"Few would disagree with the proposition that Rugby World Cups would be better if there were more shock results." Huw Richards reports

How you regard those that happen is, though, a matter of where you are standing. While most of the rugby world would rightly have cheered the Canadian victory that looked likely after 50 minutes in Nantes on Sunday, Welshmen (not least this one) might have found it harder to join in the celebrations.

At the same time as deploring inflexible hierarchy, personal responses are in the spirit of the old American saying 'let somebody else's cow get gored'.

Last Friday in Paris the French were gored comprehensively. Pleasure on this occasion was only mildly diluted by a different consideration, the thought that an early French exit might deprive the tournament of the vibrant home presence that underpins the best World Cups.

Where it stands in the overall hierarchy of World Cup surprises is another matter for debate. This was the fourth victory by an outsider over one of the eight 'foundation' unions following Samoa's defeats of Wales in 1991 and 1999 and Argentina turning over Ireland in 1999.

There has been one stunning reversal within the established order - France's win over New Zealand in 1999. Beyond that are others that have upset expectations among the developing nations - Canada beating Tonga in 1987, Argentina's defeat of Samoa in 1999 and, in the qualifiers, Ivory Coast upsetting Namibia to reach the 1995 finals.

Shocks are by definition a matter of expectation. Wales v Samoa might look the prototypical cup shock, but it was inflicted on a Welsh squad traumatised by an Australian tour in which they had conceded 134 points in two matches, fought more vigorously among themselves than they ever did against their opponents and a subsequent late (if welcome) change of coach.

Samoa were unknown as a team, but were packed with tough, gifted performers from the New Zealand scene like Frank Bunce and Peter Fatialofa.

If the 1999 result is a little less remembered, it was in fact a greater shock, as it ended a long unbeaten run by Graham Henry's Wales teams and came only a few days after Samoa's set-piece limitations had been exposed by Argentina.

Canada against Tonga 12 years earlier was a matter of perception. That the match seemed marvellously exotic shows how little we knew about rugby outside the big eight before World Cups provided a quadrennial refresher course. Tonga had been to Britain a few years earlier, less was known about the Canadians, so it seemed more of a surprise than it really was.

Argentina's win over Samoa at Llanelli the week before the islanders sank Wales for the second time reshuffled the chasing pack, but the Pumas had been there or thereabouts throughout their previous World Cup appearances, and their subsequent playoff victory on neutral ground over a weak Irish team could almost have been predicted.

The same can be said of last Friday. France may be hosts and second favourites, but Argentina had won four of their last five meetings and are thoroughly familiar with French conditions - more of their team than France's play their rugby in Paris.

France-New Zealand remains the big one. It was not a good French team. They had finished last in the final Five Nations, lost to Tonga and by 54 points to the All Blacks during the summer and were lucky to be in the quarter-final at all after beating Fiji in the pool stage only by virtue of the worst day in the life of a good referee, Paddy O'Brien.

I remember writing beforehand that 'France can play much better than they have previously in the tournament and still lose with something to spare'. That was pretty much what happened for 50 minutes, then the world turned upside down. It remains the one result that truly defies logic.

It perhaps says something about rugby's predictability that its greatest shock should have been the nation that generally ranks between no 2 and no 4 beating the regular no 1. But at this point, if no other, there is a parallel with football's undoubtedly less predictable World Cups.

Commissioned last year to write, in consultation with other sports staff, an article for the FT on football World Cup shocks I reached the conclusion that the 1954 final victory by Germany over Hungary was the no 1, and still hold that view.

And Argentina v France scores in a different way. It reshaped an entire World Cup from day one - not least in creating the likelihood that one of the semi-finalists will be either Argentina, Italy or Scotland. It signalled the unquestioned arrival of a great rugby nation.

If not quite the greatest shock, it scores very high on significance.