Comments on: What ingredients do you need to make the perfect World Cup? https://therugbyblog.com/what-ingredients-do-you-need-to-make-the-perfect-world-cup Rugby Union opinion and discussion, for the fans, by the fans. Sun, 28 Aug 2016 10:05:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1 By: Graemehttps://therugbyblog.com/what-ingredients-do-you-need-to-make-the-perfect-world-cup#comment-379969 Sat, 19 Sep 2015 17:54:45 +0000 https://therugbyblog.com/?p=39127#comment-379969 Japan just delievered on three of those points! This World Cup has come alive!

]]> By: Michael Clarkehttps://therugbyblog.com/what-ingredients-do-you-need-to-make-the-perfect-world-cup#comment-379948 Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:28:33 +0000 https://therugbyblog.com/?p=39127#comment-379948 Watching the Tonga v Georgia game stadium is pathetic in comparison to the stadiums we enjoy during 6nations

What makes a perfect World Cup? Besides your team winning watching the smaller teams showcase some talent coming in shows the future is bright for the sport and the hope that the future groups will all be heavily contested not easy walks

]]> By: dingdongdennyhttps://therugbyblog.com/what-ingredients-do-you-need-to-make-the-perfect-world-cup#comment-379942 Sat, 19 Sep 2015 10:06:09 +0000 https://therugbyblog.com/?p=39127#comment-379942 Perfect? – Your team wining it – doh!

DDD

“Pacific not Aran!”

]]> By: Robhttps://therugbyblog.com/what-ingredients-do-you-need-to-make-the-perfect-world-cup#comment-379914 Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:09:14 +0000 https://therugbyblog.com/?p=39127#comment-379914 I’d say the keys are:

Hosts in the semi-final – so the casual fan retains interest throughout the tournament.

One “shock” team in the quarters or semis – didn’t really get it in 2011 or 2003, but in 2007 we had Argentina in the semis and Fiji in the quarters, both of which were surprises and added some real interest to the tournament. I think for it to be classed as an underdog, you have to have a team from outside the top 10. This year, either Fiji getting to the quarters or Samoa getting to the semis (I’m not sure them beating Scotland and then losing to Eng/Aus/Wal would be enough of a shock) are outside chances that would constitute shocks. The other option is of course if two of the big boys go out at the same time (see NZ and Aus on the same day in 2007).

Competitive final – contradicting that slightly, it’s no good if your “shock” team gets to the final and then gets pumped. One thing 2007 perhaps lacked (after all the thrills and spills of the earlier rounds) was a close final. South Africa had thrashed England 3 times in the previous 6 months it was settled by 3 scores (considering there were no tries scored) and felt like a bit of a damp squib. Maybe that’s just because I’m English and we lost though! 1995, 2003 and 2011 obviously had close finals, whereas 1999 could have perhaps been better served with a NZ vs Aus final (although then we wouldn’t STILL be talking about that semi-final).

Superstars/tries/moments – regardless of what this tight-head prop thinks, your superstars are your points scorers or creators. Thinking of that England team from 2003, Johnson was a giant and the back row were heroes, but everyone wanted to be Wilkinson or Robinson (who were obviously both instrumental). Occasionally you get something like Dusautoir in 2007 when a defensive shift is the defining moment of a game and in fact a campaign, but more often than not it’s all about the points scorers; outstanding tries and nerveless kicking.

]]>