Rugby World Cup 2019

Who will win the RWC in 2019


  • Total voters
    62
This WC has proven that Rugby Union can’t carry a 20 team WC.

Should go the cricket route where everyone plays everyone (probably impractical) or two leagues of 6 or something.

A month in and it’s only just starting to get interesting. Likes of Canada, Namibia, Russia and USA would be better off playing there own second tier competition, imo.
 
Whether or not New zealand win depends on how much the ref lets them lie offside at the ruck, tackle high, rotate the scrum and spear tackle. At least 2 tries against Ireland were blatant cheating as usual
 
This WC has proven that Rugby Union can’t carry a 20 team WC.

Should go the cricket route where everyone plays everyone (probably impractical) or two leagues of 6 or something.

A month in and it’s only just starting to get interesting. Likes of Canada, Namibia, Russia and USA would be better off playing there own second tier competition, imo.
i agree completely, although i am still happy watching any rugby as it isnt carried by TSN until RWC.

After 12th ranked Italy, there isnt a nation that has a shot of an upset over a top nation. 12 is perfect.

Id be happy watching Canada in a second tier tourny, where countries like Georgia, Samoa and Romania would be top dogs, and perhaps the winner would get an automatic buy into the World Cup.
 
Whether or not New zealand win depends on how much the ref lets them lie offside at the ruck, tackle high, rotate the scrum and spear tackle. At least 2 tries against Ireland were blatant cheating as usual
im willing to entertain this.
i played a year of rugby and still am not seeing the game in perfect clarity, so i sort if just trust the refs and announcers. NZ seems to get the benefit of doubt, to me, but i dont know shit, really.
could you post an example, or two, from the irish game?
 
Whether or not New zealand win depends on how much the ref lets them lie offside at the ruck, tackle high, rotate the scrum and spear tackle. At least 2 tries against Ireland were blatant cheating as usual

Go on... which two?
 
After 12th ranked Italy, there isnt a nation that has a shot of an upset over a top nation. 12 is perfect.

You could include Tonga in as well.

I'm still enjoying the 20 teams format. No doubt the aim of increasing the number of temps is to make the most money out of it, but reducing the number of teams would just mean rugby union is dedicated to be a sport for a pre-selected set of countries. I guess one tournament each 4 years doesn't do much to improve the "tier 2" teams ( if there is no more regular international competition such as Pacific nations cup, American rugby championship, Nations cup, it's useless). But maybe it helps to rise more interest in rugby in countries such as for Japan, Uruguay, Georgia, etc..
 
You could include Tonga in as well.

I'm still enjoying the 20 teams format. No doubt the aim of increasing the number of temps is to make the most money out of it, but reducing the number of teams would just mean rugby union is dedicated to be a sport for a pre-selected set of countries. I guess one tournament each 4 years doesn't do much to improve the "tier 2" teams ( if there is no more regular international competition such as Pacific nations cup, American rugby championship, Nations cup, it's useless). But maybe it helps to rise more interest in rugby in countries such as for Japan, Uruguay, Georgia, etc..

These "second tier" teams need more games against the top. I guess a large part of these world tournaments in any sport are the upsets that people romanticise. Get rid of the underdog = no upsets.

I'd rather more participants than less.

Japan has largely done it by themselves IMO. Even in the last 4 years they don't have a lot of games against the top teams.

Argentina are a good example. They were introduced into the them Tri Nations and were beat up for a bit. . Now not many teams enjoy going to Beunos Aires to play them and they're a very tough side.

If anything, I think Italy are the disappointments. Being in the Six Nations for a long time and very rarely string together results
 
These "second tier" teams need more games against the top. I guess a large part of these world tournaments in any sport are the upsets that people romanticise. Get rid of the underdog = no upsets.

I'd rather more participants than less.

Japan has largely done it by themselves IMO. Even in the last 4 years they don't have a lot of games against the top teams.

Argentina are a good example. They were introduced into the them Tri Nations and were beat up for a bit. . Now not many teams enjoy going to Beunos Aires to play them and they're a very tough side.

If anything, I think Italy are the disappointments. Being in the Six Nations for a long time and very rarely string together results

In the entire history of the tournament you can count on one hand how many major upsets there have been....and even then it tends to be the top tier 2 teams beating the weaker tier 1 teams.

Namibia could play NZ 100 times and not win once.

16 teams would still give 6-7 spots to the lesser nations. 20 is overkill.
 
In the entire history of the tournament you can count on one hand how many major upsets there have been....and even then it tends to be the top tier 2 teams beating the weaker tier 1 teams.

Namibia could play NZ 100 times and not win once.

16 teams would still give 6-7 spots to the lesser nations. 20 is overkill.

Yep... But we remember almost all those upsets.

I'm not fussed with 20 teams but what I do like about 16 teams that the pool sizes would be a even number.
 
Yep... But we remember almost all those upsets.

I'm not fussed with 20 teams but what I do like about 16 teams that the pool sizes would be a even number.

Likes of Japan, Tonga and Samoa are capable of the occasional upset. Likes of Russia, Canada and Namibia have next to zero chance.

At least half the games in the group were pointless in the grand scheme of things.
 
Likes of Japan, Tonga and Samoa are capable of the occasional upset. Likes of Russia, Canada and Namibia have next to zero chance.

At least half the games in the group were pointless in the grand scheme of things.

A bit of encouragement I'd say and realistically, how else do you get to play the best in the world otherwise?

Canada used to be a decent side, but seemed to have dropped off a ton. Russia I thought were a pain for Japan until they ran out of gas in the 30th minute.

They likely won't beat them, but I think they're capable of good passages of play and to put a bit of pressure every once in awhile.

The issue this time around was rather unprecedented in that games got cancelled and points differential was possibly going to be a tie breaker.
 
A bit of encouragement I'd say and realistically, how else do you get to play the best in the world otherwise.

Why do they need to? Who does it help having a NZ b team put 60 points on Namibia?

Have 4-5 minnows win the chance to play through qualification. That’s fine. No need for 9-10.
 
At least the Rugby World Cup is fairly competitive for what it is. Its better then the Rugby League World Cup where only 3 teams have the chance to win it.
 
Well hopefully the remaining games will all be at least competitive.

NZ / SA putting 20 points on Eng / Wal would be a pretty bad look.

Both underdogs are capable of producing upsets, though logic suggests a NZ v SA final, which is quite a boring prospect, tbh.
 
Well hopefully the remaining games will all be at least competitive.

NZ / SA putting 20 points on Eng / Wal would be a pretty bad look.

Both underdogs are capable of producing upsets, though logic suggests a NZ v SA final, which is quite a boring prospect, tbh.

I don't see a huge gap. I think both will be pretty tight.
 
Big weekend coming up. The excitement is palpable.
 
Back
Top