WRWC2017: What does it mean?

John Birch asks, where does World Rugby’s 2017 World Cup qualification process leave women’s international fifteens?

Published by John Birch, December 19th, 2014

4 minute read

Try Audio

WRWC2017: What does it mean?

To begin with, although not the subject of the announcement, it is a fairly safe bet that the next World Cup hosts will be one of the seven automatic qualifiers – as it is inconceivable that a country would host an event that they were not taking part in.

In addition with France unlikely to host back-to-back tournaments, and with New Zealand hosting the Lions in 2017, this reduces the suspects down to five – England (hosts in 2010), Canada (hosts in 2006), Ireland, Australia and USA with Ireland appearing the front runners at the moment.

As for the announcement itself, the first thing that jumps out is that - despite growing calls for expansion the 2017 World Cup – it will remain with 12 teams, while the qualification process itself all but guarantees that almost all of the teams from Paris are likely to return to the fray in not much more than two years’ time.

The only major change sees Europe gain one guaranteed place at the expense of Asia, Africa and Oceania who will now have to compete for the just two places (instead of one each). As a result we will have lose one of Kazakhstan, Samoa or South Africa while gaining, on current form, Italy.

The only other country whose place is significantly threatened is Spain, who – if they retain their position as the best European test team outside the Six Nations – will (again on current form) have to play off against Scotland.

The expressed intention is to ensure that the tournament remains of the highest quality, showcasing the best teams in the world – but it does leave the question of what countries outside the top dozen have left to aspire for.

Japan, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands and Russia are just some countries with significant World Cup histories which are unlikely to be extended in the near future, while the chances of new and rising countries such as Switzerland, Belgium, Kenya, or Uganda having a taste of the life at the top seems increasingly remote.

World Rugby are seeking to support such countries through regional tournaments, but as Kazakhstan showed in Paris success – indeed absolute dominance - at regional level is no guarantee of success on the wider stage.

The problem is that, by restricting the world cup to a tight elite, the experience of playing at the top level is not shared. The top handful teams get better and better and leave the rest behind. Between 2010 and 2014 Kazakhstan were unbeaten in Asia – but the rest of the world had moved on so much that they lost every game in Paris.

Something is needed for this second tier to allow them to at least keep pace with the elite. They need opportunities to develop, and targets to aspire to. Every player from every country deserves a chance to dream, but at the moment that privilege is limited to players from little more than a dozen countries worldwide. Without it the World Cups of 2021 and 2025 will feature broadly the same teams as 2010, 2014 and 2017.

And a World Cup which always has the same teams taking part is really not a World Cup.

Post