[Ereko]

The way Ireland played last night against France you'll be needing a miracle!I feel quite sad to say that aswell.

I normally enjoy watching Ireland play rugby. Especially when they put one over on the English:D !

[caladanbrood]

I must say that Fiji-Wales game was the best of the tournament so far by quite a distance. South Africa should have no problem dispatching Fiji in the quarters though, both teams were virtually dead on their feet by the end.

[Falco]

Fiji-Wales was a corker of a match, brilliant stuff ending in the right team going through.

[polishgenius]

Fiji almost cost themselves the game though... what possessed them to not put it out of touch ASAP when time was up?

[Dancer+]

They forgot the rules?

[caladanbrood]

They probably didn't realise the clock had run down. It's not like there's any actual sign of it - they just forgot to have someone clock-watching, I would imagine.

[Rich the Great]

Yowch, Ireland whipped by Argentina. They had it coming though, the Argies have looked very tidy all through the tournament. But if they meet the All Blacks or Springboks then they won't have enough to get past them, the respective packs are far better organised than the French or Irish packs. Would be good to see them get all the way to the final, for a bit of a change.

I shouldn't laugh when Ireland lose, since England are likely to have their arses handed to them by Australia. I'm going to laugh anyway.

[Falco]

Great to see the Argies and Fijians through at the expense of the Welsh and the Irish, some of the old blood shaken up.

Argies-Scots is the toughest of the QFs to call, but we could well end up with all SH semis.

[caladanbrood]

Lets all just admit now that the aussies are gonna walk all over England so there's no gloating later, shall we?

[Ereko]

It's quite dissapointing that the last part of this world cup will be dominated by the Southern Hemisphere.

Ah well you never know England may do something remarkable against the Australians but I rather much doubt it!!

[dktorode]

So...the pick of the quarter final games will definitely be N.Z vs France.
I think the way the Argies are playing they have a real good chance of beating the Scots.

Australia are bound to beat the English and South Africa should beat the Fijians easily (crosses fingers )

Argentinia are definitely showing that they do deserve a spot in the Tri nations....or Quad nations if u must

[caladanbrood]

But can you see New Zealand allowing it? They've already crushed rugby in the South Pacific in the past few decades, and appear very against Argentina joining.

[Falco]

well it doesn't make sense to have them in the southern hem considering all their players play club rugby in france...7 nations anyone?

[dktorode]

caladanbrood;211495 said:

But can you see New Zealand allowing it? They've already crushed rugby in the South Pacific in the past few decades, and appear very against Argentina joining.

Well NZ aren't the goddamn paterfamilias of the Tri nations you know! (as much as they'd like to think so )
If the rugby union decides to let them in there's not much they (NZ) can do.
Same with the Super 14 which was the super 12...NZ were against Aus and SA having an another team included (since NZ had 5 while SA had 4 and Aus only had 3!!) ...but it happened anyway.

Falco;211525 said:

well it doesn't make sense to have them in the southern hem considering all their players play club rugby in france...7 nations anyone?

Why not...it will only be a few international games a year...they would get to play quality sides year after year instead of playing against the rabble they do year in and year out (Uruguy, USA, Canada, Fiji , Samoa...etc etc)
And yea they would join the Tri Nations since it would be held in the off seasion when they play their international rugby anyway and would would normally be returning to Argentinia.

[Skinner]

caladanbrood;211495 said:

But can you see New Zealand allowing it? They've already crushed rugby in the South Pacific in the past few decades, and appear very against Argentina joining.

Caladan - I think that’s a simple view in my opinion.

True, most pacific island players will be drawn to play their professional rugby in NZ or Australia, but there are a large majority of players who grow up first in NZ in school, and then play rugby throughout their careers.

So in most cases, we’re not talking about poaching established and emerging players from Pacific nations. These are young kids growing up and playing in NZ, who then want to make the elite teams. Their rugby skills are honed in NZ and taught by NZ coaches throughout their early years of development. If they could choose, I’m sure most would want an AB jersey on their back.

But for those players who don’t make the AB grade, then they will generally fall back to their pacific island heritage and play for their nation of birth. It's just that at a young age, like all NZ rugby players, they are indoctrinated into wanting to play for the ABs.

From the player’s perspective, they want to be playing rugby at the highest level possible and they want to procure professional contracts. You can’t get that from Pacific Island domestic competition rugby, there is just not enough financial support or sponsorship for that at the moment. So the choice for them is simple. I’m not saying that this is fair, but it’s the reality of the situation.

Having said that, NZ Rugby has still helped the development of a lot of individual players from the Pacific Islands, and for many years it also helped Australian rugby too. The NZ domestic competition is the largest pool for rugby playing talent in the region so it potentially allows a lot of players from this region to ply their trade.

However I believe the development and focus of a national rugby team should be the remit for their own national rugby union. Not the rugby union of another nation like NZ. This doesn’t mean that NZ should not help out or assist the growth of other rugby playing nations. Far from it. I concede that NZ does not generally offer to play or tour the Pacific Islands for test matches because after all, this is mainly a financially based decision.

But first and foremost, the NZ Rugby Union needs to look after it’s own baby. And it does this reasonably well but not losing perspective on how to grow, develop, and maintain players for the national team.

So as far as I can see at the moment, the models for a successful rugby nation are to either cultivate a strong domestic competition (like NZ, S.Africa, France etc), or send your players overseas to ply their trade and come back to the national team for test matches (like Argentina).

What England appears to have done, is to allow clubs to dominate domestic rugby by bringing in foreign players rather than developing it’s own grass roots players for each position in the national team. Not to mention the fact that the clubs will sometimes not release international players for some test matches. How does this help the national team or promote test match rugby?

Personally I’m in favour of Argentina playing more test match rugby because they have proved that they are good enough by beating some top international teams. Some place needs to be found for them because they are arguably better than a number of the 6 nations teams right now. But their position is different from NZ, AUS and S.Africa.

However if Argentina were to join the Tri-nations, this would disrupt the NZ and S.Africa domestic competitions. And with the expanded Super 14, the “4 nations� competition could not start any sooner. So the window is already too small as it is.

Another reason why SANZAR were not keen to include Argentina is because this would increase the travel time and jet lag for touring teams. This is not Europe we’re talking about here where the flight and travel times are only a few hours at most. Traditionally, NZ and AUS teams that go to S.Africa struggle, and S.African teams struggle on tour too. Add another 10 hours of travel into the mix because of going to South America and you asking a lot for a short competition that is being run each week!!

So there are other arguments for Argentina to play international rugby in Europe because most of their players are based there already.

There are many pros & cons for each alternative and no perfect solution. I’m just saying that it’s not that simple and easy, or clear cut.

[Falco]

Well arguably for the future of the game to succeed, all rugby unions have a duty to look out for the expanding nations, but apart from that I generally agree with Skinner.

[Mr.Warren]

as a New Zealander i often get cynical about most things and our Rugby board at times seems more interested in keeping NZ the world power house of rugby rather than letting other nations have a crack and getting up to a level where they can compete with the all blacks. That said, its pretty obvious that other nations are taking the attitude as sort of 'tough love' [EG Argintina, who i rekcon if they go and win the whole shabang i'd be one of the only people in the country smiling]

That said, the All Balck look really good, with the aussies only a step or two behind. Although there is a bit of a mental block thing that happens when the AB's play the French in France, France being one of those teams who if they feel like it on the day can win any game they want, they've upset the AB's before and will be trying thier hardest to keep them selves in running for the cup. the strange thing was at the start of the WC i was picking the french to make it to the final with the AB's.

any way my prediction will be 35-24 to the all blacks over france, i think it'll be a close game until the last 20mins of the game where the All Blacks will take it away.

and an NZ - Argintina final would be a dream would it not?

[caladanbrood]

I would love for Argentina to win the whole thing, but it's not gonna happen:(

I don't doubt that it's better for the individual players to play for the All Blacks than their native countries, but it doesn't help the countries themselves, and with a sport that's played as sparsely as rugby (or cricket, for that matter), it can only be good for the game to get as many competetive teams as possible. Stealing their best players is clearly not helping that cause in any way;)

I'm not even saying I wouldn't do the same in their position, but the way it comes across, certainly in the northern hemisphere, is that the All Blacks are simply poaching talent to keep the other teams below them.

[Mr.Warren]

It kinda works both ways, the best players want to play for the all blacks, and not to mention there is a rule that they have to be playing for a new zealand team for at least 3 years consecutively before they are able to play for our national side, if they indeed are not a New Zealand Citizen or have played for another nation.

But in a way your right, it'd be better for players and country if they perhaps played for a New Zealand super 14 side then went back to their home country. But the rule actually doesnt happen in reverse if a native new zealand player plays for any side outside New Zealand and wanted to play for the all blacks he'd have to wait out those 3 years

[Skinner]

Also, I think the majority of the NZ players in the ABs are either:

1) Maori,
2) part Maori descent, or
3) European descent

I mean how many All Black players can you actually name from the last 3 decades that are from non-Maori descent? (i.e. Samoan, Tongan, Fiji etc).

Sure you get some speedy wingers, but in terms of the forward pack, fly half and half-back, or the mid-field most are "NZ"ers.

Off the top of my head:
Tana Umaga (born in NZ, but Samoan descent from parents)
Jonah Lomu (born in NZ, but Tongan descent from parents)
Sivivatu (Fiji - migrated to NZ aged 15)
Rokocoko (Fiji - migrated to NZ aged 5)
Va'aiga Tuigamala aka "Inga the winger" (born Samoa)
Frank Bunce (born in NZ, but Samoan descent from parents)

Sure there are alot of talented Pacific Island players, but not many actually make it into the ABs if they start playing rugby overseas - rather than in NZ. I think the NZ rugby environment sorts out the merely "talented" players from the world class players.