What a Joke! Does this set the standard now

[Ernest the Sheep]

Basketball, which is a much bigger sport than rugby union. There are not 6 countries that can win the RWC!

basketball you say?

USA, Serbia, Croatia, Lithuania, Turkey, Greeks, Spanish

wouldn't be unheard of it one of those teams were to be world champs.

now if Fiji were ever league world champs ...

 

[doogiehowser_md]

Just throwing it in there, but what about Netball? Only 2 can win that

 

[Matua]

I mean't quarters, not semi's. I wasn't having a go at the Rugby World Cup, look at how the 2013 Rugby League World Cup is set up. Same sort of thing.

Realistically there is always only four nations that can win the Rugby World Cup, New Zealand, England, South Africa and Australia.

The fact that Australia is up there despite not having a successful national domestic competition also raises my eyebrows.

And France!

Australia does have a domestic competition, it's just that it's the S15 despite it being a 3 nation comp. NZ and SA prop up Oz rugby by allowing the new S1558589320203141049019401940491049019409120490129049012940910490194091204901249 to keep expanding.

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

Just throwing it in there, but what about Netball? Only 2 can win that

although it's usually the same 2 in the final, 4 teams do have a hope. Both Jaimaca and Eng have beaten NZ in recent times. I also think Aus has lost to Jaimaca in the past, but not sure if Eng have ever beaten them. But netball is still not a world sport. Neither is league.

 

[NRL-TGG]

which 4 teams are you talking about?

Look up son.

And France!

Australia does have a domestic competition, it's just that it's the S15 despite it being a 3 nation comp. NZ and SA prop up Oz rugby by allowing the new S1558589320203141049019401940491049019409120490129049012940910490194091204901249 to keep expanding.

France have no chance whatsoever.

The Super Rugby, which no longer has has a number in its name, is an international competition for clubs from South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. It is not a domestic competition for either of these countries.

In New Zealand the domestic competition has three domestic competitions, the ITM cup, the heartland Championship and the Ranfurly Shield.

In South Africa the domestic competition is the Currie Cup.

Australia once had an Australian Rugby Championship. The lack of a domestic competition in Australia is a real concern for Australian Rugby Union.

 

[doogiehowser_md]

If you throw Origin out completely or change eligibilty rules for Origin making it open to anyone it would definitely make International League more competitive.

Australia would field a team of players that WANT to play for Australia and not just QLD or NSW.
NZ could field their best team that WANT to play for NZ.
Meaning the Island nations could field teams with Australian/English/NZ based players with a strong pride for their heritage that may have in the past played for Australia to be eligible for Origin or who played for the Kiwis taking vacant spots left by those Kiwis who decided to give up Kiwi jerseys to pursue Maroon or Sky Blue ones.

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

Look up son.



France have no chance whatsoever.

which 4 teams, can you name them?

if you're saying the Froggies ain't one of them then you know very little because they've already been finalists twice.

 

[Matua]

Look up son.



France have no chance whatsoever.

The Super Rugby, which no longer has has a number in its name, is an international competition for clubs from South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. It is not a domestic competition for either of these countries.

In New Zealand the domestic competition has three domestic competitions, the ITM cup, the heartland Championship and the Ranfurly Shield.

In South Africa the domestic competition is the Currie Cup.

Australia once had an Australian Rugby Championship. The lack of a domestic competition in Australia is a real concern for Australian Rugby Union.

France have no chance this year, but in other years they've had a chance - making two finals.

Super Rugby despite being an international comp is in effect Aus domestic comp. It pays 150 of their players to play rugby for most of the year now.

The lack of an official 'domestic' comp is much less of a concern for Oz now than it has ever been due to Super 15687324987236487623987468723648723684762378462873.

 

[IanG]

Bit like Dirk Nannes playing in the 2009 World Twenty20 Cricket Cup for Holland then showing up for Australia a few weeks later

 

[NRL-TGG]

which 4 teams, can you name them?

if you're saying the Froggies ain't one of them then you know very little because they've already been finalists twice.

I already have above.

Yes, they have made the finals twice. Do you remember how those games went?

Smashed both times, no real chance of ever winning either of those games.

France have no chance this year, but in other years they've had a chance - making two finals.

Super Rugby despite being an international comp is in effect Aus domestic comp. It pays 150 of their players to play rugby for most of the year now.

The lack of an official 'domestic' comp is much less of a concern for Oz now than it has ever been due to Super 15687324987236487623987468723648723684762378462873.

1. Refer to above.

2. It still is not a true domestic competition.

3. Get over the point of view that I am 'hating' on the sport, I am not as you would see above. Just because you have some emotional connection to it.

 

[Matua]

I already have above.

Yes, they have made the finals twice. Do you remember how those games went?

Smashed both times, no real chance of ever winning either of those games.



1. Refer to above.

2. It still is not a true domestic competition.

3. Get over the point of view that I am 'hating' on the sport, I am not as you would see above. Just because you have some emotional connection to it.

1. France are as good a chance as England as winning a WC - oh, and England won one. France will do it one day.

2. The point is that the lack of a domestic competition does not effect OZ because of Super Rugby. I'm unsure why you don't understand this. Super Rugby is effectively the 'domestic comp' level - what the NPC and Currie Cup used to be. They are now next tier down (unfortunately).

3. You've gone and put 2+ 2 and made 5 there. I've never said anything about you hating the sport. You're just wrong on the above two points.

 

[NRL-TGG]

1. France are as good a chance as England as winning a WC - oh, and England won one. France will do it one day.

2. The point is that the lack of a domestic competition does not effect OZ because of Super Rugby. I'm unsure why you don't understand this. Super Rugby is effectively the 'domestic comp' level - what the NPC and Currie Cup used to be. They are now next tier down (unfortunately).

3. You've gone and put 2+ 2 and made 5 there. I've never said anything about you hating the sport. You're just wrong on the above two points.

1. France are not as good as a chance as England, only a noob would think that.

2. Australian rugby depth isn't deep at all when compared to other sports, merely an observation I made which you turn to this.

3. I'm not wrong.

 

[Matua]

1. France are not as good as a chance as England, only a noob would think that.

2. Australian rugby depth isn't deep at all when compared to other sports, merely an observation I made which you turn to this.

3. I'm not wrong.

1. France are always as good a chance as England before a WC, they just haven't managed to pull off a win - NZ has only managed one and you can't argue the ABs don't have as good a chance as England.

2. Your observation was this:

The fact that Australia is up there despite not having a successful national domestic competition also raises my eyebrows.

My point I made is that their success is based on the fact they compete in Super Rugby, it is the direct level below test match, it pays 150 players, it doesn't matter that there is no domestic competition in Oz. Does it matter that there is no top line domestic competition in NZ yet we're WC and 4 Nations champs -because all our players are in the NRL.

3. Yes you are.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

1. France are not as good as a chance as England, only a noob would think that.

2. Australian rugby depth isn't deep at all when compared to other sports, merely an observation I made which you turn to this.

3. I'm not wrong.

Asked any All Black fans who they would like to by pass :lol:

 

[NRL-TGG]

1. France are always as good a chance as England before a WC, they just haven't managed to pull off a win - NZ has only managed one and you can't argue the ABs don't have as good a chance as England.

I'm only worried about actual WC performances and on-field results.

2. Your observation was this:

My point I made is that their success is based on the fact they compete in Super Rugby, it is the direct level below test match, it pays 150 players, it doesn't matter that there is no domestic competition in Oz. Does it matter that there is no top line domestic competition in NZ yet we're WC and 4 Nations champs -because all our players are in the NRL.

No body is arguing against the quality of Super Rugby, Super Rugby will ensure that there will be a couple of good Aussie sides and a few struggling ones. This may change from year to year but could by different if backed up by a domestic competition with the amount of talent this country has.

3. Yes you are.

No, I'm not.

Asked any All Black fans who they would like to by pass :lol:

Yes, but in order to win the WC you have to beat more then just the ABs.

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

I already have above.

Yes, they have made the finals twice. Do you remember how those games went?

Smashed both times, no real chance of ever winning either of those games.

As I recall, the Froggies lost both those game. But so what? Your problem seems to be that you don't understand basic probability. I just checked the latest NZ TAB odds. At present the French are paying $7 to win the RWC. That means they are outsiders, but they have a reasonable chance. It certainly is not beyond the bounds of possibility they could win. I've also checked the 4-nations odds. The Welsh are paying $200 for the win. Which basically means they have no chance. Do you understand the difference?

 

[shinobi]

I'd back France in the rugby before Wales in the League. Wales in the rugby are playing well though.

 

[undertaker]

I mean't quarters, not semi's. I wasn't having a go at the Rugby World Cup, look at how the 2013 Rugby League World Cup is set up. Same sort of thing.

Realistically there is always only four nations that can win the Rugby World Cup, New Zealand, England, South Africa and Australia.

The fact that Australia is up there despite not having a successful national domestic competition also raises my eyebrows.

100% correct. No matter how much union supporters try to give the illusion that the quality of their wc is better and most teams have a chance of winning, the reality is that the statistics stand as they are. Union have only had 5 teams that have made the final: Australia, new Zealand, France, south Africa and England. RLWC has also had 5 teams :Australia, new Zealand, England, France and great Britain. The big difference is that the union wc is better promoted

 

[NRL-TGG]

As I recall, the Froggies lost both those game. But so what? Your problem seems to be that you don't understand basic probability. I just checked the latest NZ TAB odds. At present the French are paying $7 to win the RWC. That means they are outsiders, but they have a reasonable chance.

No it doesn't, it means people think they have a reasonable chance of winning.

I've also checked the 4-nations odds. The Welsh are paying $200 for the win. Which basically means they have no chance. Do you understand the difference?

What has Rugby League got to do with the Rugby Union World Cup?

 

[Ernest the Sheep]

No it doesn't, it means people think they have a reasonable chance of winning.?

which the French do, because you will find that most people don't enjoy throwing their money away.

What has Rugby League got to do with the Rugby Union World Cup?

Wasn't it you who claimed that only 4 teams had a chance to win the RWC? I was merely attempting to demonstrate to you the flaw in your reasoning. Obviously a waste of time.