It's experience but just like the commentator said the IRFU have to have more Tier 1 countries playing the Tier 2 countries on a more regular basis.
It would make sense if there was a Plate competition for the sides knocked out if the group stages, World Rugby are unlikely to do it though because of costs.This is the part of the World Cup that I enjoy the least. What point do these sorts of games serve? Might as well reduce the groups to 4 each, I fail to see what Romania, Namibia, Portugal or Chile are getting out of being here.
It would make sense if there was a Plate competition for the sides knocked out if the group stages, World Rugby are unlikely to do it though because of costs.
I dunno, Portugal are playing Australia later
the whole tournament is taking far too long I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that.
Thank you. I assume that was for me.
The problem with 2 months is the wind goes out of the sails. If the football world cup, the biggest sporting event in the world (and i think it's bigger than the olympics really), can get it done in 28 days I don't know why rugby needs twice that time.
They've lengthened it by a week to give players more rest between games. Not a bad idea.They've got it completely wrong this time round. As someone on the guardian comments bit mentioned, there's not really a truly competitive match for another two weeks, just training runs really for the big boys. It must be frustrating for the teams and their coaching staff themselves. I can't remember - is this the first time they've made it two months long?
They've lengthened it by a week to give players more rest between games. Not a bad idea.
I think they just have to be realistic about how many competitive countries there are in the world. As said above, four groups of four would work and would shorten the tournament.
There's no shame in that. The game is what it is, it is popular where it is. But I don't think the problem is the WC. The problem is the closed shop six nations and rugby championship. Promotion/relegation in those would help to spread the game, but that is extremely unlikely to happen cos money.
In the Six Nations, the winner from the second tier comp (usually Georgia) could play off against the bottom team in the Six Nations (usually Italy). But in the days of TV money, the loss of revenue to Italy of even just a year spent in the second tier comp would be considerable.
The Rugby Championship could be expanded to include five or six teams? Add in the likes of Japan and Fiji, and again have a promotion/relegation play off with the winner of a second tier comp.
It's the age-old problem of many sports that aren't quite worldwide - same in cricket - where there is a conflict between expanding the game and the interests of the established players in making money.