The Rugby Thread

What I said about the Japanese situation in the last rugby world cup was simply fact. They were shafted, that's not an opinion, that's just the facts of the situation. The World Cup groups were set up so that the lowest seeds had zero chance of progressing, even if in this case the lowest seeds were probably the best team in that group. 

The rugby World Cup is a strange one because by far the best format would be a world cup of 16 teams, but then the game may never grow in smaller rugby nations. 16, 4 groups of 4, all of a high standard. 24 with 6 groups of 4 is the next best option but the weaker teams getting beat 100 plus points to zero doesn't do much for the competition in that scenario.

The current set up of 4 groups of 5 is just wrong though. It just doesn't work logistically.

A hypothetical similar scenario would be a lower ranked side like Iceland in a World Cup winning a massive group game, then playing their deciding group match to qualify 24 hours later. It was the rest time between games that essentially made it a walkover to the Scots. I think they played the South Africans on  a Sunday and the Scots on a Wednesday. Situations like that should never happen if all entrants into a competition are bring given a sporting chance.

I saw the Ireland France Euro 2016 game mentioned awhile ago, and while I do believe France had a decent advantage, 3 days in football is a regular turnaround. Also, finishing 3rd meant you were in the lap of the gods really.

I think it's fairly comparable, the key points arr the teams higher seeded get the odds stacked more in their favour and if there is someone to receive a disadvantage then it is going to go be the team with the lowest seed.

Hindsight being 20/20, it was sh*t what happened to Japan but it was the first time one of the lower seeds had pulled off a shock like that. 

3/4 days in football is not a bad turnaround around. Think our complaint was that France had an extra 3, but as the lowest side we couldn't really complain too much about the disadvantage. 

When a tournament kicks off, no side, in any sport should ever be in a position where they are effectively forfeiting a match due to a fixture schedule. This is exactly what happened to Japan in the last rugby world cup. Whether Japan went out and lost by 50 points to South Africa before that farcical fixture isn't necessarily the point. The point is that from a sporting principle, all of the teams must be given some semblance of a chance. Now this has happened a good few times in rugby world cup fixtures, and nobody cared because it was lower seeds taking a battering (exactly why the lower seeds get this farcical situation, because nobody would notice). What happened to Ireland isn't in the same realm as that Japanese situation. Ireland we're at a slight disadvantage, no doubt about it due to Frances longer rest reriod. Japan had zero percent chance of beating Scotland. Zero, not 1 percent. Purely due to the organisers logistics. If something like that happened in world cup football to the likes of Ireland there would be holy war.

I'd like to think I'm permanently negative about rugby, it isn't just a once a year thing for me. I'd very much dispute obsession though. 

We didn't have to face that though because we were higher seeds and higher seeds don't get such disadvantages, whether it be rugby or soccer 

Hans, if you read back through the posts, I and others were saying Japan got a raw deal. You are right that 4 days is unheard of in pro rugby. 

The point being made is the team that is lowest seeding in the current format just have to lump it. 

What is the alternative?

1. Reduce to.16: more competitive but also more exclusive, more difficult to expand the game and unfair on teams outside of the elite.

2. Extend the world cup by a week: it's already full at professional 

3. Expand to 24: Think this is the next step but 2023 a better time where hopefully others are more competitive