No All Blacks, no World Cup: say New Zealanders
By Chris Foley, 5 Oct 2011 Chris Foley is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, New Zealand rugby, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup, RWC
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Rugby World Cup 2011 news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- Rugby 2011 news
- 2013 Wallabies squad news
New Zealand players and coaches have poured scorn on an International Rugby Board (IRB) warning on Tuesday that future World Cup tournaments could go ahead without them.
It was inconceivable the sport’s showpiece tournament could take place without any of the top sides, members of the squad said.
A row over the future involvement of the All Blacks, arguably rugby union’s best-known international team and one of its most successful, started last week when New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) chief executive Steve Tew said pulling the top-ranked team from the next World Cup could not be ruled out.
Tew said his organisation lost money every time the quadrennial tournament was staged and received the backing of neighbours Australia.
He added competing at the current World Cup in New Zealand was costing the NZRU more than NZ$13 million ($10.3 million), casting a shadow over their participation in four years’ time.
But IRB boss Mike Miller said while it would be good to have the All Blacks in England in 2015, “everyone is replaceable.”
It was a statement that stunned members of the New Zealand team who are preparing to play their quarter-final match in the ongoing tournament against Argentina in Auckland this coming Sunday.
“You can’t have a World Cup without the All Blacks, without any of the top nations. They’ve all got to be there just to make it a legit World Cup,” wing Richard Kahui told reporters.
Assistant coach Wayne Smith also rejected Miller’s comments, saying the New Zealand public would not stand for it.
“You’ve just got to see what rugby means in this country to think of it as inconceivable,” he said.
“But I haven’t thought a lot about it. I’m focusing on Argentina. They’re a big enough test for me.”
Tew said the bulk of the New Zealand rugby’s shortfall came from lost revenue because the annual Tri-Nations competition was shortened in World Cup years so it did not clash with the tournament.
But Miller said that was not an IRB directive, but rather a decision taken by the Tri-Nations countries South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
He added that Tew was on the IRB Council, had been involved in the decision making for several years and knew the economics of the World Cup were to be re-examined after this tournament.
Tew’s words were widely interpreted as a starting point for future talks with the IRB, with few believing the NZRU would disappoint their rugby-mad home public, and their players, by pulling out of the World Cup.
“It’d be devastating for our country and our rugby players here as well,” All Black hooker Keven Mealamu said last week.
© AFP 2013Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
- Explore:
- All Blacks, New Zealand rugby, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup, RWC
October 5th 2011 @ 9:36am
CraigB said | October 5th 2011 @ 9:36am | Report comment
and this is why S Tew’s “we’re going to boycott’ rant was idiotic. How he thought any response other than ‘we’ll do it without you’ was going to come fro the IRB is either naive or stupid. Now instead of reasonable dialogue we get this childish crap. Well played Mr Tew, well played….
October 5th 2011 @ 6:43pm
Thurl said | October 5th 2011 @ 6:43pm | Report comment
Mate, theres been reasonable dialogue for years, but nothing has changed. The best strategy in the world is to air your views when the most ears are listening.
October 5th 2011 @ 10:25am
Nick Cross said | October 5th 2011 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Er this title and the opening para are misleading, an example of MBU (media beat up) which isn’t helpful.
Kahui said that all major nations should be at the world cup.
Smith said that not attending the world cup would be inconceivable for NZers.
Mealamu said the same as Smith.
In other words the three NZers interviewed said that NZ should attend the next world cup. Not much to report there.
October 5th 2011 @ 10:31am
Ian said | October 5th 2011 @ 10:31am | Report comment
“You can’t have a World Cup without the All Blacks, without any of the top nations. They’ve all got to be there just to make it a legit World Cup,” wing Richard Kahui told reporters. Indeed, which means the 1987 World Cup was not legit, since the Boks were not present! Does that mean the All Blacks were not legit champions in 1987…
October 5th 2011 @ 11:09am
Tonto said | October 5th 2011 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Or Wallabies champions in 1991…….
October 5th 2011 @ 11:33am
mace22 said | October 5th 2011 @ 11:33am | Report comment
I agree with that statement Ian we had all the teams that were allowed to play at the first tournament so for all intent and purposes we were the champs. But deep down if we really think about it, it’s not legit because one of the strongest rugby teams was’nt there. But the name is still on the cup and in the history books and nothing will change that.
October 5th 2011 @ 3:54pm
2many1ndians said | October 5th 2011 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
The 2011 RWC is not legit because Tunisia and Uruguay aren’t there … yet.
October 5th 2011 @ 11:07am
Tonto said | October 5th 2011 @ 11:07am | Report comment
I recognize the issues Tew has raised but Man oh Man what a poor time to raise them. He’s obviously gone for maximum exposure but coudlnt it have waited till after the Final had been played when it is natural to go over the pros and cons of the tournament.
But then Miller from the IRB responds to it!!!! I don’t know who is the bigger fool – naturally if the head of world rugby say the All Blacks arn’t necessary for a World event there HAS to be backlash from that nation (imagine if another country was there).
So in short Tew, stupid comment and poor timing- hope he gets reprimanded for this. But Miller-pathetic, way to go reinforcing the negative press against the IRB (which is warranted). The NZ response is purely a natural one in support of our team.
October 5th 2011 @ 12:40pm
RedsNut said | October 5th 2011 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
The game is bigger than one team, dummy spitting again.
October 5th 2011 @ 12:42pm
peterlala said | October 5th 2011 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
This year’s Tri Nations was a farce due to the world cup. Only Australia entered competitive teams.
Australia consequently won the tournament. And they won the “game”, morally speaking. And they gave their Brisbane/Queensland fans the match they deserve, after they had flocked back to support the resurgent Reds.
Firstly, why should fans be short-changed as NZ and SA jockey for position through the Super 15 and the Tri Nations like yachts before the start of the Sydney-Hobart race?
Secondly, it is particularly questionable in this age not only of betting, but betting-scandals (not rugby, but the principles are the same).
If Australia win the cup, they fully deserve it for being fair-dinkum all year.
October 5th 2011 @ 1:15pm
RedsNut said | October 5th 2011 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
Well said peterlala
October 5th 2011 @ 1:41pm
Sam Taulelei said | October 5th 2011 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Peter
The problem now for SANZAR is squeezing the Four Nations tournament into a world cup year if the Super 15 is expected to expand to a Super 18 and an extended playoff series.
Even if they reduce the competition to single tests instead of a home and away series, unless they compress it to be played over three consecutive weekends, with two games per weekend, the risk of injury and the lack of time between the Four Nations and the World Cup will sway coaches to err on the side of caution and the bigger picture with selections.
If Australia win the cup it won’t be because they deserve it for being fair dinkum all year (lest we forget their B side against Samoa), they deserve it for beating two of the favourites along the way.
October 5th 2011 @ 7:54pm
Chuck said | October 5th 2011 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
All year like they were against Samoa Peter?
October 5th 2011 @ 1:12pm
Danny Boy said | October 5th 2011 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
While it’s debatable whether the Rugby World Cup would be able to survive without the All Blacks, one thing is for certain. World rugby would most definitely survive without Mike Miller.
October 5th 2011 @ 2:10pm
Mike said | October 5th 2011 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
its not in the least “debatable” – RWC will get on fine without the All Blacks (just as it would without Wallabies or Boks or England).
Even if NZ had a better record at World Cups (they are very good at RWC, but not world beaters), it wouldn’t make any difference. And no, that is not to put down the All Blacks – they are the greatest side in World Rugby at present, and have been so more often in the past than any other team. But the harsh fact is that RWC will survive without them.
October 5th 2011 @ 2:21pm
Danny Boy said | October 5th 2011 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
OK after a little research. Our little mate Michael has been at the IRB almost 10 years now (good work if you can get it).Apparently he sees himself as one of the main drivers of growth in the game over the last decade (has a few tickets on himself, amazing it ever existed without him). Former Head of Sports at Channel 4 UK and former Head of Sports programming at BBC. Also a member of European Broadcasting Union (may explain the favorable programming for the top nations). He also has a team of 66 working under him at the IRB (business must be good). I don’t know the man and he’s probably a nice guy, but how can he be impartial in his decision making. How is he able to say the RWC could go on without the AB’s or even us Wallabies when it was us that had to initiate this tournament because the IRB at the time, in their vast wisdom, told everyone it wouldn’t work. Get rid of the fat at the top I reckon and put in people who have not only the necessary qualification but also a genuine love for the game.
October 5th 2011 @ 2:26pm
Danny Boy said | October 5th 2011 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
RWC without the top teams, NO. RWC without the IRB, YES lol
October 5th 2011 @ 1:50pm
Johnno said | October 5th 2011 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
I do not like Mike Miller or the IRB at all, but reality is he is right. Rugby is expanding into a global sport like soccer. Rugby is becoming similar to basketball where new markets with quality teams are emerging all around the world.
And NZ only has a population of a bit over 4 million so long term if rugby becomes a true global sport over the next 25 years the loss of NZ TV ratings is not that big long term. A lot of pacific island talent in NZ, Fiji, Samoa,Tonga, but long term the world of rugby can survive without NZ and the other pacific island nations, sad as it is. The pacific islands nations got a unfair draw because fo there small populations, totally unfair.
And with nations like USA,Russia,Canada Georgia,RomaniJapan,Spain,portugal,brazil,argentina, and many others all getting better at rugby over the next 25 years that will equal higher tv ratings so the dependance on NZ for tv ratings and talent production line will be lower so long term if the IRB are still running rugby and coutnries like the USA and russia do not form a breakaway super league style group, the IRB long term over the next 25 will not need NZ that much in my opinion, and i am a fan who does not like the IRB just i think commercial realities based on the smallish NZ population size.
NZ is not as important to world rugby long term as it thinks it is.
October 5th 2011 @ 3:00pm
Danny Boy said | October 5th 2011 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
When I last saw, weren’t Australia, Japan, Wales, Canada and NZ coached by Kiwi’s. Not to mention ALL the pacific island teams coaches having been involved in the NZ rugby system in some form with the Tongan coach being a former AB. That’s almost half of the teams involved having some NZ influence, a not to insignificant number I would have thought. Many teams have NZ scrum coaches and defensive advisors. NZ has won every U20 WC’s, the last 4 Women’s WC’s, are the current World Series Sevens holders having already won the most ever. The AB’s have the highest winning percentage in rugby, won the first WC and NZ are the current hosts of the RWC. Mate I think you could be underselling NZ rugby, just a tad.
Now I’m sure the world of rugby would no doubt survive without the AB’s, just as the earth would no doubt survive without humans. But mate to say NZ is not important to rugby, I think that’s going a little bit to far. NZ rugby and its technical knowledge is THE most important thing for the development of rugby around the world.
October 5th 2011 @ 3:12pm
Mike said | October 5th 2011 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
Danny Boy,
What does all that have to do with NZ being necessary to the RWC?
Its all very impressive recitation of statistics, but none of it is actually a reason why NZ not being there would inhibit the 2015 cup going ahead. It would throw the final 8 a little bit more open, make the pool results a little less predictable (none of which would hurt the Cup in the least) and that’s about it.
Glorious past history has very little to do with current relevance. That includes, e.g. your point that Australia and New Zealand effectively got the Cup started – it doesn’t mean we are necessary to it continuing, any more than France’s involvement in starting the modern Olympic Games means that anyone would notice if France withdrew now.
Note also, Johnno did not write “NZ is not important to rugby”. Rather, he wrote “NZ is not as important to world rugby long term as it thinks it is”, which is a lot more nuanced (and in context was clearly directed at Mr Tew rather than NZ as a whole).
October 5th 2011 @ 3:44pm
Johnno said | October 5th 2011 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
Exactly Mike correct, it was directed to Mr Tew and the NZRUt. NZ are silll important to rugby for multiple reasons, namely the production line of talent they do and the current leaders in the field of the sport of rugby union.
Bu tin the next 25 to 30 year sof rugby development that will change. Emerging markets like USA and russia argentina,and canada and japan and france will buy some NZ coahing expertise and players to. But long term with there massive econmies and populations sizes, as they develop locally they will not need NZ as much, in fact i think it will be the reversal NZ will need them more for funding and also the opportunity of there NZ players to play in there leagues. I don’ t like the IRB at all for many reasons, but the samoan rugby union came down hard on there player who ha sheen protesting the injustice of the IRB which he is right about it, because th seaman rugby union like the the pacific island nations Fiji and tonga are highly dependant on the IRB spening money on rugby academies in there tiny countries. SO THE smaoan rugby union does not want to annoy the hand that feeds there talent production development.
And NZ only has 4 and a bit million people long term it will not be able to compete with USA and russia in sprts since spending, on the best coaches, and also the ITM cup will not be able to compete with the UEro leagues of france and one day russia and the USA in palyer wages. Already they can;t compete with France and england or the celtic leagues. Long term as rugby expand it will be even less likely so NZ better and i love NZ and pacific islands rugby, but unfortuanly they better accept where they stand on the food chain due to the small population sizes and economies in comparison to some of the merging rugby nations who are a lot larger.
October 5th 2011 @ 3:35pm
Johnno said | October 5th 2011 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
Danny boy i said long term, they are providing all this talent top other coutnries eg japan, and australia even(jade cooper), and coaching staff but i said long term NZ will not eb as important. When coutnries like usa,russia,ukraine,canada,brazil,argentina,germanyspainp,ritual, china and india even, all get better at rugby in the next 25 years rugby will not be as dependant on a population the size of 4.5 million people. The countries will develop there own coaches and talent pool of players as they have massive populations, and will not require NZ input. If anything maybe one day NZ rugby will turn into west indies cricket in 30 years, as they NZ are a smaller nation and simply wont be able to compete with coutnries like USA and russia in rugby spending and cutting edge sports science technology. i mean look at how far england cricket has come since they started to make cricket excellence a priority, spenidn masses on a new cricket centre of excellence at lords.
Also england’s olympic games expenditure on coach sis fa outweighing us Aussies, that in sports like cycling aussies have virtually given put o the england team and rowing to. They have bought some of our best coaches so money talks, and NZ simply do not have the money or propulsion size ot match USA and russia or ukraine or franc eor argentina or brazil for example. SO like i said danny boy over 25 to 30 years the IRB and world rugby will not be dependant on NZ as the leaders int he sport of rugby. Just look at tennis how far australia has dropped since coutnries like Russia and china boosted funding to tennis. SO yes long term rugby union can survive with out NZ.
And brazil in soccer is a far larger population market than NZ so the brazil soccer argument vs say NZ rugby is not valid as Brazil has massive epopulation.
But i fear NZ rugby could 1 day turn into west indies cricket as they don’t have the money to compete with the big merging nations like USA, and russia, and brazil and argentina, and france.
In russia now they ar eluting in a system where every high school in russia will have a 1st 15 rugby team. Long term over 20-30 years that will be incredible for a very large population size country like russia.
October 5th 2011 @ 4:09pm
mace22 said | October 5th 2011 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
you maybe right but by what you say why is new zealand still one of the most outstanding rugby countries. every tier one country at present out numbers nz in population and player registrations. So we shouldn’t be the favourites to win the rwc. What’s left out of your equation is the love of rugby in nz, and it is our national sport no other country apart from wales can say that. New zealand will always be strong in rugby maybe we wont be the best as it has been, but we will be up there. Thats twenty to fifty years away so we will enjoy it till then. I agree that the cup will survive with ou t the all blacks even in the short term but will it be the same. i don’t think so.
also the down fall of west indies cricket is down to the usa, because now in stead of younsters wanting to be clive lloyd they want to be shaq oniell or coby bryant.Saw it on a documentary once.
October 5th 2011 @ 4:29pm
Johnno said | October 5th 2011 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
Mace22 still currently but that will change in the next 25-30 years, life is as mike said about current and future relevance not the past. Just because Australia and NZ created the Rugby world cup does not mean long term it is a the most valuable teams.
And NZ like you said is a small nation and does unbelievably well for it’s size, a bit like Uruguay in soccer does amazingly well. But long term NZ will be good but not as storng in my opinion at least.
Unlike cricket rugby and soccer have a club system so the pacific islanders and NZ pacific island melenaisan and polynsian pacific island rugby players will still be highly valued commodities not he player market as they are naturally suited to contact sports.
Simply look at American football. An American Samoan who is exposed to gridiron has an amazingly higher statical chance of playing in the NFL than a white person, they have done all sorts of university and market research statistics on this subject about the NFL.
And as for caching now we are already seeing not just the player exodus but the high quality coaching exodus of NZ coaches leaving NZ for more money overseas. It’s as if if the high quality coach can not get the All black job all the top no2 ranks in the coutnry seem to leave and that is massive massive worry for NZ rugby, that trickles down to it’s SUper 15 and ITm teams.
In my opinion now in NZ , coaches actually coaching in NZ there is a massive drop in class between graham henry and the rest of coaches in NZ actually coaching there.
ALl the no 2 NZ coaches have left NZ.
DIngo Deans
John Kirwan
Kieren Crowley
John Plumtree
Warren Gatland
John Mitchell
And probably more that i don’t know of.
All those coaches could of made high quality contributions to NZ super 15 or ITM teams but have left NZ for more money and lucrative contracts either with national jobs or clubs jobs.
the likes of pat lam, Mark hammett, todd balckadder, jamie joseph are younger 3rd ring coaches not yet up with those 1st tier coaches and graham henry to. Look at the problems Mark hammett and the all black players had with him , yet when playing under graham henry they are untied and disciplined and focused, i think the coaching quality issues is one of those reasons.
So NZ globally long term is already losing top ranked coaches which does hurt the next level coming through at super 15 level no doubt about it.
So NZ simply no matter who hard it tries may not be able to do anything to stop coaches and players leaving to countries with bigger econimies and more money.
When USA russia and canada get better and set up pro leagues plus lucrative french league and Japan of course and australia to (we got dingo remember), and south africa(plumtree,mitchell), NZ rugby is in real danger of simply just becoming a production factory to europe and Asia, and America.
October 5th 2011 @ 2:35pm
Geoff Brisbane now California said | October 5th 2011 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
So what should NZRFU do then??? Roll over and bark?
October 5th 2011 @ 2:40pm
Mike said | October 5th 2011 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
No, if they feel strongly about a point and believe that right is on their side, then they should make their point by whatever means they feel is appropriate. But Tew’s threat to not attend RWC2015 was hollow. It will still go ahead, and the TV earnings won’t be affected. If he were able to get a couple of other nations to join in – now that might be a different matter!
October 5th 2011 @ 2:46pm
zhenry said | October 5th 2011 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
After observing Mr Tew over several years I think his CEO role for the NZRU is a disaster for NZ rugby. His comments re the above IRB, during the WC, are self serving in my opinion. How are they self serving? Tew wants to give the impression he is in charge and on top of things NZRU, that he is not the boot lackey of the ARU.
Tew is a PR devotee; his whole media release campaign over the years stinks of it.
The IRB had this issue well setup for discussion after the WC. It was O’Neill who made the fuss initially about missing test gates during WC year. Both these unions voted for a WC and the AU owned NZ media always make a fuss about how wonderful the WC is (in my opinion because of its statistical superiority NZ should play down WCs). Tew should be pushing for international gate sharing of all test rugby, that is what is hurting NZ the most, not O’Neill’s gripe. His attitude on that issue, so far has been defeatist. One thing is for sure O’Neill would not help him, Tew would actually have to do that on his lonesome, without ‘his mate’ O’Neill holding his hand. And there is a positive strategy he could follow. He would have to be persistent and state his case coherently and often, he needs a good advocate (which he is not); and it is the real issue for NZ where he can use the money power of the AB brand…Nah!
The IRB issue is much more than the test gates issue but that is the main target of the Tew media release. The media release makes it clear that it agrees with the ARU on the issue; when does Tew not agree with O’Neill on any issue? When does Tew not do anything but do what the ARU would want? When does Tew get criticism from the AU owned NZ media? Can’t remember a single occasion when that has happened.
So what conclusions can one draw from that?
Then there is the whole issue of Deans and Tew: The NZ public have never had that explained. Spiro comes closest and that was through a wall of diamographatite.
Of course I would like the ABs to win the WC but there is one corner of me that would like AU and Deans to win it. NZ will have a better chance of getting rid of Tew; at least dismiss him as NZRU CEO, absolutely vital for NZ rugby as far as I am concerned.
October 5th 2011 @ 2:52pm
Mike said | October 5th 2011 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Interesting point re O’Neill leaving Tew in the lurch. That wouldn’t surprise.