| |
 Cool running Rugby World Cup suffering from bigger field, mismatches
Posted: Tuesday October 12, 1999 12:05 PM
Where's the World Cup fever? Where's all the hype? Scotland coach Jim Telfer is not the only one asking these questions after the second batch of matches in the Rugby Union World Cup. "It still looks like you're isolated in your own little area and there's not much of a fever," said Telfer. "You don't feel like you're really part of it except from your own pool. There doesn't seem to be much on television other than the games. I don't think it's really taken alight yet." I hope he doesn't expect it to change anytime soon. The field is too big and has too many weak links. The games have been spread too far apart in terms of time and even geography. The attendance for some games has been pitiful. Only when we get down to the knockout stages, when the elite rugby nations do battle in truly meaningful matches, will the tournament -- as Telfer put it -- "take alight." Less than 5,000 people turned up at Murrayfield, Scotland on Sunday for South Africa's romp against the rugby minnows of Spain. The Springboks are so superior to the Spaniards, they were able to field a second string and still pass the 40-point mark with consummate ease. Argentina produced a fine comeback against Samoa in Llanelli, Wales and Tonga beat Italy with a last-second drop goal on the same day at Leicester, England in contests of more evenly-matched squads. But unfortunately for these nations among the second tier of rugby talent, many people would draw their curtains on them if they were playing in their own back yard. There's not a household name among them. None have a genuine hope of beating the big guns of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England. And they simply don't have much pulling power, which begs the question: did we really need an expanded 20-team tournament? The competition would hardly have been hurt by the absence of Spain, the USA, Romania or Uruguay. Making the finals more global is a worthy aim, but expansion shouldn't be allowed to happen at the expense of the overall quality of the product. At least when the World Cup football finals are held every four years, the so-called lesser lights still have a name or two we recognize and their teams are competitive. There is always the possibility of a major upset -- and history has certainly given us its fair share in the past. Each decade, in fact, has had its shocks. The U.S. beat England in the fifties, North Korea beat Italy in the sixties, East Germany beat West Germany in the seventies, Algeria beat West Germany in the eighties and Cameroon beat Argentina in the nineties. And these are just the prime examples. Soccer is more conducive to surprise results. They so rarely happen in rugby, where getting 11 men behind the ball and packing the defense a la association football is not a tactical option. So the early stages of the rugby World Cup can be a hard sell, except when you have the glamour confrontations like England against New Zealand or when one of the other hosts -- and there are five host countries remember -- entertain another of rugby's more powerful teams, like Ireland against Australia or Scotland against South Africa. The fact the pool games have been played a week apart hardly helps the tournament keep any kind of momentum. In contrast, almost every day during the month-long World Cup soccer finals there were games to enjoy. Becoming feverish about rugby's showpiece event is tough. Lukewarm may be the temperature until at least the quarterfinals. If you want to talk red hot, then that can only be the semis and final. Now they will be games worth hyping.
| |||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 1999 CNN/SI. A Time Warner Company. Terms under which this service is provided to you.
| |||||||||||||||||
