Stop spitting on Namibia. No they are not good, no they don't have much potential either, and yes they get easy street to the World Cup. But don't wish ill on them.
I don't see your logic for being "fed up" with Namibia. You can be fed up with the qualifying system, but it's not Namibia's fault that they are the second best in Africa, they have the geographical and cultural advantage of being next to Namibia and that basically is what puts them above the rest of the African zone.
I am not spitting on Namibia, or not intending to anyway. Nor am wishing bad things for the rugby team. Just saying that I would prefer another team to qualify. Its common in sports. Everyone wanted Ireland to beat Australia at the World Cup for the same reason. However I am, indeed, fed up with the qualifying system. I am using Namibia as an example of what is wrong rather than attacking Namibia itself.
Don't be ridiculous. I normally find your arguments have some logic even if I don't always agree, but here I simply can't agree that this is anything other than pure dislike of Namibia and the qualifying system. Of course Namibia are a top 25 team, and they are on the level of the teams you mentioned above (Spain, Portugal, Uruguay, Chile).
You portray Namibia as if they should be ranked 50. But the fact is if the qualifying system were changed so there was a playoff tournament between Africa 1, Americas 3 and Europe 4. It would not be fait accompli as you and some others think. It would be a close match, Namibia would have a chance.
I feel it cannot be known how good a country is exactly when it plays so infrequently against anyone from outside of the CAR... It simply can´t be known. Most feel that Sper Rugby is better than the Heineken Cup but we acnpt know if the Bulls are better than Leinster unless there is a match. Namibia´ wins between RWC 2003 and RWC 2007 were against Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. There are two things to note from this: 1 All are from the Third Tier, 2 All are from Africa.
I would like one of these teams to qualify ahead of Namibia simply because the same team winning can be tedious and given Namibia´ record at World Cup´ I feel justified in wanting someone else there even if the results are no different. Again, this is not wanting Namibia to fail. Rather it is wanting someone else to do better and if this happens thats enough for me. Wanting a team to come along and win RWC matches is a tough ask but wanting to see fresh faces is a humble wish and one that I believe the majority would like too.
Officially Namibia is a Tier Three not a Tier Two side. During the same period Namibia lost against Kenya, Morocco, Tunisia, Uganda, Georgia, Romania and South Africa. Between 2007 and 2011 Namibia got wins over Georgia and Romania and I got excited... until I saw the team sheets with Romania and Georgia both making the mistake of fielding weakened sides. This was in June 2010. I then focused on Namibia´ November tour that year and Namibia were defeated by Spain and Portugal. Again, one can use this to prove whatever one wants to. But it did suggest that the progress of Africa´ best was not satisfactory enough considering the path of Romania to qualify. Now, Romania had a tougher Pool than Namibia but did better. England, Argentina and Scotland vs South Africa, Wales and Samoa is a fair split but Georgia in 2011 were better than Fiji. Namibia lost by much more vs Samoa than Romania did vs Scotland.
You agreed with me..... World Rankings can be hard to trust. I gave the Brazil vs Hong Kong point earlier. Morocco were 20th five years ago. Yed Morocco were no match for Namibia when it counted as a full strength Namibia is better than the ones Morocco had defeated. While both results since then and World Rankings suggest fairly conslusively that Namibia is better than Morocco there is no way of knowing who is better out of Namibia, Chile, Uruguay, Spain and Portugal without matches between them.
You often use Namibia's poor World Cup record to base your argument that they are not as good as Uruguay and others, but how many matches from Namibia's four World Cup draws would have Uruguay won? Answer = 0. It's not as if Portugal, Spain and Uruguay didn't also suffer some heavy defeats in World Cups either.
I have never tried to say Namibia is not as good as Uruguay. The luck of the draw has not been good but Romania and Georgia´ wins in Australia and France were far too large. Both by 30 points. For the record, Uruguay did better against South Africa in 1999 than Namibia did against Canada at the same RWC. Statistics are suggestive not conclusive. I learned this as a student. Numbers can lie but sticking to the point my argument has always been that the South Americans deserve an automatic qualification spot if Africa 1 is to continuehas one. The problem is this that neither can be confidently said as being better than Russia or Romania who were not Europe 1. Both for RWC 2011. I outlined my suggestion to fix the problem in March when
I argued for the creation of a Confederations Cup with the first to be held in Japan in 2017.
I am wanting World Rankings to really matter. Argentina´s reserves lost 49-10 vs France yet Argentina dropped. Its much the same as Georgia´loss to Namibia mentioned above. We all know that there is little to take out of the Argentine loss just like the Wallabies loss vs Scotland which, similarly, saw a depleted Australian side losing. These matches, however, are not the key ones. These sides have already qualified. Its just a qestion of who they are drawn with and there is not a lot that can really change between now and December. Hence the key is the 8 places on the line for RWC 2015 not the Top 12. The IRB should alter the system for qualification with more matches between teams from more regions being the way forward. As I talked about this would help the rankings in addition to having a better set up for the second and third tier. The Confederations Cup would be designed to have the sides roughly ranked 13th to 32nd in the World. The rankings do show a good mix in this range in terms of geography.
The 8 teams from the previous World Cup would automatically qualify leaving 12 places for the regional qualifiers. i.e. After initial regional qualifying each region would contribute teams. For 2015 it would mean Canada, Fiji, Georgia, Japan, Namibia, Romania, Russia and the USA would qualify for the Con. Cup. The 12 qualifyers could well be Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Papua New Guinea, Portugal, Spain, Tunisia, Uruguay and Zimbabwe.
Like it or not, Namibia are the second best in Africa, and will remain like that until other nations have improved their organisation sufficiently, and they are also on the level of the nations you referred to, their results support this.
I don´t disagree at all. This does not, however, justify the difference between Namibia and Uruguay in qualification which is why I have argued for significant change in the form of a Con. Cup.
I'm not saying they are in the top 20 nations in the world, nor am I a Namibia fan, but I do think you are far too harsh on Namibia and seem to want them to miserably fail all the time.
In my opinion based on seeing the teams play in the RWC, ENC and Nations Cup this year, I would rate it at the moment.
20. Spain
21. Uruguay
22. Namibia
23. Portugal
(not seen Chile play)
You may well be right but its not possible to know since they don´t play each other. The IRB have made a mess of qualification. Have I lost the plot or does Japan have to host a global Tier 2 - Tier 3 event?
Namibia need to tour South America. A four test tour of Chile, Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. BTW, Brazil has not played a home test in four years.
