Re: So who are you going to support?

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 04:00:02 -0700, Richard Bridgman
<rhb919@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 18, 12:16 am, Bobs <shitstainedba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Bridgman wrote:
On Oct 17, 4:29 am, Bobs <shitstainedba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bit hard to crown a team world champs when they got hammered 36-0 in a
pool game.

Why? You guys call yourself Tri-Nations champions by finishing top of
the table, even if you have lost one or more games in the process.

There's also some nonsense about calling yourself "undefeated" despite
having lost a game, but tbh i've never really understood that.

Richard Bridgman

You need to distingush between the two, Richard. If England beat the
Boks, they're the winners of the RWC. Fair enough. If they can turn
around a 36 pt hiding, then they deserve it and the Boks are even better
chokers than the Ab's.

I agree completely...I was arguing against the concept of England
being undeserving of the RWC *if* they beat SA in the final (a very
big if).

However, having the title of World Champion (which you get after winning
the RWC) bestowed upon England after years of shocking losses (incl one
in the very tournament they get the world champ tag from) seems madness
to me. Be honest, Richard. If England win this weekend, do you really
consider them the #1 team in the world? Or just winners of a tournament?

Oh, absolutely no doubt there - they will be winners of the RWC, and
that alone. On this I agree with Boyd & co. - the only way to
determine the world's #1 team is to consider the results over a longer
period of time, like in a league system, and the closest we have to
that is a ranking system such as the IRB rankings or Myk Cameron's
ranking system. I have noticed posters saying if England win the RWC
they *will* be the #1 team in the rankings....not sure if that is
true, but if it is, it's a crock of ***. I don't know what the
ranking formula is, but I would hope it is robust enough to recognize
more than one win per opposition team beaten. I would also go as far
to say there's no way England could be ranked #1 unless they beat the
AB's.


Such a system could only be validated if a competition was to be
arranged formally for the 'Rugby Championship of the World', which of
course the RWC was originally intended to do, and which has now lost
credence with some because NZ can't win it.

The competition would need to be for a stated period, which could even
be annually. It would need to be clear who was eligible to play; the
format - eg. a league with all teams playing each other twice - home
and away; and all the other ancillary matters that go with such a
prestigious tourney.

Then you would find international interest aroused, not least the
revenue raising potentiality, but also player interest and a genuine
international determination to win, unlike the lukewarm informal
'friendly' tests that are played at the moment, and upon which NZ
currently claim their 'right' to be acknowledged as 'World
Champions'!!
.

Loading