RugbyRebels

Generally it's been a pretty awful year for rugby, in my personal view. So let's begin with the worst:

The controversial decision to award the 2023 World Cup to France, who hosted just a decade ago, was a real step backward for the game in terms of its global aspirations.

& the Super Rugby saga which resulted in the perfectly adequate Cheetahs and Force franchises being axed, while the hapless Rebels and Sunwolves remained, could hardly have been more disgracefully handled.

The Sunwolves. Total rubbish, a square peg in a round hole.

The Crusaders winning the title for the umpteenth time. Call them the Real Madrid of Rugby, but their domination of the championship is almost as boring as the All Blacks' domination of the international scene.

The All Blacks' at number 1 for the 8th year in a row - ie the entire freaking decade...

The predictability of the RC. All Blacks win. Argentina fail to win a game.

Rubbish teams: Argentina (RC campaign, etc), France (6 Nations, Summer & Autumn tests), Italy (ditto), SA (0-57 v NZ & AIs), Kenya (thrashed by Namibia in the African Cup finale, home loss to Germany, beaten by Chile in Hong Kong), Canada (where to begin...)! Also, continuing demise of NZ, US & Kenya in 7s.

RIPs to All Blacks legend Colin 'Pinetree' Meads and Springboks' RWC-winner Joost van der Westhuizen.

The positives: Not many this year, but . . .

The silver lining to the Super Rugby sagas is that a new 'Indo-Pacific Championship' now appears set for 2018 or 2019, which would be great for pro rugby in the region.

AIs - the world's 32 top-ranked teams were all in action on December 18. Surely a record!

Fiji in the Australian domestic comp. Did well enough too and scored some fantastic tries.

Wellington finally getting back into New Zealand's top division where a team stacked with talented All Blacks, Super Rugby & age grade internationals belongs!

Stunning upsets: Brazil beats Canada was the biggy, but Germany's win over subsequent ENC champions Romania wasn't far behind. Brazil also had a surprising win away from home, over ENC division 1 side Belgium. The sheer magnitude of Scotland's win over the Aussies in the AIs was also an eye-opener.

Surprisingly good: Fiji had a great year, beating Scotland at home, going close against Ireland away, blitzing Canada, etc), Scotland in the AIs, Japan against France, and the South American trio Brazil (beat Canada!! Chile! Belgium! & Portugal), Chile (beat Canada! Kenya & weakened Germany) & Uruguay (2-0 series win in Namibia and good results in Argentinean provincial comp).

Honourable mentions to Morocco (back in Africa's top division), Costa Rica (promote to SAmerica B divison and newly affiliated to World Rugby) and Colombia (promoted to an expanded SAmerica 1st division). Also, Uganda's emergence as a force in 7s.

NB: This is off the top of my head, so don't be surprised to see a few updates between now & the end of the year ...

What about the women's world cup tournament? That was a pretty good final.

Glad to hear you enjoyed it. Personally, when it comes to women's sports, I'm inclined to follow the ones that women themselves are far more interested in, like tennis, swimming, netball and volleyball, for instance.

The biggest growth area in NZ rugby over the past few years has been women's comps.

& NZ is at the center of the universe, of course...

First tier team of the year:

15 Israel Folau, 14 Waisake Naholo, 13 Tevita Kuridrani, 12 Kurtley Beale 11 Reiko Ioane 10 Beauden Barrett 9 Aaron Smith 8 Keiran Reid, 7 Sam Cane, 6 Maro Itoji, 5 Brodie Retalick, 4 Sam Whitelock, 3 Tadhg Furlong, 2 Malcom Marx 1 Mako Vunipola

rowan wrote:& NZ is at the center of the universe, of course...

I would have thought the association between tournament success and growth of the game within the relevant demographic quite obvious.

Do you have an issue with the women's game Rowan?

No, I have told you that I am inclined to follow women's sports that far more women themselves are interested in, instead of trying to impose male preferences on women's sports, as you are attempting to do. & then you try to justify that by pointing to the growth of women's rugby in NZ, as if the whole world revolved around a tiny little country of less than five million. These are childish notions. Are you also interested in women's netball, btw? How about men's netball?

And so it begins anew...

Couldn't answer the question then? You are a very weak individual with a childish outlook.

He’s interested in rugby - men’s or women’s- what with him being on a rugby message board. Woman’s rugby is booming in England, too. New top tier league with title sponsor and biggest ever financial investment from the RFU. The woman have also just white washed the Canadians, with plenty to spare, and unearthed a couple of talented, exciting youngsters in the process. Plus, woman paid to play for England in both Sevens and XV’s for the first time ever.

Loads of good stuff in the women's game here in England, other than the RFU doing the dirty on Lichfield, but at least the RFU are consistent in doing daft things across the game.

Mellsblue, you've missed the point entirely, which was not any objection on my part to anyone's interest in women's rugby, but to someone's apparent objection to my disinterest in women's rugby.

Once again, when it comes to women's sports I tend to follow those sports women themselves are far more interested in, rather than those which men are far more interested in.

I hadn’t missed it.......I do only read approximately one in three of your posts but you do tend to repeat yourself. This is a quote from you:
‘No, I have told you that I am inclined to follow women's sports that far more women themselves are interested in, instead of trying to impose male preferences on women's sports, as you are attempting to do.’
I was merely pointing out that MP would be mentioning women’s rugby, rather than netball, swimming etc, as he is a rugby fan on a thread about a review of rugby in 2017 on a rugby forum.

Each to their own. But the implication of one comment made here was that anyone who is not a keen follower of the women's game must have a 'problem,' which was the basis of my comment about 'trying to impose male preferences on women's sports' for that in itself would be a highly sexist attitude.

Women's rugby actually has a greater following among the male audience than the female audience, according to the last figures I read, while the female following for women's rugby is absolutely miniscule on a global basis in comparison with mainstream women's sports.

Back in my sports journalism days I was down at the netball courts every Saturday morning, but I never once covered a men's game, because there were only a few fairly social teams around. Moreover, not one major daily did follow men's netball on a regular basis. I don't think I need to explain what a moron somebody would have to be to suggest I had a 'problem' with men's netball.

That would be relevant on a netball forum. Maybe.

What were you doing down at the netball courts every Saturday morning you massive perv?

morepork wrote:What were you doing down at the netball courts every Saturday morning you massive perv?

I very much doubt you want to hear the answer to that question.

Mellsblue wrote:

morepork wrote:What were you doing down at the netball courts every Saturday morning you massive perv?

I very much doubt you want to hear the answer to that question.

Imperialist scum.

So the importance of a women's sport, according to you guys, is it's following among the male audience, and the only reason a male sports journalist would be down at the netball courts would be to have a 'perve' - because you obviously don't rate a women's game which is vastly more popular with the female public. Looks like you guys have some serious issues to work out regarding your attitudes toward women.

The are only two reasons I can think for a journalist to be watching women’s netball. It is either because there were perving or because they were a crap journalist and their boss didn’t trust them to cover anything of great importance.

So you also have proved yourself to be a blatant sexist.

No. The ability to play rugby is not gender-specific. It is neither inherently male or female. If I was running a Super rugby franchise, and I ignored enthusiasm for the product exhibited by 50% of the global population, how could I justify this in the face of dwindling attendance at matches? Arguing for a pre-determined assumption of popularity based on gender is not a viable template for growth. Looks like you have some serious issues to work out regarding your attitudes towards women.

Nobody said it was gender-specific. That's a moronic argument. Is netball gender-specific? No. So why doesn't the media give men's netball as much coverage as women's?

You're imposing male preferences on women's sport and ignoring women's sports that are more popular among women themselves - even ridiculing them by suggesting the only reason anyone would be interested is to have a 'perve.'

You have as many issues with women as you do with Pacific Islanders.

No, you’re right. Netball is of great importance. To suggest anything else would be incredibly sexist.