Don't cut number of teams at next World Cup

Message to the New Zealand Rugby Union. Please put to bed a shocking idea. Please deny that you want to ban parts of the world from the 2011 World Cup. Please deny that you want to run the event as a cartel of the old boys of the top nations by slashing it to only 16 teams.

Bernard Lapasset, the Frenchman who is likely to be in charge of the sport soon, as chairman of the International Rugby Board, made a staggering assertion today. He said that the New Zealand Rugby Union may indeed want to reduce the number of competing teams at the 2011 World Cup.

I have done a quick check and it seems that the All Blacks will be among them. In any fair world they may have had to qualify - say with away games in Samoa, the Cook Islands and Niue, where I feel sure they would be able to scrape through. But I gather they are in because they are hosts.

Moving on, Lapasset asserts that the Kiwi fans may well show rugby in a bad light by leaving stadiums in droves if there are one-sided games. He says that because of this, the New Zealand Rugby Union may demand that there are only 16 competing teams.

Has Lapasset gone mad? Where has he been at his own World Cup? This is an utter nonsense in several ways. First, it ignores the fact that this tournament has been far more competitive, in fact, fantastically so, and the idea of reducing to 16 is a kick in the head to Fiji, Argentina, Georgia, Tonga and all the others from outside the old elite (rotten old elite, more like).

But the last two World Cups have seen sensational crowds and colour, magnificent identification with the smaller nations, scenes of wonderful emotion all over. Is M Lapassset suggesting that Aussie and French fans are more loyal, less navel-contemplating, than New Zealand fans? Is he saying that Kiwi rugby fans are not so big-hearted as those of other nations? Is he saying that they care less about the spread of global rugby? It seems so. Strange.

New Zealand may not have anywhere remotely near the number of hotel beds, glamorous cultural icons, cuisine, sense of history or glory or soaring stadiums as Paris, and the rest of France and all the other 2007 venues. Its TGV may only go at 3 miles per hour.

But surely, there are 20 rugby communities in New Zealand with enough fervour, passion and sense of the wider issues to stage a tournament involving 20 teams. The communities that do adopt teams would surely be big enough to see it through until the end.

I would really like to hear from the NZRU a ringing denial that they want to cut off the rugby world at the knees. They must know that the world judges World Cups on how warm and sincere is the welcome to outsiders. If all the Kiwi fans harp on about for the whole six weeks is their own team, then it will be the worst World Cup ever.

Please tell us that the world is welcome at your World Cup. Not just bits of it. Please trust your trusty fans to fill the stadiums and stay there. Looking forward to an early declaration.

Comments

[Southern Dave]

"World Cup" is a complete misnomer - Lets get real - it's only a five nations cup. (with the current draw ending up with four top teams on one side of the draw and SA on the other)

What is needed if it to one day become a truely global game is the second tier nations to have a cup of their own played on a more regular basis.

[andres de elizalde]

Agustin Pichot, Captain of the Pumas last week warned the IRB not to reduce the number of nations competing in the next WC to 16 from 20 because it goes against the "new global rugby". The world is going global and the IRB is trying to hide in a closet. Argentina since 2003 was not allowed to participate in the yearly Tri Nation and Six Nations tournaments limiting their opportunities to compete with the best. Nonetheless they fared extremely well in France. Football is global and incredibly successful, !!open the doors gentlemen and may the best win !!!, from where-ever on earth!!.
andy

[macca_nz]

In case you all forget.....NZ and Aussie atarted the world cup concept.

Kiwis will love getting along to world cup games between all nations.

Scohool holidays have already been moved in 2011 to allow more people to go to midweek pool games.

[Greg Simpson, Hawkes Bay NZ]

I don't think the issue is about people leaving the game early, i think the problem lies with getting kiwis to the games in the first place. At times we don't sell-out games to All Black tests let alone to games involving two minnows like Georgia v Portugal!!

Kiwis are pathetic supporters when it comes to attending games, look at the current NPC semi-finals, they are expecting a crowd of less than 10,000 to watch Canterbury v Wellington, two of the power houses of NZ rugby!!

I take my hat off to the French public for supporting this world cup and providing full stadiums for the majority of the games. Sadly i doubt this will be replicated in 2011, what is worse is that the games will be played in embarrising hybrid rugby/cricket grounds with lack of atmosphere and second rate facilities.

[Aaron]

Ally Gray are you serious? Sure upsets happen in sport, but New Zealand have never lost to Scotland, Italy, Argentina, or Ireland...ever. As for world cup records, England have won the same number of World Cups as New Zeland, should this 'shaky' record exclude them from hosting in 2015?

I agree with you that Japan should have been given the hosting rights, but please don't base your opinion of the New Zealand sports public on the vocal few.

[Grae O'Sullivan]

I think people need to find out a little information regarding the bid and the proposed set up in New Zealand before jumping to conclusions and making accusations of lack of interest or ability on the part of New Zealand to host some matches.

There is an article in the New Zealand papers regarding this very matter. The New Zealander in charge of organising the 2011 competition, Martin Snedden, has basically come out and said that while his preference is for 16 teams he is ameniable if the consensus is to keep it at 20. What is especially interesting in his comments is the fact that a 16 team cup as run along the lines prior to 1999 would not be the aim as there would not be enough matches. Snedden stated that there needs to be at least 40 plus games in the cup and 16 teams played in 4 pools of 4 teams means only 32 teams total.

This suggests that the NZRFU doesn't have a problem with getting support to matches

[micky]

God Almighty! RWC without Georgia, USA and possibly one of the PI teams? Unthinkable, just like unmanning the forward game. The Tasman duo really do need to wake up and smell the coffee otherwise this great game is going to split.

[RS]

"Didn't they bid and win the rights to host 2011 on the basis of it being a 20-team event?"

Yes, that's right. So the IRB should not even listen to that nonsense of reducing the RWc to 16 teams. Let's face it: right now the 16 team in the IRB ranking is Georgia, and Georgia got well beaten by France. So, reducing the teams will not prevent the risk of massive results. But it will stop the evolution of Rugby in the so called minnows.

[Kieron McCann]

I am a Kiwi and I agree that the number of teams should not be reduced. Some of the most entertaining matches of this World Cup have involved the 'lesser teams'. This year's RWC has probably done more for the promotion of Rugby outside the traditional unions than any previous tournament.

I also agree that it could be beneficial to play a game or two in Apia or Nadi - but I think northern hemisphere readers might need to be aware that a flight to the Islands is not a quick jaunt across the English channel - it's a three hour (or more) flight. How many of them are likely to make that journey a number of times during the tournament? There are also a number of infrastructure issues to bear in mind for these very small countries.

However, it's a complete fallacy to say that Kiwi Rugby fans would not go to see matches played by the minnows. A match involving Fiji, Samoa or Tonga played in Auckland stands the greatest chance of having a large crowd of Fijian, Tongan or Samoan supporters because it is the world's largest Polynesian city. I also believe that the NZ rugby watching public would be thrilled to watch teams such as Georgia, Namibia or Japan - I'd suggest that they'd get a great deal more support than England would!

If you listened to Mr Jones he would have you believe that NZ is filled with raw meat eating bigots who only watch the All Blacks. If you have been to New Zealand you would know that Kiwis are almost obsessive about ensuring that visitors enjoy the best our country has to offer.

If you think the 2011 World Cup is going to be the worst ever Mr Jones then do us all a favour and dont come!

[Richard S]

Here we go again from Jones.

[Dan Taylor]

I’ve been following this debate quite closely over the last few weeks, because as a kiwi I have a vested interest in the tournament and are really looking forward to having it back home in 2011.

Before the tournament, every man and his dog was saying to reduce it, but the consensus has done a 180 degree turn since then, as the smaller nations have competed fantastically well, and added a lot of colour to the event.

There has then been plenty of paranoia about the NZRFU still wanting to reduce the numbers down to 16. I don’t know whether to believe this or not, as no one has been able to provide some concrete evidence of this. However, I am in agreement that the NZRFU Board does need to come out and state their position on it. I can only hope that they back the 20 team competition, as per their bid, or they should resign.

Lapassat’s comments are rather patronising towards New Zealand. Was that part of France’s deal with Wales and Scotland to get this edition of the world cup? A guarantee that their fans will stay to the end? I think kiwis will get right behind it, indeed I remember as a kid having a great day out at Carisbrook watching Italy vs Fiji in 1987. And yes, we stayed until the final whistle.

Of course we are much smaller than France, but it will be a more intimate event. We can’t put on the same tournament as France, but that is something that can be embraced and celebrated, much like I am sure London 2012 will be much different to Beijing 2008 – this is not a bad thing! Everyone can either sit here and pick holes in everything, sling mud at each other, or we can keep the focus on our wonderful sport and bring the rugby community together again for another fantastic event in 4 years time. A bit of positivity will go a long way, in particular from the IRB and NZRFU heads.

[Clark]

I completely agree.

It would be outrageous to reduce the number of teams for the NZ 'old boys' cup.

Also tell me that we won't put up with S. Hemisphere officials reducing the role of the scrum.

If they don't want to scrum they should play rugby league.

[KiwiKid]

Gee Stephen,
As you said please Im sure the NZRFU will troll through your blogs and be delighted to appease you. Lets see if your bangers are suitable to be invited after this weekend --- oh thats right, your lot didnt get through the pool play, sorry I mean your adopted team

[Shahsan]

Like you, I believe that the World Cup should be held in the one country instead of parcelled out to neighbours and friends. But in the case of New Zealand, I think an exception should be made. Since the NZRFU do not think they can cope with the load of the 40-plus matches that comes with hosting a 20-team event, how about giving out some matches to their neighbours Fiji, Samoa and Tonga, who collectively or individually could never, ever host a world cup. This would be a gesture of goodwill on New Zealand's part to their neighbours and help reduce the strain on their infrastructure. And also make the World Cup experience complete for fans travelling from around the world. Imagine the fillip such a move would give to those countries' economies; imagine the thrill they will get from hosting the matches; imagine the hospitality teams and spectators (and journalists) will receive; imagine the sheer fun of watching rugby and holidaying in such beautiful islands. I think it's a goer, but as I understand it the NZRFU have already knocked back the idea. Bully them.
As an aside, why should there even be talk of hosting a 16-team tournament? Didn't they bid and win the rights to host 2011 on the basis of it being a 20-team event? If they can't cope, and won't share, surely it should go back to the other bidder, ie Japan, who, as we all know, are capable of hosting Soccer World Cups and Olympic Games?

[Ally Gray]

We are now seeing what a monumental error it was in handing the World Cup to New Zealand. Not only is their World Cup heritage looking a bit flaky, but their support is so one eyed most of them won't even bother watching the rest of the tournament. As soon as their team is out, the interest goes. What price NZ not even qualifying from their group of four next time? As a second seed, it is possible they get drawn alongside one major team plus one of Scotland, Italy, Wales or Fiji. Who would bet against those teams putting NZ out? The tournament will then be a disaster with only travelling supporters turning up. The Rugby World Cup is becoming a major world event. Why set it back ten years by taking it to a rugby backwater?

[mark]

well in that case write a blog on Argentina....just one. I really don't care if you slag them off, just forget the rotten ol' elite etc and write on the semifinalists from the new order.

THEY

DESERVE

RESPECT

show some.