Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Maximus Decimus

If Scotland don't qualify

87 posts in this topic

Now that Scotland have beaten the USA, but only by 8 points, we face the likely possibility that they will not qualify despite not losing a game.

This doesn't feel unfortunate, it feels plain wrong. They won't qualify but the USA will with fewer points and having lost to Scotland and France will despite (probably) winning only 1 game.

I suspect that the system will come under a lot of criticism if this happens. However, I don't think the system is necessarily the problem. I think this situation has arised from the sheer lack of internationals that are played. The result has been groups that have been seeded quite obviously wrongly.

Group B is supposedly a stronger group but I suspect that PNG and France are both weaker than many of the teams in Groups C and D. Also Group C is considerably stronger than Group D, which has resulted in the problem for Scotland.

If we played regular internationals with the players available that have been this tournament, then we'd have known about the strength of Italy in comparison to say PNG or France and they'd have probably been in Group B. There would also have been a fairer balance between C and D meaning that we would be much less likely to have a Scotland situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started writing with about 2 minutes to go.

Here's hoping Tonga mean Scotland get the QF place they deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to some level too, but if Italy go through over Scotland, they'll have done so by gaining the greatest number of points in their group.

Not the most elegant of qualification dynamics in groups C and D (nightmare to explain to the casual sports fan), but it has served this World Cup very well and exposed all teams involved to a great level of competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is wrong. I raised it last week and people dismissed me. Its wrong.

This is the last time this format should be used.

Golden Point fixes this instantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Tonga win or even a draw will see Scotland through and obviously if Italy win then they go through. It would be on points difference which isn't very satisfactory when teams have played different opposition. The way Wales have been playing I think Scotland would have given them a bit of a hiding and that is where Italy got the advantage. Likewise, would Italy have beaten USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is wrong. I raised it last week and people dismissed me. Its wrong.

This is the last time this format should be used.

Golden Point fixes this instantly.

 

True and I'd be happy with a Golden Point policy too next time around. We'd have to make sure all competing nations got a slightly longer break between matches to aid that process to avoid burnout from long games close together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is wrong. I raised it last week and people dismissed me. Its wrong.

This is the last time this format should be used.

Golden Point fixes this instantly.

I thought golden point was going to be used in the world cup so was surprised when the draw last week was accepted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be tough on the Scots but a good, printable story if they do miss out.

Expect Tonga to show up on Sunday though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you discard the cross-group games Italy would have to beat Tonga by three or more points to better Scotland's effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the basic idea around creating close match-ups in the groups has worked well. The un-balanced groups could be kept but qualification altered to 5 from A and B, 3 from C and D. The best 3rd in A/B and the best 2nd in C/D. Whether this would ALWAYS work i don't know, but it would almost certainly this time around. France, Samoa and Fiji would certainly be nervous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA lost to France? Wtf is the OP on about?

Look, we need to stop whining and stamping our feet about this. If Scotland had gone to Golden Point vs Italy and lost, and then been eliminated on points difference against a team they had beaten, we'd be up in arms about the injustice of it all. It was within Scotland's gift to finish Italy off, and it was within their gift to pump the USA tonight. They didn't, so now they have to wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA lost to France? Wtf is the OP on about?

Look, we need to stop whining and stamping our feet about this. If Scotland had gone to Golden Point vs Italy and lost, and then been eliminated on points difference against a team they had beaten, we'd be up in arms about the injustice of it all. It was within Scotland's gift to finish Italy off, and it was within their gift to pump the USA tonight. They didn't, so now they have to wait and see.

nope.

I won't stop stampin, and you can't make me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ever system/seeding you use it will always be an injustice to some team or another.

 

I think the seeding for this competition, considering the disparity of the nations, has on the whole been excellent.

 

It may be contrived but it makes for a really entertaining competition, and we are in the entertainment business (like it or not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody stop the World cup !

 

The Tongan's wanna get off and comeback with a goal Kicker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to some level too, but if Italy go through over Scotland, they'll have done so by gaining the greatest number of points in their group.

Not the most elegant of qualification dynamics in groups C and D (nightmare to explain to the casual sports fan), but it has served this World Cup very well and exposed all teams involved to a great level of competition.

Tried to explain this to my Scotish neighbour who has taken some interest over a pint last night. It's fair to say that the conversation wasn't a success. Positively though, he and my wife (also Scotish) are both incredibly proud of the Scot's performances dispite very little interest in RL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Scotland have beaten the USA, but only by 8 points, we face the likely possibility that they will not qualify despite not losing a game.

This doesn't feel unfortunate, it feels plain wrong. They won't qualify but the USA will with fewer points and having lost to Scotland and France will despite (probably) winning only 1 game.

I suspect that the system will come under a lot of criticism if this happens. However, I don't think the system is necessarily the problem. I think this situation has arised from the sheer lack of internationals that are played. The result has been groups that have been seeded quite obviously wrongly.

Group B is supposedly a stronger group but I suspect that PNG and France are both weaker than many of the teams in Groups C and D. Also Group C is considerably stronger than Group D, which has resulted in the problem for Scotland.

If we played regular internationals with the players available that have been this tournament, then we'd have known about the strength of Italy in comparison to say PNG or France and they'd have probably been in Group B. There would also have been a fairer balance between C and D meaning that we would be much less likely to have a Scotland situation.

USA haven't played France. They beat Kukis and Wales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Scotland have beaten the USA, but only by 8 points, we face the likely possibility that they will not qualify despite not losing a game.

This doesn't feel unfortunate, it feels plain wrong. They won't qualify but the USA will with fewer points and having lost to Scotland and France will despite (probably) winning only 1 game.

 

 

What the OP means is that France will qualify with only one win in their group, not that they beat the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lebanon have failed to qualify for the last two World Cups without losing a game in the qualifying group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would France have zero points if they were in Scotland group? This is the format. Deal with it. For me they should include 2 extra teams so the groups are without unfair cross group matches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no more or less fair than the fact that Huddersfield are not this seasons Super League winners, or in football that the team finishing 6th can gain promotion at the expense of the 3rd pace finisher.

The format was conceived to deliver the maximum number of competitive matches and ensured that the more established minnow nations were not penalised by being paired with Aus, Eng and NZ as well as giving the emerging nations something to play for.

Sure it's not the 'purist' way to do it, but I think it's difficult to argue anything other than that it has delivered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA haven't played France. They beat Kukis and Wales

they beat them in a warmup match.

I think the format is good. It has allowed for a large number of competitive games in a tournament where you have three teams that are head and shoulders above the rest.

Having four teams in group C and group D sounds more attractive. However that is then another four (?) Games between smaller teams that have to be sold. (Perhaps there are two more teams that can fit in though.(Canada? Lebanon? South Africa?). )

In terms of the seedings it depends when the international matches played? If the matches are played in between world cups would Italy and the USA be anywhere near as strong in those matches as they are at this world cups?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they beat them in a warmup match.

I think the format is good. It has allowed for a large number of competitive games in a tournament where you have three teams that are head and shoulders above the rest.

Having four teams in group C and group D sounds more attractive. However that is then another four (?) Games between smaller teams that have to be sold. (Perhaps there are two more teams that can fit in though.(Canada? Lebanon? South Africa?). )

In terms of the seedings it depends when the international matches played? If the matches are played in between world cups would Italy and the USA be anywhere near as strong in those matches as they are at this world cups?

Adding teams to these groups wouldn't make any difference. It would still be possible for a team to have two wins and one draw and still go out. The only thing that would stop it is if they were all groups of four but two went through from each group. Then we are backt to more mismatches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017