2017 Women's World Cup

[NedRugby Profile]

I hope they perform well. The tournament really needs 16 teams but the organisers will never agree if there remains a huge gap in standard.

[Armchair Fan Profile]

Spanish squad to play England A:


Six changes compared to the clash against Wales:
- OUT: María Ribera, Aroa González, Carmen Pérez, Sabina Hurtado, Irene Schiavon, Uribarri Barrutieta
- IN: Lourdes Alameda, Rocío García, Vanesa Rial, Elisabet Martínez, Marina Bravo, Bárbara García

[TheStroBro Profile]

Lady Eagles Squad Preview (repost from USA Thread)
https://youtu.be/u_Pa5fVM-o4

[Armchair Fan Profile]

Spain wins 7-15 its game against England A, B, Academy or whatever they call it. Only Twitter updates from FER, unfortunately.

[Armchair Fan Profile]

In case somebody can enlighten us about that England squad, there is a photo on Twitter with its members. It seems they are U20:

https://twitter.com/Steve_Halsey/status ... 2069662721

[TheStroBro Profile]

Tess Feury has been called up to replace Annakaren Pedraza.

[Canalina Profile]

It seems unwise to schedule all the each round matches in the same day, with the two hosting fields separated just by 200 meters and the three matches on a field (UCD Bowl) to be played almost at the same time of the three matches on the other field (Billings Park). You have just three or four thousands spectators and you divide them in two crowds? Why not to play every round on two different days and in the same field (UCD Bowl), with two pools in day one and Ireland's pool in day two? Or why not hosting the pools' matches in two different cities?
I'm sure the organizers mumbled properly what was to be done and it's nice to have all the teams gathered in the same place, but from my easy armchair playing the games simultaneously in two neighbor fields appears a waste of spectators and tv-spectators



http://www.the42.ie/ucd-layout-womens-w ... 1-Jul2017/

[Hinato Profile]

Le groupe japonais féminin pour la coupe du monde de rugby
http://www.japonrugby.net/le-groupe-jap ... e-2017.php

[Canalina Profile]

Yesterday common training + match between Ireland and Spain, I think near Cork

[johnbirch Profile]

It seems unwise to schedule all the each round matches in the same day, with the two hosting fields separated just by 200 meters and the three matches on a field (UCD Bowl) to be played almost at the same time of the three matches on the other field (Billings Park). You have just three or four thousands spectators and you divide them in two crowds? Why not to play every round on two different days and in the same field (UCD Bowl), with two pools in day one and Ireland's pool in day two? Or why not hosting the pools' matches in two different cities?
I'm sure the organizers mumbled properly what was to be done and it's nice to have all the teams gathered in the same place, but from my easy armchair playing the games simultaneously in two neighbor fields appears a waste of spectators and tv-spectators



http://www.the42.ie/ucd-layout-womens-w ... 1-Jul2017/

As I wrote elsewhere, the design of the pool stages is simply World Rugby being ultra cautious and risk averse. It is essentially the same as 2014 and 2010, and flows from the financial disaster that was 2006. This meant that the RFU and RFUW in 2010 were primarily concerned with coming up with a tournament that cost as little as possible, so all pool games on one campus where many of the teams could also stay and train was the idea. Specators were, frankly, an afterthought. France just followed the pattern.

Teeny snag is that days 2 and 3 sold out in 2010, and all days in 2014. Hundreds of potential spectators were sent away in Paris.

Despite this, and despite how the game has grown even since 2014, and despite the example of this year's 6N, World Rugby have insisted on keeping this structure. I understand that the IRU wanted to use larger grounds - like Donnybrook - but WR said no.

The result will be that - despite selling out the pool stages for a third tournament running - Ireland 2017 will very probably make a small loss when a bit of imagination and the tournament would make money, which would bring about a sea change in attitudes. As it is it will continue to be seen as a drain on WR's funds.

[TheStroBro Profile]

It seems unwise to schedule all the each round matches in the same day, with the two hosting fields separated just by 200 meters and the three matches on a field (UCD Bowl) to be played almost at the same time of the three matches on the other field (Billings Park). You have just three or four thousands spectators and you divide them in two crowds? Why not to play every round on two different days and in the same field (UCD Bowl), with two pools in day one and Ireland's pool in day two? Or why not hosting the pools' matches in two different cities?
I'm sure the organizers mumbled properly what was to be done and it's nice to have all the teams gathered in the same place, but from my easy armchair playing the games simultaneously in two neighbor fields appears a waste of spectators and tv-spectators



http://www.the42.ie/ucd-layout-womens-w ... 1-Jul2017/

Because the WRB is run by old white men who don't really care about women's Rugby.

[Canalina Profile]

Do we know the referees and assistants' fixtures?

[victorsra Profile Website]

Why Billings and not Donnybrook?

UCD Bowl and Donnybrook would be a decent pair of venues and Donnybrook was the stadium where Ireland played all W6N matches this year... 1.5 km from the UCD Bowl = 20 min walking = close enough!

BTW, it would've been better to at least split each round in 2 days, one at the UCD Bowl, one at Donnybrook, 3 matches in the same day in the same stadium but in different days. This would mean just 1 extra day for the tournament (and a tournament that starts on a Wednesday can start on a Tuesday! no big difference).

It could be Tue-Wed, Sat-Sun, Wed-Thu, Mon-Tue, Fri-Sat.

[thatrugbyguy Profile]

The format for the women's tournament is a joke. I'm not suggesting it has to be exactly like the mens tournament but the spacing of the games between two venues and having them all play on the same day is ridiculous. At the very least have the games spread out over two days for each round. And for crying out loud give the girls the respect by having the tournament begin on a Friday night in a bigger venue. At least try and give it some pomp and ceremony.

[Canalina Profile]

Head to head (if I checked properly). Most of the previous results come from World Cups

Can-Hkg 0-0
Usa-Ita 1-0 (32-20 2012)
Fra-Jap 2-0 (99-0 1994, 62-0 1991)
Aus-Ire 2-0 (18-14 2006, 21-0 1998)
Nze-Wal 3-0 (63-7 2014, 41-8 2010, 24-6 1991)
Eng-Spa 5-0 (45-5 2014, 13-5 2002, 42-10 2000, 17-15 1997, 12-0 1991)

[Armchair Fan Profile]

This is the Spain v England full head-to-head (1W-2D-14L) as published by FER in its WRWC preview:

[Canalina Profile]

Yes, silly me. I checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s ... ugby_union but I ignored all the 5N, 6N and European Championships, forgetting that Spain played some 6N editions and that England ("A"?) played some Euro championships

Apparently that 15-15 in Toledo, 1997, isn't comprised in the wikipedia list

[victorsra Profile Website]

Nothing about tomorrow's squads and refs?

[Canalina Profile]

You may find referees for example here http://www.sareferees.com/News/referees ... t/2830936/

Squads are slowly popping up; I've seen the starting XV of France and that of Italy

Day one seems quite unbalanced; I think Canada, France, New Zealand and England are clear favorites and Usa appears quite stronger than Italy. The match more unpredictable and more intense should be Ireland-Australia

[thatrugbyguy Profile]

Aussie girls won't win, they've had very little gametime over the last few years to bother Ireland. Pisses me off our girls aren't given anywhere near the coaching or matches required to be competitive in fifteens. As for tournament info, the Wikipedia page has barely any information about the event or the teams. I get the women's game isn't as popular but for crying out loud couldn't World Rugby put in a little more effort in making this thing at least look better and more prestigious?

[grande Profile]

Canada's roster for Game 1 vs Hong Kong is here: http://www.rugbycanada.ca/leagues/newsl ... age=100871

They're not pulling any punches.

[TheStroBro Profile]

USA Vs. Italy Match Preview: https://youtu.be/Yv_S9toFP_Q

I question some of Steinberg's match selections. I questioned these when he named the squad as well.

[victorsra Profile Website]

Is it true World Rugby hasn't released the teams lists and the referees of round 1?

Instead they are talking about leadership. What a fucking shameful World Cup organization. No respect for the competition.

[Armchair Fan Profile]

Squads are already online on World Rugby website.

[johnbirch Profile]

Yes, silly me. I checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s ... ugby_union but I ignored all the 5N, 6N and European Championships, forgetting that Spain played some 6N editions and that England ("A"?) played some Euro championships

Apparently that 15-15 in Toledo, 1997, isn't comprised in the wikipedia list

That Toledo game is interesting - but I guess we have to accept its right as its FER listing it?

They also list (http://www.ferugby.es/noticias2.php?titulo=Las%20leonas%20abren%20el%20Mundial%20ante%20Inglaterra)a new "A" team game - 7/1/96 England A 5-7 Spain (London) but do not list 19/2/02 Spain 5-10 England A (Cornellà)

England in the Euros before 2010 is interesting as they generally did select their A team and did not award caps and did not (at the time, and probably still now) think of them as tests BUT the team was called "England" (not England A), and all other teams did consider them tests (France definitely listed them as such). So what do you do? To my mind you couldn't have the England dictating something is or is not a test over heads of tournament organisers and opponents so they were all listed as tests on the Wiki pages I originally set up.

After 2010 England (and France) were officially A teams so they are not tests, so the 2011 game should not be included

Interesting also that the scores for 9/1/2000 and 9/3/2003 are different to the records I have seen.

It'll be interesting to see if they do a list for the game v Italy as there are some possible "missing" games there too!