Rugby

See below - because they didn't actually play any of their test players and were basically rubbish. I think Super Rugby were really unimpressed with their approach...

I didn't know about the average minutes played, that is good to know! Maybe this system will prove to be a good recipe then!!
My comment with SA was that IMO they had a more comfortable schedule with playing NZ first and after having only lower-tier teams to play, whereas Japan had the opening on their country (lowert tier team in front but game under pressure), and two top tier team (Ireland and Scotland) team to play, which lead me to think that they might not be as fresh as they should to play SA.
But it is a WC quarter final in the end, not much of the past matters and it is a direct elimination game so anything can happen. This will be an exciting week-end!!

late to the party here, but a couple of questions to those who may know more.
Do the Polynesian teams have a competition equivalent to the 6 nations of the tri nations as it was? And if not, why are Fiji/Samoa/Tonga not being groomed/supported to become part of the tri nations as it was (what is it actually called now, Argentina are involved?)
I keep hearing how all Fiji/Tonga/Samoa need is good coaching and some financial support to be good sides for 80mins and threaten the bigger teams, and yet their best players are still regularly hived off for New Zealand and Australia.

Also with the emergence of Japan should they not be part of a larger yearly competition? As they say iron sharpens iron and playing and competing with a higher class opposition can only make them and their players better no?

Looking forward to the quarter finals, feels like I can actually pay attention to the tournament now.

The Pacific Island teams play in a Pacific tournament, I think with Japan, USA and maybe Canada? The fundamental reason they're not being brought into the other tournaments is because they bring nothing financial to the table. No significant domestic TV audience, the logistics of travelling there are onerous and there are no big stadiums to get gate receipts from. Japan will be brought into the Rugby Championship for exactly the opposite reasons. the real concern re the Pacific Island teams is no longer ANZ, but the fact that France have 3 'academies' across the islands, so the most promising young players get contracts with French academies and by the time they mature they're French qualified. There was some ridiculous stat recently that across the French league there were more Fijian wingers than French ones. Maybe no French wingers, but that sounds too extreme and I can't be arsed to check...

The issue with bringing other teams into the established tournaments (the same argument runs for promotion/relegation into the 6 nations, without which how do Georgia/Spain etc develop) is that the existing nations are the shareholders and it would be turkeys voting for christmas for Italy/Scotland to vote to open up relegation. This was the premise of the recently tabled 'Nations League' which would have guaranteed the non-tier-1 teams more games and introduced promotion/relegation. Scotland vetoed it. Understandable, from their perspective, but so short-sighted for the future of the game!

One rule change that would have a MASSIVE impact would be re national qualification, such that if a tier 2 qualified player was capped by NZ/France/England etc, but then not likely to be picked again, they could revert to their country of birth/qualification and play for them. It would seriously enhance the playing resources of the smaller teams and mean that all of the academies and 'poaching' wasn't necessary so negative as a load more players would have access to professional training but still could perform for their home nation if it didn't work out with a tier 1 team.

Also, re the inaccessability and non-commerciality of the pacific island teams (and allowing for the fact that almost all of their players are based outside their home nations anyway) you could set them up in Spain/Italy/France/UK and have them play a local tournament in that region - they would almost certainly pick up a significant ex-pat and local fanbase and it would make everything so much easier logistically and commercially...

Thanks for the detailed answer, filled in a lot of blanks in my international rugby knowledge

Swapping Italy and Scotland for Japan and Uruguay or Georgia would make for a cracking, if logistically tricky, six nations. And take the quality of rugby up a notch or two...

I think that's harsh on Scotland considering their performances recently but Italy have offered nothing for ages now and have quite probably gone backwards over the last ~8 years...

Oh I don't know. There was the amusing non-rucking tactic a couple of years ago, that flummoxed Dylan Hartley...

(and Matteo Minozzi/Jake Polledri, who are fantastic players)

It was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but the gap between the bottom of tier 1 and top of tier 2 is disappearing, and those tier 2 teams need the chance to play proper tournament rugby every year

Definitely agree with you. I can understand that we (France) set-up academies in New Caledonia or Wallis&Futuna for example, which are French territories.

But setting up academies (like Clermont and Stade Toulousain I think, I'm sure for the first one at least) in Fiji to steal young talents, and tell everyone about it as "saviours" or "opportunity givers" blows me away. How the fuck did they allow that? And don't tell me we do not have any player reservoir in France, our U20 win world cup twice recently.
If you take the wingers for example, Toulouse made a former U20 from the first world title play a lot last season (Tauzin), he pretty much destroyed every opponent in 1vs1 during last season. And that's not by picking foreign players on a specific position that you will find local talents for this position.

It is not a new point of view, but I remain convinced that with more organisation, more structure, and none of their players "stolen", pacific teams islands would pretty much butcher half of the top ten nations. I believe it is part of the reason no one is funding them or anything, it would jeopardize too much other nations.

On your idea to authorize switch of nations for unused players, that is a great idea. There were plenty of examples of naturalized players "secured" with 1 cap, and never picked again. Building a "far-from-home pacific center" in Europe where they manage their teams, support their players overseas, offer structure etc. would be a killer idea IMO and would help them progress a lot.
Inherently (physically and with individual technique) they are already above almost any nations, it's crazy when you watch them play sevens it must be a nightmare to play against.

I agree. Pick Georgia for example, I am not convinced that they are not capable of beating Italy or event another 6N side with proper regular good oppositions. I believe it is not by chance that E. Jones made england train with Georgia some time ago

Ha - the look on his and Haskell's faces when the ref told them he wasn't their coach and couldn't solve this for them was priceless...

For the past 3-4 years Italy seem to lose two 'world class' players for each one they find. They have a potentially tasty backrow, but the props/locks are distinctly average and the backs nothing to write home about. The progress of Treviso is encouraging, however, and I rate Connor O'Shea, but making them 'safe' in the 6 nations doesn't seem to have developed the game. I would really like to see promotion - at least a play off between winner of div 2 and loser of div 1 - but it's just not going to happen. Which is a massive shame.

I think this idea that the gap is closing is something of a delusion - 20 years ago Romania were amazing and pushing/beating France, but because they had no pathway they lost that team and interest waned again. Georgia were arguably much better 5 years ago than they are now, but how do we know because they have not and will not get a regular chance to test themselves. It all just feels cyclical - teams get good, get close, get no chance to really improve so just drop away again...

Japan have certainly improved, and there are less embarrassing thrashings, but I think that's just fitness being better in the smaller teams. Kenya were decent a few years back. Not so much now. Unless there is a genuine shake-up in the global game the smaller teams won't develop - unless they have the financial strength of Japan to actually make something happen (and make them attractive to the other leagues).

There are some interesting things happening in Germany where a billionaire benefactor has got involved. That will be worth watching. USA are obviously another potential big player - especially if the NFL civil action lawsuits really start to bite...

If i had untold millions kicking about it would be an interesting exercise to see if I could do a deal to buy an exclusive licence to 'Fiji Rugby' for 10+ years and run all of their professional and commercial operations. If you could pay the players on a par with the top nations, and in doing so ensure you get reasonable access to them (most Fijian players are based in France so the clubs exert serious financial pressure on them to not go to training/international duty etc) you could do something really special with that team. You'd need to be able to base them in Europe and make sure you get enough games against the top teams - but like the AB's take themselves on the road and play money-making games against whoever in Hong Kong/America/London etc I reckon you could do similar with Fiji and turn them into the global force they ought to be. There are some ridiculous statistics around the pacific island populations and professional sport - I think 20% of all professional rugby players are from there!

My 2p. Re. Japan. No one seems to have mentioned the 16th man. I think that makes a big difference.

You're probably right, I wasn't being very serious. I don't really follow rugby these days, but I assume the gap isn't closing is because Georgia/Romania/Fiji don't get to play regular tournament rugby against decent opposition, and pull in the TV and sponsorship bucks. Consign Italy and Scotland to a handful of friendlies and getting spanked by the All Blacks every other year and they would quickly sink to tier 2 level. They've pretty much monopolised the bottom two places of the 6 nations since it was expanded.

It does, but it's been the 15 on the field making those outrageous offloads

Fair point - rugby (especially domestic rugby in France!) skews so much harder towards home advantage than most other sports...

Fair point. I don’t want to distract from their play which has been amazing. They are disciplined and very quick with great hands. SA game could be the best game of the. World Cup for entertainment although I would expect SA to dramatically slow the game down.
If not a good match, it will be interesting.

Yup. If SA tight five get dragged around the park, it could be close. If it ends up a battle of the set-piece, there's only one winner.

QF teams are out. Ireland as expected. Eng & Aus, erm... SA with all the forwards.

Did not follow carefully the pool games of England, but was under the impression that Ford was installed on 10, and Farell on 12 ; now Farell is back on 10 and Slade on 13. Did Slade play during pool stage?
I think Slade is a very good option but isn't it risky to move Farell constantly between 10 and 12 despite his competence, and mostly to install Slade if he hasn't play much? If they 10-12-13 association are on the same page, England's lineup is pretty scary I must say because the pack seem already very strong and backline combine kicking, high impact, and good speed overall.
Maybe Jones is scared for Ford's defence if he's got to defend against Kerevi, Koroibete etc. or if he's under pressure with Hooper and Pocock? Australia is pretty unpredictable so it will be interesting.

I think the Ford-Farrell combination is perfect when you are going to be on the front foot against 'lesser' teams. Ford plays very flat and aggressively bringing the ball to the line and it creates space outside him, which he's very good at exploiting. BUT, in his England career he has tended to go missing/have poor games against the very best teams. This is quite possibly because in the toughest games the pack don't have dominance and he doesn't have that same service/time to play with. But there seems to be a feeling (and this may well be hugely unfair) that he doesn't quite have the bottle (or his game doesn't fit) for the biggest and toughest occasion. We know Farrell thrives in these situations. His defence, as you note, is an advantage for sure. I think Ford is also an excellent bench option if you're chasing a game with 20 to go! Also, it should be said, bringing in Slade for Ford is hardly bringing in Brad Barritt or Shontayne Hape - this midfield has everything, gas, kicking, distributing and massive physical impact. Plus excellent defence. JJ can probably consider himself unlucky and I am slightly concerned about Slade's fitness, but the coaches will have seen enough in camp to know whether he's OK or not... and he will be great from the bench whether chasing or protecting because his wider channel defence is exceptional.

That makes sense regarding Ford. I quite like Slade though, and as you said the combination Farell-Tuilagi-Slade is very complete and if they are in line with each other, they will be very hard to either attack or defend against.
But if Hooper and Pocock play their best game, this will be needed. I was quite surprised by Australia's hooker, did not knew him and find him to be good during pool stage.
Both teams have interesting line-ups, and also interesting bench choices so very much looking forward to the game!!

Maybe Jones is scared for Ford's defence

This is an argument I have made in the past. But the more I have seen of the two, the more I have changed my view. Ford might not be the biggest, but he stays in the fight, slowing up the runner for his back row (or others) to complete the tackle. Farrell, complaints about no arms blah-blah aside, either makes the initial tackle or acts like a turnstile - there is no middle ground. I am actually more wary of his frailties in defence than Ford's.

Slade wasn't completely fit during his previous outing in the group stages. But he has all the skills. Unfortunately,we've yet to see his best at international level - seems like something in the top 5 inches. Hope he proves me wrong.

Joseph unlucky, his marshaling of the outside defence from 13 is excellent and he's a real threat to the line also. Maybe lacks the kicking game of Slade, which is where I think Eddie is going with this. Also, I think we will see England mixing up the first receiver with Slade and Farrell (and Mako and Sinckler), on occasion pushing Tuilagi into the 13 channel to attack the young lad for Aus.

But I'm an ex-hooker; what do I know about back play?

I wasn't questioning Ford's intentions in defence, I was never thinking he was scared or anything when I saw him play, far from it, but more in his physique that might lead (rightly or not) Jones to think he needs "topher" players.
It's one thing that has been bothering me for quite some time, many players are disregarded because they seem to be lacking physical aptitude or anything, but Rugby value shouldn't be dictated by who's the biggest or anything like that, you can always adapt your system to protect a player. I think Australia did something sismilar to protect Giteau last world cup with switching players in defense with Hooper at 10 and Ashley-Cooper who is bigger closer to him, and placing Giteau or Foley (can't remember) on the inside wing.
If you take the example of Kolbe, he is definitely ridiculous compared to someone like Etzebeth, Whitelock, or even Tuilagi, but good luck catching him and I am certain that any player attacking against him will try going straight through him, which is the most incredible way of letting someone defend easily (maybe it will be difficult in terms of impact etc., but defending a player going straight through you is easy compared to one that is trying to go past you avoiding contact)