The Rugby World Cup’s expansion from sixteen teams to twenty after just three tournaments appeared premature, to say the least, but it also gave a clear indication that the emphasis was on growth, ahead of quality.
Maintaining that trajectory, further expansion is surely overdue. Newcomers Namibia, Uruguay and Spain did not disgrace themselves in 1999.
The former two have become tournament regulars, and los Teros last week caused a major upset with victory over Fiji.
In fact, Uruguay qualified for this World Cup directly, leaving Canada to battle through the repechages. Russia, meanwhile, only gained their place after Romania and Spain were disqualified for breaching the eligibility rules.
(Warren Little/World Rugby via Getty Images)
Twenty years have passed since expansion and new teams are certainly coming through. Brazil gave the Maori All Blacks a decent workout last year – at one point obliterating the tourists’ scrum – while Germany were competitive against Samoa in the home-leg of their World Cup qualifying playoff, losing 42-28.
The Germans also finished second to Canada in the repechage tournament, beating Hong Kong and Kenya along the way. However, they have since been relegated from Europe’s top division, being replaced by 2011 World Cup qualifiers Portugal, who appear to be back to their best.
No question, therefore, that four more teams could be accommodated – given Romania would almost certainly be one of them, and Spain might well be another.
But progress appears to have been slower in Africa and Asia. Rather than simply award each continent an extra berth, therefore, an expanded repechage tournament might be a better option.
As for the World Cup itself, the format used at the 1986 – 1994 FIFA World Cups would seem the most appropriate for an expanded tournament. This entailed six groups of four leading to a second round of knockout fixtures.
Effectively it would replace the fourth group game with a sudden death tie in which both teams will have earned their spot.
The eight weakest teams, meanwhile, would play only three times – not four – thereby raising the quality of the tournament rather than lowering it.
Additionally, it would eliminate the need for byes and short turnarounds, which have again been a plague on the current version.
Indeed, it was this format which saw African teams start to come through the group stages at the FIFA World Cup. If applied to the rugby equivalent, it might well have the same effect on the second-tier teams.
Success at the group stages would obviously generate more favourable publicity in nations like the US and Georgia.
A 24-team tournament would not only result in a few new teams taking part, it would mix things up a little at both the group stages and knockout phase.
The second round would double the number of sudden death ties and make the journey to the final that much more perilous for even the best of sides.
Alternative models might include four groups of six, but this in itself would require a month to complete and lead to both player and fan burnout.
It would become harder than ever for the second tier teams to progress, and the final rounds might even be dominated by dead rubbers.
Eight groups of three with one inter-pool match per side is another possibility, though the potential for controversy with the inter-pool matches is self-evident.
A 24-team tournament based on the 1986 – 1994 FIFA World Cups would involve four more fixtures than the current model but could actually be completed in a slightly shorter time-frame with more fixtures per round at the group stages.
Moreover, it would shift the emphasis from the preliminaries to the more exciting knockout rounds.
What is for certain is that the current World Cup format is beginning to acquire a ‘Groundhog Day’ effect, with the same teams qualifying and more or less the same teams getting through to the knock-out phase.
There hasn’t been a debutant since 2011, and only three new teams have qualified since 1999, in fact – all of them European. Meanwhile, no centuries have been recorded since 2003.
We need a World Cup that will not only determine the champion but promote the game to an international audience and create new fans.
What better way to achieve this than to include a few more teams and make it easier to progress beyond the group stages? Of course, any decision to expand should come with a firm commitment to help develop the fringe teams.
Finally, it would be good to see a live World Cup draw as well, with teams selected from pods based on rankings and geography (FIFA-style). How hard could it be?
Dublin Dave
Guest
"..a rugby league idea" What's rugby league? "Better idea would be to expand the qualifying repechage into a 16 team tournament. That would be your B World Cup with the big prize of a trip to the real World Cup." Not if it was held separately and in a different place to the main event. Who would want to see that? The great advantage of running the two separate competitions in the same country at the same time is that the minor one could piggy back on the hype and interest of the major one. And most of its games could be played in smaller stadia that usually never see big international matches but in areas where the local populace have an existing interest in rugby. I cited the Launceston example. Scheduling is the bug bear of rugby word cups. Even for the bigger teams who only have to play once a week and at weekends it's intense. For the smaller teams, it's acknowledged hari kiri. "You're not going to win, anyway guys. Let the others put a big score on you and try not to get too badly hurt" That's not sporting. That's not a spectacle. It's badger baiting. And who wants to see the big teams run up big scores on minnows? Back in 2003, the Irish Times correspondent wrote his "Top Ten and Bottom Ten" things about the world cup when it had finished. He had lots of nice things to say about Australia and the organisation but among the very worst things were Australia's 100+ drubbings of both Namibia and Romania. "The ultimate in boring" he called it. And he was right. Yet both those teams set a small ground alight when they played each other because it was a proper contest. I think running a B competition in parallel has some merit. If the money men could agree. Maybe we could ask the people from Rugby League. Again. What is Rugby League, exactly? "But Brazil playing Spain in a so-called B World Cup in a neutral nation isn’t likely to excite much interest." What are the chances of such a match up in the near future? Seriously. Let's say we were to run such a competition (s) in four years time and say that the A competition would comprise the teams that finished in the top four places of each preliminary group in this year's comp. So by today's permutations that would likely be: Ireland Japan Scotland Samoa New Zealand South Africa Italy Namibia France England Argentina USA Wales Australia Fiji Georgia So already we have Russia Canada Tonga and Uruguay for the B competition to be joined by another four countries qualifying over the next few years. I am guessing they would come from the likes of: Romania, Spain, Zimbabwe, Cote D'Ivoire, Portugal, (all of whom have played at world cups) and then maybe Germany, Belgium, Kenya or any one of a number of other smaller countries where the game could grow. How would a Russia Tonga final grab you? Or Romania v Canada? Wales
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
Japan really needs to make the quarters to bring this tournament to life. Asia is the only continent yet to be represented at that stage of the competition. If there is no second tier team in the quarters this year that will make an unprecedented three straight tournaments (surpassing 99/03). England 2015 is so far the only principal host to fail to get beyond the group stages. France's win over Argentina means the teams are now 2-2 at the World Cup, Argentina is 8-8 against 6 Nations opponents and France is 5-9 against SANZAAR opponents. Wales' win over Australia means they are now 2-5 against the Wallabies at the World Cup, Wales is 4-10 against SANZAAR opponents and Australia is 14-7 against 6 Nations opponents. Japan's win over Ireland was the 11th time a tier 2 nations has upset a first tier nation at the World Cup. Pacific Island teams were responsible for 9 of those upsets while Japan over SA was the other. Ireland has progressed beyond the group stages at 7/8 tournaments so far but never reached the semis, going 0/7 in the play-offs. 22/40 group matches played and tier 2 teams have won 1/11 match-ups with tier 1 opponents with an average losing margin of 30, which is perfectly in line with overall tournament history. The same margin was recorded at the inaugural World Cup and the most recent edition, in fact, along with 3 other tournaments. 3rd tier teams (Namibia, Uruguay & Russia) have won 1/4 match-ups with 2nd tier opponents, meanwhile, with an average losing margin of 23. They have also lost both of their match-ups with first tier opponents so far with an average losing margin of 40. Uruguay remains the only 3rd tier nation to win at the World Cup, and has now done so 3 times in 4 appearances, having previously defeated Spain in 1999 and Georgia in 2003. NZ: 30 wins from 30 pool games, 100% Aust: 27/30, 90.0% (first loss 1995) SA: 21/24, 87.5% (2003) France: 25.5/30, 85.0% (2007) Eng: 24/30, 80.0% (1987) Ire: 22/30, 73.3% (1987) Sco: 21.5/30, 70.0% (1995) Wales: 20/30, 66.7% (1991) Arg: 16/30, 53.3% (1987) Samoa: 13/28, 46.4% (1991) Italy: 13/30, 43.3% (1987) Fiji: 10/28, 35.7% (1987) Georgia: 5/18, 27.8% (2003) Canada: 8/30, 26.7% (1987) Tonga: 7/27, 25.9% (1987) Japan: 7/30, 23.3% (1987) Uruguay: 3/13, 23.1% (1999) Romania: 6/28, 21.4% (1987) USA: 3/27, 11.1% (1987) Ivory Coast: 0/3, 0.0% (1995) Spain: 0/3, 0.0% (1999) Portugal: 0/4, 0.0% (2007) Russia: 0/6, 0.0% (2011) Zimbabwe: 0/6, 0.0% (1987) Namibia 0/21, 0.0% (1999) FIFA World Cup 1st 8 tournaments Between 1930 and 1966 five nations won the FIFA World Cup, 11 made the final, 16 the semis and 20 the quarters. In total 38 nations had competed at the event, including 25 debutants since the first. 9th tournament: 3 debutants (total 28), 2 new quarterfinalist (total 22) Rugby World Cup 1st 8 tournaments Between 1987 and 2015 four nations won the Rugby World Cup, five made the final, eight the semis and 12 the quarterfinals. In total 25 nations had competed at the event, including nine debutants since the first. 9th tournament: 0 debutants (total remains 9)
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
Sounds like a rugby league idea. :laughing: The B tournament wouldn't be a World Cup, basically. Better idea would be to expand the qualifying repechage into a 16 team tournament. That would be your B World Cup with the big prize of a trip to the real World Cup. But obviously the team would need a while to recover, so holding them separately would still be necessary. But Brazil playing Spain in a so-called B World Cup in a neutral nation isn't likely to excite much interest.
sheek
Roar Guru
Istanbul Wingman, That may be so, but increasing teams to 24 is only window dressing if not backed by serious intent to lift standards of rugby nations outside top 10. If you're in the 6N (6 nations) or RC (4 nations) life is good. But for everyone else, it's a battle for scraps. Even so, nearly 20 years in 6N seems to have done bugger all for improving the standard of the Italians. World Rugby, or some top tier nations anyway, showed how little they cared about developing the world game, by scuppering the proposed world league (two divisions each of 12 teams). I can understand increasing the number of teams to 24 for commercial reasons. But it would be for commercial reasons only, not practical efficiency. Here in Australia there are 8 finalists in both the AFL & NRL. But seriously, only the top 4 in each code have a serious chance of winning in any year. The bottom four are usually there purely for commercial entertainment. So increasing the number of teams in the RWC from 20 to 24 would be a good commercial move, but otherwise meaningless, unless there's intent to provide countries ranked 11-40 with more serious competition opportunities.
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
Football was only one ahead of rugby at the ninth World Cup stage, with five winners. & all their finalists had come from just two continents, while rugby's have come from three.
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
RIP Tiny Hill. All I remember about this guy is he was one of the All Blacks selectors (along with BJ Lochore and Pinetree Meads) when I first started paying attention to the international game - 83 series vs the Lions, I believe. Lochore died just last month, of course, while Pinetree passed away a little over two years ago. Three giants of the 50s & 60s era, country boys who became both long-serving and imposing members of All Blacks forwards packs and went on to captain their nation at one time or another. His grandson Stan was a Kiwi basketball legend. At about 6'10, solidly-built and very athletic, many believed he could have been an All Blacks legend as well had rugby been his chosen sport. "Tiny" was about 6'2, but seemed to tower over most other players of his era on the old highlights reels!
Dublin Dave
Guest
At last, another "Bah! Humbug!" dissenter. With whom I am in at least partial agreement :) The big problem with the Rugby World Cup, in its current format, is scheduling. It is unrealistic, given the attrition that is part of the game, especially in intense contests such as the WC should be, to expect teams to play matches at intervals less than six days apart and even that is pushing it. But, we have to maintain a momentum of interest with games on most days and can't possibly have weekend only matches, especially at the preliminary stages, so what does RWC do: forces the minnows to play in midweek and sometimes with only four day turnarounds to maximise the number of big matches that can be played at weekends (for TV purposes). The thinking is "These guys don't have a hope anyway so let them be cannon fodder for the other teams" Is that seriously growing a tournament and making a sport more popular? I don't think so. I've made a suggestion to my son, a graduate in sports management, for a different setup which he has of course dismissed out of hand as being unrealistic, not financially viable and what do I know anyway, I'm only A) an engineering graduate and B) his dad, so clearly I haven't a clue. But why not expand the tournament to 24 by splitting the competition into two streams, an A competition for the 16 strongest countries and a B competition for the next 8 countries down? The A competition would comprise four groups of four, played in a round robin format, as now, with the top two teams in each contesting quarter-finals, followed by semifinals and a grand final. Group stage matches would take place from Friday to Monday, two matches a day. The preliminaries would be over in three weeks. Meanwhile the B competition matches take place from Tuesday to Thursday. One match a day, with one day (perhaps Wednesday) being the occasion for two games. Again. the preliminaries would take three weeks. Top two teams from each qualify for semi finals, with the winners progressing to a final. In the middle of the fourth week, the B competition semi finals take place with the quarter finals for the A competition taking place at the weekend. The final of the B competition could then take place on say the Friday evening of the fifth week as a prelude to the A competion's semi finals taking place on the Saturday and Sunday. The Final could then take place a week later. Alternatively, we could hold the finals of both competitions on the Saturday and Sunday of the final weekend, with the third place play off for the A competition taking place on the Friday. The key element of meritocracy that MUST be included is the guarantee of promotion from B to A competition for several teams for the subsequent World Cup. I would suggest both finalists of the B competition qualifying as of right with the losing semifinalists entering a qualifying competition to be played across intervening years involving the four teams that finished bottom of their pools in the A competition. So a minimum of two and a potential four teams could progress from playing in the B competition one year to contesting the A competition four years later. Advantages: 1) expanding exposure at world championship level to more countries over the same time scale as present 2) not putting an additional strain on match infrastructure because you would actually have the same number of matches, 48. Although you could actually reduce this to 47 if you dispensed with a 3rd/4th playoff match for the B competition. 3) Offering the viewing public a match every day for at least four weeks, without burdening players or squads with unfairly punishing schedules. 4) Offering fairer contests between teams of roughly equal strength. I know giant killing is a feature of any sporting tournament but do you really expect the likes of Uruguay to trouble the All Blacks at today's standards? Look how the said Uruguayans reacted to their victory over Fiji! That would still be an achievement if both teams were in the B tournament (although Fiji probably wouldn't be) and it would mean that the Uruguayans might be better placed for an actual progression rather than a "You've had your moment, lads. Now get ready to play Georgia in four days time!!" 5) The "minnows" would have something achievable to play for. Intense rugby matches are often compared to gladiatorial contests but really, putting some of the weaker teams up against tier one nations is more like watching Christians play Lions. (circa 100 AD) 6) Meritocracy would be respected by allowing teams to progress thanks to achievement to a higher level tournament next time around. 7) Operationally, the smaller tournament could be played in smaller venues in the host country where there is an enthusiastic rugby culture but which rarely see big matches. This would inevitably mean smaller stadia but so what? An enthusiastic local populace, fired up by having an international competition on its doorstep would add immeasurably to atmosphere. Somebody mentioned World Cup 2003 in Australia when clever marketing in Launceston (Where TF is Launceston?) saw a sell out crowd to watch Namibia play Romania. I'm sure a similar feat could be achieved in places like Bristol, or Hawick, or Dungannon. (Google them) Same number of games, more teams, more equitable contests, chances to progress and less punishing schedules. Disadvantages: Some people see things as they are and say "Why?"; I throw this one out and say "Why not?" Over to you.
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
France-based diaspora, I should say - as in Ivorians living in France.
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
Still there, among the top second division sides (Silver Cup). They played and won a home & away series with up-and-coming Ghana earlier this year, and featured in the promotion-relegation match for the Gold Cup two years ago, narrowly losing to Morocco. The basis of their strength is the French diaspora, however.
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
Personally I'd like to see automatic qualifying dispensed with, independent competitions revived along geographical lines, and the repechage expanded and perhaps split into two. Indeed, the qualification process itself should be a major event in which first, second and third tier can rub shoulders once again.
sheek
Roar Guru
I disagree with expanding to 24 teams. World Rugby is struggling to provide the necessary requisite resources for 20 teams competing at the world cup, so expanding to 24 teams purely for boasting purposes, will do little to improve the standards of those countries locked in between about 11 & 40. That’s all an increase to 24 teams is, for bragging rights. How about WR provide real support to those nations ranked around 11-40, before expanding the comp. Like, provide meaningful comps that allow individual nations to grow & develop their standards. You said it yourself, after 32 years, the rugby world cup has progressed little in providing talent outside the top half dozen. The facts (from 8 RWCs so far: Champions – only NZL, RSA, Australia & England. Finalists – only France, NZL, Australia & England. Semi-Finalists – above 5, plus Argentina, Wales & Scotland. Maybe Ireland will join the ‘final 4’ this year, but so far only 8 nations have made it the semi-final stage. That’s a sad reflection on how poorly those countries outside the top 8 or 9 traditional powers have fared. They haven’t significantly improved in 32 years at all. I get the impression that while WR loves to have Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, USA, Canada, Japan, Russia, Georgia, Romania, Uruguay, etc, competing in the world cup, heaven forbid that they might ACTUALLY become a rugby powerhouse. With Fiji, Samoa & Tonga for example, the idea is to keep these Pacific Islands impoverished, but encourage their natural talent to emigrate & strengthen the teams of commercially attractive countries (for media & sponsorship purposes) such as Australia, NZL, Japan, France, England, Wales, etc. Such is the power of globalisation, where countries are treated as just another club for recruitment purposes.
AndyS
Guest
Looking at that, it does generally confirm my suspicion that expansion would minimise the 'big' match-ups before the semi-finals. On that basis, I would tend towards a two tier structure if looking to expand. Move toward a 16 team qualification tournament the year before the RWC, which would then feature a lot of even match-ups between the next tier teams. Aim to return a much bigger cut of revenues to the participating teams, especially the top four qualifying to join the twelve teams already qualified for a 16 team RWC. Bottom of each pool has to requalify the next time.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Don’t think there is much enthusiasm or participation outside Southern Africa. You won’t see many rugby fields in Nigeria.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Unfortunately Kenya and maybe Rwanda (thanks to higher altitudes) are about the only places outside SA, Zim, Botswana and Namibia where it’s not too hot and humid most of the year round to make rugby easy to promote on a substantial scale. I recall Ivory Coast had a team at one WC, but they seem to have disappeared.
JRVJ
Roar Rookie
I don't think it's a bad idea, but unless World Rugby institutes something like Pichot's World League, the effects of this expansion will not percolate until well into the 2030s.
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
Diaspora, to be fair. It's not as if they're poaching European or African players. They're enticing those who have Pacific Island heritage to play for the land of their ancestors rather than their homeland.
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
This hypothetical tournament was created at the start of 2017 based entirely on rankings of the day and most recent results between teams, just to give an indication of what a 24-team RWC might look like: NZ 79-15 Canada Georgia 24-7 Russia Canada 16-15 Georgia Russia L/W NZ NZ 43-10 Georgia Canada 35-3 Russia England 28-10 USA Japan W/L Namibia USA 18-28 Japan Namibia L/W England England 60-7 Japan USA W/L Namibia Australia 90-8 Romania Fiji 39-20 Spain Romania 7-26 Fiji Spain 10-92 Australia Australia 28-13 Fiji Romania 21-18 Spain Ireland 40-9 Samoa Argentina W/L Germany Samoa 28-12 Argentina Germany L/W Ireland Ireland 20-43 Argentina Samoa 55-9 Germany Wales 17-7 Tonga France W/L Kenya Tonga 18-38 France Kenya L/W Wales Wales 19-10 France Tonga W/L Kenya SA 18-20 Italy Scotland 43-12 Uruguay Italy 20-36 Scotland Uruguay 3-134 SA SA 34-16 Scotland Italy 29-5 Uruguay Octavos NZ 47 Tonga 9 England 41 Georgia 10 Australia 23 Samoa 32 Argentina 20 Italy 18 Wales 32 Canada 23 SA 32 Japan 34 Scotland 37 Fiji 25 France 10 - Ireland 9 Quarters NZ 24 France 19 England 15 Scotland 9 Samoa 5 Japan 26 Argentina 20 Wales 24 Semis NZ 34 Wales 16 England 60 Japan 7 3rd Wales 33 Japan 30 Final NZ 24 England 21
Andrew Gunman
Guest
Istanbul, 100% agree with your comment for the ( FIFA) 24-team format. Hope France can make it work and that they include Barcelona, Turin and Frankfurt as additional venues. Andrew Gunman
Istanbul Wingman
Roar Guru
Yes, Madagascar has huge numbers, multitudes of clubs and lists rugby as its national sport. & Zambia apparently has big player numbers too. But it's all amateur with very few players gaining experience abroad.
Ulrich
Roar Rookie
The problem with Zim (and Africa in general) is the governance of the game over there. They slept in the streets playing some other north African nation not too long ago. Still, Africa may be behind, but Rugby is the fastest growing sport on the continent In 2002, there were only six countries with notable participation in rugby on the continent: Morocco, South Africa, Namibia, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, and Ivory Coast. Fast forward to 2018 and an increase by 84%, Rugby Africa, World Rugby’s African association, has 38 union members including Nigeria. Growth in player registration in 2017 was 66% (excluding South Africa) against an overall global increase of 27%. Countries with the quickest growth in total number of players between 2016 and 2017 as identified in the report were Nigeria, Mauritius, Madagascar, Namibia, and South Africa, a fact clearly illustrating the passion for rugby across Africa.