For some reason we feel qualified to decide who we thought was the best, worst and most ridiculous this year. And before you get all indignant – we didn’t name Beauden Barrett as our player of the year.
WYNNE GRAY IS A FORMER SENIOR RUGBY WRITER AT THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD.
But there will be many rugby people still wondering how Ireland, a country full of the game’s rich memories and one which has yet to host the tournament on its own, was always third in the three-nation race.’
IS THERE A PATTERN EMERGING? The World Cup was awarded to France in 2007, New Zealand four years later then England, Japan for the first time and France once more in 2023.
Does that pattern of rotation suggest New Zealand will get it again in 2027?
Be nice to think so, but World Rugby’s contentious decision to award 2023 hosting rights to France so soon after they last controlled the event, suggests a shrinking list of potential future hosts.
It also throws further doubt on World Rugby’s planning systems, voting structure and ability to oversee the sport with significant authority after a lengthy evaluation and report by a special committee recommended the 2023 event should be hosted by South Africa.
In another move which went against the usual secretive patterns of World Rugby, they revealed their decision and their reasons behind it in a 139-page report which compared the hosting merits of South Africa, France and Ireland.
They decided to publish their findings to avoid claims of political lobbying which have marred recent Olympic and World Cup football decisions and concluded that South Africa was a “clear leader” in the race to be the 2023 host.
A fortnight later that verdict was overturned when World Rugby’s council members voted and France emerged as the clear winner after an opening round when Ireland were eliminated before France picked up 24 votes to South Africa’s 15 to take out the decision.
That opened up World Rugby to more claims of chicanery, infighting and ineptitude about their work.
It was also a significant rebuff for chairman Bill Beaumont, his deputy Agustin Pichot and chief executive Brett Gosper and their ability to guide and manage the organisation, although Beaumont denied any sense of embarrassment about the council’s decision to snub the recommendation that South Africa should host the tournament for the second time, 28 years after their historic 1995 event.
He said the decision of a number of nations to vote against the council recommendation was a sign of the fair and democratic way in which World Rugby conducted their business which was a fancy way of saying members were a law unto themselves.
The whole process reactivated the long-held portrayal that the real decisions at World Rugby were made deep into the evening when members sat around the smoking room testing varieties of port as they scratched each other’s backs.
No wonder South Africa was stunned that an initial decision to award them the hosting rights after 15 months of intensive work should be tipped over a fortnight later.
Rather than make all that work and research binding, World Rugby left a two week gap for discussion and deal-making which France exploited to the maximum.
Their president Bernard Laporte attacked the initial recommendation and pledged a £500m guarantee around their bid to World Rugby and a decade after they last hosted the event, they were awarded the hosting rights again.
Victory came through the promise of financial rewards and the infrastructure in France including their new stadiums and left South Africa and Ireland to ponder whether they would bid again and what chance they had of succeeding.
Money had spoken, the big bucks were top of the dais.
Anyone who went to South Africa in 1995 when they hosted the World Cup will recall what a superb tournament that turned out to be.
Political and financial troubles since and a declining ability to retain their players have cost South Africa ground and that uncertainty would have created niggles about their hosting fitness.
France could do the job but their 2007 tournament suggested they should wait a little longer. Maybe that notion of spreading the rugby gospel and stretching the boundaries has been ditched and perhaps World Rugby has discovered that with the tournament going to Japan in 2019.
Holding successive tournaments in non-English-speaking countries also seems a touch optimistic but World Rugby say it needs the finances to disperse amongst and help less-advantaged member nations.
But there will be many rugby people still wondering how Ireland, a country full of the game’s rich memories and one which has yet to host the tournament on its own, was always third in the three-nation race.
This was a chance for World Rugby to still accrue enough commercial benefits and take spectators and tourists to a country soaked in rugby folklore.
Legacies are built on sentiment and emotion and Ireland has that covered, but World Rugby’s decision places commercial rewards and new arenas at the top of their wishlist and now Ireland must wonder if they will bother to tender again and if the bidding process remains, New Zealand will feel they are in a similar plight.