Should the IRB throw minnows back?

[LarryNJ]

http://www.scrumbag.tv/2007/10/the-daily-brawl.html

What do you think?

[James]

I think it would be crazy to do that. Yeah it can be a bit of a walk in the park but having put in a much more solid performance this year it would destroy the game to take those teams out. Rugby is a rapidly growing sport outside the leading nations particularly with the popularity of the 7s circuit and where power bases like football and NFL cannot support the number of wannabe players that then move to rugby.

The main reason a lot of the minnows did so well was because a lot of their players play in England and France and given a strong performance I think more and more will get recruited and strengthen these teams. Take them out of the World Cup and they won't get that kind of exposure and so a rift will form between the top 10 nations and those below and that sucks. They talk about having a World Plate or a World Bowl or something like that for the minnows but that won't help anyone. It would be great as a supplement to their 20 team World Cup challenge but if it is the be all and end all for them it will just condemn them to eternal amateurism in the sport.

I remember going to see Georgia and Samoa play back in 2003 which Samoa won something like 30-3 compare that to 14-10 against Ireland as an improvement over 4 years. I heard Georgia was going to build 11 new rugby stadiums after their great games against Ireland and Argentina which is doubling what exists there already (to 20 I think). 8 to 12 years down the line at RWC 2015 and RWC 2019 that is bound to reap some rewards. If they could only get some outsiders from France or England or Australia or New Zealand to come in and help out with the coaching and work on player development or even have Georgian coaches come over and do like an apprenticeship with a provincial coach (something like what I think Russia is planning to do with Perth) you would get some really good growth.

Curse you LarryNJ! I tried to crush the 'bug' on my screen and looked like and idiot in the process!

[frontrow]

If it aint broke, why fix it...Leave it as it is you old pr*cks...

[Seldom]

Northern hemisphere countries need to look at what they are doing first before cutting out sides that could possibly dominate them in 4 yrs!!!!! To many old farts with old ideas running the IRB. Next they will want Argentina and Italy out!!!!

[GIGS20]

We need the Aussie representative to the IRB panel to point out how many of the traditional powers will be counted as minnows after the next World Cup. Possibly we should rename it the Southern Hemisphere Cup since the main gains in rugby performance are coming from the south (And the East I guess) and the major stagnation is in Western Europe.

Am I wrong in guessing this is more about facilities in NZ than it is about fairness to non-professional rugby nations?

[jazza93]

they are scared by the minnows performance this year and they know they will cause more upsets next year. if anything 20 teams is to small for a WORLD CUP. every other major sport has alot more teams in it.

theyre not going to get better by getting moved aside and not playing the top 10 teams.

[Jehna]

Am I wrong in guessing this is more about facilities in NZ than it is about fairness to non-professional rugby nations?

Well that line of thought has been thrown around a fair bit GIGST and it could account for some of the support for such an action by the IRB. But I'd say it is more likely to be about cost cutting.

IMHO, aside from this being completely unfair and like the article said "not a great decision from the heart, [and] probably not in the spirit of the game of rugby itself" I also think it would weaken the competition. For a start, if we drop the minnows we have a comp between like 6 nations at best! But more to the point, I think both minnows and established teams would lose out by the move.

Without the minnows the better sides have no build up, no chance to practice, no chance to try new tactics and strategies and no chance to play some really raw rugby from the heart rather than by the book. I think such games are good in terms of expanding their rugby. It tests their rugby in completely different ways to the games they play against the hardcore nations. In many ways, playing a minnow nation means you have to be prepared for completely unpredictable situations. Yes it is true that more often than not better nations are equipped to deal with this, and deal with it well, but then you get exciting scenarios like France vs Argentina, or even better, Wales vs Fiji….and that is what rugby is about

On the other side of the coin, you of course have the advantages for the minnows. Where else do you expect them to get this sort of experience from if not in a world cup. These nations don’t go in thinking they’re going to win but they go in honoured by the opportunity to play rugby at such an elite level. It opens their eyes to what can be and as we’ve seen, such dreams are not beyond reach.

And of course…I think that these games are still entertaining for the public. I don’t go watch my 5 yr old nephew’s rugby team play because I think its going to be a quality match…though some of those boys are pretty rough…but I see his love for the game and his continued improvement and I think….hell…one day he may just be the next Matt Giteau…

So let the minnows have their day…what harm does it cause?

[hopep]

Throw the minnows out - absolutely not.
They are the breath of fresh air needed in the RWC year, and in the international sport. The RWC is a showcase of whats developed in the intervening years. The mear fact that they aren't from "the home countries" should not exclude them from anything.

The IRB needs to be restructured on democractic grounds, not preferential bias.

Personally, I'd like to see the cup holder and the host nation as the only guaranteed seeds. Everyone else should qualify in some way.

The qualifying that goes on for nations like UAE, Hong Kong, Spain, Latvia, Ivory Coast etc. is stimulating interest in those countries and lets rugby players around the world have a dream (at least).

Perhaps the IRB would prefer that it is only played by countries who have English as an official language, or drive on the Left. Anything to bias to competition.

Sorry, my vote goes to leaving it open to all comers, and as an international spectacle and show case.

[shasta]

I'd prefer the current format to continue. This would require the NZRU to put the development of the tournament foremost in their considerations and agree to allocate some matches to Aus.

Reading between the lines in the full interview..............

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7015321.stm

.......... It looks as though they had proposed the reduced format but are maybe rethinking after such a fantastic round robin.

In any event the proposal is not all negative as there would still be 4 spots at the RWC up for grabs and a promotion and relegation system put in place regarding seedings for future RWCs .

The proposed tournament could even generate some TV revenue for the participants. The IRB would need to be able to guarantee player availability for the tournament. That could prove a problem in itself.

[gustafsl]

Whatever reason they come up with is going to be absolute crap.

Financial: I read somewhere that with 4 less teams it would save around $5million in expenses. But if they keep the same format (4 pools, round robin, top two through) then 4 less teams means 16 fewer games. That would include 1 less match for NZ, ENG, AUS (all would probably sell out). From what I've seen attendance at the 'minnow' games in France has been reasonable, so surely NZ can match this, and if they love their rugby as much as they claim, then most games should have great attendance. And with Japan/Pacific Islands being so close, you could probably say that those pool matches would be sold out. So what if one of those teams misses out? Taking all that into account the overall loss from having these teams in it couldn't be more then 1 or 2 million (if any). So is that worth chopping four teams?

Stadium: They may not have as many/as big stadiums as other countries but if that's an argument then they shouldn't have gotten the World Cup in the first place. If stadiums are too small here's an idea, raise the ticket prices. And how is chopping the four worst teams going to fix this problem? Wouldn't these be the games that have less attendance? If stadium size is a problem they'd be better off chopping NZ, AUS, ENG because they will have the most demand for tickets. As for number of stadium, you could run the World Cup with two venues. The most number of games in one day for the current Cup has been four. So you could have two games at each stadium (one afternoon, one evening) and not have any problems.

Competition: No one cares if a team is going to lose by 100 points as long as they play the game hard and don't give up. How many of us watched Portugal v New Zealand just to see if Portugal would get a try? The teams don't care either. Portugal players will be telling their kids one day that they lost by 100 to the All Blacks, but at least we got a try.

2nd tier competition. They have some sort of World League in cricket as well. Hands up if you've ever seen one of these games. A 2nd tier competition would get absolutely no media coverage (even in the countries that were in it). One of the big obstacles for the minnow countries is a lack of money. They don't host many matches so don't get much in ticket money and are poorly funded by governments. If you take away even more media coverage they will get even less money. So sending them to a 2nd tier World Cup would still have the same expenses but with a lot less coming in. This would not benefit the countries in any way. The only countries that would benefit would be the minnows of the minnows ie. teams ranked 21-40. These teams wouldn't make a 20 team world cup but would get into a tier 2 competition.

So that just about covers it. Any other crap excuses that I didn't cover?

[AndyS]

Probably not, but it is worth noting that it is all about the financials for the IRB.

The IRB has been guaranteed a return from the NZ RWC, but have to pay team expenses. Less teams, more money left over. It is the NZRFU who feels the pain as their only return is ticket sales, so less teams will see the expected loss of $30M blow out to $48M (their estimates, underwritten by the government). The IRB similarly funds the existing qualification program (all 84 teams, 189 games and 2 1/2 years worth). Bugger all of it would be televised or generate income, so streamlining it would save them a bundle. Unfortunately, I doubt most of the teams involved get any other international competition.

IF the savings were to be used in establishing a network of regional competitions to ensure more continuous rugby for all teams playing the game, I'd maybe cautiously support the concept. Haven't heard anyone suggest that though.

[Happy]

yeah get rid of em ... they just clog up stadiums where I could be watching another wallabies game

[shasta]

The IRB has been guaranteed a return from the NZ RWC, but have to pay team expenses. Less teams, more money left over. It is the NZRFU who feels the pain as their only return is ticket sales, so less teams will see the expected loss of $30M blow out to $48M

Taking that point, wouldn't it then be good business for the NZRU to push for the 20 team format, negotiate independent from the ARU with SFS, Stad Oz, Lang Park etc.? They could stage matches that don't involve the AB's and do very nicely thank you. I couldn't care less about the politics between the ARU & NZRU. Whatever's best for promoting rugby is OK by me.

[gustafsl]

Taking that point, wouldn't it then be good business for the NZRU to push for the 20 team format, negotiate independent from the ARU with SFS, Stad Oz, Lang Park etc.? They could stage matches that don't involve the AB's and do very nicely thank you. I couldn't care less about the politics between the ARU & NZRU. Whatever's best for promoting rugby is OK by me.

Probably best for NZ to just give us the World Cup again. They obviously can't do it.

[Flat-top]

I agree with the view posted above that suggests the success of the "minnows" is probably down in no small part to the fact most actually draw their squad from France, Italy or England and that most if not all contributors in this thread think that is an OK position and should be sustained. These would be the same contributors that I expect support keeping foreigners out of the S14 teams, a bit of double standards don't you think?

I actually agree that the smaller nations add value to a "world comp" but then I live in a country that allows them an opportunity to play in our leagues if they wish to, I think in this case the SH cannot justify taking the high moral ground, even against those clowns at the IRB while they actively discourage this free market in their own leagues.

All that said the IRB are still wrong IMHO.