ChatterBank1 min ago
Rugby World Cup
34 Answers
Now it's over, I'll tell you what I thought before the tournament began. Not enough "proper" rugby stadiums were used. Franklin Gardens and Welford Road were overlooked for Stadium MK and Leicester City FC ground, for example. Then, to have the semi-finals and final ALL in London, and with 16.00 kick offs was an insult (in my opinion) to sports lovers in this country. I'm sure hundreds of thousands of fans going to football on Saturday afternoon would have loved to watch the rugby. I can't see why the match kicked off so early. Your thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by thesecondlaw. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I’ll tell you what I thought bit began:
How the hell can it take six weeks and forty-seven matches (forty-eight if you include the preposterous “third place play off”) to find a winner from twenty entrants? Could have added twelve more teams (probably negating the need for numerous tedious “qualifying” matches) and still only 31 matches would be necessary.
I love Rugby Union but this format was ridiculous.
How the hell can it take six weeks and forty-seven matches (forty-eight if you include the preposterous “third place play off”) to find a winner from twenty entrants? Could have added twelve more teams (probably negating the need for numerous tedious “qualifying” matches) and still only 31 matches would be necessary.
I love Rugby Union but this format was ridiculous.
Simple, New Judge.
4 groups of 5, that's 40 games, then 7 knock out games and the other match :-)
If you just make it a simple knockout then some teams will travel half way across the world to lose 100-0 to New Zealand for example and then travel home again. There aren't enough decent teams to warrant having any more.
If you think that is bad, what about Euro 2016: by the time that reaches the last 16 it will have taken 304 matches to eliminate 38 teams over the course of 2 years!
4 groups of 5, that's 40 games, then 7 knock out games and the other match :-)
If you just make it a simple knockout then some teams will travel half way across the world to lose 100-0 to New Zealand for example and then travel home again. There aren't enough decent teams to warrant having any more.
If you think that is bad, what about Euro 2016: by the time that reaches the last 16 it will have taken 304 matches to eliminate 38 teams over the course of 2 years!
Oh yes I know the mechanics of it. I just think it's ludicrous to run such a drawn out tedious competition. I think equally of the European Championships and World Cup. All the preliminaries should take place on a "home and away" basis (rather like the football so-called Champions' League) in the particpants home countries. Then only say, the quarter finalists travelling to the host nation. Seven matches (eight if you must have an unnecessary third place playoff). Done and dusted in a couple of weeks, tops. The no-hopers don't have to go to the trouble of travelling for a 100-0 thrashing (having probably already received it in the preliminaries closer to home). Much more agreeable and far more sensible. :-)
Sorry New Judge I can't agree. The new Euro format is ridiculous I concede, but if you adopt the approach you suggest for the Rugby World Cup then you lose the atmosphere and occasion presented by the group stage games.
It's probably just about right. Unfortunately the "second tier" nations are not getting sufficient exposure to top quality opposition, and consequently there is still a degree of predictability about the whole thing. What should happen are more games between teams of different levels on a regular basis. Look at how Argentina have improved from being in the Championship, for example.
It's probably just about right. Unfortunately the "second tier" nations are not getting sufficient exposure to top quality opposition, and consequently there is still a degree of predictability about the whole thing. What should happen are more games between teams of different levels on a regular basis. Look at how Argentina have improved from being in the Championship, for example.
It was good that they had an England match in Manchester, but mindbogglingly stupid to have it the same time as the League final in the same city.
I knew lots of people who would have gone to both, but had to chose one over the other. It some cordination had taken place then both matches could have sold out. As it was, the Etihad had thousands of empty seats.
I knew lots of people who would have gone to both, but had to chose one over the other. It some cordination had taken place then both matches could have sold out. As it was, the Etihad had thousands of empty seats.
"I just wonder how much “atmosphere” there was when Samoa beat the US at Brighton or when Georgia scraped home against Namibia at Exeter.
I think I’ll go with Sir O’s suspicions :-) "
I wasn't at either game, but I saw at a few matches of similar standard at similar venues and the atmosphere was wonderful. Much as I like football, a day out at a footie game does not compare.
I think I’ll go with Sir O’s suspicions :-) "
I wasn't at either game, but I saw at a few matches of similar standard at similar venues and the atmosphere was wonderful. Much as I like football, a day out at a footie game does not compare.
