KEY POINTS:
Once, in Pusan, Korea, I had time to kill, wandered into a casino and sat at a blackjack table. On my left was a Chinese man, nattily dressed and with one of those ludicrously big look-at-me-I've-got-status wristwatches favoured in Asia, a diamond ring and a proprietorial air. I assumed him to be a chief executive or captain of industry or some such.
On my right was a Korean woman who appeared to be a hooker. I didn't ask her but her clothing, jewellery and studied air of complete, almost aggressive disdain of the two men at her table were signal enough. Also bad language, which is unusual in an Asian woman.
She had plenty of reason to swear. I am partial to a spot of blackjack once in a blue moon and, as a man who doesn't have a lot of money to lose, play quite a conservative game. But this was one of those rare occasions when the gods were smiling. I bet when I should have stuck; stuck when I should have bet. The dealer busted or I pulled a succession of almost impossible cards to complete a good hand. Blackjacks mounted up in front of me like trophies.
I was betting US$5 to start and then, as it became clear I was on a bit of a streak, pushed it up to the giddy heights of US$10. My increasingly frustrated playing companions were betting US$500 a card (CEO) and US$200 (hooker).
The CEO started off, seeing I was a not particularly skilled player, offering some helpful advice. However, he shut up abruptly when it became clear I was getting all the good cards. The hooker maintained her expletive-laden commentary. Eventually, the CEO said to me: "Wouldn't you like to play at another table?" and gestured at some of the sparsely populated tables elsewhere.
I grinned at him and tapped the table for another card. Twenty minutes later, as my luck held, he dropped a US$500 chip in front of me and said: "I really think you would enjoy it more at another table."
This pretty much doubled my winnings and I barely hesitated, deciding to head out the door (after cashing up, of course) instead of trying another table. In many Asian minds, luck has a flow to it and my companions felt I had altered that flow with my arrival. The CEO felt it was cheaper to get rid of me. I do not know if, or how, he asked the hooker to recompense him.
I mention this because we are now only months away from that most eagerly anticipated event, the Rugby World Cup.
But while it is possible for a minnow to bite a shark in a casino in Pusan, the minnows in France are heading for a much more predictable end. And, while we are all willing the All Blacks to the win they haven't had in 20 years, that's the problem with the World Cup: There's little or no mystery in it.
We know the winners will come from one of NZ, Australia, South Africa, England or France. While the tournament purports to be the gospel spreader of international rugby, it isn't really. Under the current structure, we will be watching nail-biting fixtures like Ireland vs Namibia; Argentina vs Georgia; New Zealand vs Romania; Australia vs Japan; and many more mis-matches.
NZ hold the record - a 145-17 hiding of Japan in 1995. Some try to tell us that the vanquished benefit and learn from treading the same turf as the giants of the game; that it will inspire them to develop their game to greater heights. Nope, don't think so.
Some point out that the football World Cup is also regularly won by one of the big five (Italy, Germany, Brazil, Argentina and France) and so it is - but the quarter-finals of that tournament have a far more sharp-edged and upsettable record than that of the RWC.
Rugby's showcase is often downright boring until we get to the semifinal stage. We are all fond of saying it is the third-biggest sporting event in the world - but it also has the highest boredom factor until it gets down to the vinegar.
There will be interest and a competitive element in Samoa vs US, Georgia vs Namibia and Canada vs Japan, for example but, for a World Cup, that isn't enough.
The IRB will doubtless tell us all about the $45 million they have sunk into the so-called, second-tier countries but the plain fact is that you can't rush rugby development. People and countries might get better at rugby after you've tipped money in - but not in a season or twelve.
The time has come for a re-structure of the RWC. The smaller nations could play in a separate competition complete with winner, runner-up and grand final, just as the big boys do.
This won't happen in time for 2011 but could for 2015 - with NZ, Australia, England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, France, South Africa, Italy, Samoa, Fiji and Tonga in the championship round and 12 smaller countries, decided by qualifying, playing in a separate competition with its own world cup. You can see rugby developing faster in those countries then.
But, until then, the IRB is a bit like the CEO in Pusan, trapped at a table with a problem - and with only money to make it go away.
