Does Africa deserve a second spot in RWC

[wayner]

While is is likely true that the RWC has too many teams, I would argue that 16 is plenty, what is the rationale for giving Africa a second spot beyond SA? This usually goes to Namibia and they generally get whipped in every game. Namibia is currently ranked at #23.

I understand the point about wanting representation from around the world but if that is the case then why not give a spot to South America (in addition to Argentina)? Uruguay is currently ranked higher than Namibia in the IRB rankings therefore aren't they more deserving? Or why not make Namibia play in the repechage spot and give two "wild card" types of spots instead of the current one?

 

[LittleGuy]

While is is likely true that the RWC has too many teams, I would argue that 16 is plenty, what is the rationale for giving Africa a second spot beyond SA? This usually goes to Namibia and they generally get whipped in every game. Namibia is currently ranked at #23.

I understand the point about wanting representation from around the world but if that is the case then why not give a spot to South America (in addition to Argentina)? Uruguay is currently ranked higher than Namibia in the IRB rankings therefore aren't they more deserving? Or why not make Namibia play in the repechage spot and give two "wild card" types of spots instead of the current one?

Agreed!!!! Though I wouldn't count out Uruguay getting in if they face Russia in the repechage round, Los Teros set piece has been working very well with Pablo Lemoine's guidance while the Bears have completely stalled and aren't even creative on attack at the moment.

Even more scary our rumours that the IRB will add a 2nd Asian spot for 2019, unless they take it from Africa or eliminate repechage we could see someone like Romania miss out on a RWC in favour of....Hong Kong?

 

[Jaguares]

I support this idea. Uruguay deserves a place before a second African team

 

[Big Ewis]

Good idea from wayner, but he's obviously a raging racist. I think he should be banned for even mentioning such putrid, communitarian folly !!
Nah actually you're 100% right. It's just pitifully and unnecessarily stubborn at this point. Like, we MUST have that other African nation. Well, no we don't...there isn't, at least on the surface, a single reason why Namibia should get the spot, especially when it's de facto like that.
Just as a player earns his spot on an international side, so should teams in the RWC.
And I mean more tangibly speaking, aren't bored to death with seeing Namibia hand teams their largest margin record win like every single Cup ?...

I'm sure the IRB will start considering this soon.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Poor Namibia. This thread comes up every 6 months.

Do they desserve the spot ahead of a better team like Romania? No. Is reserving an open spot for every continent beyond the top tier teams in that continent important? Yes, very much so for the continued growth of the sport we all love.

So leave Namibia (or the African team that will probably displace them sooner rather han later) be. I might as well say what's the point of having Canada in the tournament as they seem to have dropped off the pace in terms of RWC results rather than improved and are less competitive now than they were 20 years back. But I won't for the sake of a 'global' game and proper RWC (Rugby [BLINK]WORLD[/BLINK] Cup).

 

[Big Ewis]

well it's only the Rugby *World* Cup because it's all the most important and competitive sides in the world. It wasn't the *world* wars because absolutely everyone was involved, but because it was the biggest nations and hence the highest stakes.
And seriously, how the hell is keeping Namibia good for Africa ? It would be potentially, but there doesn't seem to be improvements in the continent...ever. They've been just around as bad for the past eternity.
Zimbabwe entered the first two cups only to be destroyed. Then it was Cote d'Ivoire and they got annihilated. The year 1999 saw Namibia enter, by default from then on. And hovering over the results it almost seems like they've actually got worse with every 4 years passed...at very least completely the same, no improvement whatsoever, not a single remotely close game in sight.

And honestly, the rest of Africa couldn't care less about Rugby, and Namibia just isn't going to improve any time soon unless some billionaire starts financing them out of the blue.
I don't think in tangible realistic terms that the RWC is really any promotion for the sport to the continent, and I think if Namibia want a spot well they better get to it and start working for it and then when they work all the way up to deserving a spot, they'll be good enough and have smt to show and then maybe that'll spawn more interest in the country.
But right now, we're either back-pedaling with these bozos or staying perfectly still.......that is - PERFECTLY. STILL. h34r:

I say fk it. Lose em. Get some hungry South American side (if not a deserving European one), at least that will in deed spread Rugby throughout a continent.

 

[Tony Manx]

Why not reduce the numbers participating in the RWC by taking only the top 12 in the rankings at a given date or best finishers in the previous RWC and give four places to the other nations who would have to play their own mini RWC two years before the main one with the semi finalists qualifying for the main event.

Then the real RWC could have just four groups of four with one from the mini RWC, one from the top 4 in the standings, one from the middle four and one from the bottom four in each group.

The top teams of each group only would qualify for the semi finals.....

This strengthens the quality of the RWC, reduces the costs to paticipating and hosts nations (meaning smaller nations can host it) and supporters and reduces the time the whole thing takes with constant reduction in player fatigue....................!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

no.





EDIT; to Big E

The post diretly above mine is a good pro-active one.

 

[Patchey]

well it's only the Rugby *World* Cup because it's all the most important and competitive sides in the world. It wasn't the *world* wars because absolutely everyone was involved, but because it was the biggest nations and hence the highest stakes.
And seriously, how the hell is keeping Namibia good for Africa ? It would be potentially, but there doesn't seem to be improvements in the continent...ever. They've been just around as bad for the past eternity.
Zimbabwe entered the first two cups only to be destroyed. Then it was Cote d'Ivoire and they got annihilated. The year 1999 saw Namibia enter, by default from then on. And hovering over the results it almost seems like they've actually got worse with every 4 years passed...at very least completely the same, no improvement whatsoever, not a single remotely close game in sight.

And honestly, the rest of Africa couldn't care less about Rugby, and Namibia just isn't going to improve any time soon unless some billionaire starts financing them out of the blue.
I don't think in tangible realistic terms that the RWC is really any promotion for the sport to the continent, and I think if Namibia want a spot well they better get to it and start working for it and then when they work all the way up to deserving a spot, they'll be good enough and have smt to show and then maybe that'll spawn more interest in the country.
But right now, we're either back-pedaling with these bozos or staying perfectly still.......that is - PERFECTLY. STILL. h34r:

I say fk it. Lose em. Get some hungry South American side (if not a deserving European one), at least that will in deed spread Rugby throughout a continent.

I think you'll find it was a *World* war because it was fought across every inhabited continent on the planet. By your logic the Napoleonic Wars should acrually be called 'world wars' as they were fought by most of the world's dominant powers, despite being in a fairly geographically constrained conflict.

And the same applies to the Rugby WORLD Cup (see how I linked that little rank back to the topic?), if it isn't a tournament that is representative of world rugby it isn't really a WORLD cup. There is a good argument to be made that the format for qualification could be different or that a second tier version for countries that fail to qualify would be a good idea. However in terms of allocations per continent there isn't much to say IMO.

 

[LittleGuy]

I think you'll find it was a *World* war because it was fought across every inhabited continent on the planet. By your logic the Napoleonic Wars should acrually be called 'world wars' as they were fought by most of the world's dominant powers, despite being in a fairly geographically constrained conflict.

And the same applies to the Rugby WORLD Cup (see how I linked that little rank back to the topic?), if it isn't a tournament that is representative of world rugby it isn't really a WORLD cup. There is a good argument to be made that the format for qualification could be different or that a second tier version for countries that fail to qualify would be a good idea. However in terms of allocations per continent there isn't much to say IMO.

To be fair, the Napoleonic Wars(particularly if you throw in the very closely related War of 1812) and certainly the Seven Years War in 1756-1763 were actually more global than the First World War, which was almost entirely fought in Europe and the Levant, the only exception being some minor campaigns in Africa and the Siege of Tsingtao in China.

 

[Aristodemus]

Yeah Littleguy, amongst military historians the seven years war is considered the first world war. Almost forgotten for the masses though now unfortunately.

 

[Patchey]

Not disputing that, certainly had a much wider geographical scope than the Great War. I was just being a pedant around Yoel/Ewis argument specifically.

Anyway, back to rugby...

 

[Big Ewis]

ah, come on, you got my point. I'm saying a World Cup, just like World Wars, don't need to include absolutely everyone. In fact since we're speaking of the African continent, African nations as nations played no role in WWI, but we weren't going to not call it a WW because of that or the myriad of other countries that had no role.
At least South Africa play in the RWC, and they more than make up for a potential absence of any other African nation and the African continent has a worthy champion to show on the world Rugby platform.

And the whole "it's a WORLD cup, it should include teams from all over the world, at least two per continent" argument is just completely irrelevant with all due respect because:
Rugby doesn't have to be and in fact isn't part of all the world's regions' culture. Obviously, African nations aren't particularly crazy about it, and Asian nations are even less that. So it's really forcing the issue when we say "but......but we MUST have participants from all over the world because it's a WORLD cup".
That, backed by the fact that African teams really are nowhere near all the other nations who participate. And how does even one justify Namibia's presence when they constantly lose by 70-10 scores ? Aren't those playing devil's advocate ? Is it a real stance to genuinely desire Namibia in the RWC ? I don't think so.

Those were my reasons not to have Namibia, and here are my reasons to pick another nation:

there actually is one nation, if not more, that simply *deserves*, as in legitimately merits to take Namibia's place. Uruguay are currently 21st vs 23rd for Namibia, which isn't even the point. They're not only "officially better" according to the IRB ranking, they're also a team that's had much better results in the RWC (at least the 1999 one) and haven't had a chance to prove their worth since the 2003 RWC, their second and last appearance.
The IRB easily dismisses the idea that South America is a continent of its own and simply throws everybody in the "Americas" category, along with Canada and the US who are sure to make it. Argentina is the only nation we've seen consistently from that continent really, with those two Uruguay appearances. Uruguay even won a game.

In fact:
I think if we only had European + 4nations + select exceptions like Canada, US, Japan...i.e. all nations with a real Rugby culture and a capable team then we would still proudly call this our Rugby World Cup. After all, that includes at least one team from each continent, all the while insuring a good level of play and none of those apocalyptic destructions of a side in every single Pool game.
But that's too late now, and we have to include a couple of those Tier 4 nations still, even though it is utterly incoherent from a sports POV since those teams aren't actually competing for anything, if we want to look at reality as it is and as it has actually been.

So I'm saying: at least put Uruguay. Namibia has had their chance, and they're currently lower than Uru in the rankings. Give the South American continent its chance.

 

[wayner]

Do they desserve the spot ahead of a better team like Romania? No. Is reserving an open spot for every continent beyond the top tier teams in that continent important? Yes, very much so for the continued growth of the sport we all love.

I understand that point but why give a spot to Africa but not South America (or North America for that matter)? Are they not continents just like Africa? Isn't that inconsistent and unfair to South American countries? Americas gets two spots but it is not a continent - it is two continents plus some islands. To be consistent with the "Americas" spots then why not give 2-3 spots to Europe+Africa.

So leave Namibia (or the African team that will probably displace them sooner rather han later) be. I might as well say what's the point of having Canada in the tournament as they seem to have dropped off the pace in terms of RWC results rather than improved and are less competitive now than they were 20 years back. But I won't for the sake of a 'global' game and proper RWC (Rugby [BLINK]WORLD[/BLINK] Cup).

That's a fair comment with respect to Canada but we have generally been ranked in the top 15 and we have consistently qualified as Americas 1, including for RWC 2015. You can leave Canada out but then you are likely also leaving the USA out, and then you are starting to drop out some countries that have large economies and where rugby is gaining some traction and where you should want to grow the game. I would argue that if Japan can hold a RWC than so can North America - maybe that makes sense for something like 2019 or 2023 to help to grow the global footprint of rugby. And North America is an easier trip for Europeans than Japan is for Aussies or Kiwis due to length of flight plus language.

If you had a situation where the 20 best countries in the world have to go through a global qualifying process or if you gave the "Big 10" automatic qualifying while the rest had to qualify, then Canada would still very likely have always qualified. You can't say the same for Namibia.

I am not arguing that the RWC should become less global, just that the dedicated spot to Africa should go away because the African countries are not strong enough to justify it. They can still qualify through a playoff system and you will still always have African representation with SA.

 

[Toko_11]

I agree with this thread.. I was one of those guys who used to defend Namibia but lately I've changed my mind. You see at this point Namibians have realized that no matter how much they improve in the next 4 years they will get whooped by anyone and everyone. but even if they regress to the level of drunk grandpa rugby they will still cruise Africa and make it to WC easily, so realizing there is not much they can/have to do they just perform on their stably low level but just well enough to be above other Africans. its almost like a free pass by now.

IMHO if you throw them in repechage and give them some competition they will change their mentality... after they realize they have to work their asses off against Uruguay and Russia to get to the promised land instead of spanking Zimbabwe left and right, you bet they will step their game up! Try this and see if it won't be more beneficial for the African rugby!!!


Oh and btw i also don't think Uruguay should get a free pass. that will just make them the next Namibia of South America. I'd support repechage with 2 teams qualifying

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I understand that point but why give a spot to Africa but not South America (or North America for that matter)? Are they not continents just like Africa? Isn't that inconsistent and unfair to South American countries? Americas gets two spots but it is not a continent - it is two continents plus some islands. To be consistent with the "Americas" spots then why not give 2-3 spots to Europe+Africa.

That's a fair comment with respect to Canada but we have generally been ranked in the top 15 and we have consistently qualified as Americas 1, including for RWC 2015. You can leave Canada out but then you are likely also leaving the USA out, and then you are starting to drop out some countries that have large economies and where rugby is gaining some traction and where you should want to grow the game. I would argue that if Japan can hold a RWC than so can North America - maybe that makes sense for something like 2019 or 2023 to help to grow the global footprint of rugby. And North America is an easier trip for Europeans than Japan is for Aussies or Kiwis due to length of flight plus language.

If you had a situation where the 20 best countries in the world have to go through a global qualifying process or if you gave the "Big 10" automatic qualifying while the rest had to qualify, then Canada would still very likely have always qualified. You can't say the same for Namibia.

I am not arguing that the RWC should become less global, just that the dedicated spot to Africa should go away because the African countries are not strong enough to justify it. They can still qualify through a playoff system and you will still always have African representation with SA.

For me it is very simple, The Americas- yes, I do group N and S together- have, beyond Argentina- 2 spots set aside. That is for two continents with a COMBINED 16 sovereign countries.

You are arguing for Africa to lose its 1 reserved spot. I repeat 1 spot (beyond SA who gets in automatic) for a continent with 44 sovereign countries.
For me that just doesn't add up.

I agree, countries like Spain, Romania and Uruguay are better teams, I can't argue, but then if Namibia as Africa1 loses its spot, let all reserved spots fall away and make it a merit only tournament which I might add will be just as subjective.

 

[Big Ewis]

You are arguing for Africa to lose its 1 reserved spot. I repeat 1 spot (beyond SA who gets in automatic) for a continent with 44 sovereign countries.
For me that just doesn't add up.

yeah, OK, and do you mind explaining to me why South Africa get in automatically ?!!!...oh...oh right. Sorry, I'm stuck on a loop of finding injustice everywhere just for the sake of it.

I dunno man...Namibia seriously need to gtfo atm...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

yeah, OK, and do you mind explaining to me why South Africa get in automatically ?!!!...oh...oh right. Sorry, I'm stuck on a loop of finding injustice everywhere just for the sake of it.

Is that a serious question? You know ALL teams ending top 3 in each pool gets automatic qualification, right? That is a pretty effective way to get a large portion of qualification sorted and you can be relatively sure these 12 teams would be in a merit top 20 in any case. If you want to stamp out injustice, get rid of the skewed fixtures ITO turn around times the 'lesser' teams have to deal with at RWCs.

I dunno man...Namibia seriously need to gtfo atm...

Ag, enough with the Afropessimism. Namibia is a cool guy. In 1995 Japan shipped 145 point to NZ. Now they are respectable. Namibia had a shocker and shipped 142 to Aus in 2003 but have improved. Maybe if they have another 8 years they too could get to be respectable.

But don't go toss a whole continent for what? A team that might lose by 50 instead of 60? What would be the point?

 

[admartian]

I say drop the All Blacks. That way, we don't have to hear it from gits and ask "Why did you lose to.....?" in the semis.

We can just blame the IRB. #yolo

 

[wayner]

@stomer2010 - I don't think sovereign countries counts as much as nations that are playing the game, and I think you are forgetting the fact that "Americas" includes the Caribbean and other island rugby unions. The IRB rankings page shows 100 countries. By my count 19 of the 100 ranked countries are in the Americas and 15 are in Africa. So there may be 44 countries in Africa but only a third of them appear to play the game whereas pretty much all of the countries in N&S America do play as do several Caribbean nations thanks to their colonial heritage.