ODT Online rugby correspondent Jeff Cheshire reviews the 2015 Rugby World Cup.
When the final whistle was blown on Sunday morning the New Zealand rugby public rejoiced. The All Blacks had done it, beating Australia to become the first team to successfully defend their World Cup title.
But there was so much more at stake at this tournament.
At a time rugby is trying to grow into new markets, the game's biggest show-piece took on more relevance than ever before. The World Cup audience goes beyond that of a regular rugby audience, meaning it is here the game has its chance to promote itself to new potential fans.
Did this World Cup create the right impression though?
On the whole, you would have to say yes. It was a tournament that brought out much of the good and bad in rugby, but thankfully there was far more of the good.
Most significantly, we saw the rise of the minnow nations. While there were few surprises in which teams advanced to the quarterfinals, the traditional powers did not have it all their own way in the pool stages.
The tier two nations showed how far they have come, proving more than capable of putting up a fight against anyone. It was something that became evident in 2011, and if things keep heading in this direction we will have a Cup with more depth and competition sooner rather than later.
In years gone by the top teams did not have to do much to rack up points against the minnows. Generally you could count on plenty of missed tackles and a lack of attacking threats, which meant cricket scores could be achieved without doing too much.
Nowadays things are different. Teams do not just fall off tackles if you run at them. You have to do something to create space and then be clinical in execution. That did not prove to be as easy as one might think either, particularly in the first 50 minutes.
As expected, generally the top teams would wear down their less-fancied opponents and gain dominance after battling for a long period. That is one of the next steps for the minnow nations - to be able to stick with teams for 80 minutes. If they can do it for part of the game, there is surely potential to do it for a whole game.
Likewise, more of an attacking threat needs to be developed. While the likes of Georgia, Namibia and Romania fought hard in tight, they lacked the creativity and organisation to really pose any danger out wide. Gaining the ability to do this is key for those teams that largely employed a game based around forward runners and pick and go.
But on the whole, it was a hugely positive step forward. Only four times was a score of 60 reached and one of those came against France, while Japan memorably upset the Springboks during the opening weekend.
As more teams reach the level where they can do this, the tournament will gain more and more credibility. Ideally it will reach a stage where getting out of the pool is a challenge, something this Cup had in places, which will make the tournament as a whole more respectable.
The rugby itself showed a mixture of styles. Fortunately the rolling maul did not dominate in the way it threatened too, although was still present. The All Blacks more than anyone made a point of using off the top ball from the lineout and playing an open game, which is by far the most attractive one.
From the perspective of attracting new viewers, while also retaining its old ones, that was hugely positive for World Rugby. Even more positive was the fact that they showed you could win a World Cup while playing this style of rugby. The negative, tight game did not win out and there has been plenty of talk from north of the equator of improving the skills and fitness of their players. That has to be a good thing.
Whether the gap between the two hemispheres is really as wide as is being made out though is another thing. While England were downright terrible and France painfully limited, the rest of the European teams fought credibly against the Rugby Championship sides.
Scotland showed some flair for the first time in years and were as competitive as they have been in a long time, proving unlucky not to make the semifinals. Wales were missing a handful of their best players and still came within a whisker of winning their quarterfinal, while Ireland's lack of depth ended up showing. Even Italy showed improvement, playing close to as well as they have ever played in their pool match against Ireland.
There is still a way to go, but they are no longer the limited teams of a decade ago. Perhaps they lack the depth and fitness of the likes of New Zealand and South Africa, but with their best teams out on the park, these teams are capable of causing some damage.
Then there was England. Their team was picked with few specialists based on the theory that everyone could do everything. In reality it looked like no one could do anything. They lacked creativity in the backs. Their forwards were slow, added no spark and were anonymous for long periods. Even their scrum was demolished by the Wallabies.
It is no doubt worrying for them, and there were more than a few fans around the world who took joy in seeing them bundled out in the pool stages.
There was some concern the World Cup would fizzle out as it entered the knock-out rounds without the hosts. In general though, the tournament seemed to be very well supported and the English public deserves tremendous praise for that. The stadiums were mostly full and the fans got behind the various teams and dressed up for games to create a party-like environment.
But where passion gets involved, there is normally some controversy and this World Cup had its share.
The merits of drawing the pools three years prior to the tournament were debated after England's exit and remain a contentious point.
There was the length of games, which were often drawn out by officials taking their time to review decisions. Never was that worse than in the opening game of the tournament, and while there was improvement, the discussions revolving around the TMO's place in the game raged on.
It was ironic then that the Cup's token controversial knock-out game would be an instance which saw many expressing their wish for the referee to have gone to the TMO. Indeed, Scotland were unlucky in their quarterfinal loss to Australia.
As many have pointed out though, their decision-making and execution leading up to the ill-fated penalty was questionable at best. While the referee can no doubt have an influence, it can often be more prudent to review the team's performance, rather than lumping the blame on one decision.
What was more frustrating was when reviews were carried out and over-the-top decisions were made. Yellow cards dominated the tournament, with an average of more than one a game. Many of these were harsh too, as officials often did not take into account the speed the game is played at, or chose to look at some things and not others in a given incident.
That was a blemish and one which threatened to influence the final, as Australia made a furious comeback after Ben Smith was harshly sin-binned.
But it did not dictate the result. The All Blacks closed out the game and became the first nation to win back-to-back World Cup's, sending New Zealand's rugby public into euphoria.
Ultimately that is what you want, a tournament decided on the field and if it is your team that wins, then all the more better.
Thoughts will now turn to Japan in 2019 as we begin a new four year cycle, something which seems to have become almost naturalised.
There is a lot of rugby to be played before then though, and it will be interesting to see where the game goes between now and then.
