An increasing depth of talent in teams taking part in the 2015 Rugby World Cup will make for a more even and thus more credible tournament, believes ODT Online rugby writer Jeff Cheshire.
Slowly but surely the Rugby World Cup is becoming the spectacle it always had potential to be.
There is no doubt that it still pales in comparison to its much bigger brother, the FIFA World Cup, but progress has been made in gaining credibility for rugby's biggest tournament. The notable difference, aside from the worldwide reach and popularity of the FIFA World Cup, has always come in the depth of talent at the two tournaments.
Whereas in football's version of the World Cup you can generally see that most teams have at least a shot of progressing through group play, in rugby you can generally pick the majority of the teams that will advance before the tournament starts. Indeed even qualifying for the football World Cup is tough and it is that depth of teams that make it such a good and less predictable tournament.
Part of that has to do with the nature of the way football is played, but it does say a lot about the depth of talented teams football has to draw from.
Rugby is still a long way from reaching those lofty heights. But it has undeniably come a long way. Throughout its history, the pool stages of the Rugby World Cup have been littered with one-sided affairs. Indeed having many of the minnow teams present seemed like more of a token gesture, as they had next to no chance of making the next stage, let alone winning the whole thing.
That was not so evident in the 2011 edition, however. Aside from a handful of games, the majority of match-ups were competitive, even if in some cases the scores blew out to 40-plus points late in the games.
You had Tonga, who beat the French and had an impressive second half against the All Blacks.
There was Georgia, a team who in only their third World Cup held Scotland try-less and were competitive for much of the game against England. Canada and Japan were not pushovers either, both challenging the French, while Romania gave Scotland a real fright on the second day of the tournament.
Only Namibia and at times Russia really looked out of their depth on a consistent basis. That has got to be a good thing.
Four years later we have moved on even further. Despite being made to work for most of their wins, the favourites to finish in the top two of each pool were the ones that did.
This time around not even that is certain. It is becoming harder and harder to pick who will be the top two in each pool. The most obvious case is in Pool A, where one of England, Wales and Australia will not advance.
That we are at the stage where a team of this quality is not a sure thing to make the knockout rounds certainly adds credibility to the pool stages of the tournament.
Each of those three will also encounter Fiji, who could yet act as a banana-skin team, although Uruguay should be comfortably accounted for.
It is not just in that pool that the top two has become harder to predict though.
Consider Pool B, where South Africa, Scotland and Samoa are the major players. While you would be brave to bet against the Springboks advancing, Scotland and Samoa are a tough pair to split. Or how about Pool D, where Ireland and France are undoubtedly favourites, but Italy on their day could challenge the French, having beaten them twice in their past five meetings.
The only pool that really does not have that uncertain factor is Pool C, where it would be a big upset if New Zealand or Argentina did not go through.
Then once through that stage, there are more teams than previously who look capable of winning the whole thing. Ireland are a genuine threat and would go close to being the No. 2 team in the world based on form, while Wales are good enough to beat anyone.
New Zealand, South Africa and England all deservedly enter as strong contenders, while Australia and France are both capable of playing well enough to win too.
That is seven teams who you would give chance, even if in some cases an outside one. It has been a long time since there has been that sort of depth at the top of world rugby and with the increasing ability of the minnows to challenge the top teams, this World Cup is shaping as the most competitive yet.
If the tournament is ever going to compete with football's World Cup, then that depth is essential. Ideally you would want a tournament where every team could at least give a tough match to most other teams, even if they are not capable of beating them all.
At the top end you probably do not need more teams capable of winning than there are at the moment. It would be good if there was more competition to make the knockout rounds though.
Imagine a World Cup in which every pool was hard to predict and even matches against the fourth of fifth placed teams had potential to have an impact on the final outcome.
Now that would be a good tournament and it would certainly add extra value to being the overall winner. That is a long way off though. Things are heading in the right direction, but they need to keep on heading that way if rugby is to really make a mark.
