for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

Rugby World Cup

1 lurker | 64 watchers

fetcheveryone Sep 2023 12:42pm, 25 Sep 2023 29,602 posts	Quote Pin fetcheveryone They did well, but it felt that Australia didn’t exactly turn up.
jda Sep 2023 12:51pm, 25 Sep 2023 15,483 posts	Quote Pin jda “If you want to do it purely by the rankings, then you don't need a world cup at all.” Seems an odd comment. The argument is that the matchups should be arranged by ranking, not that the games shouldn’t be played. It shouldn’t really be beyond the wit of man to have the top 4 put into different groups and the next 4 likewise such that if everyone plays according to the rankings they all get to the semis and quarters respectively. While still allowing for the possibility for lower teams to outperform.
Nellers Sep 2023 1:00pm, 25 Sep 2023 41,294 posts	Quote Pin Nellers If the ranking system is fit for purpose then surey the World Champions should be the team at the top of the ranking list? If the ranking list works then the world cup should just confirm that but the reality is never so simple is it? But the seeding theoretically skews things in favour of the "big teams" at the expense of the minnows. We don't seed the FA Cup draw do we? which version is fairer? I guess the options are: a) Completely random draw which might mean the top 4 nations go into the same group together and Chile make it through from an easy group to the knock-out stages b) a seeded draw which reduces the chances of this, rewards consistent performance over a prior period, but then the question is at which point do you do the draw and is the ranking system fit for purpose Either way, ultimately, if you want to win it you've got to be able to beat the teams you come up against on the day, and I guess if you got NZ, Aus, SA and Ireland in the group and lost NZ and Aus, say, then they probably wouldn't have beaten SA and/or Ireland in the knockouts to win it all in the end? And all other things being equal you eventually get the same winner. Except more hard games means more injuries, more fatigue, etc, but a really easy route through could be argued to lead to complacency and less exacting standards which will get found out in tougher later games? And if you're using a random draw the argument about ranking points for later stage performances isn't an issue because the rankings don't matter anyway. Thinking aloud here but it's different to an FA Cup draw where there are, theoretically, quite a large pool of potential worthy winners (say the top 10 in the Prem) and a shock winner from a lower ranked team isn't unheard of, but it's not actually a competition intended to find the best team in the land. That's what the league structure is for. However, in a rugby world cup you absolutely are out to identify the very best team in the world at that stage and it's encumbant on the organisers to try to ensure that this is the outcome, or at least make sure that it's very likely to be the outcome. But using a ranking that's out-of-date doesn't seem to meet either criteria to me.
SPR Sep 2023 1:03pm, 25 Sep 2023 42,751 posts	Quote Pin SPR The FA Cup isn't trying to find the best team in England, that's the Premier League.
SPR Sep 2023 1:03pm, 25 Sep 2023 42,752 posts	Quote Pin SPR Sorry Nellers I jumped in too quickly there 😉
Nellers Sep 2023 1:06pm, 25 Sep 2023 41,295 posts	Quote Pin Nellers You're forgiven, SPR, and that's rather the point.
SPR Sep 2023 1:07pm, 25 Sep 2023 42,753 posts	Quote Pin SPR I do think any cup competition does have an element of luck (if you play one game in knockout format you always have luck). NBA playoffs have a best of 7 format which in theory should result in the best team winning Vs a one game knockout format. Obviously not really feasible for rugby.
Nellers Sep 2023 1:13pm, 25 Sep 2023 41,296 posts	Quote Pin Nellers And that element of luck is very much what sport is all about. You've got to turn up and perform when it matters and hope that nothing uncontrollable goes wrong, otherwise you could decide the winner by analysing, I don't know, kicking accuracy, pack weight, sprint speed and recovery times of the 15 starter of both teams and the winner is the biggest total or something. Ridiculous suggestion but you get the point? The seeding, I assume, is there to reduce the chances of a big team falling foul of a bit of uncontrollable bad luck too early inthe competition, but that assumes that the ranking system works as it's intended (ie the best teams are at actually at the top) and that it's still relevant at the time the competition takes place, which inthis case it doesn't really seem to be.
jda Sep 2023 1:30pm, 25 Sep 2023 15,486 posts	Quote Pin jda It’s not just about the winner and even if it was, making the top team play knockout games against nos 2, 3 and 4 on the way would greatly reduce their chances. There are good reasons for seeding, but not much point when it’s done so stupidly.
Fields Sep 2023 1:32pm, 25 Sep 2023 9,961 posts	Quote Pin Fields I'd say Wales looked like a WC winning team last night. Australia were so poor especially in the second half. It’s rare for a team score 40 points but only 3 tries. In many ways it was the epitome of a Gatland performance, Wales stuck to their game plan which is effective until it’s not. They can perhaps beat Argentina in a QF but no go any further