What did we learn from RWC2011?

 
Brett McKay Columnist

By , 1 Nov 2011 Brett McKay is a Roar Expert

Tagged:
 , , ,

123 Have your say

What did we learn from RWC2011? + enlarge image

Related coverage




I thought I was done: the Webb Ellis trophy had been deservedly handed over to our neighbours to the east, and the reviews and post-mortems were running themselves out.

Many good points were made on all number of topics, interspersed with some solid ranting and hand-wringing.

It was, surely, time for me to take a few weeks out to come down off this brilliant rugby fest and prepare to switch from the Gilbert to the Kookaburra. Another busy summer of cricket lies on the horizon.

Then the great Roarer popped up.

I learned in my early days on The Roar that ‘Sheek’ was an opinion worth reading. His knowledge and thoughts on rugby in Australia, particularly the history of it, are well known, and indeed, rarely wrong.

I can’t recall too many times where I’ve disagreed with his thoughts, and on the rare occasion I have, it wouldn’t have been a major detail.

So when he laid down a gauntlet for me last week, I felt it was worth delaying the break another week.

I won’t replicate his post completely, but I will address his points as listed.

“..who will or how to win the next world cup…”

The ‘who’ is going to be guesswork for the next 3½ years, maybe longer, so I’ll knock it out of the way quickly: New Zealand will start favourites. If any bookies have them listed at longer than 5-1 at the moment to go back-to-back, then I want a piece of it.

Wales will be up there. England can’t be discounted on account of playing at home, and Ireland and South Africa will probably both be on the up after rebuilding stages of varying degrees. Obviously, I’d hope Australia are in the mix too, and France will be as well, for the simple reason that they’re … well, French.

Argentina can’t be ruled out from the ‘bolters’ column, to which I’d add the emerging giant Samoa. Depending on to what degree rugby explodes domestically in the next four years, the USA might just be on the verge of a knockout berth too.

The ‘how’ is marginally less speculative. As was the case in 2007, and again in 2011, I suspect it will again be a case of running games that have worked in the years preceding will essentially be ignored during the tournament, as teams rein in their openness and muscle-up in the tight stuff.

Why? Well, because that’s what works in tournament rugby, particularly once we get into the knockout stages. New Zealand topped the try-scoring in this year’s tournament, but played little expansive rugby in their Semi and Final. They didn’t have to, with their pack dominating all comers.

Though Wales are showing signs of width, the Six Nations teams already play forwards-based rugby, so it might not even be a conscious decision for them. That’s not a criticism, either, it makes perfect sense.

France also showed us the value of doing whatever is required to get through the pool stage, and once in the knockout stage, just tough it out for as long as you can. It might have been ugly at times, but it was one point short of lifting the Webb Ellis trophy.

“Stuart Barnes suggested in an article recently that we retain 20 teams, but split them into two distinct divisions – a ‘top 8′ cup comp, & a ‘bottom 12′ plate comp. At least that was my understanding of his article.”

My understanding of Barnes’ suggestion is the same as Sheek’s, and evidently this was put forward as a proposal as part of England’s losing bid for RWC2007.

I’m on the record as having no interest in seeing the lower-ranked teams playing in a separate Plate tournament, particularly one played at a different time to the main Cup.

However, Barnes’ suggestion might have some merit, given the two are played in conjunction. Complaints about turnaround times would disappear under this idea, with the “leading nations [playing on] the weekend while midweek would host the 12 qualifying smaller nations in their own competitive league.”

Promotion and relegation games in between tournaments could well add to the battles, as teams strive for the top, and others look to avoid the drop. It could work, but I’d want to see more detail. It’s certainly worth exploring further.

“..how effectively can we accelerate the development of so-called 2nd tier nations? My early gut feeling is we must do more for the minnows in-between each world cup. Much more. Quality competition is the key.”

This I agree with completely. I understand that the Six and Four/Quad Nations are the big ticket items in their respective hemispheres and shouldn’t be rushing to add more teams.

In my mind, however, the opportunity for more Tests between the ‘tiers’ is the June and November windows.

Is there really any reason why New Zealand couldn’t play say, the USA, en route to Europe in November, or why Wales couldn’t play Japan on the way home in June? It doesn’t have to be two- or three-test series (though they’d be great), one-off matches would be just as effective.

The point in all this is the IRB has the funds to make this happen. They should be doing whatever is required to blur the line between the ‘tiers’. I’d even argue that the question is not whether they can afford to, but rather whether they can afford not to.

The IRB Nations Cup should probably be expanded. Maybe the States and Canada should be added to the Pacific Nations Cup. Maybe Australian and New Zealand Under-23 teams, too (South African and Argentinean ‘A’ teams play in the Nations Cup, as a precedent).

From a purely selfish perspective, imagine how much better prepared for Test rugby young Australian players would be after a season or two being belted by Samoans and Tongans.

“And is the world cup suffocating the life out of international rugby in the “in-between” years, just as the nay-sayers said it would back in pre-1987?”

Almost certainly. Don’t know what to do about that, though.

Cricket’s World Cup doesn’t quite cause the same issue in their game, as Test Matches still ‘outrank’ the 50 over format by which the World Cup is decided. FIFA’s World Cup renders all internationals other than World Cup qualifiers as ‘friendlies’, placing playing for your country somewhere near a charity or festival match.

Rugby is somewhat isolated in having meaningful Test matches played outside it’s four year cycle, but undoubtedly still placing all emphasis on the quadrennial event. All planning, budgeting and even contracting is now geared this way.

It’s probably not healthy, as is now obvious, but I don’t think I’d ever want to see the day where a Bledisloe decider is resigned to mere ‘friendly’ status.

No doubt, the IRB could do more to spread its RWC riches, but this four-year spotlight might be one by-product we need to get used to.

Happy off-season, Ruggers.

Follow Brett McKay on Twitter: @BMcSport
Wild Turkey - find out more
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.

Get a daily rugby union email

Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it.

We value privacy. More.