World Cup Success?

How do you value the impact of a Rugby World Cup?

Well, certainly anyone fortunate enough to have visited New Zealand over the last 6 weeks have raved about the organisation, marketing and excitement of the 2011 tournament. Indeed the whole country embraced the competition with a national fervour not seen since South Africa in 1995. And rightly, after almost 8 years of rugby dominance, the host nation took the spoils (although not without a rather tense climax, where the French did everything they could to spoil the national party!)

For those not so fortunate to go, the impact has been slightly less. The natural timings of the games, combined with something best described as lip service coverage from the broadcaster in the UK, made the competition slightly anti-social. However the feast of rugby was undeniable- proper attritional test rugby most of the time, combined with a few upsets and no less surprises.

It’s a shame that the tournament was blighted from an English perspective with a series of off-field events (followed by a series of on-field non-events!) but it’s a truism to say that in the micro-environment of a RWC, England will attract more press scrutiny than most, and Johnson will no doubt rue the lack of a specialist professional crisis manager within his press corps. Similarly other controversy clouded the latter stages- the Warburton sending off (which was, without doubt, the correct decision from Rolland- but begged the open question where the IRB interpretations correct?), the gum-shield fiasco and a few more.

Most rugby fans would agree that one area where the IRB are wholly wrong is their stringent regulations involving the responses to the Haka. The fine against France’s magnificent and spine tingling response the the All Blacks final war-cry was farcical. The stadium was electric; truly goosebump stuff as Dusautoir and Les Bleus stole the Kiwi thunder with a respectful, yet aggressive and purposefully orchestrated reply. This wasn’t just rugby, it was national pride and, after the game itself, possibly the most exciting moment of the World Cup.

The IRB rebuke of France, whilst again correct in the letter of the law, went totally against the spirit of the game. The marketing men would be furious too- it’s moments like this that they crave and events like this sell the game world-wide; video clips of the French arrowhead will be replayed years from now and, most importantly, that response set the agenda for the game itself. No quarter asked, no quarter given. I hope that the response edict will be revisited- potentially suggesting that a side may respond as they wish, within certain territorial boundaries (say 10 for the NZ, half way for the receiving side). As Stuart Barnes and Will Greenwood reflected on the Rugby Club, it’s wholly unfair to allow a side to issue a challenge and refuse the other team the right of reply. Let’s hope that the IRB show good sense and do what is right for the game and the fans, and in all probability and irony, what the All Blacks themselves would want

.

In other areas, the developing nations showed their commitment and improvement. No cricket scores this time and the emergence of a truly world class No 8 in the Georgian tugboat, Mamuka Gorgodze, who was the equal of back row superstars Read and Parisse in every respect. It is a shame, however, that the authorities have not yet implemented a second tier plate arrangement. I truly believe it’s the right way forward, and whilst cost and calendar issues will always create an obstacle, it’s not insurmountable and the betterment of the sport usurps that agenda in my view.

So all in all, a roaring success? Yes, with a couple of reservations. Did the best side win? Undoubtedly, although perhaps on the night they were outplayed. Is rugby better for the competition? With some minor debate, yes.

Well done to all in New Zealand. Now, bring on 2015!