This again. Opinion is generally split on this, as there are pros and cons to both points of view.
It is well known that the African qualifier has a much easier route to the RWC than the Americas or Europe, and that apart from South Africa no African side is probably in the top 20 in the world.
However on the other hand, most sports such as football (or soccer to you) do try and have all continents represented at World Cups, hence New Zealand appearing in the 2010 World Cup ahead of Republic of Ireland.
The continent of Africa would be represented by South Africa regardless so this is a moot point.
Even though Africa is behind Europe in terms of their sides, if the IRB shut off their opportunity and have likely another European side at the World Cup instead then it is likely that Africa will never develop any further.
So not trotting out Namibia once every four years to get clobbered by all comers will make it so that the entire continent doesn't develop further? That's a ridiculous thing to say. What will develop rugby in Africa is money, time and placing players in pro environments.
However on the otherhand, it seems unfair to give Africa an automatic spot but merge both the Americas together, hence if the IRB wants to geographically spread the World Cup then South America should get an automatic spot behind Argentina too. This again would weaken the quality of the World Cup as it would be a stronger European side missing out though.
With Argentina already representing South America, I'd be against this. As long as every region is represented, it should be the best teams possible.
So there is no right or wrong answer in this debate. Either you think that there should be the 20 best sides in the world competing regardless of where they are from, or you look to give opportunities to all areas of the globe to compete.
Also in regards to your opening post, I think I ought to just add some more facts so people aren't mislead reading that. Firstly Zimbabwe may be technically African champions, but in reality Namibia is the strongest African side and have proved it over a period of time qualifying to 4 World Cups. Yes I know they lost in June, but they were missing the likes of Jacques Burger, Tinus du Plessis, Rohan Kitshoff etc.
Secondly you point out that Belgium were weakened, but Zimbabwe weren't at full strength either, with a large number of their team playing in the SA Sevens tournament in the same week instead. They were also leading at half time, and lost in the second half as they were down to 13 men for much of it after they conceded three sin bins. Your argument doesn't consider all the full facts, just ones to suit your own argument, although it's possible that Belgium are better than Zimbabwe it's not as simple as you present it.
I said it was my impetus for making the post. Nothing more, nothing less. Zimbabwe may have been missing some players for the SA 7s but they still lost by a substantial margin to a weakened Belgium team. Being down to 13 men after conceding 3 sin bins...think that might have to do with being under pressure?
Agree with Psychic here.
and Rugby is growing in Africa, and Supersport has to be thanked for that, they have screened the Namibia/Zimbabwe/Portugal tri-series a couple of weeks ago and shows now regularly what's going on in the continent regarding rugby.
It's great that rugby is growing in Africa. It's growing everywhere but in terms of playing numbers there was some report that said that they had increased by 33% in Africa while they had increased around 25% worldwide. I can't remember what period of time that was over, but it is great to see. Still, growth in playing numbers often doesn't manifest itself in results for years. And right now those results are awful for Africa. If the growth leads to an increased standard of play, then perhaps Africa would be given its automatic spot back. But for now, they need to prove their worth on merit.
Zimbabwe, Namibia, Madagascar, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Botswana, Mozambique and Nigeria are planning to have an african nations cup tournament in the near future to help these nations get better, get more funding and get more support.
There is an African Cup every year. Last year's, this year's and next year's are part of RWC Qualifying.
And if African countries manage to hold onto their talent that'd make a hell of a lot of difference. It's not only SA and Aus that are playing African born players. France with its close ties to former colonies also field many African born players.l
Imagine Zimbabwe for instance with
1 Mtawarira
3 Mujati
4 Scott Gray
7 Pocock
11 Chavanga
14 Ngwenya
as a backbone of internationally capped (playing for a major nation) players.
Yeah, I always look at that too. There are a couple other guys floating around in Europe who either are or would have been Zimbo-eligible. But the reality is that those guys will never play for Zimbabwe. Also, a lot of nations have great "what if" teams. Here are some guys who were or are USA-eligible: Jerome Kaino, Alex Corbisiero, Ronan O'Gara, Marcel Brache, Fudge Mabeta and Tommy Seymour.
(kdng, kdng...)
