RWC 15 - Pool A - Australia, England, Wales, Fiji, Uruguay

First topic message reminder :

    
The pool with the highest rankers and most arguments.

Teams

Australia (2) [9/1]
England (4) [5/1]
Wales (5) [25/1]
Fiji (9) [1500/1]
Uruguay (19) [10,000/1]

Fixtures

18 Sep England v Fiji
20 Sep Wales v Uruguay
23 Sep Australia v Fiji
26 Sep England v Wales
27 Sep Australia v Uruguay
1 Oct Wales v Fiji
3 Oct England v Australia
6 Oct Fiji v Uruguay
10 Oct Australia v Wales
10 Oct England v Uruguay


Wales suffering two key player losses - will they try even harder?    Will they now have to score more/some tries?
England are now the second coming or coming second - depending on your point of view.
Australia have a scrum - apparently - so all is well with the world.

This pool could see one loss each for the three top teams - or is that four?   Fiji, currently ranked ninth in the world, might determine who emerges from this pool, including themselves.

The Aussies are on the up.  So are England sitting as the highest ranked NH team for the start of the tournament.

Wales will beg to differ with Gatland leading the mind games into the first of the pool matches.

It's too close to call, so everybody else can have their say instead.

rodders wrote:Fiji played some superlative rugby again and were hard done by the fixtures and scoreline.

Yeah I must admit its a bit unfair that they decide results based on the actual score of the game and that Fiji have had to play teams in their pool.

Gooseberry wrote:

rodders wrote:Fiji played some superlative rugby again and were hard done by the fixtures and scoreline.

Yeah I must admit its a bit unfair that they decide results based on the actual score of the game and that Fiji have had to play teams in their pool.

+1

Gooseberry wrote:

rodders wrote:Fiji played some superlative rugby again and were hard done by the fixtures and scoreline.

Yeah I must admit its a bit unfair that they decide results based on the actual score of the game and that Fiji have had to play teams in their pool.

How many tier 1 nations would beat England and Australia within 5 days of each other? NZ maybe but even they'd be pushed to achieve that task.

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Jimpy not sure anyone suggested that England should put a cricket score on Fiji.

England were a bit lucky to get the try bonus point as they left it to the final play of the game. I think the margin of victory did flatter England but it was a good result though not a good performance.

The try bonus could work in England's favour if England,Wales and Australia get one win apiece against one another.

A positive is that Fiji caused quite a bit of problems for Australia at set piece time, not just England.

Sadly (but not unexpectedly), you've missed the attempt at sarcasm in my post and interpreted it literally, never mind.

But I agree its fairly obvious that the try bonus point England got will work in their favour as Australia didn't (and I suspect Wales wont) get a bonus point against them. I also think its fairly obvious that if we're going to start talking cricket scores, Australia and England will probably get them v Uruguay, making Wales' effort against them seem less than impressive now, and working against Wales in terms of points difference.

Sarcasm is harder to spot when written down. Certainly if you give no indication.

As for the obvious, yes you are right, I am stating it but nonetheless it's good for England.

Fiji impressed with me their fitness and how they kept pressing Australia in the last 30 minutes despite having a short turn around.

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Jimpy not sure anyone suggested that England should put a cricket score on Fiji.

England were a bit lucky to get the try bonus point as they left it to the final play of the game. I think the margin of victory did flatter England but it was a good result though not a good performance.

The try bonus could work in England's favour if England,Wales and Australia get one win apiece against one another.

A positive is that Fiji caused quite a bit of problems for Australia at set piece time, not just England.

Sadly (but not unexpectedly), you've missed the attempt at sarcasm in my post and interpreted it literally, never mind.

But I agree its fairly obvious that the try bonus point England got will work in their favour as Australia didn't (and I suspect Wales wont) get a bonus point against them. I also think its fairly obvious that if we're going to start talking cricket scores, Australia and England will probably get them v Uruguay, making Wales' effort against them seem less than impressive now, and working against Wales in terms of points difference.

Sarcasm is harder to spot when written down. Certainly if you give no indication.

As for the obvious, yes you are right, I am stating it but nonetheless it's good for England.

Fiji impressed with me their fitness and how they kept pressing Australia in the last 30 minutes despite having a short turn around.

Dear Mods,

Can we have a 'Sarcasm' emoticon please?

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Jimpy not sure anyone suggested that England should put a cricket score on Fiji.

England were a bit lucky to get the try bonus point as they left it to the final play of the game. I think the margin of victory did flatter England but it was a good result though not a good performance.

The try bonus could work in England's favour if England,Wales and Australia get one win apiece against one another.

A positive is that Fiji caused quite a bit of problems for Australia at set piece time, not just England.

Sadly (but not unexpectedly), you've missed the attempt at sarcasm in my post and interpreted it literally, never mind.

But I agree its fairly obvious that the try bonus point England got will work in their favour as Australia didn't (and I suspect Wales wont) get a bonus point against them. I also think its fairly obvious that if we're going to start talking cricket scores, Australia and England will probably get them v Uruguay, making Wales' effort against them seem less than impressive now, and working against Wales in terms of points difference.

I took quiet a lot of slack from several posters for saying England vs Fiji game would be close not a walk in the park.

maestegmafia wrote:I took quiet a lot of slack from several posters for saying England vs Fiji game would be close not a walk in the park.

Rightly so. England played as badly as you could possibly expect and still won by two scores with a bonus point.

Scottrf wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I took quiet a lot of slack from several posters for saying England vs Fiji game would be close not a walk in the park.

Rightly so. England played as badly as you could possibly expect and still won by two scores with a bonus point.

Patently not true.

They didn't play to their full potential, but to suggest they 'played as badly as you could possibly expect' is quite clearly wrong.

I'm puzzled by how Australia, with the benefit of perfect conditions and a knackered opposition, racking up 3 tries and a smaller margin of victory is somehow regarded as a better result than England getting the bonus point in tricky conditions against a fresh Fijian side. That seems to be the general tone of both journos and fans.

For all Australia's undoubted skills out wide and at the breakdown, they couldn't make it pay. The back division ran some nice lines, but two of the tries came from rolling mauls. And they faded badly in the second half against a team who could have been expected to fade themselves.

The Australian scrum was tidier than the English one, but it still lost one against the head and gave away a couple of pens. I also noticed that what some pundits have badged as a clever tactic of holding the ball was actually, erm, an inability to hook the thing. It was sat for ages in the tunnel at every scrum - at one point Matawalu asked the ref if he could just pick it out from the props' feet.

But what this has really highlighted is that World Rugby needs to sort out the scheduling. It is increasingly unfair on teams who would have had a far better chance if they had had adequate time to prepare.

Jimpy wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I took quiet a lot of slack from several posters for saying England vs Fiji game would be close not a walk in the park.

Rightly so. England played as badly as you could possibly expect and still won by two scores with a bonus point.

Patently not true.

They didn't play to their full potential, but to suggest they 'played as badly as you could possibly expect' is quite clearly wrong.

Alright, a bit of rhetoric. But I think we'd have expected better. It was never a fixture that caused any worry, and expecting the game to be close was and is in my opinion overrating the form of Fiji.

Scottrf wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I took quiet a lot of slack from several posters for saying England vs Fiji game would be close not a walk in the park.

Rightly so. England played as badly as you could possibly expect and still won by two scores with a bonus point.

Actually they won by 3 clear scores did they not?

Fact is there were certain people claiming the scoreline would be close and fiji so good they stood a very good chance of winning. then after they actually lost fairly comfortably (with I agree a wobbly 5 minutes or so for England) they claim that the match was tighter than it should have been.

Cake and eat it springs to mind.

LondonTiger wrote:Actually they won by 3 clear scores did they not?

Correct.

LondonTiger wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I took quiet a lot of slack from several posters for saying England vs Fiji game would be close not a walk in the park.

Rightly so. England played as badly as you could possibly expect and still won by two scores with a bonus point.

Actually they won by 3 clear scores did they not?

Fact is there were certain people claiming the scoreline would be close and fiji so good they stood a very good chance of winning. then after they actually lost fairly comfortably (with I agree a wobbly 5 minutes or so for England) they claim that the match was tighter than it should have been.

Cake and eat it springs to mind.

Although the score alludes to a healthy win England's set piece and breakdown were not good and two tries were pointed out as being dubious.

The result stands but Fiji have been impressive in their opening two matches and I think that bodes well for their future. I am glad to see Fiji ever improving as a team, it's good for rugby.

This RWC is looking very good for rugby as a whole - some very strong performances by a number of smaller teams - but World Rugby needs to make sure the next one builds on it by improving the resources it gives them and the fairness of the schedule.

Poorfour the Australian lineout also became a shambles in the 2nd half - losing 3 in a row I believe.

The positive for England is that despite lacking fluency and an obvious gameplan they scored 4 tries and didn't ever look like losing.

When Fiji got within 7, England brought on the subs who turned the screw on Fiji.

That's where England hold the edge over most other teams - they have a better bench and more depth.

Lots of room for improvement from England in terms of performance but in terms of result a try bonus vs Fiji is something that Australia couldn't match.

Poorfour wrote:I'm puzzled by how Australia, with the benefit of perfect conditions and a knackered opposition, racking up 3 tries and a smaller margin of victory is somehow regarded as a better result than England getting the bonus point in tricky conditions against a fresh Fijian side. That seems to be the general tone of both journos and fans.

For all Australia's undoubted skills out wide and at the breakdown, they couldn't make it pay. The back division ran some nice lines, but two of the tries came from rolling mauls. And they faded badly in the second half against a team who could have been expected to fade themselves.

The Australian scrum was tidier than the English one, but it still lost one against the head and gave away a couple of pens. I also noticed that what some pundits have badged as a clever tactic of holding the ball was actually, erm, an inability to hook the thing. It was sat for ages in the tunnel at every scrum - at one point Matawalu asked the ref if he could just pick it out from the props' feet.

But what this has really highlighted is that World Rugby needs to sort out the scheduling. It is increasingly unfair on teams who would have had a far better chance if they had had adequate time to prepare.

I agree completely.

As for who was rated better vs Fiji England doesn't have a Pocock or Hooper for the commentators to get over excited about every time they get near the ball, seeing as we only have Robshaw*. And it was great to see the Fiji scrum mess up the Australian one.

* Check out the Telegraph for a recent unbiased opinion on Robshaw

The bad thing about AUS performance is that they tired. They looked all set up to put on a further 20 points and faltered badly allowing Fiji to get back into it.

Teams like England got better as the match wore on. Their fitness looked superior to Fiji's... Fiji's looked better than AUS to be fair and Cheika mentioned his chaps were a bit taken by their lack of match fitness. They'll improve yes but with England having Wales up first... if they win that one then they will have the Wales match, probable qualification and a bonus point to the good over AUS... the mental stakes will add to home advantage.
Certainly England are winning the 1% minor mental battles... they can make a diff come game day.

fa0019 true it's even worse because it was Australia's first game and Fiji should have been feeling the effects of the England game.

We saw how badly Japan tired against Scotland with their short turn around yet Fiji looked fine vs Australia.

You are right - England know that they are generally strong finishers and that will prey on the opposition's minds. That puts additional pressure on the opposition to build a bigger lead.

rodders wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

rodders wrote:Fiji played some superlative rugby again and were hard done by the fixtures and scoreline.

Yeah I must admit its a bit unfair that they decide results based on the actual score of the game and that Fiji have had to play teams in their pool.

How many tier 1 nations would beat England and Australia within 5 days of each other? NZ maybe but even they'd be pushed to achieve that task.

How may times have fiji beaten England or Australia with or without a break of any length? (ok twice in the 50's but you get the point)
Im not exactly sure how them playing australia 5 days later made a such a massive difference to their performance against England either.

Poorfour wrote:This RWC is looking very good for rugby as a whole - some very strong performances by a number of smaller teams - but World Rugby needs to make sure the next one builds on it by improving the resources it gives them and the fairness of the schedule.

The minnows have suddenly become Piranhas, they can give the big teams a nasty bite, even little Namibia scored a good try against the AB last night.

Gooseberry wrote:

rodders wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

rodders wrote:Fiji played some superlative rugby again and were hard done by the fixtures and scoreline.

Yeah I must admit its a bit unfair that they decide results based on the actual score of the game and that Fiji have had to play teams in their pool.

How many tier 1 nations would beat England and Australia within 5 days of each other? NZ maybe but even they'd be pushed to achieve that task.

How may times have fiji beaten England or Australia with or without a break of any length? (ok twice in the 50's but you get the point)
Im not exactly sure how them playing australia 5 days later made a such a massive difference to their performance against England either.

Well that's just conjecture, the point is they didn't get a 6-7 day turn around to give them the best possible chance to perform.

Given that, as you Fiji have rarely beaten either of their pool rivals (bar Wales ), to disadvantage them further seems pretty unfair and this isn't specific to Fiji -there isn't an even playing field with the fixtures and it's the lesser resourced sides who suffer most.

England get them out of the way early and give themselves an 8 break to recover before playing wales and Australia get them after a short turn around.

The big boys look after themselves...but thankfully England ..cough I mean the IRB.. have given them a good break now to have a good punt at Wales at least

Gooseberry wrote:

rodders wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

rodders wrote:Fiji played some superlative rugby again and were hard done by the fixtures and scoreline.

Yeah I must admit its a bit unfair that they decide results based on the actual score of the game and that Fiji have had to play teams in their pool.

How many tier 1 nations would beat England and Australia within 5 days of each other? NZ maybe but even they'd be pushed to achieve that task.

How may times have fiji beaten England or Australia with or without a break of any length? (ok twice in the 50's but you get the point)
Im not exactly sure how them playing australia 5 days later made a such a massive difference to their performance against England either.

Did you watch the game? Fiji has 3 or 4 scoring opportunities in the last 10 minutes that they couldn't quite convert. By that point, Matawalu was off the pitch and they were playing 3rd string players in several positions. At one point they were inches from it being 25-20 with about 8 minutes to play. Who's to say what they might have achieved with a longer turnaround and more of their first choice players on the pitch?

rodders wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

rodders wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

rodders wrote:Fiji played some superlative rugby again and were hard done by the fixtures and scoreline.

Yeah I must admit its a bit unfair that they decide results based on the actual score of the game and that Fiji have had to play teams in their pool.

How many tier 1 nations would beat England and Australia within 5 days of each other? NZ maybe but even they'd be pushed to achieve that task.

How may times have fiji beaten England or Australia with or without a break of any length? (ok twice in the 50's but you get the point)
Im not exactly sure how them playing australia 5 days later made a such a massive difference to their performance against England either.

Well that's just conjecture, the point is they didn't get a 6-7 day turn around to give them the best possible chance to perform.

Given that, as you Fiji have rarely beaten either of their pool rivals (bar Wales ), to disadvantage them further seems pretty unfair and this isn't specific to Fiji -there isn't an even playing field with the fixtures and it's the lesser resourced sides who suffer most.

England get them out of the way early and give themselves an 8 break to recover before playing wales and Australia get them after a short turn around.

The big boys look after themselves...but thankfully England ..cough I mean the IRB.. have given them a good break now to have a good punt at Wales at least

So what we are really saying is that its grossly unfair on Wales who are desperately short of resources, screwed by the scheduling, and screwed by being in a group full of teams who have a decent track record against them.

Im defiantely not standing by that and feeling remotely sorry for them, and I suggest that you dont either.

#anyonebutwales

Gooseberry wrote:
So what we are really saying is that its grossly unfair on Wales who are desperately short of resources, screwed by the scheduling, and screwed by being in a group full of teams who have a decent track record against them.

Im defiantely not standing by that and feeling remotely sorry for them, and I suggest that you dont either.

#anyonebutwales

No I'm saying the organizers have done everything possible to ensure the lesser established teams pose as little threat as possible and as many of the traditional nations make the KO stages, but I think you know that.

If it purely came down to the quality of the teams there is every chance we might see the likes of Japan, Samoa or Fiji in a QF as they've shown on a given day how competitive they are against anyone.

But if you factor in their relative lack of resources - players, coaches, support team - to allow them to rotate and also help maximize fitness and recovery time between games - then they will be disproportionately disadvantaged the tighter the pool fixtures are together.

There is a difference between 'being competitive' and, you know, winning.

Teams can cross the divide though. Argentina have done it.

lostinwales wrote:There is a difference between 'being competitive' and, you know, winning.

Exactly, and it's that gap that the IRB should be looking to help close with a fair fixture list and adequate and consistent rest for all sides between games.

So what youre saying is that because they usually lose games even when they dont have the added bonus of a days extra rest that they would obviously start winning the games they lost when they do.

Youre right its absolutely unfair that they didnt have a fair chance to beat England just because they scored less points.

I take it all back.

If they are that worried about the playwers missing a nights kip then they shoudl borrow some of Gatlands tactics and do everything in their power to Poopie all the spirit of the rules.

Gooseberry wrote:So what youre saying is that because they usually lose games even when they dont have the added bonus of a days extra rest that they would obviously start winning the games they lost when they do.

Youre right its absolutely unfair that they didnt have a fair chance to beat England just because they scored less points.

Well no - they didn't beat the Ozzies because they were tired.... they didn't beat England because the officials awarded England 2 bogus tries and bottled giving Wood a yellow for a dangerous clear out.

Lets see how they go against Wales.

They didn't beat Australia or England because they're not good enough. They haven't beaten either team since 1954, that's a lot of bad refs and tired players.

I don't think any of you are considering Fiji's access to players, and the huge advantage most NH teams get when playing them in full stadia full of home fans.

The RWC is probably the only true testing ground of teams abilities, full access to players (Kind of), time together to train, neutral venue's etc... then the scheduling gives them a finger in the bum.

Say all you like about Fiji's results against the big nations, until you can prove how many of those matches were under 50/50 style fair conditions then it means little!

I think what means little is everything but the result.

Fanster wrote:I don't think any of you are considering Fiji's access to players, and the huge advantage most NH teams get when playing them in full stadia full of home fans.

The RWC is probably the only true testing ground of teams abilities, full access to players (Kind of), time together to train, neutral venue's etc... then the scheduling gives them a finger in the bum.

Say all you like about Fiji's results against the big nations, until you can prove how many of those matches were under 50/50 style fair conditions then it means little!

Well Fiji may have been disadvantaged going into the Oz match, but there were no issues going into the England match and there they were competitive but lost the try count 4 to 1 and never looked like, you know, actually winning

lostinwales wrote:

Fanster wrote:I don't think any of you are considering Fiji's access to players, and the huge advantage most NH teams get when playing them in full stadia full of home fans.

The RWC is probably the only true testing ground of teams abilities, full access to players (Kind of), time together to train, neutral venue's etc... then the scheduling gives them a finger in the bum.

Say all you like about Fiji's results against the big nations, until you can prove how many of those matches were under 50/50 style fair conditions then it means little!

Well Fiji may have been disadvantaged going into the Oz match, but there were no issues going into the England match and there they were competitive but lost the try count 4 to 1 and never looked like, you know, actually winning

I would agree if coaching teams didn't know there was a short turn around and base team selection on trying to be competitive in both. So they were effected in match 1

This is a new low in excuses. They lost by 24 points but would have won if they weren't distracted by playing multiple games in a tournament.

In the end its up to respected unions to make sure they can maximise their time with their players, organise competitive matches. Some are bigger than others, have more players, resources etc. That is a fact of life.

People going to say that Brasil aren't really the best footballers at all.. its just that not only do they concentrate solely on 1 sport in particular... they have a population 4 times that of countries such as France, UK, Spain, Germany etc.

Fairness...

What is fair? England have more money, South Africa and New Zealand prioritise the sport more so get better chances of nabbing the best youngsters instead of losing them to other sports.
Is it fair also that Fiji put nothing towards developing Ben Volavola but were able to nab him anyhow due to ancestry?

If you want fairness move to Cuba.

What is Fairness?

Correct.  It doesn't exist in the real world.  

But then why can a side like New Zealand or England, France, SA or Wales stand up, hoist a cup in the air and declare themselves the BEST in the World, if the world is proven to be unfair in so many distinct aspects of their sport?

What is Winning?

Why bother to have contests at all if we all know and accept how unfair it all is?  

We do have to keep attempting a degree of presumed fairness or else 'We Beat you fair and square!!!!' rings very hollow indeed.

It's a sad day when the white middle class and over privaliged don't even recognise the structure suits them as opposed to smaller nations...

Fanster wrote:It's a sad day when the white middle class and over privaliged don't even recognise the structure suits them as opposed to smaller nations...

Ok if you want fairness, fine. 16 teams. Perfectly fair. Scheduling will be straightforward now.

4 teams get cut.

people happy??? the ones who are complaining are probably the ones who will be the ones missing out.

Its a growth sport... and few unions make profit. The RWC is where world rugby generates most of the its revenue to fund projects, unions, competitions all over the world. They need to make money if not these schemes are cancelled. Its a not for profit organisation, all is reinvested.
If that means moving matches for key rugby regions to better TV slots i.e. France, England, SA then so be it.

People should get off their high horse. The schedule isn't so to undermine lower teams... its to allow lower teams into the competition in the first place.

Yet I'll happily feast on caviar and quail eggs without a care in the world.

Fanster wrote:It's a sad day when the white middle class and over privaliged don't even recognise the structure suits them as opposed to smaller nations...

Mike Brown isnt white

The last time beat either of the teams in question they were still in the empire. I guess its not fair that they dont have that privilege anymore.

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:It's a sad day when the white middle class and over privaliged don't even recognise the structure suits them as opposed to smaller nations...

Ok if you want fairness, fine. 16 teams. Perfectly fair. Scheduling will be straightforward now.

4 teams get cut.

people happy??? the ones who are complaining are probably the ones who will be the ones missing out.

Its a growth sport... and few unions make profit. The RWC is where world rugby generates most of the its revenue to fund projects, unions, competitions all over the world. They need to make money if not these schemes are cancelled. Its a not for profit organisation, all is reinvested.
If that means moving matches for key rugby regions to better TV slots i.e. France, England, SA then so be it.

People should get off their high horse. The schedule isn't so to undermine lower teams... its to allow lower teams into the competition in the first place.

So basically we need to keep all the top tier nations top tier in order to help the lower tier nations, great logic there!

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:It's a sad day when the white middle class and over privaliged don't even recognise the structure suits them as opposed to smaller nations...

Ok if you want fairness, fine. 16 teams. Perfectly fair. Scheduling will be straightforward now.

4 teams get cut.

people happy??? the ones who are complaining are probably the ones who will be the ones missing out.

Its a growth sport... and few unions make profit. The RWC is where world rugby generates most of the its revenue to fund projects, unions, competitions all over the world. They need to make money if not these schemes are cancelled. Its a not for profit organisation, all is reinvested.
If that means moving matches for key rugby regions to better TV slots i.e. France, England, SA then so be it.

People should get off their high horse. The schedule isn't so to undermine lower teams... its to allow lower teams into the competition in the first place.

So basically we need to keep all the top tier nations top tier in order to help the lower tier nations, great logic there!

Not at all.

You want fairness in scheduling right.... well then the only way to do that is to have an even number of teams in the group stages. Without this you cannot have fair scheduling.

So either you go to 16 teams or 5 groups... which in 99 proven disasterous and very unequal in terms of qualification for the KO stages. World rugby wants to promote the sport and having 20 teams gives us countries such as Uruguay, Namibia, Canada, USA, Japan, Romania... a few of which are real target growth regions.

If you saw the scheduling France had the most days off.... NZ and SA had well below average. It wasn't simply tier 1 nations got the best rung of things. In 2011 Argentina for instance had a better schedule than England.

Nevertheless without maximising your revenue projects will either be cancelled, held back or seen as financially unrealistic. The smaller unions such as Samoa, Fiji etc are literally bankrolled by world rugby, which is in essence bankrolled by the major unions. Rule no1 in life, never bite the hand that feeds you.

Fanster wrote:It's a sad day when the white middle class and over privaliged don't even recognise the structure suits them as opposed to smaller nations...

That sounds very corbynesque. Professional sport is not about ensuring everything is perfectly equal for every nation in the world. It's about working hard to get ahead, get an edge. The day rugby gets run by the commies is the day it dies.

englandglory4ever wrote: The day rugby gets run by the commies is the day it dies.

As Nigel Wray said to PRL...

Quick question: I've already got Matt Toomua in my ESPN fantasy side, and I was going to put Quade Cooper in too, but has it been confirmed which of them will be kicking at goal against Uruguay?

Fanster can you explain why fiji are better than canada which is massive, largely populated with individuals who self identify as white and has made being middle class a national sterepoype?


Personaly i cant wait till your world rugby ditches the 6 nations in favour of a 6 match reciprical tour to the vatican, leichtenstien and barry island.

Its a pity for the fijians that they have to use french clubs to get professional coaching and game time and rely on welfare payments from the financialy viable unions to even be able to operate theirs. Still at least they have been accorded the priveledge of not having to stay in croydon. Maybe if the people who ran their union spent less of the millions they are given on coke whores and political bribes they could have got an upgrade on the flights over and been better rested for the england game.

SecretFly wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote: The day rugby gets run by the commies is the day it dies.

As Nigel Wray said to PRL...

Ha ha ha..

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Fanster can you explain why fiji are better than canada which is massive, largely populated with individuals who self identify as white and has made being middle class a national sterepoype?


Personaly i cant wait till your world rugby ditches the 6 nations in favour of a 6 match reciprical tour to the vatican, leichtenstien and barry island.

Its a pity for the fijians that they have to use french clubs to get professional coaching and game time and rely on welfare payments from the financialy viable unions to even be able to operate theirs. Still at least they have been accorded the priveledge of not having to stay in croydon. Maybe if the people who ran their union spent less of the millions they are given on coke whores and political bribes they could have got an upgrade on the flights over and been better rested for the england game.

You make the Fijian Union sound like the PRL, bribes, illegal payments, flouting of the rules that govern fairness, money going in to club owners not players etc etc etc...!

welcome back seabiscuit. Seems like it's been a while.

As for the scheduling, it's like it is because of the odd number of teams per pool. When that happens there will be an uneven nature to the games (especially if we want to maintain weekend games in the main). Then once that happens the choice is who gets screwed. The IRB want to get as much money as they can to help fund rugby in many of these 'smaller' nations. So the 'bigger' teams play at the weekend where more advertising revenue can be generated.

Two options, give the higher seeds the more difficult route (which would lead to unbalances as teams can change positions easily). Or change the number teams so that there are even teams. That would be gaining: Spain, Russia, Chile and Hong Kong. Or losing: Namibia, Canada, Uruguay and Romania.

So we have,

1) lose advertising/TV revenue and therefore have less money to give to the 'minnows'

2) cut a significant number of the 'minnows', which would mean more money would be available from the IRB for the remaining 'minnows' for World Cup support

3) add in a significant number of tinier 'minnows', which would require support to attend, which would cut the amount available to all.

So which of those is best?

Amos is out. S Williams is almost certainly out seeing as his knee injury doesn't look good. L Williams has suffered concussion and will be monitored, so he could be available to play Australia. Needless to say, someone in the Wales camp has angered a voodoo priest.