• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Rugby World Cup Matches OTA

Kevin77

Kevin77

Fred Wood (13)
noscrumnolife said:
If a NH team is to win I really hope it isn't Ireland. Respect to their Union for getting their programs firing. But it doesn't sit right to me that a team can stuff their 23 with players from Aus, NZ and SA to take themselves to the top level.

I bear no grudges to the players for taking that opportunity, to be clear. Good for them for making a positive move for their careers. Nor is this meant as a xenophobic criticism that they 'can't' be Irish. Nor is it a criticism of the Irish Rugby Union. But it shits me to death that they get so much praise when they have players from fucking Tuggeranong in their XV. Part of this is driven by certain sections of the media/their fanbase who you feel are really putting the cart before the horse.

To jump on the obvious response to this point - that Aus/NZ have been stuffing their teams with Pasifika players for years - the situations are not alike. Those players come to Aus/NZ at a far younger age, far more development work is done by the SH countries and until recently, the opportunities for them to play professionally in their home country was far lessened.

Anyway...hoping for a France win from here on out.
Click to expand...
What level do you define as stuffed?

The whole of the starting pack are Irish born and bred.

There are some backs that are from NZ (Gibson Park, Aki and Lowe). I agree that they shouldn't be playing for Ireland but they were the rules and here we are. Each of those players has a genuine Irish alternate who are on the bench but could (and have) started dependent on form - Connor Murray, Robbie Henshaw and Keith Earls).

The other overseas born starter is Hansen who was pretty much unrated in Australia and has an Irish mother I believe. Not quite poached more a reflection of the Irish diaspora (same as Bealham on the bench.

This is not a team that are doing well solely or even predominantly as a result of loading up with other countries players.

They have built great systems (which has taken 20+ years), the provinces are strong, the underage sides are strong and we're now bearing fruit.
This has been a long time coming.

The Aki's, Gibson-Park and Lowe's are controversial but they're the cherry on top which allows a little more depth. It's unlikely we'll see these type of players at the next world cup due to the rule changes and Ireland due to the above outlined work will be strong and continue their progress.

Your complaints aren't without merit but the weighting you're giving to pushing you to hope Ireland don't win is a shame
 
Dismal Pillock

Dismal Pillock

Simon Poidevin (60)
Apparently if Ire and Scot have a wee deal to finish with this 20-41 scoreline, they both go through and the Boks go out.....

F7Yc8QOWYAAKFGp



















FatTony.png
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Mapimpi out with a fractured eye socket & possibly cheekbone after his tete-a-tete with Gus Pulu. Replaced by Lukhanyo Am.
 
For the Love of the Game

For the Love of the Game

Stan Wickham (3)
Dismal Pillock said:
Apparently if Ire and Scot have a wee deal to finish with this 20-41 scoreline, they both go through and the Boks go out.....

F7Yc8QOWYAAKFGp



















FatTony.png
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand the knock out rules but with all 3 teams on 15 how will Ireland go through with a worse before and against than the Boks. According to me the Boks is already through. I can see no scenario whereby they can be knocked out. Only question according to me is whether they will go through as 1 or 2 and who is going through with them. For Scotland to top the boks they need to score 21 points or more than Ireland but with every point Scotland scores more than Ireland, Ireland's before and agains goes down with the same amount of points. Am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
kiap

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
waiopehu oldboy said:
^ I did read where @Dismal Pillock is correct: best PD goes through as top seed then it's head-to-head for the other. Seems an odd way to do it but, hey, it's WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby).
Click to expand...
I think it's not actually an odd way ... other than being a tie-breaker for an odd number of tied teams (i.e. three).

What this means is the (3-way) head-to-head would be 1:1 each, and therefore tied.

Only then does it go to PD.
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
^ yeah but it's only PD to determine the top seed then HTH for second which is what I find odd, I don't think I've ever seen that before. Why wouldn't you look at HTH for the top two on PD if you're not going on PD alone for all three?

Edit: anyway it's surely moot: if Ireland score four tries they'll likely convert two minimum plus they're inclined to take the three to keep the scoreboard ticking over so I reckon they'd be looking at 30+ & when was the last time Scotland put upwards of 55 on a T1 opponent?
 
Last edited:
kiap

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
waiopehu oldboy said:
^ yeah but it's only PD to determine the top seed
Click to expand...
No.

HTH is used first but it's a 3-way tie.

waiopehu oldboy said:
then HTH for second which is what I find odd, I don't think I've ever seen that before.
Click to expand...
It's not odd because the same order of criteria is used.

The HTH won't be tied when there 2 teams to separate (ignore the possibility of a drawn match here because we won't get a 3-way tie on table points with a SCO-IRE draw.)

waiopehu oldboy said:
Why wouldn't you look at HTH for the top two on PD if you're not going on PD alone for all three?
Click to expand...
HTH comes before PD in allcases.
 
kiap

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
waiopehu oldboy said:
^ can you direct me to another comp that uses this method wrt a three-way tie?
Click to expand...
I can.

That's a different point to your previous post, however, which ... correct me if I read your text wrong ... was questioning the "oddness" of different criteria (or the order of said criteria) being used for a 2-way tie break versus a 3-way break.

But actually there is no difference ... as if you apply the same criteria in the same order.

In other words, it is consistent in practice.

The details are here: https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/35290 ...
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
kiap said:
I can.

That's a different point to your previous post, however, which ... correct me if I read your text wrong ... was questioning the "oddness" of different criteria (or the order of said criteria) being used for a 2-way tie break versus a 3-way break.

But actually there is no difference ... as if you apply the same criteria in the same order.

In other words, it is consistent in practice.

The details are here: https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/35290 ...
Click to expand...

Rugby Championship:

"If teams end level on points for any position, the first tiebreaker is total number of wins in the competition, then number of wins against the other team/s tied on points, then overall points differential, then points differential between the team/s tied on points, then most tries scored in the competition"

Six Nations:

"If two or more Unions finish the Championship with the same number of Match Points, they will be placed according to the difference between the total points scored and the total points conceded on the fields of play in all Matches.

"If any such Unions also have the same points difference, they will be placed according to the number of tries (including penalty tries) scored by each Union in all Matches.

"If any such Unions have also scored the same number of tries (including penalty tries), they will be placed equally."

The oddness relates to applying one criteria to determine top seed & a different one to determine the other. I've not seen that before in rugby or any other sport I follow.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top