“If there was a Richter scale for sporting earthquakes,” wrote Hugh McIlvanney after the tectonic spite of a James “Buster” Douglas right uppercut and left hand had crumpled Mike Tyson – and the jaws of those watching – to the floor, “what happened would have to be considered two or three points clear of any other shock in 20th-century boxing.” While Tyson fumbled for his gumshield the rest of us did much the same for suitable adjectives. The usual failsafes – staggering, incomprehensible, unbelievable – felt inadequate. A 42-1 no-hoper had just destroyed the baddest man on the planet.
Twenty-five years later, where should we place Japan’s daring and nerveless defeat of South Africa on the sporting Richter scale? Everyone agrees it is the greatest upset in Rugby World Cup history. But that still underplays it. Bookmakers generally made Japan 50-1 outsiders before the match.
But, on Betfair, pre-game odds of 349-1 went as high as 419-1 in play. Graham Sharpe, who has worked for William Hill for 43 years, said he could not recall a bigger World Cup shock. Kenya, for instance, were 25-1 before whittling out West Indies for 93 in the 1996 Cricket World Cup while Cameroon were 12-1 before they scrapped and scraped past Argentina at Italia ’90.
Maybe a backstreet bookie offered a bigger price on United States surprising England in the 1950 World Cup, or on North Korea doing the same to Italy 16 years later, but Sharpe doubts it. In betting terms at least Japan’s victory may be the biggest World Cup upset of all.
What we are also asking now is whether this victory is a once-in-a-generation blip or the harbinger of an exciting future where tier two nations can bloody the noses of the biggest teams more frequently.
Encouragingly the gap between the best and the rest does appear to be closing. The quantitative data analyst Chris Long, who works with Premier League and Major League Baseball teams, says that, based on results and his statistical models, the best tier two nations – Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Japan, USA, Canada, Georgia and Romania – were typically around 27.1 points weaker than tier one sides in 2003. By 2007 the gap had narrowed to 21.5 points. And in 2011 it was 18.6 points.
That is still a hefty margin. But it is no longer a chasm.
Of course Japan’s advantages and weaknesses are very different from Fiji’s or Tonga’s while Georgia’s are different again. The victory of Eddie Jones’ side over South Africa was based on a tactical masterplan, a punchy mix of home-grown and strong foreign players, insane levels of fitness and the financial muscle to employ a legion of specialists including video analysts and sports medicine and fitness experts.
Yet World Rugby believes some of its policies – including more matches against the bigger teams – are helping an increasing number of smaller nations. From 2007 to 2011 tier one nations – including New Zealand and England – played tier two nations 25 times. During the last four-year cycle that was upped to 35, with tier two teams winning eight and drawing one of these encounters. Critics would argue that figure should jump again between 2015 and 2019 rather than staying the same.
World Rugby also believes the £10m it injects into its strategic investment programme every year has helped provide better coaching and technical support for smaller countries, not just for international players but those with potential. As Mark Egan, their head of competitions and performance, points out: “Since the investment came on stream in 2007 we have had over 600 players come through the Pacific Island academies alone. And 70% of those players have gone on to represent their country at either under-20 or senior national level.”
All that is welcome but the perennial problem of young Pacific Island players moving to France or New Zealand and then turning out for their national teams a few years hence remains.
Dr Ross Tucker, a science and research consultant to World Rugby, underlines other factors that have helped – there are more players from smaller countries playing professionally. And little things, like the Irish referee Alain Rolland helping the Pacific Islands better understand how the laws are applied, should help their discipline.
Yet he concedes that more needs to be done. At a recent conference the Tongan delegation showed a picture of their office – a converted shipping container – to emphasise their lack of funds. The financial gap between the biggest nations and everyone else is huge. While Italy and Scotland have a total revenue of around £40m a year Romania and Georgia have to make do with less than a 10th of that.
The help does not have to be just financial. Lynn Howells, the former Wales coach who is now the director of rugby for Romania, has been full of praise for the help given to smaller nations but wanted more to be done. One of his solutions was to have promotion and relegation from the Six Nations, though he thought Scotland and Italy would never buy it. “Because, if everything went our way, we could beat them,” he said with a twinkle.
But, if rugby’s administrators are smart, they will realise they have a vivid opportunity to broaden the game further.
We all enjoyed watching the Brave Blossoms. Now the game has to do its damnedest to help more of its emerging flowers to bloom.
