LF,nospam49 said:If you want to use the last farcicle world cup as a guide.....
Wales played 20 good minutes in the whole competition and since then have gone backwards.
Ireland was playing off the back of a number of players that have since retired. They now have pretty much nothing to work with.
Scotland...they were crap in 2000 depsite the fact they had more Aussies in their side then Australia did!
Be realistic. Wales (The best of these three sides) and been pathetic when matched against Australia over the last few years. They've called up bloody 36 year olds!
I cant see where you are coming from. It is almost certainly a 10 team world cup. Australia, NewZealand are guaranteed. You want Great Britain because otherwise Wales, Scotland and Ireland players wont get a chance. You wand Pacific Islands because it gives fiji, Samoa, Tonga a very good side. That is 4 teams and leaves 6 more. France, have never showed a dominance over Wales, Scotland and Ireland in the past and despite pushing NZ and Australia in 2 games are realistically not at the same level but should probably qualify for 5th. Where do the other 5 teams come from. PNG i guess, but they are not at Australia/NZ level and that leaves 7 teams. You surelly dont believe Russia, Lebanon, Italy etc have better setups than Ireland, Scotland, Wales do you? Especially since you are one of those demanding selection of domestic based players. Since you want only teams who can compete with Australia in the world cup, do you want a 4 or 5 team world cup?
And on the Welsh previous performances at the last world cup, if they only played good for 20 minutes, why did they lead Australia for 60? The 3 home nations have probably dropped in status of "Ancestry/Union eligble" players since the last world cup but have picked up with domestic based players (thus making them weaker overall) but no doubt they will discover some more ancestor players between now and the next world cup.