大象传媒

I find my views have changed on this issue during this WC. My view before kick off was that a 20 team cup was at least four teams too big and that the group stages were an inordinately lengthy way of getting rid of two sides, involving a lot of either tediously lopsided or hard fought but basically meaningless matches before getting to the business end of proceedings.

As things have worked out, all four groups are actually competitive going into the final round of matches and the number of cricket scores has been small. Some of this no doubt is due to factors like the weaknesses of the 鈥渂ig鈥� NH sides, the relative decline of middle ranking sides like Samoa and sides like SA getting squad rotations a bit wrong but there鈥檚 no doubt that teams like Georgia and Tonga and (at a rather lower level) Romania and the USA are no longer easy meat and are capable on their day of giving anybody a decent game. Even the obvious minnows like Namibia and Portugal have had their moments and I鈥檓 now less of the view that the WC could actually be damaging to rugby in countries where it鈥檚 very much a minority sport struggling for visibility than I was a month ago.

There is however no doubt that having an odd number of sides in the groups is causing serious scheduling problems (as indeed it did last time round), with follow-on issues for coaches (as a Scot, I was thoroughly annoyed by what Frank Hadden did on Sunday but I can also accept that he had an arguable case given the ways the games fall). It鈥檚 all very well saying that the 6N can see sides playing games six days apart but nobody plays three games in eleven days- and the improved quality of the 鈥渓esser鈥� sides makes it harder to risk putting out teams based on squad players against them. The option used eight years ago (five pools of four with play-offs to get into the quarter finals for pool runners up and one third placed side) didn鈥檛 work either. Going up to 24 teams with four groups of six would be an option but could lengthen the tournament, reopen the risk of lots of uncompetitive/irrelevant matches (especially if this WC turns out to be a blip with the 鈥渘ormal鈥� order of things reasserted four years hence), seriously limit the number of potential hosts and possibly put additional strains on the finances of the smaller Unions.

Perhaps the real issue is what happens between WCs. Sides like Georgia really need regular games against the 鈥渂ig鈥� sides (and not just at Twickenham or the Millennium Stadium- or indeed at Eden Gardens; it鈥檚 about time we saw, say, England or the All Blacks playing in Tblisi) if they鈥檙e to develop. I appreciate this is going to cost money but if the IRB are serious about growing the game then funding needs to be put in place to enable it.

I find my views have changed on this issue during this WC. My view before kick off was that a 20 team cup was at least four teams too big and that the group stages were an inordinately lengthy way of getting rid of two sides, involving a lot of either tediously lopsided or hard fought but basically meaningless matches before getting to the business end of proceedings.

As things have worked out, all four groups are actually competitive going into the final round of matches and the number of cricket scores has been small. Some of this no doubt is due to factors like the weaknesses of the 鈥渂ig鈥� NH sides, the relative decline of middle ranking sides like Samoa and sides like SA getting squad rotations a bit wrong but there鈥檚 no doubt that teams like Georgia and Tonga and (at a rather lower level) Romania and the USA are no longer easy meat and are capable on their day of giving anybody a decent game. Even the obvious minnows like Namibia and Portugal have had their moments and I鈥檓 now less of the view that the WC could actually be damaging to rugby in countries where it鈥檚 very much a minority sport struggling for visibility than I was a month ago.

There is however no doubt that having an odd number of sides in the groups is causing serious scheduling problems (as indeed it did last time round), with follow-on issues for coaches (as a Scot, I was thoroughly annoyed by what Frank Hadden did on Sunday but I can also accept that he had an arguable case given the ways the games fall). It鈥檚 all very well saying that the 6N can see sides playing games six days apart but nobody plays three games in eleven days- and the improved quality of the 鈥渓esser鈥� sides makes it harder to risk putting out teams based on squad players against them. The option used eight years ago (five pools of four with play-offs to get into the quarter finals for pool runners up and one third placed side) didn鈥檛 work either. Going up to 24 teams with four groups of six would be an option but could lengthen the tournament, reopen the risk of lots of uncompetitive/irrelevant matches (especially if this WC turns out to be a blip with the 鈥渘ormal鈥� order of things reasserted four years hence), seriously limit the number of potential hosts and possibly put additional strains on the finances of the smaller Unions.

Perhaps the real issue is what happens between WCs. Sides like Georgia really need regular games against the 鈥渂ig鈥� sides (and not just at Twickenham or the Millennium Stadium- or indeed at Eden Gardens; it鈥檚 about time we saw, say, England or the All Blacks playing in Tblisi) if they鈥檙e to develop. I appreciate this is going to cost money but if the IRB are serious about growing the game then funding needs to be put in place to enable it.