A question as to whether the scheduling, that has often made it difficult particularly for Tier 2 sides with less depth, detracts from the Rugby World Cup, and whether fans may feel ripped off if they knew that some games had teams not picking their strongest XV.
.jpg/1024px-Australia_vs_USA_2011_RWC_(3).jpg) |
| USA coach Mike Tolkin has already pretty much confirmed he will play a second string against South Africa to rest players for the Japan match. Just as in 2011 the Eagles fielded reserves against Australia to rest players for the Italy match. |
Meanwhile it's been suggested that Kieran Crowley will similarly field a weakened lineup against France to target the final game against Romania. It's also been suggested by Lynn Howells that Romania, who have one of the worst schedules at this tournament, with 3 and 4 day rests between two of their games, rest starters for the match against Ireland with a quick turnaround from the France match.
Japan have done similar things in the past two tournaments, throwing their reserves to Australia (2007) and New Zealand (2011). Although this time Eddie Jones has said he will change to play his strongest team throughout, even though opinion is split on whether that is the best decision with playing such a physical South Africa team likely to take a chunk out of his players for the Scotland match 4 days later.
Tier 1 teams will likely field their squads over the tournament as well. Australia have said they will play basically two different XV's for their opening matches with Fiji and Uruguay.
Obviously difference there is those sorts of teams firstly have so much more depth, and secondly Tier 1 teams only play their short turnarounds exclusively against the 5th ranked side in the pool.
Australia playing Uruguay on 3 days rest, or New Zealand playing Namibia on 3 days rest, is not a comparable dilemma in terms of approach to what Japan face in South Africa and Scotland on 3 days rest is, or Romania playing France and Ireland on 3 days rest.
This means unfortunately that in some cases Tier 2 teams who rarely get chances to play the major nations, may not be at optimum strength against the strongest team they face. Either through fatigue or through playing a weakened team.
 |
| This ticket to see Ireland vs possibly a Romanian second string team will not have come cheap at all. Prices ranged from £50 to £175. |
But it also means that some will have paid up to £85 to watch South Africa beat USA's reserves. Or up to £150 to watch France against potentially the bottom half of Canada's squad. For Ireland's match against Romania, who again may field reserves, prices range from £175 for Category A, £125, £85 for Category B and C, with cheapest Category D £50.
RWC organisers get away with this somewhat as many of those attending may not not really all know who the players of say the USA or Romania team are, so as a result wouldn't be aware they may be fielding reserves, especially as the media don't really report it either.
Ultimately though, second string sides are simply the fact of what will happen when sides are given short turnarounds. As Tolkin said "if the organizers of the tournament want to give players and teams three or four days’ rest between games, then coaches have to plan accordingly".
As professionalism has evolved tours that were in the 1980's or 1990's are pretty much extinct.
For example in 1991, Romania went on a 8 match tour round New Zealand and every single match had just 2 or 3 days in between. Samoa went on a 7 match tour in 1996 also all 2 or 3 days rest between matches. Going back a bit further, Australia's Grand Slam side in 1984 played 18 matches in Europe within 2 months.
If somebody suggested to Ireland a 7 match summer tour to South Africa all with 2 or 3 days rest as they did in 1998 you would be laughed out of the room. As you would be if you suggested to France to play a run of 4 fixtures within 2 weeks away to Samoa, Tonga then New Zealand twice off the back of a tough domestic season as they did in 1999.
The only times occasionally midweek matches happen in the modern day is if a side has essentially brought a nearly entirely different 23 on the tour. The same XV, or even just a similar sort of XV playing off 3 days rest doesn't happen like it might have in the amateur era.
Yet 5 team pools at Rugby World Cup guarantees this happens unless the tournament is dragged on too long. And as a result there are games such as England, one of the strongest fittest sides in the tournament, playing off a full week of rest, versus Uruguay, possibly the least equipped side for handling short turnarounds, playing their final match off 3 days rest.
The exact same thing happened with the same sides in 2003 as well actually, and a match that was would have been a massacre anyway, just leads to the massacre getting even more inflated. That match on paper may be the biggest thrashing of the tournament. In the other match that is a major contender to be the biggest defeat, at least Namibia play play New Zealand when they are fresh.
A question this raises is whether the Rugby World Cup is really as much of a pinnacle of the sport as made out, when not every games through the pool stages will see teams at their strongest. And also whether fans who brought tickets for say, over £100 for Ireland vs Romania, will feel short changed if Romania roll out their bottom end of their squad.
This is a hard task for World Rugby to solve, as midweek games keep the matches in the tournament flowing. But rugby cannot be like a football tournament with physicality of the game, so going to 4 team pools in the future may be a better option.
A 16 team tournament might make the tournament more competitive, but would be an utterly dumb move in terms of promoting growth of the sport and as a business move by WR. There's zero chance this has any chance of happening. No way does WR risk potentially losing the USA market.
A 24 team tournament, which could be formatted similar to the FIFA World Cup versions of the 1980's, is more realistic and has been mentioned by WR CEO Brett Gosper. But then that comes of risks of damaging the competitiveness.
The pool stages are already relatively predictable, adding a Hong Kong or Zimbabwe/Kenya to the mix, sides who would be some way off beating even the 18th ranked side, and sides Japan would expect to put at least 40 points on would not change that. But the best argument for a 24 team World Cup is to fully level out the schedule, not forcing teams to juggle squads.
Status quo will remain for the 2019 tournament, but it will be interesting to see if WR come under more pressure to change after that, especially considering those prices they are charging currently.
For example in 1991, Romania went on a 8 match tour round New Zealand and every single match had just 2 or 3 days in between. Samoa went on a 7 match tour in 1996 also all 2 or 3 days rest between matches. Going back a bit further, Australia's Grand Slam side in 1984 played 18 matches in Europe within 2 months.
If somebody suggested to Ireland a 7 match summer tour to South Africa all with 2 or 3 days rest as they did in 1998 you would be laughed out of the room. As you would be if you suggested to France to play a run of 4 fixtures within 2 weeks away to Samoa, Tonga then New Zealand twice off the back of a tough domestic season as they did in 1999.
The only times occasionally midweek matches happen in the modern day is if a side has essentially brought a nearly entirely different 23 on the tour. The same XV, or even just a similar sort of XV playing off 3 days rest doesn't happen like it might have in the amateur era.
 |
| In 2003 Uruguay played their final match off 3 days rest against a very strong England team, in 2015 the exact same thing happens again. |
The exact same thing happened with the same sides in 2003 as well actually, and a match that was would have been a massacre anyway, just leads to the massacre getting even more inflated. That match on paper may be the biggest thrashing of the tournament. In the other match that is a major contender to be the biggest defeat, at least Namibia play play New Zealand when they are fresh.
This is a hard task for World Rugby to solve, as midweek games keep the matches in the tournament flowing. But rugby cannot be like a football tournament with physicality of the game, so going to 4 team pools in the future may be a better option.
 |
| WR CEO Brett Gosper has talked of a possible 24 team RWC for 2023 |
A 16 team tournament might make the tournament more competitive, but would be an utterly dumb move in terms of promoting growth of the sport and as a business move by WR. There's zero chance this has any chance of happening. No way does WR risk potentially losing the USA market.
A 24 team tournament, which could be formatted similar to the FIFA World Cup versions of the 1980's, is more realistic and has been mentioned by WR CEO Brett Gosper. But then that comes of risks of damaging the competitiveness.
The pool stages are already relatively predictable, adding a Hong Kong or Zimbabwe/Kenya to the mix, sides who would be some way off beating even the 18th ranked side, and sides Japan would expect to put at least 40 points on would not change that. But the best argument for a 24 team World Cup is to fully level out the schedule, not forcing teams to juggle squads.
Status quo will remain for the 2019 tournament, but it will be interesting to see if WR come under more pressure to change after that, especially considering those prices they are charging currently.
No comments:
Post a Comment