Tom English: Rise of the underdogs: Fact or fiction?

RUGBY wants to convince itself that the sport is getting more competitive and, in fairness, there was some evidence of it.

Georgia ran Scotland close, Tonga troubled New Zealand for 40 minutes and then, unforgettably, beat the French; America were dogged all the way through against Ireland, and Japan and Canada had their moments against the big guns at other times. Romania, for instance, could have beaten Scotland had they not suffered a collective malfunction in the coaching box when taking off the rampant Marius Tincu, just when Romania had taken the lead in the final quarter of the game.

There were fewer one-sided slaughters this time round, too. But only just. It’s convenient to think that the minnows are catching up on the major nations, but it’s not an argument you’d want to push all that hard. If there were improvements, they were minimal. And there was nothing profound, no major breakthrough by any of the lesser lights.

There were 14 annihilations – major teams destroying little ones – in the 2007 World Cups and there were 11 this time. Not much progress.

Four years ago, Wales and Ireland were knocked out in the pool stages, the Welsh going down to the mesmeric Fijians who marched on to the quarter-finals. There was no such fairytale this time. Apart from Argentina’s progress at Scotland’s expense – always a 50-50 game – the last eight could have been forecasted a year ago.

How about we take a novel approach to the next World Cup in England? How about we stop shafting the smaller rugby countries in the scheduling of games? How about instead of Georgia and Romania and Namibia and Russia and Canada and America having four-day turnarounds between games, we give them a breather, a chance to recover, the same opportunity all the bigger nations get? Fairness for all. Radical, eh?

It was cringe-making to hear some of the pundits on New Zealand TV complaining about America resting key players against Australia. The reason was because four days later they had to play the Italians, a game they felt they had a chance of winning.

What’s the point in the IRB investing heavily in coaching and development in the outer reaches of the sport in an effort to make these nations competitive at World Cup-time if they’re only going to make life harder for them when they get there?