‘Blessed is the man who expects nothing for he shall never be disappointed.’ Contrary to popular belief, English essayist Alexander Pope did not write his famous line with the Rugby World Cup in mind. But he might as well have done.
Strip away the hype and the sense of occasion and the last three World Cups have been crushing disappointments. Australia ground their way to victory in 1999 applying a tourniquet to all-comers while England in 2003 and South Africa in 2007 kicked the living daylights out of the sport to reach their individual Valhalla.
You have to go all the way back to the South African World Cup of 1995 to uncover not just the excitement and colour of the event but some outstanding rugby. Remember Jonah Lomu, the man who ran over a Catt to score tries?
It may have taken the International Rugby Board a devil of a time to recognise the faults inherent within its sport. But the fact is, it has done so and in time for this year’s World Cup.
That’s one of the reasons I believe this New Zealand-hosted tournament, which kicks off in Auckland on Friday, could become one of the best yet. It is a hell of a long way for most people to go to see a World Cup, but if they return to their homes thrilled at memories of the blur of movement, the sight of both forwards and backs attacking with ball in hand and some spectacular tries scored at regular intervals, even such a long journey will have been worth it.
Rugby union circa 2011 needs an outstanding World Cup and it seems to me it has a very good chance of getting it. At last, laws that allowed the slow and inexorable suffocation of the play, either by nefarious forwards killing their opponents’ ball or constant kicks out of hand, have been tweaked.
What the IRB likes to call the “new law interpretations” have come down hard on those intent only on negativity and killing the game. That has meant sides with the desire to run with the ball and attack by another method other than kicking, have seen the opportunities opening up before them.
One of the worst examples of this contagious suffocation at the last World Cup was the tolerance of players following up a kick downfield by a colleague. The defensive blanket they spread across the field in such circumstances meant that the player catching the ball or regaining possession had virtually no chance of doing anything other than lamely kick the ball back from where it came.
These mindless kicking sessions so disfigured the game that rugby came close to mislaying the whole creed upon which it was forged, namely a sport where a player could pick up the ball and run with it.
Happily, the new law interpretations have done something about all this. So much so that some of the rugby that has been played under these new interpretations has been wondrous.
New Zealand and Australia have led the way and thus merit the belief that they are likely to meet in the 2011 World Cup final at Auckland’s Eden Park on October 23. If they do and if they have held true to the new creed throughout the tournament, we may see a final to captivate the world.
The cynics sneer that goal kicking has always decided every World Cup and this one will be no different. Of course, it will again be important especially in pool games that bring together two of the major nations, like New Zealand v France and Australia v Ireland. Nerves invade the mind of every sporting human being; they frequently affect philosophy and determine courses of action.
Even so, what has become very clear is that the side which maintains its belief in attacking rugby, that seeks to get the ball through the hands and keep it alive will, in the majority of cases, eventually profit. I am willing to promise you here and now – if New Zealand hold true to this attacking philosophy, as coach Graham Henry insists they will, then they will terrify most of the teams they encounter.
I honestly wonder whether any of the northern hemisphere-based sides could keep up for long with such a fast, high tempo game. Nor am I convinced most of the European teams have the ball skills under the pressure of contact and pace to withstand such a challenge.
But if, as the Italy coach Nick Mallett believes, this is likely to become a largely southern hemisphere dominated World Cup, so be it. If the countries south of the equator, South Africa excepted, produce rugby that captivates audiences right around the world then that can only be of long term advantage to the game as a whole.
If countries like New Zealand and Australia send out a siren message that the skills and fitness levels required to play this ‘new’ game successfully are deficient north of the equator, then it will be up to those countries to take the necessary measures to catch up.
In players like Dan Carter, Zac Guildford, Cory Jane, Mils Muliaina, Conrad Smith, Sonny Bill Williams and Ma’a Nonu, the New Zealanders clearly have the personnel to triumph. The Australians can match some of those illustrious performers with brilliant individuals of their own like Quade Cooper, Will Genia, James O’Connor, Kurtley Beale and Digby Ioane.
But perhaps crucially, the Wallabies do not have the strength in depth of the All Blacks.
As for the South Africans, their game has atrophied for four years under coach Peter de Villiers. They will play the 2011 tournament much as they played 2007, hoping their big, physical forward pack, kicking half-backs and physically solid backs can repel all opponents.
For the sake of the game and its future, you have to say it would be a whole lot better if such a blinkered strategy failed.
In Europe, three countries excite most interest – France, England and maybe Ireland. There is no earthly reason why the mercurial French should do anything much. They have been an enigma in recent years, uncertain which philosophy to embrace. The kind of halfway house upon which they have settled in terms of a playing philosophy has not been convincing. All of which probably means France will go close, because for sure there will be upsets and surprises at some stage of the tournament.
England could win the World Cup – but in 2015 when they host it, not this time. They have a young side with much promise and could, conceivably, reach another final if, as expected, they are confronted by France in the quarter-finals and Australia in the semis. They know how to beat both countries, although Australia’s Tri-Nations victory over New Zealand last weekend will have lifted their confidence massively.
A month ago, Ireland would have been great challengers. They have a nice mix of senior players, established performers and some hugely exciting youngsters. But they have stumbled, with four straight Test defeats.
The key to their tournament will surely be the pool game against Australia. If they could win that, the road to the final would open up before them with a potential quarter-final against Samoa and probably a semi-final against either England or France. Lose it and a quarter-final against South Africa would loom.
But, putting aside national interests, you have to say that if this World Cup produces a series of fabulous, memorable matches filled with great rugby, then the game itself would be the ultimate winner.