Should Tier-Two Nations Participate in Rugby World Cup?
 |
September 28, 2011 TheFreshOutlook  |
Terribly one-sided affairs at the 2011 Rugby World Cup raise questions over the benefit of the smaller nations being included.
With the recent spate of lopsided results in this year’s Rugby World Cup, would it be beneficial for the tournament, and the tier-two nations, if they were excluded?
Indeed, it would be hard to argue that Japan benefited from their 83-7 defeat against New Zealand, or that Namibia grew as players during their 87-0 thrashing at the hands of South Africa.
There has been some controversy in this year’s tournament around the structure of the fixtures of smaller nations. Earlier in the tournament, Scotland coach Andy Robinson raised the issue by questioning the effect a short rest period between games has on tier-two nations.
Indeed it wouldn’t be unreasonable to suggest that smaller rugby nations, with less depth of quality in their squads, would need longer to recover from a game than say, Australia, who could make wholesale personnel changes to their team without a real affect on the quality of the side. But then where does that lead us? Are we to start allowing the tier-two nations more recovery time than the stronger nations? That would lead us down a very slippery path that would cloud the idea of a level playing field.
So what is to be done?
As it stands, lopsided scores are inevitable. But surely that is not a reason to limit the number of teams participating in a tournament that has the ambition of growing?
In the 2002 FIFA World Cup, Germany beat Saudi Arabia 9-0 in a pool game. But nobody called for the expulsion of the Saudis from the tournament. In the Olympics, 100m sprinters from countries with lesser sprinting pedigrees repeatedly finish metres off the pace. But nobody would suggest that American Samoa or Gabon should not be allowed to enter sprinters into the competition.
Like the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, the IRB Rugby World Cup has a clear qualifying structure in place that ensures a certain level of competition. As lesser rugby-playing nations develop, that level of competition will get higher.
The answer to helping this process along doesn’t lie in excluding teams from the World Cup, but in setting up other tournaments in the years between tournaments, where tier-two nations can play each other and get better.
That has already begun with the Churchill Cup and the Pacific Nations Cup, and will continue with Argentina’s inclusion in the 2012 Tri Nations. If rugby is to continue to grow, the development of the USA, Russia, Japan and Canada national teams is also crucial to the game’s position on a global scale.
The growth of the Rugby World Cup as a global competition relies firstly on the participation of as many nations as possible. That is the first step. It is imperative that countries such as Namibia, Romania, USA, Russia, Georgia and Japan all continue to send teams to the tournament to ensure the game is watched by a wider audience.
After all, interest in the game is where the key to expansion lies. If a country doesn’t care about the sport, no actions will be made to improve the sport in that country. Once interest sparks, then the IRB can begin to develop the game in tier-two countries, which will eventually lead to a higher level of competition.
Be patient and rest assured; the performance of tier-two nations is steadily improving. The Pumas’ performance in 2007, Samoa’s match with Wales and Japan’s game against France this year are all a testament to that.
By Luke Ryan
[Image courtesy of Craig Boyd]
I think that the only way tier 2 teams can improve is by playing against the best teams and being involved in quality competitions such as the RWC. I for one was disappointed that the 2011 RWC was going to be held in NZ rather than Japan. The only way of rugby becoming an increasingly global sport and for tier 2 rugby nations to greatly improve then the next RWC needs to be held in one of the tier 2 nations
Tier-two nations cannot be excluded on the grounds of heavy defeats. As discussed performances are improving, and with time countries like Russia and USA will flourish as interest in the sport continues to develop and grow. I agree more emphasis should be placed on tournaments prior to World Cups which will allow nations with less depth an opportunity to test themselves and see where they’re at in comparison. Heavy defeats are inevitable in World Cup pool matches, nevertheless they provide a once in a lifetime opportunity for many of the lesser experienced players to take the field with the current greats of the game. That alone should be enough reason not to exclude the players of the tier-two nations who have strived to play for their country.
Posted this after the Romania Georgia report, thought it mite have some relevance here too:
This game was terrible. Don’t you think the RWC should just be cut until these teams can really make it up to scratch. Second Tier 6 Nations, stick with the Pacific Cup and Churchill Cup and get these teams improving. Money has to be spent worldwide. In Japan we’ve seen it with club rugby, the appointment of a high profile coach and despite going home without a win, I do believe they will be pushing for a 3rd place finish in their group next time. Samoa beat Australia and pushed Wales – money needs to be put into place where these teams’ future aren’t in threat but instead blossom. What’s your opinion Luke?? Should we be trying to promote rugby worldwide or centralise it further and cut ties with these lower teams and focus on the larger markets of Japan, Russia and USA or Even the UAE countries (with the popularity of 7s there?)??
Japan where smashed against NZ, but the first 60 minutes against France was probably the best technical display by any side in this WC. The speed at which rucks where cleared and the ball recycled was awesome to watch. A large proportion of heavy defeats have been as a result of lagging fitness levels in the last 20. So rather than suggesting these teams should be thrown out of the tournament it would be more beneficial for the global game and improve competition if the the IRB analysed the reasons for these losing margins, and ‘closed the gap’.
Japan’s weakness may have been fitness, but other nations i.e USA/Cananda have shown poor ball handling skills in contact. The Romanians…will not get a better chance of beating a tier 1 nation.
A blanket approach will not work but investing in coaching, equipment and expertise (as well as grass roots) is the way forward.
*were