The Webb Ellis Rugby Union World Cup 2019

I wasn't being exact, three weeks, two weeks, it makes little difference. My point still stands. And time after time I mean every world cup, the same teams are toasted.

And given a try and conversion is worth 7 points, it's more like scoring 8 or 9

 

But the minnows don't care about the result too much. They just want to play against the best players in the world and enjoy the occasion. They know they will likely get thumped but they would much rather play at a world cup and get thumped than not play at all and stick to playing other minnows in front of very small crowds.

 

You're pretty much proving my point

 

This ! I`m biased of course, but it has the makings of a really great game. Rules created by some suit somewhere with no flexibility or pragmatism. Makes a farce of the tournament.

 

I must admit, I’m not sure you ever made a point. There are those countries who have been playing rugby for well over 100 years, and there are all the other nations who have more recently started playing and are slowly getting better. Club rugby helps to expose the best players from all nations to a more competitive standard, and those players help to raise their national sides up. It’s an evolutionary process, and I’m not sure there is a way of rushing it. The TV money that the World Cup has raised has done an incredible amount of good for the emerging nations. And Tom is absolutely right, getting trounced by New Zealand or South Africa, or even Scotland, isn’t regarded as a humiliation, but a sign that they have reached the level where they get to play teams at that standard, and that is seen as a massive achievement.

 

My point is, the top teams should play the smaller teams more often rather than just once every 4 years to help their development and give them more consistent experience of playing against top players, exactly the same as in cricket, IMO.

For example, in terms of cricket, each year England should play one ODI series against a non-test side, if other nations did that too, it would aid these non-top sides' development.

 

So how do you propose organising World Rugby so that the 126 affiliated nations get to play each other more regularly than in a 4-year cycle? Or even dividing them up, say England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina each having to play 12 or 13 emerging nations as well as their own domestic tournaments (6 Nations, Rugby Championship), plus the Autumn Internationals, while at the same time maintaining club rugby? I would be interested to hear your detailed proposals, rather than just a vague moan about something that only you appear to find a problem.

 

Did you even read what I said? I said once a year against a developing nation in cricket, so something like that in rugby as well. Fitting in one extra match or changing one international fixture opponent is hardly going to break the calender.

I swear it feels like people just disagree with me because I'm a Portsmouth fan sometimes.

 

Where do you get the time from? You've got the rugby domestic season plus the 6 Nations. Players need rest especially as the sport is so physical.

 

What a pathetic last sentence. Credibility killer. You’ve always been welcomed here, if we had something against you for being a skate, you’d have been battered by now!



* no pun intended

 

Ha! I can't think of a better reason to be honest.

 

I don't have the entire rugby calendar to hand, but I imagine it's probably possible. Certainly is in cricket at least.

 

As I said above, in order to play each of the emerging nations once a year, you’re asking each of the top nations to fit more than 10 or 12 extra games in. It’s simply not possible.

What is sometimes done, however, is for summer club tours to go to emerging nations. That is probably the best way to go.

 

No, no, no, I don't mean that, sorry. I'm just saying play one emerging nation per year. Or maybe two if you're feeling generous.

Say one year England plays Georgia or someone, then Georgia may also play New Zealand that year.

The next year England plays Romania while New Zealand may play Namibia... In turn, Georgia may play South Africa and Scotland.

It's just one or two games per nation, per year which could be an extra game or a change from existing games.

 

It is nothing to do with being a Pompey fan PL. Some on here think I am a Tottenham fan and the grief I get is much worse. Just to set the récord récord straight I am a supporter of Pompey, Southampton, Sevilla, Athletic Bilbao, Hapoel, the Kenya Athletics team, and so on.

 

So you’re not actually interested in exposing teams like Uruguay or Canada, or the USA to stiffer competition, but are happy to create a second tier of nations.

How does that help the third tier to improve, which is what your original complaint was about?

 

Spud!

 

Namibia and Georgia were examples, it could be USA or Canada or whoever.

 

What happens to the others?

 

Well in terms of top teams I'd say they are: England, South Africa, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, France...

If each team played two emerging nations a year, that means 16 matches against emerging nations. Italy already play in the six nations, so they can be discounted, so that means each emerging nation could play at least one match against top opposition a year.