World Cup Expansion Poll

[rowan]

With the news FIFA's World Cup will definitely expand in 2026, do you think 2023 or 2027 might be the right time for the rugby version to do likewise?

[rowan]

Just for fun, here's how a 24-team World Cup would go based entirely on rankings (small adjustment made involving Uruguay, Spain, Germany & Kenya to ensure maximum geographical balance), and most recent results between the respective teams. Where 2 teams have never met before, I've simply awarded the victory to the higher ranked team. The post-group draws have also been done in accordance with rankings. No manipulation was involved in bringing SA & Japan together in the Octavos, or Australia & Samoa, for example.

NZ 79-15 Canada
Georgia 24-7 Russia
Canada 16-15 Georgia
Russia L/W NZ
NZ 43-10 Georgia
Canada 35-3 Russia

England 28-10 USA
Japan W/L Namibia
USA 18-28 Japan
Namibia L/W England
England 60-7 Japan
USA W/L Namibia

Australia 90-8 Romania
Fiji 39-20 Spain
Romania 7-26 Fiji
Spain 10-92 Australia
Australia 28-13 Fiji
Romania 21-18 Spain

Ireland 40-9 Samoa
Argentina W/L Germany
Samoa 28-12 Argentina
Germany L/W Ireland
Ireland 20-43 Argentina
Samoa 55-9 Germany

Wales 17-7 Tonga
France W/L Kenya
Tonga 18-38 France
Kenya L/W Wales
Wales 19-10 France
Tonga W/L Kenya

SA 18-20 Italy
Scotland 43-12 Uruguay
Italy 20-36 Scotland
Uruguay 3-134 SA
SA 34-16 Scotland
Italy 29-5 Uruguay

Octavos
NZ 47 Tonga 9
England 41 Georgia 10
Australia 23 Samoa 32
Argentina 20 Italy 18
Wales 32 Canada 23
SA 32 Japan 34
Scotland 37 Fiji 25
France 10 - Ireland 9

Quarters
NZ 24 France 19
England 15 Scotland 9
Samoa 5 Japan 26
Argentina 20 Wales 24

Semis
NZ 34 Wales 16
England 60 Japan 7

3rd
Wales 33 Japan 30

Final
NZ 24 England 21

[rowan]

Somebody has gone with the 'other' option. Any chance you could specify what you'd have in mind? Cheers.

[whatisthejava]

Quality is not there to expand it

Id counter that with if WR got their act together and cut the number of subs from 8 to (allowed subs - 3) then I think the weaker teams probably could compete and maybe a 24 team completion would work

[rowan]

Yes, they have some ground work to go if they do opt for expansion (and the topic has certainly been raised within official circles). Primarily there needs to be a little more integration and inter-action between the tiers, notably the fringe teams like Kenya and Germany who have never really played tier 1 teams but could quite easily show up at a World Cup before long (Kenya came extremely close in 2015). Meanwhile, I see from the World Rugby site that the draw for 2019 is to be made this June, though all the teams won't have qualified by then. Don't quite understand the hurry...

[rowan]

To be honest, if the priority was a competitive World Cup in which the vast majority of the teams had realistic prospects of at least progressing from the group stages, the tournament should never have expanded beyond 16 teams. That seemed the ideal number - a simple, easy-to-follow tournament with equal scheduling and just enough room for representation from every continent. & there would have been some epic qualifying battles too, rather than just the formalities we have today with the repechage providing the only real point of interest.

However, they made the decision to expand, surprisingly, for 1999, thereby indicating the emphasis was not so much on providing a competitive World Cup but on promoting the sport to the international audience through its showpiece event. To this end, they included 20 teams, which was basically stretching the limit of just how many teams there were in the world actually capable of competing at this level. Okay, so that should have set a precedent, and almost two decades later at least a dozen more nations have probably reached the same level. There will be more by 2023, of course.

[Mr Mwenda]

Somebody has gone with the 'other' option. Any chance you could specify what you'd have in mind? Cheers.

Basically what Java says. Expand if there's the quality to expand it. No need to set out an arbitrary date. I don't subscribe to the idea that adding more teams is beneficial for the competition or the teams if it just leads to thrashings.

Obviously if the quality is there then expansion should be done. I just think that the sporting landscapes of many countries will always prevent them reaching a level in which it is desirable for them to play against the best. It's actually similar to the English Premiership in some ways - there are different interests between the professional and amateur parts of the game. Likewise I'm not sure the Swedish rugby system is really benefiting from the various IRB funding drivers pushing them into the international pyramid*.

*But then I think Swedish rugby outside of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Skåne is essentially moribund despite the heroic efforts of many individuals who work hard for the game .

[rowan]

These might be your teams if it were still a 16-team event. No room for the likes of Samoa, Canada and Romania, who are all going through slumps at present, and have been for some time in the case of the latter pair. & to give everyone a chance, you'd have to have a more extensive qualifying system, with all but the top few involved (top 3, as per 95 & 99)??

New Zealand Scotland Georgia Namibia
England France Japan Tonga
Australia Wales Fiji Italy
Ireland SA Argentina USA

But, as mentioned, a precedent appeared to have been set in 99, rightly or wrongly, to include as many teams as was reasonable, and on that basis the tournament is now overdue for further expansion.

[Puja]

Quality is not there to expand it

Id counter that with if WR got their act together and cut the number of subs from 8 to (allowed subs - 3) then I think the weaker teams probably could compete and maybe a 24 team completion would work

I dispute that. None of the potential expansion teams will challenge the All Blacks, but Spain, Portugal and Russia have appeared at previous events without embarrassment and the likes of Kenya, Hong Kong, etc are not a big distance off the quality of the likes of Namibia. The IRB are doing stirling work developing the minor nations and there is a far smaller gaps to the outsiders now than there was in 1999.

Quite apart from anything else, look at how RWC inclusion has changed minor teams. The likes of Romania, Georgia, Namibia took 100 point thrashings in 1999 and 2003, but last year's RWC didn't see a single game go above 60 points and with every game involving minnows having some competitiveness, even against NZ. Adding an extra 4 teams in 2023 would almost certainly result in a century being scored again, but there wouldn't be any embarrassments and it would do so much for the growth of the game.

Puja

[Big D]

There are other issues with expanding the tournament. Such as the number of games and the length of the tournament.

The current set up is just about right in terms of both. One of the things people bemoaned was the short turn around teams had and adding extra games wouldn't help matters. There is a player welfare aspect and also whether there is space in the calendar for it.

If we want to try and grow the game I would in the short term propose:
1. Hold a secondary "intercontinental cup" along side the world cup. Invite the next best 4 or 6 teams and run the games before the "big games" and give them exposure.
2. Go back to only 8 automatic qualifiers - the quarter finalists. Then make all other countries qualify. This would mean there would be "tier 1/2" teams have to play "tier 2/3" teams outside the RWCs. "

[Sandydragon]

Quality is not there to expand it

Id counter that with if WR got their act together and cut the number of subs from 8 to (allowed subs - 3) then I think the weaker teams probably could compete and maybe a 24 team completion would work

Agreed, much too soon. Also what about the length of the tournament. Unlike soccer, you need proper rest times and the tournament already runs for a considerable period, with associated knock on effects for club games.

Minnow teams get a lot more support now which has reduce the absolute pastings, and teams like Japan are closing the gap. But yet we still have plenty of one sided matches - is there any point to adding more one sided matches, increasing the length of the competition at the same time, when minnow teams still participate in the RWC experience anyway in the heats? If the aim is to get these teams exposure, then we should be looking outside of the RWC for that at the moment.

[rowan]

Actually, a 24 team format involving 6 pools of four would involve just four more games and could be played in a slightly shorter time-frame. The reason for this is that the current model involves a protracted pool stage with byes in every round. It requires over three weeks to complete, whereas the 24 team format's group stages would be done and dusted in under two weeks. The 24 team format involves one extra round of playoffs (Octavos), meaning one more week, and still a few days less than the cumbersome 20 team model. Ironically, what you are pointing out here is actually one of the key factors involved in the push for change.

1. Hold a secondary "intercontinental cup" along side the world cup. Invite the next best 4 or 6 teams and run the games before the "big games" and give them exposure.

Pointless.

2. Go back to only 8 automatic qualifiers - the quarter finalists. Then make all other countries qualify. This would mean there would be "tier 1/2" teams have to play "tier 2/3" teams outside the RWCs. "

Agree entirely.

[Puja]

There are other issues with expanding the tournament. Such as the number of games and the length of the tournament.

The current set up is just about right in terms of both. One of the things people bemoaned was the short turn around teams had and adding extra games wouldn't help matters. There is a player welfare aspect and also whether there is space in the calendar for it.

If we want to try and grow the game I would in the short term propose:
1. Hold a secondary "intercontinental cup" along side the world cup. Invite the next best 4 or 6 teams and run the games before the "big games" and give them exposure.
2. Go back to only 8 automatic qualifiers - the quarter finalists. Then make all other countries qualify. This would mean there would be "tier 1/2" teams have to play "tier 2/3" teams outside the RWCs. "

A 24 team tournament would have 6 pools of 4, so there would be one less pool round for each team and one more knockout. Overall, everybody's playing the same number of games and the competition could fit into the same slot.

The problem with your "intercontinental cup" is that it isn't the world cup. It will achieve bog all exposure for the teams, while simultaneously costing the minnows a lot to attend.

Puja

[Puja]

Also, do bear in mind that we're talking about a tournament that's six and a half years away. Six and a half years before beating South Africa, Japan were still getting 40 points regularly put on them by the PIs. I'm confident enough about the progression of the minnows that I'd be happy to see the tournament expand for 2019; by 2023, they'll be even more competitive.

Puja

[Big D]

There are other issues with expanding the tournament. Such as the number of games and the length of the tournament.

The current set up is just about right in terms of both. One of the things people bemoaned was the short turn around teams had and adding extra games wouldn't help matters. There is a player welfare aspect and also whether there is space in the calendar for it.

If we want to try and grow the game I would in the short term propose:
1. Hold a secondary "intercontinental cup" along side the world cup. Invite the next best 4 or 6 teams and run the games before the "big games" and give them exposure.
2. Go back to only 8 automatic qualifiers - the quarter finalists. Then make all other countries qualify. This would mean there would be "tier 1/2" teams have to play "tier 2/3" teams outside the RWCs. "

A 24 team tournament would have 6 pools of 4, so there would be one less pool round for each team and one more knockout. Overall, everybody's playing the same number of games and the competition could fit into the same slot.

The problem with your "intercontinental cup" is that it isn't the world cup. It will achieve bog all exposure for the teams, while simultaneously costing the minnows a lot to attend.

Puja

6 pools of 4 and onto a last 16 would be massively unsatisfactory and frankly wouldn't work at the world cup. 12 (1st and second) + 4 best 3rds? All so the 4 added can come play 3 games and get horsed? That would dilute the quality of the early stages and more than likely turn people off until the last 16/last 8. Using the current WR's (I know Uruguay would prob be in there) rather than a group like:
NZ, France, Argentina, Romania, USA
England, Scotland, Fiji, Samoa, Canada
Aus, SA, Japan, Tonga, Russia
Ireland, Wales, Georgia, Italy, Namibia

You get:
NZ, Georgia, Italy, Germany
England, Japan, Tonga, Kenya
Aus, Fiji, Samoa, Spain
Ireland, Argentina, Romania, Uruguay
Wales, France, USA, Namibia
SA, Scotland, Canada, Russia,

The group stages in a RWC are actually pretty interesting at the moment partially due to the threat of a big team missing out. They need to mean something. Diluting that completely destroys that and actually hurts the tournament because the group stages become fairly meaningless. 6 pools of 4 only works in the ECC because there are 6 games in the pool stages.

[Big D]

Also, do bear in mind that we're talking about a tournament that's six and a half years away. Six and a half years before beating South Africa, Japan were still getting 40 points regularly put on them by the PIs. I'm confident enough about the progression of the minnows that I'd be happy to see the tournament expand for 2019; by 2023, they'll be even more competitive.

Puja

Japan have made significant steps in a lot more ways than others though. They have a super rugby team, a professional league that attracts a decent calibre of player, they spend money on top coaches. Georgia also have a very good infrastructure.

The football world cup will suffer from diluted quality, in terms of quality of football the Euros were always better. The last Euros was a step down in overall quality of football from the previous competitions due to more teams getting in.

I am not sure it is best for the RWC to have a lower overall quality tournament, just so 4 more countries can come in. The answer must be to raise their standard and make sure qualification is harder by having a higher quality tournament.

IMO the RWC (any sports WC/Olympics) needs to be the best quality it can be within reason. I think 20 is the right number for rugby.

My preference would be a more regular set of fixtures for the smaller teams and make qualification comeptitions meaningful by being better quality. It would be better introducing regular sets of fixtures for the small teams leading to having a Kenya v Namibia play off at a good level pushing ether to a better level where they can challenge an Italy/Tonga etc and be competitive against some of the top ranked sides (6-10 ranked like Scotland, Argentina etc).

[Puja]

6 pools of 4 and onto a last 16 would be massively unsatisfactory and frankly wouldn't work at the world cup. 12 (1st and second) + 4 best 3rds? All so the 4 added can come play 3 games and get horsed? That would dilute the quality of the early stages and more than likely turn people off until the last 16/last 8.

I'd actually say it provides a more satisfying tournament. The 4 groups of 5 drags on for over 3 weeks, with varying times between each game and minnows inevitably getting shafted by the schedule. 6 groups of 4 could be done in 2 weeks, with even numbers meaning that all the teams would play together, evening out the schedule and avoiding long gaps where your team isn't playing. Yes, there'd be less chance of a trap door in the first round, but there's minimal chance of that for most of the big teams currently. Plus there would be the incentive of scrapping to get a seeding for the 2nd round - every point matters to avoid getting NZ.

The football world cup will suffer from diluted quality, in terms of quality of football the Euros were always better. The last Euros was a step down in overall quality of football from the previous competitions due to more teams getting in.

I am not sure it is best for the RWC to have a lower overall quality tournament, just so 4 more countries can come in. The answer must be to raise their standard and make sure qualification is harder by having a higher quality tournament.

IMO the RWC (any sports WC/Olympics) needs to be the best quality it can be within reason. I think 20 is the right number for rugby.

My preference would be a more regular set of fixtures for the smaller teams and make qualification comeptitions meaningful by being better quality. It would be better introducing regular sets of fixtures for the small teams leading to having a Kenya v Namibia play off at a good level pushing ether to a better level where they can challenge an Italy/Tonga etc and be competitive against some of the top ranked sides (6-10 ranked like Scotland, Argentina etc).

Heavens forfend that it should ever be like the football; they have definitely gone overboard, both in world cup and Euros.

The issue that bugs me about the current setup is that it's very much a closed shop. Participating in the world cup could be a game changer for countries like Brazil, Germany, etc (and China going forwards with their ambition), but have you had a look at the qualifying? There are only two spots open where there's any doubt about the qualifier (Africa 1 and Repechage) and even then I'd put money on it being Namibia and Uruguay again. The other nations have regular fixtures, they have backing, the IRB are doing a pretty damned good job of development, but what they don't have is a spark, something to attract new people and put the sport on the map there. The RWC is our best recruiting tool and right now it's being kept to the same 20 nations for the last 2 tournaments and will almodt certainly be the same for 2019 as well.

Puja

[Big D]

The issue that bugs me about the current setup is that it's very much a closed shop. Participating in the world cup could be a game changer for countries like Brazil, Germany, etc (and China going forwards with their ambition), but have you had a look at the qualifying? There are only two spots open where there's any doubt about the qualifier (Africa 1 and Repechage) and even then I'd put money on it being Namibia and Uruguay again. The other nations have regular fixtures, they have backing, the IRB are doing a pretty damned good job of development, but what they don't have is a spark, something to attract new people and put the sport on the map there. The RWC is our best recruiting tool and right now it's being kept to the same 20 nations for the last 2 tournaments and will almodt certainly be the same for 2019 as well.

Puja

I agree with that part, but I don't think a "top down" approach is the best idea. I see it more as a "bottom up" approach. The reason I think this is that by parachuting the next 4 in, we probably just create a slightly wider closed shop. Which doesn't actually deal with the issue of global participation and could do even more damage.

The 7s is a great door in for many countries, and I think there is a chance in the long term 15s will see the benefit. It will be a slow process but it always will be when you try and grow a sport in new markets.

Get a 7s tournament in these countries. Maybe on a 2 year rotation in regions like in South America have 1 in 2017 in Rio, then Montevideo in 2018, in Asia, alternate Singapore (like this year) and Beijing, heck add a week or two and include the likes of Moscow, Warsaw, Munich, or Suva (ok Fiji already like rugby but they should have a tournament). I don't think you inspire children by them seeing Germany or Kenya lose heavily to the likes of Italy at a RWC. Have Eurpean Championships with the 6N A (even U20s to begin with) sides in Germany/wherever in Europe, if WR have to, make it rewarding for sides to play Namibia if they are in SA etc. By getting children in these countries (and realistically it's kids that will be targeted) to attend the games, see the atmosphere, get players involved in schools even if the kids don't know who they are. That would be far more beneficial IMO.

It would take a while, of course it will, but come 2035 it would leave the game in a much better state globally than teams like Hong Kong getting in because there isn't really another Asian team to challenge them and Japan in the qualifying. Or in the Americas, how good would it be to see a competitive Americas 6Ns with Argentina, USA, Canada, Uruguay and the likes of Brazil/Chile/Paraguay in the mix because the game in those countries have grown strong enough to compete?

Of course that would be hard to achieve but I don't think making it a wider closed shop is any better.

[Big D]

Moving to the 6 groups of 4 also makes it a nightmare for fans. With the current set up they have a chance of working out where their team may be likely to play in the KO stages. With "unseeded" (no winner of A v 2nd in B) it is nigh on impossible for the fans. You can have 6 teams with 15 points and (taking England as hosts) with the team with a +120 points difference being 1 seed playing a L16 match in Newcastle and Seed 2 with a points differencr of +119 having to play at the Olympic stadium. Would make the world cup experience for fans worse.

[Puja]

I agree with that part, but I don't think a "top down" approach is the best idea. I see it more as a "bottom up" approach. The reason I think this is that by parachuting the next 4 in, we probably just create a slightly wider closed shop. Which doesn't actually deal with the issue of global participation and could do even more damage.

The 7s is a great door in for many countries, and I think there is a chance in the long term 15s will see the benefit. It will be a slow process but it always will be when you try and grow a sport in new markets.

Get a 7s tournament in these countries. Maybe on a 2 year rotation in regions like in South America have 1 in 2017 in Rio, then Montevideo in 2018, in Asia, alternate Singapore (like this year) and Beijing, heck add a week or two and include the likes of Moscow, Warsaw, Munich, or Suva (ok Fiji already like rugby but they should have a tournament). I don't think you inspire children by them seeing Germany or Kenya lose heavily to the likes of Italy at a RWC. Have Eurpean Championships with the 6N A (even U20s to begin with) sides in Germany/wherever in Europe, if WR have to, make it rewarding for sides to play Namibia if they are in SA etc. By getting children in these countries (and realistically it's kids that will be targeted) to attend the games, see the atmosphere, get players involved in schools even if the kids don't know who they are. That would be far more beneficial IMO.

It would take a while, of course it will, but come 2035 it would leave the game in a much better state globally than teams like Hong Kong getting in because there isn't really another Asian team to challenge them and Japan in the qualifying. Or in the Americas, how good would it be to see a competitive Americas 6Ns with Argentina, USA, Canada, Uruguay and the likes of Brazil/Chile/Paraguay in the mix because the game in those countries have grown strong enough to compete?

Of course that would be hard to achieve but I don't think making it a wider closed shop is any better.

The thing is that it wouldn't be a "wider closed shop". Giving an extra 4 teams the chance to qualify would likely mean Singapore, China, or Hong Kong in Asia; Kenya, Zimbabwe, or Madagascar in Africa; Spain, Germany, Russia or Portugal in Europe, with Brazil probably fighting out for a Repechage. There'd be 6 places that weren't effectively guaranteed, with a lot of nations fancing their chances.

Your suggestions are pretty much all already being done by the IRB. Bottom up is being worked on and is responsible for the massive growth in playing numbers around the world. And we are talking about 6 years away; I'd like to strike while the iron is hot and give these upcoming nations a carrot on the horizon to aim for
...
That was a terrible mixed metaphor, but you take my point.

You do raise a very good point about the fans and the locations though. Hadn't considered that.

Puja

[rowan]

There are other issues with expanding the tournament. Such as the number of games and the length of the tournament.

The current set up is just about right in terms of both. One of the things people bemoaned was the short turn around teams had and adding extra games wouldn't help matters. There is a player welfare aspect and also whether there is space in the calendar for it.

If we want to try and grow the game I would in the short term propose:
1. Hold a secondary "intercontinental cup" along side the world cup. Invite the next best 4 or 6 teams and run the games before the "big games" and give them exposure.
2. Go back to only 8 automatic qualifiers - the quarter finalists. Then make all other countries qualify. This would mean there would be "tier 1/2" teams have to play "tier 2/3" teams outside the RWCs. "

A 24 team tournament would have 6 pools of 4, so there would be one less pool round for each team and one more knockout. Overall, everybody's playing the same number of games and the competition could fit into the same slot.

The problem with your "intercontinental cup" is that it isn't the world cup. It will achieve bog all exposure for the teams, while simultaneously costing the minnows a lot to attend.

Puja

In fact, 5-team pools require 5 rounds, including byes. 4-team pools require 3 round and no byes. So it's 2 less rounds, less complications, and only one extra round of knock-out rounds. Probably a 24-team tournament could be up to a week shorter, despite including 4 more games in total. So you're simply looking at more games per round, which sounds good to me

6 pools of 4 and onto a last 16 would be massively unsatisfactory and frankly wouldn't work at the world cup.

It worked well for the FIFA World Cup from 86 to 94, after another model was trialled and failed in 82. That's why they used it again in the Euros, and wasn't that a great tournament! Don't tell me rugby's different. The RWC is modelled entirely on its FIFA counterpart.

just so 4 more countries can come in.

Precisely why it was expanded in 99. Now there are many more teams at the fringe level, and World Cup qualification really puts the sport on the map in those nations. I was in Spain in 99 and the RWC got full page spreads. This in a country where very little other than football and basketball ever gets major headlines as far as team sports go.

Moving to the 6 groups of 4 also makes it a nightmare for fans.

The 20-team format's protracted group stages are the big turn-off. Fans can't keep track of what's going on, unequal scheduling and byes make the tables confusing (and have drawn complaints from participating teams), and they take over 3 weeks to complete. A return to 4-team groups will solve all of those problems and place the emphasis squarely on the higher quality knock-out rounds - thus making for a much more enthralling tournament overall, and also adding a little more unpredictability.

[Big D]

Actually no the euros wasn't a great tournament. It was the lowest quality Euros by far in many a competition. The football world cup will be even lower quality when it expands to 48 teams.

My preference is not to dilute the quality as much as the football. But I guess we won't agree on that which is fair enough. I respect the other viewpoint on this one but can't agree.

[rowan]

Actually no the euros wasn't a great tournament. It was the lowest quality Euros by far in many a competition. The football world cup will be even lower quality when it expands to 48 teams.

Well, maybe not if you're English but financially it was a big success:

SAINT-DENIS, France -- Expanding the European Championship has paid off for UEFA, which expects to make a record profit of €830 million ($917 million).

UEFA's projected tournament finances published Friday showed total revenue of €1.93 billion ($2.13 billion) for the expanded 24-team tournament.

"The numbers are positive," UEFA interim general secretary Theodore Theodoridis said at a news conference, adding that a larger event "was a big success."

Revenue is forecast to rise by 34 percent -- earned from 20 extra matches -- over Euro 2012, which had 16 teams and 31 matches played in Poland and Ukraine.

Four years ago, UEFA's profit was €593.7m (then $724 million) from its most lucrative competition, according to its financial accounts for that year.

http://www.espnfc.com/european-champion ... -in-france

My preference is not to dilute the quality as much as the football. But I guess we won't agree on that which is fair enough. I respect the other viewpoint on this one but can't agree

Once again, it depends on what World Rugby does between now and whenever the tournament is in fact expanded. If it continues to allow the first tier to ignore the third, then it might as well go back to 16 teams. But if it decides to integrate the fringe teams and give them a little exposure to top level rugby, then there are at least a dozen teams that could be competitive by 2023. The problem is at the moment they only seem to be focusing on their top 20. It's crazy not to include the likes of Hong Kong and Korea in the Pacific Challenge, for example, and I'd really like to see Asia-Oceania form a 6 Nations tournament involving the Pacific Islands, Japan, HK & Korea, now that the Americas 6 Nations is up and running. & how much better will Chile and Brazil be in a few years time thanks to the latter event? In Africa, Kenya almost made it through to RWC 2015 and want only for a little more exposure to top level rugby (give them a run in the Nations Cup, for example), while the Maghreb Tri Nations bodes well for North Africa rugby (Morocco and Tunisia have both reached RWC-qualifying repechages in the past). As for Europe, we know what a marvellous job the ENC is already doing of bringing more teams up to speed. Spain & Germany recently beat Uruguay, of course, while Russia won the Hong Kong international tournament in a canter.

[Big D]

I'm Scottish and married to a northern Irish lass. I was perfectly happy with the results. But the quality was poor.

If you are talking financial success that is different. Fifa and UEFA would sell their granny for a tenner.

That's the differnce between football and rugby. They are not trying to expand the game. They already have a big presence in most countries. They are money driven.

Rugby is trying to grow the game as well as make money. It's a tricky balance to achieve.

I still think let the game grow in those competitions you mention, which will.make qualifying tougher, hell make all teams except the holders and host qualify too and the game will get stronger. Then maybe in 2031/35 it could maybe expand for growth driven by overall quality.

[rowan]

But the quality was poor.

I'm no football connoiseur, but for my money the 1990 FIFA World Cup was the nadir for international tournaments, plumbing the depths of tedium. Actually, that was a 24-team event, but the point being things got better with expansion, even though the quality has been diluted a little,

If you are talking financial success

I'm not, but World Rugby certainly are, and for good reason. Those proceeds are used to develop the international game, so it's a win-win scenario.

hell make all teams except the holders and host qualify too and the game will get stronger.

Preaching to the converted here. I've made this point myself many times. International rugby reached its apogee with the qualifying tournament for 1999, which saw the Home Unions competing on the continent and Austrlaia involved in a tough tournament with the Pacific Islands. But the Kiwis baulked at having to qualify for 2003, apparently regarding it as beneath their dignity, rule changes were forced through and the qualifying system has been contracting ever since, to the point the only real interest is in the repechage stage. All else is pretty much a formality.