If rugby's World Cup had begun in the same era as football's

By Istanbul Wingman / Roar Guru

Just imagine the Rugby World Cup had kicked off in the 1930s, as football’s did when four European sides sailed to Uruguay to join nine teams from the Americas in the inaugural tournament.

The hosts won that event, and Italy would win the next two, before World War II sent the tournament into a 12-year hiatus.

Who would have been rugby’s winners in a dozen World Cups between 1931 and 1983? For certain there would not have been as much diversity, with the eight foundation members of the IRB (World Rugby) virtually a private club.

There is also the question of whether the Springboks would have been permitted to participate at all. But to keep things interesting, let’s say they had been. Chances are they would have won the first four tournaments straight, and perhaps half of them by 1983.

Anything might have happened and much would have depended on the host venue, of course. But South Africa were the dominant team of the amateur era, going unbeaten in a series during the first half of the 20th century.

The Springboks also completed four straight grand slams between 1912 and 1961. Quite a turn around for a nation which lost its first six Tests ever, all against the touring British Isles in the 1890s!

Would this be South Africa’s first World Cup? (AP Photo / Jan Hamman)

In 1931 Wales won the Five Nations, but South Africa would win the second of its grand slams later that year, while New Zealand had defeated the Lions 3-1 in 1930. But whereas the Springboks boasted such legendary players as captain Bennie Osler, fullback Gerry Brand, halfback Danie Craven, prop Boy Louw and lock Flip Nel, the All Blacks were a relatively nondescript lot.

Most likely outcome: South Africa beats New Zealand in the final.

In 1935, Ireland won the Four Nations (France were banned), but later that year New Zealand would beat the Irish on tour, only to lose themselves to Wales and England. Australia had beaten New Zealand in 1934. South Africa were not active around this time but two years later won a series in New Zealand with a resounding victory in the decider.

Most likely outcome: South Africa beats Australia in the final.

In 1939 England, Wales and Ireland finished first equal in the Four Nations. The previous year New Zealand had whitewashed Australia, and South Africa had defeated the Lions 2-1. A couple of wildcards might have been Germany, who beat France and Italy in 1938, and Fiji, who overcame the Maori All Blacks.

Most likely outcome: South Africa beats New Zealand in the final.

In 2051 Ireland won the Five Nations (France reinstated), while the All Blacks again whitewashed Australia. The previous year the All Blacks had all but whitewashed the Lions as well, though the year before that they had themselves been whitewashed in South Africa.

The Springboks would cruise to the third of their grand slams at year’s end, thumping Scotland 44-0, and beating France into the bargain.

A possible wildcard would have been Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), who had beaten the touring All Blacks in 1949. They were only considered a “provincial” team at the time, however, being part of the South African rugby set-up. It seems a shame they were not developed as a Test side during this era.

Most likely outcome: South Africa beats New Zealand in the final.

In 1955 France won the Five Nations, New Zealand whitewashed Australia, and South Africa drew a series with the Lions.

The previous year Les Bleus had beaten the touring All Blacks, but in 1956 they lost to Wales and Scotland, while New Zealand battled to its first series win over South Africa.

Most likely outcome: New Zealand beats France in the final.

How many World Cups would NZ have? (Photo: AFP)

In 1959 France were again Five Nations champions. A year earlier they had become the first team to prevail in a series in South Africa in the 20th century, with a win and a draw. New Zealand won a series with Australia 2-1 but would themselves be beaten 2-1 in South Africa the following year.

Most likely outcome: France beats South Africa in the final.

In 1963 England won the Five Nations but lost a series in New Zealand 2-0. Australia also beat England and drew a series with the Springboks.

The previous year South Africa had all but whitewashed the Lions and New Zealand had won two Tests against the Wallabies. A wildcard might have been Romania, who drew with France.

Most likely outcome: New Zealand beats South Africa in the final.

In 1967 France were Five Nations champions but lost a series to South Africa 2-1. Australia were thumped by New Zealand and also lost at home to Ireland. The previous year New Zealand had whitewashed the Lions, while South Africa would beat them 3-0 in 1968, with one Test drawn.

New Zealand had a great pack, led by Brian Lochore and including Colin Meads, Kel Tremain and Waka Nathan. South Africa also had legendary players such as flanker Jan Ellis and centre John Gainsford – just not as many.

Most likely outcome: New Zealand beats South Africa in the final.

In 1971 Wales were Five Nations champions and the Lions won a series in New Zealand for the first and only time. South Africa whitewashed the Wallabies in Australia and also beat France. The previous year they had won a series against New Zealand.

Most likely outcome: South Africa beats Wales in the final.

In 1975 Wales again won the Five Nations, Australia and South Africa won series’ with England and France, respectively, and New Zealand romped to victory over Scotland in the pouring rain.

The previous year the Lions had gone unbeaten against South Africa, but in 1976 the Springboks themselves would win a series against New Zealand.

Most likely outcome: Wales beats South Africa in the final.

In a different world, would Wales be RUWC champs? (Photo: David Rogers/Getty Images)

In 1979 Wales won the Five Nations once more, Ireland triumphed 2-0 in Australia, France drew 1-1 in New Zealand and the Wallabies won the Bledisloe Cup.

Australia would again beat New Zealand the following year, this time in a series, and also blitzed Wales. South Africa weren’t in action in 1979, but the following year beat the Lions 3-1 and South America 4-0, then trounced France in a one-off test.

Most likely outcome: South Africa beats Australia in the final.

In 1983 France were Five Nations champions, New Zealand whitewashed the Lions, Australia lost to France and drew a series with touring Argentina, and Romania stunned Wales in Bucharest. South Africa were not in action that year but won a series with England in 1984.

Most likely outcome: New Zealand beats South Africa in the final.

The Crowd Says:

2019-05-30T23:34:55+00:00

taylorman

Roar Guru


Scotland were actually at one of their best periods, grand slamming in 1925 so it was a disappointment at the time not to have played them.

AUTHOR

2019-05-30T22:55:48+00:00

Istanbul Wingman

Roar Guru


No, I think you misinterpreted the comment. We were talking about SA's demise since the 50s. & I point out that Australia were a lot stronger now (than in the 50s) and the Kiwis are more dominant than ever, so overall the gap between north and south has not closed since the 50s. As for suggestions of a current decline, let's wait a few months and see what the RWC brings, because Australia exceeded expectations at the last one.

AUTHOR

2019-05-30T22:51:03+00:00

Istanbul Wingman

Roar Guru


Yes, the Invincibles would have done it blindfolded but were deprived of the chance. 67 was such a great team too. They deserved their own nickname - the Indomitables or something like that. No doubt the Kiwis were unlucky.

2019-05-30T22:48:10+00:00

max power

Guest


"up until the late 70s"? or just for a few years in the 70s?

2019-05-30T22:43:03+00:00

taylorman

Roar Guru


All Im saying is to assess oz currently as getting ‘stronger’ is ridiculous. They have genuine resource and retention issues so getting stronger is completely misguided. And youre saying theyre not ‘woeful’ now?

2019-05-30T22:41:07+00:00

taylorman

Roar Guru


Oh yes, a 3-0 debacle to wales on 05, and no scotland due to foot and mouth in the only Invincible uk tour in 24, no ireland in 67 and a draw in 72. Hardly convincing there either, sometimes luck, as you say fir 81, has a part in things.

AUTHOR

2019-05-30T22:34:28+00:00

Istanbul Wingman

Roar Guru


Because they were known as the Woeful Wallabies up until the late 70s. NZ actually gave considering to dropping them from the agenda at one point! Teams are playing an awful lot of tests nowadays, while the Autumn tours are really just about filling the coffers and SH teams are far from at their best. The World Cup is what it's all about. & where did Australia finish in the last one?

AUTHOR

2019-05-30T22:28:21+00:00

Istanbul Wingman

Roar Guru


The All Blacks lost 3-1 in South Africa twice in the 70s and their fans continue to claim they wuz robbed both times. All I'm saying is that one very hard-fought series win on home soil doesn't necessarily mean you were a better team than the opposition that entire decade. I'm a Kiwi myself, but I grew up with an admiration for the Boks which I haven't lost just because they're not the top dogs anymore. Btw, fully agreed with your earlier comment about SA tapping into its potential. They could well become numero uno again in the future, provided they bring all South Africans on board.

2019-05-30T22:21:18+00:00

taylorman

Roar Guru


Geez, they lose but theyre somehow just as good? They lost 3-1. Talk about bending to fit.

2019-05-30T22:18:32+00:00

taylorman

Roar Guru


How exactly are oz a lot stronger? They lost 9 from 13 last year? If thats a lot stronger wheres my hat? I’ll eat it.

AUTHOR

2019-05-30T22:17:43+00:00

Istanbul Wingman

Roar Guru


Sure, but that 56 series was a very, very tough one, and I suspect it would have gone the other way on SA soil (esp given the advantages they enjoyed at home in those days . . . So I don't think we can honestly say NZ were clearly the better team in the 50s. The 60s is the only time we can really say that, because they pretty much demolished the Boks in 65.

AUTHOR

2019-05-30T22:14:07+00:00

Istanbul Wingman

Roar Guru


True, SA is not as dominant as it was. On the other hand, Australia is a lot stronger, and NZ is more dominant than ever. So overall the gap really hasn't closed at all. Overall I'd suggest it's widened, if anything.

2019-05-30T22:13:43+00:00

taylorman

Roar Guru


1956 they beat the boks in the only time they met in the 50’s so i think you include the 50s there. Anyway, Bok rugby hud behid an iron curtain making all the rules for everyone else. Great sides, but a pain to deal with, a blight on our sport. Now its all open, theyve shown their true colours and are no longer the force they once were.

2019-05-30T22:08:01+00:00

taylorman

Roar Guru


Fifty years ago South Africa wasnt losing to Japan and Italy. For SA, it is definitely closing. It might get wider again once SA start utilising the fullness of their resources.

2019-05-30T21:51:25+00:00

taylorman

Roar Guru


Yeah, but zip in the rugby world.

AUTHOR

2019-05-30T20:20:04+00:00

Istanbul Wingman

Roar Guru


European promotion relegation, apparently: Turkey take the place of Slovakia in Division 2 Latvia and Slovenia take the place of Moldova and Bosnia Herzegovina in Division 1 Ukraine take the place of Czech Republic in the Trophy (Malta declined) Portugal will try to take the place of Germany in the Championship QuoteEditShare

AUTHOR

2019-05-30T20:17:33+00:00

Istanbul Wingman

Roar Guru


I have it on good authority that there were no Filipinos in the Philippines team. They did a big advertising campaign to get players of part-Filipino ancestry from around the world to go and play for them. They came from Australia and England, mostly. So the team might more aptly be known as Philippengstralia, This practice is more widespread than you might think, actually. I've seen a few national unions advertising that way on social media, including at least one European country.

AUTHOR

2019-05-30T10:01:54+00:00

Istanbul Wingman

Roar Guru


Yes, that's the case in much of West Africa, and even more so in the north.

2019-05-30T09:40:47+00:00

Aussieinexile

Roar Rookie


Yes Peru has struggled, but in the 50's and 60's Rugby was played bu European Elites and had the World Cup taken off who knows what could have happened. The closest example is Baseball the American migration revolutionise the sport in the 1920's and 1930's in Central America and Caribbean which was taken up by the local population.

2019-05-30T09:37:58+00:00

Aussieinexile

Roar Rookie


which is not helpful for anyone, you are closer than you know about no structure most of their players come from abroad their domestic league leaves much to be desired.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar