Part One, WXV1
For the first time ever the leading nations of the world will start meeting up on an annual basis.
Those six for the inaugural tournament are England, New Zealand, France, Canada, Australia and Wales. The tension is tangible.
The shape of the coming tournament in New Zealand is different from anything experienced in the past. For the few top nations the World Cup has meant an almost untroubled run through the pool-stages – perhaps one high hurdle to vault – then the real examinations in the knock-out stages.
Now the challenges are quite different. Each team will face three matches across the space of three weeks against opposition closest to them in rank. So no chance of a gentle build-up, little chance for experiment. It’s almost all or nothing.
There are inbuilt weaknesses. Even within such a tight group there are large variations in achievement. That is one major reason for the development of WXV, to narrow these gaps. That point is even more valid for WXV2 and 3, but we can come to them later.
A second inherent weakness is the uncertain and inconsistent move towards professionalism. I see that as highly contentious, dependent as it is on the availability of large sums of money. Women’s rugby hasn’t yet reached the point where it can be sure of acquiring competitive rates for media coverage or long queues waiting to get into the largest grounds. It is happening, but not consistently enough for total confidence.
So the authorities have had to structure the programme on the understanding that most of the participants are amateur. That is why we will not see a full round-robin tournament, one nation playing all the other five. That would simply take people away from their jobs for too long.
Instead we have a pattern of two pools of three; just three matches each. Fortunately, the six in the top tier divide neatly into three European and three ‘other’ nations. So England, France and Wales find themselves taking on Australia, Canada and New Zealand in turn.
Annoyingly, the divisions in the two other tiers have had to be arbitrary; no easy geographical split available.
So each squad is faced with something close to three cup-finals in succession. Hence the drama, hence the tension.
For the management the big question is to decide the best selection policy. When it’s one cup-final ahead, the answer is simple: pick your best side. But when it’s three in a row?
Then comes a related matter, the sequence of games. Compare England and France: in the opening round the Red Roses play the Wallaroos; les Bleues face the Black Ferns. Who has the advantage?
Many may think it’s England. After an enormous journey and acclimatisation, do we want to face the hosts and bookies’ favourites first?
It remains to be seen whether that assumption holds water.
And all the time staff and players will have a second target in mind, the next World Cup, due in the (northern hemisphere) autumn of 2025. So if things don’t pan out quite as wished in Aotearoa, there’s always the fall-back: ‘We’re building for the RWC’.
Opening Bouts
Friday 20 October, England v Australia, Sky Stadium, Wellington
Saturday 21 October, Canada v Wales, Sky Stadium, Wellington
Saturday 21 October, New Zealand v France, Sky Stadium, Wellington
That’s the general pattern: normally, one match on the Friday evening; two the following day, all at the same venue.
