RU World Cup should be 32 teams

[HenryChinaski]

I do like the idea of more teams in the World Cup, if not for the same reasons as the OP.

If 32 teams was the case there would be a greater number of '3rd tier' teams and I think that would leave to a 'competition within a competition', with a greater number of close matches. I think it would do the lesser teams from the last world cup such as Japan and Namibia some good to have beatable competition in there, for example Madagascar, Spain. Because I think for entertainment purporses it would be great for each place to be contested, whereas now many group stage matches you feeel pretty apathetic about because it's usually two teams from different tiers playing one another with the likely outcome already know.

Not to mention it's a huge step towards making rugby a more universal sport at the professional level. We talk about wanting to close the gap between the top tier of teams and the 2nd tier, but if you want to make rugby a less elite sport you have to start from the bottom and give access to bottom tier sides.

I know its logistically more complicated than that though. Perhaps squads would need to be bigger to compensate for the extra games.

[Nielsch]

I can agree with adding 4 more teams in - let's say - 2023 or 2027. The IRB really should start thinking about that. Sure, these extra teams wouldn't stand a chance against the likes of New Zealand, South Africa and England but it would help spreading the gospel of rugby in those countries. Think about it; 4 more teams would mean countries like Uruguay, Chile, Spain, Portugal and Belgium would have more chances of qualifying. Their defeats won't be much bigger than the current defeats Russia, Japan and Namibia are facing and yet these teams are more than welcome to participate as it helps developing rugby in said countries.

[admartian]

I can agree with adding 4 more teams in - let's say - 2023 or 2027. The IRB really should start thinking about that. Sure, these extra teams wouldn't stand a chance against the likes of New Zealand, South Africa and England but it would help spreading the gospel of rugby in those countries. Think about it; 4 more teams would mean countries like Uruguay, Chile, Spain, Portugal and Belgium would have more chances of qualifying. Their defeats won't be much bigger than the current defeats Russia, Japan and Namibia are facing and yet these teams are more than welcome to participate as it helps developing rugby in said countries.

I agree.

24 teams isn't so bad. And one extra week is definitely not the end of the world. There are issues indeed, but definitely not major.

Mountain out of a molehill really.

[BZHopenside]

Remember, the soccer World Cup didn't go to 32 teams until the 90's. 24 would be a good expansion soon. But 6 groups of 4, not 4 groups of 6.

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Actually, the FIFA World Cup had a very steady increase of teams.

Until 1978 there were 16 teams, from 1982 until 1994 it was 24 teams and since 1998 we've had 32 teams.

Going from 20 to 32 is just too much.

[sigesige00]

Remember, the soccer World Cup didn't go to 32 teams until the 90's. 24 would be a good expansion soon. But 6 groups of 4, not 4 groups of 6.

However, don't you think that 5 pool games are too much?

[TRF_Ezequiel]

No, he is suggesting 6 groups of 4, making the schedule having 3 group stage games.

[Zed]

The idea could work and give exposure to some of the lesser nations like Chilie, Germany etc But you can't have these teams playing the top nations, you will get 100+ point floggings which no-one wants to see. An option would be to have different tiers in each pool and the bottom tier don't play the top tier teams. So for example Germany, Spain, Italy & Samoa would all play each other, but Germany & Spain wouldn't play NZ & SA.

pool A
NZ
South Africa
Italy
Samoa
Germany
Spain

[William18]

I'm a fan of the idea at least in terms of the next few years. You can't realistically expect the game to grow internationally without giving more oppertunities for countries to compete. As it stands the generation of interest in rugby for one team whose become more competitive has always come at the expence of another country, where the interest wanes. Yes it would expand it one more week (which would make it more fair), and when you're considering somewhere like Japan hosting a RWC game, Japan v A team they could be expected to win I'm sure would sell quite well. I agree that it would be worth looking at after 2019, where we could learn a little bit more about the rate at which the game is growing, but I think it's a good thing.

I think we have to accept that we can't prepare an international tournament based purely on what New Zealand is capable of. As it we, we do have enough stadiums to deal with four more games every round, but regardless I think 2011 will be the last tournament we'll host in the foreseable future, in which case by the time it comes around again we may have a few more stadiums / half a million more people. If England/France/Japan/Anywhere managed to get even a remotely similar attendance per capita as New Zealand did, then there would be very little difficulty selling out.

Obviously it shouldn't be based on what New Zealand can do but I think you are going to struggled to get a good crowd to Romania vs Spain whether you play it in Romania, Spain, England, New Zealand or Japan. I don't see how a game like that does a lot to market the tournament. I think as countries get better, qualification should become more competitive and hopefully that can serve to generate some interest. I also think that you risk just creating another lower of tier rugby teams. Whereas currently Namibia is in the lowest tier then maybe you just put in another team for Namibia to thrash and there is still a bottom tier.

I could probably stand the expansion if you had six groups of four. That would create a messy playoffs system and few hyped up pool games like NZ vs France.

[William18]

The idea could work and give exposure to some of the lesser nations like Chilie, Germany etc But you can't have these teams playing the top nations, you will get 100+ point floggings which no-one wants to see. An option would be to have different tiers in each pool and the bottom tier don't play the top tier teams. So for example Germany, Spain, Italy & Samoa would all play each other, but Germany & Spain wouldn't play NZ & SA.

pool A
NZ
South Africa
Italy
Samoa
Germany
Spain

Then Italy and Samoa play 5 games with all other teams only playing 3 games. Scheduling would be a nightmare. Teams from the second tier would be advantaged as they would get ten easy points against Germany/Spain.

[Nielsch]

Obviously it shouldn't be based on what New Zealand can do but I think you are going to struggled to get a good crowd to Romania vs Spain whether you play it in Romania, Spain, England, New Zealand or Japan. I don't see how a game like that does a lot to market the tournament. I think as countries get better, qualification should become more competitive and hopefully that can serve to generate some interest. I also think that you risk just creating another lower of tier rugby teams. Whereas currently Namibia is in the lowest tier then maybe you just put in another team for Namibia to thrash and there is still a bottom tier.

I could probably stand the expansion if you had six groups of four. That would create a messy playoffs system and few hyped up pool games like NZ vs France.

You just have to find stadiums that will match the expected ticket sales. You are right; a Spain - Romania game won't fill Wembley or Twickenham. However stadiums like Welford Road, Ricoh Arena and Kingsholm would be perfect for a match like that.

In 2007 at the RWC in France, the Romania - Portugal match still managed to draw 35,000 to the stadium. Georgia - Namibia had 32,500 people in the stands. 33,000 people saw Japan - Canada in 2007. Do not underestimate the drawing power of the lesser matches at a RWC.

[norcalbuff]

I think 20 is fine but the next 4 teams aren't significantly worse than the worst couple teams in each RWC. As far as 24 teams, I'd go with:

Round 1: 6 pools of 4, top 2 in each advance.
Round 2: 4 pools of 3, top 2 in each advance.
Then you have 1/4s, semis and a final.

It would be 8 games to win the whole thing instead of the current 7, but you'd get more even matches and more matches between the top teams. Taking away a match from the Tier 3 and lower end Tier 2 countries isn't a big deal anyway as the current scheduling format forces us into fielding B sides as the Eagles did against Australia in the last RWC. That really serves no purpose for anyone.

[welshglory]

I think 20 is fine but the next 4 teams aren't significantly worse than the worst couple teams in each RWC. As far as 24 teams, I'd go with:

Round 1: 6 pools of 4, top 2 in each advance.
Round 2: 4 pools of 3, top 2 in each advance.
Then you have 1/4s, semis and a final.

It would be 8 games to win the whole thing instead of the current 7, but you'd get more even matches and more matches between the top teams. Taking away a match from the Tier 3 and lower end Tier 2 countries isn't a big deal anyway as the current scheduling format forces us into fielding B sides as the Eagles did against Australia in the last RWC. That really serves no purpose for anyone.

I don't think that's actually true. In the 2011 world cup the worst team was Namibia, then between Russia, Japan, Romania and USA. Now i wouldn't say any of those teams are significantly better than say Uruguay, Chile, Spain, Portugal or even Tunisia.

[norcalbuff]

You're agreeing with me...

[Feicarsinn]

Expanding the WC would be a mistake. As is about 4 of the teams in it aren't competitive at all. Diluting the quality of your showpiece event isn't going to attract more people into the fold. The group stage is by and large a tiresome affair, expanding it with weaker teams isn't going to help anyone.

[norcalbuff]

Expanding the WC would be a mistake. As is about 4 of the teams in it aren't competitive at all. Diluting the quality of your showpiece event isn't going to attract more people into the fold. The group stage is by and large a tiresome affair, expanding it with weaker teams isn't going to help anyone.

The group stage is tedious for a couple of reasons. The first is probably too many games and the second is that scheduling forces teams, in particular the Tier 2 and 3 sides with the least depth, to field B teams making the whole thing into a farce. My proposal shortens the group stage by a game while providing more games between the top 12 countries. At the same time it offers the opportunity for 4 more countries to take part. I think it's a win-win situation for all.

[Feicarsinn]

Nah, the main reason is that the lower tier teams aren't good enough to challenge the top ones. No matter how much preparation time they were given, Ireland were never going to drop points to Russia, Namibia weren't going to pick up a win, and Japan weren't going to beat New Zealand. No point watching the games, because they're going to be incredibly one sided and essentially a waste of time. 4 more games that aren't worth watching will not help the competition.

[profitius]

I'd be in favour of 32 teams but not for another 2 or 3 world cups. At them moment there isn't enough quality teams that could keep the scoreline respectable against the top nations.But as we have seen in the last world cup, the points gap is closing.

The value of competing in a world cup could do wonders for development in a country. The Georgian government got behind Georgia after the performences in the 2007 world cup.

[norcalbuff]

Nah, the main reason is that the lower tier teams aren't good enough to challenge the top ones. No matter how much preparation time they were given, Ireland were never going to drop points to Russia, Namibia weren't going to pick up a win, and Japan weren't going to beat New Zealand. No point watching the games, because they're going to be incredibly one sided and essentially a waste of time. 4 more games that aren't worth watching will not help the competition.

Where do you get that there would be 4 extra games not worth watching?

[irelandfan123]

only 32? well i reckon that the 96 teams on the irb ranking should all be together have 24 group stages (named group qualifiers a) top 2 teams from each group go into the group qualifiers b which contains 12 groups, then the top 2 from each group qualify into group qualifiers c which contains 6 groups then the number on enter a playoff system until there are only 2 teams left and everyone kills themselves with boredom (because even the 20 team one lasted too long for me)

EDIT: ignore my math ..... I am just terrible with math

[Tony Manx]

only 32? well i reckon that the 96 teams on the irb ranking should all be together have 24 group stages (named group qualifiers a) top 2 teams from each group go into the group qualifiers b which contains 12 groups, then the top 2 from each group qualify into group qualifiers c which contains 6 groups then the number on enter a playoff system until there are only 2 teams left and everyone kills themselves with boredom (because even the 20 team one lasted too long for me)

EDIT: ignore my math ..... I am just terrible with math

Why not dispense with all other rugby such as Top 14/Aviva/Rabo/Super whatsit and just start the nexxt RWC as soon as the last one finishes.....................!!

[smartcooky]

Germany isn't beating Wales, India isn't beating France lol etc...
it's just an utter waste of time, but it does promote rugby, it gives us a chance to finally see those other nations play

The suggestion is another four teams. Germany (ranked 31) and India (ranked 68) aren't going to be among them

More likely the extra teams would come from four out of Spain, Uruguay, Belgium, Chile, Korea and Portugal


EDIT:

BTW, Tonga isn't beating France either....

.....hang on!!!

[TRF_Ezequiel]

I don't see a problem with adding 4 teams since the likely additions already have played in previous World Cups so the debate over them being thrashed is not really one to go by. They might qualify anyway. Uruguay, Spain and Portugal will definitely be among the 4 additional teams.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

[Black_Magic]

even the 20 team one lasted too long for me

Especially as you were kicked out in the quarters

[big ginger 8]

Especially as you were kicked out in the quarters

No need for that.

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Especially as you were kicked out in the quarters

At least they qualified for the World Cup. Neither Poland nor Netherlands managed to do so so we should not throw stones

[irelandfan123]

Especially as you were kicked out in the quarters

Ouch... we'd get a lot further with the 96 system

[Black_Magic]

At least they qualified for the World Cup. Neither Poland nor Netherlands managed to do so so we should not throw stones

True! But it was no stone thrown, just a little acrimonious remark

As for the subject, I'm with those stating that 4 extra teams wouldn't be of a worse quality than current wooden spooners like Namibia or Russia. The evidence can easily be seen in RWC qualifying matches.

On the other hand, I do agree that narrowing the gap between Tier 2 and Tier 1 is much more important for world rugby - for the time being.

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Well, the issue is that the Tier 2 teams only play the top teams during World Cups because the SANZAR teams for instance, never travel to Georgia, Romania, Fiji, Japan or Uruguay.

I also think the Pampas team in the Vodacom Cup has been very important in the development of Argentina as a top team. Maybe they can do something similar with other teams. Have 4 teams from Tonga, Fiji, Samoa and Namibia added to the Super Rugby competition and dump the freaking conference system. Not sure how to work out the schedule but the IRB/SANZAR has to do something for it.

In the 1990's when the Super Rugby competition was still amateur-based, there were some invitational teams from the PI's. The biggest need is for those players to match up against the big talents, let them develop.

Oh well, just going nuts again over a brainfart

[norcalbuff]

What people fail to consider with a 24 team RWC is that if you have 6 pools of 4, you end up with 36 matches in the initial pool stage as opposed to 40 under the current format. This allows you to have more matches between the top teams later on. My proposal would add 8 games overall but with 4 fewer first round matches and 12 extra matches between the top 12 teams in the world. This would both make more money and be better for the fans.