What do you think of the quality of Rugby at this years RWC?

Question

France is a wonderful country and their lovely stadiums were always filled with people and atmosphere. Well done France for being a good host nation.

My question is what did you think of the actual rugby played and the quality of the matches?

Was the tournament full of exciting and brilliant rugby? Were the matches entertaining and thrilling?

What are your thoughts on the modern game of rugby and the way it is heading?

Answer 1

I'll jump on the riddlers band wagon here. That final was brutal to watch. Don't think that I am bitter because NZ were not there, I love rugby above the All Blacks and I have always wanted it to develop into the biggest sport in the world (which explains my extreme disappointment at the IRB's efforts to expand).



Yes it was an event and it had excitement but that was more because of the ocassion than the spectacle. South Africa have DESERVEDLY won 2 RWC's now but they haven't scored a freakin try in either one! It is all about winning at the RWC it seems but who does that serve? It certainly doesn't do anything to help the game in smaller markets and it definately wont help push into countries like the USA which is the biggest market in the world.



No country outside the established rugby nations can appreciate how well RSA ground out that win. All they see is that you kick the ball around, wait for the other team to make a mistake, and then you kick a goal... that's not Rugby as we know it and it wont get them interested.... it sounds more like soccer if you ask me.



I don't like where rugby is heading... it is like the only thing that matters is RWC results and the only way to get those is to play that slow boring style. I am fully behind Graham Henry's belief of playing open expansive rugby, even if it means we don't have a chance at winning.

Answer 2

The RiDdLeR pretty much took the words off my key board, it is a nonsense that the WCF should be with out tries but RSA played some brilliant rugby to get to the final. Can't say the same about England - Bloody Aussies should have taken them out of the equation - a green a gold final would have been a thousand times more entertaining.



The Pacific Island nations were electric, Tonga and Fiji provided truck loads of entertainment - Samoa kind of reminded us how vulnerable the PI nations are at the WC - a string of injuries and no cash or logistics too replace them meant a less than average performance from a team that promised so much. All three PI nations should find the logistics a lot less of a burden down under - they will be unstoppable.



Argentina were unreal - I could watch all of their games again. Spanking France in the pools was only overshadowed by their effort in the play off for the bronze - In my mind a far more watchable game of rugby than the final.



But will the PI nations and Argentina really benefit from the WC? I doubt it - the IRB seems beyond reproach - A likely clipping of the number of teams for 2011, ignoring or at best hesitating over the calls for rule changes, and generally sending the message that little will or needs to change to move the RWC in the direction of becoming the second largest sporting event in the world.



The split between NH and SH rugby was once again starkly highlighted.



Edit: Simon the sad sack, get over yourself mate, no excuses being made - and yeah I'll be watching the league tonight for sure - something tells me it's going to be more like the RWC final than you know. Union isn't being changed and slowed down - it's dynamic and growing just getting faster and more entertaining to play and watch - the 2007 WCF was 50 year old rugby. Who do you think invented the rolling maul ?



RSA spanked England twice. The first time they put 30 points on the Poms and their top players only played for the first 50 minutes - If England had the balls to select young English men with the skill sets to actually play running rugby maybe the final would have been more entertaining. Any team can kill the ball, but England are the only team that actually have to because they aren't allowed to play any other way. The English world champion sevens team showed that England have the talent to run the ball - why squander that talent ?- its world class.

Answer 3

The quality of the rugby iyself was crap, putting it nicely, but in saying that some of the more fancied teams i.e. All Blacks, Aussie .. didn't realise they were playing for the WORLD CUP. If you WANT to win you must do so by any means possible, just because you are known for playing attractive rugby (Usually), doesn't mean you have to do that every game. Other teams did play to win the WORLD CUP and were satisfied with kicking penalties and DROP GOALS!!!! with plenty of time remaining. They actually had a good gameplan and stuck to it.



As to where the game is heading, I feel that the rule makers are changing the way the game used to be, people used to go to see a bit of rucking, the scrums crunching together and things like that. I fear if the rule makers keep going the way they are our teams will be wearing as much padding as the NFL players!

Answer 4

I was disappointed in the quality of rugby that was played at this tournament. The point in rugby is to score tries and there was an obvious lack of them being scored. I think it has a lot to do with the rules and the way referee's officiate and interpret them. The biggest problem is the area of the breakdown where there is obvious confusion and different applications of the law by different referee's. The blatant slowing down of play by teams such as South Africa, France and England (in my view the main culprits) has clearly been successful for them but this is taking much of the spectacle of the game away. Come on the IRB!!! Sort out our beloved game for the fans and players alike.

Answer 5

probably the worst ever,and not because the Aussies and Kiwi's went out early,but because as a spectator watching the smothering rugby played by sides like England was like watching grass grow and besides,sides looked like they were scared to throw the ball around and go for a try,the powers that be need to change the value of the field goal to maybe 1 point and take the incentive to kick out of the game before it becomes more boring



p.s well done to Fiji,you played the style that makes a good spectator sport,i enjoyed your games

Answer 6

Have you ever heard of rugby league?



Maybe you should watch that instead.



It is so tiresome hearing the Southern Hemisphere teams banging on about how the union game is being changed and being slowed down blah blah.... that is how it ORIGINATED..with Scrums, Mauls and Rucks..... Hard, man on man, battles up front. The Southren Hemisphere have tried to hijack the game and turn it into a League/7's game with all the fancy running but that is not going to work if you have a weak pack (Australia...NZ) to run the backs off. The game could now be reverting to how is should be played..... Stop whinging and making excuses for the team that clearly didn't perform.

Answer 7

The quality was great because this was the most competitive world cup ever. All the New Zealand and Australian fans would disagree because their countries had early exits. Well done to South Africa. They played with the most flair and have some exciting players.

Answer 8

Pool matches were great then when everyone starting adopting English tactics in the finals it became very pedestrian to watch. Only side to demonstrate real flair was South Africa in what they done to Fiji and Argentina and deservedly won the tournament

Answer 9

I enjoyed most matches ..mainly because upsets tickle me....



It's difficult to actually know where Rugby is heading...If the "modern game" is the one England will get their arses handed to them playing...by most teams in the six nations, then i think it is awfull stuff...



I think rugby will need to look at itself and what it is becoming (unwatchable and largely unentertaining) and it needs to take stock..



Maybe it's time to have two rugby balls.



It would be wonderfully entertaining anarchy.

Answer 10

I firmly like the idea of reducing the points for kicks.



Would 2 points make the game more open? I would have thought so.

Answer 11

I could not have said it better than Hawkeye7. Great answer. You've covered all bases.

Answer 12

it wasn't great, the games were very slow moving with hardly any ties to celebrate

Answer 13

people say about par.......





I say triple bogey.