Related coverage
- Basketball news
- Football news
- Rugby Union news
- Rugby World Cup 2011 news
- Rugby League news
- World Cup Favourites news
- World Cup Roar of the Crowd Competition news
- Football World Cup - South Africa 2010 news
- Rugby 2011 news
Right, so we all know the round ball football has the biggest global footprint and can lay claim to the definitive World Cup… no questions asked. But with the cricket World Cup underway and the rugby World Cup looming later in the year, now is a good time to ask; which sport stages the second most important competition?
By important I mean touches the most people, with a global footprint that extends over multiple continents, and is the most sought after and important tournament for that particularly sport.
This, in my opinion, rules out tennis’ Davis Cup, which comes second to the individual players’ careers and Grand Slams.
And I’m not talking about multi-disciplined Olympics either, but strictly national team competitions played with one ultimate prize/title at stake. Plus, as part of the purpose is to find which sport has the second biggest global footprint, let’s ignore the women’s football World Cup – also on the horizon in 2011.
I’m aware there’s a fair bit of personal preference when discussing such matters; obviously there will be an alliance to your preferred sport. But taking bias out of the equation, there must be some way to determine a runner-up. Is there?
Clearly important traits should include: multiple representatives from the six continents (one day, Antarctica), competitive representatives from those continents who do more than just make up the numbers, and a World Cup/championship that is considered the ultimate prize within that sport, i.e. not diminished by other competitions.
There are four contenders: cricket’s World Cup, rugby’s World Cup, hockey’s World Cup and basketball’s world championship. (Rugby league fans, your game doesn’t have the global footprint of rugby union. Don’t shoot the messenger.)
Cricket, in my opinion, is the first World Cup that’s cut from the race, with only five continents represented at the current World Cup (no South American teams); minimal continental European representation (just Holland); the smallest global footprint of the four contenders; and dominated by Commonwealth countries.
Its global reach just doesn’t cut it.
And with the ICC set to cut spots at the World Cup, lowering the amount of minnows represented in the tournament, that footprint will be further diminished.
Also, as the World Cup only represents one of three formats, it’s not exactly indicative of the greatest performing team in the sport as a whole – after all, the World Cup is played with the format that has come under the heaviest criticism and examination in recent time.
Some would even argue the Ashes is more important to England and Australia than the World Cup, diminishing the latter’s status.
That leaves rugby union, basketball and hockey. The latter is the next to be cut. Hockey has a strong global footprint, with powerhouse countries across Europe and Asia, not to mention Australia. But the lack of real representatives from the Americas and Africa hurts hockey’s reach.
No representative from those continents have ever challenged at a hockey World Cup.
And its appeal and popularity is severely lacking compared to rugby and basketball, let alone the eliminated cricket. Even in Australia, where our national team is one of the powerhouse countries and have tasted success, players are relative strangers. A hockey World Cup hardly galvanizes Australia.
So it comes down to basketball and rugby union, and this is where things get interesting…
Basketball’s world championship had a significant head start on the rugby World Cup, and enjoys a much greater presence in Asia, continental Europe, South America (Argentina defeated the USA in the first ever world basketball championship’s in 1950, while Brazil is the fourth most successful) and, obviously, North America.
With the growth of the NBA as a globalised product that has embraced international players, the competitiveness of Spain, Greece, Argentina, Turkey and Lithuania, for example, cannot be questioned as they’ve all medaled at the last three world championships.
While rugby has a strong South American representative in Argentina, continental Europe in France and to a lesser extent Italy, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, and Japan representing Asia, its reach is still limited compared to rugby’s.
It has the reach over rugby, but does basketball’s world championship resonate like the rugby World Cup? Basketball, despite its increasing global presence, hasn’t totally shaken its “American sport” tag, unlike rugby which has successfully spread and ingrained across a number of continents and countries – think South Africa and New Zealand.
There is still the perception that the USA could wipe the floor with the rest of the world if it fielded its best talent from the NBA, if those egos could be molded into a better cohesive team unit.
Also, with an Olympic presence that includes the pros, some of the shine taken off the world championships, not to mention from the immensely popular NBA, which overshadows the national team basketball scene. At least in rugby the World Cup is the sole and definitive world title, which sits at the top of the sport.
Perhaps there’s an inherent Australian bias at play here that I can’t shake, as basketball remains a fringe sport while the rugby World Cup matters so much more to us Aussies, but it seems the rugby World Cup just edges the basketball world championship for those reasons outlined.
Is the rugby World Cup the most important international team tournament outside of football’s World Cup? It’s debatable.
Follow Adrian on twitter @AdrianMusolino
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
March 8th 2011 @ 5:56am
AndrewMc said | March 8th 2011 @ 5:56am | Report comment
One which isn’t the runner up, but definitely deserves a mention is the Handball world cup. It gets lots of coverage here in Europe, but unfortunately is doesn’t have much traction elsewhere in the world
March 8th 2011 @ 7:36am
Rabbitz said | March 8th 2011 @ 7:36am | Report comment
I see that the “paid” journo’s are now in on the code war thing, eh?
Well Adrian, I would like to disagree with your main thrust that the Soccer World Cup is the most important. Firstly your definition of important is disingenuous and self serving.
More importantly, I would say that, other than for competitors, no World Cup is important, they are just sports carnivals. No more no less. They won’t save the world, they won’t end wars, they won’t fix racism, they won’t end world hunger. They are not important.
But for me, right at the moment, the Nordic Skiing World Cup in Oslo is the most important, i.e. the one I am most likely to watch right now. Oh as well as the IBU Biathlon World Cup, which has been running since December and finishes up in the next couple of weeks after 26 meetings. (Oddly Biathlon is the most followed sport in the Russian Federation, and they have to stand around in -15 to -20 degrees C to do it)
The Soccer World Cup just doesn’t rate as far as I am concerned, a lot of people might watch but then I’ve never really been a follower of crowds, I look for interesting sports. Not ones that can be awarded Oscars as well as World Cups (Well you started the code war stuff
)
March 8th 2011 @ 8:30am
apaway said | March 8th 2011 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Good on you Rabbitz – Biathlon and Nordic Skiing. Football is no doubt under threat…
March 8th 2011 @ 11:27am
Rabbitz said | March 8th 2011 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Clearly I was being too subtle. Soccer may not be “under threat”. (I am not sure what the threat consists of) However to a lot of people soccer and a lot of other sports just don’t rate. I follow different sports at different times. Keeps things interesting.
But then again if I have to explain it then you probably will never get it.
Oh and soccer may be “under threat” as the Nordic Skiing WC has an attendance of over 300,000, so not insignificant.
March 8th 2011 @ 12:04pm
sheek said | March 8th 2011 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
Rabbitz,
What have you got in your carrots…..???
March 8th 2011 @ 3:08pm
Rabbitz said | March 8th 2011 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
I let them ferment for a while, why?
Do you want some?
March 8th 2011 @ 2:28pm
apaway said | March 8th 2011 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
Rabz
You said “The Soccer World Cup doesn’t rate as far as I’m concerned, a lot of people might watch, but then I’ve never been a follower of crowds…”
So by your own definition, the World Cup DOES rate, but you don’t enjoy it. Which is fair enough, but very different to the game “not rating.”
March 8th 2011 @ 3:07pm
Rabbitz said | March 8th 2011 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
Actually Ap,
The active part of my statement was “The Soccer World Cup doesn’t rate as far as I’m concerned”. This means that I do not rate it. Thus to me, it is not important.
I read Adrian’s piece as asking how individuals view various World Cups. I do not rate the Soccer World Cup as at all important. YMMV.
After all, they are all just sports carnivals and they are all just entertainment (the competitors not withstanding), not that far removed from say going to the movies or a concert. So my original hypothesis that they are not important still stands.
March 8th 2011 @ 11:24am
Sam said | March 8th 2011 @ 11:24am | Report comment
And that is why you are on your own.
March 8th 2011 @ 7:48am
rebelyell said | March 8th 2011 @ 7:48am | Report comment
If the wallabies beat the all blecks on 23 October, the 2011 RWC will be THE most important world cup ever held, in any sport !! If the kiwis win, well its just another meaningless game of footy …
March 8th 2011 @ 9:29am
PaddyBoy said | March 8th 2011 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Are you serious after what happened in Christchurch. That coupled with NZ’s dismal showing in previous World Cups makes it much more significant if the All Blacks win. I’m Australian but I’d half go for them if this was the final.
March 8th 2011 @ 7:58am
Senoroctober said | March 8th 2011 @ 7:58am | Report comment
May I suggest a little sport called volleyball. I know the coverage in Australia is minimal to none but is a big sport in Asia, South America, and Europe. The US also have a very strong presence as well.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
March 8th 2011 @ 8:29am
MyLeftFoot said | March 8th 2011 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Speaking of team sports generally (not about world championships per se), I would place basketball in second spot to soccer.
March 8th 2011 @ 8:44am
peeeko said | March 8th 2011 @ 8:44am | Report comment
i would say basketball. However with Cricket there are 1.2 bln people in India, the combined populations of North America and Europe combined, in my opinon gives it a bigger global footprint than rugby
March 8th 2011 @ 8:55am
Jaredsbro said | March 8th 2011 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Let’s all see what happens in the next few RWCs time before we start comparing World Title tournaments. Of course after 2016, Rugby Sevens will be in the Olympics and I say after at least four Olympics with R7s we’ll be able to see how popular Ruby Union can actually be. It is true Basketball’s set back by American expansionist strategies and logics, but it’s clearly number two at the moment.
But the afforementioned priorities on the NBA, could well be its downfall. But at the moment, RU’s really only popular (enough ie to have the kind of profile we’re talking about) in a slightly Inter-continental way…with sprinkling of all continents…but with very few other nations all of a sudden taking an interest, it’s still basically only popular or played to any sig profile in countries where the evangelists went no less than one hundred years ago!
Now Cricket’s popularity is by far the most misleading as cricket’s ‘international’ popularity can actually be divided (amongst the member nations) into about 3 different categories of popular:
The First is its insanely popular status in India and maybe Pakistan….you could count Sri Lanka in there too. Second still very popular, but as a second (summer sport compared to winter’s football) sport: Australia, England, South Africa and possibly New Zealand…but really only for lack of anything else of interest in our summer time (but sometimes the EPL takes this niche) Thridly you’ve got the traditional popularity of West Indies and maybe NZ depending on whether you consider cricket our true non-winter sport these days or not. Not sure where Bangladesh fits in…maybe in with the second category as I’ve heard Soccer’s really popular there.
But we’re talking about different scales of popularity…and a fourth category could well be there in the future, but winning a Cricket WC if you’re Canada (like that would ever happen
) won’t mean as much…far less than one, much less than two and significantly less than three…but it still might mean something!
March 8th 2011 @ 11:13am
OzFootballSherrin said | March 8th 2011 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Jaredsbro -
it’s odd that you try to sell cricket short (by scaling degrees of popularity) given that you’re pushing RU.
RU is hardly a national passtime in Australia, coming about 4th in the football stakes, and perhaps is only ‘insanely popular’ as you put it in NZ and Sth AFrica…..mebbe Wales.
Paint the picture with the same brush!!!
March 8th 2011 @ 12:29pm
The Bush said | March 8th 2011 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Insanely popular in Tonga, Samoa and Fiji also
This is a misconception that Rugby Union is insanely popular in South Africa.
It is insanely popular amongst Whites (10% of the population, or 5m people).
It is relatively popular amongst the Coloureds (10% of the population, or 5m people).
Miles behind Cricket and light years behind Football with Blacks (80% of the population, or 40m people).
South Africans like Rugby for sure, and it’s footprint in that country is large and dwarfs the profile of Rugby Union in Australia, but to suggest that South Africa’s passion for the game at all levels of society is the same as New Zealands, Tongas, Fiji’s, Samoa’s or even Wales, is wrong.
March 8th 2011 @ 9:01am
The Bush said | March 8th 2011 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Adrian,
Whilst it is true that people can never remove bias from anything they do, as a Rugby Fan I still struggle to believe that it is as important as people make out. I’m interested to know more about the paramaters of the “decision”. I raise this because, as pointed out by MyLeftFoot, Basketball as a sport is far more globally important than Rugby Union.
However, I will stick to your guidelines:
“Clearly important traits should include: multiple representatives from the six continents (one day, Antarctica), competitive representatives from those continents who do more than just make up the numbers, and a World Cup/championship that is considered the ultimate prize within that sport, i.e. not diminished by other competitions.”
So:
a) Multiple Continental Representation;
b) Competative Representation; and
c) The World Cup/Championship is the ultimate prize.
I don’t know enough about Hockey so I won’t comment on it.
Alright, let’s start with Cricket;
a) Are England not part of Europe? Is Ireland not part of Europe? I would suggest that right now both Ireland and England are not just “making up” the numbers and are “European”.
b) The World Cup has been won by the West Indies (who actually include lots of countries), India, Pakistan, Sri Lanaka and Australia. That’s five (5) winners. That’s one more than the Rugby Union World Cup… England has also made the final I believe and possibly South Africa also (or at least they could be winners won day).
c) The Ashes might mean more to Australian’s and Englishmen, but [at least right now], the World Cup means more to the majority of Cricket Fans (South Africans, South Asians, all Associate members, New Zealand, the West Indies).
In conclusion, I think you’ve removed Cricket to quickly simply because they don’t have representation in South America (the Carribean is close anyway, and an entire region that out of the above sports only Basketball has a real reach in). I would say that on an aggragate numbers basis easily, and even percentage of people in the most countries Cricket beats Rugby.
Basketball:
a) Every continent without fail. In South America Basketball is huge in Argentina and Uruguay (the only Rugby powers). It is bigger in both these countries than Rugby. It is also big in South America’s largest country – Brazil.
In France Basketball would be on par on only slightly below Rugby Union, and it’s reach is more even around the country. France are the only true European Rugby powerhouse. In Spain, Basketball is massive (dwarfs Rugby). In Portugal, Greece and Russia, basketball is huge. In fact only in Great Britain and Ireland would rugby trump Basketball, and rugby practically doesn’t exist in places like Lithuania were the sport is massive.
Even in Australia, Basketball’s particpation rates dwarf Rugby’s, whilst it has a fully national imprint and a FTA competition. Queensland, “heartland” rugby union, has three (3) Basketball teams and only one Rugby Team!
b) Competativeness. I don’t see why America possibly being the best but never trying ruins the competativeness. Besides America has entered star studded teams in the Olympics and not won, why would they dominate the Championships if they tried? The following countries have won the Basketball World Championships; Argentina, United States, Brazil, Soviet Union/Russia, Yugoslavia/Serbia and Spain. That’s six different winners. The competition has been hosted by Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Spain , Canada, Greece, United States, Turkey, Phillipines, Japan and Chile.
c) This is where Basketball falls down. I could be wrong, but don’t most fans considered Olympic Gold in Basketball as the highest honour? If not than Basketball trumps Rugby;
Rugby Union;
a) All continents? Only Japan has entered the World Cup from Asia proper (i.e. no Australia and New Zealand). Admittedly it gets good Pacific represntation, something no other World Cup gets with Tonga, Samoa and Fiji. Only two different countries have every appeared from both South America and North America (Arg, Uruguay, USA and Canada). In basketball you can throw in Brazil, Chile, Colombia and others.
In Asia, countries like China are far more likely to care about basketball. I would hazard a guess even in Japan, a rugby “stronghold” basketball has a better reach now.
b) Competativeness? Only four countries have won (England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa). All Commonwealth Countries (supposedly Cricket’s downfall). Only France have made a final beyond that, and ever look like winning (the Big Five). Argentina, France and Italy add a small amount of weight to the non-Commonwealth dimensions of Rugby, but honestly that’s not much. I reckon the majority of Africa is more likely to know what Basketball is than Rugby and more likely to care if their team ever did actually get to the Championships and play well. Ditto South America, North America and Asia, plus all of eastern Europe.
In conclusion, the Rugby World Cup only gets over the line by default if the Basketball World Championships is not more important than the Olympic Gold Medal Competition.
March 8th 2011 @ 10:03am
katzilla said | March 8th 2011 @ 10:03am | Report comment
“This is where Basketball falls down. I could be wrong, but don’t most fans considered Olympic Gold in Basketball as the highest honour? If not than Basketball trumps Rugby;”
All but the guys wearing Red, white and blue. No doubt they’re proud to ‘Represent’ their country but having read various interviews over the years you get the sense that they would prefer an NBA victory > a world cup.
March 8th 2011 @ 12:32pm
mattamkII said | March 8th 2011 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
Mate, with all due respect you clearly dont know anything about Rugby if you think that way.
Just because there is only one nation from Asia qualified (the IRB set it that way) doesn’t mean it not a large sport. Rugby is HUGE in HK, Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Taiwan, Korea etc etc. I live and play rugby in Asia so know a little about it.
And to you point about competitiveness. I always laugh about this one as the football world cup has only been won by 8 teams in its history…And really, there is only ever six or so team that have chance. No doubt footballs low scoring nature means more upsets but at the business end the top teams always win out.
No question Football is miles and miles in front and basketball is huge, but the point you use to argue against rugby are well of the mark.
March 8th 2011 @ 12:49pm
The Bush said | March 8th 2011 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
mattamkll,
Where was I comparing the sport to Football? That was not part of the discussion, and I’m not sure why it’s relevant. The comparison is between Basketball and Rugby Union.
Don’t know anything about Rugby Union? Why because you say that “Rugby is HUGE in HK, Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Taiwan, Korea etc etc”. What becase you live in a certain part of Asia you know all about it?
Please provide evidence where any Asian team could stay within 80 points of Australia or any of the Big Five in Rugby Union?
You list Taiwan. Do you play Rugby Union there? I guarantee that Basketball’s profile in Taiwan dwarfs that of Rugby Unions.
You mention Korea, would this be South Korea? How man professional Rugby Union teams are there in South Korea? None? How many professional Basketball sides are their in Korea? Oh a whole League… Wow…
Rugby Union’s profile in Sri Lanka is huge, I’ll give you that. But to suggest that Rugby’s profile in Hong Kong is “huge” is laughable. The Seven’s Event is well supported, and the ex-pats enjoy it no doubt, but Football and Table Tennis, amongst other sports, would have a much larger profile.
Pakistan and Rugby Union? I’m aware they have a team, in about the fourth division of the Asian 5 Nations. To suggest that the sport is “HUGE” is again laughable.
Japan, a minnow in world Rugby Union, trumps all other Asian nations. The second best Asian Rugby Union team is now Kazakhstan, a team built around ethnic Russians who play abroad in the Russian Profesional Rugby League and I believe a player or two plays in Japan.
So by all means, believe the IRB spin that the sport is on the verge of World Domination, back here in reality I’ll keep enjoying the sport how it really is…
March 8th 2011 @ 2:01pm
The Bush said | March 8th 2011 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
Oh and just to reiterate, remembering that I accept that Basketball may fall down as the World Championship may not be the pinnicle of the sport (i.e. the point of the article), let’s compare who has made the Semi-Finals of the Basketball World Champions over the years and who has made the Rugby Union semi-finals. In otherwords lets compare the competitivness of the tournaments;
Basketball (19);
South America:
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
North America:
United States
Cuba (or Carribean)
Pueto Rico (or Carribean)
Europe:
Turkey
Lithuania
Spain
Greece
Russia/Soviet Union
Yugoslavia/Serbia
Germany
Croatia
France
Italy
Oceania:
New Zealand
Asia:
Philippines
Taiwan
Rugby Union (8):
England
France
Australia
New Zealand
South Africa
Scotland
Wales
Argentina
Back on Asian Rugby again, the reason only one team qualifies from Asia is because the runner’s up are always eliminated in the repecharge round. Kazakhstan was soundly beaten and didn’t even make it to the final play-off match (won by Romania over Uruguay). South Korea is smashed by Samoa et al whenever they have been runner up. Japan is just lucky it doesn’t have to play the fourth best Euro side to qualify…
Asia is by far the weakest confederation in Rugby Union. The top three South American teams and the top two North American teams would beat anyone other than Japan, any day of the week. Ditto the top twelve European nations. Africa, probably the weakest continent after Asia still has Namibia, a constant qualifier for the World Cup and a team with professionals playing in South Africa and Europe. The Top League, Asia’s premier Rugby Competition isn’t even home-and-away or fully professional (for the locals).
South Korea has barely 1,000 registered players. Taiwan not much more. Malaysia and Thailand have players sure, but they can’t even beat Singapore, who not so long ago was smashed in the Asian 5 Nations.
March 8th 2011 @ 2:32pm
mattamkII said | March 8th 2011 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
Mate, you need do some research. And or take it from someone who lives and player rugby all around Asia (me).
Rugby is huge in HK and has several pro players, both home grown and expat in each team and one of the richest unions in the world.
I play all the countries you mention on a yearly basis and while I am not arguing that there might not be pro team you can not discount how serious the game is taken.
Which team can get within 80 point of the Wallabies? none…but I never said there was and didnt know that was the basis for which this debate was formed.
I actually agree with you so no need to get stroppy. All I said was you a writing off Rugby in asia based on finger in the air stats you found on a website and or just assumed.
March 8th 2011 @ 3:05pm
The Bush said | March 8th 2011 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
mattamkll,
“Mate, you need do some research. And or take it from someone who lives and player rugby all around Asia (me).”
I’ve provided you with evidence in my posts. I’m happy to point to the IRB website for playing numbers, numerous sites for records of results. What “research” do you have to support that Rugby is huge in Pakistan, Taiwan, South Korea et al?
I’ve discussed margins of victory, qualifying for the World Cup, professional teams, playing numbers. The only argument you have put forward so far is I should “take it from someone who lives and player rugby all around Asia (me)”. And even this, as your “evidence” you still haven’t explained where you live and how you “know”.
I’ve pointed out that Basketball is bigger in both Taiwan and South Korea (who I assume you meant by Korea).
I’ve pointed out who the second best team in Asia is, Kazkahstan, who would be pasted in any other confederation. You’ve ignored that.
The only point you have raised is that HK has “several pro players”. I’m aware that the Union centrally funds some players. That’s it, that’s your entire evidence that Asia is bursting at the seams to play Rugby? Also, Hong Kong being “one of the richest unions int he world”, I’m interested in this. Top 10? Top 20?
“Which team can get within 80 point of the Wallabies? none…but I never said there was and didnt know that was the basis for which this debate was formed.”
This highlights the gap between Asian teams and the actual potential winners at a Rugby World Cup. The Competativeness of a tournament is shown by how many teams can compete in it at a reasonable level with success. In Rugby this is limited to the Big Five and what you could call the Little Five (Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Italy and Argentina). And that is being generous to Italy and Scotland. Where is the Asian countries? As shown above, in Basketball, numerous teams from every continent have made the knockout rounds.
“All I said was you a writing off Rugby in asia based on finger in the air stats you found on a website and or just assumed.”
I’m not writing off Rugby in Asia. I’m discussing the facts of the situation as it stands now. I hope, as Rugby is my faviourite sport, that it takes off. I hope that the Japan WC leads to signficant growth in the sport. I’m just presenting the realistic facts that right now Basketball is far more popular and thus important in Asia. As for the finger in the air stats you found on a website, where are your stats coming from?
“”I actually agree with you so no need to get stroppy.”
Mate you didn’t agree with me. That is why I responded. You specifically said:
“Mate, with all due respect you clearly dont know anything about Rugby if you think that way.
Just because there is only one nation from Asia qualified (the IRB set it that way) doesn’t mean it not a large sport. Rugby is HUGE in HK, Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Taiwan, Korea etc etc. I live and play rugby in Asia so know a little about it.”
That is you disagreeing and my responses have been me explaining why most of that statement is wrong.
March 10th 2011 @ 12:53pm
kovana said | March 10th 2011 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
“let’s compare who has made the Semi-Finals of the Basketball World Champions over the years and who has made the Rugby Union semi-finals. In otherwords lets compare the competitivness of the tournaments;”
You listed Basketball WC with 19 and RWC with 8.
You are comparing the All 17 FIBA WC TOURNAMENTS to RWCs currently 6 tournaments held.
A better comparison would be to look at the FIRST 6 FIBA WC and count how many S-finalists they have had.. and ALSO how many winners they have had in those first 6 tournaments.
FIBA WC S-finals (First 6 tournaments) = 10 nations
5 Different nations won the FIBA WC.
RWC S-finals = 8 nations
4 different nations have won the RWC.
March 10th 2011 @ 12:41pm
kovana said | March 10th 2011 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Bush..
“Only four countries have won (England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa).”
Can you PLEASE add how many RWCs have been played?
March 8th 2011 @ 9:04am
Ben Carter said | March 8th 2011 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Good topic Adrian – after the FIFA World Cup, have always thought of the IRB World Cup slightly nudging ahead of the FIBA equivalent to be honest. Cricket and hockey about the same in a way – also rugby league. That same-ish group of 10-14 nations that don’t quite give the tournament enough resonance outside its participants. Was wondering though about the IFNA World Championship (that’s the netball one)….27 teams at its height in 1995, but now back to the more obligatory 16 for this year’s edition in Singapore. And let’s not forget underwater basket-weaving, either…!
March 8th 2011 @ 9:20am
Chris said | March 8th 2011 @ 9:20am | Report comment
I would have thought that the cricket World Cup automatically gets cut as it’s not even representative of the highest form of the game (being Test cricket).
Re: basketball and your comment “There is still the perception that the USA could wipe the floor with the rest of the world if it fielded its best talent from the NBA, if those egos could be molded into a better cohesive team unit” – that’s a description that applies to any team sport where the members of that team don’t play together all that much. If the US can’t get its proverbial together then that’s their problem.