Which was more interesting - the Cricket or Rugby WC?

...Assuming that you follow both sports?

mynah wrote:...Assuming that you follow both sports?

The RWC caught fire yesterday. I'm not sure the Cricket WC ever did.

Basil wrote:

mynah wrote:...Assuming that you follow both sports?

The RWC caught fire yesterday. I'm not sure the Cricket WC ever did.

The CWC started off in very interesting fashion, with some shock results - but those proved detrimental later. Then there was a murder mystery that certainly caught the attention of the public, but did not contribute to the cricket either.

The RWC started off in attention-grabbing fashion, but there was too much stuffing and too little real action in the first round, and often odd scheduling of match days. At least it is coming alive now, whereas the CWC went the other way.

The 50 over CWC was a real drag went on for too long, T-20 was great in comparison. RWC also seems to be a tad too long for my liking

Since Australia has been knocked out of the RWC, it's not surprising most think it's more interesting than the CWC.

What is this Rugby WC of which you speak?

Is it true that there's actually a leeeeeeeg WC next year?

Ross wrote:Is it true that there's actually a leeeeeeeg WC next year?

Fraid so. http://www.rlwc08.com/

Bankstown gonna supply the "Lebanese" team again?

Wow, I wonder who'll win?

Invader Zim wrote:
Wow, I wonder who'll win?

"Papa New Guinea" might be in with a shot. It's either them or "TBD", since they are allowed to field 3 teams.

Josh Carney wrote: RWC also seems to be a tad too long for my liking

Yes, but with rugby you can't compact it. Players need recovery time, because it's very much a contact sport. You just can't play every two or three days, you have to have a week between matches.

Shoeshine wrote:

Josh Carney wrote: RWC also seems to be a tad too long for my liking

Yes, but with rugby you can't compact it. Players need recovery time, because it's very much a contact sport. You just can't play every two or three days, you have to have a week between matches.

Aye - a matter overlooked by the socceristas who can't understand why their 32 man tournament takes less time than the RWC.

Like the cricket world cup, there's too many crap teams in the rugby world cup. Romania?! Georgia?! Japan?! Australia?!

Henry wrote:Like the cricket world cup, there's too many crap teams in the rugby world cup. Romania?! Georgia?! Japan?! Australia?!

Ridiculous comment. Georgia nearly beat Ireland...

John Hunt is a Coward

LOL@JGK

Shoeshine wrote:

Josh Carney wrote: RWC also seems to be a tad too long for my liking

Yes, but with rugby you can't compact it. Players need recovery time, because it's very much a contact sport. You just can't play every two or three days, you have to have a week between matches.

They could reduce the number of teams. Also if you recall in the old days even in Cricket there used to be at least a week or two between two tests, not to mention the rest day jolly. Now they play back to back virtually all through the year. Some of it is a mnd set change I reckon . One of the reasons for spacing a week between matches is for the sake of weekend TV ratings. I reckon they could get away with a 4 day break between matches in Rugby.

Is it hell a mindset thing!

Cricketers don't spend a whole week getting bruised bodies better, getting cuts better, recovering from smacks on the head. That's a ridiculous comparison. Have you even ever played rugby? Ever watched it? The idea that people can smash into each other for 80 minutes and then pick themselves up and play again a couple of days later is ludicrous.

A four day break. I've never heard anything so daft.

He's Indian.

There are players who turn out for their rep teams midweek and still play for their local team on the weekend sometimes with a 2 day break. I am suggesting a 4 day break. Obviously some who get really battered will not be able to. They should address this by increasing the pool size with more replacements. But to just argue to stick to something because that is how it has always been is not how the World progresses and that is not just in Rugby.

In rugby? No there aren't. Not at the highest level of the game, it just isn't possible.

It's nothing to do with sticking with something that has always been the case, it's actually got more necessary as professionalism has made the players that much stronger.

It's one of the daftest ideas I've ever heard.

In the Aussie Rugby League scene some guys turn up for State of origin on Wednesday and also for their club games on the weekend. Obviously it depends on whether the guy is in his twenties or thirties.

No they don't. Once picked for Origin, they are not picked for their club.

Invader Zim wrote:No they don't. Once picked for Origin, they are not picked for their club.

Isn't that for the weekend before I am talking about the weekend after.

Josh Carney wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:No they don't. Once picked for Origin, they are not picked for their club.

Isn't that for the weekend before I am talking about the weekend after.

But Leeeeeg players can be subbed on and off, and they might only play 30 or 40 minutes of the weekend game.