Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Sun, 20 Dec 2020, 19:07

Brazil wants Chile at home because Brazil is better ranked. That's their argument. As 2 teams advance, that is the critical match.

Remember, the 2020 South American Championship did not count as test matches.

Posts: 136
Joined: Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 20:14

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Pichulonko » Tue, 22 Dec 2020, 04:53

Nonsense argument when Chile would then be playing at home against a higher ranked Uruguay.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Tue, 22 Dec 2020, 05:17

How is that nonsense? By your own logic Brazil would be hosting a better ranked team too (Uruguay) :lol:

The thing is with 2 spots at stake the match that matters is Brazil vs Chile and Brazil is better ranked and has won the last test match (2019).

Unless you want Chile playing twice away, always when you have three teams one worse ranked would always host one better ranked. That's a mathematical problem :lol: Obviously the fair system is home and away (4 matches each team).

Posts: 136
Joined: Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 20:14

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Pichulonko » Tue, 22 Dec 2020, 06:02

What me or you want is irrelevant. We can both play "what if" all day, go back and forth and even have a laugh. But what is not funny at all and quite worrisome is CBRu wanting to host Chile, in other words, go back to the old format where the higher ranked team hosts a one-off match, winner takes all moving onto the next round. I do not fancy that at all.

Anyhow, Hourcade already stated that the second round will be played in Uruguay entirely.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Tue, 22 Dec 2020, 14:27

It is even less funny to have Uruguay hosting both. At least if Chile hosted Uruguay, it would be one home and one away match for each country, which is crucial for each country's media, sponsors, etc. Chile has just defeated Uruguay... and you said Chile could beat Uruguay anytime anywhere or something like this, so, what's the problem?

Anyhow, Hourcade already stated that the second round will be played in Uruguay entirely.

He said, but I confirmed with CBRu that they haven't accepted it yet. So, this is not a closed chapter. By now you should know what Sudamerica Rugby officials "confirm" is not always realy confirmed.

Posts: 136
Joined: Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 20:14

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Pichulonko » Wed, 23 Dec 2020, 00:43

I said that no matter how well Uruguay is playing or how high they are placed in the rankings, Chile always feels like they can beat Uruguay simply because it has been done before a number of times.

Playing the second round inside a bubble is due to a number of circumstances, mainly not having enough time to host home and away matches. Ideally a neutral venue should host the second round of these qualifiers but SAR (and WR for that matter) is not known for being fair. Picking Uruguay is providing them the edge they need to assure themselves a top place finish in order to face off against the Eagles. Their argument? Uruguay's higher ranking.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Wed, 23 Dec 2020, 13:57

Sorry, it is false the argument about the bubble.In november, North and South America will clash in home and away mtches, no bubbles. As I suggested before, an ARC (maybe shorter, with 2 groups) could have been played in November, with no need of a "South American phase".

Sudamerica Rugby and many people celebrated the end of ARC as a political victory. What victory is that when Brazil or Chile (whoever loses) will be left cold in the dark after only facing Uruguay once in a preliminary phase? The thing is South America opted for a ridiculous system and this is only a consequence of it.

ALL other continents (Europe, Asia, North America and Oceania... only Africa hasn't decided) will have their RWC Qualys with the real contenders (the best teams at least) playing home and away, they adapted to the circunstances. Of course, things can change if the pandemics isn't solved, but that's why you first plan what is ideal and only without options you use a back up plan.

Posts: 136
Joined: Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 20:14

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Pichulonko » Wed, 23 Dec 2020, 23:01

You're forgetting there's a pre qualy that has to be played with Paraguay and Colombia. Get rid of the first round and then you have enough time to fit home and away matches between Uruguay, Brazil and Chile, otherwise it does not fit into the calendar. Listen to what Hourcade said.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 00:00

No, I'm not forgetting, I know pretty well the system. I'm just assuming Chile and Brazil will qualify. If one of them fail, it is even worse.

This model only allows 2 countries to enter the final and more relevant phase. This means 4 teams from the Americas instead of 5 that ARC offered. The big political win was to go back to 2015 and deny either Brazil or Chile a relevant qualy system. One country will see itself in 2022 with nothing relevant to play as a national team. While in Europe all 6N B teams will be there playing a meaningful tournament, a RWC Qualy.

I listened to Hourcade and I talked to CBRu after that. They said pretty clear to me Hourcade is saying Uruguay will host it but they haven't agreed.

Another model obviosuly could fit in the calendar. Easily, BTW, with 4 South Americans playing USA and Canada between 2021 and 2022. EASILY. They screwed the possibilities when finishing the ARC.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 00:54

I can prove you right now.

According to the current model, November 2021 will see two home and away matches between North and South, which means they are predicting by November no bubble will be needed. Right?

The original proposal (pre-Pichot's defeat) was to have the ARC 2021 + 2022 as Qualy, with both played between August and September. A promotion/relegation playoff would have been introduced in November 2020: https://www.world.rugby/news/544102/rug ... -structure

Well, this Promotion/Relegation playoff is useless, because Argentina XV shouldn't be in the ARC when it is part of the RWC Qualy. This means July 2021 could have the Colombia, Paraguay, Mexico tournament, promoting one. ARC 2021 could be split between November 2021 and February 2022, before SLAR (using 6N window, just like the ARC until 2019). SLAR/MLR March to July. And ARC 2022 unchanged in August/September 2022.

But they decided to kill the ARC. And Chile or Brazil will be left cold in the dark. Thanks SAR for this awesome "political victory".

The "doesn't fit in the calendar" is a lie, a justification after they screwed the ARC. They couldn't negociate anything better now that North America is not a partner. Why would USA and Canada accept to play more than 2 South Americans?

Posts: 703
Joined: Fri, 15 Aug 2014, 13:57

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Raven » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 02:11

It's obvious that once North America turned their back to Pichot something like this would happen, it's politics and we cannot be as nahive to think everything was going to continue as it was! After all, who was the mastermind behind the merger ? USA and Canada also benefitted from this and they turned their back on him.... Imagine the 6 Nations or SANZAAR voting separately... or, better yet, see what happened to SANZAAR and their Super Rugby competition because they all decided to go unilateraly. Jaguares out, 4 Saffas in Europe, Kings banished, Cheetahs still don't have a tournament, no news on GRR - Western Force readmitted in Rugby Australia... a Pasifika franchise... based in ... Auckland?

There's also a part which I think you are omitting, South America wanted a Direct spot in the RWC (which I think is fair, 1 from NACRA -ultimately a 2 team competition-, 1 from SAR and a play off between the 2nd of both ends of the Americas to go to the Repechage) And the current Qualy path, or end result, was WR answer, also political as Pinyeirua had no leverage to get that direct place without Pichot by his side.

Chile or Brazil won't be left in the cold cause they don't play the ARC, IF they are left in the cold (and thats a big IF) it's because WR still prefers Canada to one of these two!

The SLAR and the current HP model adopted by Chile, Brazil, Paraguay and Colombia will help to bring the level of the whole region up. The odd victory against USA or Canada is nice to see, but in recent times there have been other European / Asian / etc touring sides going to South America, so there'll be some upsets too.

Posts: 297
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 23:39
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby antlat » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 03:40

has it been announced that the Americas Championship and Challenge is dead forever??

if so, a massive pity as I thought it was a great competition to strengthen all of the Americas.

Has any of the regions released their full structures for World Cup Qualifying??

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 03:58

Raven wrote:It's obvious that once North America turned their back to Pichot something like this would happen, it's politics and we cannot be as nahive to think everything was going to continue as it was! After all, who was the mastermind behind the merger ? USA and Canada also benefitted from this and they turned their back on him.... Imagine the 6 Nations or SANZAAR voting separately... or, better yet, see what happened to SANZAAR and their Super Rugby competition because they all decided to go unilateraly. Jaguares out, 4 Saffas in Europe, Kings banished, Cheetahs still don't have a tournament, no news on GRR - Western Force readmitted in Rugby Australia... a Pasifika franchise... based in ... Auckland?

There's also a part which I think you are omitting, South America wanted a Direct spot in the RWC (which I think is fair, 1 from NACRA -ultimately a 2 team competition-, 1 from SAR and a play off between the 2nd of both ends of the Americas to go to the Repechage) And the current Qualy path, or end result, was WR answer, also political as Pinyeirua had no leverage to get that direct place without Pichot by his side.

Chile or Brazil won't be left in the cold cause they don't play the ARC, IF they are left in the cold (and thats a big IF) it's because WR still prefers Canada to one of these two!

The SLAR and the current HP model adopted by Chile, Brazil, Paraguay and Colombia will help to bring the level of the whole region up. The odd victory against USA or Canada is nice to see, but in recent times there have been other European / Asian / etc touring sides going to South America, so there'll be some upsets too.


But the direct spot wasn't achieved and the ARC wasn't a barrier for that. The qualification could be simply the best North American and the best South American in the ARC. Direct spot and ARC don't exclude each other.

Brazil or Chile will be left in the dark because only 2 South Americans advance to the final phase. Whereas in Europe all 6 REC teams will have their hopes of RWC alive in 2022, generating interest, here one will be in the dark already.

I'm not that optimistic about SLAR. There is nothing that shows it will be sustainable or a success. We have to wait to see. Now it is just a bet. I know properly the Brazilian reality and it is a dangerous bet that can have hard consequences for us as our market is not well developed yet to sustain it. It is basicaly 100% CBRu money. I hope it will be a success, but it also can become a reason of bankruptcy. Success and bankruptcy are both possible. Don't take me wrong, I do think the SLAR concept is essencial for the future of the region, but unfortunatly at least in Brazil the job to build a franchise was incredibly poor.

In the end of the day, if Chile realy proves it can move on with a sustainable HP program, they will be the real opposition for Uruguay and Canada, because they have grassroots for that. Maybe a 2022 in the dark won't damage Chile, if they are realy serious about their long term project. But for Brazil it might have serious consquences.

Posts: 136
Joined: Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 20:14

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Pichulonko » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 06:39

victorsra wrote:But the direct spot wasn't achieved and the ARC wasn't a barrier for that. The qualification could be simply the best North American and the best South American in the ARC. Direct spot and ARC don't exclude each other.

Brazil or Chile will be left in the dark because only 2 South Americans advance to the final phase. Whereas in Europe all 6 REC teams will have their hopes of RWC alive in 2022, generating interest, here one will be in the dark already.

I'm not that optimistic about SLAR. There is nothing that shows it will be sustainable or a success. We have to wait to see. Now it is just a bet. I know properly the Brazilian reality and it is a dangerous bet that can have hard consequences for us as our market is not well developed yet to sustain it. It is basicaly 100% CBRu money. I hope it will be a success, but it also can become a reason of bankruptcy. Success and bankruptcy are both possible. Don't take me wrong, I do think the SLAR concept is essencial for the future of the region, but unfortunatly at least in Brazil the job to build a franchise was incredibly poor.

In the end of the day, if Chile realy proves it can move on with a sustainable HP program, they will be the real opposition for Uruguay and Canada, because they have grassroots for that. Maybe a 2022 in the dark won't damage Chile, if they are realy serious about their long term project. But for Brazil it might have serious consquences.

No one has a direct spot guaranteed, neither SAR nor RAN. With this new system in place the USA and Canada can both be left out without a world cup berth. The same goes for SAR, as Uruguay, Chile and Brazil can in fact all be eliminated at one point or another.

What this new qualifying structure offers is that SAR will indeed be competing for the Americas 1 spot, something that was reserved for only the USA and Canada in years past. That's the big change.

Posts: 703
Joined: Fri, 15 Aug 2014, 13:57

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Raven » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 13:43

Pichulonko wrote:No one has a direct spot guaranteed, neither SAR nor RAN.

What this new qualifying structure offers is that SAR will indeed be competing for the Americas 1 spot, something that was reserved for only the USA and Canada in years past. That's the big change.


And I think that's the positive. We can then discuss or bet on whether USA and Uruguay may be better positioned to play each other and who would the eventual winner of that game would be, or if Canada get their game together for the qualification, etc. But the 2 things mentioned above are quite healthy for the qualification process in the Americas, not ideal, but better than before.

Hence why I don't understand why there's such a big fuss as to who plays where. If you want to make it to the world's stage you gotta perform everywhere.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 14:07

That could have been achieved with the ARC as RWC Qualy anyway. This argument basicaly fools people.

Pyrrhic Victory.

Posts: 211
Joined: Mon, 10 Nov 2014, 06:54
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Hernan14 » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 18:29

victorsra wrote:That could have been achieved with the ARC as RWC Qualy anyway. This argument basicaly fools people.

Pyrrhic Victory.


I think you are forgetting the role of Canada in all this. And in fact it is the main thing about why Americas were not was as a block in the WR elections.

They didn't want to qualify through the ARC (last 2 ARC without Argentina XV matches: USA 37, Uruguay 32, Canada 18, Brazil 13, Chile 2), so, they wanted to keep the previous format, that is, Canada vs. USA to define Americas 1, and in case of losing, go for Americas 2 and if lose again, have the place on the repechage secured.

That is the fight in all this, now, after ARC is gone, SAR fight against this Canada wish (and the main thing why they breake away of the Americas).

Now, Canada not go to play by the Americas 1 spot automatically, and also didn't has the repechage secured, basically, SAR have one team from South America occupy Canada's old place in the qualy (one SAR team will play for Americas 1, if it loses for Americas 2 and if it loses it has a guaranteed place in the repechage, that is, 3 chances and not the 2 as before) and a second SA team involved and with at least 1 or 2 chances (playing against Canada to qualify to the Americas 2 match and if won and later lost, going to the repechage).

Before:
USA v CANADA (winner Americas 1)
CANADA v SAR 1 (winner Americas 2)
Repechage

Now:
RAN 1 v SAR 1 (winner Americas 1, losser Americas 2 match)
RAN 2 v SAR 2 (winner to Americas 2 match)
RAN1/SAR 1 v RAN 2/SAR 2 (winner Americas 2)
Repechage

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 18:44

I'm not forgetting Canada. Canada's vote for Beaumont is not a reason to break ARC. USA voted for Pichot, btw.

But who said Canada or USA did not want the ARC as Qualy? Or did not want ARC at all? AFAIK, it was Sudamerica Rugby's decision to break away. If someone proves me North America was against ARC as Qualy, I'll be fair and start blaming both sides.

I know what changed. Pyrrhic victory, as I said. The ARC as Qualy would have been the real victory, with 3 or 4 South Americans benefiting A LOT from a proper competition, that was absolutely possible to fit in the calendar.

Nobody showed and proved why the ARC wasn't the best choice. Only naive arguments:
- Calendar problem = lie;
- Direct spot = nonsense, it could have happened with ARC;
- Canada's vote = realy? what about USA?

The real reason seems purely political. The marriage is over, they don't want to negociate with reason and made bad choices, saying they were terrific wins. Sports organizations are like companies or governments, they can make sometimes (many times) bad choices out of human feelings, not reason.
Last edited by victorsra on Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 18:56, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 630
Joined: Sun, 06 Dec 2015, 06:42
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby snapper37 » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 18:56

The key here is that South America can now qualify as Americas 1, that is important. And the i like the possibility of Uruguay taking that spot.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 18:57

snapper37 wrote:The key here is that South America can now qualify as Americas 1, that is important. And the i like the possibility of Uruguay taking that spot.

Which could have happend with ARC as Qualy.

SAR won the right of being Americas 1 killing ARC (the better calendar). Pyrrhic victory.

A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Winning a Pyrrhic victory takes a heavy toll that negates any true sense of achievement or damages long-term progress.

The phrase originates from a quote from Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose triumph against the Romans in the Battle of Asculum in 279 BC destroyed much of his forces and—while a tactical victory—forced the end of his campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

This is almost a description of what happened.

Posts: 630
Joined: Sun, 06 Dec 2015, 06:42
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby snapper37 » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 19:01

victorsra wrote:
snapper37 wrote:The key here is that South America can now qualify as Americas 1, that is important. And the i like the possibility of Uruguay taking that spot.

Which could have happend with ARC as Qualy.

Pyrrhic victory.




That system you spoke of, "taking the best North and south team ranked in the ARC" was dumb, only way for the ARC to work is to take the top two teams with the third going to repechage.

I've got a dead horse you can kick if you like.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 19:02

snapper37 wrote:
victorsra wrote:
snapper37 wrote:The key here is that South America can now qualify as Americas 1, that is important. And the i like the possibility of Uruguay taking that spot.

Which could have happend with ARC as Qualy.

Pyrrhic victory.




That system you spoke of, "taking the best North and south team ranked in the ARC" was dumb, only way for the ARC to work is to take the top two teams with the third going to repechage.

I've got a dead horse you can kick if you like.


It was dumb. But better than killing ARC. I only suggested it before because people were claiming Sudamerica Rugby was trying to secure a direct spot, which did not happen.

My system is not that one. It is exacty ARC, period. The 2 best go to the RWC, the 3rd goes to the Repechage. Which would mean exactly the same thing: a South American could be Americas 1.

The system that was chosen also means we can have zero South Americans qualified, btw.
Last edited by victorsra on Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 19:54, edited 2 times in total.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 19:08

The chosen playoff system means we can have:
- 2 North Americans as Americas1 and 2
- 2 South Americans as Americas 1 and 2
- 1 North American as Americas 1, 1 South American as Americas 2
- 1 South American as Americas 1, 1 North America as Americas 2

A simple ARC system would have exactly the same possibilities :lol: But with 3 or 4 South Americans playing until the end.

Posts: 211
Joined: Mon, 10 Nov 2014, 06:54
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Hernan14 » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 20:47

victorsra wrote:I'm not forgetting Canada. Canada's vote for Beaumont is not a reason to break ARC. USA voted for Pichot, btw.

But who said Canada or USA did not want the ARC as Qualy? Or did not want ARC at all? AFAIK, it was Sudamerica Rugby's decision to break away. If someone proves me North America was against ARC as Qualy, I'll be fair and start blaming both sides.

I know what changed. Pyrrhic victory, as I said. The ARC as Qualy would have been the real victory, with 3 or 4 South Americans benefiting A LOT from a proper competition, that was absolutely possible to fit in the calendar.

Nobody showed and proved why the ARC wasn't the best choice. Only naive arguments:
- Calendar problem = lie;
- Direct spot = nonsense, it could have happened with ARC;
- Canada's vote = realy? what about USA?

The real reason seems purely political. The marriage is over, they don't want to negociate with reason and made bad choices, saying they were terrific wins. Sports organizations are like companies or governments, they can make sometimes (many times) bad choices out of human feelings, not reason.


Exactly, USA voted for Pichot, because they have absolutely no doubt that they will go to the World Cup, with or without the ARC ... Canada does not.

It is easy to understand, this is not about what we like best, who does not prefer a classification with Home and Away through the ARC? Everyone would like ... but there are two parts. Canada didn't want that and wanted to keep the old qualy format and that's why it broke with SAR.

In March 2019, when they met in WR on the issue of quotas, the idea of ​​SAR was that the best RAN team and the best SAR team of the ARC will qualify, and that the 2nd RAN and the 2nd SAR go to the repechage, but finally they began to define that they were 2 direct (don't care if SAR / RAN) and the third to the repechage. There Canada, was opposed to both ideas ... the conversation continued until the relationship was broken, the vote of Canada was the end point, not the beginning of the break in when the ARC.

You should always see both parts, if one of them doesn't want to (in this case, Canada), even if you don't like it, SAR won't be able to use the ARC or play it.

Posts: 211
Joined: Mon, 10 Nov 2014, 06:54
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Hernan14 » Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 20:51

victorsra wrote:The chosen playoff system means we can have:
- 2 North Americans as Americas1 and 2
- 2 South Americans as Americas 1 and 2
- 1 North American as Americas 1, 1 South American as Americas 2
- 1 South American as Americas 1, 1 North America as Americas 2

A simple ARC system would have exactly the same possibilities :lol: But with 3 or 4 South Americans playing until the end.


Clearly you have to understand that there are 2 parts, one the SAR, another RAN, one part of the RAN (USA) has no problem playing anyway, the other does NOT.

It is not a question of what we believe the best, if Canada doesn't want it, doesn't want it, period ... and that is when everything else comes up, basically fighting politically so that, without ARC, Canada doesn't obtain what they wanted with the rupture.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests