Rugby’s global controllers just don’t get it – and, until they do, the game will never grow to become the world sport it could and should be.
The issue here – and this is the one starting to overshadow the whole Rugby World Cup – is scheduling. Or rather, it is the totally unfair, biased and discriminatory scheduling for this tournament which is not just undermining the authority of the International Rugby Board but threatening to make the IRB as discredited as its football equivalent, FIFA.
Samoan centre Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu broke ranks yesterday to launch a rant against the ridiculous scheduling which, he claimed, has all but conspired to send his country home after the pool stages.
The IRB should take his stinging criticisms seriously because they are shared by outraged and indignant rugby fans the world over. But what is the IRB doing? Considering whether to discipline Fuimaono-Sapolu instead.
It is an absurd stance to take. Fuimaono-Sapolu should be listened to and lauded for his bravery in speaking out against rugby’s controllers.
This is what he tweeted: “IRB, Stop exploiting my people. Please, all we ask, is fairness. If they get a week, give us a week. Simple. #equ[al]ity #justice.”
He later added: “Ok, it's obvious the IRB are unjust. Wales get 7 days, we get 3. Unfair treatment, like slavery, like the holocaust, like apartheid.
“Give Wales 3 days off and give Samoa a week! We would kill them!
“You can't get punished for speaking out against injustice. That would be unjust. Anyone can tackle a man. Try tackling injustice.”
The object of his derision was the organisers’ decision to force Samoa to play two games in the space of four days – but, more than that, to play what was always destined to be their crucial game, against Wales, with just a few days' rest while their opponents were granted a whole week off.
Just look at Pool B. The Georgians were forced to play probably their two toughest matches, against Scotland and England, within four days of each other – and England, well they got a whole week off.
It doesn’t stop there. The Americans had to play Russia just four days after playing Ireland. And Ireland? They got the best part of a week off to prepare for their crunch game against Australia.
The IRB claims that it has to schedule the matches of the big nations on the weekends because that is when the television audiences are at their biggest. That means the big nations get a week to prepare for each game, while the lesser nations often get only a few days.
The one exception is Scotland. The Scots were the only tier one nation required to play two games in the space of four days (that actually shows that the organisers don’t see Scotland as a big TV market, which is understandable).
The Scots found it difficult, but they coped. Afterwards, voices in the Scottish camp said they thought it would be fairer if it was the top tier nations who had less of a turnaround time because they have more depth to their squads. They are right.
If matches have to be scheduled for the middle of the week, then the IRB should make the big nations play twice in four days. They have the stronger squads and they shouldn’t need as much recovery time as the more limited second tier nations.
But, more than that, this would lead to more competitive matches – one of the reasons Scotland struggled to put both Romania and Georgia away convincingly was because Andy Robinson had to split his first team between the games.
Look how England racked up the points in the final quarter against an exhausted Georgian side on Sunday. Had the roles been reversed, how close could that game have been?
This is rugby which, at the top level, is a brutal, tough and draining environment. It is just wrong to ask countries to play twice in four days if they don’t have the depth to put out two completely different, competitive XVs.
There would undoubtedly be closer matches if the top tier countries were the ones having to cope with a short turnaround and then, rugby as a whole would be the winner.
The Rugby World Cup would gain in credibility if the tournament was a lot closer, if there really was the chance of an upset in most games but it appears as if the IRB are too blinkered to see that.
The scheduling may well have been done for commercial television reasons, but it has certainly left the impression that the IRB is nothing more than a cosy little club designed to preserve the cushy existence of a few top tier nations.
Could Samoa have beaten Wales had they been given a week to recover from their last game? Quite possibly. Could the result have been different, moreover, had it been Wales and not Samoa who had to play two games within four days? Even more likely.
The suspicion is that, while the IRB talks a good game on promoting rugby around the world, it really doesn’t want to see any of the emerging nations really break through and, heaven forbid, get to a quarter- or a semi-final. That would mean one of their cherished big nations missing out – and would mean a loss of audience and a loss of revenue.
But unless and until the IRB wakes up to the fact that rugby supporters everywhere want to see good, close games and, more than that, they want to see equality between top nations and the also-rans, the IRB will continue to lose credibility.
Ultimately, what is so wrong about this is not that the top nations have been given an advantage – which they were – it is that the lesser nations were actually penalised and made to play to a much more punishing schedule against their better funded and better resourced counterparts. That is what is so shocking about it.
Just ask Richie Dixon, the Scots coach of Georgia, what he thinks about the timetabling of his country’s two big games.
This Rugby World Cup should be and could be the most fantastic showpiece of the game for the world. Unfortunately, whatever the end result, it has already left a very nasty taste because of the short-sightedness and the distinct lack of fair play by the organisers.
Donate to us: support independent, intelligent, in-depth Scottish journalism from just 3p a day
Related posts: