Africa does not deserve an automatic RWC qualifier

[dragos03]

While Namibia did indeed lose at home vs Spain, Uruguay and Chile were also beaten at home by Portugal this autumn (a team weaker than Spain, on paper). I think that Namibia would beat Uruguay at the moment if both teams were at full strength.

Anyway, the easiest solution would be to expand the RWC to 24 teams, and I think it will happen soon.

Based on nothing but merit, it's Europe that should have more automatic qualifiers I think. Any of the top 5 ENC teams would probably beat the African/South American opponents.

 

[usausa]

It's the highlights from Australia-Namibia 2003. While they did lose by a record margin, you can tell by the captain's reaction that he and his team were glad to be there, and go against the best as an amateur side.

The RWC is great as it is format wise right now. Our answer shouldn't be to exclude certain teams/regions from WC. If you take away the spot, I think you:
*open yourself up for bad PR,
*as mentioned before you take away what teams build up for (what motivation do kids/adults have in trying to get better if there is no pathway to top level competition? we've seen repechage and rwc results, but track has never denied athletes/nations into their olympic events, every interested nation is assured 2 spots).
*we need to ensure minnow participation because a World Cup emphasizes world participation. This also the game to be viewed by a wider audience.

I would rather try to hold a a second level competition with these second level nations, format similar to JWRT, nothing too big. Repechage is a last chance play-off for a team in each region, and should remain as such, not an extra qualifier for African teams. As someone else said before, the African landscape politically and economically is completely unique to the rest of the world, so naturally the growth there may not be as fast.

I see the on-field results aren't there, it's always going to be a 50-50 argument.

Question norcal, when Japan hosts the RWC in 2019, (as a matter of opinion), does Asia deserve an automatic qualifer outside of Japan hosting?

 

[psychic duck]

Question norcal, when Japan hosts the RWC in 2019, (as a matter of opinion), does Asia deserve an automatic qualifer outside of Japan hosting?

The word is that Asia will be getting an extra team with Japan automatically qualifying, so Hong Kong or South Korea are likely to make their RWC debut.

Also regarding that 142-0 loss by Namibia to Australia in 2003, Namibia played a weakened side that game to rest players for the upcoming Romania match (which they also lost handily). Lots of people never take into account these factors at World Cups that Tier 2 sometimes sacrifice matches for resting players for more realistic wins, Japan (vs New Zealand), USA (vs Australia), Romania (vs England) all did exactly that at the most recent World Cup.

Really? Namibia beat Ireland in the early 90s. Big improvement to go from that to losing to Romania and Georgia by 30 at RWCs.

Still seen no evidence that making Africa go through repechage (even giving them 2 repechage spots perhaps) would cause African rugby to fall off the pace more than they already have.

I meant they have improved since entering the World Cup in 1999. They are a better side now than they were in their first two World Cups.

They weren't also as bad as some make out in the most recent World Cup, they had a very tough group in 2011 and had the worst schedule of all the teams in the tournament.

 

[norcalbuff]

It's the highlights from Australia-Namibia 2003. While they did lose by a record margin, you can tell by the captain's reaction that he and his team were glad to be there, and go against the best as an amateur side.

And the next best team who missed out wouldn't have been glad to be there and go against the best in the world?

The RWC is great as it is format wise right now. Our answer shouldn't be to exclude certain teams/regions from WC.

Then why exclude South America? Also, I would hardly call the RWC great format-wise. The scheduling sucks for the Tier 2/3 teams and there are far too many blowouts in the early matches.

If you take away the spot, I think you:
*open yourself up for bad PR

In what way? More competitive matches would mean better PR for the sport. Every RWC you see stuff in the press about how uncompetitive the early rounds are.

*as mentioned before you take away what teams build up for (what motivation do kids/adults have in trying to get better if there is no pathway to top level competition? we've seen repechage and rwc results

Why does this logic apply to Africa but not South America?

but track has never denied athletes/nations into their olympic events, every interested nation is assured 2 spots).

Again, why does this logic apply to Africa but not South America? Also, track, with individual events, is completely different than team sports and countries participating still have to meet minimum standards. Need I mention again that Oceania does not receive and automatic spot in FIFA WCs because it is a weaker region?

*we need to ensure minnow participation because a World Cup emphasizes world participation. This also the game to be viewed by a wider audience.

You don't think that the team that currently gets left out due to an automatic African spot is a minnow and would be viewed by people in that country?

I would rather try to hold a a second level competition with these second level nations, format similar to JWRT, nothing too big. Repechage is a last chance play-off for a team in each region, and should remain as such, not an extra qualifier for African teams.

Then why should it be for South American teams? Your logic is not in any way consistent.

As someone else said before, the African landscape politically and economically is completely unique to the rest of the world, so naturally the growth there may not be as fast.

Question norcal, when Japan hosts the RWC in 2019, (as a matter of opinion), does Asia deserve an automatic qualifer outside of Japan hosting?

No, not at their current levels. Although I would be remiss not to point out that Asia is only represented by 1 team currently in the RWC. So surely all your logic about Africa getting 2 teams should also apply to the most populous continent on earth in addition to South America.

Of course the IRB will probably do so and compound their mistake of giving Japan the RWC in the first place without specific guarantees from the JRFU about changes in its structure and plans for using the RWC to grow the game within Japan. As it stands the 2019 RWC is looking like an unmitigated disaster.

 

[j'nuh]

Why not just have 12 automatics by ranking, 5 by continent qualifiers (Asia, America, Europe, Oceania, Africa) and then 3 by a "best of the rest tournament" to be held the year before a WC?

 

[norcalbuff]

Here is another way to look at how the spots are currently allocoated by continent. I give 1 full spot for an automatic qualifier and 1/4 spot given to repechage since there are 4 repechage teams and 1 spot:

Asia: 1.25
Africa: 2.25
Europe: 8.25
North America: 2
South America: 1.25
Oceania: 5

Africa somehow get more spots than any federation besides Europe and Oceania despite never having won a single match in a RWC or RWCQ against another federation in 28 attempts.

 

[j'nuh]

Here is another way to look at how the spots are currently allocoated by continent. I give 1 full spot for an automatic qualifier and 1/4 spot given to repechage since there are 4 repechage teams and 1 spot:

Asia: 1.25
Africa: 2.25
Europe: 8.25
North America: 2
South America: 1.25
Oceania: 5

Africa somehow get more spots than any federation besides Europe and Oceania despite never having won a single match in a RWC or RWCQ against another federation in 28 attempts.

1. You can't count South Africa in your points system if you then exclude them when saying African teams never win games.

2. If we do your points system bearing this in mind, we get:

Asia: 1.25
Africa: 1.25
Europe: 2.25
America: 2.25 (America qualifies as a supercontinent since there are only 7 teams outside Argentina with a ranking in the IRB, and only 2 in the top 30!)
Oceania: 1

Now, the number of members of the IRB, by continent, excluding the top 12, are:

Africa: 16
America: 19
Asia: 15
Europe: 32
Oceania: 8

So, to me, it seems fair for Africa to be represented outside South Africa, especially since rugby should be being grown everywhere, and that Africa is a fairly encouraging market given its interest in sevens. Take a place away from them, and you destroy any chances of developing the game there.

 

[norcalbuff]

1. You can't count South Africa in your points system if you then exclude them when saying African teams never win games.

We are talking about Africa getting a 2nd spot (and a repechage place as well) so the only relevant teams are the teams in contention for that second spot. Those teams have never won an RWC or RWCQ match against another continent and as Little Guy showed, they haven't even come close to winning a match in the RWC in the last 20 years.

Asia: 1.25
Africa: 1.25
Europe: 2.25
America: 2.25 (America qualifies as a supercontinent since there are only 7 teams outside Argentina with a ranking in the IRB, and only 2 in the top 30!)
Oceania: 1

Stop making things up. CONSUR and NACRA are two separate federations and North America and South America are two different continents. There is only 1 African team in the top 30 besides South Africa, BTW.

Now, the number of members of the IRB, by continent, excluding the top 12, are:

Africa: 16
America: 19
Asia: 15
Europe: 32
Oceania: 8

The number of IRB members are irrelevant when talking about the World Cup. If Mongolia and Myanmar affiliated with the IRB tomorrow, would that make Asia deserving of more places? Of course not, because they aren't close to being in contention for the World Cup.

So, to me, it seems fair for Africa to be represented outside South Africa, especially since rugby should be being grown everywhere, and that Africa is a fairly encouraging market given its interest in sevens. Take a place away from them, and you destroy any chances of developing the game there.

Such platitudes are so silly and over the top. By that same logic, the place you are taking away from someone else who is more deserving and undeservedly gifting to Africa is "destroying any chances of developing the game there".

 

[LittleGuy]

The word is that Asia will be getting an extra team with Japan automatically qualifying, so Hong Kong or South Korea are likely to make their RWC debut.

Also regarding that 142-0 loss by Namibia to Australia in 2003, Namibia played a weakened side that game to rest players for the upcoming Romania match (which they also lost handily). Lots of people never take into account these factors at World Cups that Tier 2 sometimes sacrifice matches for resting players for more realistic wins, Japan (vs New Zealand), USA (vs Australia), Romania (vs England) all did exactly that at the most recent World Cup.



I meant they have improved since entering the World Cup in 1999. They are a better side now than they were in their first two World Cups.

They weren't also as bad as some make out in the most recent World Cup, they had a very tough group in 2011 and had the worst schedule of all the teams in the tournament.

This is something I'm fearing big time, what spot will go? Will repechage be eliminated? Will Africa #1 be replaced? We could stuck with a team that makes Namibia look like a home nations side in the RWC.

 

[usausa]

Of course the IRB will probably do so and compound their mistake of giving Japan the RWC in the first place without specific guarantees from the JRFU about changes in its structure and plans for using the RWC to grow the game within Japan. As it stands the 2019 RWC is looking like an unmitigated disaster.

Hey we finally found something we agree on!!!

 

[usausa]

This is something I'm fearing big time, what spot will go? Will repechage be eliminated? Will Africa #1 be replaced? We could stuck with a team that makes Namibia look like a home nations side in the RWC.

I think they should consider having less teams automatically qualify. Get the 8 quarterfinalists to qualify like back in the day, then open the rest up to qualification. So then 11 nations will have to qualify (assuming Japan don't make final 8). Could make it as such:
Africa 1
Europe 4
Asia 1
Americas 3
Oceania 2

How about this solution norcalbuff? Obviously these spots would depend on who makes top 8, and the matches between band 2 and 3 in 2015 will make a huge difference. 2 or 3 of the AQ's from Europe for 2013 won't make it, and it certainly takes away spots from likes of Romania, Russia, Spain, Portugal, etc. But you want the best teams in there and I feel like this is the best compromise that can be made.

 

[William18]

I think they should consider having less teams automatically qualify. Get the 8 quarterfinalists to qualify like back in the day, then open the rest up to qualification. So then 11 nations will have to qualify (assuming Japan don't make final 8). Could make it as such:
Africa 1
Europe 4
Asia 1
Americas 3
Oceania 2

How about this solution norcalbuff? Obviously these spots would depend on who makes top 8, and the matches between band 2 and 3 in 2015 will make a huge difference. 2 or 3 of the AQ's from Europe for 2013 won't make it, and it certainly takes away spots from likes of Romania, Russia, Spain, Portugal, etc. But you want the best teams in there and I feel like this is the best compromise that can be made.

I like your idea of having only the top 8 auto qualify. I wouldn't want to see the likes of Scotland/Ireland/Samoa playing a lot of qualification games. However, i think it would be good if you could guarantee the likes of Georgia important qualification games against other top teams.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

America: 2.25 (America qualifies as a supercontinent since there are only 7 teams outside Argentina with a ranking in the IRB, and only 2 in the top 30!)

I count four...

 

[norcalbuff]

I think they should consider having less teams automatically qualify. Get the 8 quarterfinalists to qualify like back in the day, then open the rest up to qualification. So then 11 nations will have to qualify (assuming Japan don't make final 8). Could make it as such:
Africa 1
Europe 4
Asia 1
Americas 3
Oceania 2

How about this solution norcalbuff? Obviously these spots would depend on who makes top 8, and the matches between band 2 and 3 in 2015 will make a huge difference. 2 or 3 of the AQ's from Europe for 2013 won't make it, and it certainly takes away spots from likes of Romania, Russia, Spain, Portugal, etc. But you want the best teams in there and I feel like this is the best compromise that can be made.

I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing completely. Are you saying the 1/4 finalists should get in and then everyone else is in one giant repechage pool? I'm fine with how the IRB does RWC Qualifying largely by continent because it cuts down on costs of travel for the teams involved. But if you're saying Africa still gets an automatic spot in addition to South Africa, I'd be against that.

I do think it would be nice for Georgia and the other European teams to get more competitive fixtures outside of the RWC. If they went back to only giving automatic spots to the host and to the 1/4 finalists, I'd be in favor of that as it would give those fixtures to Georgia and the ENC teams against the likes of Scotland and Italy in RWC Qualifying. However, I do also like that there is a reward for coming in 3rd as opposed to 4th or 5th in your pool. It makes RWC matches meaningful that might otherwise simply be for pride. There are pros and cons to both approaches and I don't have a strong opinion either way.

 

[usausa]

I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing completely. Are you saying the 1/4 finalists should get in and then everyone else is in one giant repechage pool? I'm fine with how the IRB does RWC Qualifying largely by continent because it cuts down on costs of travel for the teams involved. But if you're saying Africa still gets an automatic spot in addition to South Africa, I'd be against that.

I do think it would be nice for Georgia and the other European teams to get more competitive fixtures outside of the RWC. If they went back to only giving automatic spots to the host and to the 1/4 finalists, I'd be in favor of that as it would give those fixtures to Georgia and the ENC teams against the likes of Scotland and Italy in RWC Qualifying. However, I do also like that there is a reward for coming in 3rd as opposed to 4th or 5th in your pool. It makes RWC matches meaningful that might otherwise simply be for pride. There are pros and cons to both approaches and I don't have a strong opinion either way.

The proposal would be to auto-qualify only the quarterfinalists, the rest have to go through qualification. No repechage, and its the continental process used now. It is basically the former qualifying system used. The 'bigger' nations would only play matches at end of process, similar to a system used for 1995 and 1999 as to avoid as many bad games as possible. Now continental numbers can be modified depending on who and who doesn't qualify. But I feel this is the best compromise between our two beliefs. If you think about it, we would have had the likes of Uruguay or Chile in RWC2015 had Tonga not defeated France since Canada would have auto qualified.

 

[usausa]

So using the RWC2011 as an example, the following 8 would have qualified:
Ireland
Wales
England
France
South Africa
Australia
New Zealand
Argentina

Allocate the spots as mentioned above:
Africa 1 (Namibia, Zimbabwe, etc.)
Europe 4 (Scotland, Italy, Georgia, Russia, Romania, etc.)
Asia 1 (Japan)
Americas 3 (Canada, USA, Uruguay/Chile)
Oceania 2 (Samoa, Fiji, Tonga)

That leaves 1 more spot open. Now you could add it anywhere, most likely it would go to Europe or Oceania. What makes 2019 more complicated is that Japan is host, and they probably won't make the quarters so it takes away a spot.

 

[norcalbuff]

That's even further away from what I want than the current system because I don't favor giving South America a second automatic inclusion in addition to Argentina. I just use South America as an example to point out the inconsistency in the logic of giving Africa a second automatic spot. What I want is for every continent/regional union to be represented and then for the rest of the teams to be there on merit. That is more inclusive of the world's regions than many sports, including soccer.

 

[LittleGuy]

I count four...

Yeah same here, Canada, USA, Chile and Uruguay. With Brazil knocking on the door in 33rd.