Taking the 'World Cup' apart

[Bomber]

I'm going to try and have a proper look at the World Cup and see how it has been diabolically unbalanced and rigged towards the top teams. I stress that this is just my own opinion, so if you are intolerant of other people's views, or blush at the first sign of the f**k word, I suggest you get out of this thread now!

I realise that any world sporting competition is going to attract a wealth of teams that aren't up to the standard. For example, Eric the Eel at the 2000 Olympics, Eddie the Eagle, Namibia in the Cricket World Cup, etc etc etc

So, it doesn't bother me in the least that teams such as Georgia, Uruguay and Namibia are competiting. Hooray for them.

However, the manner that the competition has been scheduled leaves little to be desired from the organisers.

Two contrasting examples here - Australia and Italy.

Australia start with the opener against Argentina in Sydney on October 10.
They then have eight days break to their Brisbane appointment with Romania
Another seven days later, it's Namibia in Adelaide.
Finally, a week later, Ireland in Melbourne.

On the other hand, Italy start with the All Blacks on October 11. Three days later, Tonga in Canberra. Six days later, Canada in Canberra, five days later, Wales in Canberra.

Australia plays four games in three weeks. Italy plays four games in two weeks. Where is the sense in that?

If Italy finishes second in their pool, not entirely impossible considering they have the likes of Canada, Tonga and Wales to get over, they then have two weeks break to prepare for a quarter-final showdown, most likely with South Africa.

I realise Italy may not have the 'pull' of the Wallabies when it comes to ratings but this seems a bit unbalanced.

Another humongous beef I have is against the reporting of rugby union in the newspapers of this country. The media are using tactics that would not have been out of place in Germany 1938. Take away the glitter and glam and what do we have? Just a bunch of ordinary blokes (half of whom look like as though they've either been smashed with the ugly stick, or eaten it for lunch) who have been placed on this extraordinary pedastal.

Anyway, pool by pool.....

Pool A
I except a massive wave of xenophobic jingoism to sweep the Wannabes to four straight wins, with Ireland finishing in second spot. Romania and Namibia will not win a game, except for when they play each other.

Pool B
France will shit it in, with Scotland claiming second. Fiji will slaughter the Yanks and Japanese.

Pool C
Only one game that counts in this pool - Eng v South Africa. Georgia v Uruguay will be one of the worst attended matches, marginally behind the Namibia-Romania blockbuster in Launceston

Pool D
NZ first, daylight second. I guess is that Wales will bomb out badly. Ironically, the presence of four mediocre teams will ensure this is one of the more competitive pools (except when NZ are playing)

My 'Predictions' for the Quarter-Finals
QF1 - Winner D v Runner up C at Melbourne
New Zealand to beat South Africa
Why oh why oh why would the ARU want to schedule a NZ v South African quarter-final, or even have NZ and England beat in this match and not in the final. Doesn't make any sense to me.

QF2 - Winner A v Runner up B at Brisbane
Australia to beat Scotland
Does anyone really think Scotland is going to provide a challenge? Really? Another wankfest of Waltzing Matilda and obese men in yellow hugging and touching each other. Mass europhia when Australia wins 48-3, with 12 penalties.

QF3 - Winner B v Runner up A at Melbourne
France v Ireland or Argentina
Possibly the best quarter-final, pity no-one will watch it

QF4 - Winner Cv Runner up D at Brisbane
England v Wales/Tonga/Canada/Italy
Slaughter

SF1 - Winner First QF v Winner Second QF at Sydney
New Zealand v Australia
The 'dream' ends here, with 100,000 yellow clad people hopefully jumping off the Sydney Harbour Bridge and saving us from another 'rousing' rendition of Waltzing Matilda.

SF2 - Winner Third QF v Winner Fourth QF at Sydney
France v England
Who cares?

Playoff at Sydney
France v Australia
Who honestly gives a flying figg? Should be a good introduction for the new wallaby captain and coach after the execution of Gregan and Jones by media.

World Cup Final......ah who cares. Bring on the cricket!


Now, you might read this and deduce that I don't really like rugby. That's true. It really gives me the willies how the ARU can make mountains out of bloody molehills. The RWC will be a great event. People will turn up (even in Launceston and Gosford) and watch some good matches. BUT what will happen when November 23 comes around and the show leaves town? Will rugby prosper to new and great heights, as Hypocrite O'Neill has touted?

Think of the Soccer World Cup in USA in 1994. Did it suddenly leap up and kill of the NFL, NBL, NHL and baseball? No, in fact all interest in the sport died in its arse soon after and only through GRASSROOTS work did the USA make the quarters in the last Soccer WC.

GRASSROOTS. They didn't sign Michael Jordan and John Elway and show them a soccer ball and a fat cheque. The ARU has, in my opinion, shot itself in the foot by signing Sailor et.al from league. It has essentially said to the young tyro who has played rugby all his life 'we don't care about you or how loyal you are to us. We're only after results.'

Without the solid foundation, rugby union cannot sustain this level of interest in itself. Who really gets excited when the Waratahs beat the Golden Ducks 89-54? Or Queensland beating the Waitangi Warriors 78-67?

I've gone off on a bit of a tangent, and accordingly I'll end it here. But be warned, rugby followers - the World Cup is not the culumination of the battle to win hearts and minds of fans of other sports. It is only the beginning. Look at the Swans when they were bloody hopeless last year - no-one would be seen dead at the SCG. What will happen when inevitably they will miss the finals in the future?

To quote a great Australian poet (whose name escapes me) in The Australiase:

Fame is f**king fleeting
Life is f**king short
What's the use of wasting it
All on f**king sport?

 

[bayrep]

:lol: :lol:

Good post. I agree with all of it.

 

[Dean Moriarty]

Say what you really think! :lol:

Australia start with the opener against Argentina in Sydney on October 10.
They then have eight days break to their Brisbane appointment with Romania
Another seven days later, it's Namibia in Adelaide.
Finally, a week later, Ireland in Melbourne.

On the other hand, Italy start with the All Blacks on October 11. Three days later, Tonga in Canberra. Six days later, Canada in Canberra, five days later, Wales in Canberra.

Australia plays four games in three weeks. Italy plays four games in two weeks. Where is the sense in that?

I snipped some of the point out to keep it short. I can see your point and I've seen it made before. I'm not sure, given stadium limitations and whatever, whether it would be possible to avoid situations like this. But on the plus side for the Italians, they have most of their games in Canberra, whereas the Wallabies play every game in a different place. So the Italians are a lot less disrupted by travelling. No doubt part of that reasoning is marketing - get the home nation around the country so as many as possible get to see them - but I think that's inevitable.

Another humongous beef I have is against the reporting of rugby union in the newspapers of this country. The media are using tactics that would not have been out of place in Germany 1938. Take away the glitter and glam and what do we have? Just a bunch of ordinary blokes (half of whom look like as though they've either been smashed with the ugly stick, or eaten it for lunch) who have been placed on this extraordinary pedastal.

True, but that's all sportsmen. They're only ordinary blokes who happen to be able to kick/run/throw/hit a bit better than the rest of us. We all pay hard-earned money to see top level sport because of it. People are interested in international rugby union and it sells newspapers - if it didn't it wouldn't get in.

Anyway, pool by pool.....

Pool A
I except a massive wave of xenophobic jingoism to sweep the Wannabes to four straight wins, with Ireland finishing in second spot. Romania and Namibia will not win a game, except for when they play each other.

I think the Wallabies will lose at least one game to either Ireland or Argentina. In the end, I would expect Ireland and Australia to go through.

Pool B
France will sh*t it in, with Scotland claiming second. Fiji will slaughter the Yanks and Japanese.

About right.

Pool C
Only one game that counts in this pool - Eng v South Africa. Georgia v Uruguay will be one of the worst attended matches, marginally behind the Namibia-Romania blockbuster in Launceston

About right.

Pool D
NZ first, daylight second. I guess is that Wales will bomb out badly. Ironically, the presence of four mediocre teams will ensure this is one of the more competitive pools (except when NZ are playing)

All Blacks by a mile, but I don't think Wales will bomb out.

As for the latter stages, there will be some shock result that buggers up the order of qualifying from the groups, so I'm not even going to try.

Now, you might read this and deduce that I don't really like rugby. That's true. It really gives me the willies how the ARU can make mountains out of bloody molehills. The RWC will be a great event. People will turn up (even in Launceston and Gosford) and watch some good matches. BUT what will happen when November 23 comes around and the show leaves town? Will rugby prosper to new and great heights, as Hypocrite O'Neill has touted?

Think of the Soccer World Cup in USA in 1994. Did it suddenly leap up and kill of the NFL, NBL, NHL and baseball? No, in fact all interest in the sport died in its arse soon after and only through GRASSROOTS work did the USA make the quarters in the last Soccer WC.

IT depends what they do to build on it. Australian rugby union is not coming from the same position as USA soccer - there is a history in the game and recognisable players. I'd look more at how Soccer Australia failed to capitalise on the last World Cup - exposure goes up, people get interested, then there is bugger all soccer on TV for them to watch so they fade away again. The ARU need to put their game in front of people regularly to build their fan base. But as you say, the RUWC itself is only an opportunity, not a guarantee of success.

GRASSROOTS. They didn't sign Michael Jordan and John Elway and show them a soccer ball and a fat cheque. The ARU has, in my opinion, shot itself in the foot by signing Sailor et.al from league. It has essentially said to the young tyro who has played rugby all his life 'we don't care about you or how loyal you are to us. We're only after results.'

I agree with you here to an extent. I think, though, that in trying to put down league, they have made it seem as though league players are defecting en masse. In reality, that's not the case - two or three specialist wingers and Mat Rogers. But the hype they put out to make league look bad has the same effect on their grassroots.

Some good issues raised there.

 

[Auckland4ever]

Good thoughtful post, Bomber.

This, I think is where the difference in attitudes between fans & administrators of the two rugby codes in NZ & Australia lies.

I've gone off on a bit of a tangent, and accordingly I'll end it here. But be warned, rugby followers - the World Cup is not the culumination of the battle to win hearts and minds of fans of other sports. It is only the beginning.

Growing the game is important, but it need not be a battle, i.e, there doesnt have to be a loser.
Its a lot easier to have an open mind & find acceptance of another sport when you are secure about the sport you follow & dont see another code as a threat. There is no talk in NZ between the two codes of one wanting to dominate the other, both are able to happily co-exist even though they are in competition. Its simply a matter of producing a quality product with adequate marketing rather than mass hype, propaganda & sniping(i.e the John O'Neill approach).

Granted the Australian sporting market is a completely different beast, but if both codes in Australia were able to work side by side, if not together, rather than trying to tear each others throats out, I'm sure both would benefit in the end.

 

[CanadianSteve]

I realise that any world sporting competition is going to attract a wealth of teams that aren't up to the standard. For example, Eric the Eel at the 2000 Olympics, Eddie the Eagle, Namibia in the Cricket World Cup, etc etc etc[/i]

Sorry to interrupt, but don't forgt the Jamaican bobsled team.

 

[Mint Condition]

Wow, some constructive criticism. Good post.

The Italy situation comes about because all but one of their matches is in Canberra, while Aus have to travel all over the place. Italy complained about it earlier this year and that's the response they got.

I think Argentina and Australia will make it through pool A.

France and Fiji (that's one of my predicted upsets) group B.

I agree with pool C but I don't think Wales will slip up in Pool D (that pool shits me too, NZ shouldn't have the easiest pool. They came fourth at the last WC).

The semi finals can get very mixed up though, it's not as predictable as you have stated. If Aus don't win their pool, it'll be a Argentina/Ireland v Scotland/Fiji match for a place in the semi final. If that's the case you've already got a suprise semi finalist. In the quarter finals, if England lose to SA in pool C than they'll play NZ in the quarter finals and whaddya know, One of the favourites is out early.

The quarter finals could end up being: Argentina/Ireland v Fiji, Australia v France, England v NZ and South Africa v Wales

If that happens, then I don't think any of the quarter finals are set results besides possibly South Africa beating Wales but then again, who knows?

The RWC is not going to suddenly boost Rugby Union higher than AFL or Rugby League in Australia overall but it will give it a huge boost nonetheless. The profits made by the ARU will be huge and that all goes into the grassroots and setting up the infrastructure for a national club or provincial competition by 2005/2006. You've also got to remember the boost Rugby Union in this country received when the Wallabies won the world cup in 91 and 99. In 99 over 120 000 people showed up for the Wallaby's ticket tape parade in Sydney alone. If the Wallabies win it this year that number will triple in Sydney and the numbers will be huge in other capital cities around Australia too.

On code crossers, only 3 of them were bought over by the ARU. Some others came too, but they generally came for less money and made the first move (in Aus I mean). That tiny amount of players hasn't stuffed up the grass roots at all. It probably helps it really, as kids who followed them in league would have been tempted to watch how they went in union and then give the game a go themselves. Really though it's for media space as much as anything else. Wendell Sailors move (and his publicity easily overshadows Tuquiris and Rogers) has gained a lot of media exposure for Rugby Union in this country.

Also bomber, as someone said earlier, I don't think the ARU want to so much as steal fans from the other codes, they just want them to broaden their horizen a little and give Rugby a go, while supporting their other code(s). I'm sure secretly they'd like to steal them but the angle their going at the public with is that one. Especially in the AFL states. They don't really have anything to challenge the AFL so they're just trying to market the national appeal of the Wallabies. There are no internationals in AFL so they basically say, well support your AFL team and then when the Wallabies play barrack for them too. It's worked a bit for them too.

 

[Marcus]

Think of the Soccer World Cup in USA in 1994. Did it suddenly leap up and kill of the NFL, NBL, NHL and baseball? No, in fact all interest in the sport died in its arse soon after and only through GRASSROOTS work did the USA make the quarters in the last Soccer WC.

Actually they got a national competition out of it. Thats the kind of thing I think will happen with rugby in Australia.

Remember the US don't take to 'foreign' sport too well. I know Australia is very different when it comes to sporting attitudes.

Overall this world cup is going to be the most open one ever. Argentina are going to surprise some people and Canada and Fiji have the potential to cause upsets.

Personally I think the finals aren't going to be what everyone thinks it will be. There will be some surprises.

 

[bayrep]

Think of the Soccer World Cup in USA in 1994. Did it suddenly leap up and kill of the NFL, NBL, NHL and baseball? No, in fact all interest in the sport died in its arse soon after and only through GRASSROOTS work did the USA make the quarters in the last Soccer WC.

Actually they got a national competition out of it. Thats the kind of thing I think will happen with rugby in Australia.

Remember the US don't take to 'foreign' sport too well. I know Australia is very different when it comes to sporting attitudes.

Overall this world cup is going to be the most open one ever. Argentina are going to surprise some people and Canada and Fiji have the potential to cause upsets.

Personally I think the finals aren't going to be what everyone thinks it will be. There will be some surprises.

I think you also have to remember that the soccer world cup has been running for something like 75 years and it was only the last soccer world cup where you got some surprise teams in the last couple of rounds. I think the RWC is on track for developing greater depth, but with all good things it takes time and money for the depth to grow.

 

[CanadianSteve]

...are going to surprise some people and Canada and Fiji have the potential to cause upsets.

Right now there is a lot of talk (on RugbyHeaven anyway) about how some lesser powers are losing players to their club teams. Canada is missing 2 players, Fiji and some other Pacific nations were mentioned. This kind of thing just leads to the stronger nations, who can afford to pay all their players to play for country, to have an even wider gap over the middle and lower-ranked nations.

BTW, good to see you Marcus.

 

[Mango]

bayrep.
You say it is only recently that surprises win or make finals in soccer world cup. It is some time since CAMEROON won the soccer world cup. When they won the media asked CAMEROON WHo? Not many knew. If an outsider wins RWC 2003 then we will all know where they come from.
MANGO/

 

[Dean Moriarty]

bayrep.
You say it is only recently that surprises win or make finals in soccer world cup. It is some time since CAMEROON won the soccer world cup. When they won the media asked CAMEROON WHo? Not many knew. If an outsider wins RWC 2003 then we will all know where they come from.
MANGO/

When exactly did Cameroon win the soccer World Cup? :roll: :lol:

 

[bazza]

bayrep.
You say it is only recently that surprises win or make finals in soccer world cup. It is some time since CAMEROON won the soccer world cup. When they won the media asked CAMEROON WHo? Not many knew. If an outsider wins RWC 2003 then we will all know where they come from.
MANGO/

When exactly did Cameroon win the soccer World Cup? :roll: :lol:

CAMEROON WHo? :lol: :lol:

 

[Dean Moriarty]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Mango]

To be precise, Cameroon reached the quater finals in 1990 and won Olympic gold in 2000.
Mango.

 

[bazza]

To be precise, Cameroon reached the quater finals in 1990 and won Olympic gold in 2000.
Mango.

CAMEROON WHo?

 

[Mango]

Bazza.

CAMEROON WHO? I think that would be the Cameroon that has achieved more than we in Oz have even dreamed about in the soccer world.
BAZZA WHO? BAZZA nobody, that's who.