Men's Rugby Sevens Qualification to Summer Olympic Games Paris 2024 Road to Paris 2024

[Cinnamon Bun 409]

19 hours ago, Epic Failure said:

That's why I said it is partially their fault.

 

But the qualifying system also has given us a place for Japan (who are about 6th on the Challenger circuit) and Uruguay (who are at least winning the Challenger circuit at the moment). Both RSA and GBR would expect to beat those two sides 99 times out of 100.

 

It is what it is. It's just an example of increased continental representation ahead of the best ranked teams. It's not the only sport which has made that choice. In some sports where there are much bigger quotas it is less noticeable but when you have only 12 teams in total it's more obvious.

In all honesty this is one of the best qualification system out of all of the sports. It mixes the best in the world with the best in each in continent. With sports like this you're always gonna get continents who are way behind the rest, so it's expected that we have some Challenger teams in there. 8 times out of 10 both GB and South Africa would be in, but like Josh said South Africa's own failures against Kenya has caused this situation. There probably should be 16 teams instead of 12, but the quota problem is universal across all sports and the IOC need to sort it out soon otherwise tons of team sports will be depleted of competitors and matches to showcase their sport on a global stage. 

[Epic Failure 98]

1 hour ago, SalamAkhi said:

H2H between  and  is actually 2-2 with one large victory for each and two disputed games going both ways.

 

 2 - 1 

Okay, I'll adjust the GBR expected win rate against Uruguay to 98 out of 100 then.

 

This is no intended disrespect to Uruguay or Japan. Both are improving nations, in both 7s and the 15 a side game. But more than anything, it shows how lax both GBR and RSA have been in 7s in the last couple of years.

 

But it's an undeniable fact that the path for Japan and Uruguay to qualify this time around was much easier than it is for GBR especially but even RSA. Kenya are basically the same level as Uruguay. RSA should have beaten them but it isn't a huge shock they didn't. Same with GBR and Ireland/Spain.

 

But nobody else in Asia or South America is close to that level right now. Even in 7s, which is a more even sport than the 15 a side game.

 

Basically, the path to the Olympics was made much easier for certain countries with the teams already qualified through the rankings. Hell, even Samoa got an easier ride this time around.

 

It is what it is. It happened to France in Tokyo and it will happen to one of GBR or RSA this time.

[Epic Failure 98]

10 minutes ago, Cinnamon Bun said:

In all honesty this is one of the best qualification system out of all of the sports. It mixes the best in the world with the best in each in continent. With sports like this you're always gonna get continents who are way behind the rest, so it's expected that we have some Challenger teams in there. 8 times out of 10 both GB and South Africa would be in, but like Josh said South Africa's own failures against Kenya has caused this situation. There probably should be 16 teams instead of 12, but the quota problem is universal across all sports and the IOC need to sort it out soon otherwise tons of team sports will be depleted of competitors and matches to showcase their sport on a global stage. 

It entirely depends on what your aim is in terms of qualifying.

 

If it is to ensure geographic spread - this is good. If it is to ensure the best teams - less so.

 

[Epic Failure 98]

Like, this is guesswork on my part but I'm willing to bet that when World Rugby was drawing up this system they didn't expect Argentina to be as strong as they have become in 7s.

 

I suspect they probably would have preferred them to be slightly weaker and to take the SA spot instead.

 

But I agree that 12 teams is too small. If you are going to have team sports like these at the Games and want them to grow, you need to stop penny pinching the number of qualifiers.

[Cinnamon Bun 409]

4 minutes ago, Epic Failure said:

It entirely depends on what your aim is in terms of qualifying.

 

If it is to ensure geographic spread - this is good. If it is to ensure the best teams - less so.

 

Every team world championship has to have continental qualifiers to showcase and give countries from less successful continents a chance to shine and grow the sport in their respective continent. Continental qualifiers are fine and good for sports, as long as they don't forsake the quality of the event by there being too many of them or by them replacing places given to the world rankings. In this case the problem isn't the continental qualifiers, it's the amount of places that are on offer for the entire event. 

[Cinnamon Bun 409]

This all wouldn't be happening if South Africa didn't bottle it against Kenya. So because of that they deserve to miss out and GB deserve to win and go through to the Olympics. 

[Ogreman 218]

First of all the sevens qualifying system is great. It allows all the best teams to qualify but doesn't gaurantee them a quota. If a country like GB who are the 8/9th best team in the world is gauranteed a quota then there would be something very wrong with that qualifying system. 

 

Secondly the gap between any of these sevens teams really isn't very big, Uruguay/ Kenya are a lot closer to the GB/ South Africa/ USA tier than you might think and individual games come down to very fine margins, anyone can beat anyone on their day. Don't be shocked if Chile/ Canada/ Spain/ Tonga or maybe Uganda beat either GB or South Africa at the final qualifier although to be fair big events like qualifiers/ the world cup/ the olympic themselves tend to have significantly less variance than regular series events. Shocks do still happen though. (Basketball playoffs is probably a good comparison)

Kenya beating South Africa wasn't that much of a shock though. South Africa's form in the buildup had been terrible. They have bounced back a bit this season but towards the end of last year's sevens series South Africa were really not that much better than Kenya.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Epic Failure said:

Same with GBR and Ireland/Spain.

Finally, bro did you seriously just suggest GB should have beaten Ireland at European games? Like really? That final wasn't even particularly close. You nearly lost to Germany in the quarter final of that tournament which would have meant you wouldn't even be at the final qualifer, Germany bottled it but they had the ball in your 22 down 4 at the end of that game. 

 

[Epic Failure 98]

23 minutes ago, Ogreman said:

Finally, bro did you seriously just suggest GB should have beaten Ireland at European games? Like really? That final wasn't even particularly close. You nearly lost to Germany in the quarter final of that tournament which would have meant you wouldn't even be at the final qualifer, Germany bottled it but they had the ball in your 22 down 4 at the end of that game. 

 

No. I didn't say that. I can see how you thought I was. But I wasn't.

 

I was saying that RSA and GBR are generally better than Uruguay and Japan. And, most importantly, I'm saying that the route that Uruguay and Japan had was easier than the route RSA and GBR had.

 

I was literally saying that Kenya, Ireland and Spain are much tougher challenges than anything that Uruguay or Japan faced in their qualifiers. Obviously Ireland are much tougher - they've consistently been better than GBR for the last couple of years (although we should have won on Sunday. But I digress).

 

And of course on their day, anyone can beat anyone. I said above that 7s closes the gap greatly compared to the 15 a side game. But the gap is still there.

 

Spain beat Fiji in LA, for example. But is anyone really arguing that Fiji are not the better side overall?

 

Edited May 6 by Epic Failure

[Epic Failure 98]

22 minutes ago, Ogreman said:

First of all the sevens qualifying system is great. It allows all the best teams to qualify but doesn't gaurantee them a quota. If a country like GB who are the 8/9th best team in the world is gauranteed a quota then there would be something very wrong with that qualifying system.

 

I mean, my position is that all of the top 10 deserve a spot. Because I'd expand the tournament to 20 teams, to mirror the 15 a side WC.

 

Give the first 12 spots to the top 12 in the rankings, then you open it to 8 regional qualifiers from there. I think there's easily enough competitive teams to do that.

[SalamAkhi 284]

8 hours ago, Epic Failure said:

Okay, I'll adjust the GBR expected win rate against Uruguay to 98 out of 100 then.

 

This is no intended disrespect to Uruguay or Japan. Both are improving nations, in both 7s and the 15 a side game. But more than anything, it shows how lax both GBR and RSA have been in 7s in the last couple of years.

Japan is definitely going backwards in 7s. They recruit Simon Amor and give him mediocre players to build with. They'd have dominated this Challengers head and shoulders a few years back. Now they're even ousted before the QF.

 

8 hours ago, Epic Failure said:

 

But nobody else in Asia or South America is close to that level right now. Even in 7s, which is a more even sport than the 15 a side game.

Again I don't agree. HK should have won the Asian Qualifier but they're renown chokers. Chile could have beaten Uruguay too. Actually we'll see in Madrid how both these teams rank compared to the USA/Spain/Samoa/Canada.