KEY POINTS:
England touted the idea when they made their bid to host this World Cup.
They suggested splitting the tournament into two divisions so there would be a reduced chance of the mismatches we have seen already in France.
Maybe England were not astute enough politically or did not
do enough marketing of their proposal, but the concept scarcely got a ripple of support from the International Rugby Board members.
There is already strong support for the next World Cup in New Zealand in 2011 to be cut from the current 20-team format to a 16-nation competition.
No one likes to see the sort of thrashing the Wallabies gave Japan in the first round or the one the All Blacks are expected to deliver to Portugal tonight after thumping Italy in their tournament opener.
Organisers will argue that bumper crowds so far in France show there is widespread interest in any World Cup contest.
But if there are only a few pool matches staged in various cities in France, then those who want to see a game live are forced to watch games like the Wallabies and Japan.
Neither side would have benefited from that match in any substantial way. The Wallabies stretched their legs while Japan were reduced to defensive duties. Much the same is likely tonight at Stade de Gerland in Lyon.
The IRB's stance is that the rugby gospel must be spread wider and participation increased. That is fine as a philosophy but it should not drive the World Cup.
This should be an elite event rather than a time for the game's minnows like Portugal to test their inadequate talents against the All Blacks or other crack professional outfits.
Since the game was about to go pro in 1995, five sides have conceded more than 100 points in World Cup matches. What a yawn. Boring and senseless.
Japan were the worst doormat, spanked 145-17 by the All Blacks in 1995 and there they were the other day and three tournaments later almost yielding a ton to the Wallabies. Pointless.
There can be little satisfaction for anyone when All Black coach Graham Henry admitted he would direct his side to show some "sensitivity" towards the hapless Los Lobos.
Soccer may have a dozen sides capable of winning their World Cup, rugby has not had that depth since the first tournament 20 years ago. As the game has gone pro, the separation between the haves and have-nots has grown wider - the traditional nations favour competition among themselves and perpetuate the division.
The imbalance in quality will not alter much by the 2011 World Cup.
If there are to be 16 teams, New Zealand should also advocate a twin-tier tournament with a round-robin top six and bottom 10 team split, based on the world rankings the IRB compiles.
The winner of the bottom group would be found after nine pool games and the top six could peel off into semifinals and a final for a possible seven match tally.
If a top six was just a little too cosy, the alternative would be to have a round-robin top eight and bottom eight, then just a final in each division to make a maximum eighttests.
Matches could also be dovetailed throughout the week to avoid the ghastly interludes which blight every World Cup.
At least then we might see teams of similar standard in combat rather than the spurious international we will watch tonight in Lyon.
