Thoughts on the one-sided results

[Which Tyler]

This is the first world cup where we've got sides who've been professional for a few years, playing against amateurs largely lacking in centralised (WR) support.
Which makes it the equivalent of the 1999 men's world cup (also 4 pools of 4).
Which saw results like:
Pool A:
Scotland 43–12 Uruguay
South Africa 47–3 Spain
South Africa 39–3 Uruguay
Scotland 48–0 Spain

Pool B:
England 67–7 Italy
New Zealand 45–9 Tonga
New Zealand 101–3 Italy
England 101–10 Tonga

Pool C:
Fiji 67–18 Namibia
France 47–13 Namibia
Canada 72–11 Namibia

Pool D:
Samoa 43–9 Japan
Wales 64–15 Japan

Biggest score so far this RWC is England 92-3 Samoa; it took until 2011 before the men didn't beat that as a hammering (biggest score NZ 83 - 7 Japan), excluding purely amateur RWCs. I believe the men's record RWC score stands as Australia 142 - 0 Namibia from 2003.

Of course, none of this means that anyone has to enjoy the less-competitive matches; or the rugby itself that's on display. But please acknowledge that A] these mis-matches were all known beforehand, B] they are not unique to the women's game, and C] that the game is capable of growing beyond them.

[Donny osmond]

Absolutely, the game isn't going to grow uniformly, some (usually richer, bigger) rugby nations will improve faster than others and while they do that the one sided matches are inevitable. It doesn't mean those matches aren't worth playing or watching.

I'd love to know the full story behind Canada women's rugby and why and how rugby has become popular (?) and successful there. I played with Toronto Scottish 20odd years ago and women's rugby was popular and growing back then, but seems to have gone from strength to strength while the men's game has fallen away?