Rugby World Cup: who really wins?

It's all a bit of a joke really. Reality versus marketed reality and typical smoke and mirrors of this era (approx. 1/3 century going back to mid 70's) of rugby union. I go back to 1974 (LIONS) and 1981 (SA v NZ) and add proper perspective by including world history. A proper evaluation of 1974 and 1981 show that South Africa dominated international rugby union in those years. Within this broader picture, the Boks were downed and New Zealand put their foot on the global marketing pedal (in the absence of SA). The way 1974 and 1981 played out (and are recorded) is a lesson in just how society can be engineered. No doubt, New Zealand have become the McDonalds of rugby union (with the benefit of a host of sleek marketing gimmicks) but the crown of the GREATEST in terms of concept of William Webb Ellis (the founder of rugby union) since 1823 goes to South Africa. If William Webb Ellis was alive, he'd support South African rugby union 'who with a healthy disregard for the rules' have built an inclusive empire sui generis of rugby union on the African continent through incredible times including 9 wars, a revolution and uncountable cycles of natural devastation. Without equal - the aficionado's choice - South Africa

I am an ardent A/B supporter. Winning the W/C would be nice but not all inclusive. Lets be honest. On the day any of the big five A/B Wallabies Springboks Tricolors or England can beat one another. So what happens on THAT day counts. Another "flaw" in the format is that a team can win the WC without playing any of the other big names. South Africa won the 2007 WC without playing the AB WALLABIES or TRI COLORS . What gives me greater pleasure is beating the SHOZALOZAS in a TRI NATIONS competition like in 2010. What makes it priceless is when my team trails by 10 points and NONU shrugs of the tackle of Fatty Boy Smit and DAGG finishes the damage. In their backyard SOWETO. The AB can lose the WC if only they beat the SHOZS 8 or 9 times in between I am as happy as a pig in mud. GO THE MIGHTY ALL BLACKS

This is the best comment here. You've got to realise that there is a decent chunk of luck involved in who wins games of international sport. The quality of the team improves chances of winning, but there are no guarantees. When you've got to win a series of games in succession, you have a chance of losing each one. Take the ABs. Longterm winning proportion v all top tier nations is about 70% (0.70). For simplicity, say this is their probability of winning the knockout stages of the WC. You need to win QF, then SF then F. Probability of winning three in a row is 0.7 x 0.7 x 0.7 = 0.34. So you'd expect the ABs to win three in a row against top tier nations about 30% of the time, on longterm averages. But luck is what makes sport interesting - if the best team always wins then why bother watching?

Just some Registered player numbers for some of the countries you mentioned WCR. Lativa = 660 LITHUANIA = 1650 MOLDOVA = 2500

I think Chris was watching to many one sided rugby league world cup finals.

Rugbyfuture. Belgium is another with a significant amount of potential. They are seeing some very healthy growth particular in their youth ranks and have fielded very competitive U18's squads over the past 5 or so years. The biggest issue their is whether their internal League strucutures could be developed into something more significant. If not being clustered with say the Netherlands could be beneficial. The Netherlands have taken it upon themselves to develop their own programs and Academies and deserve more attention due to this. I suspect not much will change with the split of the Arabian Gulf Rugby Union except perhaps a new A5N's regional tournament next season being established to accomodate the 'new' Unions. Apart from that I'd imagine their current cross-border domestic set ups will continue as is. Difficult region to judge to be honest, very ex-pat driven though efforts are underway to draw more local support and participation. Finally, Mexico. Actually make that the Americas. At the moment the IRB are focusing on 4 main Unions. They are the USA, Canada, Argentina and Brazil. Strategically these are the most important on the two continents and the IRB is correct in attempting to steer them in the right direction. Argentina is practically there, with the Pumas entering the 4N's the IRB's job will be a done deal in Argentina. The onus will then need to fall on SANZAR to force the Argentine Rugby Union to begin to develop proper professionalism in order to add the SANZAAR alliance and SR. Amongst a segment of the American Rugby community the USAR at its executive have come under much critism but with recent developments the game should begin to really move forward. Rookie Rugby is a good start and reached over 100,000 kids last season. Momentum has been created and now must be built upon. RugbyMag.com have recently been conducting a club census. so far they are up to the 18th of the 35 Territorial or State Based Unions in the States. Apart from Michigan which showed a minor fall in clubs (-2) the current figures provide a solid indication of the overall growth of the gamne particularly in the South and Georgia Union. Overall it looks as if something along the lines of 35-40% growth since it was last conducted in 2004. With the CPL starting in the first weekend of March next year Rugby is building the structures to progress further in the short to medium term. Canada is a bit of a worry at the moment. The game does reasonably well at the High School and Collegiate levels but not great. Its the juniors that are the worry. Overall participation has stagnated but in the youth ranks its actually gone backwards. Needs to change. Real worry but not a lost cause by any means.

i'm just pointing out the nations which are strategically requiredfor expansion, getting the SIR and Bundesliga going properly and getting that sphere of influence going throughout europe, eventually making those two nations top tier, would bring the whole of western europe in line and repair damage from the wars that rugby had, and once you have the whole of western europe, that goes to all the mini nations between them such as belgium and leichtenstein, then goes across to greece and the baltics etc. I look at mexico in particular because it is the missing piece in that north american division, avoiding the whole of the americas, we can see that if we get mexico involved at the same place of development as the USA nad canada those three can move forward together, with the spanish mexicans having an influence from mexico in the US and vice versa, as well as the white americans having an influence on canada. it really could become a great international fixture, and one of the only ones, to have the american tri nations eventually. i think Brazil is a given and is already repidly developing anyway. it is also so closely linked to the other south american nations that they could eventually sustain themselves. It will be interesting to see what happens in th ARFU area considering the imminent split of the AGRU, especially considering the leagueys boasting of league tearing it up there, what will happen with independent Arab rugby unions? The locations i chose for development are mostly backed by their countries plans to be first world nations in the coming future, and engraining rugby within that culture before it becomes stable, the other thing which could happen is that rugby is seen as one of the many factors contributing to this and therefore adopted by other nations making their way out of poverty and desperation. Basically this is the same theory as europe, where as long as you get the most highly developed countries, you have them all.

Rugbyfuture Call me a dreamer but there are a few potential Nations and Leagues out there that the IRB should be really looking to develop. I have already mentioned the PRL, Black Sea Cup and the Pacific Rugby Championship but these are only a few. Additionally, the German Rugby Bundesliga and SIR in Europe are good solid structures to build from. Germany has been growing at around 8% per annum recently and will soon begin to see a highly quality player emerge in the Bundesliga thanks to the work done by the WILD Rugby Academy and its 4 High Performance Units based in Heidelberg, Hannover, Frankfurt and Berlin catering for 50 player's each year. Working with the DRV to grow the game into all German states would assist the Bundesliga greatly. The SIR finished its inaugural season in 09 with 5,300 spectators watching the Madrid Gatos take the title.Not bad for a minority sport. Plus, its intial TV share on Canal+ grew from 1.8 to 8.5 over its 10 weeks. The FER and SIR have recently overcome their differences and have organised a unified schedule. Under the agreement the second edition will not occur this season ( not great as it loses a lot of momentum) but will re-commence next March. Further, it has been agreed that the Championship will form the Highest Tier of Spanish Rugby eventually evolving to a 12 League with a subsequent 10 team League below known as the Gold 10. I agree that Mexico should be a target in the Americas. However, until the IRB can 1) Ensure the USAR is a fully funded, self-sufficient Union and 2) Get Canada back on track. Most particularly in their youth development. Mexico will need to be on the back burner somewhat. If one of those objectives are achieved then the resourced used should be immediately re-directed toward Mexico who have actually posted some impressive result in NACRA tournaments. For the moment though, the IRB would be remise not to invest in Brazil as Rio will host Rugby's re-introduction to the Olympics. Interestingly enough Brazil has had a National League ( Super 8 soon to be Super 10) for a number of seasons. The Asian 5 Nations has seen some good returns in its short existence. More Nations have become involved in the last three season through regional tournaments. Watch out ofr Iran. The Georgia of Asia maybe. as for Africa. That's a hard one. I know the IRB are heavily backing Kenya. I think its a pick and choose situation. I agree with who you identified. Would also look at the likes of Rwanda and Nigeria.

The Bush From what I understand their are efforts toward establishing teams in both St Petersburg and Kazan ( both have two development squads/clubs which is actually remarkably well executed). The Kazak team isn't confirmed and may in fact not occur. Considering there are a number of Kazak player's in the PRL they could be reasonably competitive. From what I have read the PRL are looking to eventually expand its membership to 16 teams in the short to medium term. Not too sure re: Latvia but there is also a small number of Lithuanian and Moldolvan nationals plying their trade in Russia. Small steps.

rugby needs to target, specifically in europe, russia, germany and spain, specifically in the americas, development of mexican rugby to the same level as canada and the USA, moving those three as equals, up from there, specificallyi nasia, korea, hong kong, china, japan and kazhakstan, specifically in africa, kenya, uganda, zimbabwe, botswana, tunisia

Working Class Rugger, Yes the Moldovans are interesting. It is a poor country and would need substantial help to be truly involved in anything, however the potential is there. Both their connection and history with Romania, and the number of players they have playing abroad professional in Russia and their locality make them a prime target to be brought into the fold by either the BSC or the PRL. I'm a strong believer that these small countries like Georgia and Moldova, who will never achieve at an international level in major sports like Football, Basketball, or for Europeans, Handball, could be attacted to rugby because it can offer them a chance to get onto the world stage (and rather soon too). These Eastern European countries also have strong backgrounds in sports like weightlifting and wrestling and are thus made for the argy-bargy that rugby union requires (in the forwards anyway). I've heard of Lithuania, Latvia and Kazakhstan being invited to the PRL. To be honest I believe there are enough club/regions within Russia-proper that should be focused on first (think Kazan, Rostov-on-Don and Saint Petersberg). These small (rugby playing) nations like Latvia, Lithuania and Kazakhstan should be looking to get as many players playing professionally as possible so that their national teams can advance. An advance by the Test side has the best flow on effects for domestic leagues etc.

The Bush Well, according to the Head Coach of the WILD Rugby Academy (Germany)they will be entering a team in the ERC come 2011. The WILD Titans. Furthermore, he also mentioned a Russian team. Didn't specify who but did mention them. Hopefully, the first small steps toward inclusion in Europe.

The Bush The Russians were intially meant to compete in the IRB's Eastern Europe Super 8 concept. The split was 4 Russian and a split between Georgia, Romania and Ukraine. It fell through as the Russian were unwilling to commit and from what I understand the other's weren't keen on 4 Russian sides either. To be honest with the PRL I didn't actually think Russia needed this competition and I was quite happy to see it fall through. The Black Sea Cup is actually the three Unions alternative to that. It appears to be a good one at that. As above the IRB should look to assist all three Union moving to a 12 team Championship. Interesting you mention a Super Rugby concept in involving the Moldovans. I mentioned the possible Kazak inclusions to the PRL. There were also further whisper's of the Russian RU inviting the Moldovan and Lithuanians to the League. Neither elected to do so. Though it would be good to see some involvement in either the BSC or PRL in the future.

Working Class Rugger, Yes I'm aware of the Black Sea Cup. It was unfortunate that a number of clubs had to pull out. Initially it was planned that Russian clubs would compete, however this didn't take place. It is a solid concept but unlikely to truly provide the level of regular competition and money needed to progress the sport. More beneficial would be a 'Super Rugby' concept involving Romania, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova. The initial concept would be region based I would assume. However right now, and for the forseeable future the money isn't there. Re Russia. Yes Russia is progressing very well and should be supported. But isntead of being supported they continue to be locked out of European Club competitions on the ridiculous basis that the Western European Clubs won't risk the chance of having to go to Siberia if one of the Krasnoyar clubs win and won't allow VVA to enter each year regardless. Possibly a compromise would be that the matches would have to be held in Moscow irrelevant of who one. Time will tell but it is a disgrace that Spainish clubs continue to be invited who offer nothing, yet VVA or Yenisey-STM might actually win a game or two in the not to distant future (and are fully professional). Re the Pacific. The Pacific Rugby Championship is a fantastic idea and I agree that it should be expanded as you suggest. In a more perfect world they would have a Super Team and then they'd really be playing with the big boys. A recent thought I've had is that the Asian Five Nations could function on the same weekend as the Euro Six nations and then the Pacific Islands players would be completely availbale from both Europe and Japan and then the Islands could enter the Asian Five nations, increasing its level and freeing up their calanders in June. Finally Japan. Yes a lot of work needs to happen before the 2019 World Cup can be successfuyl. Unforetunately until Rugby gets on free to air television, and Japan starts getting major nations playing tests in the country it is hard to see the profile growing at anything more than a slow pace. Perhaps Italy or Argentina would have been better places (in a more perfect world).

Actually I didn't say we should 'prop up' another country and then 'abandon' them if another team the next cycle if they dont' perform as good as others. I was using the 2011 World Cup simply as a litmus test to pick particular targets. There was no mention of 'abandoning' and then chosing someone at the next world cup. Please point to this comment. I said that they could use the next world cup to pick a particular target and then focus on them. Secondly I'm not saying artificially create a professional league without the ability to sustain themselves in anyway without aid. I'm suggesting that we focus on only a limited number of countries and help them grow at a real pace with real assistance. Many countries around the world have the passion, they simply dont have the resources. You point to my mentioning of Georgia and their 4,000k playing population. What you don't talk about is the large attendances they have for internationals involving their team and also the relative popularity of the sport. What is lacking is access to proper facility and European competition. Would you agree that this would help many developing rugby nations if they had beter access to more competition against top test teams? I suspect you didn't read the comment fully, or chose only to comment on sections outside of context. At no point did I actually indicate a true preference for where we should actually spend the money, though I used Georgia frequently as an example and contend that it would certainly be one of the more logical places. Again you didn't read the article properly. I didn't say Japan didn't get attention from theh IRB. In fact they probably get too much considering that they have infinate resources compared to most and yet still don't seem to be progressing. Maybe they are in fact a waste of resources? Additionally, if you followed the politics of the IRB you'd know that Japan missed out on the 2011 World Cup, which would have put forward the growth in Japan a lot more (assuming there will be growth from a World Cup). Instead we are having a World Cup in a country that is already rugby obsessed and probably not even large enough to host the huge number of fans that will come. Now some of that blame is on Australia for not having a joint world cup in 03 (despite whatever happened), but still, 2019 is a long way off and it should and could have happened earlier. This is directly resulting to the voting process I discussed. You offered no comment there so I'll assume you either have no interest or simply don't understand. Finally, No one is suggesting artificially propping up anything and 'abandoning'. Instead I'm advocating actually picking a few key 'markets' (i.e. nations) and help bring them up to speed, rather than spending money thinnly around the globe and realistically achieving nothing. What would really result to world rugby if we didn't hand out a few rugby balls and posts to a few fringe countries who have no meaningful impact on world rugby, and instead focused more of that money into key markets? That's what I'm saying.

I think its more important for the IRB to back nations that are willing to look to develop some sort of meaningful competitve structure themselves. But not at the expense of existing or future development programs internationally. While I an a fan of the IRB either establishing new or assisting existing competitions to exclusively focus on a select few in spite of the rest really doesn't achieve much. How the IRB has approached Russia appears to be a good test case here. The Russian's have a lot of promise and have really come along in recent years thanks largely to IRB development work. They have a good standard League set up looking to grow throughout the nation and possibly including an Almaty (Kazak) team. The Bush expresses his concern re:Georgia lacking professional structures. Well, Georgia, Romania and Ukraine have just finished the inaugural Black Sea Cup. Each Union entered two sides each and it does look a promising prospect. One the IRB should be looking to back. It's organic and organised by the respective Unions. With IRB funds they could build a real Eastern European Club Championship. Other's that would qualify are both Germany and Spain (possibly Portugal). In regards to the USA the IRB should look to get behind the CPL. The first real quality Rugby competition at a Collegiate level and a solid platform to move toward future professional structures within the US. I would like the IRB to commit to developing the Pacific Rugby Championship further. I doubt it will ever actually turn a profit and to be honest would need to be administered directly by the IRB but the Pacific nations are IMO deserving of some sort of local opportunity to earn a trade in the game. Currently their are 6 teams. Two more cometing in a 14 week comp with Semi's and a Final will give the PI Nation something local to support. Furthermore, a second Asian Championship should be investigated. The gap between the Japanese and the rest of Asia has become a lot wider recently. It needs to be addressed with something. Finally, if the IRB were to prioritise one nation it would need to be Japan. With a little over 8 1/2 years before they host the 2019 RWC the IRB should be looking to develop the profile of not only the game but the Top League in Japan. Getting the Japanese people behind Rugby is a must. Rugby's first tentative steps into virgin territory (RWC wise) must be a success.

A genuinely shocking proposal. You are honestly suggesting we take a country that has a playing population of 4k (and have you had a look at their attendances?) and give it a PROFESSIONAL league? Even better you suggest that we focus on one or two nations each world cup cycle to the detriment of others and then change them if another country does better... Which means we potentially give these countries a professional league paid for by the IRB, and the sod off to another country if they don't win a game in the RWC leaving them propping up a likely unsustainable league, leaving numerous people jobless and rugby in collapse. I suspect you haven't thought this through. Romania and Canada nations in decline? Do you think so... or is it that the top tier countries are pulling ahead of them because professionalism has meant the players are fitter, stronger, faster and more practised. Before amateurism meant these countries stood something of a chance - now they struggle. But not just those two, your 'upcoming' nations do just as much. You list Japan as not getting focus from the IRB. I assume you are joking here as I am sure you are aware where the 2019 rugby world cup will be held? What you are suggesting would cripple most rugby nations, not help them, you will create and then abandon their leagues, leaving them in dissaray and people disillusioned. You want to grow them artifically meaning they won't have a sustainable product in which to compete

So the question appears to be, is the Rugby World Cup truely achieving its stated goals? Like so many of the important questions in life, the answer is sort of, but not really. As an Australian and therefore a member of the Rugby Elite (Tier One Status), I'll preface this by saying that I love the World Cup (despite its flaws) and can't wait for the next edition. Having attended and been loosely involved in the previous two editions it will be great that I can probably get over to my third straight world cup. However I have huge critcisms with the IRB's use of the World Cup and it's money. This opinion is firmly based around what I believe is the squandering of resources obtained from selling the rights to the World Cup. Both the 2003 and 2007 editions earned the IRB over 100m (in any currency). This is more than enough money, in my opinion, for the IRB to have transformed certain countries into decent rugby playing nations, even in just the seven short years since the 2003 tournament (even though I'm sure the 1999 tournament earned them a decent profit also). Rugby playing countries like Georgia (who incidentally qualified for both of the above editions and has even recorded a win), Argentina, Japan and the United States all have long rugby playing traditions. In the case of the final three, they also have huge playing populations, larger than some tier one nations such as Scotland and Wales (and possibly even Australia). In the case of Georgia, they have a huge talent pool of professionals playing in Western Europe to call upon. Surely with twenty five millions dollars worth of investment following each cycle we could have seen massive professionalisation and growth from all of these countries. But we have not really truly seen that much improvement (at least on the domestic front). These countries still do not yet have fully professional domestic leagues and extensive test calenders that match, or even approach the likes of tier one nations (remember although their are many professionals in the Top League, the league itself is not professional). Georgia still only has 4,000 registered players... And it is one of their two national team sports. Much of the problem is essentially a by product of the IRB itself. Firstly the undemocratic system. It is well known that the Big 8 all have 2 votes and the Little 4 have one and that is it. Countries like Scotland have twice as many votes as Italy and Argentina, yet Argentina are now entrenched as at least being as strong (probably stronger) and both countries have far more potential to offer rugby in the long run. This ridiculous structure prevents the creation of fairer region based tournaments (think European Championships) and more scheduled tests between tier one and the rest. Imagine if at a minimum in June European countries had to play qualifiers against at least Russia, Georgia, Romania, Spain et al. Heaven forbid if Australia and New Zealand had to play at least one or two tests a year (guaranteed) against Japan or Tonga or Fiji. Finally the other major issue is the continued funding and propping up of certain Unions that will never be successful despite endless support for over a decade. Romania is a nation in constant decline, as does Canada appear to be. This list also includes Namibia and Uruguay. Yet these countries are constantly assisted by the IRB whilst other Unions that are growing without the slightest help or indeed have never had help are left to stagnate. This is a result of the scatter gun approach of spending. Instead of sending off rugby balls to every corner of the globe and hoping something eventuates, lets focus on just two countries per cycle (or longer) and see true imporvement. For arguments sake at the end of 2011 World Cup, which ever tier two country performs the best (ignore the Islands, they deserve more all round regardless), lets simply focus on them completely and bring them into the fold. Let's, for arguments sake say its Georgia and the United States. Let's guarantee them at least 2 or 3 tests a year aginst tier one nations and a full calander of tests (say 10). Lets invest in their national leagues so that they at least have a proper senior male league even if it is as small as eight teams (professional though). Georgia already has the structures they just need more fields and more money to pay players. Heaven forbid you'd bring them into the European Club Competitions... Essentially I say this, lets open up the Board by increasing the members who can vote, lets remove automatic qualification and lets use the resources to subsidise more tests between Tier One and Tier Two to close the gap. Lets stop funding failing unions and pointless endevours and focus on the nations with true potential. Just because China, Japan and the US have 'money' doesn't mean they have rugby money. If Rugby's only way to have a more global footprint is to be big in places like Moldova, Kenya, Georgia, Chile and Madagascar then that is fine with me.

Financially it should be out of reach of many nations that might otherwise want it. Sound harsh? Maybe, but it is realism. You complain about the lack of competitive top table teams - well to bring others through we need more money, money that is made from commercially successful world cups, like one in England. Also consider that on top of that we need safe, secure stadiums, good infrastructure and sound policing capable. Stuff that needs to be capable of dealing with millions of people. With the best will in the World this rules out massive amounts of areas. So what do we say? Damn growing the game? Damn giving nations a shot at the big time and regular competitive rugby? Damn having to go pro? Or do we try progress and move ever forwards?

yES...what self-respecting comp would have the #1 and #2 seeds squaring off in a semi? The fickle finger of fate has intervened for the good as far as the 'seedings' go.Its rediculous to determine seedings 2 years out from the event when,as we all know,a single year is a long time in rugby! The seedings could be done at the time of the draw-surely?