RWC 2007: Out'chuffin'rageous!

You call it on the draw for the 2007 Rugby World Cup:

Planet Rugby readers were a bit miffed at the timing of the 2007 Rugby World Cup draw, with some of you thinking it was just too early! Some readers, however, feel a repeat game between England and South Africa - like we had at RWC '03 - is just a bit too much ... Here are your views on the 2007 draw!

"Like the draw overall with some mouth-watering potential games - not least England v Wales in the quarter-finals, possibly in the Millennium Stadium. It will be interesting to see if the sleeping dogs of international rugby (SA and Wales) are in a position to challenge in 2007. Strong teams from Eng, Aus, NZ, SA, Wales, Ireland, France and Argentina would make for probably the best World Cup ever!!"
- Nic Howell, Northampton

"Isn't it typical of rugby administrators? Did they not realise with the prior RWC that it is not wise to allocate the pools so far ahead of the tournament? It is extremely logical that it is far better to use official world rankings much closer to the tournament. But then, you don't expect them to get it right."
- Dreyer, Melbourne

"Out 'chuffin' rageous! Why do England get SA again!? Did they use the same bags that they picked the teams out of for the last WC?? As WC champs we should be getting a soft option like Scotland, and the Ozzies, Kiwis or Frenchies get smashed up by the Boks! Have a word, it's just not on ..."
- Scottie (Pom in Oz)

"I think you will find that by the next World Cup, South Africa will be struggling to get into the quarter-finals, pretty soon they will be competitve with Italy and Argentina etc. And in two or three World Cups' time, they will have to rely on the repecharge rounds to get in, so don't gloat when your team beats South Africa, we South Africans like our consistency, and at the moment the Bokke are doing a fine job of being consistently beaten (as well as reported, cited, sent off, failing)."
- Travis "I'm bitter" Sutherland, South Africa

"Wow, Aussies and Kiwis have got it tough again & guess that's the advantage of coming second and third?? England must have a REALLY easy draw! Oh ... hang on& South Africa, and Oceania 1, like Western Samoa ... er, WHAT?!?! Thanks yet again for a good old stitch-up, IRB. What a bunch of old plonkers."
- Jonathan Jones, London

"New Zealand have to start favourites as they have the easiest draw at the moment and probably in 2007 as I cannot see the Scots becoming a real force in the next three years.Australia will have to be good just to win the group as the Welsh will only get stronger over the next three years. Although I feel that the French (being at home) will win their group, the Irish will run them all the way, and whoever wins that group will have the easiest run into the semis. Then the big one the Poms v the Boks two teams heading in opposite directions with the Poms on the slide and the Boks on their way up either way I'm sure the Welsh and Aussies know it won't be easy getting into the semis. But I feel the Boks may get this one."
- Disco Qld, Australia

"It's a stich up plain and simple. I feel really sorry for SA, that's another RWC dream down the drain. Well they can look forward to 2011, or can they?"
- Charles Evans

"One of the groups had to have two super-powers in them. Why not put them in the same pool as 'The bad boys of rugby'. Enough said!!"
- Scott, USA

"Just bring it! Let's hope for the sake of rugby that the Box can get better, it is so sad to see them in the way that they are now. But I'm rather hesitant in giving them too much sympathy- they would be delighted to see English rugby crumble! But granted we have never had the political problems which plague SA sport.
Anyway enough about that. I just look forward to giving them a good thrashing in the WC!!"
- George Aitken, Berkshire

"This draw is ridiculous. Argentina, now, you just have to choose your pool! Take the oportunity, win the matches you need to! Samoa same thing! Just choose your pool!"
- Olivier, France

"I'm disappointed with the draw, its premature and unfair. Ireland will face the Argies again, why can't Scotland or Wales take them on? And I'm getting bored of England beating the Bokke, why not let France do it? And by rigging the draw each time and basing it solely on the world cup maintains the same eight seeds, I feel sorry for the Argies, and maybe Italy and Samoa, Scotland have been abysmal of late, why not also use world rankings - which are a bit rubbish too - but should be included with lesser weighting, and do the draw in 2005 or 2006?

"So much could happen in the next three years, what if Italy finish above Scotland and Wales in the next three Six Nations, and Argentina put together a sequence of Test wins whilst Scotland continue as they are. Might Argentina be tempted to throw a couple of games in order to face Wales rather than Scotland? Why, why, why?
Was the decision taken by the more established Unions keen to create certainty and ensure future revenues at the expense of fair play?"
- Duncan

"Facing one of the top teams early in the competition could prove to be a good thing once again as it tests you early in the competition giving you better preparation for the latter stages. The fact that the cup is not being held in France alone however is disappointing especially when you consider the way the draw has unfolded. Assuming Italy qualify for this group they will have to travel to Scotland for what could be a crucial game, ditto for perhaps Fiji or Samoa against Wales. How on earth is this fair in a cup supposed to be France 2007. Mind you, the way things are going come 2007, Italy could be streets ahead of Scotland."
- James, England

"It comes as no surprise that we are drawn with the Boks again. It is the only option to prevent the potentially ridiculous scenario of England, as holders and group seeds, having to play a key match away from France in either of the Celtic countries. The French are well aware, from their observations of last year's tournament, that England will be the biggest drawcard (TV interest) and will undoubtedly bring the largest contingent of travelling support over who are also big spenders. The windfall for their hotel and catering industry will therefore be huge, they simply can't afford that revenue going to Cardiff, Dublin or Edinburgh. A rematch between us and the Boks was ... as they say a 'fait accompli!'. ALLEZ LES BLANCS!!"
- Rich, London

"Great news, probably for both sides. It will give the Boks an opportunity for some revenge, and fingers crossed we'll be able to give England more of a game by then!! I'm sure England will fancy their chances too. However, what are the odds on England managing to host this game at Twickenham eh? Would not surprise me ..."
- Al, Bok in London

"Why does the draw need to be made three and a half years in advance? All the draw has indicated, is that Samoa, Fiji or Tonga would be better off trying to finish in second place in their qualifying group than first. Wait until all (or at least most) of the teams have qualified, and then draw the teams when more than just eight countries will be interested."
- Tim Welch

"Is this not pretty much the same draw at RWC 2003 apart from Wales and Scotland swapping places? England, SA and probably Samoa in one group, France, Ireland and probably Argentina in another? Is there not another way of ensuring that consecutive draws are as dissimilar as possible?"
- Alister Strahan

"At this point in time it does not really matter who we got. Who can say whether SA would have been better off getting NZ, Oz or France.It was always going to be one of those four and we have no idea how good they will be in three years time. I think England will be more disappointed than SA, as they could have had an easier opponent. No doubt Clive Woodward will say how much he is looking forward to it. The SA Rugby giant is re-awakening, and will be a force by the next World Cup."
- Richard Blamey

"Over all, it's not too bad. Although, my one main beef here is that I think those qualifying places allocated to Pool A and to Pool B should be entirely swapped around (possibly leaving Americas 1 and 2 as is...) reason being is that Oceania 2 actually has a better shot at a quarter-final spot through Pool B then Oceania 1 has through Pool A! It says to the island nations, 'Play well enough to finish second so you get a shot at Wales!' We know the history of Samoa-Wales games, and although the Samoans played well against England they would have a better opportunity against Wales! No offence to the Dragons, but let's be realistic, RIGHT NOW Samoa and Fiji would probably have a good chance against the Welsh if the island teams were at full strength, Wales may get better or they may get worse.. but right now is the only thing you can judge on.

"Also would like to have possibly seen Europe 2 and Americas 2 swapped. Italy (most likely E1) would be given a good challenge against Scotland above them and the US or Canada (most likely A2) below them. While Europe 2 (Romania or Georgia, possibly even Portugal) would have some good challenges in Pool B with Japan and Fiji.

"I know that it is often a nicety to organise the tournament just so that the 'minnows' and lesser teams can play in a game that they have an even chance of winning; (Europe 3 - Africa 1. Europe 2 - Rep 1. Americas 2 - Asia 1. Americas 3 - Rep 2). Fair enough I guess, but why not set all teams a challenge instead of basically saying 'well thanks for turning up, you won't win but we will give you a game you can win'. How about 'well done, now here's a challenge!'

"We saw how well teams stepped up in the World Cup last year, more then most people would have expected, sure there will still be blow-outs, can't avoid it in this format, but set challenges, make everyone step up, not just a few bunny games and then one right at the end where Romania have a chance against Namibia!"
- Gavin Smith

"My first thought as an Englishman was a slight twinge of concern at having to face the Boks and possibly Samoa, especially given the way we have been playing since the World Cup. But then again it avoids having to face any of the Celtic teams on their home grounds.

"There's also the argument that it is better to be pushed in the group stages than to be able to coast. It certainly didn't help New Zealand or France to have the easier groups in Australia whilst England and Australia both had tougher groups which probably prepared them better for the rigours to come.

"One thing RWC '03 lacked was surprises. The powers that be need to look at trying to give the lower teams a chance. The schedule in Australia was a disgrace. Italy v Scotland (assuming the qualifiers go to form) should be a cracker but only if Italy are treated as equals by the schedulers.

"The structure needs to be re-examined. We should be encouraging teams like Argentina to step up but instead this is the second World Cup in a row where they are against the host nation and Ireland. England wouldn't necessarily progress if they were in Argentina's place. The lack of surprises will be exacerbated by the Celtic teams having home advantage. Italy have beaten Scotland twice since joining the Six Nations but never at Murrayfield. Wales v Samoa or Fiji is far less likely to produce an upset in Cardiff. This may be good for the Welsh or the Scots but it's all far too predictable and what the tournament needs is excitement. Countries like Canada, Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Argentina and Italy would have a real chance against a team like Scotland or Wales at a neutral venue."

"I could put a bet on the quarter-finalists now and would be in with a very good chance of getting them all right. Try it for yourself and see if you agree with me (my answers at the end) and then tell me the draw system is helping to create an exciting tournament!

"Seeing the draw reminded me of what a lost opportunity it was for the IRB not to grant sole rights to France. The Australian World Cup would not have been half the event if New Zealand had diluted the intensity of the event by co-hosting it (no offence intended to Kiwis).

"Still at least the French have an interesting group which should hopefully raise interest in the 'host' country."
- Stuart, England

"Why do France always get the easy draw in the World Cup? In the 6 World Cups (including the 2007 draw) England have drawn in the pool stages New Zealand twice (in 1991 and 1999), South Africa twice (2003 and 2007) and Australia once (1987). France have drawn Scotland 3 times (1987, 1995 and 2003) and Ireland once (2007).

England have also had to play Australia (1995), South Africa (1999), France in Paris (1991) and Wales (1987 and 2003) in the Q/Fs. France have had to play England in Paris (1991), Ireland (1995 and 2003) at the qarter-final stage. THIS HARDLY SEEMS LIKE AN EQUITABLE DRAW. IS THE DRAW FIXED?"
- Mark Knight