Building on RWC 2011

With one game left to play in RWC 2011 it is fair to say that the tournament has been a success with attendance targets met, a lot of interest in all the games played and some exciting rugby to boot. That said, for many New Zealanders RWC 2011 will only prove to be a success if our boys ensure the trophy doesn't leave on a plane for France this coming Sunday!

Looking to the future though there is still room for the International Rugby Board (the IRB) to improve the RWC, especially for the tier two teams who compete but in reality are just there to make up the numbers. The call has been made for the RWC to adopt the format seen in rugby sevens tournaments around the world where teams who get knocked out in pool play can still contest for the Plate, Bowl or Shield via a series of knockout games. Following the rugby sevens formula the losing quarter finalists would contest for the Plate, the teams that came third in their groups would contest for the Bowl and the fourth and fifth placed teams would contest for the Shield. I do realise that this deviates slightly from the current rugby sevens format. If we were to apply this to RWC 2011 here are the games that we would have seen. (please note I didn't use any formula to schedule teams)

The Plate

Game 1: Argentina v South Africa

Game 2: Ireland v England

Game 3: Game 1 Winner v Game 2 Winner.

The Bowl

Game 1: Tonga v Scotland

Game 2: Italy v Samoa

Game 3: Game 1 Winner v Game 2 Winner.

The Shield

Game 1: Canada v Romania

Game 2: Japan v Georgia

Game 3: USA v Namibia

Game 4: Fiji v Russia

Game 5: Semi Final

Game 6: Semi Final

Game 7: Final

For many of the tier two teams making the RWC is the entire focus of their international schedule. Whereas the tier one teams such as the All Blacks or England compete in prestigious tournaments such as the Tri Nations or the Six Nations in between RWC's there is very little in the way of regular tournaments for tier two/ three teams to compete in aside from RWC qualifying matches and then the RWC itself. It is hardly fair that they turn up to make up the numbers so to speak and then are discarded after pool play.

More than that, the Plate games could have been based in Wellington, the Bowl games in Hamilton and the Shield games in both Dunedin and Invercargill with the final in Dunedin. This would have prolonged the RWC 2011 experience throughout New Zealand, instead of all the action heading up to Auckland during the latter and most important stages of the tournament. The added games would have meant greater revenues for the IRB, not only in ticket sales but also in broadcast fees because they have a larger product on offer. The IRB could even use the additional trophies to honour some of the biggest names in the game, the Colin Meads Plate, the Danie Craven Shield etc.

It also would have offered the fans something a bit different to the rugby viewing palate than the usual fare on offer in the latter stages of RWC 2011. If you compare the RWC’s finalists from 1999, 2003 and 2007 you will not see a whole lot of difference.

1999

South Africa v England

Australia v Wales

New Zealand v Scotland

France v Argentina

2003

England v Wales

New Zealand v South Africa

France v Ireland

Australia v Scotland

2007

Australia v England

New Zealand v France

South Africa v Fiji

Argentina v Scotland

Including this tournament 10 teams have made the qualifying rounds since rugby turned professional in 1999, the first tournament that was played in the modern professional era of rugby union. While this is no bad thing the IRB could do a lot worse than to take steps to ensure that every team at the RWC is playing for something other than just making up the numbers. 

What is the IRB thinking?

The International Rugby Board (IRB) turned down a great chance to improve the standard of test match rugby when it voted against changing the current eligibility laws the other day. As it stands, once a player has played for a nations top representative team, the next best team and/ or the sevens team he cannot at a later date play for a team representing another nation. See here for the statute in full.

Northern commentators have applauded the move to retain the existing eligibility laws, telling readers that it keeps the game of rugby in line with other major codes such as football (Which also only allows a player to play for one nation) and distances the sport from the debacle that is the international eligibility laws of rugby league. For the record I am not in any way advocating for Rugby to adopt the eligibility laws of Rugby League but the FIFA comparison rankles with me. FIFA has more member nations than the UN, there are over 240 million people worldwide playing association football at some level. The IRB on the other hand lays claim to 95 member states, of which around 15 national teams (at a stretch) play at a professional level. There are thought to be around 10 million people worldwide playing rugby at some level.

The point is, FIFA with its 240 million competitors can afford to be hardline on its international eligibility rules whereas the IRB cannot. Football's prevalence in communities all over the world means that players with elite talent, the Pele's, the Maradona's, the Ronaldinho's are constantly being churned out. Football is also an easier game to pick up and to participate. You see UNICEF advertisements of kids kicking a rag ball on a dirt patch in the middle of a slum almost daily. You will never see 12 year old impoverished Johnny learning the finer points of tighthead prop play by a scrum machine in the background. Rugby is alot more specialist and technical than football, more coaching is needed for a player to rise through the ranks. This limits rugby's appeal severely in that there is alot of potential out there that will forever be left untapped.

The World Cup, the IRB version (less petrodollars), is a 20 team tournament. I feel that the IRB should be looking to showcase its best product, by that I mean having the best rugby players in the world leaving it all on the field. Especially at a time of cost cutting and the all important TV networks re-evaluating the worth of sporting events the IRB should be looking to put its best product on the field. This is not achieved when you deny players such as Jerry Collins, Chris Masoe, Ben Atiga, Sosene Anesi (All eligible for Samoa) or even Doug Howlett (Tonga) a chance to play at the World Cup.

Federation of Oceania Rugby (FORU) boss Harry Schuster has accused his Celtic counterparts of acting in their own interest by not voting for the measure. And its a valid fear that a full strength Western Samoan team would be on par with a Scotland or a Wales but that is good for the game, no one wants to see blowouts. Another point to consider is that it wouldn't just be the Pacific Island nations that benefit, a fledging rugby outpost such as Georgia could do with the services of Dimitri Yachvili and Dimitri Szarzeski once their French days are over. Ireland's Ronan O'Gara is US born. More than a few South African players have come from Namibia or Zimbabwe, Percy Montgomery the example there. The knowledge these veterans of the game could pass on to the homegrown semi professional players that by and large constitute the second tier of international rugby is invaluable and I feel the IRB will rue the day they decided not to change this abomination of a law.

BJH

My plan for the Air New Zealand Cup

Here is my hypothetical plan for a future Air New Zealand Cup competition layout. It is based largely on the system the NFL uses to decide the draw in its Championship.

There will be 5 Divisions, all of equal standing.

The Northern Division
- Northland
- North Harbour
- Auckland

The Lower North Division (unimaginatively named i know)
- Counties Manukau
- Waikato
- Bay Of Plenty

The Central Division
- Taranaki
- Manawatu
- Hawkes Bay

The Southern Division
- Tasman
- Otago
- Southland

The Unaligned Division
- Wellington
- Canterbury

For the Northern, Lower North, Central and Southern Divisions the draw will look something like this per team;

- Play at home and away against the two other teams in the same division. (4 Games)
- Play against one of the Unaligned Division teams. (1 Game)
- Play against two teams from each other division aside your own division and the Unaligned Division. (6 Games) OR a 2nd game against one of the Unaligned Division teams.

All equating to an eleven game season.

A hypothetical draw for a team like Taranaki would look like this;

1)Taranaki at Hawkes Bay (1st Inter- Division Game)
2)Canterbury at Taranaki (Unaligned Division Game)
3)Taranaki at North Harbour (1st Outer- Division Game)
4)Manawatu at Taranaki (2nd Inter- Division Game)
5)Taranaki at Tasman (2nd Outer- Division Game)
6)Counties Manukau at Taranaki (3rd Outer- Division Game)
7)Taranaki at Auckland (4th Outer- Division Game)
8)Hawkes Bay at Taranaki (3rd Inter- Division Game)
9)Taranaki at Waikato (5th Outer- Division Game)
10)Southland at Taranaki (6th Outer- Division Game)
11)Taranaki at Manawatu (4th Inter- Division Game)

The Unaligned Division's draw will be different considering it is the smallest division.

Therefore Wellington and Canterbury will play each other twice and the remainder of its games against teams from outside its division.

Post- Season Play

Eight teams will progress to the post season.
Five of those teams will be teams that have won their respective division by having more points or better strength of record than any other team in their division.
The other three teams will be the three teams that didnt win their divison but had the best records outside of the 5 division champions.
So by using this method on the 2009 standings who would of made the playoffs?

Teams Points
Canterbury 47 Unaligned Division Champion- 1st seed
Wellington 43 Wildcard Team- 6th seed
Southland 41 Southern Division Champion- 2nd seed
Hawkes Bay 41 Central Division Champion- 3rd seed
Auckland 39 Northern Division Champion- 4th seed
Waikato 37 Lower Northern Division Champion- 5 seed
BOP 32 Wildcard Team- 7th seed
Taranaki 28 Wildcard Team- 8th seed
Tasman 28
Otago 27
Manawatu 24
Nth Harbour 20
Northland 16
Counties 12

So the 1st round of playoffs would have been

Canterbury(1) v Taranaki(8)
Southland(2) v BOP(7)
Hawkes Bay(3) v Wellington(6)
Auckland(4) v Waikato(5)

Advantages
- More local derbies
- A bigger focus on provincial pride
- Playoff races
- 14 game season
- Room for expansion (15 teams would be more logical)