What's new

The Rugby Thread

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2010
19,232
57,387
I would usually agree with that sentiment but I’m not so sure. If Australia beat you and NZ and go onto win I still wouldn’t necessarily think they’re the best team in the world but deserved winners, no doubt.

Look, mate, I’m not conceding anything. I think we’ve got a great chance of getting to a final, equally I wouldn’t be shocked if we went out the weekend, I’ll have to assess the manner of the defeat when/if it comes.

I think your point blank refusal to accept any kind of advantage to you, NZ and France is a tad disingenuous, though, as I think deep down, the reason you’re getting a bit prickly about it is you know it is an advantage.

I’ll tell you what; I’ll meet you half way, you admit it’s given you a slight advantage with regards to rest, prep and injuries and I’ll admit that perhaps I’ve been overstating the advantage.

Even old man Arnie has conceded that it’s gives you a slight edge.


The only way it would give us any sort of edge would be if we were struggling with injuries. We're not though.
 

SugarRay

Well-Known Member
Jul 6, 2011
7,984
11,110
Potential slight edge, but England and France were facing a disadvantage compared to other tier 1 nations in the group stages. Nobody else had to play two tier 1 teams ( well technically Italy are tier 1 but you get my drift... )

The so called advantage is minimal at this stage. I’m still a believer of being battle hardened, although lots of changes were made by the Welsh for example against Uruguay, so the reserves did the job there
 

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
16,984
30,494
The only way it would give us any sort of edge would be if we were struggling with injuries. We're not though.

You could’ve got injuries, though, that’s the point. Also, it’s all about prep these days. Especially in 50/50 games. The team that preps better usually wins and the more time you have to prep and train with 1 knockout game in mind the better
 

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
16,984
30,494
Potential slight edge, but England and France were facing a disadvantage compared to other tier 1 nations in the group stages. Nobody else had to play two tier 1 teams ( well technically Italy are tier 1 but you get my drift... )

The so called advantage is minimal at this stage. I’m still a believer of being battle hardened, although lots of changes were made by the Welsh for example against Uruguay, so the reserves did the job there

I’d have loved not to have to play Parkes (who’s been named Robocop due to all his injuries he’s got) and Adams, who’s also carrying a knock. On another day 1 or both of them break down.

Also would’ve been nice to not have to play Patchell.
 

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Oct 2, 2004
48,100
47,055
I would usually agree with that sentiment but I’m not so sure. If Australia beat you and NZ and go onto win I still wouldn’t necessarily think they’re the best team in the world but deserved winners, no doubt.

Look, mate, I’m not conceding anything. I think we’ve got a great chance of getting to a final, equally I wouldn’t be shocked if we went out the weekend, I’ll have to assess the manner of the defeat when/if it comes.

I think your point blank refusal to accept any kind of advantage to you, NZ and France is a tad disingenuous, though, as I think deep down, the reason you’re getting a bit prickly about it is you know it is an advantage.

I’ll tell you what; I’ll meet you half way, you admit it’s given you a slight advantage with regards to rest, prep and injuries and I’ll admit that perhaps I’ve been overstating the advantage.

Even old man Arnie has conceded that it’s gives you a slight edge.

I literally don't know whether it would give us an advantage or not. I can see why an extra weeks rest seems like an advantage but is I've said I really don't think it's as clear cut as you say. England are now the only team in the quarters who haven't had a competitive game in the tournament and I think that's a disadvantage.

Trying to weigh up the pros and cons is pretty much impossible which is why I find the insistence thats it's a massive advantage wrong, particularly when the other teams in the quarters have had plenty of opportunities to rest players.

It could be a benefit to England, France and NZ. It could be a negative. I just don't agree at all that it will be a deciding factor in who wins the tournament.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
I literally don't know whether it would give us an advantage or not. I can see why an extra weeks rest seems like an advantage but is I've said I really don't think it's as clear cut as you say. England are now the only team in the quarters who haven't had a competitive game in the tournament and I think that's a disadvantage.

Trying to weigh up the pros and cons is pretty much impossible which is why I find the insistence thats it's a massive advantage wrong, particularly when the other teams in the quarters have had plenty of opportunities to rest players.

It could be a benefit to England, France and NZ. It could be a negative. I just don't agree at all that it will be a deciding factor in who wins the tournament.

Yeah on balance I think this sums it up. There are clear advantages but also disadvantages to the situation. Which side of the coin things fall on only time will tell. If England beat Australia easily then obviously it's been more advantageous than not but if we go out there and are just as sloppy as we were in some of the previous matches then clearly the lack of competitive games has been a disadvantage. We just don't know until the players get out there.
 

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
16,984
30,494
The refs have been confirmed.

England v Australia - Jerome Garces
Ireland v NZ - Nigel Owens
Wales v France - Jaco Peyper
Japan v SA - Wayne Barnes.

I’d actually rather Wayne. Not a fan of Peyper at all. Mind you I’m always nervous with Garces as well. Hopefully there’s no controversy.
 

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
16,984
30,494
World Rugby have referred Scotland to some kind of behaviour committee or something for their comments and threatening them with legal action. Lol. Don’t fuck with World Rugby.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
World Rugby have referred Scotland to some kind of behaviour committee or something for their comments and threatening them with legal action. Lol. Don’t fuck with World Rugby.

In fairness, as much as the handling of everything and apparent lack of any kind of real contingency plan was a bit of a farce, Scotland's way of dealing with it was at best unhelpful and made things seem even more shambolic. I think it's fair enough if they're asked to explain some of their comments to a committee. However, I also think there needs to be an investigation into why there was seemingly no real contingency plan in the event of a typhoon, especially when it was a potential issue raised years before the tournament even started. Scotland didn't cover themselves in glory but neither did the organisers.
 

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
16,984
30,494
Japan better get included in the championship. Would be criminal if they aren’t. If they’re dragging their feet we should have them in the 6N
 

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
16,984
30,494
Team of the tournament so far?

15: Beauden Barrett (NZ)
14. Kotaro Matsushima (Japan)
13. Timothy Lafaele (Japan)
12. Samu Kerevi (Australia)
11. Semi Radradra (Fiji)
10. Richie Mo’unga (New Zealand)
9. Gareth Davies (Wales)
1. Keita Inagaki (Japan)
2. Tolu Latu (Australia)
3. Tadhg Furlong (Ireland)
4. Scott Barrett (New Zealand)
5. Lood de Jager (South Africa)
6. Josh Navidi (Wales)
7. Ardie Savea (New Zealand)
8. Kazuki Himeno (Japan)
 

Arnoldtoo

The thinking ape's ape
May 18, 2006
35,335
54,970
Japan better get included in the championship. Would be criminal if they aren’t. If they’re dragging their feet we should have them in the 6N

Ugo Monye is advocating that Japan should be in the 6N 7N. They are currently ranked above Scotland, France and Italy, so why not?
 

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
16,984
30,494
Ugo Monye is advocating that Japan should be in the 6N 7N. They are currently ranked above Scotland, France and Italy, so why not?

I think it makes more sense for them to go to the Championship but I guess technically they’re in the northern hemisphere.

Like I said if the rugby championship are dragging their heals umming and arrrrring then we should definitely take them.
 

Arnoldtoo

The thinking ape's ape
May 18, 2006
35,335
54,970
I think it makes more sense for them to go to the Championship but I guess technically they’re in the northern hemisphere.

Like I said if the rugby championship are dragging their heals umming and arrrrring then we should definitely take them.

Tokyo - Auckland = c. 8800 km

Tokyo - London = c. 9500 km

Not much in it, & flight time is pretty much the same.

It would certainly be good to see.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Tokyo - Auckland = c. 8800 km

Tokyo - London = c. 9500 km

Not much in it, & flight time is pretty much the same.

It would certainly be good to see.

It does make me wonder whether it gets to a point where to limit the impact of the travelling they might eventually decide to have one nation just host the tournament and they each just take turns. Obviously it's less of an issue in the 6 nations because all of the teams are within about a 90min flight of each other and even if Japan got added it's only one long trip that everyone has to take. But in the Rugby Championship all of the countries are half way round the world from each other (even NZ and AUS are much further apart than I think a lot of Europeans realise). If the Rugby Championship expands to have Japan as well then that's spread the travel across 3 continents and so having to basically circumnavigate the globe during the competition starts to get a bit too much. In that case maybe it starts to make more sense to just alternate between the 5 teams hosting it so everyone just travels once. Just an idea anyway.
 

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
16,984
30,494
It does make me wonder whether it gets to a point where to limit the impact of the travelling they might eventually decide to have one nation just host the tournament and they each just take turns. Obviously it's less of an issue in the 6 nations because all of the teams are within about a 90min flight of each other and even if Japan got added it's only one long trip that everyone has to take. But in the Rugby Championship all of the countries are half way round the world from each other (even NZ and AUS are much further apart than I think a lot of Europeans realise). If the Rugby Championship expands to have Japan as well then that's spread the travel across 3 continents and so having to basically circumnavigate the globe during the competition starts to get a bit too much. In that case maybe it starts to make more sense to just alternate between the 5 teams hosting it so everyone just travels once. Just an idea anyway.

It’s not a bad idea but I can’t see it happening. Telling fans who are used to seeing big games in their country every year that you now only get to see games played in your country every 16 years (20 if Japan get brought in) is going to be hard to take.

Having said that, SA aside, crowd attendances are poor in the Southern Hemisphere.
 
Top