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

[Ogreman 355]

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 355]

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 355]

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 320]

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.

[SalamAkhi 320]

8 hours ago, Ogreman said:

 

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.

 

The surprising part was that Kenya was probably in a en even worse form going in. They're starting to rebuild with fresh players. 

 

7 hours ago, Epic Failure said:

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.

Format would be hideous. Go for 16, or 24 like WC or old HK but stop trying to mirror the broken 15-a-side game. And this is definitely out of the question in the Olympics. 

[Epic Failure 355]

18 minutes ago, SalamAkhi said:

The surprising part was that Kenya was probably in a en even worse form going in. They're starting to rebuild with fresh players. 

 

Format would be hideous. Go for 16, or 24 like WC or old HK but stop trying to mirror the broken 15-a-side game. And this is definitely out of the question in the Olympics. 

I mean a 20 team tournament would literally be 4 groups of 5. Top 2 in each get to the QFs. Not that hideous a format. I'd have no problem with a 24 team tournament either.

 

Obviously neither is going to happen with the IOC being what it is.

[Epic Failure 355]

41 minutes ago, SalamAkhi said:

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.

 

There's another round of the challenger before Madrid isn't there? So the teams aren't yet decided for Madrid, if I'm remembering correctly.

[dodge 1,026]

I like the qualification format. For team sports, there’s always going to be “top” teams that don’t qualify (look at how few European football nations can qualify for example). 
 

In rugby, the season long format ensures the best teams go through. Then they have a continental qualifier. And a final world qualifier. 3 chances for a “top” nation is pretty loose and those who don’t qualify can’t blame anyone but themselves 

[mpjmcevoy 362]

4 hours ago, Epic Failure said:

I mean a 20 team tournament would literally be 4 groups of 5. Top 2 in each get to the QFs. Not that hideous a format. I'd have no problem with a 24 team tournament either.

 

Obviously neither is going to happen with the IOC being what it is.

One has to remember that, although it is global, the Olympic Games is not a 'world championships' for the sport - it's not supposed to be, and given sevens has arguably two world championship formats already - world series and world 7s cup - it doesn't need to be.

 

Obviously, as an Olympic comp, it is important in its own right, but it is also, like most of the teams sports, a big demonstrated event - a taster to create more interest in the sport. And as such it is going to e - and ought to be  - smaller, and more driven by representation than pure merit.

[SalamAkhi 320]

5 hours ago, Epic Failure said:

I mean a 20 team tournament would literally be 4 groups of 5. Top 2 in each get to the QFs.

Impossible. A 7s tournament is 6 matches maximum. With this format you would go up to 7.