Respect to Namibia.

I was watching Namibia play their 4th test match against yet another very tough opponent in only 17 days, in their run on 15 for this match there are only 6 players making a living on rugby, and the only player that can be seen playing for a truly professional high quality outfit is Jacques Burger the Namibian captain.

The truth is that a minnow team such as Namibia, who has only been established in 1990 and with roughly a 1000 amateur rugby players in the country realistically has no chance of beating any teams in their pool, the fact that they have qualified by beating Tunisia for the Africa 1 qualifying spot for the first time in their history is testament to the challenges they face.

The truth is that Namibia does not have the resources to finance professional rugby as more than 50% of the population are unemployed and an even larger number lives off the land and informal businesses.

I think it is only appropriate that we don our caps to this team who has not once complained about their schedule, but was only too happy to be involved in this world cup.

It took Fiji 40 minutes to get their bonus point try against Namibia in their first outing,Namibia scored 25 points against Fiji scoring 2 tries of their own, and kept Fiji to scoring only 2 tries in the second half.

By the time Namibia had to face Samoa only 4 days later, it took Samoa 54 minutes before they could secure their bonus point try, and once again Namibia showed their guts and determination to score two tries in the last twenty minutes.

Even though Namibia had 8 days before their clash with the springboks it was clear that as a mainly amateur team, 3 matches on 13 days would simply be too much for them.

Today only 4 days after the routing by South Africa, Namibia stood tall in their encounter with a Welsh team who saw 11 changes, but were still able to rack up 12 tries. In the first half Wales were their own worst enemy with every forward more interested in getting ball in hand, rather than stick to structured rugby by securing the breakdowns before running the ball. This doesn’t take away from the fact that Namibia competed at every breakdown with gusto. It took Wales 46 minutes to score their bonus point try, and during the last 20 when Namibia was playing with 14 men most of the time due to a yellow card and then due to injury Wales managed to run in the rest of their tries scoring 6 tries during this time. Namibia also socred a beautiful try from an intercept.

Here is the details of the run on 15 of today’s match.

Chrysander Antonio Botha - Club: Kudu’s Namibia
Danie van Wyk - Club: unknown
Willem Petrus van Zyl - Clubs: Bourgoin-Jallieu, Free State, Namibia
Darryl Pierce de la Harpe - Club: Western Suburbs Namibia
Hendrik Daniel Petrus Dames - Clubs: Leopards, South Africa
Theuns Andries Willem Kotze - Clubs: unknown
Eugene Anthony Jantjies - Club: Romanian side Farul Constanţa
Johannes Hermanus Redelinghuys - Clubs: unknown
Hugo Horn - Club: Rotherham Titans, England
Johannes Albertus du Toit - Clubs: Boland Cavaliers, South Africa
Heinz Koll - Club: Wanderers, Namibia
Nico Esterhuize - Club: unknown
Tinus du Plessis - Current club: Wanderers, Namibia
Jacques Burger - Clubs: Saracens, England
Jacques Nieuwenhuis - Clubs: unknown


Yes the sad fact is that Namibia cannot compete with these teams, but rather than looking at the score lines of these one sided affairs, it is notable that they played with honour, guts and determination, showing us all why we do play and love this game so much.

So for all those naysayers that is advocating less teams in the pool rounds, wake up and respect these minnow nations, if not for their competitiveness, but then at least for their love of the game and the honour it is for them to represent their countries on the biggest stage of world rugby.

They've got some brilliant names.

Hugo Horn

. nice post BB

I've gotta give it to the Namibians, they had a ridiculous turnaround over the pool stage.

the worst team in the competition, but they gave it their all. and for all of those who say we shouldnt have any "minnows" at the world cup, just looking at some of the Namibian players, what would they give to be able to play at the world cup in their favourite sport (if not their profession) and account themselves against some of the big boys.

Even after the beatings they took, I bet they'd do it all over again, I dont think they'd appreciate the 'poor little minnows' status everyone seems to be givng them either, neither would the likes of Georgia/Romania/Russia. These are proud men representing their countries, to call them anything other than that is disrespectful.

Biltong,

My advocation of getting rid of the hoepless cases like Namibia is that they are holding back the "second division" side that could be causing upsets and gate crashing the old boys club which looks set to be all top 9 sides in the quarter finals.
In the past the likes of Samoa had a fighting chance of getting into knockouts. Now they are hamstrung by a fifth tier of no hopers coming in and allowing teh big teams to rest their squads with player rotation ( something many of the third 4th tier nations cant risk due to a lack of depth) and having too play a midweek to cram in the extra fixture to what is already an overlong torunemant.
The fiifth tier sides are net takers in terms of the income they bring to the torunemnat and the money they recieve. Without them the 3rd 4th tier teams would be financialy beter off and consequently better placed to improve and challenge the establishment.
I think world rugby would be better served on getting those guys up to scratch than allowing a bunch of no hopers to come along just so they can get a few photos and pretend they are international class sportsmen. Its insulting to the full time sides who bust a gut day after day and whos unions have made long term investments in the future of the game to have sides that bad in the tournament. Certainly the idea of extending the 6 nations to a euro wide comeptition or adding another tier to the WC must be flushed down the pan after some of this junk.

Saying you did well for a semi pro team is tantamount to giving them a badge that says "my special boy" on it and a pat on the head.

Biltong

On reflection though they did give us all a good laugh with their names

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:On reflection though they did give us all a good laugh with their names

Peter, do you think these amateurs are not busting their gut for their team?

Just think about this for a moment. The following teams are competitive in world rugby and can and have beaten major nations before.

New Zealand
South africa
australia
Ireland
France
England
Wales
Scotland
Italy
Argentina

2nd tier teams.
Fiji - have beaten tonga 11, Samoa 9, Japan 8, Italy 2, Canada 3 and wales once
Samoa - tonga 12, Japan 8, Fiji 7, italy 2, Argentina 1, Canada 1 and Australia once
Tonga - have beaten fiji 7, Japan 4 and Samoa 3 times
Japan - have beaten Samoa 1, Fiji 1, Canada 4 and Tonga 5 times.
Canada - have beaten Tonga 3, Japan 2, Argentina 1, Scotland 1 and Italy once.

all the other lower tier teams rarely get the opportunity to play another minnow in the world cup, and Namibia in this case ahd 4 very strong teams to compete with.

If you look at the 2nd tier nations apart from japan none of them has a professional league of their own, and their players ply their trade in other domestic professional leagues. By coming to the world cup they have the stage as amateur rugby players to get exposure and contracts to become professional players, and that is the only way their countries can become more competitive.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:On reflection though they did give us all a good laugh with their names

You sir are an embarrasment, you not only say these guys shouldn't be aloud to play rugby but take the mickey out of thier names, with post like the ones you have written I hope one of the Namibian players doesn't meet you in a dark alley!

Yes the sad fact is that Namibia cannot compete with these teams

Nearly beat Ireland 4 years ago....

he fact that they have qualified by beating Tunisia for the Africa 1 qualifying spot for the first time in their history is testament to the challenges they face.

Didnt they nearly beat Ireland at the world cup 4 years ago?

Yeah, Boyne, that is their standout performance thus far.

sorry boyne, it was the first time they beat Tunisia.

Ah I get you.

Yip- fair play to them!

I posted a thread similar to this and asked how many of the top tier teams could cope with some of the turn round times the lower tier teams have had.

Russia also played 3 games in 10 days, I know us Welsh would struggle with that turn around against similar classed opponents.

Especially given we have carried 3 players with injuries until last game and today.

biltongbek wrote:Peter, do you think these amateurs are not busting their gut for their team?

Just think about this for a moment. The following teams are competitive in world rugby and can and have beaten major nations before.

New Zealand
South africa
australia
Ireland
France
England
Wales
Scotland
Italy
Argentina

2nd tier teams.
Fiji - have beaten tonga 11, Samoa 9, Japan 8, Italy 2, Canada 3 and wales once
Samoa - tonga 12, Japan 8, Fiji 7, italy 2, Argentina 1, Canada 1 and Australia once
Tonga - have beaten fiji 7, Japan 4 and Samoa 3 times
Japan - have beaten Samoa 1, Fiji 1, Canada 4 and Tonga 5 times.
Canada - have beaten Tonga 3, Japan 2, Argentina 1, Scotland 1 and Italy once.

all the other lower tier teams rarely get the opportunity to play another minnow in the world cup, and Namibia in this case ahd 4 very strong teams to compete with.

If you look at the 2nd tier nations apart from japan none of them has a professional league of their own, and their players ply their trade in other domestic professional leagues. By coming to the world cup they have the stage as amateur rugby players to get exposure and contracts to become professional players, and that is the only way their countries can become more competitive.

Yeah fair enough, yes they busted a gut and played till they dropped...which unfortunatly was about 60 minutes in.

You can applaud the effort and say fair play for taking on the challenge, but I dont think they deserve to be in the comeptition just on effort. Would they let me in just because i tried really hard? No because I utterly stink at rugby. England get widely derided for taking a lap of honour after a gutsy loss to New Zealand.

I hoienstly think the world game would be bebtter served on helping to consolidate and improve the sides that have a chance of developing a proper comeptitive professional structure ( Itlay, Samoa, Fiji, Japan, Canada, Georgia etc) first then worry about these sides that are way way behind and are unlikely to ever be able sustain serious domestic rugby and an international setup that doenst rely on welfare from evveryone else.

Hi,Biltong nice post,Respect for every side that qualifies from outside the
established names.
They don`t have the infrastructure we take for granted,often they are amateurs.
For THEM just competing in the RWC,IS there RWC good on them.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Peter, do you think these amateurs are not busting their gut for their team?

Just think about this for a moment. The following teams are competitive in world rugby and can and have beaten major nations before.

New Zealand
South africa
australia
Ireland
France
England
Wales
Scotland
Italy
Argentina

2nd tier teams.
Fiji - have beaten tonga 11, Samoa 9, Japan 8, Italy 2, Canada 3 and wales once
Samoa - tonga 12, Japan 8, Fiji 7, italy 2, Argentina 1, Canada 1 and Australia once
Tonga - have beaten fiji 7, Japan 4 and Samoa 3 times
Japan - have beaten Samoa 1, Fiji 1, Canada 4 and Tonga 5 times.
Canada - have beaten Tonga 3, Japan 2, Argentina 1, Scotland 1 and Italy once.

all the other lower tier teams rarely get the opportunity to play another minnow in the world cup, and Namibia in this case ahd 4 very strong teams to compete with.

If you look at the 2nd tier nations apart from japan none of them has a professional league of their own, and their players ply their trade in other domestic professional leagues. By coming to the world cup they have the stage as amateur rugby players to get exposure and contracts to become professional players, and that is the only way their countries can become more competitive.

Yeah fair enough, yes they busted a gut and played till they dropped...which unfortunatly was about 60 minutes in.

You can applaud the effort and say fair play for taking on the challenge, but I dont think they deserve to be in the comeptition just on effort. Would they let me in just because i tried really hard? No because I utterly stink at rugby. England get widely derided for taking a lap of honour after a gutsy loss to New Zealand.

I hoienstly think the world game would be bebtter served on helping to consolidate and improve the sides that have a chance of developing a proper comeptitive professional structure ( Itlay, Samoa, Fiji, Japan, Canada, Georgia etc) first then worry about these sides that are way way behind and are unlikely to ever be able sustain serious domestic rugby and an international setup that doenst rely on welfare from evveryone else.

They're not Pete, they're there because they qualified by doing what was necessary and qualifying on merit from Africas 1 (correct me if it wasnt Africas 1), but didnt they beat Tunisia for the first time in their history? These guys were there on merit, representing their country, because they qualified via the means set in front of them to do so.

How could someone then turn around and tell them they werent allowed to represent their country at the world cup because it was decided they weren't good enough before a ball was kicked?

Just because they were the worst team in the competition (statistically), it doesnt mean they deserve to be there any less than the Italy/Fiji/Samoa/Canada etc.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:You can applaud the effort and say fair play for taking on the challenge, but I dont think they deserve to be in the comeptition just on effort. Would they let me in just because i tried really hard? No because I utterly stink at rugby. England get widely derided for taking a lap of honour after a gutsy loss to New Zealand.

I hoienstly think the world game would be bebtter served on helping to consolidate and improve the sides that have a chance of developing a proper comeptitive professional structure ( Itlay, Samoa, Fiji, Japan, Canada, Georgia etc) first then worry about these sides that are way way behind and are unlikely to ever be able sustain serious domestic rugby and an international setup that doenst rely on welfare from evveryone else.

Peter, they deserve to be there, they qualified.

How would you like the IRB to develop these nations, italy already has all the structure they need, Samoa and fiji will never have the resoucres to buld a domestic professional league. Japan has a domestic professional league already and has the honour of hosting the RWC in 2019, Canada has the resources but not the player numbers, would you like the IRB to send pamflets to the population and ask them to please rather pllay rugby and not ice hockey?

I agree they can help Georgia, but also other smaller nations.

WelshinEdinburgh wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:On reflection though they did give us all a good laugh with their names

You sir are an embarrasment, you not only say these guys shouldn't be aloud to play rugby but take the mickey out of thier names, with post like the ones you have written I hope one of the Namibian players doesn't meet you in a dark alley!

I didnt say they dont desrve to play rugby, I dsaid that them being at the world cup was counter productive to the spread of coemptitive international rugby at the top level.

As for taking the pee out of their names, lighten up. Im hardly alone in finding the squad amussing ( it wanst me who started a thread on it) and i happily laugh at the likes of Billy Twelvetrees too.

Maybe Namibia would be more competitive if they imported some New Zealanders, Saffers, Pacific Islanders etc - Watcha think Pete?

Comfit BB,

The point is that the qualification bar was lowered, and that has allowed weak teams in. The teams that used ot be whipping boys *( the 4th tier) improved to a point where some of them have a hope of rocking teh boat once i a while, so rather than having a competitive comeptition (like the soccer wolrd cup)someone had the bright idea of letting in another tier of no hopers.
They are only good enough to qualify because qualification is relativley simple. My argument is that the bar should be higher and this would benefit those who are 3rd/4th seeds and the quality of the tournament as a whole. Every game would be hard fought and meaningful.


The bar has to be set somewhere. Saying that Namibia and Romania are good enough to be there because they got there is silly...what if the bar were set at the best 100 nations and all you had to do is find 15 people willing to turn up to qualify? Those sides would still have qualified on merit...the question is how much merit should you have to have to qualify?

Bear in mind this wasnt anything like Wales' strongest side and that Wales themselves arent at the very top table of world rugby ( but at least they can beat anyone on tehir day). Same goes for England vs Romania.

Where do we draw the line?

RubyGuby wrote:Maybe Namibia would be more competitive if they imported some New Zealanders, Saffers, Pacific Islanders etc - Watcha think Pete?

I already made that joke (possibly in another thread) but if you think "importing" players is limited to England youre dead wrong, take a look at Italy and the Pisland nations sometime. Of course these sides are perfectly entitled to find qualified second rate Englishmen to bolster their squads like Scotland do.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Comfit BB,

The point is that the qualification bar was lowered, and that has allowed weak teams in. The bar has to be set somewhere. Saying that Namibia and Romania are good enough to be there because they got there is silly...what if the bar were set at the best 100 nations and all you had to do is find 15 people willing to turn up to qualify? Where do we draw the line?

You see now you are simply being ridiculous, the line has been drawn at 20 nations for some time now. You probably want the line to be drawn at 16 teams?

Well there you go for growing the game.

Forget all this worrying about the Namibians - I think that is rather insulting in itself - They seemed to enjoy the occasion and playing Wales and SA etc is like a world cup final in itself at the moment - A try as well - Well done Namibia, we know what you're up against and you did your best - This will be the highlight of their careers for most of them, lets not deprive them of that 'cos of something we think!!

biltongbek wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Comfit BB,

The point is that the qualification bar was lowered, and that has allowed weak teams in. The bar has to be set somewhere. Saying that Namibia and Romania are good enough to be there because they got there is silly...what if the bar were set at the best 100 nations and all you had to do is find 15 people willing to turn up to qualify? Where do we draw the line?

You see now you are simply being ridiculous, the line has been drawn at 20 nations for some time now. You probably want the line to be drawn at 16 teams?

Well there you go for growing the game. :facepalm:

Yes 16 is far more sensible, i made the case for why several times but just to reiterate the main arguments for the torunament being iunfair is the midweek turnaorunds.
Its the pot 5 nations who have zero chance of upsetting the top two pot sides ( and very lttle of the third tier either) that caus ethe midweek fixtures and bad turnaounds for the likes of Samoa. Without them the playing field would be level. It would also mean more money going to the mid ranked sides.
Giving the 3rd 4th pot qualifiers a fighting chance of the quarters helps strengthen them and really grow the game there. Instead they are hamstrung and helpd back by a glass ceiling.
As it is the only pool where a pot 3 teams has a realistic chance of qualification is the one with the 8th and 9th ranked sides in. Whilst this sisnt soley down to the midweek turnaorunds and precense of the no hoers it certainly hasnt helped.

You grow the game one step at a time, help teh nations taht have a chance of devleoping a professional structure and consolidate them as cometitive forces ...then move on to integrating new ones. The 17-20 nations were added too soon (2003, not that long ago).

As i said now its done its unlikely to regress though. Id like to see more done to ensure the pot 3 and 4 sides arent given a raw deal, but I cant see how tahtll be done without pushing an extra week into the scedule...which has the knock on effect of screwing established lcub comeoitions even more and fatiguing audiences. When the pot 5 was added the growth of rugby and improvements in fringe nations were over estimated.

Pete, I understand where you're coming from, a sort of staggered approach to growing the game. But bringing each tier up to a respectable playing level to keep them competitve and stop them being blown out.

Problem is, the growth of the game would be extremely slow then.

It took Argentina a huge World cup showing in 2007 to get a regular competition in the tri(quad)nations nearly 7/8 years later!

I think they're doing it the right way, although we're seeing some batterings, these teams will learn from it, the game'll get exposure and the next time they'll get battered by a little less.

We could limit it to 16 teams and have competitive games, but then how long before we re-introduce the next tier of teams? And even when we did, it'd still be a number of competitions before they started to be competitive then.

We may aswell build all of the lower tier's teams experience as we go along.

too many tiers and competitions in that.

it wasnt so long ago that wales couldn't beat a blind fish in an egg on spoon race in their day. look at them now, world beaters

Comfort wrote:
the worst team in the competition

Hardly, they are above Russia in the rankings.

They were unfortunate to be placed in the deathgroup with SAF, WAL, SAM & FIJ.

iso wrote:

Comfort wrote:
the worst team in the competition

Hardly, they are above Russia in the rankings.

They were unfortunate to be placed in the deathgroup with SAF, WAL, SAM & FIJ.

Apologies, second worst team in the competition?

Not really the point i was making though.

iso wrote:

Comfort wrote:
the worst team in the competition

Hardly, they are above Russia in the rankings.

They were unfortunate to be placed in the deathgroup with SAF, WAL, SAM & FIJ.

What does that say about Russia?
The rankings difference between the two isnt much though, I suspect Russia are a slightly better team in reality. Its pretty hard to tell from these games though. With regard to Russia it does seem theres more potential for them at some point in the medium term to grow into a legitimate rugby nation regardless of who would win in an arm wrestle right now though

Comfort wrote:

iso wrote:

Comfort wrote:
the worst team in the competition

Hardly, they are above Russia in the rankings.

They were unfortunate to be placed in the deathgroup with SAF, WAL, SAM & FIJ.

Apologies, second worst team in the competition?

Not really the point i was making though.

true.

a very hard few weeks for the namibian players. the group of death will have been harder on them than any other team.

difficult for them to take possitives from three thrashings.

hats off to them for playing the game.

namibia are getting better slowly and surely.

cricketfan90 wrote:namibia are getting better slowly and surely.

Yep, from 87-0 to 81-7 in just four days. That's progress

Haven't read any of the comments underneath the OP - but well said, a great post.

And I also think that being involved in the premier tournament in rugby only has positive effects on minnow teams, even if they are on the recieving end of ugly results. They will improve on this, it will increase interest in the game in that country and will bring more money to their union.

Long may the 'minnows' be given the chance to beat any team in the world.

Namibia, got a closer to us (72 diff) than we did against SA in Pretoria in 1998 (96-13). That darkest day was Stephen Jones' first game if memory serves.

I think they may struggle to qualify in future though as rugby in Africa grows...certainly in the likes of Tunisia, Kenya etc...

One thing many people forget is even if we went to a 16 team tournament there will ALWAYS be a team that qualifies from Africa. South Africa will nearly always automatically qualify, however there will also be a qualifier, and whether it's Zimbabwe (1987, 1991), Ivory coast (1995), Namibia (1999, 2003, 2007, 2011) or any other team, there will always be one there.

What is clear is always at the start of the tournament we are saying, the gap is closing, there aren't any minnows anymore... then by the final game we are discussing going back to a 16 team tournament.

Personally as I have said several times on other threads, I think we should go back to the 16 tournament, but have a second 16 team tournament below it for developing nations, so they can also feel part of the World Cup, and promote the game in their own countries.

Namibia won't learn anything getting hammered by Fiji, Samoa, South Africa and Wales, but they could benefit from World Cup experience and could also learn from playing nations from different parts of the World such as Portugal, Cook Islands, Korea and Uruguay. As well as promoting the game in their own countries in competitions where their teams can also be successful, not embarased.

Well done Namibia, you did your best

Whats the deal with Kenyan rugby then? Cant say Im aware of them in any way, had a look at their ranking and they way down. Is there some reason to think tehy are suddenly going to get a team worth the name together? Is the spohe there growing suddenly?
Right now Namibia are by far the highest ranked african team after SA.

biltongbek wrote:Peter, do you think these amateurs are not busting their gut for their team?

Just think about this for a moment. The following teams are competitive in world rugby and can and have beaten major nations before.

New Zealand
South africa
australia
Ireland
France
England
Wales
Scotland
Italy
Argentina

2nd tier teams.
Fiji - have beaten tonga 11, Samoa 9, Japan 8, Italy 2, Canada 3 and wales once
Samoa - tonga 12, Japan 8, Fiji 7, italy 2, Argentina 1, Canada 1 and Australia once
Tonga - have beaten fiji 7, Japan 4 and Samoa 3 times
Japan - have beaten Samoa 1, Fiji 1, Canada 4 and Tonga 5 times.
Canada - have beaten Tonga 3, Japan 2, Argentina 1, Scotland 1 and Italy once.

all the other lower tier teams rarely get the opportunity to play another minnow in the world cup, and Namibia in this case ahd 4 very strong teams to compete with.

If you look at the 2nd tier nations apart from japan none of them has a professional league of their own, and their players ply their trade in other domestic professional leagues. By coming to the world cup they have the stage as amateur rugby players to get exposure and contracts to become professional players, and that is the only way their countries can become more competitive.

Nice one Biltong. Also mate Tonga has actually beaten Australia before too-in the 70s I believe.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:namibia are getting better slowly and surely.

Yep, from 87-0 to 81-7 in just four days. That's progress

it is lol

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Whats the deal with Kenyan rugby then? Cant say Im aware of them in any way, had a look at their ranking and they way down. Is there some reason to think tehy are suddenly going to get a team worth the name together? Is the spohe there growing suddenly?
Right now Namibia are by far the highest ranked african team after SA.

I would say the closest teams who could challenge Namibia would be Morocco and Tunisia.

The reason you find Kenya will get mentioned is because between 1910 and 1982, they used to compete as a team called East Africa, they were often played by Lions teams for many years, they were also Wales's first ever opposition outside Europe when they played in 1964.
Eventually the Union broke up and seperated into Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, though most of the players selected were from Kenya.
The Union still exists but the teams do not combine anymore.

Sadly because teams, especially the Lions stopped touring South Africa for so long because of the apartied, Nations like Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia, who have beaten the All Blacks in a test series, winning the first and drawing the second), as well as stuffing Italy.
East Africa (now Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda) also suffered and fell badly behind as other nations progressed, due to a lack of exposure.

Kenya have a decent 7's team don't they? Not that it necessarily translates to the 15-man code though. Still, there's obviously an interest there.

You grow the game one step at a time, help teh nations taht have a chance of devleoping a professional structure and consolidate them as cometitive forces ...then move on to integrating new ones.

That's one way I guess but wrong in one major respect IMO. Rugby Union has always been grounded in large numbers of amateur players and their local clubs. It is a sport which still has it's roots in the amateur clubs of old. You need the schools and other organisations promoting it and it's ethics. In a world of wendy ball attitudes our sport stands out and so it should. Rugby is being recognised as being a bit special and is a major reason why it is growing in very diverse societies and that's where the emphasis should be. If you have a potential audience of thousands because they play or have played the game you maybe then have the basis to build a new and ultimately professional force in rugby. The tier 3 and 4 nations deserve their moment in the spotlight, they've earned it and acts as a catalyst back home. If you develop the game in new countries based purely on the professional game we will see the end of most of what I value in our sport.

So far it has survived the transition to professionalism, I don't want that to change.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Kenya have a decent 7's team don't they? Not that it necessarily translates to the 15-man code though. Still, there's obviously an interest there.

Yes that have beaten Australia in recent years, as well as Tonga and Argentina.

Does a rugby world cup realistically grow the game in any meaningful way? Since '87 the standard of rugby in tier 2 nations such as Canada, Italy, Romania has actually regressed. To me its a fallicy that teams improve by exposure to a higher standard they are incapable of matching, infact it does more damage than good.

Instead have a 16 team tournament with the top 12 having qualified via performance in the previous tournament (as now) and the remaining 4 places being decided via a plate tournament the year before involving those teams ranked circa 13-24 in the world rankings. Developing nations (if there are truely any out there) have a path to the top table if they are good enough, but the one-sided games which actually harm the image of Rugby are limited.

Yeah i mentioned Kenya as a threat to Namibia..because of their 7's performances (havent they also beat NZ aswell) . Agreed it doesnt translate to 15's...but its shows theres an interest in the game...and this can only increase to the 15 man game.

Other teams are improving in Africa aswell...and Morocco and Tunisia will probably be the biggest threats for the next WC qualifiying.

PS ive said it before about the WC.

Having all manner of countries creates an interest. It would be boring having the SAME top 10 teams all the time.

Give the smaller teams the option of playing in the WC

WelshinEdinburgh wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:On reflection though they did give us all a good laugh with their names

You sir are an embarrasment, you not only say these guys shouldn't be aloud to play rugby but take the mickey out of thier names, with post like the ones you have written I hope one of the Namibian players doesn't meet you in a dark alley!

I think it would 'give us a laugh' if one of them did meet him in a dark alley

i think we are getting abit ott if we cant have a laugh about funny sounding names(to us) thats just having a sense of humour, maybe a little bit bad taste but not really worth worrying about- would you lot care if aload of yanks lauged at some of our cricket players and called them a picnic(mustard,onions,etc)

"Since '87 the standard of rugby in tier 2 nations such as Canada, Italy, Romania has actually regressed."

well i believe that italy is miles better than it was and that is due to plaing in tournys year in year out(6n;s)

Gatts wrote:

WelshinEdinburgh wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:On reflection though they did give us all a good laugh with their names

You sir are an embarrasment, you not only say these guys shouldn't be aloud to play rugby but take the mickey out of thier names, with post like the ones you have written I hope one of the Namibian players doesn't meet you in a dark alley!

I think it would 'give us a laugh' if one of them did meet him in a dark alley

I may have been a little harsh on Seabiscuit but the namibian guys play and won qualifiers and have earned the right to have a go at the top nations, how can you learn if you don't challenge yourself against those better, see what it takes. What an honour it must be to line up and sing your national anthem at a world cup. Minnow or not