Africa does not deserve an automatic RWC qualifier

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Maybe, just maybe, the IRB could consider giving one of the European spots to South America. What's the use of having 3 of Georgia, Portugal, Spain, Romania and Russia at the world cup? 2 is enough

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

 

[norcalbuff]

Maybe, just maybe, the IRB could consider giving one of the European spots to South America. What's the use of having 3 of Georgia, Portugal, Spain, Romania and Russia at the world cup? 2 is enough

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

Europe doesn't get 3 spots. They get 2 plus a repechage spot. They've won the repechage spot the last 2 times, earning a 3rd spot.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Africa1 is there as the carrot for African nations to chase otherwise there is no incentive for improvement and that would mean no developing market ITO rugby which is in fact the IRB's no.1 aim; to develop rugby GLOBALLY across all possible markets. I don't think anyone ever said Namibia is there based on merit.

 

[norcalbuff]

Africa1 is there as the carrot for African nations to chase otherwise there is no incentive for improvement and that would mean no developing market ITO rugby which is in fact the IRB's no.1 aim; to develop rugby GLOBALLY across all possible markets. I don't think anyone ever said Namibia is there based on merit.

A repechage spot would be that same carrot and is currently the carrot for South America. Getting rid of an automatic spot and replacing it with a 2nd repechage spot does not cut off Africa's access to the RWC. If you can't beat Uruguay or similar teams, you really shouldn't be playing in the pinnacle of international rugby, particularly when your continent/region is already represented by South Africa. And if you can beat them, great, you earn a spot in the RWC.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I wonder in all the time people have been having a go at New Zealand for not doing enough for the island nations has anyone stopped to ask Australia what they are doing to help the situation, or leading in to my point in relation to this subject, what South Africa are doing for the minor African nations? To be honest I think it's the IRB's job to assist development over there too and I'm sure they are doing some of what they can. There are obviously going to be talented individuals growing up in smaller countries like Namibia, but they won't get the development or competition they need to thrive the way they are right now and it starts a lot younger than the national sides.

In Namibia for example, money needs to be fed into clubs and schools so they can travel to South Africa and play their way up the club and school teams over there and over years they'll get better.

As for the World Cup and international level there needs to be a better system for the games happening at this tier 3 stage. Really I think they should have qualifiers from around the world playing off for the last 4 spots and call it the Developing Nations World Cup. There's plenty to play for right there and then the best of them would go through to the World Cup. Plus it'd give a large number of smaller teams a World Cup where they weren't just getting handed their asses and have a great prize to play for. If Namibia were to go to something like this then there's prestige enough for them if they make the top 4 and go to the world cup. This whole regional free ticket thing won't develop nations like Namibia. Playing in a developing nations World Cup would.

When you play in a World Cup and just spend 300mins going backwards and 20mins going forwards I fail to see how that developed anything other than fear of greater teams. Bring on a developing nations world cup, find some sponsors, advertise it and I'll happily watch them slug it out for the title of the World's best developing Rugby Nation and a ticket through for the top 4.

Not only that, some real justice would be served rather than this touchy feely, "Here, have a hug, a warm glass of milk and a free berth in the World Cup" nonsense.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Namiban schools teams do actually play SA schools teams quite regularly and they have for years had a team in the SA Vodacom cup tournament and we facilitated an Argentinian team in that competition also. Namibian players play in our tournaments. What else should we do apart from fund and run them?

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Namiban schools teams do actually play SA schools teams quite regularly and they have for years had a team in the SA Vodacom cup tournament and we facilitated an Argentinian team in that competition also. Namibian players play in our tournaments. What else should we do apart from fund and run them?

Well I was hardly criticising South Africa, I was just saying that I believe it's the IRB's responsibility to liaise with South Africa and create those opportunities, tours and comps for the younger grades and if that's whats happening then there's nothing to worry about. My comparison with the New Zealand - island teams relations was to say that it's interesting how we always get criticised for not doing enough when we are doing pretty much the same as South Africa doe in relation to your neighboring countries. Which I have absolutely no problem with. It's more my way of clearly showing that people have in many other threads loved to stick the knife into NZ over stuff we aren't actually doing wrong. So, yeah if South Africa's doing all that then good on them.

As for the path through to the WC, I still say that a tier three developing nations World Cup would be more prestigious an opportunity than instant regional qualification for some.

 

[usausa]

The way I look at it:

Take away the World Cup spot for Africa, you take away everything they build up and play for. There is nothing for them to play for (don't tell me repechage, cmon man). South American teams have a chance to qualify straight through, they play the US/Canada loser. Every team has a legit shot for an automatic spot (meaning to repechage playoff). What reason are people going to have to develop and play high level rugby in Africa if there is no chance for a one in a lifetime chance at a World Cup? I understand that Africa is a weak rugby continent, there were times when others weren't so great either. Based on your logic, I get the sense that you would've taken away Asia's spot after 1995 because they got blasted 145-17 by New Zealand, and that wasway worse than any result in the previous World Cup.

 

[psychic duck]

The way I look at it:

Take away the World Cup spot for Africa, you take away everything they build up and play for. There is nothing for them to play for (don't tell me repechage, cmon man). South American teams have a chance to qualify straight through, they play the US/Canada loser. Every team has a legit shot for an automatic spot (meaning to repechage playoff). What reason are people going to have to develop and play high level rugby in Africa if there is no chance for a one in a lifetime chance at a World Cup? I understand that Africa is a weak rugby continent, there were times when others weren't so great either. Based on your logic, I get the sense that you would've taken away Asia's spot after 1995 because they got blasted 145-17 by New Zealand, and that wasway worse than any result in the previous World Cup.

Great post.

Progress doesn't happen overnight, and it has been particularly slow in Africa as yet, but that doesn't mean it will be forever and you should simply give up. Whilst it is probably true that at least the top five European ENC nations are all better than Uruguay or Namibia, it is an impatient solution to turf out sides and just get the strongest sides. Basically every worldwide tournament has similar thinking to allow the game to develop in different regions, if you get rid of Africa 1 for repechage it would likely be 10 of the 20 sides at the World Cup European.

Whilst I grant you there is a lack of progress with Namibia, other African teams look to be catching up with Namibia and Namibia may fall out of RWC 2015 if they don't get their act together. So Namibia won't be able to just stay at the same level they are now and keep reaching the World Cup.

And like you mention UsaUsa, the same impatient thinking would have probably turfed Japan out of the World Cup by now, and the World Cup may well have been lessened to 12 nations or at the very least kept at 16 with a lack of patience for sides to catch up with sides that leapt far ahead in professionalism. And then you can wave goodbye to the "global game", and sides like Georgia (who lost 84-6 in 2003 against England and then better than halved that margin 8 years later) wouldn't have got their break.

Also for the guy who said Namibia doesn't benefit from the RWC, the fact is that they do. They haven't done great, but if they didn't play then they would be even more thrashed. Appearing at a World Cup gives teams more coverage, more support, and the players more chance to show themselves to professional clubs. Just look at how after Russia appeared at the World Cup there have since been 5 Russians to play in the Premiership up from the previous total of nought. In Georgia's case, they got a lot more players to France after appearing at the World Cup and players playing professionally. Likewise for Namibia, they have been boosted by players like Jacques Burger and Tinus du Plessis getting professional contracts. If they didn't have players like them, their thrashing would be more like 2003.

 

[London_Italian]

I think we all agree that the likes of Uruguay/Chile are better than Namibia and the likes of Spain/Portugal are even better than them, but to take away an automatic spot from Africa would show an extreme lack of foresight. Sure Namibia have stagnated recently, but with sides like Zimbabwe improving this will only inspire Namibia to do better and if they don't others will....all helping to improve the standard of African rugby. Surely the only way that the Americas will get another qualifying place given to them is if USA or Canada finish in the top 3 of their pools at the RWC or if the RWC is expanded(hopefully this will be done in 2019) Keep the faith in developing nations

 

[norcalbuff]

The way I look at it:

Take away the World Cup spot for Africa, you take away everything they build up and play for. There is nothing for them to play for (don't tell me repechage, cmon man).

Why not repechage? There would be 2 repechage spots if you took away Africa 1, giving African teams ample opportunity to qualify.

South American teams have a chance to qualify straight through, they play the US/Canada loser.

That is in no way qualifying straight through. It's effectively a modified repechage spot between North America and South America. They have little chance in those matches and it is still not an automatic spot. And by that logic, why not have the US/Canada loser play Africa's champion? After all, they'd still have a chance to qualify straight through according to you. See how silly that sounds?

Every team has a legit shot for an automatic spot (meaning to repechage playoff). What reason are people going to have to develop and play high level rugby in Africa if there is no chance for a one in a lifetime chance at a World Cup?

There would still be a chance via repechage. If you aren't good enough to beat the likes of Uruguay, Chile and other teams at that level, you really shouldn't be at the RWC. And no, not every team has a legit shot at an automatic spot. South America does not in any way, shape or form.

I understand that Africa is a weak rugby continent, there were times when others weren't so great either. Based on your logic, I get the sense that you would've taken away Asia's spot after 1995 because they got blasted 145-17 by New Zealand, and that wasway worse than any result in the previous World Cup.

I would not have taken away Asia's spot for 2 reasons:

1) The continent of Asia would have had no representative in the RWC. Africa would still be represented by South Africa in this case.
2) Japan had actually won a match in a previous RWC. Naturally, the team they beat was the African qualifier Zimbabwe, by 44 points.

The IRB needs to develop African rugby. Giving them a 2nd spot in the RWC so that the world can watch them get crushed by everyone from Fiji to Georgia doesn't accomplish that. What will develop African rugby is grassroots development and placing players in professional training environments.

And again, I am not in favor of giving South America a 2nd spot in addition to Argentina, but you can't apply the arguments you apply to Africa without doing the same to South America.

 

[norcalbuff]

Great post.

Thanks for taking the time and courtesy to reply to my post.

Progress doesn't happen overnight, and it has been particularly slow in Africa as yet, but that doesn't mean it will be forever and you should simply give up. Whilst it is probably true that at least the top five European ENC nations are all better than Uruguay or Namibia, it is an impatient solution to turf out sides and just get the strongest sides. Basically every worldwide tournament has similar thinking to allow the game to develop in different regions, if you get rid of Africa 1 for repechage it would likely be 10 of the 20 sides at the World Cup European.

As pointed out to you before, FIFA does not give an automatic berth to Oceania because it is the weakest region. They are forced to qualify via repechage for FIFA WCs. Also, even in other cases where every continent is represented, they make everyone other than the host and sometimes the previous winner qualify. Rugby does not make the top teams qualify because it is a foregone conclusion and because it saves money. But if the IRB made everyone qualify, would you be in favor of giving Africa 2 automatic spots? Because that's effectively what happens right now.

Also, if Africa gets stronger that will show up with wins in the repechage and in the RWC. With that, they would clearly be given more spots.

Whilst I grant you there is a lack of progress with Namibia, other African teams look to be catching up with Namibia and Namibia may fall out of RWC 2015 if they don't get their act together. So Namibia won't be able to just stay at the same level they are now and keep reaching the World Cup.

Are they catching up or is Namibia falling behind? After all, Namibia just lost at home to Spain with Spain missing most of their France-based players.

And like you mention UsaUsa, the same impatient thinking would have probably turfed Japan out of the World Cup by now, and the World Cup may well have been lessened to 12 nations or at the very least kept at 16 with a lack of patience for sides to catch up with sides that leapt far ahead in professionalism. And then you can wave goodbye to the "global game", and sides like Georgia (who lost 84-6 in 2003 against England and then better than halved that margin 8 years later) wouldn't have got their break.

Outrageous strawman.

Also for the guy who said Namibia doesn't benefit from the RWC, the fact is that they do. They haven't done great, but if they didn't play then they would be even more thrashed. Appearing at a World Cup gives teams more coverage, more support, and the players more chance to show themselves to professional clubs. Just look at how after Russia appeared at the World Cup there have since been 5 Russians to play in the Premiership up from the previous total of nought. In Georgia's case, they got a lot more players to France after appearing at the World Cup and players playing professionally. Likewise for Namibia, they have been boosted by players like Jacques Burger and Tinus du Plessis getting professional contracts. If they didn't have players like them, their thrashing would be more like 2003.

What this short-sighted analysis ignores is that there is another, potentially more deserving country that doesn't get the benefit of this and who gets screwed over. How many Uruguayan players might be playing professionally if they had been given a shot at the RWC in 2007 or 2011 like Namibia was?

 

[LittleGuy]

Not sure where my post from a long time ago was comparing the results of Tier three teams vs. African qualifiers was but here is a list of the RWC games played by African teams aside from South Africa. Only three or four matches are even remotely close and only one of those was in doubt till the very end, strangely enough the very first game an African side played in at a RWC.

2011
Fiji 49-25 Namibia
Samoa 49-12 Namibia
South Africa 87-0 Namibia
Wales 81-7 Namibia

2007
Ireland 32-17 Namibia
France 87-10 Namibia
Argentina 62-3 Namibia
Georgia 30-0 Namibia

2003
Argentina 67-14 Namibia
Ireland 64-7 Namibia
Australia 142-0 Namibia
Romania 37-7 Namibia

1999
Fiji 67-18 Namibia
France 47-13 Namibia
Canada 72-11 Namibia

1995
Scotland 89-0 Ivory Coast
France 54-18 Ivory Coast
Tonga 29-11 Ivory Coast

*Note the two following world cups were played with 4 point tries.

1991
Ireland 55-11 Zimbabwe
Scotland 51-12 Zimbabwe
Japan 52-8 Zimbabwe

1987
Romania 21-20 Zimbabwe (Africa's best game at an RWC that dosen't involve South Africa)
Scotland 60-21 Zimbabwe
France 70-12 Zimbabwe

 

[psychic duck]

The IRB needs to develop African rugby. Giving them a 2nd spot in the RWC so that the world can watch them get crushed by everyone from Fiji to Georgia doesn't accomplish that. What will develop African rugby is grassroots development and placing players in professional training environments.

Get rid of Africa 1 from the World Cup then and see how quickly the region falls behind Europe then. Also Namibia are stronger now than they were before appearing at the RWC, so it has developed them a little, just not as quickly as hoped and compared to others.

And it is having the Africa 1 spot available which helps African nations and is an incentive for them. Not Namibia themselves appearing, which has just got do with Namibia. You need to show patience with Africa, they are behind Europe in strength and need more support not to be kicked out.

Are they catching up or is Namibia falling behind? After all, Namibia just lost at home to Spain with Spain missing most of their France-based players.

Stating half the facts again. Namibia themselves had none of the likes of Jacques Burger or Rohan Kitshoff available and had like 6 debutants in their pack. And Spain were expected to win by more, not just by 1 point in the last kick.

Also Spain are the most improved side this year in the top 20 thanks to discovering they could field about 3 Spanish born players in their XV. It is clear they are ahead of Namibia at the moment, and they are also in with a shout of qualifying automatically for RWC 2015.

What this short-sighted analysis ignores is that there is another, potentially more deserving country that doesn't get the benefit of this and who gets screwed over. How many Uruguayan players might be playing professionally if they had been given a shot at the RWC in 2007 or 2011 like Namibia was?

I have already said that, if Africa gets a place then South America should too.

That was in response to somebody saying that Namibia don't benefit from appearing at World Cups when they clearly do.

 

[norcalbuff]

Get rid of Africa 1 from the World Cup then and see how quickly the region falls behind Europe then. Also Namibia are stronger now than they were before appearing at the RWC, so it has developed them a little, just not as quickly as hoped and compared to others.

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.

Stating half the facts again. Namibia themselves had none of the likes of Jacques Burger or Rohan Kitshoff available and had like 6 debutants in their pack. And Spain were expected to win by more, not just by 1 point in the last kick.

Everyone misses a few players from time to time. They weren't missing all of their pros, either, with Tinus du Plessis there.

Also Spain are the most improved side this year in the top 20 thanks to discovering they could field about 3 Spanish born players in their XV. It is clear they are ahead of Namibia at the moment, and they are also in with a shout of qualifying automatically for RWC 2015.

Absolutely they are improved and it's due to those France-based players. However, they didn't have them for this tournament so that makes them irrelevant.

I have already said that, if Africa gets a place then South America should too.

That was in response to somebody saying that Namibia don't benefit from appearing at World Cups when they clearly do.

Yes, you have said that and I strongly disagree with that too. If you had given Uruguay an undeserved (compared to Portugal and Romania who beat them) a spot in the RWC in 2007 and 2011 over Portugal and Romania, those countries' players would not have gotten the exposure and pro contracts that they did. There is an opportunity cost to every choice in life. If you give South America and Africa automatic spots at the expense of other countries/regions, you are hurting more deserving countries and players. All I ask is Africa show something on the field in a match that matters. As it stands, the continent of Africa besides South Africa are a combined 0-28 in RWC and RWCQ matches against other continents.

 

[Aristodemus]

Maybe they should make the group stage eight groups of four rather than four groups of five. It would still be the same number of games played for each side (one less in the group) with one further knockout round. That way the European and South American teams who deserve to play can play. The only potential downside is TV companies not wanting to show all the games.

 

[norcalbuff]

Maybe they should make the group stage eight groups of four rather than four groups of five. It would still be the same number of games played for each side (one less in the group) with one further knockout round. That way the European and South American teams who deserve to play can play. The only potential downside is TV companies not wanting to show all the games.

32 would be crazy. 24 would be do-able but I don't really want to get into that debate again.

 

[Toko_11]

A) South America deserves a spot
B ) African spot can't be removed
C)European Spots can't be removed
D)Asians already just have 1 spot
E)Repechage is another way of saying Europe 3

Solution A) 24 Team WC
Solution B ) World Cup Held in Argentina
Solution C) Uruguayan players being assimilated to Argentinian championship thus making Uruguay Competitive vs Romania/Spain/Portugal for the Repechage
Solution E) Me going to the pub and forgetting this problem

 

[djwizard84]

Each continent should get a direct spot even if the level within the continent is not at the top.
In the specific case of South America is a bit mean, but it could be better if there is a REAL group stage between Canada, USA and all teams of Consur A. Top 2 get direct access to RWC and 3rd place goes for the repechage. If SA teams play against the NA teams and Argentina i'm 100% sure they will have a faster developement than they are doing now and of course nobody will be judging what is happening in Africa.

 

[Big Ewis]

Little Guy 's post :lol:
I know, it's ridiculous, that's exactly what I'm talking about. WTF is the point of keeping participating if they're forever going to flirt with conceding triple-digit score FFS !!!!!!!!!

P.S.: lol at the "*Note the two following world cups were played with 4 point tries."

I remember in 2003 after the AUS NAM game, authorities and fans were seriously reconsidering the whole RWC structure and saying there's absolutely no point in having this. When a team beats the other by 142, and the other doesn't score a single point, it's more than men among boys...
I've found it ridiculous but funny at least, I must admit I....do enjoy watching those games p) but wtffff RWC's should have only teams with the ability to beat each other, I mean NZ FIJ is far-fetched right now, but Fiji has "something", it's just a different level.