• 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 2023

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
But what are the ongoing effects of teams like the Wallabies, Argentina or England finishing 3rd and 4th (or higher) while clearly better teams like NZ, SA, Ireland, France or Scotland finish in the 5 - 8 rankings?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
But what are the ongoing effects of teams like the Wallabies, Argentina or England finishing 3rd and 4th (or higher) while clearly better teams like NZ, SA, Ireland, France or Scotland finish in the 5 - 8 rankings?
Despite the rankings, I don't think Scotland make the "clearly better" cut-off. The top 4 really are in a different category though, for sure.
 

Yoda

Darby Loudon (17)
But what are the ongoing effects of teams like the Wallabies, Argentina or England finishing 3rd and 4th (or higher) while clearly better teams like NZ, SA, Ireland, France or Scotland finish in the 5 - 8 rankings?
Well. I think most rugby pundits realise that the World Cup winners aren’t necessarily the best team in the World. More the ones that have played the best over the tournament. The drawer, some luck and as always, refereeing decisions all come into it.
 

The Ghost of Raelene

Andrew Slack (58)
Hasn’t really ever been won by someone outside the top 4 though. Closest effort would be France 2011? Wallabies 2015 caught fire at the right time.
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
But what are the ongoing effects of teams like the Wallabies, Argentina or England finishing 3rd and 4th (or higher) while clearly better teams like NZ, SA, Ireland, France or Scotland finish in the 5 - 8 rankings?
I don't think there are any ongoing effects per se, the RWC carries double points and normal transmission will have resumed following the next RC and 6N series. However, without going through the exercise of working it out, whichever of the 3 'clearly worse' sides make the semis and then subsequently loses they will probably drop back below those current top 4 sides anyway. If they were to win the semi they would go above them, but you would think that is then justified as they will have to defeat a higher ranked side.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Despite the rankings, I don't think Scotland make the "clearly better" cut-off. The top 4 really are in a different category though, for sure.

Sure, in terms of the bands it would clearly be Band 1: NZ, SA, France, Ireland. BUT it would be band 2 Scotland, Argentina, Australia, England - with Scotland easily, (I think) leading that band.

I don't think there are any ongoing effects per se, the RWC carries double points and normal transmission will have resumed following the next RC and 6N series. However, without going through the exercise of working it out, whichever of the 3 'clearly worse' sides make the semis and then subsequently loses they will probably drop back below those current top 4 sides anyway. If they were to win the semi they would go above them, but you would think that is then justified as they will have to defeat a higher ranked side.

I don't think that's a holistic view of the impacts. It's about sporting credibility. Imagine if something like this happened in the Football World Cup, or a Tennis Open. Perhaps the ramifications won't amount to much, but I suspect they deserve to.

Not that I think anything other than the WBs should rip in with their advantage to the full.
 

Dctarget

John Eales (66)
Scotland's overrated. They benefit from who they play. They consistently get battered by France and Ireland, they trade wins with England and they beat Italy and Wales. They lost their series to Argentina, lost to Wales and Aus last year and only beat England by 3 at home.

Haven't beaten NZ or SA in how long?
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Scotland's overrated. They benefit from who they play. They consistently get battered by France and Ireland, they trade wins with England and they beat Italy and Wales. They lost their series to Argentina, lost to Wales and Aus last year and only beat England by 3 at home.

Haven't beaten NZ or SA in how long?

Now play the same negativity against Australia, Wales and England. Then choose who sits on top. I'm sticking with Scotland.
 

dusk

Cyril Towers (30)
Scotland's overrated. They benefit from who they play. They consistently get battered by France and Ireland, they trade wins with England and they beat Italy and Wales. They lost their series to Argentina, lost to Wales and Aus last year and only beat England by 3 at home.

Haven't beaten NZ or SA in how long?
Mate, we haven't won the bledisloe for 21 years. We are in no position to talk about Scotland. The rankings alone speak for themself.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Mate, we haven't won the bledisloe for 21 years. We are in no position to talk about Scotland. The rankings alone speak for themself.
True, but put it in context - how many teams would win it when :-
*The ABs start by holding it
*Often only 2 Tests
*You need to win both to get it
*1 of those is almost always played at Eden Park

I reckon the Bokke might well; Ireland recently could have but no certainty.
The Bledisloe is our bellwether but maybe it's a bit of a skew.
Still sucks we have not had our hands on it for so long!!
 
Top