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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.