As far as a closely contended game, there really hasnt been another like it yet. The Wales vs South Africa was pretty close I guess IIRC, but really nothing else. There is no stretching involved.
Now you are talking about "closely contended game" rather than "entertaining", not necessarily the same thing. Sorry but I don't find the Tongans running around like muppets playing garbage Rugby all that entertaining even if it is close. The Springbok/Wales game was close and the Rugby was of a much higher quality, much more entertaining for me thanks. So yeah I'm going to go ahead and continue to say that's a bit of a stretch. The Japan/France game was also far more entertaining, very competitive for the first 70 minutes anyway and the actual Rugby was more pleasing to watch. The competitiveness in that game was much more enthralling because Japan for most of the game looked like they could quite possibly pull off a gigantic upset.
Now you are talking about "closely contended game" rather than "entertaining", not necessarily the same thing. Sorry but I don't find the Tongans running around like muppets playing garbage Rugby all that entertaining even if it is close. The Springbok/Wales game was close and the Rugby was of a much higher quality, much more entertaining for me thanks. So yeah I'm going to go ahead and continue to say that's a bit of a stretch. The Japan/France game was also far more entertaining, very competitive for the first 70 minutes anyway and the actual Rugby was more pleasing to watch. The competitiveness in that game was much more enthralling because Japan for most of the game looked like they could quite possibly pull off a gigantic upset.
First half maybe. They got rolled in the second. Nobody is saying Canada is all that, but the quality was still pretty good. This is the World Cup after all.
And no, I mean entertaining, the ability to hold your interest. Im not much into a game where a team is ahead by thirty points. I will still watch but it isnt very enthralling. The Canada vs Tonga game was the most entertaining/thrilling/enthralling match from beginning to end that this tourney has seen. Period.
To say otherwise is just straight up wrong and reeks of snobbery.
First half maybe. They got rolled in the second. Nobody is saying Canada is all that, but the quality was still pretty good. This is the World Cup after all.
And no, I mean entertaining, the ability to hold your interest. Im not much into a game where a team is ahead by thirty points. I will still watch but it isnt very enthralling. The Canada vs Tonga game was the most entertaining/thrilling/enthralling match from beginning to end that this tourney has seen. Period.
To say otherwise is just straight up wrong and reeks of snobbery.
No, not just the first half, Japan was right in it until about the final 10 minutes. Pays to actually watch rather than just looking at the box score. You'll notice I'm not saying anything about the quality of Canada's play, I've pretty clearly been saying that the quality of the play from Tonga was not entertaining. Tonga played rubbish, I don't enjoy watching teams play rubbish sorry.
But it wasn't the most entertaining/thrilling/enthralling game from beginning to end. Maybe for you, because you are Canadian, but the French/Japan game was more exciting with better more entertaining Rugby played, the Welsh/Boks game was more exciting with MUCH better Rugby played and it was closer than the Tongan game. I like watching quality Rugby, that is what entertains me, thus the Welsh/Boks game was more entertaining than the Canadian's beating Tonga playing like crap "period". I'm not talking about games where teams just dominated the opposition am I? so why bring it up I even won a fair swag of money on Canada that game, still didn't really excite me.
Don't go getting upset just because I don't enjoy things simply on the basis of the game being close. I've watched probably close to 100 games of Rugby this year, that Canada/Tonga game really wasn't all that special of a watch to me. Funnily enough, some people enjoy watching different things. Evidently you're satisfied with a game being close to provide entertainment, that's not enough for me sorry. If anything is "snobbery", it's you thinking that your opinion is undeniably correct, "period", get a life. Anyone who disagrees with you "is just straight up wrong" lol? grow up kiddo.
I did watch the Japan France game. They got blown out in the second half, and not just in the last ten minutes. Im not upset, just mildly amused that you need to resort to telling us all how much Rugby you are watching as if you are more qualified to judge the game than someone else. And then you tell me to grow up. Im a grown ass man. I could probably be your father.
Its alright, you keep up the condescending know it all persona, it looks good on you.
What do you expect ? This is the sort of condescension one expects from the old boys network.
One even feels at times they'd rather have a World Cup between the old SH teams and the old Five Nations.
These teams like the USA, Canada and Namibia for instance do not have the huge resources at their disposal the other sides have. Many of the players are semi professionals at best and have taken time off work to compete on unpaid leave.
They constantly have to fight a battle to get a rugby culture instilled in schools having to take the sport up at a late age.
There has been a constant fight for the smaller sides to keep up. Italy were kept out of the Five Nations by the old boynetwork and when they did get entry they still received a far smaller slice of the TV revenue cake.
Argentina have had to fight for an age to get into the Tri-Nations.
Samoa when they were showing what they could do were kicked out of the Super 8 for even more antipodean franchises.
Most of these teams have not played top level Test's in between World Cups.Even Argentina only get a handful. The old boys are more interested in the anachronistic Lions than giving the up and coming sides more regular Tests.
Something has to be done about Georgia. Limited you say ? Well sides build from the pack .They play to their strengths though they look to be developing some backs, Todua looked impressive as did Ostroushko for Russia yesterday.
Promotion/relegation playoff from the 6N would be an idea.
And as for the scheduling. Why do the so called lesser sides have to play a more congested schedule even now ? Why not have a fair fixture list for them. Tonga 3 matches in 13 days ?
Nonetheless compared to previous World Cups the old boy's hegemony will not last too much longer. Give it a couple of decades.
Perhaps by then the IRB might also have a democratic structure rather than the one now which is just a mouthpiece for the older unions and we will see RWC's not just in Japan, but the USA and Argentina.
What do you expect ? This is the sort of condescension one expects from the old boys network.
One even feels at times they'd rather have a World Cup between the old SH teams and the old Five Nations.
These teams like the USA, Canada and Namibia for instance do not have the huge resources at their disposal the other sides have. Many of the players are semi professionals at best and have taken time off work to compete on unpaid leave.
They constantly have to fight a battle to get a rugby culture instilled in schools having to take the sport up at a late age.
There has been a constant fight for the smaller sides to keep up. Italy were kept out of the Five Nations by the old boynetwork and when they did get entry they still received a far smaller slice of the TV revenue cake.
Argentina have had to fight for an age to get into the Tri-Nations.
Samoa when they were showing what they could do were kicked out of the Super 8 for even more antipodean franchises.
Most of these teams have not played top level Test's in between World Cups.Even Argentina only get a handful. The old boys are more interested in the anachronistic Lions than giving the up and coming sides more regular Tests.
Something has to be done about Georgia. Limited you say ? Well sides build from the pack .They play to their strengths though they look to be developing some backs, Todua looked impressive as did Ostroushko for Russia yesterday.
Promotion/relegation playoff from the 6N would be an idea.
And as for the scheduling. Why do the so called lesser sides have to play a more congested schedule even now ? Why not have a fair fixture list for them. Tonga 3 matches in 13 days ?
Nonetheless compared to previous World Cups the old boy's hegemony will not last too much longer. Give it a couple of decades.
Perhaps by then the IRB might also have a democratic structure rather than the one now which is just a mouthpiece for the older unions and we will see RWC's not just in Japan, but the USA and Argentina.
Australia have to play 3 matches in 12 days. South Africa have to play 3 matches in 11 days. The scheduling is fine.
Quite a bit. Especially in your cranium. Not worth replying to such nonsense.
ScottishCanuck. Scheduling is tougher on these sides because they don't as yet have the depth and in many cases players that are full professionals.
The IRB could make allowances for this but they never have.
There's no need for that really, is there? You've got to take into account that the majority of people on these boards are North Americans, and over there it's a fringe sport. And just because the guy is Australian doesn't mean he knows absolutely everything about rugby. So stop being such an arse (excuse my language) and try to remember that.
For the benefit of the previous poster, the Tier 1 Nations consist of Scotland, Ireland, England, Wales, Italy, France, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and finally Argentina.
The tier 2 Nation are Canada, Fiji, Japan, Romania, Samoa, Tonga, and the USA.
Maybe this "old boys network" horse **** would fly in the amateur era, but the expansion of the game into new countrys means more $ these days. So I very much doubt the IRB is trying to stop rugby expanding.
Now you are talking about "closely contended game" rather than "entertaining", not necessarily the same thing. Sorry but I don't find the Tongans running around like muppets playing garbage Rugby all that entertaining even if it is close. The Springbok/Wales game was close and the Rugby was of a much higher quality, much more entertaining for me thanks. So yeah I'm going to go ahead and continue to say that's a bit of a stretch. The Japan/France game was also far more entertaining, very competitive for the first 70 minutes anyway and the actual Rugby was more pleasing to watch. The competitiveness in that game was much more enthralling because Japan for most of the game looked like they could quite possibly pull off a gigantic upset.
"Closely contended" between countries who shouldn't be that close might be a bit of an illusion caused by the non-stop rain, for the games I have seen anyway.
There's no need for that really, is there? You've got to take into account that the majority of people on these boards are North Americans, and over there it's a fringe sport. And just because the guy is Australian doesn't mean he knows absolutely everything about rugby. So stop being such an arse (excuse my language) and try to remember that.
For the benefit of the previous poster, the Tier 1 Nations consist of Scotland, Ireland, England, Wales, Italy, France, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and finally Argentina.
The tier 2 Nation are Canada, Fiji, Japan, Romania, Samoa, Tonga, and the USA.
"Closely contended" between countries who shouldn't be that close might be a bit of an illusion caused by the non-stop rain, for the games I have seen anyway.
You can't really attribute the closeness of the French/Japan game to rain.
Maybe this "old boys network" horse **** would fly in the amateur era, but the expansion of the game into new countrys means more $ these days. So I very much doubt the IRB is trying to stop rugby expanding.
Considering the fact that the IRB is funding many of these newer rugby nations in an effort to integrate them in with the traditional powers, I'd say that they're far from trying to prevent rugby from expanding. They're certainly doing a better job of growing their sport than the ICC is with cricket. At least the IRB gives countries a clear, uniform path to full membership.
At any rate, watching Australia self-destruct against Ireland was quite entertaining, made moreso by the fact that the only stream I could find was one with Japanese commentators. The play-by-play guy was really intense. I can only imagine what he might sound like for a match involving Japan.
Can someone explain the scheduling. Why are some teams having to play twice in four days while others, notably NZ, get at least seven days off between games?
It would appear they are trying cram a 20 team tourney into a 16 team format.
Can someone explain the scheduling. Why are some teams having to play twice in four days while others, notably NZ, get at least seven days off between games?
It would appear they are trying cram a 20 team tourney into a 16 team format.
For what it's worth a month later, all Tier 1 nations were given seven, eight days off between games, every game. Tier 2 nations had to go on four days rest for some of their matches.
Canada's Sevens side beat Argentina 26-24 to win the Pan Am Games Gold Medal
The top countries play in the best timeslots, which come around weekly, the tier 2 countries play during the week in the weaker timeslots. This maximizes revenue for the IRB, who in turn use that money to support the tier 2 nations.
Also the tier 1 nations are expected to play a longer tournament than the tier 2 nations thus the rest is more important to them.
In the ITM cup this year, teams were regularly playing with 3 or 4 days rest this was throughout the whole season not just a tournament, by almost all accounts the players loved it. Does make for a convenient excuse for teams who do not win though. Ultimately the only team I feel who has a legitimate gripe with this issue is Samoa, none of the others were a chance to progress to the next stage anyway.
I even won a fair swag of money on Canada that game, still didn't really excite me.
