With rugby union being in a near cyclic rotation around the World Cup, it is imperative that it is added back to the Summer Olympic Games so that there are other focuses for international teams.
Rugby has become the single World Championship sport where significance on the title seems to increase year by year. This is almost to the point where any other level of championship, either international or domestic, seems to pale into significance.
In football or cricket, they stage World Cups. But the entire four years in between does not live and die for the World Championships.
The reigning football or cricket ‘World Champion’ does not fall back on the empty phrase of “well, we are the World Champions,” if a nation loses or is in a slump.
In football, the level of involvement at domestic or continental level is of major significance, with European championships and the winning of league titles on a par with a world title.
In cricket, the World Cup is played over the One day international format. The World Champion cricket team is not necessarily the best team. Most cricket purists will put a Test series, such as the prestigious Ashes, far beyond such a cup.
But rugby is afforded no such luxury.
New Zealand, the world’s premier rugby playing nation, is exactly that if the concept of World Cups is removed. They have a winning percentage over history far beyond any other team.
The major competitions between two of New Zealand’s great rivals, South Africa and Australia, is measured by the Super 14 and the Tri-Nations. The All Blacks have won eight Tri Nations championships compared to a double to the Wallabies and Springboks.
New Zealand has won nine Super rugby titles, Australia has won two and South Africa one.
But this truly magnificent rugby team is judged by many to be inferior to their two rivals whom they are dominant over in every way. Point in fact is that the All Blacks have one World Cup, while Australia and South Africa has two.
There were a number of occasions where I had conversations with English regarding their poor form between 2003 and 2007. “Oh,” they said, “at least we’re World Champions.”
This is why it is imperative that rugby is added back to the Olympics to allow another elite competition for global supremacy.
The code has been in the Olympics before, debuting in the 1900 Olympic Games.
Three National Olympic Committees entered in that Championship – France, Germany and Britain. The latter two were represented by clubs – Frankfurt and the Moseley Wanderers.
There is speculation and conjecture about the organisation of the games, with British reporting said to acknowledge the game between a full strength French team and the Moseley team, but there was no statement that it was part of the Olympic Games.
France won the inaugural Rugby Gold Medal.
The code was not present in the 1904 games in St Louis, nor in the 1906 Intercalculated games in Athens.
In the London games, they were included due to the heritage of rugby, and again three teams competed.
This was France, Australasia (called the Wallabies!), and a British team, represented by Cornwall – who were chosen because they were county champions.
Australasia smashed the Cornwall team to claim the Gold.
The last appearances of rugby were in 1920 in Antwerp, and again in Paris at the 1924 games. The Antwerp games saw only two teams enter, America and France. The bulk of the American team was from Stanford University and won the Gold Medal with only one game played to decide the winner.
In Paris, the Americans again won, with only Romania and France being the teams to compete against them.
Numerous attempts have been made to re-introduce the sport to the IOC and the Games. The success of Sevens at the Commonwealth games was a strong indication of their possible inclusion, but after a vote was held for new sports to be included in the 2012 games, rugby sevens lost out to squash and karate.
For heaven’s sake!
Rugby must re-enter the Games. It is the ultimate art of war in regards to a team sport, and with it already having appropriate history, its inclusion is not far-fetched.
Hopefully, that way, it can detract from the near all-consuming focus on the William Webb Ellis Cup.
Blue Sue
Guest
Cricket and rugby are both "pushing their own barrows at the moment" trying to talk their way into Olympic Competition. It has been stated by the IOC, on numerous occasions over past years, that the Summer Olympic Games are becoming so large that the costs involved for host cities are reaching a point of absurdity. It is not in their plan anywhere to add any more team sports to the program. For either cricket or rugby the size of each of the individual teams, you would think, would be a negative from the start. Most sports, and note I said most, have both a mens and womens competition, so does that mean rugby or cricket will too? Womens softball has just been dropped, again another team sport, and one would think in London in 2012 it will be replaced by an individual and not a team sport.
Boris Buggeroff
Guest
Let's be done with it! How about we simply allow the IRB to run the Olympics. Every RU nut already thinks their sport is superior to every other sport on the planet. It will restore the natural order of things. The AFL lot think the same thing about their game, but they don't have local agents in each English speaking country.
Lazza
Guest
There are 204 IOC members who decide which sports are included. How many are traditional Rugby nations who would be willing to vote to include Rugby?
onside
Guest
Fair enough Sheek,I know what you are saying.Still and all ,rugby is more complicated than most ball sports There is nothing wrong with that. However , a scrum can be a thing of physical beauty to the knowlegeable but an unattractive mystery to the uninitiated. Even some our finest rugby league athletes who switch to union take a while to figure the game out. And the refs mate,the bloody refs,the many different intepretations is the games Achiles heal.Ok then, put rugby in the Olympics and if a couple of sports need to be axed, get rid of synchronised swimming ,and that girls caper on gym mats with balls , ribbons and hoops.
sheek
Guest
Onside, There's nothing complicated about rugby. It's the generations of fools who play the game who complicate it. Rugby was a beautifully simple game to play when the Ellas, O'Connor & Campese were in their pomp. And what's complicated about Crusaders rugby? Be physical, win the ball, attack the less defended areas, back up, back up , back up, defend aggressively, score lots of tries, & win lots of games. Because rugby began as a preserve of Britain's upper class twits, they were fond of implementing numerous 'laws'. It's merely an extension of style over substance, which these twits are so fond of. Here's a proposition. Most of the rugby types who have traditionally played rugby also come from the ruling classes of society. Generally the same ones who try to pretend there's two classes of people. These are the same ones who stuff the world around. And they're inclined to repeat the dose with rugby. Oh hell, don't take me THAT seriously, just having some fun!!!
sheek
Guest
James, Admirable proposition, but impractical, I think. Especially 15s. Maybe 7s, but not 15s. And who the hell do we rugby types think we are, suggesting rugby "MUST" be in the Olympics. As if most of the rest of the world cares! And as Boris explains, Great Britain competes in the Olympics, not as individual England, Wales & Scotland. And what do the Irish do? A third play for GB, & the other two thirds for Republic of Ireland? And I still have enormous respect for NZ rugby. The reality is that world rugby got stronger around the time the world cup started. The ABs have often been beaten by better teams on the day, which happens in this style of comp. But generally, you won't beat them in a best of 3.
James Mortimer
Roar Guru
In response to a short turnaround, why not have the top 4 or top 6 teams in the world compete. Maybe the top two six nations and top two tri nations. Have a good proper comp with no minnows, just round robin games where there is no hiding or avoiding the other best teams in the world.
Norm
Guest
"and the cricket 20/20 to the Olympics, and AFL ‘9s.." haha Michael C's at it again... AFL 9s for the Olympics. And after that International Rules I suppose?
Joe FC
Guest
It was once said about former US President Bill Clinton that his popularity was a mile wide but only an inch deep. This I think is the problem for rugby 7s. The IRB claims that rugby is played in over 100 countries yet since 1990 the 19 finals of the Hong Kong rugby 7s tournament have been won by just four nations Fiji 7, NZ 6, England 4 & Samoa 2. One of the problems for baseball & softball was the perceived dominance of Cuba & USA respectively. Potential olympic sports need to demonstrate deep quality as well as broad quantity.
Boris Buggeroff
Guest
This is a ridiculous proposition. For a start, all the RU Home Nations will have to combine into a Great Britain team to compete at the Olympics! DER!!! There goes England, Wales, Ireland & Scotland!! The "world" of RU is then cut down in half before you even start! What a joke.
onside
Guest
Rugby is far too complicated a game for the Olympics International Rugby is in a tizz because it cant decide wether or no it needs to rejig the rules Regardless ,either way the result is moot , because all rugby matches depend on the whim of a referee. Its as easy to have a belter of a match under the 'old' rules as it is to have a stop start dud game under the 'new' rules,all because there is no uniform international approach by refererees. As if this wasnt bad enough,Rugby is inherently complicated and physically convoluted.In fact its exactly those traits that attract the true believers, because the game is exclusive. Its not possible to appreciate rugbys nuances if a person has neither played nor been brought up on the code. Olympic team sports like football,basketball,volleyball,hockey, and handball are all very simple.People can watch and enjoy the games even if they know little of the rules. Rugby is the antithesis of simplicity.and lacks spontaneity. Spectators have little idea of decisions until certain referee signals are passed to the crowd. Rugby is called the 'running' game, but in truth it is the 'stopping; game.A recent Bledisloe match in NZ had twenty five to thirty stoppages in the first half of the game. Imagine a key game where there is a push over try to win an Olympic medal .The ref 'goes upstairs' and the crowd waits, and it waits, and it waits, for the decision...............Thats not an Olympic sport
Dave
Guest
MC Yes but when one sided games are the norm it is no fun to watch particularly if we are supposed to be watching the elite of a sport. If Rugby 7s gets up then surely Cricket 20/20 should, as well as Futsal and AFL 9s!!!
Midfielder
Guest
James Having played a lot of league and some rugby ...... I doubt there would be recovery time in a two week time slot to play. Football has 16 teams in four groups of four, reducing to eight by the top two in each group going tho, from eight to four then two. Meaning the two teams that play in the final have played 3 round robyn games and 2 knock out games, plus the final thats 6 games in two weeks, no way rugby players can play this number of games in two weeks the props would die, wingers may last the distance.
Michael C
Guest
and the cricket 20/20 to the Olympics, and AFL '9s and any other pretend abbreviation of a real sport.........but......perhaps that's the way of the future, - abbreviated sport. btw - Dave - - the thing about 100 pt margins is that it makes the close results all the more 'special'........because, any team on a bad day risks being clobbered - - even AFL this season we saw Geelong only lose 1 H&A game.......and what was the margin? 84 pts. Kinda makes those close results that bit more unexpected and more highly regarded...........it's only the risk of falling that makes the tightrope interesting, the greater the potential drop, the greater the 'interest'.
Dave
Guest
TT Correct and so you see my point re Rugby/Rugby 7s. Futsal wont get in neither should Rugby / 7s until there is an even spread of competition around the world.
True Tah
Guest
TT would that be the same futsal world cup where the Solomon Islands conceded almost 20 goals in a game?
Dave
Guest
TT I did say largely a yawn as even you would have to admit watching 70-100pts amassed against minnows aint much to look at, particularly at the WC where all the BEST teams are supposed to be playing. There was a handful out of 20-30 games worth it. At the Olympics Rugby, Cricket...might as well be the Commonwealth Games. As said previously by someone else see how Rugby goes at The Comm games for 3-4 in a row to see if it can sustain interest. Then perhaps take a look. I notice Rugby heads are talking 7s. Well it they want to bring in mini versions of sports l would be all for Futsal, which also has a WC recently held in Brazil.
True Tah
Guest
Dave, Im sure the Georgian team would agree with your statement that the front round of matches was too boring, with them scoring their first win at a World Cup and nearly knocking off the Irish. Im sure the Tongans would agree with you as well, winning two games and nearly knocking off the South Africans. I thoroughly enjoyed watching both those games. It would have to be Sevens, as the physical demands of playing a decent comp in two weeks would not allow for players to be at their best. Why would futbol need to be booted from the Olympics for rugby?
Dave
Guest
Union shouldn't be in the Olympics unless football was booted and football is too valuable to the IOC to get the boot. vdM The Union WC is about 3 weeks too long. The first rounds of matches are largely a yawn for those who have an occassional interest, where teams get beaten by 50-100 points.
van der Merwe
Guest
Ja, The Olympics is a two week thing. The quest for the Rugby World Cup is an epic six week campaign. Besides, we don't need the atmosphere of drugs and cheats around to tarnish the game they play in heaven.