| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2003 : 00:34:38
|
Hi All,
Just want to know if anyone here is interested in Rugby at all with the world cup commencing in the very near future. Personally it is my favorite sport, and is much more interesting than football (or as Americans call it Soccer).
So, in my opinion there are 5 possible teams who can win the world cup next month. The favorites have to be Australia, New Zealand, and England However France are very unpredictable and on their day are able to beat any team in the world, and I'd say that as outsiders the Irish have a chance due to their impressive current form.
It would be great for the world cup to come to the northern hemisphere for the first time ever, and if England play the way they have been playing in the last 6 months then there is a strong chance of this happening.
As there are people from all over the world here, I'd be interested in hearing your opinions. For the rugby loving French members of this site: did you see the match on Saturday??
Bacon....... Its not fantastic |
|
|
vilainde
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Niue
7443 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2003 : 02:45:43
|
Yeah, well fuck you Stuart. I don't want to remember anything about last Saturday's match. Actually I already called the British embassy to have my nationality changed...
Denis |
 |
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2003 : 03:16:17
|
Still sore I see.... can't blame you it was a bit of a kicking. Mind you, you did beat us (only just) the week before so we needed revenge. Do you reckon France have a chance in the World Cup??? They are well known for pulling quality performances out of the bag, and they have quality players so anything is possible. If all the teams win as expected then we should play you in the semi's which will be a great game.
Vilainde, whats your opinion on the world cup?
Bacon....... Its not fantastic |
|
|
|
vilainde
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Niue
7443 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2003 : 05:11:48
|
Yeah, that's funny how every journalist here said "Well, France won once and England once, so it's goona be great when we'll play against each other in the semi-finals." Hell, we're not sure at all that France will make it to the 1/2! We could lose against Fidji if we play like we did on Saturday.
Now, I won't place any bets on the winner, I didn't follow the recent matches very closely, but I guess England has strong chances to win the cup.
Denis |
|
|
|
KennySue
- FB Fan -
New Zealand
24 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2003 : 06:05:36
|
Is England a country? I thought it was just a region or province of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
Why is the UK allowed to send a number of teams to the "World" Cup when every other country is restricted to just one? And how can it be a World Cup when over half the people on this planet are prohibited from participating. Can there really be any satisfaction in winning a segregated competition?
Yes I am from New Zealand, but don’t ask me about The All Blokes because I don’t care.
Peace (and gender equality). |
|
|
|
vilainde
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Niue
7443 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2003 : 06:11:08
|
WTF?
Denis |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2003 : 08:25:28
|
KennySue. Is England a country?! Maybe you need to go back to school my friend. I guess the UK is allowed to send a number of teams to the world cup because unlike football there are not that many teams in the world who play rugby, and apart from the Southern Hemisphere, the UK countries are better than the rest (and some of the Northern Hemisphere teams are currently better than the best southern hemisphere teams.... but the world cup is the real test).
New Zealand have to be favorites to win the World Cup, closely followed by England and then Australia.... thats my prediction if I had to pick three teams who were most likely to win it. Alot of English people are saying that England will win it convincingly but getting past NZ and the Aussies is going to be very difficult.
Bacon....... Its not fantastic |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2003 : 08:37:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by vilainde
Yeah, that's funny how every journalist here said "Well, France won once and England once, so it's goona be great when we'll play against each other in the semi-finals." Hell, we're not sure at all that France will make it to the 1/2! We could lose against Fidji if we play like we did on Saturday.
Now, I won't place any bets on the winner, I didn't follow the recent matches very closely, but I guess England has strong chances to win the cup.
Denis
Not to sound like an arrogant wanker mate, but I doubt we would have lost in France with a full strength team. Woodward pretty much put out a second team to look at some of the fringe players performance before naming the world cup squad, believeing that they would win. But in my opinion you cannot go to France and hope to win without a full strength team as the French team are a world class side.
France will beat Fiji, without a problem. The French have the knack of being able to step up a gear for the big games. France are a very very dangerous team to face in the latter stages of a big competition so I (and the rest of the England fans) would feel very on edge about meeting you guys in the semi's. If it happens it should be a good game.
Bacon....... Its not fantastic |
|
|
|
KennySue
- FB Fan -
New Zealand
24 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2003 : 06:15:12
|
Stuart, you yourself say “the UK”.
So does the United Nations. It has a member state called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but not one called “England” ( http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html ).
Ditto the European Union ( http://europa.eu.int/abc/governments/index_en.htm#members ).
And NATO ( http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm#FN1 (Article 11) ).
Perhaps these international organisation should go back to school, too.
But they’ll have to take Amnesty International ( http://web.amnesty.org/library/engindex (try selecting England from the Countries pull-down menu) ),
the World Bank ( http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/0,,pagePK:180619~theSitePK:136917,00.html )
and the CIA ( http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html (just try selecting England from the pull-down menu here, too) ) with them.
Is it fair that one country has more than one team competing when every other country has only one?
Maybe France should be allowed to send a number of teams too.
In fact, since there aren’t that many teams as you say, shouldn’t all countries send multiple teams to the “World” Cup?
New Zealand could easily put together half a dozen teams based on geographical, political, or ethnic divisions. That would full up the Final, semi-finals, and most of the quarter-finals, too.
France has a number of provinces making up that country. Likewise Italy, Canada and South Africa – to name just three.
Or should the number of teams be determined by population and not internal divisions?
Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England. That’s four provinces. That’s four teams. The UK has a population of just over 60 million. So let’s say one (1) team per 15 million persons or part thereof. So, under 60 million = four (4) teams. Over 60 million = five (5) teams.
Now New Zealand would only qualify for one team. Unless we are allowed to count sheep as citizens in which case we would be fielding about four (4).
France, with a population of just over 60 millions, would qualify for five (5) teams.
South Africa, population 42 million, three (3) teams.
Italy, population 57 million, four (4) teams.
Canada, population 32 million, three (3) teams.
Argentina, population 38 million, three (3) teams.
Japan, population 127 million, nine (9) teams.
The United States of America, population 290 million, twenty (20) teams.
Australia, population 19 million, two (2) teams.
It’s a good thing India, population 1,049 million, seventy (70) teams, and China, population 1,286 million, eighty-six (86) teams, are not yet interested in joining in the fun.
But wait a minute! The “World” Cup is gender segregated. No women are permitted to play.
So the number of teams would be based on the number of men in each country.
And since women make up just over half the population on most countries, the millions above will have to be halved and the number of teams reduced accordingly.
And if you think that’s all totally ridiculous, let’s return to my main question.
Why is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland permitted excessive participation and no other country is?
It’s unfair. It’s just not cricket.
And anyway, Britain has a National Rugby team. The British Lions ( http://www.britishlions.com ). But in the last few years they seem to have let a few Irish lads tag along which seemed to affect the standard of play.
But if the UK wants to separate its best players into three or four teams, filling up the numbers with the also-rans, as well as the standing-stills, then I wish them the best of English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish luck!
The smarter countries tend to collect their best players together in one single team.
Anyway, each to his (or her) own.
Bonne Chance!
Buona Fortuna!
Ka Mate! Ka Mate! Ka Ora! Ka Ora! ( http://folksong.org.nz/ka_mate/ )
And one more thing, how can it be a United Kingdom with Queen Elizabeth II on the throne?
Peace, Love and Thud.
Kenny-Sue.
www.freewebs.com/kennethsusan
www.geocities.com/kennethsusan
Be Brave - Be Free - Be Beautiful |
|
|
|
DruggedBunny
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
395 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2003 : 08:08:23
|
It isn't a United Kingdom. The Scots hate the English, the English think England *is* the United Kingdom, the Welsh hate everybody (I think) and Northern Ireland is... well... 'over there somewhere'.
|
Edited by - DruggedBunny on 09/10/2003 08:09:11 |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2003 : 11:04:26
|
KennySue, I'll take look at your post tonmorrow as tonight it really doesn't make any sence.
DruggedBunny, you are correct! The English are a bunch of arrogant mutha's, the Scots hate the English, so do the Taffies, and so do the Irish. I don't actually know what I am talking about andI am having to correct alot of spelling mistakes so I'll leave this to tomorrow.
Who's the man that won't cop out when there's danger all about? |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2003 : 11:06:59
|
I actually corrected my mistakes, what I meant is that I cannot form a good argument against you unti tomorrow.
Piss
Who's the man that won't cop out when there's danger all about? |
|
|
|
Stuart
- The Clopser -
China
2291 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2003 : 00:51:53
|
O.K. I vaguely remembered this post this morning when I woke up with a cracking hangover.
The UK is made up of England, Scotland and Wales, which bizarrely enough are countries in their own right, even though it is bizarre as they basically all fall under the British government in London. In terms of other countries sending their teams to the world cup, well, Rugby is not as popular as sport like Footy whereby pretty much the whole world plays. There did used to be pissant little playoffs to determine who goes to the world cup but I don't think that has happened this time around. At the end of the day the organisers of the world cup, or the world rugby union will put all of best teams into the tournament.
Rugby is strange, you have 5 or 6 teams who have a chance to win it (only four of those really have a chance) and then the rest haven't the slightest chance. So, when you put a team like Japan with NZ then NZ will put over 100 points on them, which is not fun to watch. I agree that they should have better qualifing matches and include more teams in a chance that some of the new ones will qualify, but to be honest they almost certainly wouldn't. Still it would be fair to give them the chance.
You are correct, we do have the British and Irish Lions, but this is a select touring side which comes together every 4 years to take on a Southern Hemisphere team. People have argued that there should be a GB team but it has always been separated into the four countries of GB. Maybe this hasn't happened because the majority of the team (even if this was done for football) would be English as they generally have the better players. I guess as an Englishman at the moment I'd rather see England, Wales, Scotland as separate teams as England is at the top of their game whereas the others are not. Maybe I am being a little selfish.... I don't know.
Who's the man that won't cop out when there's danger all about? |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
