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.

yeh i agree i mean lower ranked teams such as england are just their for show, and their humour at mentioning 2003, always a good bet to play with mates, how many times will wilko's DG or 2003 be mentioned in a sentence? i mean england big themselves up and sometimes play ok rugby and beat the convicts but i mean in all honesty england should beat everyone after all they taught everyone the game.

personally since we are talking about teams like england- how about they withdraw from rugby completely to stop embarrassing some of the good honest fans.

this is good for two reasons- it will allow england to invent a new game which they can be good at until they teach someone else it. and it offers a space for one of the "minnows" in europe to play 6n rugby therefore improving their skills levels making a better world cup.


like that idea hersh!?!??

I posted this idea in another thread
20 teams
4 pools
winner of pool goes into semi final for Cup
2nd of each pool goes into semi final for plate
3rd of eah pool goes into semi ....
etc
Gets rid of some teams throwing games in the pools as they can get a 1/4 final for coming second
The eventual winner plays one less game
The 2nd and lower teams get 1 or 2 more games

By the way think of the fall of the West Indies at Cricket. the Kings in the past but now definitely 2nd tier. Compare that to Sri Lanka. Think of Australian rugby 60 years ago.
Teams can get better and worse. Who knows who will win the RWC in 30 years time? China vs Japan in the Final?

Once again point proven!

todays game was a complete mis-match, the IRB should be ashamed of themselves for making Namibia play 4 games in 17 days.

welshy824 wrote:yeh i agree i mean lower ranked teams such as england are just their for show, and their humour at mentioning 2003, always a good bet to play with mates, how many times will wilko's DG or 2003 be mentioned in a sentence? i mean england big themselves up and sometimes play ok rugby and beat the convicts but i mean in all honesty england should beat everyone after all they taught everyone the game.

personally since we are talking about teams like england- how about they withdraw from rugby completely to stop embarrassing some of the good honest fans.

this is good for two reasons- it will allow england to invent a new game which they can be good at until they teach someone else it. and it offers a space for one of the "minnows" in europe to play 6n rugby therefore improving their skills levels making a better world cup.

Silly post.

nganboy wrote:I posted this idea in another thread
20 teams
4 pools
winner of pool goes into semi final for Cup
2nd of each pool goes into semi final for plate
3rd of eah pool goes into semi ....
etc
Gets rid of some teams throwing games in the pools as they can get a 1/4 final for coming second
The eventual winner plays one less game
The 2nd and lower teams get 1 or 2 more games

By the way think of the fall of the West Indies at Cricket. the Kings in the past but now definitely 2nd tier. Compare that to Sri Lanka. Think of Australian rugby 60 years ago.
Teams can get better and worse. Who knows who will win the RWC in 30 years time? China vs Japan in the Final?

Right now though if they were good enough to win it they wouldve been good enough to qualify in the top 16, and thats not leilely to change in the forseeable future even if the teams doing it do change.
As it ios we are actually seeing a reestablishment of the old order, with only Argentina being a relativly new power probably replacing the weakest of the old school (and theyve gone backwards since the last WC).
I heard some guff over the last few years about how great Georgia and Russia are and how long have we heard its only so long before a pisland wins the world cup (same as the rubbish that was spouted about african nations in soccer). In reality with mature porfessional sports its takes a couple of generations to see a real power shift. Even Englands dally with the "best side in the world" crown was fleeting, they are firmly back in the second seeds tier now.

How are the poorer teams supposed to get better if you don't let them play the top teams?

One of the problems is that the likes of Georgia and Romania only get to play these teams at World Cups or maybe one now and again in Autumn internationals.

The top teams play each other throughout the year. England have played Wales three times in the past few months.

sportsville wrote:How are the poorer teams supposed to get better if you don't let them play the top teams?

One of the problems is that the likes of Georgia and Romania only get to play these teams at World Cups or maybe one now and again in Autumn internationals.

The top teams play each other throughout the year. England have played Wales three times in the past few months.

By playing teh nmid ranked teams that they have a fighting chance against and teh opportunity to play properly.

How are the mid ranked teams suppossed to develope if their WC schedules get wrecked by ametures clogging up the pool stages?

How are the low ranked sides suppossed to develope if they have no kind of rugby culture of infrastructure in place or capital to incvest or plan to grow the game? Simply goign to a world cup and getting beat horrensdously doesnt change that.

Lets focus on devleoping the nations that have some chance of becoming voiable and challenging the established top 9 first then worry about those who are at best two generations from being serious professional outfits

The idea that playings ides that are 3 levels above you automaticaly improves your team is utter bunk.

Well Seabiscuit

Ireland and Scotland have been playing NZ for a hundred years but still haven't cracked it so I guess it might be a while before a minnow has much of a chance.

On the other hand, China did top the medal count at the last Olympics after being crap just a couple of Olympics ago so who knows.

I think the big teams like NZ etc should be sending their B sides to play these developing nations. Good for everyone in my opinion

NZ B would beat most teams to be fair, why are they so good?

Most teams take a few minutes to get going (Wales can take 75+ mins) whilst NZ hit the pitch running straight away, why is this?

BATH_BTGOG wrote:NZ B would beat most teams to be fair, why are they so good?

Most teams take a few minutes to get going (Wales can take 75+ mins) whilst NZ hit the pitch running straight away, why is this?

Would you say they hit the pitch running against France? Or that Wales started slowly and got better during the summer tour games to new zealand?

BATH_BTGOG wrote:NZ B would beat most teams to be fair, why are they so good?

Most teams take a few minutes to get going (Wales can take 75+ mins) whilst NZ hit the pitch running straight away, why is this?

I suppose it depends at what speed you leave the dressing room.

BAck to the original post. My thought is no there aren't.

My reasoning lies with other sports and the long term developemnt of the game. Much of my experience is with other sports. From my experience athletes improve if they have a goal such as world cup or olympics to aim for. You have to give them the opportunity if you want improvement. But it has to be allied with a number of actions, including regular international competition against the best, access to top coaching, etc.

I think a fairer schedule would have helped the minor sides. I think too much is made of the financial windfall as well. If the IRB has the right structures in place the game will grow.