International rugby has been on the agenda since Scotland met England in 1871. For far too long in the time since the game has been the preserve of too few and not nearly enough has been done to propagate it and widen its international boundaries. There has also been something akin to an insular arrogance in the attitude of the members of the ruling body, The International Rugby Board (IRB).
The IRB was a closed shop for generations. Indeed the French were not members for a period even when competing in the Five Nations Championship and playing the big boys from the Southern Hemisphere. The establishment of FIRA, basically a French initiative, gave other countries such as Romania an administrative say before changes came.
Matters have moved on appreciably in more modern times: France joined the IRB fold with a say at the top table and then Argentina, Canada, Italy, Japan and a representative from FIRA, have joined the Four Home Unions, France, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
Credit for those advances must be given to the legislators of the more recent era who have been more enlightened than their predecessors. Modern means of travel and the huge revenue from television have been factors in the spread of the game, but changing attitudes and the desire to open up the game to the masses are what really have counted.
And so we come to the World Cup and a further opening up of avenues for small and emerging rugby nations to compete in. I am totally in favour of every nation having the right to compete in the World Cup. But as pointed out before, the qualifying process was as unwieldy as it was unbalanced and badly needs amendment. As we have seen in recent weeks, so too do other aspects of the World Cup's organisation.
Some of the scorelines in the qualifying competition could have given little heart to some of the smaller nations.
Ireland played in a qualifying group that included Romania and Georgia and there was nothing wrong with that. But, in fact, all three could have qualified for the finals. If that does not amount to a messy process I do not know what does. Ireland and Romania qualified and Georgia got another chance before losing out. One is entitled to ask what the qualifying process is all about? Is it about giving countries more international matches? How big a factor is money? Prior to 1995 World Cup it was decided that instead of the eight quarter-finalists in the preceding tournament automatically qualifying for the next, only the reigning champions, the runners up, the team placed third, and the hosts would qualify as of right. Qualifying should undoubtedly be about merit and achievement and so we must have those qualifying competitions, but not the unwieldy situation that currently exists.
The World Cup organisers must take an in depth look at the structure of future tournaments, not just the qualifying process but also in the sense in having five pools of four teams in the tournament proper. The argument in favour of 20 teams is that it gives more nations a chance to play on the big stage. That is true, but if we must have 20 teams let it be four groups of five and do away with the quarter-final qualifying matches after the group stages.
And I would support the concept of a Plate competition to be run in conjunction with the main competition with the best nations that failed to qualify contesting it. That would be both competitive and an incentive.
Some criticism has been levelled about the five groups taking place in France, Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales. Personally I did not have any problems with this.
WALLABY hooker Phil Kearns has stated that all the Five Nations' teams should play their World Cup matches at home. He should take another look at the schedule. I do not mean the dates of the matches, for the scheduling in that respect was undoubtedly flawed, I mean the venues. For instance France played their quarterfinal in Dublin and semi-final at Twickenham. England played South Africa in Paris and Ireland played Argentina in Lens. I would also suggest that you will travel from Dublin to Paris infinitely quicker than you will fly from Dunedin to Brisbane.
The attendances at this World Cup were good, very much better than in South Africa in 1995 and Australia and New Zealand in 1987. The notable exception was in Scotland. The pool played in Scotland included the reigning world champions South Africa and the reigning Five Nations champions Scotland. The total attendance at the pool matches in Scotland came to just under 97,000. The average attendance was just over 16,000.
The attendances at the Ireland pool matches was almost 130,000. A full house at Thomond Park for Australia v USA, as you might expect in Limerick, and a fine attendance at the Romania v Australia match at Ravenhill.
The competition has been a huge success financially, with a profit of around £50 million. That is a big increase on the figures in 1995. The five nations that held the group matches will get £5 million each. The IRB will set aside the rest for game propagation with particular emphasis on giving financial assistance to emerging nations nationally and internationally. No-one will object to that.
But the ticket prices were far too high and the ticketing arrangements also fell down badly on occasions. Once again the corporate hospitality involvement was immense, nothing new about that in international sport and international rugby, just that it was bigger. Never mind the genuine rugby follower who could not get match tickets.
In conclusion, this World Cup was a tournament lifted by the French but one that I generally believe did not do anything to generate enthusiasm for the game amongst the uncommitted. This was not just because of Ireland's failure, but that did not help either. It also needs to be said that the refereeing was truly awful. The legislators and those responsible for the appointment of referees have a huge responsibility to get it right in future. One other worry too: is rugby amongst the top nations becoming a game about yardage rather than pace and space? That is a discussion point for another day.
