Are there too many lower-ranked teams in the World Cup?

First topic message reminder :

Thread title changed from "Should England be allowed into the next round early?" - KRD

Its clear Georgia, Romania and Scotland are really poor teams, is there any real point in these games going ahead, I mean England are going to win all three so is there any point in playing them and risk English players picking up injuries, which would ultimately rob the tournament of their skills and talent in the later stages.


These games are going to be cricket scores.

Personally, I very much enjoy watching the "lesser" sides. They've done well in their qualifying competitions and have earned the right to be in NZ.

To me the newer sides are an integral and necessary part of the World Cup.

offload wrote:

HERSH wrote:Its all part of the bigger picture Offload, try and keep up with the debate instead of throwing pointless insults.

Hersh, it takes a broad mind to see a bigger picture so I hope someone is there to help you. I'm now "foeing" you so I can avoid such drivel.

Ditto, why come onto a discussion board if you can't discuss a subject which is effecting the development of lesser rugby nations?

Stick to throwing insults OFFLOAD!


One up me thinks.

So you suggest cutting them adrift rather than allowing them to play the bigger nations? Is that your plan for development?

To start with the complaint was that they cause the top tier teams too many injuries and now you're debating ways to develop the lower tier nations? How about more likely you're saying contraversial things deliberately to get a reaction. Well done it worked.

How about some specifics?

Which teams precisely do you want to drop from the main RWC tournament?

We had 16 before, and the French wanted that to happen again but were over-ruled.

Namibia?
Japan?
Romania?
Georgia?
USA?
Russia?
Tonga?
Samoa?

Using Hersh's earlier argument that these teams have never beaten NZ and never will might be applied to a few more Tier One teams. Ireland and Scotland haven't managed yet it in over 100 years of trying. Wales in 60. France were the most recent. Have England ever beaten NZ in a RWC? Or are they ever likely to?

So that leaves us with Australia and South Africa.

I could be wrong but I think there's an annual tournament featuring those three teams already....

You may have a point and 4 pools of 4 may be better and fairer to the teams, especially since if you consider Namibia have Fiji, 4 days later play Samoa, then play South Africa and 4 days later play Wales!
Not only are they up against professional teams but their up against to fixture list too!
However if you didn't have 5 teams, Samoa wouldn't be in this World Cup, as they were the repage qualifier, and neither would Romania I believe.

Though I don't think it's fair to tell teams they can't go to a World Cup because they can't win it.

If you want to go down that path, just give the Webb Ellis trophy to the winner of a match between the Tri Nations champions and 6 Nations champions.

Can't see England getting a cricket score against Scotland, when do they ever do that? I'd be impressed if England did do that though. Rugby's still growing, one day they'll be an extra team in each pool and these sides will not be as weak.

HERSH, you start the thread stating that Romania, Georgia and Scotland are poor teams and should not be allowed in the RWC.
You then go on to say that Argentina, Samoa and Fiji are proper teams.

Scotland are currently ranked 7th in the World, whereas Samoa are 10th and Fiji are 15th.
Even Argentina are currently 9th.


So when do you feel a team should be allowed to compete in the World Cup?


The obvious arguments are that teams will only get better by playing against better opposition.

What is the point of an elitest competition (i.e. a World Cup only for the top 4 or 5 teams)
Quite frankly, while you may see top teams go up against each other for 2 or 3 games, what would having a competition with only a handful of teams actually ADD to world rugby?

In theory, a World Cup should include every nation in the World. However, that's obviously not at all practical, so picking the top 20 teams is a fair compromise.


These minnow nations also do have something to ADD.
Take Namibia for example. Their captain is Jacques Burger who has been a regular for Saracens as well as a number of South African teams.
Players like him, get a chance to showcase their skills in a World Cup and potentially get full professional contracts.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the amateurs of these minnow teams pick up full professional contracts solely because of the World Cup.



And finally, before 2007, Argentina really weren't much better than some of the minnow teams you refer to.
They had a couple of good players, but were essentially a big set of forwards that came to bash the opposition around.

I reckon that there are too many higher ranked teams.Twould be much more entertaining to watch the lesser nations having a go.
The top nations play each other every 6 months anyway and it is getting boring.

Could leave NZ in it though...they might win it

Are there too many lower-ranked teams in the World Cup?

No.

They make it great.

the Russian deputy prime Minister is attending todays game between Russia and the USA, probably the person with the most global responsibity to attend the occasion in New Zealand.

Given England's form against Argentina, I think Georgia and Scotland would probably put one over them.

Rob B wrote:Given England's form against Argentina, I think Georgia and Scotland would probably put one over them.

You mean england's form of having beaten ireland and argentina in their last two games and being 6 nations champions?

If the sport is going to grow we need the so called 'lesser' nations.

Some of the best games are between these teams.

Saw the highlights of Canada's win over Tonga good game and loook how much it meant to them.

These lesser teams have put up good performances so far.

You just want a WC with the top 10 ranked teams involved?

Pointless.

Russia vs USA

POINT PROVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!

HERSH wrote:Russia vs USA

POINT PROVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why, because there were no tries?

England Argetina had 1 try, this game had one try.

Just to provide you with some stats.

USA rucks won, 95 from 101
Russia rucks won 62 from 64
USA meters ran 369
Russia meters ran 247
USA offloads 9
Russia offloads 2
USA defenders beaten 15
Russia defenders beaten 12
Clean breaks 2 each.

You will see pretty much the same stats in most tier 1 tests.

I thought Russia/USA was a great little game and a complete justification of their presence at the World Cup.

I don't understand why you want to kill off the enthusiasm of the emerging nations by depriving them of any chance of getting to a world cup and deprive us of the fun of seeing the games.

Do you have no romance, no sense of fun in your soul? Are you a Yorkshireman?

I've supported Hersh's view to an extent in this debate, but it's not that i don't want the minnows involved, it's that I think there are too many miss matches in the games as a whole. Minnows playing each other is great, but I would like to see a situation where teams that make the semis have played at least 3 or 4 hard games where there genuinely could have been a winner either way.

HERSH wrote:Russia vs USA

POINT PROVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!

I watch the entire match and I actually enjoyed it. It was not a classic and it was not of the average standard of the 6 nations or tri-nations, however I enjoyed the chance to see these 2 developing rugby nations play, I would not have got the chance to see them play if they were barred from the RWC.
I enjoyed watching them try different tactics, the differing styles of play and the obvious signs that they will improve. In 2-3 RWC time I expect nations such as these to still be losing to the top teams but to have the odd upset, just like the football world cup offers.

Imagine if you were a russian rugby supporter, how proud would you be right now after watching your country play for the first time in the RWC? would it encourage you to support them more and get more invovled back home or to complain that they got beaten and give it all up?

Or even an american watching their team win for the first time....reminds me of when italy won for the first time in the 6 nations, people were complaining back then that they were too bad to be part of 6 nations, and now look at them.

Expand the RWC and encourage more nations in to the fold. I'd love to see the likes of Chile, Czech Republic, Portugal, Morocco etc. having a run in a RWC.

32 teams, 8 groups of 4. Top 2 from each group go to 2nd round knockout, then on to QF etc.

It would still be 7 games for the finalists as it is now.

Earlier knock out rugby would add to the excitement and drama earlier, and also gives more teams a chance to play in the biggest rugby tournament.

Dr Kenneth Noisewater wrote:Expand the RWC and encourage more nations in to the fold. I'd love to see the likes of Chile, Czech Republic, Portugal, Morocco etc. having a run in a RWC.

32 teams, 8 groups of 4. Top 2 from each group go to 2nd round knockout, then on to QF etc.

It would still be 7 games for the finalists as it is now.

Earlier knock out rugby would add to the excitement and drama earlier, and also gives more teams a chance to play in the biggest rugby tournament.

+1

I would also scrap the seeding of teams. All the names go into a hat and are picked at random. It's the fairest way to ensure some of the developing nations have a chance of getting out of their groups.

Dr Kenneth Noisewater wrote:Expand the RWC and encourage more nations in to the fold. I'd love to see the likes of Chile, Czech Republic, Portugal, Morocco etc. having a run in a RWC.

32 teams, 8 groups of 4. Top 2 from each group go to 2nd round knockout, then on to QF etc.

It would still be 7 games for the finalists as it is now.

Earlier knock out rugby would add to the excitement and drama earlier, and also gives more teams a chance to play in the biggest rugby tournament.

I think this would involve even more miss matches and the top seed in each group would be almost unchallenged in winning the group.

What's needed is a secondary group stage where the initial group winners get to play each other so there would be 10 or 12 great games with the top nations playing each other for the right to get into the semis...

-10

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Perhaps the question of this post should be :

Should HERSH have his posts locked and deleted early?

Otherwise other posters might get injured as their brains explode from reading such drivel and blatant attempts to wind people up by clearly a really poor poster. I mean if other posters heads have exploded it will rob 606V2 of their skills and talent at later stages.




Most WUMs are witty, funny and well thought out. This one does not qualify in any of those regards.

+1

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Dr Kenneth Noisewater wrote:Expand the RWC and encourage more nations in to the fold. I'd love to see the likes of Chile, Czech Republic, Portugal, Morocco etc. having a run in a RWC.

32 teams, 8 groups of 4. Top 2 from each group go to 2nd round knockout, then on to QF etc.

It would still be 7 games for the finalists as it is now.

Earlier knock out rugby would add to the excitement and drama earlier, and also gives more teams a chance to play in the biggest rugby tournament.

+1

I would also scrap the seeding of teams. All the names go into a hat and are picked at random. It's the fairest way to ensure some of the developing nations have a chance of getting out of their groups.

seedings need to stay - we need the best teams in the knockout stages. there would be no beneift in usa or georgia making the quarter finals to play NZ or SA.

Agreed Rugbyfan.

I can't believe everyone is happy as it is, I for one would like to see these lesser teams develop quicker, as it is it may take another 20-30 years before the likes of Namibia could turn over a team like Scotland, therefore the RWC format needs to change.

Why are people content to see these teams struggle on the world stage? I find it rather embarrassing

rugbyfan wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Dr Kenneth Noisewater wrote:Expand the RWC and encourage more nations in to the fold. I'd love to see the likes of Chile, Czech Republic, Portugal, Morocco etc. having a run in a RWC.

32 teams, 8 groups of 4. Top 2 from each group go to 2nd round knockout, then on to QF etc.

It would still be 7 games for the finalists as it is now.

Earlier knock out rugby would add to the excitement and drama earlier, and also gives more teams a chance to play in the biggest rugby tournament.

+1

I would also scrap the seeding of teams. All the names go into a hat and are picked at random. It's the fairest way to ensure some of the developing nations have a chance of getting out of their groups.

seedings need to stay - we need the best teams in the knockout stages. there would be no beneift in usa or georgia making the quarter finals to play NZ or SA.

Why do seedings need to stay? It's an unfair advantage to the "teir 1" teams who by your logic should be putting Georgia and the USA to the sword. At least it will give teams like Georgia and the US a chance at the knockout stages when anything can happen. I'm a big fan of the notion the best teams will win.

In that ethos mix the groups up and ultimatly the best will rise to the top. Eliminating seedings is just a way of making it fairer and it might just give some of the so called "big guns" a very tough championship and open the door for less renowned or more powerful teams to progress. Your example of NZ or SA playing georgia or the US in the QF would be a rout, if seeding had been eliminated perhaps New Zealand would have drawn England and Australia in their group, likewise South Africa Might have drawn Wales and France.

Eliminating the seedings would make the group stages much more interesting IMO and give lesser teams a chance of making the knockout stages.

rugbyfan wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Dr Kenneth Noisewater wrote:Expand the RWC and encourage more nations in to the fold. I'd love to see the likes of Chile, Czech Republic, Portugal, Morocco etc. having a run in a RWC.

32 teams, 8 groups of 4. Top 2 from each group go to 2nd round knockout, then on to QF etc.

It would still be 7 games for the finalists as it is now.

Earlier knock out rugby would add to the excitement and drama earlier, and also gives more teams a chance to play in the biggest rugby tournament.

+1

I would also scrap the seeding of teams. All the names go into a hat and are picked at random. It's the fairest way to ensure some of the developing nations have a chance of getting out of their groups.

seedings need to stay - we need the best teams in the knockout stages. there would be no beneift in usa or georgia making the quarter finals to play NZ or SA.

Why? I think there would be massive benefit - imagine the excitement that these matches would generate in the non-rugby heartlands of the USA or Georgia? A perfect chance to expand the interest in our beautiful game

because it would give a team like france or NZ an easy route to the semis - meaning they potentially need to win only two tough games to be crowned world champs.

I feel that to win the title a team should earn it - I may set myself up here to be shot at but I don't think that SA really earnt their title four years ago. A knock out line up of Fiji, Argentina then England (especially 2007 England) was not deserving of being crowned world champs...

Well done excitement, rugby, USA & Georgia in the same sentence.

rugbyfan wrote:because it would give a team like france or NZ an easy route to the semis - meaning they potentially need to win only two tough games to be crowned world champs.

I feel that to win the title a team should earn it - I may set myself up here to be shot at but I don't think that SA really earnt their title four years ago. A knock out line up of Fiji, Argentina then England (especially 2007 England) was not deserving of being crowned world champs...

By the very nature of knock-out rugby, these allegedly lesser teams must have taken some scalps of big teams along the way, or perhaps even the scalps of teams that beat big teams - in which case SA were thoroughly deserving of being crowned world champions. You are effectively advocating having some award for the top ranked team in the world at the end of each year, but that's not the RWC

rugbyfan wrote:because it would give a team like france or NZ an easy route to the semis - meaning they potentially need to win only two tough games to be crowned world champs.

I feel that to win the title a team should earn it - I may set myself up here to be shot at but I don't think that SA really earnt their title four years ago. A knock out line up of Fiji, Argentina then England (especially 2007 England) was not deserving of being crowned world champs...

Thats a bit of a strange comment to make. In truth it is also not recognising the strength Argentina and Fiji displayed in their groups. Lets just say the group stages turned out differantly, would you think Defeating Ireland and Wales (the 2 third placed teams from the respective groups) would have meant South Africa earned the 2007 world cup? I can't find myself agreeing with that since Ireland lost to Argentina and Wales lost to Fiji.

Lets not forget the Kiwis were eliminated by France who in turn were Eliminated by England who played better on the day. England also Eliminated Australia so I think it's impossible to say any Team can make the Final by not earning it.

Perfect timing - just received this email from the Grauniad's 'The Breakdown' service:

"The Namibia coach Johan Diergaardt made a telling point after his side's heavy defeat to Samoa in Rotorua on Wednesday. It was, he said, his side's second big game in four days and their second in four years.
Namibia disappear off the international map between World Cups. "I wish we could play more Tests of this nature," said Diergaardt as he contemplated next week's match against South Africa, adding that his players, few of whom are full-time professionals, will only benefit from such exposure.
Tonga came close to beating South Africa in the last World Cup but their international programme since has largely been confined to teams who, like them, are in the second tier of the international game. Then they emerge from obscurity to take on the All Blacks in the opening game of the 2011 World Cup, most anticipating a blow-out.
The second-tier nations have largely given a stirring account of themselves so far; Tonga rattled New Zealand in the second half and it will not do the All Blacks any harm to have to do some tackling, for a change, in a group match; Japan gave France the hurry-up; Romania were leading Scotland with 10 minutes to go; the USA denied Ireland a bonus point; and Georgia prevented Scotland from scoring a try while just failing to secure a bonus point.
Bookmakers have taken a caning because only Namibia have so far been beaten by the margin expected, yet it was only last week that the former New Zealand captain Wayne Shelford, among others, was urging the World Cup organisers to reduce the number of teams taking part to 12 from 20 because most of the second tier nations were not up to it and had nothing to offer the tournament.
Shelford was being unfair: with third place in every group guaranteeing a place in the next World Cup, teams who have little or no chance of making the knockout stage have something to play for. Glory for them is not about lifting the trophy next month.
They labour under two handicaps: a lack of exposure to the top nations between World Cups and a schedule in the tournament that forces most of them to play two matches in four days. Television demands that the draw cards are required for weekend action and so Namibia had to take on Samoa four days after facing Fiji. A top tier nation would have blanched at that.
There is little the organisers can do about scheduling. Television pays handsomely for the right to screen matches and it is not going to accept having to do with Canada against Tonga at prime time.
Exposure is another matter. The big boys are hardly going to queue up to give Namibia a home fixture, and not just because it would be a hard sell commercially, but it is not just a matter of giving second tier nations fixtures.
Samoa and Fiji, two teams with a track record in the World Cup, tour Europe occasionally but gone are the days when they entertained leading nations, mainly from Europe with New Zealand never bothered to make the short journey.
A problem for the second tier nations is the cost of matches and tours. They do not have the means to pay their players more than a pittance. Islanders, Americans, Canadians or Namibians earning their livings abroad often have to pay their own airfare to join up with their countries and then take a big drop in pay.
The money the International Rugby Board makes from World Cups is largely invested in the development of the game. It has taken the decision not to hand money to tier two unions simply to pass on to players on the grounds that hardly amounts to an investment.
Instead the money for Samoa, now a major player in the World Cup, has gone on creating a high performance unit in Apia. Is it more important for Samoa to play as many Tests a year as the likes of Wales and New Zealand or that their top players continue to play for leading clubs in England and France and provinces in New Zealand?
Tier two tournaments in Europe and the Pacific have worked well, but the lower ranked teams will always be up against it in the World Cup. But this does not mean they do not have a place; without them, it would be the same old from the start instead of at the end. They add a dash of innocence."

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Perfect timing - just received this email from the Grauniad's 'The Breakdown' service:

"The Namibia coach Johan Diergaardt made a telling point after his side's heavy defeat to Samoa in Rotorua on Wednesday. It was, he said, his side's second big game in four days and their second in four years.
Namibia disappear off the international map between World Cups. "I wish we could play more Tests of this nature," said Diergaardt as he contemplated next week's match against South Africa, adding that his players, few of whom are full-time professionals, will only benefit from such exposure.
Tonga came close to beating South Africa in the last World Cup but their international programme since has largely been confined to teams who, like them, are in the second tier of the international game. Then they emerge from obscurity to take on the All Blacks in the opening game of the 2011 World Cup, most anticipating a blow-out.
The second-tier nations have largely given a stirring account of themselves so far; Tonga rattled New Zealand in the second half and it will not do the All Blacks any harm to have to do some tackling, for a change, in a group match; Japan gave France the hurry-up; Romania were leading Scotland with 10 minutes to go; the USA denied Ireland a bonus point; and Georgia prevented Scotland from scoring a try while just failing to secure a bonus point.
Bookmakers have taken a caning because only Namibia have so far been beaten by the margin expected, yet it was only last week that the former New Zealand captain Wayne Shelford, among others, was urging the World Cup organisers to reduce the number of teams taking part to 12 from 20 because most of the second tier nations were not up to it and had nothing to offer the tournament.
Shelford was being unfair: with third place in every group guaranteeing a place in the next World Cup, teams who have little or no chance of making the knockout stage have something to play for. Glory for them is not about lifting the trophy next month.
They labour under two handicaps: a lack of exposure to the top nations between World Cups and a schedule in the tournament that forces most of them to play two matches in four days. Television demands that the draw cards are required for weekend action and so Namibia had to take on Samoa four days after facing Fiji. A top tier nation would have blanched at that.
There is little the organisers can do about scheduling. Television pays handsomely for the right to screen matches and it is not going to accept having to do with Canada against Tonga at prime time.
Exposure is another matter. The big boys are hardly going to queue up to give Namibia a home fixture, and not just because it would be a hard sell commercially, but it is not just a matter of giving second tier nations fixtures.
Samoa and Fiji, two teams with a track record in the World Cup, tour Europe occasionally but gone are the days when they entertained leading nations, mainly from Europe with New Zealand never bothered to make the short journey.
A problem for the second tier nations is the cost of matches and tours. They do not have the means to pay their players more than a pittance. Islanders, Americans, Canadians or Namibians earning their livings abroad often have to pay their own airfare to join up with their countries and then take a big drop in pay.
The money the International Rugby Board makes from World Cups is largely invested in the development of the game. It has taken the decision not to hand money to tier two unions simply to pass on to players on the grounds that hardly amounts to an investment.
Instead the money for Samoa, now a major player in the World Cup, has gone on creating a high performance unit in Apia. Is it more important for Samoa to play as many Tests a year as the likes of Wales and New Zealand or that their top players continue to play for leading clubs in England and France and provinces in New Zealand?
Tier two tournaments in Europe and the Pacific have worked well, but the lower ranked teams will always be up against it in the World Cup. But this does not mean they do not have a place; without them, it would be the same old from the start instead of at the end. They add a dash of innocence."

+1

all valid points but for me I would like to see more genuinely competitive games (involving the top nations) at the world cup where the winner is hard to predict.

Even before this World cup there were people saying that England have an easy route to the semis, so England arguably have one big game to play in order to reach the final (I know that france are now showing a bit of form so may be two games) This is a flaw in the set up of the comp - there should be no such thing as an easy route to the final.

Imagine a set up that enabled Australia to play against England, Wales, SA and Ireland in a secondary group stage. What a great month of rugby that would be?????

+2

rugbyfan wrote:all valid points but for me I would like to see more genuinely competitive games (involving the top nations) at the world cup where the winner is hard to predict.

Even before this World cup there were people saying that England have an easy route to the semis, so England arguably have one big game to play in order to reach the final (I know that france are now showing a bit of form so may be two games) This is a flaw in the set up of the comp - there should be no such thing as an easy route to the final.

Imagine a set up that enabled Australia to play against England, Wales, SA and Ireland in a secondary group stage. What a great month of rugby that would be?????

You see this is what P*sses me off. Who is to say you'll meet France in the QF? If we (Scotland) can beat you in Auckland you'll be facing the All Blacks. Scotland have a hard game next week against Argentina, and win or lose we'll have a lot to play for against England. I hardly thinks an encounter with the worlds no1 side is an easy route to the final.

Rugbyfan

what is all this +1 etc

Its lazy please try and have an opinion

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

You see this is what P*sses me off. Who is to say you'll meet France in the QF? If we (Scotland) can beat you in Auckland you'll be facing the All Blacks. Scotland have a hard game next week against Argentina, and win or lose we'll have a lot to play for against England. I hardly thinks an encounter with the worlds no1 side is an easy route to the final.

NZ hasn't beaten France yet either. Plenty still to play for.

HERSH wrote:Rugbyfan

what is all this +1 etc

Its lazy please try and have an opinion

It's a relatively new internet meme Hersh - basically a shorter way of saying "I agree". Derived (I think) from Google's +1 button, which they derived from the Facebook "like" button.

but the arguments are about whether NZ wil beat France or whether scotland, Argentina or England will win their group - there is NO debate about whether Namibia, USA or Canada will get through the groups or beat a top team. Sport should be about competition and both sides having a fighting chance - i don't feel thats true for too many games... I do NOT want to see lesser teams excluded, but I WOULD like to see the later stages made more competitive and the top teams play each other more.

-1

Kiwireddevil wrote:

HERSH wrote:Rugbyfan

what is all this +1 etc

Its lazy please try and have an opinion

It's a relatively new internet meme Hersh - basically a shorter way of saying "I agree". Derived (I think) from Google's +1 button, which they derived from the Facebook "like" button.

i think he knows what it is, but objects to it's use!

+1

See how useful it is

HERSH wrote:

He should practise what he preaches.

Rugbyfan - we have the 6N and (soon to be) 4N for yearly comps to see the top tier teams play many competitive games. Add to that tours and AI's.

Why limit a World Cup to 16 teams (or less) out of 90-odd in the IRB list? Hardly a 'world' tournament in that format.

As RugerRadge says - scrap seeding. If you have 8 groups of 4, with random selection then you could get very competitive groups, you could also end up with seeds 29-32 playing and getting to knockout rugby. For me 8 knockout games = more excitement / nerves / possibility for upsets.

If we want rugby to reach a wider audience, then surely having more rugby playing nations play in the ultimate tournament is a must?

Dr Kenneth Noisewater wrote:Rugbyfan - we have the 6N and (soon to be) 4N for yearly comps to see the top tier teams play many competitive games. Add to that tours and AI's.

Why limit a World Cup to 16 teams (or less) out of 90-odd in the IRB list? Hardly a 'world' tournament in that format.

As RugerRadge says - scrap seeding. If you have 8 groups of 4, with random selection then you could get very competitive groups, you could also end up with seeds 29-32 playing and getting to knockout rugby. For me 8 knockout games = more excitement / nerves / possibility for upsets.

If we want rugby to reach a wider audience, then surely having more rugby playing nations play in the ultimate tournament is a must?

I'm not saying reduce the number of teams - I'd even consider adding a few - I'm saying make the later stages more competitive by having a secondary group stage.

To be honest guys, all this talk of the lower ranked teams has OBVIOUSLY taken the media coverage away from whats really important, England.

I can count on 2 hands the number of times Jonnys drop goal from 8 years ago has been mentioned, thats not even into double figures.

screw the "minnows", more england, and talk of england, and footage of their brilliant result and performance against Argentina and most importantly, MORE OF THAT KICK!

Comfort wrote:To be honest guys, all this talk of the lower ranked teams has OBVIOUSLY taken the media coverage away from whats really important, England.

I can count on 2 hands the number of times Jonnys drop goal from 8 years ago has been mentioned, thats not even into double figures.

screw the "minnows", more england, and talk of england, and footage of their brilliant result and performance against Argentina and most importantly, MORE OF THAT KICK!

Where did that rant come from? Feel better now it's off your chest?!!!