By Spiro Zavos
September 19th 2007 @ 2:13pm
RWC: Only 16 Teams For NZ 2011
According to media reports, the IRB has already decided that the next RWC tournament in New Zealand in 2011 will involve 16 teams only.
The current tournament involves 20 teams playing four pools of five teams each.
The top 12 sides in this year’s RWC will qualify for 2011 automatically. To find the other four side there will be a Rugby World Trophy tournament held throughout 2010. The four most successful sides in this tournament will go on to play in the 2011 RWC.
The object of the new system is to avoid mismatches as we’ll get in France playing Namibia, or NZ playing Portugal. Also the RWT tournament will provide the lesser countries with competition that is more directed at their playing levels and standards.
That’s the theory. My feeling is that a large part of the motivation behind the change is to ensure that the 2011 RWC does not lose the NZRU as much money as it would if 20 teams competed.
At most of the RWC tournaments so far one of the lesser teams has emerged from the shadows to play some marvellous rugby. There will be fewer chances of this happening now.
I would expect, too, that countries like Tonga can expect to have their best youngsters bought by, say Japan, to beef up their national side and ensure that the Cherry Blossoms make the final 16.
There is the financial aspect too of all of this. What happens to developing rugby in the USA, which has an ambitious program in play under the presidency of Kevin Roberts worldwide CEO of Saatchi and Saatchi? Or Japan, with its Japan Inc companies?
My main objection, though, to the proposed change is that the RWC tournament as a festival of rugby and a tournament will be diminished. The rugby community should welcome Portugal and Georgia (where crowds of up to 50,000 attend tests) and, hopefully China by 2015 in the real World Cup tournament, and not a sort of gamest loser event.
Super 14 Tipping now live on The Roar. Join now.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(7)
sheek said | September 19th 2007 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Spiro,
Reducing the number of competing teams in the RWC from 20 to 16, must be seen as a “failure of office” for the IRB.
Not that they’re likely to give it much thought. Easier to reduce the number of teams, rather than spend the time & money raising standards of teams ranked 17-24.
It’s sad, but discussing the machinations of the IRB with other roar posters this past week or so, I’ve resolved myself to the reality that spreading the gospel of rugby, is actually NOT the IRB’s true intention.
Luke said | September 20th 2007 @ 3:59am | Report comment
Could the answer be a sevens-style tournament with the winners and runners-up, and third places etc playing in seperate knock-out tournaments?
Although having said that – I’m not sure how that would resolve the mismatched mis-matches? Also the crowds would be smaller for these games (as opposed to when a top team is involved).
However, despite these cons, I still think it is more important that smaller teams are involved in the world cup and still make an appearance on the main stage. Apart from anything, the support generated back home for these smaller countries during these competitions can only be a good thing.
Any thoughts?
Ross Mativenko said | September 20th 2007 @ 4:16am | Report comment
Surely this can’t be the way forward. To me it’s a plan that is stuck firmly in reverse.
It’s unfortunate, but we’re always going to have ‘The Elite’ and ‘The Rest’. But to deny the emerging Rugby playing nations a chance to rub shoulders with the big boys on a World Stage will put an end to any further expansion of the game in newer areas.
For me, some of the genuinely heartwarming moments of this World Cup have been linked to the supposed underdogs. Portugal and the sheer pride and pleasure with which they play the game. Georgia, and their near humbling of the Irish. The performances of the Romanians and Americans aginst Italy and England respectively.
It’s such sporting theatre that will be sacrificed at the altar of the balance sheet.
sheek said | September 20th 2007 @ 6:23am | Report comment
Luke,
I actually like the 7s format suggestion. You have 24 teams split into 6 pools x 4 teams. Teams would be allocated to ‘top 8′, ‘middle 8′ & ‘bottom 8′ on firstly, their win ratio, & secondly their for/against ratio. Quarters would be similarly arranged – 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5; 9v16, 10v15, 11v14, 12v13; etc.
Everyone plays 3 pool games, then the knockout stages begin with quarters, semis 3/4 playoff & final for all 3 tiers. This would still be a huge advantage for minor rugby nations.
Each would have the opportunity to play one or two top 10 nations in the pool, & because everyone is still at the same tournament, they could watch & learn from the better nations.
The top 8 would play for the Rugby World Cup (RWC), the middle 8 for the RW Plate(RWP), & the bottom 8 for the RW Bowl, (RWB) or whatever. Everyone would be guaranteed a minimum 4 matches (3 pool + one divisional QF), while semi-finalists in each division would play 6 matches. 3rd/4th playoffs would be an option only.
Ian said | September 20th 2007 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Spot on Sheek and Luke, surely we need to up the numbers to 32 some time in the future not decrease.
I seem to remember a few months ago or maybe last year this point of a 16 team comp coming up. At the time it was reported driven by England as they didn’t have enough ‘Rugby only’ grounds to manage a 20 or more team comp in the Oct/Nov window and were assuring themselves the rational to have the 2015 RWC
Can anyone confirm this or was it pure rumour?
Sam Taulelei said | September 20th 2007 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Current state of the union:
Top tier countries – NZ, SA, AUS, Fra, Eng
Middle tier countries – Ire, Scot, Wal, Argentina, Italy
Lower tier countries – Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, USA, Canada, Japan, Georgia, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Uruguay, Portugal, Ivory Coast (all countries that have played at RWC at present and in the past)
If the tournament reduces to 16 teams for 2011 then on current form the teams to miss out would be those nations listed after Japan.
I have no problem if the number of teams remains the same, reduces to 16 or increases to 24 or 32. I do have an issue however with the misconception that the RWC (and any other tournament for that matter) should be an event to reward teams for participation rather than trying to win.
The RWC is often incorrectly compared to the FIFA World Cup, the main point of difference is that the FIFA world cup is a finals series. Teams have had to qualify after playing home and away games in their regional conferences so that the best make it through to the world cup.
There will always be differences in quality of competing teams but if the IRB is looking at the RWC as a vehicle to promote and nurture rugby throughout the world then it will never achieve that goal. The IRB is trying to serve two masters, as a business they need to return a profit and as the governing body they also need to develop rugby, at the RWC both aims are at odds with each other and it’s safe to say which objectve will override the other.
A RWC run on similar lines to the World sevens circuit as suggested by Sheek would certainly offer appeal. I still believe that all teams outside of the host and current cup holder should have to qualify for the next RWC. Allocate points to each test on a home and away basis to give them more worth and meaning, organise regional zones so that the lower tier nations have relevant competition similar to FIFA’s conferences, base seedings for the next RWC on the results of the qualifiers and not on how they finished at the last tournament, send the top tier teams to play in far flung areas to help promote the game and its stars.
NZ has setup an excellent rugby coaching academy where players benefit from specified coaching from former coaching and playing greats from all around the world, could this not be replicated around the world and if not why not send promising youngsters and coaches from the lower tier nations to this academy to learn and develop more.
For teams like Portugal, playing against the All Blacks is a wonderful and memorable occasion but after the RWC what will come of this experience if it merely ends up as a footnote in a future rugby world cup publication looking back over previous tournaments and largest winning margins and tries scored.
We all love the romance of following the underdogs and seeing them pull off the upset win, but I’d prefer to see the playing standards improve across all the countries qualifying to play in the RWC and improve the competition. Sadly despite the false promise the European countries showed in their leadup games I can see only southern hemisphere countries in the semifinals this year.
Alex said | November 7th 2008 @ 8:32pm | Report comment
This is a travesty; the whole point of a world cup is seeing teams from all over the world competing against each other. Allowing the so called smaller teams to participate will only improve the level of rugby they play. You only need to look at Italy, when they first joined the 6 nations they were awful and were getting spanked all over the park. Now they look like a much more organised unit and seem to improving every year.
If the IRB is looking to have a second tier world cup then the only way to keep the sport growing would be for them to spend as much time publicising it, if not more so; so that people within these countries can benefit and ultimately the IRB will start to be able to integrate these teams into the “big boys world cup”.
With the suggestion to 7’s, this should be a last resort. It wont help 15’s sides improve or generate the love of the game that is found within 15’s