Rugby World Cup - Most Overrated Event in World Sport?

[Te Kaha]

Really, care to back up your claims?

Anyone on here can compile a list of international results and find what I said to be the truth. Lying about reality will only convince the already deluded

rugby has far too much self-congratulatory nonsense, the rugby has something majorly wrong doesn't even enter most of your minds, does it?

Here's some throw away international series and their stats(wikipedia sauce)

----------------
Tri nations, last 3 years

162 tries
215 penalties
18 drop

---------------------
2009 end of year

46 tries
102 penalties
6 drop

--------------------------
2010 end of year

79 tries
159 penalty
6 drop

------------
2011 mid year tests

44 tries
45 penalties
2 drop

--------------
six nations last 3 years

155 tries
241 penalties
27 drops

--------------------------
2010 mid year tests

84 tries
86 penalty
4 drop

:sarcasm:
:lol:

That's 542 tries, 848(successful) penalties and 63(successful) drops.

- 542 x 5 is 2710 points for tries

- 848 penalty kicks is 2544 points for penalty kicks

- 63 drops is 189 points for drop goals

That's 2733 points from penalty kicks and drop goals, combined. Pretty much 50%, BUT lets pretend for a brief moment that half those tries are converted(a fair estimation on my behalf, i wasn't smart enough to think of tallying up conversions while i was doing this), and we'd have another 542 points from 271 successful conversion kicks

So lets now add those 3 point values for kicks -- 2544, 189 and 542 -- and we get 3275 total points from kicks, and 2710 try points. A total figure of points scored in these games is then roughly 5985. Total points from kicks accounts for 55% of all points scored in these international games, tournaments and tours.

Keep in mind that my 50/50 conversation rate estimation is stupidly generous to you. The reality is about 7/10 kicks on average are converted


I urge any of you to check the facts yourself and run through game results with a calculator.

And the biggest travesty about the whole thing is that the % of points scored from kicks is actually at about 80% if you pretend the All Blacks don't exist. About 150+ of those tries scored are from NZ crushing teams in 1-sided games, freak games, by normal standards

The number of points from kicks is unbelievably high between even sides in games that matter.

Contrast this with the NRL where about 20% of points come from all kicks

So you take some, not all, test matches to back up your claim that 60% of points for all Rugby are scored from kicks? how about you count the stats from all games, before making that claim... There is the super 15, currie cup, NPC, top 14 and all uk comps... not to mention all the other internationals...

And thats not even taking in to account that the rule interpretation changes in the last couple of years that make all your previous stats worthless.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Sorry, I didn't mean international in a strictly technical sense. I mean games played between 2 countries or nation states when I said international points

I know the numbers are much different for Super Rugby, ITM Cup, Currie Cup, Top 14 etc... though I'm not sure about UK comps, Magners League and Aviva are usually dominated by penalty kicks. If you watch highlight shows they have to fill it up with penalty kicks and non-eventful nonsenses

I took international tours and tournaments that had wikipedia pages dedicated to the year, with a list of scores, tries, kicks for each etc. I'm not trying to be coy or deceitful, the IRB website is a waste of time and finding results for individual games would have been hugely time consuming.

I also excluded games involving the Barbarians because of the nature of the games, and excluded games played between minnow nations because of their sub-standard rugby.

Not that minnow nations run tries in at a high rate, but rather because none of them seem able to kick penalties so the scoring is an unrealistic reflection of how cynical a nature the game is played in

I don't think it would be fair either to use something like the ITM Cup where defence is shockingly bad. To get a true grasp on where the games at you look at how it's played on the highest level, you must agree that's a decent way of looking at things? Where the defence and attack are at their best, where the games are the closest and most fierce. Lebanon vs Auckland Blues A wouldn't tell us much about rugby.

.................

there's an obvious problem with kicking in rugby and as a fan(and I am a fan... sale, wellington hurricanes, toulon) the sooner it's acknowledged the better. Rugby needs a 4:2 try:conversion ratio, with 2 points for a penalty kick and 1 for the drop goal. That way you discourage the negative play that plagues the game.

i'm not saying the game is inherently bad or boring in nature, just that it's become so with all the kicking and downright negative style of play that most teams embrace. Don't you think with rugby where it is now, growing massively in new continents and amongst new classes, that a fast, exciting, full throttle version of the game is going to be much more effective in taking the game to that next level?

I appreciate and enjoy the finer points of rugby, scrums(when they come good), rucks, lineouts, mauls etc..... but penalty kicking from 50 meters out? it's not good for the game and as fans we need to be far more vocal and disgusted even, at the amount of kicking. Don't be confused by the IRB's money and influence helping the game grow at great rates, the kick-a-thon that most games are is still hindering the codes development and popularity

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Wales have indeed beaten New Zealand. The last of which was 58 years ago. Since then the All Blacks have won 24 in a row.

Wales have also only ever beaten South Africa once. I dont think that qualifies as 'several'.

Also Ireland have never beaten New Zealand. 23 losses with 1 draw.

I do find it funny that people are raving about close contests between juggernaughts Scotland and Ireland with a couple of minnows. Largely because Scotland and Ireland arent far removed from being minnows themselves.

And Wales too. I've found an interesting trend with Wales while looking at rugby results. What i've found is that almost always they're in games and win games from kicking(literally) the shit out of their opponents. They rarely ever outscore their opponents with tries

the Wales - NZ game last year really highlighted them for the penalty-merchants they are. NZ put about 6 tries on them, Wales managed 1, but some how came away from the game with 25 points -- making it look like they competed with the blackness

 

[Knownothing]

Scoring tries is the best form of scoring points. However, in a complex game like RU, with genuine contests for possession in virtually every phase, it is inevitable that there will be penalisable infringements. Goes with the territory.


There are no tries in soccer, or basketball - nobody complains about that, certainly it does not seem to affect the popularity of those codes.


We won't talk about the AFL - but that code seems to be drawing pretty good crowd support, without the need for tries to be a feature of the game.

Games of RL decided by goals can be pretty exciting sometimes, don't you reckon?

 

[Joker's Wild]

Really mate, it's shocking. A real shame that the Union die-hards would rather look to token games either by New Zealand, or between 2 teams that are a complete mis match, to "prove" that rugby is exciting.

Even though when 2 good teams play each other, you're lucky to see more than 3 tries

It's not just NH teams that are boring either. When NZ don't get their own way against teams they kick like everyone else.

The value of points in Rugby should be changed to Rugby League value, in my opinion. Because rugby is great when teams run the ball, but everything about the way the game is ruled discourages people from attacking. NZ being the exception because they're so damn good

Also teams should be allowed to ruck again, the rucks as they are now suck

Drop the value of penalty goals and watch the infringements in the defencive half go up

Its a catch 22.

 

[Parra]

Scoring tries is the best form of scoring points. However, in a complex game like RU, with genuine contests for possession in virtually every phase, it is inevitable that there will be penalisable infringements. Goes with the territory.


There are no tries in soccer, or basketball - nobody complains about that, certainly it does not seem to affect the popularity of those codes.


We won't talk about the AFL - but that code seems to be drawing pretty good crowd support, without the need for tries to be a feature of the game.

Games of RL decided by goals can be pretty exciting sometimes, don't you reckon?

Of course they can. Seeing a tough game plan well executed is a good thing. Anyone who wants to see tries for tries sake doesn't understand either rugby code and should be ignored. They can watch touch footy.

 

[Te Kaha]

Wales have indeed beaten New Zealand. The last of which was 58 years ago. Since then the All Blacks have won 24 in a row.

Wales have also only ever beaten South Africa once. I dont think that qualifies as 'several'.

Also Ireland have never beaten New Zealand. 23 losses with 1 draw.

I do find it funny that people are raving about close contests between juggernaughts Scotland and Ireland with a couple of minnows. Largely because Scotland and Ireland arent far removed from being minnows themselves.

Yet you ignore that Japan was leading France up until the last 15 minutes or that Wales, bar a bad touch judge call, would have beaten South Africa... and as yet there havent been any blowouts...

Really mate, it's shocking. A real shame that the Union die-hards would rather look to token games either by New Zealand, or between 2 teams that are a complete mis match, to "prove" that rugby is exciting.

Even though when 2 good teams play each other, you're lucky to see more than 3 tries

It's not just NH teams that are boring either. When NZ don't get their own way against teams they kick like everyone else.

The value of points in Rugby should be changed to Rugby League value, in my opinion. Because rugby is great when teams run the ball, but everything about the way the game is ruled discourages people from attacking. NZ being the exception because they're so damn good

Also teams should be allowed to ruck again, the rucks as they are now suck

Since you are so interested in stats... the last two Tri-Nations, you know the ones since the interpretations were changed, have had 365 Points scored from tries and 335 points from kicks conversations INCLUDED ... thats not even 48% from kicks... take out the conversions thats 213 points from penalties and drop goals which is only 37%... makes your argument look piss weak.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Drop the value of penalty goals and watch the infringements in the defencive half go up

Its a catch 22.

Who cares though, just keep attacking the line and if infringements persist, the ref can give a penalty try. The teams will soon stop cheating

There's infringements at every ruck as it is. The cheating will remain the same, refs and teams will just have different attitudes towards responding to it

in theory. With rugby having such low quality refereeing it would be hard to call with any confidence.

 

[Parra]

Who cares though

You

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Scoring tries is the best form of scoring points. However, in a complex game like RU, with genuine contests for possession in virtually every phase, it is inevitable that there will be penalisable infringements. Goes with the territory.

Games of RL decided by goals can be pretty exciting sometimes, don't you reckon?

Of course, because it's a rarity. If every game of League was decided by penalty kicks and drop goals I'd be dirty on the game

I disagree btw on genuine contest for possession. Genuine contest for possession has been illegal in Rugby for a number of years. In trying to speed up the play the ball, the IRB have destroyed most legitimate competition at the rucks. The rucks that happen now are just a frail imitation of the real thing.

I know cheating won't be stopped too, i just think if you change the points format you give teams an incentive to chance their arm and go for the try

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

You

Why do I care if infringements go up? I already told you they happen at EVERY ruck as it is :lol:

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Since you are so interested in stats... the last two Tri-Nations, you know the ones since the interpretations were changed, have had 365 Points scored from tries and 335 points from kicks conversations INCLUDED ... thats not even 48% from kicks... take out the conversions thats 213 points from penalties and drop goals which is only 37%... makes your argument look piss weak.

37% is still a heck of a lot, especially considering the tri nations is one of the most exciting, positive international rugby comp there is

But my argument doesn't really look like anything, you either think it's piss weak or you don't. Rugby having too many kicks is entirely subjective. If you think it does, my argument is good, if you don't, my argument is piss weak.

and to the other bloke who mentioned basketball. How do you think NBA fans would feel if next season 60%, or even 37% of points were scored from free throws?

 

[Parra]

Do you want less infringements?

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Of course, that's why I'm calling for proper rucks to be re-instated

 

[Te Kaha]

37% is still a heck of a lot, especially considering the tri nations is one of the most exciting, positive international rugby comp there is

But my argument doesn't really look like anything, you either think it's piss weak or you don't. Rugby having too many kicks is entirely subjective. If you think it does, my argument is good, if you don't, my argument is piss weak.

and to the other bloke who mentioned basketball. How do you think NBA fans would feel if next season 60%, or even 37% of points were scored from free throws?

You stated that 60% of all points came from kicks and the riles needed to change... I just pointed out that since the rule interpretation changes thats a load of crap... and i would rather have 40% of points come from kicks and have tries mean something and have to be worked for, than make it all about scoring tries and it turn in to a farce where
benefit of the doubt means tries are awarded when they shouldnt be.

 

[Thomas]

Of course, that's why I'm calling for proper rucks to be re-instated

Proper rucks and 2 point penalties will result in less infringements?

:crazy:

Did you watch RU back in the 80's at all?

 

[ThirdEye]

Yup, the two-point penalty will never happen. Union is one of the few games that still values the penalty kick; to change it now would move union closer to league - and the rugby unions certainly don't want that.

 

[Knownothing]

Yup, the two-point penalty will never happen. Union is one of the few games that still values the penalty kick; to change it now would move union closer to league - and the rugby unions certainly don't want that.

Cart before horse. The reason that the penalty is three points is because there is a contest for possession at most tackle situations - the thing that would drive RU closer to RL is if the contest for possession was abandoned in favour of an RL style play-the-ball; that is certainly never going to happen. Nor is the scrum ever going to end up like an RL scrum. The likeliest move towards RL is in one or even two players being removed from the teams.


The RU tackle situation, and the contest for possession, are intrinsic to the game, for better or for worse, and whilever the game exists, penalty kicks will have to exist as well.


There are penalties in all body contact sports. Three points is a deterrent, as is a yellow card for repeated infringements. But players still infringe, in the heat of the contest, and so penalties are still given, and converted.

 

[Parra]

Union is one of the few games that still values the penalty kick;

What does that mean? The only footy code that does not allow scoring directly from penalties is American football. In every RL match there are shots for penalty goals. The removal of the contest for the ball is a more significant factor. This results in two things when it comes to penalties - less of them and teams are more likely to run the ball as they know that they should hold it for six plays. It all comes down to risk/reward. In union the extra point matters, but this is countered by the extra point for a try anyway. In union a team is much more likely to either be penalised or to turn over the ball. Both of these are a result of the contest for the ball in continuous play. So the risk/reward favours going for the easier 3 points.

 

[Parra]

I'd prefer to see the value of field goals reduced. May not happen until a side decides to boot ten of them a match.