Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

2017 Women's World Cup

Posts: 2571
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby victorsra » Mon, 28 Aug 2017, 00:29

I really enjoyed to watch the WRWC. Great games. The product is improving and has plenty potential if well cared.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

User avatar
Posts: 2550
Joined: Sun, 27 Apr 2014, 11:50
National Flag:
ItalyItaly

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby Canalina » Mon, 28 Aug 2017, 10:32

According to an article by FIR, Paola Zangirolami (centre), Silvia Gaudino (II/III row), Alice Trevisan (II/III row), Veronica Schiavon (flyhalf), Michela Este (I/II row), Elisa Cucchiella (prop) and Maria Grazia Cioffi (centre) are leaving from the national team after this World Cup. I didn't expect some of these abandons, and I wonder if Cioffi will continue to play international 7s or if she is cutting with national teams at all.
All these girls were often in the starting XV at the World Cup, it will be a big renovation for the team

Posts: 28
Joined: Tue, 28 Feb 2017, 03:39
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby Used2BwithIt » Mon, 28 Aug 2017, 14:53

thatrugbyguy wrote:colour me disappointed by this tournament. It just seemed to come and go with no real fan fare. The format sucks, the games generally uncompetitive and the vibe was non existent. These ladies deserve much better than this, they need their governing body to invest in them to make the tournament worth while. At present England and New Zealand are so far beyond the rest of the nations that they may as well not play the pool games. It's not good enough. In the next 4 years WR have to give finances and support to the women's game, there has to be a proper international calendar in place with regular test matches for the teams..


I would also like to see more tests played, but more international fixtures will not make sub-standard players (compared to Eng and Kiwi) better. This is something Canada fails to recognise, pouring all its resources into senior teams (especially where the men are concerned), when the grassroots system isn't producing players who have the nuances that make good internationals. Even where those rare gems do exist, their competition isn't strong enough to push them further and that won't happen over a few more test matches.

It has to happen at school and club level. Even in our premier leagues, there are regularly lopsided victories (British Columbia's final this spring had a 67-17 scoreline!) and the same teams win it every year, largely because no one's helping to bring the standard up. The Kiwis, English and French are clearly benefiting from this. We have an impressive number of girls and women playing in Canada (possibly even the most), but lack of wide-spread and 'beyond the basics' coach and player development is holding us back. If it's an either-or, I'd rather see stronger local competitions and more development personnel doing the rounds than more international tests.

Posts: 2571
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby victorsra » Mon, 28 Aug 2017, 22:32

any news about who will bid to host the 2021 WRWC?
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

User avatar
Posts: 2550
Joined: Sun, 27 Apr 2014, 11:50
National Flag:
ItalyItaly

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby Canalina » Tue, 29 Aug 2017, 07:03

a line on an RTE article, highlighted by ScrumQueens, says the next event will be in USA, but it could be just a mistake. The official bids should be revealed next month.
As already said, I hope USA, Canada or Hong Kong (maybe Hong Kong/Guangzhou ?).
Europe had it 7 times in 8 editions, it's time to change

PS: do you know how many spectators gathered for the final in Kingspan? As previous data I have 13.250 for the 2010 final and around 14.000 for the 2014 final

PPS: classifying on the first seven teams of this edition, England, France, Usa and Canada qualified for their 9th cup (the 2021 one) in 9 editions

Posts: 2571
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby victorsra » Tue, 29 Aug 2017, 12:40

Canada has alredy hosted it. USA and HK are nice options. But Oceania has never hosted and in the case of Australia ot would be really good for womens XV.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 22:26
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby grande » Tue, 29 Aug 2017, 15:14

Australia should try and host literally any women's XV test before they consider hosting the World Cup.

Posts: 2571
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby victorsra » Tue, 29 Aug 2017, 20:55

Yeah. It is more than time to have a proper Women's Bledisloe Cup with 3 matches happening in the same weekends of the mens matches, just like the 6N does.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

User avatar
Posts: 2550
Joined: Sun, 27 Apr 2014, 11:50
National Flag:
ItalyItaly

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby Canalina » Wed, 30 Aug 2017, 06:36

Historic scheme of the world cup final's spectators; more than 17 thousands in Kingspan according to World Rugby
http://www.scrumqueens.com/news/countin ... d-cup-2017

Image

PS: sorry if the image is giant. I'm no more able to upload images with their real largeness, all the uploading sites reproduce them with a bigger largeness

...and these are the qualified teams for all the editions
Image

Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 31 Aug 2017, 11:11

grande wrote:Australia should try and host literally any women's XV test before they consider hosting the World Cup.


As much as I agree about the need for more tests we would get good support for the ladies World Cup if we hosted it. We have enough small size venues in Sydney and Brisbane to pull it off. There's a real appetite for women's sport at the moment down here.

Posts: 238
Joined: Fri, 25 Apr 2014, 08:10
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby johnbirch » Thu, 31 Aug 2017, 18:43

thatrugbyguy wrote:
grande wrote:Australia should try and host literally any women's XV test before they consider hosting the World Cup.


As much as I agree about the need for more tests we would get good support for the ladies World Cup if we hosted it. We have enough small size venues in Sydney and Brisbane to pull it off. There's a real appetite for women's sport at the moment down here.

But do you have a union willing to spend a few million to host it? And if they were willing to spend that on hosting a World Cup questions might be asked about why they were unwilling to spend that on their own team, players and indeed domestic set-up.

After all, if players in Ireland were complaining about playing a match every four days, how would they feel about playing four matches in three days, which is the model of Australia's domestic inter-state?

Posts: 361
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby TheStroBro » Thu, 31 Aug 2017, 22:52

johnbirch wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:
grande wrote:Australia should try and host literally any women's XV test before they consider hosting the World Cup.


As much as I agree about the need for more tests we would get good support for the ladies World Cup if we hosted it. We have enough small size venues in Sydney and Brisbane to pull it off. There's a real appetite for women's sport at the moment down here.

But do you have a union willing to spend a few million to host it? And if they were willing to spend that on hosting a World Cup questions might be asked about why they were unwilling to spend that on their own team, players and indeed domestic set-up.

After all, if players in Ireland were complaining about playing a match every four days, how would they feel about playing four matches in three days, which is the model of Australia's domestic inter-state?


Well...they spent quite a lot on professional contracts. Apparently the club game in Sydney is doing great. Even has it's own TV deal. No cents from the ARU though.

Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby thatrugbyguy » Fri, 01 Sep 2017, 02:57

johnbirch wrote:But do you have a union willing to spend a few million to host it? And if they were willing to spend that on hosting a World Cup questions might be asked about why they were unwilling to spend that on their own team, players and indeed domestic set-up.

After all, if players in Ireland were complaining about playing a match every four days, how would they feel about playing four matches in three days, which is the model of Australia's domestic inter-state?


If a new board was to come on the the ARU, and hopefully it will, they will understand the increasing popularity of women's sport in this country at the moment. In all honesty a world cup down here could do for the women's game what the world cup did for the mens when it was played down here, and that's take the tournament to the next level. If there's one thing Aussies are known for it's supporting international sporting events. But the format has to change first, the girls have to be given at least a 5 day break between matches and yes, the local women's XV's would have to also be developed. The university campus format is a joke and the tournament moved to better facilities, if that means WR having to put up most of the money then that's what needs to happen.

User avatar
Posts: 2550
Joined: Sun, 27 Apr 2014, 11:50
National Flag:
ItalyItaly

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby Canalina » Fri, 01 Sep 2017, 04:46

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... ufferf7ac3

I'm never able to agree with this sort of positions. If the aim is having so many girls playing sport as many boys, ok, I'm with it; but you can't pretend to have the same space in tv for women's sport and men's sport. Spectators decide it and at the moment spectators like men's sport more than women's one. Similarly, here in Italy after every edition of the Olympics we read on newspapers the same mantra: "it's a scandal that football has all this space on tv and newspapers, so many other sports (sailing, gymnastic, synchro swimming, fencing...) have the right and the beauty to be in tv prime time". Market decides. If taekwondo is so potentially popular as its fans are sure it is, it will find the way to become popular. If women's sport (let's say: women's rugby) is potentially so popular it will find the way to have success. Tv managers are not dumb: if they suspect that a product may be popular they send it on air

Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby thatrugbyguy » Fri, 01 Sep 2017, 08:11

The reality is women tend to not be as interested in sport as men so it's going to be difficult to find any real parity across the board. The appetite for women's sport is growing which is great, but there's only so much room in the calendar also. It may come to a stage where there are dedicated sports channels for women's sport. The problem is always going to be with sports like rugby is that you're never going to win over people who are interested in matches that are faster and harder hitting. There's a group of people who no matter how much you try to convince them just will see it as a less interesting form of the game.

Posts: 238
Joined: Fri, 25 Apr 2014, 08:10
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby johnbirch » Fri, 01 Sep 2017, 17:53

Canalina wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/aug/28/women-sporting-equality-race-still-to-run?utm_content=bufferf7ac3
If taekwondo is so potentially popular as its fans are sure it is, it will find the way to become popular. If women's sport (let's say: women's rugby) is potentially so popular it will find the way to have success. Tv managers are not dumb: if they suspect that a product may be popular they send it on air

I'm not sure its that simple - I don't think its the public/fans that decide. Established sports will battle to stay on top. If a lot of money has been invested in a sport by owners, sponsors and TV they want a return on that and therefore it is in their interest to promote the sport as hard as they can, at the expense of the coverage of other sports.

Its almost nothing to do with the product itself. Football in the UK was on its knees before Sky and the Premier League - then very quickly it was huge. Same sport, same players, same grounds - but a massive multi-media campaign, and big sponsors determinded to get their money back. Given the right promotion and media access almost any sport can become big. We've seen it in the UK where sports that no-one was interested in, like snooker and darts, became (for a while) huge because TV took them on (often for silly reasons, like the coloured balls in snooker were great for colour TV when it arrived). At one point the UK had 13 million watching snooker... at 1am! Then TV went elsewhere, and...

It may sound cynical, but to a great extent I believe that the public will treat as important any sport or event that they are told is important.

What can women's rugby (or sport) do about it? Its tough if you're taking on established (men's) sports, established sponsors. Look how tough it was for football to get anything like established in the USA faced with the competition of its established sports.

But personalities can make a big difference if the media like them.

One reason why I am currently watching women's club cricket on live TV in the UK (Sky's "main event" for the evening) is down to one woman - Rachel Heyhoe-Flint - a brilliant publicist who singlehandedly tranformed her sport, which is now a good 10 years ahead of women's rugby (in countries where they know what cricket is anyway!). Crucially, I think, she did not wait for any governing body to do anything (trying to get governing bodies to do anything can be really hard - not least because they are part of the establishment and prefer things as they are), and she did not seek permission from anyone to (for example) create the first World Cup. That is what women's rugby needs - a well placed, risk taking, media savvy, rebel.

Posts: 2571
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby victorsra » Sun, 03 Sep 2017, 18:41

I think it is the classic dilemma of who came first, the chicken or the egg? People don't watch/follow women sports because it doesn't have the proper space/marketing or there isn't an investment on the womens sports because it doesn't attract enough people? Of course the answer isn't simple. The answer that the market solves everything is a bit naive. But you can't force things either. Of course social movements can use social media to make people aware of womens sports importance, but again, everything is on the internet all the time, so it is even harder to get people's proper attention. Nowadays everthing can be watched on TV/internet and nobody has the time to watch everything, which means the problem stays: it doesn't mean anything if a sport is on TV/internet, as the problem is more how it is marketed.

The best approach is to give some kind of incentive for media to deal better with womens sports and to show this as a product no different from mens sports. Girls watch less sports because they are raised to don't see sports the same way boys do. It is a long term mentality shift. And media is central for this to happen. You can't force media to show as much women sports as mens sports now, because they need to profit, but you can change the way you show women sports.

And clubs too. Football clubs don't put money on womens football because they don't want. You can pay the salary of a whole womens team with what a single men player earns. They have the stadium free some days (and during the whole post/pre season) and thousands of supporters that would love to go to the stadiums if they were cheaper. If womens football grew, they have a potential to make everything the double! So it is not a simple economic matter. It is more a short-minded way of dealing with business that can't afford to think also in long terms. Any sport is the same. However rugby clubs I don't blame yet because rugby is still struggling to find its best formula (as PRO14/Super Rugby novel shows)... but the national teams could be already much better marketed.

That is why I think the Womens Rugby World Cup should be together with the men's tournament.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

User avatar
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby iul » Sun, 03 Sep 2017, 19:42

Boys and girls are different. Girls watch less sport because that's how they're built. They're more interested in princesses and other shit.

Women's sport is difficult to promote because it's such a low level. Recently USA's women's soccer team got beat by a boys highschool team. If you don't watch boys highschool sport why would you watch sport played with the same quality just because the people playing have vaginas?

User avatar
Posts: 2550
Joined: Sun, 27 Apr 2014, 11:50
National Flag:
ItalyItaly

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby Canalina » Sun, 03 Sep 2017, 20:39

I accept all your considerations, of course, and I admit that probably the success/unsuccess of a sport is not exclusively a fact of market and that a good promotion work may help -sometime consistently- its popularity and a change of mind on spectators. But I still think that the greater part of a sport's durable success comes from the beauty of that sport and not from political moves or marketing. There are sports where women athletes are so many famous as men athletes are; tennis, alpine skiing, speed&track, swimming... I'm a fan of alpine skiing and I'm pretty sure that women in this sport reached an equality (almost) with the men just because of spectators' pleasure to follow their races; already in the 70s, I think, women's skiing World Cup was shown in tv. Because the organizers invested many money in its promotion? No, because television channels tried to show also the women's world cup and they saw that the answer was tolerably good. Nowadays athletes like Vonn and Shiffrin are probably more famous than most of the male champions. At the opposite, in cycling or motor sports women are deeply less famous than men: dozens millions people follow the men's Tour de France, but almost no one follows the women's Tour (this year it has been more or less cancelled). Have the international cycling union decided to never invest money in women's races? Of course they tried to popularize women's races, they have all the interest to do it. But for some reason some sports have success in their women's version and others not. I suspect that it's because some are perceived by the public as "adapt" to women and other as "less adapt", but I'm not sure of that. Let's remember also american football, the yankee cousin of rugby: exist it in a women's version? I've never seen any image about. And it's a sport plenty of money, with great marketing experience and skills.
I hope that women's rugby XV may have a great success; the final New Zealand v England has been a great show, with high hand skills and athletic skills. I just don't think that if this success is still not arrived it's because of political decisions or bad promotion; I think it's mostly because of the public taste. How to change that taste is very difficult to me to say

Posts: 2571
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby victorsra » Mon, 04 Sep 2017, 13:45

I accept all your considerations, of course, and I admit that probably the success/unsuccess of a sport is not exclusively a fact of market and that a good promotion work may help -sometime consistently- its popularity and a change of mind on spectators. But I still think that the greater part of a sport's durable success comes from the beauty of that sport and not from political moves or marketing.


I understand what you say but I think it is also vicious circle problem. The beauty of the game is directly related to how the players are "produced". Just look how much women football or rugby improved. Part of this is because in the past decades it is less taboo to incentive your daughter to play those sports and be interested in watching them since early ages.

There will be limits? Yes, probably. You see this in athletics, as men records are always faster and stronger. But this is tricky. It is not because a man can run 100m in 9,6s that a woman running in 10,9s is bad! No, 11s is awesome! We just think it is less because of the new 9,6 paradigm. Women's football or rugby can be awesome, maybe not as good as the top men's football or rugby, but who cares what is better? It just has to be good enough to be great to watch. You don't stop watching Eccellenza just because Super Rugby is better, right? You just want to see Eccellenza in great shape. It needs to have emotion, up to date tactics, great plays and less silly errors.

About the sports, individual/non contact sports usualy were the first one to give women space because they have less masculinity aspects involved. Less taboo and prejudice involved therefore. But each one has its own history and a better answer is just found when we know their social history.

Boys and girls are different. Girls watch less sport because that's how they're built. They're more interested in princesses and other shit.

Dude, we are trying an inteligent discussion, not a simplistic one. If you were born in the 19th century you would be the guy saying black people are naturaly inferior. If you were born in the 1920s you'd be the guy saying Jews are naturaly vicious. Try to open your mind reading better things. That a boy has a penis and a girl a vagine and they have different hormones we all know. But the truism doesn't answer the whole question.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

User avatar
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby iul » Mon, 04 Sep 2017, 16:57

victorsra wrote:
I accept all your considerations, of course, and I admit that probably the success/unsuccess of a sport is not exclusively a fact of market and that a good promotion work may help -sometime consistently- its popularity and a change of mind on spectators. But I still think that the greater part of a sport's durable success comes from the beauty of that sport and not from political moves or marketing.


I understand what you say but I think it is also vicious circle problem. The beauty of the game is directly related to how the players are "produced". Just look how much women football or rugby improved. Part of this is because in the past decades it is less taboo to incentive your daughter to play those sports and be interested in watching them since early ages.

There will be limits? Yes, probably. You see this in athletics, as men records are always faster and stronger. But this is tricky. It is not because a man can run 100m in 9,6s that a woman running in 10,9s is bad! No, 11s is awesome! We just think it is less because of the new 9,6 paradigm. Women's football or rugby can be awesome, maybe not as good as the top men's football or rugby, but who cares what is better? It just has to be good enough to be great to watch. You don't stop watching Eccellenza just because Super Rugby is better, right? You just want to see Eccellenza in great shape. It needs to have emotion, up to date tactics, great plays and less silly errors.

About the sports, individual/non contact sports usualy were the first one to give women space because they have less masculinity aspects involved. Less taboo and prejudice involved therefore. But each one has its own history and a better answer is just found when we know their social history.

Boys and girls are different. Girls watch less sport because that's how they're built. They're more interested in princesses and other shit.

Dude, we are trying an inteligent discussion, not a simplistic one. If you were born in the 19th century you would be the guy saying black people are naturaly inferior. If you were born in the 1920s you'd be the guy saying Jews are naturaly vicious. Try to open your mind reading better things. That a boy has a penis and a girl a vagine and they have different hormones we all know. But the truism doesn't answer the whole question.

That boys and girls are different and they have different interests is a fact, not a truism

Posts: 1446
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby Armchair Fan » Mon, 04 Sep 2017, 17:14

And what does that bring up to the discussion? It's like posting in every single discussion on rugby global growth "soccer is a more popular sport". It's a fact. So what?

Not to mention how ironic it is that the admin of a T2/T3 forum talks about how difficult it is to promote a game because of its low level. I've watched way worse men T2/T3 games than those from WRWC.

User avatar
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby iul » Mon, 04 Sep 2017, 17:30

Armchair Fan wrote:And what does that bring up to the discussion? It's like posting in every single discussion on rugby global growth "soccer is a more popular sport". It's a fact. So what?

Not to mention how ironic it is that the admin of a T2/T3 forum talks about how difficult it is to promote a game because of its low level. I've watched way worse men T2/T3 games than those from WRWC.

It brings up some facts

Posts: 196
Joined: Tue, 12 Apr 2016, 14:19
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby sammo » Mon, 04 Sep 2017, 18:16

iul wrote:
Armchair Fan wrote:And what does that bring up to the discussion? It's like posting in every single discussion on rugby global growth "soccer is a more popular sport". It's a fact. So what?

Not to mention how ironic it is that the admin of a T2/T3 forum talks about how difficult it is to promote a game because of its low level. I've watched way worse men T2/T3 games than those from WRWC.

It brings up some facts


I find your black and white view of the world exacerbating, its one of the reasons I hold back from posting here. For a person so actively engaged on a forum which purports to want the expansion of the game into 'rugbyless' communities I find your views on items like this at best odd, and at worst insulting.

For the record, what you say isn't fact, there is evidence of both nature and nurture having an impact on the likes/dislikes of people across the gender spectrum.

Posts: 2571
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: 2017 Women's World Cup

Postby victorsra » Mon, 04 Sep 2017, 19:42

He already made it clear in another thread some months ago he would clean Romania from all minorities that live there. I stoped to post or read the political threads already. It s usuless to talk to someone that doesn't have the capacity to think about arguments that are more than binary. Of course he can't think about gender either. Anyone is free to desagree wth anything, but at least give an argument that is not simplistic denial.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

PreviousNext

Return to Women's Rugby

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest