2015 Rugby World Cup thread

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by slava

sorry but i can't take a guy seriously who insists on calling argentina tier 2 squad when its clearly they are not

fyp

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

Great article on the inimitable Nigel Owens.

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/119147

I have never heard a player say a bad word about Owens, and his acceptance by rugby makes me love this sport.


A quality man.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I have never heard a player say a bad word about Owens, and his acceptance by rugby makes me love this sport.


A quality man.

Plus just a great Ref in general. Makes few mistakes and I find that when hes reffing the game has a lot more flow to it.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

Plus just a great Ref in general. Makes few mistakes and I find that when hes reffing the game has a lot more flow to it.

Sums it up right here:

The final word comes from an interview he gave in 2014, reminding us that the World Cup final is in safe hands.

“I’m not like some refs who could quote you the number of the law, with or without the brackets," he said. “Of course I know them. But knowing the laws too well and technically applying those laws, well you’ll never have a game of rugby. You’ve got to have a bit of empathy as well.”

He understands that he isn't the show, he is to facilitate the show.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

fyp

Well I do think that they could win on Friday to secure 3rd place. Depends on whether the Springboks show up or decide that they don't really care about winning third (never know how a team will respond to that, regardless of the sport).

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I do think that they could win on Friday to secure 3rd place. Depends on whether the Springboks show up or decide that they don't really care about winning third (never know how a team will respond to that, regardless of the sport).

Hopefully they do get rolled up by Argentina, it would be the best thing for them. It might force the hand of the Union and changes might actually happen.

[KiwiFlame]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I hope they take a look at the structure of rugby in SA. I honestly believe they need to bring in an outside coach. I have a buddy that is friends with John Mitchell and he was offered the job. He turned it down when he was told that he didn't have carte blanche to run it how he wanted.

Probably a good thing...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/7...-John-Mitchell

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by KiwiFlame

Probably a good thing...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/7...-John-Mitchell

Two things regarding that article from 2009:

1: Apparently, he has mellowed or at least is aware of his tendencies with age.

2: this is the reason the Boks should hire him:

With the exception of Cullen - and Force playmaker Matt Giteau who tellingly revealed last week he's not a fan of Mitchell's rugby philosophies - even Mitchell's staunchest critics concede he has an enormous rugby brain; maybe one of the game's best.

And even though his reputation has been tarnished by this latest controversy, coaches of his standing are thin on the ground, and those with ample baggage, such as Eddie Jones, still seem to score high-paying jobs. Closer to home, many doubted Graham Henry would work again after leaving New Zealand in a huff for Wales, let alone be re-appointed after dipping out in the quarter-finals of the 2007 Rugby World Cup.

He knows the game and knows it very very well.

[KiwiFlame]

There was also him getting suspended in 2012 from the Lions squad. But yeah, I dunno, I'd rather see a South African coach their national side... It keeps the rivalry a bit more authentic.

No idea who I'd pick as a coach though. Maybe Heyneke just needs more time. The only team he can't seem to crack is NZ who have been pretty damned good the last 4 years. New advisors maybe?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by KiwiFlame

There was also him getting suspended in 2012 from the Lions squad. But yeah, I dunno, I'd rather see a South African coach their national side... It keeps the rivalry a bit more authentic.

No idea who I'd pick as a coach though. Maybe Heyneke just needs more time. The only team he can't seem to crack is NZ who have been pretty damned good the last 4 years. New advisors maybe?

I think it is very telling that in 2007 the "advisor" was Eddie Jones. He was nearly solely responsible for the win. Also, interesting to note he was not allowed to wear the Springbok blazer.

The issue, IMO, is not just a black/white issue it is an Afrikaner/English divide.

There are inventive players in SA, but he leaves them off the team. His teams play a negative style of rugby, just like the Bulls.

I don't see the hiring of a non-SA coach as a devaluing of the rivalry, on the contrary it might bring life back to the rivalry

[Slava]

Well there were also race questions (probably in this thread somewhere) for SA this year as well. I obviously don't know how accurate that is, and they might not be at all, but I would imagine that in South Africa of all places that is a crushing blow. I think that the suggestion was that they weren't giving playing time based on merit and that white players were playing more. If that is even remotely true its obviously an enormous problem in more ways than one.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well there were also race questions (probably in this thread somewhere) for SA this year as well. I obviously don't know how accurate that is, and they might not be at all, but I would imagine that in South Africa of all places that is a crushing blow. I think that the suggestion was that they weren't giving playing time based on merit and that white players were playing more. If that is even remotely true its obviously an enormous problem in more ways than one.

There had to be 30% non-white in the team/squad.

It really is a mess they brought upon themselves. It will take time to level out as more blacks are allowed and encouraged to play the game. For years, it was a game for white only.

There are some amazing players of "colour" in the teams.

The Beast is well a beast:

Spoiler!

That being said the are some very good "coloured" players in SA, but they are not favoured by Meyer, who from the Bulls.

[adc]

I am not an expert on SA rugby but I follow the Super 15 and "support" a SA team. I watch a lot of Curry Cup games as well when they are shown on Sportsnet World who are these players that are being left off the team?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by adc

I am not an expert on SA rugby but I follow the Super 15 and "support" a SA team. I watch a lot of Curry Cup games as well when they are shown on Sportsnet World who are these players that are being left off the team?

Brussow is a great example of a player that Meyer dropped and then ignored for some reason. He is a player that could have made a huge difference.

Coetzee is another glaring omission. To have Victor Matfield in the team is crazy.

For a game day example, I would have started Lambie all day long. He is smart attacking rugby player. I would have also used Alberts in the NZ game (granted he was injured leading up to the WC), but if you want to have your 7 running in the 9/10 channel he is the player to do it.


Yes I know my example's are all white.

[Bagor]

Was not aware of this at all. What a bizarre rule. Move to a country, live in it for three years and all of a sudden you are eligible to play for it???
And this?

At times he questioned his mission, but said playing for Australia was "the ultimate goal" and he earned selection in Michael Cheika's 31-man World Cup squad.
He also re-signed with Australian rugby this year on a landmark deal that will make him available for Australian sevens duties and a potential Olympic campaign.
"I don't know what more proof they need for players who commit to signing a three-year contract … do they want permanent residency? That might not be enough," Speight said.
"It's a tough one. The potential of playing for Fiji was an option. It certainly tests your reasons and what not. But in my mind I was committed to Australian rugby and Australia as well. I was 100 per cent focused and becoming a Wallaby was the ultimate goal."
Nine of the players in the Wallabies' World Cup squad were not born in Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/ru...24-gkhsc2.html

Is Australia the exception or are there other countries that are significantly made up of players that aren't even from there? That's nearly a third of the freakin squad!

This fella basically says that the reason he moved to Australia and resisted playing for Fiji was so that he could play for their team. The small matter of him not being Australian having frig all to do with it.

And then to put the icing on the cake, I look him up on Wiki and see that his old man was a politician in and his grandfather used to be the President of Fiji.

[adc]

Off the top of my head I would say that Japan would be the worst for it. Taking a look at their team they have at least 10 players not born in Japan and most of them having zero link to Japan at all.

For some reason it seems to be a much bigger occurence in rugby than any other sport that I know of.

I think Canada has 3 but I am not sure that Dala being born in Nigeria is really the same as the Kiwi's going to Japan and playing for them.

[Bagor]

Thanks. I get it to an extent such as if the person has lived there most of their life.

But the above example where he says that he could play for Fiji but WANTS to play for Australia and is able to do so simply by being a resident for three years just doesn't sit well with me. Fiji loses a top talent because he doesn't want to play for them.

Just surprised me. This naive fan thought that this weekend's final was going to be contested by actual Aussies and Kiwis.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Thanks. I get it to an extent such as if the person has lived there most of their life.

But the above example where he says that he could play for Fiji but WANTS to play for Australia and is able to do so simply by being a resident for three years just doesn't sit well with me. Fiji loses a top talent because he doesn't want to play for them.

Just surprised me. This naive fan thought that this weekend's final was going to be contested by actual Aussies and Kiwis.

Naive indeed.

The list of countries is long, France, England, Wales, NZ, Scotland (just of the top of my head) all have "naturalized" players on their teams.

It use I be that you could be capped, move and then after 3 yrs be capped for your new country.

Now once capped you are tied to that country.

The reasons are many, but often driven by $.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

It use I be that you could be capped, move and then after 3 yrs be capped for your new country.

So it's not strictly speaking then, an international competition?

So who are the losers here? The Samoans? Fijians? Where's the national pride?

[Bagor]

Here we go. The full breakdown.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/r...stats-10052033

Some of them aren't as bad as they appear. e.g. 9 out of 11 non Welsh born players qualify through ancestry whereas all of the foreign born Aussies have zero heritage.

Argentina is the only 'pure' team in the tournament with a full compliment of home born players. SA a close second with one Zimbabwean. Fiji represented in five different countries.