Rugby World Cup - Most Overrated Event in World Sport?

[Tommy Smith]

I notice this week that of the eight pool games to open the tournament we have:

2 matches that aren't even offering odds on the winner
4 matches with a 1.01 favourite
2 matches with favourites at 1.19 or under

What a thrilling tournament! Almost as bad as a round of AFL!!

It really is no more than a glorified 5 nations tournament.

 

[Parra]

Deciding the merit of sport based on bookies odds.

Weak effort.

 

[andrew057]

Deciding the merit of sport based on bookies odds.

Weak effort.

The merit of the competitveness of the teams involved, I'd say bookies odds would be a very accurate measure.

 

[Parra]

The merit of the competitveness of the teams involved, I'd say bookies odds would be a very accurate measure.

Different merits. You want a manufactured level playing field - then watch handicap thoroughbred racing or draft altered, capped local comps. Most sports have them. It will be competitive. This will be reflected with the bookmakers.

You want pure sport - watch international competition where winner takes all.

Your choices.

 

[andrew057]

Different merits. You want a manufactured level playing field - then watch handicap thoroughbred racing or draft altered, capped local comps. Most sports have them. It will be competitive. This will be reflected with the bookmakers.

You want pure sport - watch international competition where winner takes all.

Your choices.

Yeah you got that right, pure sport. Where a team of professionals, some of who earn in excess of a million dollars a year vs. a team of part time amatuers. Good stuff.

 

[Mr Angry]

lol no vfl is the joke.

union is not my thing....but the Victorian game is the most embarrassing game on earth.

 

[Parra]

Yeah you got that right, pure sport. Where a team of professionals, some of who earn in excess of a million dollars a year vs. a team of part time amatuers. Good stuff.

Follow something that smooths out the lumps for you then. Back to the artificial level playing fields.

 

[andrew057]

Follow something that smooths out the lumps for you then. Back to the artificial level playing fields.

Nah Ill just skip the majority of the pool matches which are a waste of time.

 

[Thomas]

Nah Ill just skip the majority of the pool matches which are a waste of time.

Really?

I'll be watching the USA - Russia game with interest (and a beer). Some of the pool games between the minnows are great.

 

[Twizzle]

If it is no more than a 5 nation tournament and they are the best teams in the world, then world cup seems to be a reasonably accurate description.

Lets face it alot of the pool games are all about build up and making a few dollars in the process but I dont see that as being a problem either.

 

[Parra]

Nah Ill just skip the majority of the pool matches which are a waste of time.

Waste of your time. Great time for plenty of other people.

 

[JoeD]

Tell these guys they are wasting their time. This vid was taken a week ago as well, they've been going nuts all week.

http://youtu.be/OqgKEBCbKjU

 

[Warrior@Heart]

I think RL could learn a thing or two when it comes to World Cups. At the RLWC it's a 3 team race, but the RWC you have NZ, South Africa, Aussie, England, France as the elite teams. Than there's a group of teams who could upset anyone on their day in Wales, Ireland, Samoa & Argentina. Than there are the improving nations looking for an upset in Fiji, Italy, Japan, Tonga, Scotland. It's a hell of alot better than AFL, and the internationals trump Rugby Leagues imo.

 

[counterpuncher]

I attended a heap of games during RWC 2003 and 2007(love big events!) and to be honest some of the best games for atmosphere and tight results were between the "minnow" or 2nd tier nations.

Wales vs. Fiji in 2007 was a pearler, and the full house at Gosford for USA/Japan in 2003 had a fantastic atmosphere with the stars & stripes and kamikazee headbands everywhere.

Lopsided contests are a given, but if you don't give these nations a chance to play the big boys to improve and grow, they never will (use the Sri Lanka / Bangladesh cricket example). It's called a World Cup for a reason, with a good spread of teams from all continents.



....and I do recall being at the game between two of the real tournament strugglers in '03 with arguably the least amount of expats to call upon for crowd numbers(Georgia and Uruguay). They pulled more people to their game at the SFS than Manly/Cowboys is likely to this weekend.

 

[Tommy Smith]

I think RL could learn a thing or two when it comes to World Cups. At the RLWC it's a 3 team race, but the RWC you have NZ, South Africa, Aussie, England, France as the elite teams. Than there's a group of teams who could upset anyone on their day in Wales, Ireland, Samoa & Argentina. Than there are the improving nations looking for an upset in Fiji, Italy, Japan, Tonga, Scotland. It's a hell of alot better than AFL, and the internationals trump Rugby Leagues imo.

Indeed, as evidenced by the fact that over the last 50 years, Wales, Ireland, Samoa and Argentina have combined for ZERO wins and 64 losses vs New Zealand (with two draws). And if we add in those "improving nations" (Fiji and Scotland improving?) looking for an upset, that combined record improves to ZERO wins and 99 losses (with 4 draws). New Zealand will bring up the century for no reply on Saturday vs Tonga...unless of course the Tongans cause an upset.

Ultra competitve!

And against South Africa, Ireland, Wales, Samoa and Argentina are 5 wins and 56 losses (2 draws).

Im not denying the carinval atmosphere. I had a great time going to see Scotland vs Japan up here in Townsville at the 2003 WC. But let's not try and convince ourselves that it is anything more than a glorified 5 nations tournament.

 

[Twizzle]

no.............................its the RWC Tommy

don't you read the papers ?

 

[Tommy Smith]

Indeed.

But its scarcely more competitive than the Rugby League version, which often gets ridiculed.

 

[Mint Condition]

It's the same with all big sports except for probably golf. In a tennis major there's only 3 or 4 men that can ultimately win. A similar number can win a gold medal in basketball. Even in the soccer/football world cup there's probably only 6 or 7 teams that can win. Assessing the overall strength of these tournaments is best done by looking at how many teams can win a one off game against one of the top teams and potentially surprise everyone by making it to the quarters or semi's at the expense of one of the potential winners. In the football world cup it's all but a handful of the 32 teams. In rugby union there's less, but teams like Argentina, Ireland, Italy, Wales, Samoa etc are capable of upsetting the best teams on their day. They're just very unlikely to win the tournament because to do that they'd have to make the quarter finals and then beat 3 good teams in a row. Teams like Georgia, Japan, Canada, USA etc are on the improve and on the verge of making this group as well over the next 5-10 years. Giving these lower teams something to shoot for in even qualifying for the world cup, and then giving them the chance to test themselves against better teams is the best way to improve their competitiveness.

 

[IanG]

If you're in New Zealand you'd have to be living under a rock to not know it was on. I could barely go anywhere without seeing a banner or sign of the RWC. Plus the leading News story for a few days while I was over there was the price of replica All Blacks WC Jerseys. I mean it might be an unofficial religion in New Zealand but that was ridiculous. This at the same time there were riots happening in the UK

 

[Tommy Smith]

It's the same with all big sports except for probably golf. In a tennis major there's only 3 or 4 men that can ultimately win. A similar number can win a gold medal in basketball. Even in the soccer/football world cup there's probably only 6 or 7 teams that can win. Assessing the overall strength of these tournaments is best done by looking at how many teams can win a one off game against one of the top teams and potentially surprise everyone by making it to the quarters or semi's at the expense of one of the potential winners. In the football world cup it's all but a handful of the 32 teams. In rugby union there's less, but teams like Argentina, Ireland, Italy, Wales, Samoa etc are capable of upsetting the best teams on their day. They're just very unlikely to win the tournament because to do that they'd have to make the quarter finals and then beat 3 good teams in a row. Teams like Georgia, Japan, Canada, USA etc are on the improve and on the verge of making this group as well over the next 5-10 years. Giving these lower teams something to shoot for in even qualifying for the world cup, and then giving them the chance to test themselves against better teams is the best way to improve their competitiveness.

0 wins and 99 losses would suggest otherwise.

I agree with almost everything you just said. But the notion that these mid-tier nations have a chance against the worlds best is grossly overstated.

Their is a great culture and interest for rugby in Ireland, Wales and Scotland (and to a lesser extent Argentina, Samoa and Fiji) but these teams, especially away from home, have next to no chance of beating Australia and South Africa and absolutely no chance of beating New Zealand. And they make up the "best of the rest" in rugby.

Contrast that with football where Switzerland beat the worlds best team in Spain at the 2010 World Cup. France and Italy didnt even make it out of their groups. Its far more competitive.

But, like i said, the likes of Ireland and Wales do bring alot of fans to any Rugby World Cup and make for a great carnival atmosphere.

I guess i just get annoyed when neutrals denigrate a rugby league contest between Australia and France or Australia and Fiji/Tonga/Samoa/PNG, and yet marvel at the prospect of a Rugby World Cup quarter final between the All Blacks and Ireland.

In terms of it being a contest, there really is no difference. In fact even those League nations could do better than 0-99, surely!!