The World Cup is only seven weeks away but in reality it never goes away. It is the big beast of the sport, the pinnacle of rugby but a tournament that is increasingly casting a giant and detrimental shadow over the globe. Rugby is invariably talked about in relation to the World Cup. Teams are either preparing for it or learning lessons from it. Playing careers are measured in World Cup cycles. Southern hemisphere stars plan their lives and their decisions to move abroad around it. Everywhere you turn, it’s World Cup this, World Cup that. It is beginning to choke the life out of the game rather provide the lifeblood and oxygen for its future wellbeing.
What it does is undermine the integrity of international rugby and other competitions. The Super 14 was seriously devalued by Grahan Henry’s decision to withold a raft of his best player for the first half of this year’s competition to prepare them physically for the World Cup in France. That created an unholy row with broadcasters and is a move that was widely criticised and may well have backfired given recent form and results. Then the South Africans brought the B Boks across for the Tri Nations games in Sydney and Auckland leaving behind 20 front line troops whom Jake White did not want to risk. More rows, more bollockings from broadcasters and Henry for some reason seeing fit to criticise New Zealand’s fiercest rivals. What hypocrisy. Tours by northern hemisphere nations are invariably underpowered in World Cup year for the very same reason. So too are the economics of unions in the north shot to pieces in a World Cup year. November games and valuable income are lost yet nothing gets in the way of the Tri Nations. It all leaves a deep feeling of dissatisfaction. Crowds are cheated, broadcasters as well, and unless something is done, they may well seek to take their pound or dollar elsewhere.
Lawrence Dallagalio, one of the greatest players of this or any other generation is not alone in thinking that an international match is just that, the here and now, the immediate pinnacle. Representing your country is the ultimate accolade and nothing should detract or devalue that. The Six Nations Championship, tours, domestic competitions are all vital in their own way. Each has its place in the calendar. The IRB must be conscious of that and not focus everything on William Webb Ellis. It must be kept in proportion. And to be fair to the IRB, if I read correctly the messages from Dublin and the work going on the fruits of which will be discussed in November, there is an real appreciation that all is not well.
Yes it is the cash cow that drives the game’s development everywhere. The Pacific Islands have had a real boost from the proceeds. But the tournament itself is becoming too big, too predictable, too boring. It is becomign too coprotate too expensive. Why have 20 teams and a series of spectacular mismatches. In 1987 New Zealand beat Italy 70-7 in the inaugural World Cup, in 2003 70-6. Progress? It only really gets going in the knock out stages. There are never any upsets simply because the confrontational and physical nature of rugby precludes them. You know pretty much only three or four countries have a realistic chance of winning. The schedule is disorted to favour the big nations. Italy’s treatement in Australia in 2003 when they had all their pool games shoehorned into something like 16 days while New Zealand had the red carpet rolled out for them, was a disgrace.
Why then was the RFU’s visionary plans drawn up for its bid to host the 2011 torunament ignored. That allowed for a 16 team main tournament and a second tier event running in parallel. It fell foul though of a typical anti-English conspiracy and political shenanigans of the worst kind with the unseemly trade off of games for votes. You back us we’ll give you a pool or a quarter-final.The true fan is also shortchanged. The cost of tickets and official packages is extortionate. Ordinary supporters of llimited means are being priced out of the market.
Advertisement
Looking back at the past six tournaments, only two have been outstanding successes. South Africa in 1995 and Australia four years ago. That is because it was held in one country not divvied up for convenience. If a country can run the football World Cup successfully as France did in 1998 then surely it can also stage manage its rugby counteprart without flogging off bits here there and everywhere.
Chris Rattue one of New Zealand’s most outspken but admired sports critics articulated the growing sense of unease at the effect of the World Cup. “I’m a committed opponent of Graham Henry’s rest and reconditioning plan, New Zealand rugby at its most cringe-inducing conceitedness. Hey look at us — we’re so important and winning the World Cup is so vital to our sorry little state, we’re prepared to stuff up an entire multimillion-dollar competition (the Super 14) without regard for anybody else.
“If we can’t win the World Cup without destroying the rest of the game, well so be it. We’ll have to live without it. The sun will still shine, the grass will still grow. Can you imagine English football pulling players out of half of the premiership. It wouldn’t be allowed, and nor should it. The rugby World Cup is a test of the ability to claim the highest honour because of and in spite of advantages and hurdles. It’s not supposed to turn everything else into a wasteland.” Well said Sir.