Rugby World Cup 2015
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2015, 11:49 AM
RE: Rugby World Cup 2015
(21-09-2015 04:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 10:19 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I like the part where the pool for the is so shallow the Canadian national team gets to attend. We're like the fat kid the rest of the old Commonwealth brought along just so they could pretend it's a "world" competition.
But of course Canada qualified for the world cup

Quote:Canada secured a spot in the 2015 Rugby World Cup on 23 August 2013, with a 13-11 win over the USA,40-20 on aggregate.

They earned their spot, just like other world sports where teams need to qualify.

An event in which only a single digit count of teams have even a remote chance of success is by no means a "world" event in any but the strictest sense. That's not to be taken as pejorative in any sense; it's at least as true with us and hockey.

The collection of best teams in the world is one thing; if the number of serious participants is small, it's just laying a delightful note of irony onto the proceedings.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 12:14 PM
RE: Rugby World Cup 2015
(23-09-2015 11:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  ...
The collection of best teams in the world is one thing; if the number of serious participants is small, it's just laying a delightful note of irony onto the proceedings.

But you know what they say ... it's a small world.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 01:50 PM
RE: Rugby World Cup 2015
(23-09-2015 11:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  An event in which only a single digit count of teams have even a remote chance of success is by no means a "world" event in any but the strictest sense.
Soccer is one of the world's most popular sports.
Let's take a look at it's list of world cup winners from 1930 to 2014 shall we?
http://www.topendsports.com/events/world...inners.htm

Germany
Spain
Italy
Brazil
France
Argentina
England
Uruguay

Hmm, I count 8. 84 years of competing and we have 8 winners. Which is 1 per 10.5 years

Now lets take a look at Rugby from 1987 to 2011 shall we?
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/interactive/...up-winners
New Zealand
Australia
South Africa
England

So we have 4 winners over 24 years. Which is 1 per 6 years.
I would grant you that less countries play rugby than soccer. But certainly it isn't the crazy criteria you come up with that defines what is a world sport. Rugby is certainly a growing sport, there are many countries that have a thriving domestic competition, regional competition and thriving world cup.

In comparison to Aussie rules rugby where there is no world cup, and, well, I don't know if other countries have a domestic competition in that sport.




(23-09-2015 11:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The collection of best teams in the world is one thing; if the number of serious participants is small, it's just laying a delightful note of irony onto the proceedings.
Or perhaps a delightful note of irony to your perception and judgement of what is or isn't a world sport.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 03:24 PM
RE: Rugby World Cup 2015
(23-09-2015 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Soccer is one of the world's most popular sports.
(23-09-2015 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I would grant you that less countries play rugby than soccer.

Since that's basically what I said, I have to wonder just what the rest of your post is addressing.
(I suspect arguing for the sake of arguing, which I'm not strictly averse to, but, meh...)

(23-09-2015 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 11:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  An event in which only a single digit count of teams have even a remote chance of success is by no means a "world" event in any but the strictest sense.
Soccer is one of the world's most popular sports.
Let's take a look at it's list of world cup winners from 1930 to 2014 shall we?
http://www.topendsports.com/events/world...inners.htm

Germany
Spain
Italy
Brazil
France
Argentina
England
Uruguay

Hmm, I count 8. 84 years of competing and we have 8 winners. Which is 1 per 10.5 years

Now lets take a look at Rugby from 1987 to 2011 shall we?
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/interactive/...up-winners
New Zealand
Australia
South Africa
England

So we have 4 winners over 24 years. Which is 1 per 6 years.

And you think that's somehow a reasonable analysis, let alone meaningful? At the very least you'd want to include runners-up, or better yet gloss, let's say, the top X of what power rankings might exist. Notwithstanding the irrelevance of counting matches wherein everyone involved is long dead!

(23-09-2015 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I would grant you that less countries play rugby than soccer.

Indeed. Fewer.

(23-09-2015 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But certainly it isn't the crazy criteria you come up with that defines what is a world sport.

I never gave any serious criteria. I have no idea quite what you're on about.

I didn't figure a casual comment would attract fastidious pedantry, so I elided two concepts together: the number of national teams competitive at top levels, and the number of countries where the sport has an active following.

My original comment was predicated on the fact that even our national broadcaster hasn't bothered reporting on our national team's presence at the event.

(23-09-2015 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Rugby is certainly a growing sport, there are many countries that have a thriving domestic competition, regional competition and thriving world cup.

Well, good for rugby. I enjoy a bit of it myself. That doesn't make it something most of the world cares about or even knows about.
(I must persist in offering ice hockey as a comparison - the world championship does, indeed, determine the best team in the world; very few people from even most of the competing nations care in the slightest, let alone those who don't compete)

(23-09-2015 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  In comparison to Aussie rules rugby where there is no world cup, and, well, I don't know if other countries have a domestic competition in that sport.

There is apparently a world championship, as it turns out. Which, with 3 winners over 13 years is 1 per 4.3 years. Hey, that's even more international than rugby! Or maybe your metric needs more work...

(23-09-2015 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 11:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The collection of best teams in the world is one thing; if the number of serious participants is small, it's just laying a delightful note of irony onto the proceedings.
Or perhaps a delightful note of irony to your perception and judgement of what is or isn't a world sport.

That isn't quite what irony means, stevil.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 03:29 PM
RE: Rugby World Cup 2015
(23-09-2015 03:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Soccer is one of the world's most popular sports.
(23-09-2015 01:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I would grant you that less countries play rugby than soccer.

Since that's basically what I said, I have to wonder just what the rest of your post is addressing.
(I suspect arguing for the sake of arguing, which I'm not strictly averse to, but, meh...)
You are a twat cjlr. A complete twat!

You didn't say that at all. You made a drama queen statement, trying to make yourself the official authority on what is or isn't a world sport.
And had decided upon your own authority that rugby isn't.

Your claim was fallacious, you claimed that if only a handful (single digit) of teams is capable of winning then it isn't a world sport.
But only a handful of teams have been capable of wining the soccer world cup. 8 to be precise. The others weren't capable, that's why they lost. What a joke of a statement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 03:47 PM
RE: Rugby World Cup 2015
(23-09-2015 03:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 03:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Since that's basically what I said, I have to wonder just what the rest of your post is addressing.
(I suspect arguing for the sake of arguing, which I'm not strictly averse to, but, meh...)
You are a twat cjlr. A complete twat!

That's not very nice.

(23-09-2015 03:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You didn't say that at all. You made a drama queen statement, trying to make yourself the official authority on what is or isn't a world sport.
And had decided upon your own authority that rugby isn't.

Or maybe I made an offhand remark because I found our complete indifference to our own national team's participation indicative. You decide!

Wait. Don't. I know what I meant, and you don't. I regret that you may have misunderstood me.

(23-09-2015 03:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Your claim was fallacious, you claimed that if only a handful (single digit) of teams is capable of winning then it isn't a world sport.

Except that isn't fallacious.

Nor can it be. I've explained in more detail what I meant, in the hopes of clearing that up, but in any case, it's an opinion. So there's that.

(23-09-2015 03:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But only a handful of teams have been capable of wining the soccer world cup. 8 to be precise. The others weren't capable, that's why they lost. What a joke of a statement.

Wait. You're seriously arguing that sporting matches are strongly deterministic now? Just to keep this idiotic argument going? It was literally impossible for (say) the Netherlands team to have ever won the FIFA world cup, despite finished second three times?

That's... one way to go. I guess.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 04:51 PM
RE: Rugby World Cup 2015
(23-09-2015 03:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 03:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You are a twat cjlr. A complete twat!

That's not very nice.
Not nice, but well deserved.

(23-09-2015 03:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Or maybe I made an offhand remark because I found our complete indifference to our own national team's participation indicative. You decide!
Sure, you are indifferent about the sport, fine! I have no vested interest in whether you are to like the sport or are indifferent.
I am even fine that the sport isn't popular and isn't mentioned on the front page of the newspapers in your area.

But that doesn't mean that this isn't a world competition. Your claim that it is a "pretend" world cup is unfounded and derogatory.

The cup represents a global competition with participating countries submitting their official national team. It contains 20 competing countries and the pool of countries that wanted to compete at the world cup is larger than that, but there were qualifiers held and some missed out.

Sure, not all competing teams have a realistic chance of winning. The competition is based on skill rather than luck and some teams have more skill than others, some countries have a higher grade of domestic competition and a larger pool of players vying for positions in the national team. This is the case with most team sports right?

It is a fact that most countries in the world won't be competing in the Rugby world cup. It is a fact that most countries aren't interested in the rugby world cup, but this doesn't make it any less a World Cup. It is an international competition competed on a country by country bases and includes any team from around the world that has qualified.


(23-09-2015 03:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Wait. Don't. I know what I meant, and you don't. I regret that you may have misunderstood me.
Like I said, the label "twat" suits you well.

(23-09-2015 03:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 03:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Your claim was fallacious, you claimed that if only a handful (single digit) of teams is capable of winning then it isn't a world sport.

Except that isn't fallacious.
It is fallacious because that isn't the criteria for a tournament to be classified as a World Cup.
Don't know where you got this criteria from, under your criteria the Soccer world cup doesn't qualify.

(23-09-2015 03:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 03:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But only a handful of teams have been capable of wining the soccer world cup. 8 to be precise. The others weren't capable, that's why they lost. What a joke of a statement.

Wait. You're seriously arguing that sporting matches are strongly deterministic now? Just to keep this idiotic argument going?
Again, another example of you being a twat!

(23-09-2015 03:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It was literally impossible for (say) the Netherlands team to have ever won the FIFA world cup, despite finished second three times?
The fact is that they didn't win. They were incapable of winning the world cup because they were beaten. This is an objective fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2015, 12:07 AM
RE: Rugby World Cup 2015
Oy vey Rolleyes

Anyone been following any matches? I saw the start of the Aus/Fiji game but didn't manage to watch it...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2015, 01:16 AM
RE: Rugby World Cup 2015
(24-09-2015 12:07 AM)morondog Wrote:  Oy vey Rolleyes

Anyone been following any matches? I saw the start of the Aus/Fiji game but didn't manage to watch it...
Scotland v Japan flowed very little and was only made interesting by the evident tiredness of Japan alongside the uncharacteristic solidity of Scotish defense. Impressive score margin for Scotland. I think they've been underestimated (I know I did).

Oz v Fiji was reasonably entertaining. Fiji, as ever, gave a gutsy account against a below par, but still powerful looking Oz. Looking forward to the Oz v Eng match.

Didn't see France V Romania. Anyone?

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton Lavey
If god had meant us to believe in him he would've existed - Linda Smith
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Siz's post
24-09-2015, 06:18 AM
RE: Rugby World Cup 2015
@cjlr/stevil allow me to barge into this argument for a second (because I'm earmuffs and that's what I do).

Yes the rugby world cup is hardly an event with a wide selection of realistic contenders (NZ, Aus, Eng, SA, Fra), though to be fair other countries are getting there and the gap is closing (looking at you Argentina). But so what? It is still a "world cup". A country such as Japan could win it if they're the best. Just as New Zealand could win the FIFA World Cup. We wont because we suck but that's just reflective upon us as a nation. We're useless as football and so we don't win. Japan is useless as Rugby and so they don't win.

It's the same as the Olympics or any world cup event for any sport. It's still a world event it's just that some countries are better at some sports than others. It doesn't take away the status of "world event". It's all circumstance of history and political climate.


Just because your national team sucks balls doesn't mean you need to rag on the competition as a whole.
NZ is one of the greatest sporting nations on the planet and yet we suck balls at football. How is football than such a great representation of world sports when one of the top sporting nations on the planet is not only not a serious contender but when we qualified for the last world cup everyone in this countries head exploded from shock.

We're good at math but suck at science. You're good at science but suck at math. Thus is life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: