RWC 2011 - The Last?

With a history of just under a quarter of a century, in terms of the rich fabric of rugby history, The Rugby World Cup is a fairly recent event.

Featuring a pool stage typified by one sided routs, and a knock-out phase typified by negative "professional play", as a spectacle it is criticised for encouraging the wrong kind of rugby.

Between tournaments it is criticised for devaluing more traditional encounters, such as the Lions Tour, Barbarians matches and turning yearly encounters into watered down friendlies contested by disinterested B-teams for the purposes of so-called development, capping players to lock them into the country just in case or avoiding injuries.

Controversy has been no stranger to the tournament, the first two marred by the exclusion of South Africa, the third marred by the re-introduction of South Africa, the ensuing fabled "gold watch" incident, and allegations of food poisoning and political motivations eclipsing the final. 2003 was attacked as the second most boring world cup of all time, trumped only by 2007 which was so dull that it prompted a wide ranging review of the laws by the outgoing IRB chief, the tournament was also riddled with refereeing controversy following the appointment of an inexperienced outsider to a showpiece knock out game with predictable consequences.

Unlike the Fifa football world cup, upsets are rare with history showing that more often than not the same few teams contest the same few finals spots, so much so that the bookies odds on the finals are often so slim as to make a flutter a waste of time.

In fact, the only fleetingly interesting talking point in the short legacy of the tournament is the failure of New Zealand, perennial #1 ranked side to win the tournament more than once in 7 attempts. Given the otherwise utter predictability, this statistical blip has become a rugby-culture obsession invariably cropping up in any game commentary with two years of the finals, and in pubs, bars and forums as a stalwart cornerstone of conversation.

Now, should NZ achieve the ellusive goal and take a second title in 2011 thus rendering redundant the sole spark of interest in the tournament, would it even survive long enough for the tournament to return to England in 2015?

Ignoring the obvious and usual barbs I have to say I agree that NZs failure to win the RWC in recent campaigns have added a degree of spice to it each year. While I really want them to win it (if Ireland don't of course) it does beg the question as to whether a key promotional asset of the tournament will be gone.

Tournament will still continue of course.

You're a regular little ray of sunshine aren't you mate.

If it is that worthless a tournament, the answer is simple my friend, don't watch it.

If there we no shocks NZ would have won every RWC! Wales have had 3 shocks against them the problem for Wales is it will be a shock if they get to the QF's with their coaching team.

Some interesting points put forward, good post.

It will be fine - we'll all still be waiting to see if New Zealand can win a WC without home advantage, as the rest of the winners have managed.

Or England can win one with it...

Admittedly these television viewing figures are from Wikepedia and so can't be 100% trusted but:

1987 300m
1991 1.75b
1995 2.67b
1999 3.0b
2003 3.5b
2007 4.2b

Interest seems to be moving in the right direction to me. Pretty arrogant of you to say the only last interest people have in the world cup is to see how NZ do?

But there are almost 4 billion more people on Earth now than there were 25 years ago.

So in real terms viewing figures are largely static

Given that no side has ever retained the trophy, I do think there's still an element of unpredictability to each tournament, and the performances of Fiji and Argentina last time round proved that it isn't a closed shop.

When you consider other major events, the Olympics (hmmm, will the US or China top the medal table I wonder), Wimbledon (dominated by 4 players) or the football WC (which has been going a long time and has a relatively small number of winners), I don't think the RWC lacks interest in comparison.

I'm sure once you win it properly, you'll feel differently

Don't know if your numbers are accurate or not, but every new person who watches the RWC live or on TV is incremental income and incremental growth. In advertising terms the kind of growth rate mentioned above (even taking into account Wikipedia) is shockingly good. A 20 year growth rate from almost zero to approx. 4 billion is terrific. In economic terms the RWC is a huge success. And this is in spite of the absence of some of the world's biggest markets, in spite of the upsets which do drive interest, in spite of the occasional controversy. It shows Rugby is a growth sport and the RWC is a strong brand.

The negative halo effect on other matches does not appear to me to have hurt The Lions. However, I am very disappointed to see the Barbarians sliding off the charts. I do believe some of the poor showing by sides between the RWC is due to professionalism having longer club seasons with more committments by players. More injuries due to the long seasons and shorter rest periods.

Toadfish wrote:Admittedly these television viewing figures are from Wikepedia and so can't be 100% trusted but:

1987 300m
1991 1.75b
1995 2.67b
1999 3.0b
2003 3.5b
2007 4.2b

Interest seems to be moving in the right direction to me. Pretty arrogant of you to say the only last interest people have in the world cup is to see how NZ do?

The global population was ~ 6.7b in 2007. Did 2/3rds of them really tune into the RWC? I suspect that was the potential audience (TV sets in countries it was broadcast in).

According to the UN the World's popn grew 42% from 4.8bn to 6.9bn between 1985-2010 (I could only find 5-yearly figures).

doctor_grey wrote:Don't know if your numbers are accurate or not, but every new person who watches the RWC live or on TV is incremental income and incremental growth. In advertising terms the kind of growth rate mentioned above (even taking into account Wikipedia) is shockingly good. A 20 year growth rate from almost zero to approx. 4 billion is terrific. In economic terms the RWC is a huge success. And this is in spite of the absence of some of the world's biggest markets, in spite of the upsets which do drive interest, in spite of the occasional controversy. It shows Rugby is a growth sport and the RWC is a strong brand.

The negative halo effect on other matches does not appear to me to have hurt The Lions. However, I am very disappointed to see the Barbarians sliding off the charts. I do believe some of the poor showing by sides between the RWC is due to professionalism having longer club seasons with more committments by players. More injuries due to the long seasons and shorter rest periods.

I'd be happy for the Lions to slide off the charts, their a waste of time. Why not do a football style European Cup instead when the Lions are away, people laughed at the Rugby world cup at the start, people laughed at the football european cup too, but now no one does, a european rugby cup would be fantastic long term for the sport.

I believe the viewing figures are cumulative for the whole of the tournament

The Lions a waste of time? nonsense, frankly. For most players it's a once in a lifetime experience. All British players aspire to be a British Lion and all Southern Hemisphere players want to play against them.

Most British rugby fans will have instant emotions about 71, 74 and 97. Even the last tour was closer than the results show and we have a very good chance next year. It's a great tradition and one that rugby needs.

mckay1402 wrote:The Lions a waste of time? nonsense, frankly. For most players it's a once in a lifetime experience. All British players aspire to be a British Lion and all Southern Hemisphere players want to play against them.

Most British rugby fans will have instant emotions about 71, 74 and 97. Even the last tour was closer than the results show and we have a very good chance next year. It's a great tradition and one that rugby needs.

No it's a mickey mouse tour that players only go on because their paid a years worth of salary for 6 weeks work. Our players come back shattered and injured and it screws up the following season because most of the players have had no off season to recover from injuries. Finally all the games are shown on Sky which a lot of fans don't have so the Lions have shot themselves in the foot because most of the younger generation dont have access to it. Don't you ever get sick of the old dinosaurs from the 70's coming out every 4 years with tears in their eyes saying how much of an honour it was, you rarely hear modern players talk like that most dont really give a stuff about it.

AlynDavies wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:The Lions a waste of time? nonsense, frankly. For most players it's a once in a lifetime experience. All British players aspire to be a British Lion and all Southern Hemisphere players want to play against them.

Most British rugby fans will have instant emotions about 71, 74 and 97. Even the last tour was closer than the results show and we have a very good chance next year. It's a great tradition and one that rugby needs.

No it's a mickey mouse tour that players only go on because their paid a years worth of salary for 6 weeks work. Our players come back shattered and injured and it screws up the following season because most of the players have had no off season to recover from injuries. Finally all the games are shown on Sky which a lot of fans don't have so the Lions have shot themselves in the foot because most of the younger generation dont have access to it. Don't you ever get sick of the old dinosaurs from the 70's coming out every 4 years with tears in their eyes saying how much of an honour it was, you rarely hear modern players talk like that most dont really give a stuff about it.

Totally disagree there old bean. I think if you ask any modern British player they would be proud of it and most fans look forward to it. I hear what you're saying about the players coming back shattered and injured but it is still a great tradition

AlynDavies wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:The Lions a waste of time? nonsense, frankly. For most players it's a once in a lifetime experience. All British players aspire to be a British Lion and all Southern Hemisphere players want to play against them.

Most British rugby fans will have instant emotions about 71, 74 and 97. Even the last tour was closer than the results show and we have a very good chance next year. It's a great tradition and one that rugby needs.

No it's a mickey mouse tour that players only go on because their paid a years worth of salary for 6 weeks work. Our players come back shattered and injured and it screws up the following season because most of the players have had no off season to recover from injuries. Finally all the games are shown on Sky which a lot of fans don't have so the Lions have shot themselves in the foot because most of the younger generation dont have access to it. Don't you ever get sick of the old dinosaurs from the 70's coming out every 4 years with tears in their eyes saying how much of an honour it was, you rarely hear modern players talk like that most dont really give a stuff about it.

Completely disagree with you. I didn't watch the Lions in '70 and neither did the thousands of the "younger generation" who went to see the last three tours. Ask any Lions player from the last tour if they thought it was an honour or not.

Some of the points GG mentions, I bought up myself too also my reasons why I hate RWCs.
BUT I don`t want to do away with it,I do want to see new names on the RWC.
I do want full strength sides in all games.the idea there`s no friendlies
or giving games to those who don`t deserve it.
RWC teams giving players 5 minutes on the park,cheapen ing the Shirt.
A European Cup instead of the Lions,how does that work a 6Ns plus Spain ,Georgia,Romania and Russia.
What`s that going to be worth,precisely nothing,the old values are still worth preserving.

I agree the WC has had some spice with NZ not winning it.

I recall when we won it in 87 the general thinking was we would do this every 4 years such was the domination of the event- no one within 20 is as complete as it gets.

The fact that we didnt automatically win every or most times made it interesting and since then Aus, SA and England have won it.

It might seem arrogant but I do agree that what the AB's bring to the tournament is style. When they AB's win they do it in a way other teams don't and when they win this year (in the same way I thought they would win every other year) they will also do it in style.

There's a flavour and passion about AB rugby that I think is unique in this very very tough sport and why I want to see them there at the end at Eden Park- winning it, in style.

There, now I can get on with my day...

When I think of how much effort the NZRFU put into creating the tournament, with the help of the citizens of the Western Isle of course, and the lack lustre response to the first tournament from Those Up North (we were tired, our season is too long, the games were at the wrong time, NZ is so far to travel), it almost seems like a Good Thing for the tournament that NZ happened to not win it for 24 years.

Perhaps if NZ had picked it up on a four yearly cycle there wouldn't be so much interest. It may even have gone the way of the Lions, or Barbarians with people questioning its relevance.

Particularly good for the tournament and the game, was England's victory. If the tournament had just been dominated by the teams who normally dominate rugby it may not have gathered the momentum it has.

And France too, picking up a couple of heroic victories over NZ, the side they most seem to admire, in what seemed beforehand unlikely circumstances, that has been very positive for the sport and the tournament too.

Just saying.

Still making stuff up with your '4 billion' comment huh GG. Bit like your 'verbatim' quotes aye cuz.

So, breaking down your article, you don't like English rugby & the RWC is a rubbish tournament because the AB's keep failing at it. Amazing how much time you invest in posting the same message time after time. Amazing and more than a bit dull.

C'mon, my 4 billion was a lot closer than the claim that 3/4 of the planet watched the RWC final last time around.

We've gone from about 3.5 billion to almost 7 billion, So 4 billion isn't too far away from the truth, given the degree of inaccuracy in measuring such a thing.

Mate if you think doubling the UN's figures qualifies as 'close' in any sense it probably explains the 'sense' of your posts generally.

Can't help it GG but youre starting to remind me of that Percy fulla on 'The Green Mile that gets bundled up into the end room by Hanks and his other kiwi boys... careful of what haka coughs up around you too..

Taylorman,
I'd like to go back to your earier comments. I absolutely agree the ABs bring a unique style, flair and passion to the RWC (and Rugby in general). Not just their play, but the whole AB mystique. It makes some people dislike them, other people like them, but no one ignores them and most people respect what they achieve. To me, they add more interest and makes things a bit ore fun.

The ABs are also very recognised as a brand and team outside of rugby countries but on the wider International sporting stage.
Even though I dont know what that Spanish Soccer team had done to beat them for the International sporting team of the year lastyear.
a few weeks ago at the United nations,bankie Moon (sec Gen) looked pretty chuffed when he was presented with an ABs jersey.
Further the International recognition of Jonah in north America and Asia is unbelievable..

aucklandlaurie,
Great point, the ABs are a brand unto themselves. Recognised almost everywhere. In America for instance, where I am for the summer (their summer), a lot of people recognise the jersey, which is great for Rugby. The ABs partnership with Addidas hasn't hurt either. That's a perfect case of a sponsorship deal being mutualy beneficial.

Yep. Noted Doctor Grey (not Greys doctor by any chance...ok will get off that one)...

Yes as it gets nearer we find everyone here wants to discuss rugby a bit more and we get to look back at how we've got to where we are a bit more.

Its hard not to go overboard a bit about this team sometimes because for us they've given us so much value in sheer entertainment and pride over the years but we also appreciate the need to respect others and I think we generally are pretty good that way.

But overall we've been lucky to have them and it sure makes looking forward to tours, matches and events like this a lot of fun.

Just wish Adidas would pay the ABs the same amount that they pay sharapova...

Funny, mate.

All agreed. I still remember as a kid the first time I saw the ABs play. Looked forward to that for months. And, in Rugby terms, almost a religious experience.

None of the ABs look like Sharapova.

Doctor grey
No ,not even in the womens team...

Its funny, I never really watch tennis, but I might just sneak a peek at the womens' final. She does have appeal.

i think rugbys just about to lose another fan... damn sharapova..

No, never.
Just because Maria has lovely blonde hair, long legs, is kickin' pretty..............er, whats Rugby again?

RWC 2011 - THE LAST?

In NZ yes

The only reason its probably the last in NZ is because the IRB cares more about money than rugby. Says something about the people who are happy about it being the last in NZ as well.

When I look at the successes that the All Blacks have had during the professional era, it oftens makes me sad to see what has happened to springbok rugby.

We have always been their arch nemesis, and slowly but surely our rugby is taken over by political infighting, political interference and nepotism. a recipe for disaster.

They may not have been the most popular figures in SA rugby, but how I long for the days of Dr. Danie Craven and Louis Luyt.

In those days winning was all that mattered.

If I may I want to draw a comparison here. Our national cricket team actually has a much better test and ODI win ration than our Springboks have since our re admission.

It just shows you what harm a poor administration does for a sport.

The very least NZ should have done was get Eden Park completely covered for the fans but NZRU and NZ govenment once again took the cheap option. We all know what the weather is like in Sept / Oct in NZ, let's hope it does not lash down with gale force winds for the final. Even NZ'ers are embarrassed by Eden Park......as per NZ Hearald earlier this week.

Yeah we know there are only 4 million in NZ but I guess that's the main reason for it being the last one. People expect good stadia and comfort especially at the prices no matter who prices the games.

Yeah, the Herald is going off on one. But it's all political.

Can't help but think that a lot of the criticism of Eden Park applies to Twickenham equally. Before someone stomps in and accuses me of being anti-English, I'm not. Twickenham is a fine stadium and a wonderful place to watch rugby, I'm using it as a benchmark which no one would ever think to criticise. So shush.

But, both are in a residential suburb. Twickenham evolved into the stadium it is today by iteratively upgrading the stands. Both are not covered from the elements - I've been soaked and freezing both.

For the comparative cash that NZ has to swing about, and average spectator volumes the Eden Park re-fit was probably a more pragmatic option. There's a recession on after all, and the last thing we needed was some white-horse water front stadium that would invariably have not been ready due to: (a) the fact that the Auckland council exists purely to fight amongst them self and carry out expensive internal restructuring programmes, merges and dispersals. (b) building stuff in Auckland is tricky. It's all volcanic rock, fault lines and unstable Earth.

By upgrading Eden park they've preserved a legacy and hung on to a bit of history. That's a pretty rare thing these days, and it's at least worth a bit of consideration...given what happened to Carlaw Park.

After the debacle of 2003 the last thing we needed was the whole cup shebang being stolen by the criminals of the West Island.

It has just been identified that Mount Smart Stadium is falling down! This has not happened over night and the cracks and poor facilities were there 5 years ago when last I visited (never to return). Perhaps the NZRL could have chipped in too because it is pretty certain the Warriors will be ground sharing in the next year or two or relocating away from Jafa-ville.

I live in NZ so the prospect of no more WC here is not a celebration and the smilie in my original post was somewhat silly. Suffice to say the only part NZ will play in future W Cups will be withthe West Island and hosting a pool game or two and a Q/F and possible a S/F but I doubt the latter will be true.

Grey, I've never been to NZ but I couldn't imagine it has the facilities to deal with the fans and tourists and media and playing staff that will be involved for a World Cup. What are the transport, hotels etc like?

Public transport outside main areas is dire and I mean that sincerely. You do get National coaches which travel the length of NZ but they a once a day affair depending on where you are and you need to get to a depot to get on one.

Railways are non exsistant in NZ to be brutal.

You need to be a driver and own a car in NZ......but beware the drink driving is one of the highest you will encounter as is the skill of the drivers.

Accommodation in NZ varies and I have always been happy with the units I have had on my travels but some ..... most areas are going to be pushed to accommodate WC fans.

If you like your beer ice cold and fizzy you'll be on cloud 9 Speights and Lion Red taste like that old favourite Double Diamond!!! Plenty of Fush and Chup shops all catering for fans of frozen chups mind, altough most fush is fresh as.

Fact is the vast majority of people here are 100% genuine and friendly. Just tell them you love NZ and it's the greatest and most beautiful country you have ever been to and you are a friend for life. Mind you if you do come here you will be pretty hard pushed NOT to tell them it is the most beautiful place you have visited

It's glorious Mr Stag. Get yourself down there for a while. I'm sure you'll find something to referee while you're there.

A lot of the criticism in the Herald is either (a) whinging by ex-pat journo's who don't quite get it (b) cultural cringe.

The specifics of the criticism seems to be that NZ is not like other places. It doesn't have fantastic transport options like Singapore, or a covered stadium like Wales, or giant luxury hotels like Hong Kong, or somewhere to get a beer and watch the game on TV every 40 yards like England.

But surely we don't want a world that is totally homogenous? surely part of going somewhere different is that it's different?

The USP that NZ brings is that it's sparsely populated, infrastructure light and pretty relaxed. Why on Earth would it be a pumping metropolis of interconnected integrated transport systems and monolithic South East Asian ram-staffed, pristine super-hotels when it has a population half of London's on a land mass bigger than the UK?

The NZ media kind of gets a bit hysterically defensive about judgement of NZ as irrelevant or isolated, rather than embracing that feature - which I personally think is the best thing about it. So much of the "The world will laugh at us" stories are just a reflection of that.

Natural disasters aside, I don't think anybody will find they can't get from A to B or find somewhere to stay any more than they would anywhere else in the world.

I'm sure there will be the odd headline about a pub that runs out of beer after being over-run by British fans, or a guy who has to sleep in a tent on a beach because he didn't book a hotel or something, but it wouldn't be NZ if it didn't happen.

TheGreyGhost wrote:It's glorious Mr Stag. Get yourself down there for a while. I'm sure you'll find something to referee while you're there.

I'm very jealous I have two pals headed there on Tuesday for about 7 weeks. Finances meant I couldn't go They're hoping to get to a 3 Nations game.

You forget sleeping in a tent on a beach is being made illegal in NZ, Just the Brits drinking a pub dry? What about the Aussies?

You amaze me when you even turn against your own to defend your opinion.

[quote="red_stag"]

TheGreyGhost wrote:It's glorious

Most scenic, beautiful place on earth. Really, nothing else need be said.

Turn against my own? When?

Welshjohn the Aussies can't hold their plonk anywhere as well as you lot. They start off at 100mph giving you stick for not keeping up with them before passing out at 10. A lot like Americans in that sense!

Am still dirty on the Cake Tin not holding 50k-bloody Thorndon residents. Would also like to see a 10-12k indoor arena so Welly can get some decent gigs. Was lucky enough to see Pearl Jam and Metallica in Queens Wharf but the sound is diabolical and there'd still be demand with a bigger venue. GG is dead on about the money though.

Have only spent 18 months in NZ since 03 but man I love the fact that I get to come back to that once I finish travelling. Gives me warm fuzzies

That's the thing I guess, NZ has some great medium sized stadia and if I am honest all they need do is get Eden Park covered 100%, develop Waikato with both ends seated too and another World Cup is not out of the question. Nelson, Tauranga, New Plymouth, and Dunedin are all good stadiums, that as well as Christchurch and Wellington. Add the other grounds and hey presto!

I have had some quality nights with Aussies but I know what you mean. S African's can hold a few beers mind.

If the last NZ lions tour is anything to go by you will need one pub for the English and another for the Irish, Welsh and Scottish. I would die for a pint of Worthington cream flow or 10 it is something I really miss

I can never understand what the story with Albany is.

It seemed like an ideal site to build on, close-ish to the city, in what was a new subdivision, no angry residents to upset. Directly next to the motorway.
They could've run an elevated train from Britomart direct to Albany and built the rest of the stands...as it is it just seems ridiculous poked out there with a stand on one side and nothing else.

The "pub drunk dry by British fans" was supposed to be a bit of a back handed compliment, I wasn't accusing you of being a bunch of drink obsessed drunkards, rather of entering into the spirit and knowing how to have a good time.