2011 World Cup, Only 16 Teams?

Question

I think its a shame that the next world cup will be reduced to 16 teams. Surely this is not going to help Rugby take root around the world?

The gap is narrowing between the top 10 nations and the rest. Tonga and Fiji are improving, and Georgia gave Ireland a h**l of a scare! Also Romania, USA, Canada and even Portugal have put in creditable performances.

Surely the IRB should recognise this, and actually give the minnows something to aim at over the next 4 years, as well as more funding!

Anyone agree or disagree?

PS; Id like to see the RWC stay at 20 teams in 2011, or even expand to 24, you could throw in Uruguay, Croatia, Russia, Chile, Papua etc as well!

Answer 1

108-13 as in the ABs v Portugal doesn't exactly win many admirers world over does it. It can be a high scoring encounter, but needs some competition. Probably some thing like the Japan v Fiji game which ended 31-35.

20 teams sure does look good but it mostly lack in good quality entertainment.

You need to understand that you have to sell a match to make money and you can't do that when you have cricket scores being scored.

Although it looks like the smaller teams want have a chance of getting in, you'd be surprised what man can do when faced with all most impossible tasks.

Answer 2

I agree with you in both two "answers"...

The world cup shouldnt close doors to those teams.

And Argentina must play an international cup. Business are business but what is rugby about? where is honor and dignity and all those words around this sport when they say NO tu Pumas just based on money.

Answer 3

I agree with you!

You would have thought they would want to promote the game worldwide by expanding the numbers of teams not decreasing it!

You only have to look at the fight Georgia put up against Ireland, a country that only has 600 hundred rugby players!  

These teams  really want to be recognised as a National Rugby teams!

There are many countries who wanted to, but failed to qualify, for RWC 2007, and they are now saying those who did qualify for RWC 2007, cannot play in the 2011……..does not make sense!

As for the Pumas in the 6(7)N’s, as most play in Europe, there is no reason for them to join and be based in Malta or another Isle to join us!

Would be great !

Answer 4

20 is enough, there are far too many mismatches at the moment. I think the should be a second tournament alongside the main worldcup though so the lesser nations get more matches at their level and have a chance of silverware.

Argentina must be allowed to play in the tri nations - they are the fourth best side in the world. It might be hard to organise though since most of there players play in Europe

Answer 5

Its ridiculous, its true that its kind of boring seeing a match being won by 100 point difference, but the Rugby is not as popular as football, having more teams involved makes it more popular among countries, the IRB should be thinking of getting even more teams involved. It is the "World Cup", a time to make friends with other countries and cultures, if they think like that, in the next world cup it will be six nations against three nations and the others what...

Answer 6

there are teams in each pool who don't really have a chance of winning a game; Namibia, USA, Portugal and Japan. I think these teams and others would benefit from their own world cup competition. It would raise the profile of the sport in these countries, as they will have a chance of winning and people in these countries don't want to watch their national teams concede 100 points a game.

I think the six nations should expand to two divions of five though. If teams like Geogria, Portugal and Romania have the chance to be promoted to the main competition, it will encourage the growth of the sport in these countries far better than being in a world cup every four years, where the best they can hope for is a win in the group stages.

Answer 7

duh

Answer 8

I agree with 20 teams. No point jumping to 16. If we do, then the likes of Romania, Namibia, Georgia, Portugal etc will not get a shot at the tournament, and we all know how much they have upset and tested some of the larger nations so far.

Judging by recent performance by the so called 'little guys' I think personally that the IRB would be stupid to reduce it to 16.

Answer 9

um tri is a meaning for 3..... argentina is cool but they arent involved in tri nations... plus argentina is not involved in super 14.... self explanitory if ya think about it... and anyway northern hemisphere has a 6 nations trophy. and they all are c**p.. look wat all blacks did to wales when they toured... shows the higher class rugby in southern hemisphere...

keep trying ya northies... come back for the next world cup. if u dare....!!!!

Answer 10

Might make it difficult for England to qualify.

Answer 11

maybe they should hold a second tournament at the same time as the main world cup for the smaller nations, it would give them some coverage , maybe the winners could be involved in the next main cup with one team dropping down to the second tournament, an incentive for them to improve.

Answer 12

I'm not sure 16 teams will prevent the game from growing.

It is hard to say if the spectacle of a minow being destroyed by a top five team helps the game take root around the world.

As for Argentina in the try nations ? Why?

Argentina have never beaten NZ or RSA. They have no hope of taking a tri-nations championship.  

The only thing that can secure Argentina more games and a place in an international tournament is winning. Winning this years world cup would be a great start.

Answer 13

Huh!

Answer 14

i think its pretty poor that the competititon will be reduced but at least it will guarnatee the northen hemisphere teams will qualify out of the group stages

but on your argentina thing i had heard a rumour that Argentina were to be entered into the 6nations with a base in Spain so that would be interesting it make the northern hemisphere teams raise the games