MattyCLark
Juniors
- Messages
- 36
I understand that this is a RUGBY LEAGUE forum. But I think that this article effects the whole of rugby in the United States. And before everyone gets on their Union vs League horse this is the USA, we don't know enough about the battles to care. Respect to other countrys and their rugby code issues. USA has none, most of us play both codes if we can. Yes for those of you that don't know we are a country of Sunny Bills.
Anyway the explination is over enjoy the article. I just wanted to see your thoughts. Ok so I can't hyper link it but here is the info.
At Rugbys Big Event, Let the Routs Begin
By VICTOR MATHER
Published: September 27, 2011
It is the biggest stage in the sport: the Rugby World Cup, held every four years, matching up the best teams in the world and captivating millions of fans. It is sometimes called the third most popular sports event in the world, after the Olympics and soccers World Cup.
And here are some of the scores from this years event in New Zealand: England 67, Romania 3; New Zealand 83, Japan 7; South Africa 87, Namibia 0.
The sport of rugby, venerable in its own bone-crushing way with its rucks, mauls and scrums, can seem puzzling to a nonaficionado. But any hopes that its appeal will move much beyond the old British Empire seem oddly undercut at what is supposed to be the sports best moment.
Take, for instance, the decision to stage the event over seven weeks, nearly a month of which is used to play 40 games that reduce the field only from 20 to 8. That is nearly twice as long as soccers World Cup, which manages to reduce 32 teams to one in a month. Add the complication of having only about 10 teams that have any significant chance to make the final eight, and you have a recipe for meaningless games, blowouts and boredom.
Despite the organizers aspirations for the cosmopolitan reach of soccer, the truth is there are only a few countries where rugby is played at any kind of high level: the nations of the British Isles, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, France and, in recent years, Argentina. With a field of 20 at the World Cup, that leaves half the spots for teams that not only have no chance to win, but also little chance to be competitive with the top teams.
Organizers say these countries, often called the minnows, are admitted to the Cup to try to increase the popularity of rugby worldwide.
The dominance of the elite teams at the Rugby World Cup is not a new phenomenon. In six previous World Cups, only five different teams have made the final, and only eight have made a semifinal. And some of the scores from earlier Cups were even more lopsided: New Zealand 108, Portugal 13 in 2007; Australia 142, Namibia 0 in 2003; England 101, Tonga 10 in 1999. (For the uninitiated, scoring is similar to American football; a try, equivalent to a touchdown, is worth 5 points, a drop kick, like a field goal, is worth 3.)
The results of most Cup games are in so little doubt that fans focus on the margin of victory. In the first game of the tournament, on Sept. 9, New Zealand beat Tonga, 41-10, only to be sharply criticized by the news media and fans for not trouncing the islanders by a bigger margin. After his teams 81-7 shellacking of Namibia, Wales Coach Warren Gatland told the BBC he was disappointed. We started off with 22 points, he said, and then the guys felt the game was all over, went to sleep and stopped being aggressive.
Also compounding the problems of the weaker teams is the schedule. Broadcasters want the top teams playing on the weekend, so they have usually had a full week off between games. The minnows have been slotted in wherever openings remain, so many of them have been playing some of their games after only a few days rest, a big disadvantage in a physical game like rugby.
To be sure, there are blowouts in other sports. Super Bowls have been decided by scores of 55-10 and 52-17. But these results are generally surprises. No one expects anything but a rout when a minnow meets a rugby power. Bookmakers decided that Ireland, for example, was a 42 ½-point favorite over Russia on Sunday. (In the end, Russia could not even cover that number, losing, 62-16.) On Sunday, New Zealand will play Canada, and the point spread is a whopping 64 ½. And Canada is not even one of the worst teams at the tournament, having beaten Tonga.
There is some impatience with these early-round games in the countries that are rugby powers. Mismatches undermine the World Cup, read a headline in The Independent Online of South Africa. Do World Cup Thrashing Benefit the Sport?" The Guardian asked its readers. (They were split.)
Others suggested that things could be worse. An essey in The New Zealand Herald contended that the smaller countries were actually beginning to close the gap on the big nations, citing Japans mere 26-point loss to France, and Georgias being supposedly exceptional for long periods against England. (England won that game, 41-10.)
By Sunday, all the teams will have finally played four games each. The Cup then turns into a single-elimination event, and no doubt there will be some high-quality rugby combined with actual uncertainty. And the minnows will be on their way home.
Still, there are no signs that the weaker teams are sorry to be at the Cup.
Exposure like this you just never get, Colin Hawley of the American team said after a game against mighty Australia. That game tonight has taught me so much.
Final score: Australia 67, United States 5.
Emma Stoney contributed reporting from Wellington, New Zealand.
Anyway the explination is over enjoy the article. I just wanted to see your thoughts. Ok so I can't hyper link it but here is the info.
At Rugbys Big Event, Let the Routs Begin
By VICTOR MATHER
Published: September 27, 2011
It is the biggest stage in the sport: the Rugby World Cup, held every four years, matching up the best teams in the world and captivating millions of fans. It is sometimes called the third most popular sports event in the world, after the Olympics and soccers World Cup.
And here are some of the scores from this years event in New Zealand: England 67, Romania 3; New Zealand 83, Japan 7; South Africa 87, Namibia 0.
The sport of rugby, venerable in its own bone-crushing way with its rucks, mauls and scrums, can seem puzzling to a nonaficionado. But any hopes that its appeal will move much beyond the old British Empire seem oddly undercut at what is supposed to be the sports best moment.
Take, for instance, the decision to stage the event over seven weeks, nearly a month of which is used to play 40 games that reduce the field only from 20 to 8. That is nearly twice as long as soccers World Cup, which manages to reduce 32 teams to one in a month. Add the complication of having only about 10 teams that have any significant chance to make the final eight, and you have a recipe for meaningless games, blowouts and boredom.
Despite the organizers aspirations for the cosmopolitan reach of soccer, the truth is there are only a few countries where rugby is played at any kind of high level: the nations of the British Isles, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, France and, in recent years, Argentina. With a field of 20 at the World Cup, that leaves half the spots for teams that not only have no chance to win, but also little chance to be competitive with the top teams.
Organizers say these countries, often called the minnows, are admitted to the Cup to try to increase the popularity of rugby worldwide.
The dominance of the elite teams at the Rugby World Cup is not a new phenomenon. In six previous World Cups, only five different teams have made the final, and only eight have made a semifinal. And some of the scores from earlier Cups were even more lopsided: New Zealand 108, Portugal 13 in 2007; Australia 142, Namibia 0 in 2003; England 101, Tonga 10 in 1999. (For the uninitiated, scoring is similar to American football; a try, equivalent to a touchdown, is worth 5 points, a drop kick, like a field goal, is worth 3.)
The results of most Cup games are in so little doubt that fans focus on the margin of victory. In the first game of the tournament, on Sept. 9, New Zealand beat Tonga, 41-10, only to be sharply criticized by the news media and fans for not trouncing the islanders by a bigger margin. After his teams 81-7 shellacking of Namibia, Wales Coach Warren Gatland told the BBC he was disappointed. We started off with 22 points, he said, and then the guys felt the game was all over, went to sleep and stopped being aggressive.
Also compounding the problems of the weaker teams is the schedule. Broadcasters want the top teams playing on the weekend, so they have usually had a full week off between games. The minnows have been slotted in wherever openings remain, so many of them have been playing some of their games after only a few days rest, a big disadvantage in a physical game like rugby.
To be sure, there are blowouts in other sports. Super Bowls have been decided by scores of 55-10 and 52-17. But these results are generally surprises. No one expects anything but a rout when a minnow meets a rugby power. Bookmakers decided that Ireland, for example, was a 42 ½-point favorite over Russia on Sunday. (In the end, Russia could not even cover that number, losing, 62-16.) On Sunday, New Zealand will play Canada, and the point spread is a whopping 64 ½. And Canada is not even one of the worst teams at the tournament, having beaten Tonga.
There is some impatience with these early-round games in the countries that are rugby powers. Mismatches undermine the World Cup, read a headline in The Independent Online of South Africa. Do World Cup Thrashing Benefit the Sport?" The Guardian asked its readers. (They were split.)
Others suggested that things could be worse. An essey in The New Zealand Herald contended that the smaller countries were actually beginning to close the gap on the big nations, citing Japans mere 26-point loss to France, and Georgias being supposedly exceptional for long periods against England. (England won that game, 41-10.)
By Sunday, all the teams will have finally played four games each. The Cup then turns into a single-elimination event, and no doubt there will be some high-quality rugby combined with actual uncertainty. And the minnows will be on their way home.
Still, there are no signs that the weaker teams are sorry to be at the Cup.
Exposure like this you just never get, Colin Hawley of the American team said after a game against mighty Australia. That game tonight has taught me so much.
Final score: Australia 67, United States 5.
Emma Stoney contributed reporting from Wellington, New Zealand.
Last edited: