Fixture Controversy: Big Boy Bias Or Sour Samoan Grapes?

I know I said I would be less likely to post this week, but an extraordinary Tweet from Samoa's Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolo (I love a short name) which effectively compared the IRB's treatment of Samoa to slavery, the holocaust and apartheid; a little excessive (or maybe that should be ixcissive if I want to be understood in NZ) I think you'll agree.

I don't know if they make wine on Samoa, and to be honest if they do, I can't imagine it lives up to a nice Cote Rotie, Sancerre or Montepulciano. This year's vintage, given the tweeted comments from within the Samoan camp, would be particularly nasty given the hint of sour grapes contained therein.

Or would it? Is there some basis in the comments that the smaller teams are badly treated versus their more illustrious, and more importantly, richer in terms of influence, adversaries. Let's look at the evidence.

Each team at this World Cup plays 4 Pool games. The nature of the tournament and the need to maximise the exposure and financial return from each game means that only one game goes on at any one time. That instantly means that, in Pools with an odd-number of teams, there will always be one side who misses out on a 'Matchday' and gets a longer rest than their next opponent.

Samoa only had 3 days off before their crunch game with Wales, which is where the comments have their origin, but let's look at the tournament as a whole and see what we can see. The table below shows the teams with the shortest break between games that they have at this World Cup:

6 - New Zealand, Argentina, Fiji, 

5 - France, England, Australia, Ireland, Wales, 

4 - Tonga, Japan, Italy, Russia, South Africa

3 - Canada, Scotland, Romania, Georgia, USA, Namibia (twice), Samoa 

So 3 teams have 6 days between all of their games, including a lesser nation in Fiji, while Scotland fall into the 3 day break category, while Italy and reigning champions South Africa only have a 4 day break on one occasion. 

My conclusion then is, unfair? Yes, but as clear-cut as the Samoans are making out? No. 

It's all very well stating the inequality of this situation, but there are a few things that need saying here. The fixture list has been known for donkeys ages, and all Nations agree to the fundamentals of it before it is produced and once more before it is issued. 

An equitable way of doing things would be to say that the Pools are drawn and then the sides randomly allocated to a slot in the Pool, which would give New Zealand, Italy, Samoa, Namibia and Liechtenstein an equal chance at suffering the smallest break. But, and it is a big but, the bigger Nations, with their financial clout, will push for their games to be played at times when they can guarantee a bigger TV audience. The smaller sides need to take this into consideration, as if England were playing at 0900 UK time on a Wednesday morning, the TV revenue would be substantially less, and the TV companies would be pushing for a 16 team tournament with games on weekends. 

So, what can be done? We have seen much praise this year for the improved performances of the lesser Nations, and could we take this and push for a step forward to 24 teams in 2015? Portugal, Uruguay, Spain, Chile, Belgium, Morocco, Hong Kong would all relish a chance I am sure. The teams could be split into 6 Pools of 4, 3 games each, with similar breaks between matches within each Pool. Top 2 in each Pool plus 4 best 3rd placed teams go through to the last 16, where knock-out rugby starts. Same number of games for the winners, everyone's a winner. There would be some very one-sided pool games (New Zealand vs Hong Kong or England vs Belgium could be record scores) but it solves the perceived problem as stated today. This model was used in Football's World Cup between 1986 and 1994 and was only scrapped as the tournament needed to grow to 32 teams. 

So there are solutions. Reduce the tournament numbers or increase them (16 games less or 4 games more). Both are feasible. Both have their own negatives. As does the current format. 

You've read the arguments, now vote in the Poll that should be up at the top of the page. If you've read this before I've had the chance to put the poll up, then check back later.