2007 sees two World Cups, Cricket and Rugby. Both were supposed to be foregone conclusions with the spoils set to go to the antipodean alliance of Australia and New Zealand respectively.
With critics already wading ankle deep into the disaster that has been the organisation of the Cricket world cup, how do the two competitions compare and can rugby learn from cricket’s mistakes before its too late?
If nothing else the Cricket World Cup has been a fair reflection of the game – fans have had to endure long tedious hours in the outfield watching the ebb and flow of only slightly more meaningful one day internationals than the countless others that have been delivered this year. As the tournament has progressed the only real excitement has been that on the faces of the lucky minnows who have wrestled with and beaten titans of the game.
The introduction of the Super 8 stage in the middle order has failed to really lift the excitement run rate and if this competition is going to come up trumps the tail end will have to really wag with two thrilling semis and a belter of a final to keep the punters interested.
No matter how thrilling the finals, this World Cup will be remembered for two things; Bob Woolmer’s tragic death and the deliberate sterilisation of what should have been a Caribbean festival. West Indian cricketing greats talk of a ‘take over’ by the ICC of their world cup and the competition has noticeably suffered a lack of heart and soul.
The tournament has not, however, suffered from a lack of cricket. If, as popular and sensible opinion holds, Australia do go on to win this World Cup they will need to have played no fewer than 8 matches against the world’s top 8 ranked teams. Against teams good enough to advance to the Super 8 stage they will have played 10 games. 1 in the pools, 7 in the Super 8 and 1 each in the semi final and final.
Not to be outdone, dark horses Sri Lanka will have to play 12 matches against the world’s top 8 ranked teams based on their pool grouping with the Bangladeshis and the disappointing Indians.
With so many challenges between the world’s top teams, there can be no doubt that whoever wins this world cup (read Australia) will have well and truly deserved the title World Champions.
How does this compare to the rugby world cup?
With no disrespect to the West Indian cricket authorities, it would be very hard to see the French handing control of anything over to anybody. A World Cup staged in France is a French World Cup. D’accord? Good or bad, the French will put on whatever type of tournament they like but if nothing else it will definitely maintain a French flavour so no worries there.
Back on the pitch and if history has anything to do with it, the mountain ahead of the minnows will again prove to be one peak too high although notable exceptions Samoa have shown what can be done with little more than a month’s training and a chestfull of pride. Other upsets have occasionally threatened and Wales came oh so close to taking out England and New Zealand in consecutive weekends in 2003.
The real question is, will the eventual winner of the Rugby World Cup (read New Zealand) really deserve the title of World Champion? To many this title is merely a formality given the All Black’s wonderful displays in both hemispheres last year and the year before. Much like the Australian cricket team, the All Black’s seem to be playing on a different level to the rest of the world and are easily the bookies favourites despite their World Cup jinx.
Dan Carter and co have destroyed the 2005 British Lions, dominated the Tri-Nations and have even picked up a Grand Slam since John Mitchell’s ill-fated world cup tilt in 2003. A long awaited second world cup seems inevitable for the All Blacks but how many of the world’s top teams will they have to beat on the way to regaining the William Webb-Ellis trophy?
The pool stages offer only Scotland and Italy as speed bumps. Italy has a magnificent forward pack and do not deserve to be passed over with such disdain but this is New Zealand we’re talking about. Italy will beat Scotland in their pool match and take their rightful place in the quarter finals where they will face and compete with either France or Ireland.
The other of these two teams lie ahead for New Zealand in the quarter final. From here on don’t expect any surprises. On form they’ll see Australia or England in the semi and France or South Africa in the big one.
All up New Zealand can expect to play 4 top 9 nations if they are to make it to the final. They will face 3 of the world’s top 5 ranked nations; most likely to be second ranked France, third ranked Australia, fourth ranked Ireland, or fifth ranked South Africa.
If New Zealand win the World Cup they will have definitely deserved the title of World Champions and whatever other accolades are thrown on them. Whilst not as prolonged a campaign as that which faces the Australian cricketers, a New Zealand world cup victory would require them to see off three of the best the world can offer and will have finally delivered on their promise of pre-cup form.
Around the world, international rugby’s warriors will be raising their heads to this challenge and delivering their answer of Trojan defiance;
“If”.
Roger
Guest
Calling the contest , The Cricket World Cup is a bit misleading. The contest is for the ONE DAY cricket format.Its The One Day Cricket World Cup,not to be confused with the20/20 World Cup or for that matter ,for those that remember the original model.TEST cricket. The Cricket World Cup is to cricket , what The Sevens World Cup is to Rugby
sheek
Guest
Both sports suffer from a lack of genuine international depth. Cricket has only 10 test playing nations, but 8 of these are genuinely competitive, most of the time. Rugby has more nations playing the game, but in recent times, only 5-6 are ever genuinely competitive. Weelllll.....maybe we could say about 10 nations at a stretch. I think Rugby has its World Cup format right at the moment. Four pools x 5 teams, with quarters, semis & a final. The four semi-finalists will play a total of 7 matches; losing quarter-finalists 5 matches, & remaining pool teams 4 matches. You don't want the finalists playing any more than 7 matches. TV match-wise, this works out to 48 games in the tournament. This format is fine as long as the IRB makes an attempt to develop the game in 2nd & 3rd tier countries. Otherwise, they can stop pretending they care about developing the game, & reduce the RWC to 16 teams, in which case, teams would play 3-6 matches each, depending on how far they progress. With respect to Cricket, the ICC must stand up to the bookies & gamblers of Asia, & TV moguls, & insist the Cricket World Cup is reduced to 12 teams in two pools of 6 teams. You could argue/negotiate quarter-finals, although semis & a final are obligatory. The two finalist would then a total of 7 matches (8 including a quarter); losing semi-finalists 6 matches (7 including a quarter), & pool teams 5 matches (6 for losing quarter-finalists). This seems a much better structure. TV match-wise, this works out to 33 games in the tournamnet (37 if you include quarter-finals). But of course, sport is no longer about the sport. Or at least, it appears that way!
spiro
Guest
Garth Hamilton has put his finger on the strengths and weaknesses of the Cricket World Cup format and Rugby World Cup format. The problem with the Cricket World Cup is that television money in India (read bookmaker interests) want as many games as possible in the tournament to entice as many Indian viewers as possible (read gamblers) into making bets. One figure that is bandied about is that up to $400 million is gambled on every aspect of a major ODI cricket match every time one is played. The Cricket World Cup is a bookmakers heaven and a gamblers hell, particularly if any of the senior players in teams that generate most of the gambling (read Pakistan and India) are in on the action. The format of the Cricket World Cup, with its seemingly endless series of matches and difficult travelling, allows for minnows like ireland (a team that would be beaten probably by a first grade Sydney club side) to make the finals. The Rugby World Cup format involves far fewer matches for each team, a factor that makes it difficult for a minnow side to make the finals. But this has been done with Manu Samoa getting through in 1991. In the end, though, the best teams in both tournaments make the finals. But the best team in the tournament does not neccesarily win the tournament. The knock-out finals in both tournaments bring about an on-the-day syndrome. This is written before the Australia-South Africa semi-final. It would be astonishing if South Africa can defeat the Australians who have been in imperious form throughout the tournament. But it would be a game person who would write off the Sri Lankans in a one-off final against any team, including Australia which has already thrashed an under-strength Sri Lankan side this tournament. As for the Rugby World Cup, Phil Kearns has memorably said that "if they play the World Cup for 1000 years, the All Blacks will still be favourites to win it." The All Blacks are the only side that has made the semi-finals of the Rugby World Cup in every tournament. But after winning the first World Cup in 1987, they have lost out in every subsequent tournament. The Wallabies, in fact, have the best World Cup record, winning two tournaments and losing a final in extra time.
Monty
Guest
The ABs have an easier pool than you make out, Garth. They'll crush Scotland by 30 points using many of their A-team players, and they'll beat Italy without trouble. While I agree Italy has a fine pack - with an excellent No. 8, Parisse - the Italians, nevertheless, gave up an average of 29 points in their five games in the Six Nations, so their defense is porous and won't be able to stop the ABs from crossing for numerous tries. If there's an England/Wallabies game at the RWC the standard will be poor. The Wallabies' less than terrific pack will struggle against England's less than terrific pack, and Australia's talented but can't-put-it-together backs will barely edge England's will-they-ever-get -it-right backs. Ireland/France would normally be a pick 'em, but France beat Ireland in Ireland by 3 points, so they have to be favored on home territory. At this stage, nobody knows whether or not SA's great Super 14 run will translate into a great national team. Throw the Pumas into the mix and the quarters and semis swirl with uncertainty. But not the final. This is the ABs' year mainly because no other team has prepared as well, or has so many talented players to call on.