by Mike Martin @thefootietweet
It's been, by common consent, an excellent opening week in the Rugby World Cup. The minor nations have, by and large, done themselves proud. They have also all lost, with the exception of Canada beating Tonga, which is not, by world rugby standards, a particularly shocking result.
Certainly, the 'gap' is closing but is it realistic to expect it ever to become narrow enough for every game in the tournament to be genuinely competitive? How, for instance, can Georgia be expected to beat England if they only play that calibre of opposition once every four years? As it stands, overtaking Romania as Europe's best non-Six Nations championship side seems to be the limit of their realistic ambitions.
The island nations are always good fun, and Samoa could well surprise Wales just as Fiji did in 2007, but they remain largely uninvolved in the year-by-year international fixture lists. But the Pacific Nations Cup, which sees Samoa, Fiji, Tonga and Japan compete with New Zealand's 'B' side is not of a standard to constitute adequate preparation.
Romania nearly beat Scotland but in the end lost without even gaining a bonus point because the Scots were better conditioned. They played for the full eighty minutes and Simon Danielli's two late tries came against opponents who were out on their feet.
It is one thing to see myriad Georgians, Canadians and Argentines playing professional club rugby in Europe but that will not help produce slick, cohesive international XVs. Only regular, high profile, top level international matches will achieve that. Yet the major nations will not invite Tier 2 nations to play in the Autumn Internationals, the annual series of invitational Test matches, on anything more than an occasional basis as they are not money-spinners.
The solution? Play the Rugby World Cup every two years. In football, there are perfectly sound reasons for the World Cup to be held every four years. The continental confederations have their own championships to organize, as well as their own qualifiers. There simply isn't time. But in rugby union, the 'regional' international championships such as the Six Nations and Quad Nations (which will see Argentina join the Tri Nations, not before time) are annual and occupy a different set point in the calendar.
A biennial World Cup would give the IRB a chance to be more adventurous when selecting hosts, alternating between the safe, wealth-generating tournaments in England, France or Australia, and those which seek the expand the game's horizons. The 2019 World Cup, awarded to Japan, will be the first held outside the game's principal nations. Rugby needs a World Cup, relatively soon, in America and one in Argentina. With the World Cup every four years, the waiting list stretches too long.
Promotion into the Six Nations would probably lead to a hokey-kokey between Italy and Georgia, each swapping places every year, unless Scotland go into a tailspin. And just try getting the Tri Nations unions to allow Samoa or Fiji to take the place of one of them every other year.
Twice as many World Cups would mean more money for the IRB to invest in developing nations which, combined with more regular top-level experience, will make the Rugby World Cup more democratic. More youngsters will be playing rugby in the schools of Tbilisi or Lisbon, Tunis or Montevideo. They will grow into wiser, cannier rugby players, able to see out matches against good opposition.
Experience is not the only factor. Look at Italy: have they made any serious progress since joining the Six Nations in 2000? Few seriously expect them to defeat Ireland and the United States could well give them a good battle. But Italy have given the major nations almost a century's head start. Their time will come. But without more regular Test matches for countries like Japan, Georgia or Russia, the Italians and Argentines could be the only sides to make a serious breakthrough in the forseeable future.
No comments:
Post a Comment