THE HERALD REPORTS TODAY
Dragging out the Rugby World Cup is a big mistake
JAMES PORTEOUS September 10 2007
There have been some classic moments in the rugby world cup's brief history, from New Zealand's triumph in the first edition in 1987 to Jonny Wilkinson's last-gasp drop goal in 2003.

This year will be no different: it has already provided one moment of high drama with Argentina's victory over hosts France in the opening game.

But as a non-diehard fan of the sport, you fear the excitement could be hard to find amid the sheer bloat. The tournament goes on for almost two months. There are at least four teams too many taking part, probably more like eight. Resounding thumpings like Australia's 91-3 win over Japan are going to be the norm until next month, when the knockout stages begin and we really see the world's best players face off.

advertisementUnlike football, where a minnow can always upset a greatly superior team through hard work and luck, the better team in rugby wins 99% of the time by the sport's very nature. Arguing with a colleague about this, he said that's why rugby is superior: the better team always wins. In that case, why bother playing?

USA showed against England that a team of highly motivated amateurs can ruffle their professional rivals. So did Canada against Wales. But they both lost. New Zealand could play Portugal every day for a year and win 365 times.

"There should be a second B' World Cup, and then maybe the top two, three or four teams from that would qualify," said Keith Wood, the former Ireland hooker, yesterday - an eminently sensible suggestion.

Wood also pointed out that there is a potential health and safety issue in pitting men with real jobs against men who spend their lives pumping iron. "It is unfair and a little bit dangerous to have some of those teams playing, amateurs against professionals," he said on BBC Radio 5 Live. "The culmination of several years of body-building work is these guys are huge and they are playing against amateurs. It is a genuine fear."

Of course the smaller teams need exposure if they are to develop the sport in their countries. If Italy made the knockout stages, the Italians might, just might, realise that a game called rugby exists.

The only way the minnows are going to grow is by inspiring children to take up the sport. But how does the participation of, say, Portugal, which is likely to consist of four thumping defeats, inspire anyone? People are not inspired by losers.

And while the International Rugby Board pay lip service to developing the game, they treat the smaller nations differently, as a glance over the schedule shows: almost all the fixtures being played in midweek involve the weak nations. The "prime-time" weekend slots are for the teams sponsors and broadcasters really care about.

This means the amateurs and semi-professionals have less time to recover than the pros, further increasing the likelihood of injuries and massive scorelines.

Japan had to field an even weaker team than normal against Australia because they play Fiji, the one game they realistically hope they can win, just four days later. Scotland are expected to do the same against New Zealand because their vital game against Italy is six days later. What is the point in playing these games if one team isn't giving 100%?

It has been a problem since the World Cup began. There is no way of getting around the fact that there are essentially eight countries that play rugby: the old Five Nations and the Tri-Nations teams. We can perhaps add Argentina to the list, as evidenced by their win in St-Denis. Italy have improved greatly since joining the Six Nations, but still have a long way to go, as evidenced by their thrashing at the hands of New Zealand. Samoa can play some exciting, sometimes brutal, stuff.

That makes 10 teams. Pad it out to 16 and we might have a more interesting World Cup; though 12 would be better still in my opinion.

The IRB are believed to be considering changes for 2011. Surely the minnows must swim in a separate pool.

This article was posted on 10-Sep-2007, 07:27 by Hugh Barrow.