Posts
Just had a look at the schedule for the Rugby WC and realised that the tournament isn’t really starting until second week in October (at the quarter final stage). At a push, there are 5 southern hemisphere teams and 6 northern teams in the shake up for the quarter finals. So there are 40 pool games to eliminate 3 teams with realistic chances of qualifying. OK, we’ll all have a look at Ireland v Australia, but really the only interest in the pool stages is to see whether teams qualify as winners or runners up in their group.
What’s the deal with 20 teams? Totally agree there should be opportunities for ‘weaker nations’ – but bulking up the tournament for the sake of it – and allowing 4 extra teams take a hammering in every game is going to do nothing to promote the game. 4 extra teams – 16 ‘dead rubbers’ – hardly a compelling spectacle. 16 teams (max) would allow the best 5/6 ‘weaker nations’ qualify on merit and perhaps cause an occasional upset (possibly look at Fiji for automatic spot given their record).
Given the physical nature of the game, and the fact teams will need 5/6 days recovery this is adding weeks onto the tournament. This is definitely not ideal preparation for the competitive teams with realistic chances of progressing, and of no interest for neutral spectators (except perhaps can NZ beat the 70 point handicap they will have over Japan and Canada).
It’s also interesting to note that the only teams that have to play on 4 days rest are Tonga, Canada, Scotland, Georgia, Romania, USA (twice), Namibia (twice) and Samoa. So, the draw obviously ensures that the weakest teams have the disadvantage of playing on limited rest – making it more difficult for them to cause an upset.
Suppose it means less 6am mornings during September – and a feast of competitive games over 2 weeks in October.
Print this post
6 comments:
Nice work, your research means I won't have to bother watching any of these meaningless pool games. I had not realised there was now 20 teams, I agree that 16 still gives ample opportunity for developing nations.
Directly before the rugby world cup is the athletics world championship, which is arguably a lot more bigger event with a lot more global participants than the more minority game of rugby.
Couldn't agree more - was very disappointing to see Harrington and O'Driscoll get the number 1 and 2 Irish sports stars of all time on the RTE poll. Don't get me wrong - they've been fantastic competitors, however in two minority, and traditionally elitest sports.
We've produced one of the best middle distance runners of all time in Sonia O'Sullivan - in a sport that is accessible to everybody in every country of the world. Surely being best in athletics is more deserving of the number 1 spot?
A pity Robert Heffernan walker is out of the championship with his Mother's death, he finished sixth in the World Championships in Osaka in 2007.
We have some promising talent on the way with the likes of Kate Veale winning Ireland's first gold in the World Youth Championships 5km recently
RTE don't consider it the #1 spot and are not covering the event :-( thankfully I can get channel 4. Ian O'Riordan The Irish Times - Saturday, August 20, 2011
Garbhan,
I was very surprised when I read this post. Now, a month on and a week into the world cup I wonder if you might have changed your mind. We could take your arguement to its limit and just crown New Zealand as champions. Take Georgia for example. They conceded 12 trys against England in 2003, lost 84-6 but their appearance in the world cup gave a massive boost to rugby in Georgia and they pushed Scotland right through the game last weekend. You have heard the facts, most of the team play in professional leagues and do well in professional leagues. Gorgodze was voted overseas player of the year in France last season. The world cup is not an endless sequence of "dead rubbers" for these guys but a chance to play as many games against the top nations in a few weeks as they may have done in the previous year or two or four. How do you go about developing a sport? Instead of berating the fact that we have to sit through a needless few weeks of pointless footie we should be pushing for a second division of 6-nations to help raise the profile of rugby in these second and third tier countries. Or do you simply want a handful of teams in Europe and another handful in the southern hemisphere to define a sport for the foreseeable future? The games so far have been full of surprises. I agree that having to play two games in 4 days for the weakest teams is just not fair but I bet those teams would rather do that than be sitting at home wishing for a twenty team format. I guarantee it won't be the same in the next world cup. We will have a 7 week tournament. Thats how the sport is, brutally physicalas we witnessed today, and if it means an extra week then so be it. Rejoice in the underdog, love the fact that a game we all enjoy is reaching into corners of countries that no-one thought possible ten years ago and in ten years time maybe we will be getting a right old bashing from the likes of Georgia, the likes of Romania, the likes of Russia. Argentina are the role model, the measure of how far a team can progress give n the right support and the right exposure to big games. Don't be such a sports snob, get up early one of these morning and give Namibia or Georgia or Canada the respect they deserve.
Martin
Martin, you might be surprised that I agree with most of the sentiment in your response. Georgia are not a #5 seed and definitely deserve a place in my opinion - if there were qualifying competitions I'm sure that they would be competitive.
For serious development, these teams don't deserve being hammered in 4 games once every 4 years - they need serious competition season by season - European international competition / expanded 6 and tri nations / WC qualifying for all teams might do that. I can't understand how Argentina have to wait 4 years for the only serious competition that is available to them. For serious development, rugby need to move away from its traditional structures.
A month in and I stand by my assessment, which is very much shared with a number of dyed-in-the-wool rugby heads I work with (although it doesn't stop them getting up at 5.30am to watch Georgia vs Romania!!!). The average margin in games with #5 seeds is over 40 points. I've heard analysis of the Russia (4th seed) game which commended the Irish team for 'taking the game seriously'. There have been no shortage of -50 handicaps on Paddy Power.
Stringing the competition out over an extra couple of weeks for the sake of including 4 extra developing nations does nothing for the credibility of the tournament, the stronger nations who have a couple of meaningless games or most of all the developing nations themselves.
As a spectacle, I really enjoy watching rugby - and I can't watch over-priced, mega-egoed, prima donna Premiership footballers writhe around in fake agony after watching the commitment, aggression and complete dedication of a rugby match. I just don't enjoy non-competitive games in what could turn out to be a fantastic tournament.
As far as I know, there already are qualifying matches, though exemption for the top teams based on performance at previous world cups and/or world ranking. Even Ireland had to qualify for the 2007 world cup finals as far as I recall. I've enjoyed many of the matches to date, although you can really see the lower ranked teams struggle in the 2nd and 3rd round of matches (versus a few close ones in the 1st round). It is disappointing though that there has really only been one shock result (ours). Really looking forward to the business end now and the knockout matches. Lots of activity and banter with mates in NZ too (and still waiting for your blog post on the Eden Park match, Colin).
On the spectacle aspect, the reality is that the tournament isn't just about entertainment. Sure, it's a showcase for world rugby, and about developing the game in the 'lesser' countries (France used to be the whipping boys in the early days of the Five Nations). But it's also a commercial enterprise, hence 20 teams rather than 16 or 12, more matches, more TV, more tickets and more of the bottom line...
Post a Comment
You Can Add Images, Colored Text and more To Your Comment.Image: [im]Image URL Here[/im]
Colours: [co="red"]Comment Text Here[/co]
Marquee: [ma]Comment Text[/ma]
and more..