I watched Friday night’s Rugby League World Cup qualifier between Ireland and Lebanon more out of amusement than interest. I mean, the thought of a Lebanese Super League with 12 or 14 top-class teams battering into each other is enough to test anyone’s imagination.

And when I saw the names of the ‘Lebanese’ players, I started chuckling even more. All but two of the 20-man squad are based in in Australia and I suspect most of them were born there, too. I mean, how many native parents in Beirut name their sons Jamie, Anthony, Robin, Tom or Fred? Even if most of their surnames do have an ethnic ring.

OK, we know that the Lebanese, like their opponents, are an amalgam of players with somewhat tenuous blood lines. Virtually all of them seemed to have ‘G’day blue’ accents – while the Irish seemed to be predominantly Yorkshiremen and Lancastrians with Irish-sounding names.

'Lebanon are so steeped in Middle East tradition that they’ve played their home qualifiers in Levantine hotbeds like London and Dewsbury'


So much for the micky-taking because while I was brought up on Rugby Union (like all kids in South Wales), Friday's game itself was riveting. Well, as riveting as a no-quarter-given battler between guys with a questionable amount of Lebanese and Irish blood can be – particularly when the result was in doubt for the entire 80 minutes.

I found myself siding with Lebanon, if only because the thought of them competing in the World Cup finals seemed so bizarre. I mean, they are so steeped in Middle East tradition that they’ve played their home qualifiers in Levantine hotbeds like London and Dewsbury.

The game ended 16-16, amazingly the second draw between the two teams after their 18-18 stalemate in Ireland’s home fixture in Dublin. But it’s the Irish who go through to join the big boys in next year’s finals, where they will line up alongside hosts Australia, New Zealand, England, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tonga and France.

And Lebanon might yet make it, because they now go into a repechage with Wales, Scotland, Samoa and the USA to find the last two qualifiers for the ten-team tournament.

While my RU friends might be having a chuckle at the make-up of the ‘lesser’ teams in the tournament (I hesitate to think how many trans-Pennine accents there are in the Welsh, Scottish and Irish squads, for example), the League authorities must be congratulated for their efforts to stage a credible tournament – and to expand the game meaningfully beyond its traditional boundaries.

We all know Lebanon or Ireland won’t win the RL World Cup. Indeed, we all know that barring a miracle the winners will be Australia, with only New Zealand and England likely to provide any sort of credible challenge.

But is that any different to the RU World Cup, where we all knew from the start that the victors would more than likely come from the Southern Hemisphere triumvirate of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa?

OK, the tournament hosted by France was great fun and we had some amazing performances from lesser lights like Fiji, Tonga, Georgia and indeed the ultimate minnows of Portugal (step up Union’s answer to Lebanon). But none of the little guys were ever going to win the thing, for heaven's sake.

The main thing is that rugby was the winner – and that the game had advanced internationally since the 2003 tournament. No one could dispute that – and no one in their right mind would suggest that Rugby League’s World Cup won’t be just as entertaining a spectacle next year. And just as big an improvement on the last tournament.

There’s also the incentive for the rest of the world that the Kangaroos are even hotter favourites than the All Blacks were to win the Webb-Ellis trophy last month.

Are you listening, England? And Lebanon, for that matter...