The 2023 Rugby World Cup pool matches are finally over. While there were some exciting, hard-fought, and entertaining games, when looking at the results one thing in particular catches the eye: there are some extremely lopsided scores.
The Rugby World Cup needs to revert back to the old format of 16 teams. The current format is four teams too many. World rugby simply does not have the depth to have a 20-team World Cup.
Let’s have a look at the performance of the five ‘minnows’ ranked from best to worst:
Portugal:
Rank: 16
Lost to Wales 28-8
Drew with Georgia 18-18
Lost to Australia 34-14
Defeated Fiji 24-23
Conceded 103 points and scored 64 points.
Georgia:
Rank: 13
Lost to Australia 35-15
Drew with Portugal 18-18
Lost to Fiji 17-12
Lost to Wales 43-19
Conceded 113 points and scored 64 points.
Uruguay:
Rank: 17
Lost to France 27-12
Lost to Italy 38-17
Beat Namibia 36-26
Lost to New Zealand 73-0
Conceded 164 points and scored 65 points.
Chile:
Rank: 22
Lost to Japan 42-12
Lost to Samoa 43-10
Lost to England 71-0
Lost to Argentina 59-5
Conceded 215 points and scored only 27 points.
Namibia:
Rank: 21
Lost to Italy 52-8
Lost to New Zealand 71-3
Lost to France 96-0
Lost to Uruguay 36-26
Conceded a massive 255 points and scored just 37 points.
Romania:
Ranked: 19
Lost to Ireland 82-8
Lost to South Africa 76-0
Lost to Scotland 84-0
Lost to Tonga 45-24
Conceded a whopping 287 points and scored a measly 32 points.
There is the argument that Portugal and Georgia should receive a pass mark because of Portugal’s one-point win over Fiji, their points difference, and that there were no blowout scores against them. Yet, they benefitted from both being in the same pool, Australia being so poor, and being in the weakest of the four pool groups.
Massively one-sided scores such as 96-0 (France v Namibia), 84-0 (Scotland v Romania), 73-0 (New Zealand v Uruguay), 71-0 (England v Chile), interest nobody – even most diehard French, Scottish, New Zealand, and English rugby fans. Blowouts don’t help the development of the team on the end of such a walloping, probably do more harm than good, and don’t do anything to help grow the game of rugby union worldwide – which is one of the main objectives of the Rugby World Cup.
If teams with World Rugby rankings of 17, 19, 21, and 22 are getting belted by more than 70, 80 or even 90 points, then there are too many teams and the disparity in levels is too great. Believe it or not, the World Rugby Rankings go all the way up to 109, with Indonesia, Monaco, Greece, Vanuatu and American Samoa rounding out the final five places. But rankings in the mid-20s and up seem dubious and frankly quite meaningless.
Future 16-team tournaments could consist of the top 12 ranked teams with four other teams qualifying. The current top 12: Ireland, South Africa, France, New Zealand, Scotland, England, Wales, Fiji, Argentina, Australia, Italy, and Japan. The other four spots could be decided by a ten-team round-robin tournament with all teams playing each other once. The four teams with the highest points qualify. This playoff tournament could consist of the next 8 ranked countries, currently Georgia, Samoa, Tonga, Portugal, Uruguay, USA, Romania, and Spain, with two other teams participating via qualifying.
Samoa’s Jonathan Taumateine. (Photo By Harry Murphy/Sportsfile via Getty Images)
With the current 20-team World Cup, there are five teams in each group, which means each team has a bye during the tournament. This is hardly ideal and raises questions of fairness in advantaging or disadvantaging one team over another depending on the timing of the bye.
Rugby just does not have the depth that football has for the FIFA World Cup, where a top-five-ranked team playing a country ranked lower usually results in a win for the favourite, but sometimes in an upset win for the underdog. For example in the 2022 Qatar World Cup, eventual Lionel Messi-captained World Cup champions Argentina (ranked No.3) lost 2-1 to Saudi Arabia (No.51) in the opening game of their group, Belgium (No.2) lost 2-0 to Morocco (No.22), Portugal (No.9) with Cristiano Ronaldo lost 2-1 to South Korea(No.28), and Brazil (No.1) lost 1-0 to Cameroon(No.43), to name just a few upsets in the group stages.
In this Rugby World Cup, the only team that was victorious against a higher-ranked opponent in any of the 40 pool matches was in last night’s final pool match where Portugal narrowly defeated Fiji 24-23. Since the expansion in 1999 from 16 to 20 teams, after seven World Cups, aside from Portugal’s win last night there have only been two other significant upsets: when an Eddie Jones-coached Japan was victorious against South Africa 34-32 in 2015 and in 2007 when Fiji defeated Wales 38-34.
Most rugby fans will disagree that there are too many teams in the World Cup, and that the so-called ‘minnows’ will eventually catch up to the tier one nations, but we’ve had a 20-team rugby World Cup since 1999 and we are still seeing huge one-sided scores.
An international rugby match where there is a 70, 80 or even 90 or more points difference between the teams is a waste of everyone’s time.
Kitwally
Roar Rookie
The opposite has just happened: “Expansion of Rugby World Cup to 24 teams in 2027, providing more qualification opportunities for more teams and regional competitions.” https://www.theroar.com.au/2023/10/25/world-rugby-clears-controversial-6n-trc-championship-agrees-to-2027-rwc-expansion-and-date-change/
Anibal Pyro
Roar Rookie
No, 24 teams is best. It would help to spread the game. 6 groups of 4 teams, top 2 advanced to round of 16th. And four best 3rds. Group stages of only 3 rounds, more knock out games, more drama, more inclusion, more fans, more countries interested in. Going back to 16 teams is a shoot on the feet. E.g the 4 extra teams could be USA, Canadá, Kenya, Spain, Netherlands, Brazil, Germany..... I saw a few big markets there. The more games demanded for t2 /3 countries is FOR the RWC as an objetive, a goal, not play only a Test Match. As an Argie Who deeply know the Fifa WC and as a Long T2 country, now barely a T1 you could say, the answer its go deep, 24, not exclusiveness. Blow outs??? It happened before, it will happen anyway. Lets speed up.
yippityio
Roar Rookie
I'm sure Eddie agrees.
Coker
Roar Rookie
I suspect the aspiring tier-2 teams left out in the cold by this proposal would simply point to Italy. Shipping 156 points in their last two matches is one-sided by any definition...
JD Kiwi
Roar Rookie
I'd say 16 rather than 12. Tournaments work better when the number of teams are two to the power of an integer!
JD Kiwi
Roar Rookie
Probably the most important thing is simply to be playing together. Against their peers and the next level up, especially the weaker T1 nations.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
Agree, the tier one sides need to take those games seriously. Even if the tier one side starts the reserves and the rest of the squad of 30 makes up the bulk of the team, that's one step up from the B team e.g. All Blacks XV. Ideally the tier one side would start their best XV, then make replacements around half time.
Bluffboy
Roar Rookie
Maybe one or two such games a year to judge if progress has been made. It's a tough one Spew. The problem is what team is selected and who is rested for those games. It's a like the teams that play Dura and Manu most of the top sides will rest players and so it is very hard to judge progression.
Bluffboy
Roar Rookie
I have always been of the opinion that there should be 2 groups of 12. Like I think Spew said above an A and B World Cup (call it what ever you like). Run at the same time and no byes. A's play Weekends - B's play mid week. Promotion/relegation based on World Rankings 1 year out. And set the Draw then :unhappy: Good idea to have them touring between world cups playing provincial/National Barbars type teams for experience.
Brumby Jack's acquaintance
Roar Rookie
Hi Spew, a variant of your suggestion has been discussed in a previous roar article: https://www.theroar.com.au/2023/09/14/three-days-of-magic-then-the-ultimate-buzzkill-how-can-we-fix-the-biggest-problem-with-the-rugby-world-cup/
Brumby Jack's acquaintance
Roar Rookie
Please ignore these blank comments above as a PBCAK error.
Brumby Jack's acquaintance
Roar Rookie
Brumby Jack's acquaintance
Roar Rookie
Thanks for the article Kitwally. I personally think that the solution lies in what has been suggested previously about a phased group stage https://www.theroar.com.au/2023/09/14/three-days-of-magic-then-the-ultimate-buzzkill-how-can-we-fix-the-biggest-problem-with-the-rugby-world-cup/ . In particular the Gavin Grace suggestion would give extra incentive to the Tier 1 nations to not treat the 4 years in between as an extended pre-season for the World Cup as falling out of the Top 8 would result in having to compete for your spot in the main draw of the world cup.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
Love the idea. Could also see a 2nd div 6N and RC run in conjuction with the top 6N and RCs. Maybe promo/relegation too. Lets start making it about playing rugby and not protecting Italy or Wales in the 6N or Fiji and Japan in a 6 team RC.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
The issue with tier two nations getting games against tier one nations is the tier two nations tend to get smashed as mentioned in the article. It's not a great way to develop a team. Maybe one or two such games a year to judge if progress has been made. The other way to develop tier two teams is give them more meaningful, but still challenging, matches. The tier two teams could tour tier one counties. For instance, Urugay and Namibia could tour New Zealand. They could play a Heartland XV, New Zealand under 20s, NPC or Super Rugby Teams, and have the big games against the All Blacks XV or Māori All Blacks. Those New Zealand teams could also tour second tier nations.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
They could run a 'B' RWC at the same time as the 'A' RWC. This would give more, genuine, opportunity to weaker teams. Also, they wouldn't have to compete with the bigger teams for the local fans; and playing even a 'B' RWC in a new location could grow the game. They could run both RWCs at once, but in a different time zones, to have games all day in the weekend etc. Or they could play some games in the days that the 'A' RWC don't play. Which would fill in the schedule as the RWC 2023 has too many days with no games.
JD Kiwi
Roar Rookie
Seems that tier two coaches agree with you. The key is more matches for them between World Cups. No point getting thrashed every four years because you've hardly played together. The pool stage was way too long because of the byes and lacked excitement because of the mismatches. Three more even games on consecutive weekends will maintain far more interest. What's really needed is a midweek RWC comp for the next tier and an expansion of the Six Nations and Rugby Championship to eight teams each, in pools of four.