I, like Syd -- and I'm sure like so many others -- was in no doubt that 20 teams was, at least, four too many. In 2003, at the best and most complete global tournament to date, the gap between the haves and the have nots was frightening. Justifiably, therefore, before a ball was kicked this time round, the prevailing talk was of the IRB and RWC trimming the competition back by four for New Zealand 2011.

It might yet happen, but based on this most recent evidence, it would appear time to leave well enough alone and run the developmental experiment for another four year cycle, but with one critical proviso.

Much, though, throwing money at the minor nations helps -- as in the lead in to France 2007 -- of much more long lasting significance and far reaching effect is that of setting in place a competitive structure providing relevant game time and meaningful contact with the traditional rugby playing nations on an ongoing basis.

The Pacific Nations Cup embracing the South Seas Islands -- Fiji, Samoa and Tonga -- as well as the Japanese, Australian 'A' and Junior All Blacks has proved a positive step in the right direction.

The Churchill Cup too has helped the US Eagles and Canada develop but, whatever about the New Zealand Maoris, with due respect to the Irish, English and Scottish 'A' teams, a more demanding competitive environment is essential if North American rugby is to develop at the necessary pace required.

By common consent, and irrespective of the outcome in Paris tomorrow night, the Argentinians have been the revelation of this World Cup but that is in spite of the so called rugby brotherhood and NOT because of it.

Millar is spot on in his measured criticism of the Southern Hemisphere powers and most specifically Sanzar, the umbrella body with responsibility for running the Tri-Nations tournament.

If the big three -- South Africa, Australia and New Zealand -- really wanted the Pumas on board they would already be there.

Equally so the Pacific Islands where they could quite literally take their pick. And it is here the IRB, in conjunction with Sanzar down south and the Six Nations committee in this part of the world, could do something positive and pretty much immediate to bolster the main tournaments in the respective hemispheres and at the same time bridge the gap as we move towards New Zealand in 2011.

Promotion and relegation, the latter the dirtiest word (to be avoided at all cost) in this still developing professional age. Why not a Pacific Island presence in the main southern hemisphere tournament based on results between the three the previous season, making it a new Five Nations tournament, embracing the three super powers plus Argentina.

Surely a Five Nations south of the zero line involving the Springboks, Wallabies, Kiwis, Pumas and one of the Island three would provide a new invigorating dynamic taking it away from the staid and predictable tournament it has become. Old habits die hard but in the interest and future development of the game they should be made to.

So too in this neck of the woods where the Georgian performances, in particular, have encouraged us all to take a look at a tournament we have for so long taken for granted.

The Six Nations is undoubtedly the jewel in the northern hemisphere crown, but would be even better still were it to be spiced up by way of promotion and relegation.

Most people are unaware of the European Nations Cup which, despite its name, is a seven division tournament involving thirty five developing countries with the Czech Republic, Georgia, Portugal, Romania, Russia and Spain the top six competing in the top league (Division 1).

Why not open the Six Nations to promotion and relegation whereby the winner of Division 1 would qualify for inclusion by right.

Just as Rome has added immeasurably to the Six Nations experience since 2000 why not Tbilisi, Bucharest, Lisbon, Madrid, Moscow or Prague in taking it forward?

If these countries are good enough, then why not?

If the IRB and RWC are genuine in their aspiration to make the game truly global then "why not" shouldn't apply. If the will exists then it should be when, not if.

The Georgians, the Portuguese and the Romanians are but three rugby developing countries crying out for increasing contact with the major rugby playing nations. Their respective performances at this World Cup have struck a chord. The onus is on us, the haves, to bring those less fortunate -- be it for political, economic or geographic reasons -- alongside.

Let us see an end to self-serving decisions from here on in. New Zealand as the next destination and for the second time was just that. Spare us too the minnows -- Argentina included -- having four-day turn-arounds while the movers and shakers i.e. the Four Home Nations, SANZAR and France look after themselves by way of the appropriate R&R. We will of course still have the occasional mismatch but in providing equal opportunity between tournaments the IRB will close that gap -- as at this World Cup -- and rapidly.

Just six short weeks ago it appeared there were at least four teams too many on board. But the smaller nations have gained financially and practically from their involvement in this tournament.

Think what they could do with relevant support and meaningful playing contact between now and 2011.

Here's to the status quo and who knows, perhaps, even 24 countries by 2015 when if there is any semblance of fair play the tournament will go to Japan.

PS: Coinciding with World Cup Final day Navan Rugby club are holding a Pink day on October 20. The objective is to raise cancer awareness and with it they hope somewhere in the region of €20,000 for the Irish Cancer Society. Navan will be playing Ashbourne in a Leinster League Division 1 clash and will be wearing pink jerseys on the day.

The jerseys will be auctioned off after the game with a number of other fundraising events including pink champers, pink afternoon tea and pink wrist bands.