That's why I'm proposing a 32 team pre-tournament with 8 pools, each held in a different country. World Rugby gets to grow the game and increase their revenue with overall more games and broadcast rights etc.
The finals are for the top 16 so no need to increase ticket prices. In fact with one pool game less it's more fan friendly as well as player friendly.

So, you're actually proposing to cut the number of nations that are able to experience the biggest competition in the sport? I'm not sure a spread-out pre-tournament qualifying campaign has quite the same appeal for these nations.

With this viewpoint you must be completely behind the new Champions Cup and the sorting-the-wheat-from-the-chaff structure.

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:That's why I'm proposing a 32 team pre-tournament with 8 pools, each held in a different country. World Rugby gets to grow the game and increase their revenue with overall more games and broadcast rights etc.
The finals are for the top 16 so no need to increase ticket prices. In fact with one pool game less it's more fan friendly as well as player friendly.

So, you're actually proposing to cut the number of nations that are able to experience the biggest competition in the sport? I'm not sure a spread-out pre-tournament qualifying campaign has quite the same appeal for these nations.

With this viewpoint you must be completely behind the new Champions Cup and the sorting-the-wheat-from-the-chaff structure.

No the number of nations is increased from 20 to 32. That's a whole 60% increase of sharp end experience and the possibility of at least one win. If their team is good enough they will get even more. For example if Uruguay were in an Americas group with say Argentina, USA and Canada they would have more even contests and potentially far more support (assuming the pool was held in Argentina). Of course if their idea of fun is being hammered repeatedly by several tier one nations on the other side of the world then it won't fulfill that ambition.

Sport really has become the new Politics.  All I hear in recent years is Legislation, funding, expansion, growth, share prices, infrastructure, fraud, deceit, corruption, corporate round table talks and majority rule unless a minority of uber class puppeteer intellectuals decide otherwise..... and of course loads of lovely 'entertainment' laid on for the working masses, to keep them pliant, docile and distractedly dronetastic as the real sport of sport (making honest and dishonest profit) takes place under the covers.  
Sport needs to be dragged back kicking and screaming to simpler times.  But then again, why have a righteous sporting counter-revolution when Corrie is on in an hour??!!!  Ain't nobody got time for that.