RWC Good and bad

As we've got further into the world cup the tier 2 nations have appeared worse and worse. I suspect there are three reasons for this.

First, as a less professional side, it's relatively easy to get up for the first game, but it gets harder and harder as the tournament progresses.

Second, the big teams are, to use a cliché, finding their straps and getting their form teams together, combinations working. In week one playing a bit below par still gives you a win if you're a big side. Come week 3 or 4, you're not worrying about the tier 2 nation, you're playing to show combinations and form for the quarter-finals.

Neither of these can really be changed. But the third one can be looked at.

The 'big' nations play every week or so. They get 6 or more days between matches. The smaller nations often get only 4. Namibia played their 4 RWC matches in 16 days! That's a challenge to fitness and conditioning that even the fittest of the top-flight teams would struggle with - although they have the resources to put out two sides pretty much which the smaller sides don't. That could be changed.

I understand that there's a strong desire to have the big sides play at the weekends to get better TV audiences, and an equal drive to get matches, or at least a match, on every day to keep the audience hooked. However, Russia vs USA or similar is one for the real purists to be honest.

So, what to do? If you have a pattern spreading the 4 groups over 7 days, and we count Friday, Saturday and Sunday as the weekend (possibly only one evening game on a Friday) then we should be able to construct a timetable so that the "big" matches are on the peak viewing days, but there's rugby every day. In addition, we should be able to create a timetable such that everyone gets at least 6 days rest. This might not be as good as 7 days, but will be fairer on the weaker sides, the squads with less depth and so on. It will, of course, also let the bigger sides have a bit more chance to soak sore muscles and recover from minor injuries.

I sketched out such a timetable and you can do it. In fact it becomes quite easy to expand the competition slightly, add a 6th team in each pool and spread rugby wider. I understand this is expensive and time consuming - but you could also add an extra layer (a shield and plate contest similar to 7's) of knock-out rounds. More time, more matches, more TV revenue.

And I hope whoever takes the baton for the next one has noted just how good choirs sound singing anthems. They are, after all, designed for mass singing and it sounds good. The duets last time worked but the choirs have been great. Lets do it again please?

I was going to rant about Wayne Barnes. He has no sympathy for the game, no feel for it, and yet again he's made a critical and obvious mistake in a match that has directly and clearly affected the outcome. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone accepts that. If they don't, they don't survive long playing the game, nor watching it. But if you're selecting the best referees you want to pick people that don't make big critical ones often. Missing a knock-on in the middle of a ruck... ok. Missing a player 6m offside causing the drop kick to win the game to miss... not OK. Call a ball being reefed back out of control but legally (I think) a knock-on by the other side - bad. Appearing to change how you referee the break-down REALLY bad.

OK, I've ranted a bit. Hopefully he'll get the shove. Again. And someone will learn.