Draw for future tournaments will be held closer to event to avoid group of death

[bakakumon]

Chief executive of World Rugby Brett Gosper admitted that the ceremony at which England were paired with Wales and Australia was conducted "a long way out" from this year's event, having taken place almost three years ago.

That was two days after Wales lost in the last minute against Australia to drop out of the top eight of the world rankings and into the third pot of seeds at just the wrong moment for England, with the subsequent draw sparking criticism that the true potential of each team had not been fairly reflected.

The current rankings are significantly different from those in December 2012 and bear out that argument. Were the draw to take place tomorrow, for example, the Pool A rivals England, Wales and Fiji would all be seeded higher than they were three years ago.

Speaking at an event to mark 30 days until the World Cup, Gosper said: "You want it to be a true reflection of the position at the time of the tournament. You've got to balance the proximity of the tournament with all of the planning that goes into it. We'll look at that next time to see if it's possible to make that draw closer to the tournament."

Gosper confirmed that such a change was currently "under discussion", although it appears unlikely World Rugby will go as far as adopting the Fifa model of waiting until six months before a World Cup until conducting proceedings.

Gosper also sought to demonstrate how seriously World Rugby was taking the threat of concussion at the tournament by warning that any team flouting its new protocols risked punishment.

"We have a series of sanctions at our disposal," he said, insisting he was confident that nations with fewer resources would have no excuse for failing to adhere to the regulations.

The use of Hawk-Eye technology at the World Cup will make it easier to identify concussion-related incidents during the World Cup.

Gosper confirmed that Hawk-Eye footage, which will be captured by up to 33 cameras at each match, would also be used to stamp out foul play, with the material made available to citing commissioners. Gosper said that meant players who had committed foul play were more likely than ever to be caught. Gosper also said that Hawk-Eye footage would be shown uncensored on the big screen at match venues.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11811099/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-Novice-fans-offered-idiots-guide-to-the-rules.html

 

[smartcooky]

Some of us have been banging this particular drum for many years.

There is no good reason why the RWC draw could not be made immediately after the last EOYT match (November/December) in the year preceding the cup.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Don't think I'm a fan of this. On one hand I suppose it'd be nice to have all of the stronger sides in the quarters, but on the other it makes the group stages more of a formality and non-contest than they are. If the stronger sides are kept away from each other at all cost it becomes a pretty predictable affair. Should Wales be swapped with Scotland I'd say we all be able to tell exactly who'd come out of each group, which can't be good for the tournament. At the least the current situation allows for some fluctuation in form so you get the odd interesting group.

 

[Shaggy]

Some of us have been banging this particular drum for many years.

There is no good reason why the RWC draw could not be made immediately after the last EOYT match (November/December) in the year preceding the cup.

Except maybe planning of venues and the logistics/preparation for hosting certain games, but I agree it could/should happen a lot sooner to the actual tournament.

I'm hoping that the standard of rugby rises, so that there can be many "pools of death"

 

[TRF_heineken]

Don't think I'm a fan of this. On one hand I suppose it'd be nice to have all of the stronger sides in the quarters, but on the other it makes the group stages more of a formality and non-contest than they are. If the stronger sides are kept away from each other at all cost it becomes a pretty predictable affair. Should Wales be swapped with Scotland I'd say we all be able to tell exactly who'd come out of each group, which can't be good for the tournament. At the least the current situation allows for some fluctuation in form so you get the odd interesting group.

Yeah, but for how long??

Sure the top tier sides will power their way through to reach the QF's, but there is no denying the improvements in some of the lower tier countries and their performances. With rugby growing more popular over the world, their is a sense of inevitability that at some stage, all the pools could be groups of death.

 

[TobesHodges]

Surely the best team should win no matter what?

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I like the fact we have a definite 'pool of death' this tournament. I think I'd even like it if SA were in it. I know I liked it last time round with SA drawn with both Wales and Samoa and now Scotland and Samoa- as a mini 'pool of death'. It makes the pool stages relevant.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Surely the best team should win no matter what?

In sport?? Have you ever heard of the word "Upset"

 

[TobesHodges]

Why can't there be upsets? If they get beaten then they weren't good enough to go on and win it?

 

[TobesHodges]

I'm buttering up the truth with my own philosophical view..
The reason they want to do it, is of course money, getting the 8 biggest teams In the last 8 will attract more viewings and more revenue than for example having Tonga and Georgia in the last 8, that's the truth as far as I see it..

 

[goodNumber10]

I'm buttering up the truth with my own philosophical view..
The reason they want to do it, is of course money, getting the 8 biggest teams In the last 8 will attract more viewings and more revenue than for example having Tonga and Georgia in the last 8, that's the truth as far as I see it..

Well yes and no, imho.

Everyone loves an underdog story, Samoa in 1991, Argentina in 1999 and 2007, Fiji in 2007 captured everyone's imagination, all the Neutrals were behind them - that's good for the game it gives people someone to latch onto.

On the best winning, teams drop a game, i don't think anyone could say NZ were not the best team in 2007 or 1999 but they lost out to teams that went on to lose their next game. World Cups a one off tournament, It's all about the day, that's why we also have the rankings system.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Surely the best team should win no matter what?

do you mean for the pool or for the whole world cup?

for the pool, i would agree that the best team has the best chance of winning, and therefore it is fair for the participants who care mainly about winning. Like the old cliche goes, to be the best. you've got to beat the best.

But I do believe the draw can influence a teams chance of winning the whole world cup. 2 years out from the 2007 world cup the All Blacks were paying $1.40 to win (that's insane odds, it means their lieklihood of winning was expected to be around 70%. let's say south africa 7% was almost twice as likely as england, australia, france, ireland, argentina, and wales (4% each), even then the all blacks would have been 10 times as likely as the second most likely team), yet many Nzers were seriously worried that we would lose teh quarterfinal, why? because of teh draw! The ABs had it too easy in their pool, while there were 3 teams in teh top 6 in the world in the pool that the ABs would play their quarterfinal against. Teams are much better prepared for big games if they've had tough games beforehand.

I'm not sure how it will pan out with the pool of death this time though. it is probably the toughest pool in a world cup yet, and it could go either way. It might be too tough for teams form that pool to carry all the way through to the final. Or it may jut give the ones that get through to the playoffs a big advantage. Maybe they will be more likely to win the quarters, equally likely to win the semis, but less likely to win the final.

thoughts?

P.S.


out of he world cups i've watched, in my opinion:
95 the best team didn't win
99 the best team won
2003 the best team won
2007 the best team didn't win
2011 debatable.

 

[ncurd]

I think this has less to do with teams making it out the pool's and qualification for the next rugby world cup. The system needs to be set-up so the "big 10" essentially get automatic qualification as there are only 8 QF places auto qualification goes to the top 3 teams in each group.

Now because we have very real group of death it's not that clear Fiji merely need to cause one upset in three games and one of big boy teams may have to spend the next four years playing through qualification groups. This impacts revenue from potential tours as they'll be playing qualifying games instead, they'll also need to put out decent teams as loosing out on the big 4 year bonanza will be even worse.



Either way whilst I like a proper group of death it makes sense for groups to seeded and drawn as close to the tournament as reasonably possible(taking into account ticket sales).

 

[Umaga's Witness]

to be honest though, that pool is a massive draw card for me I am excited about hte world cup largely because of that pool, and my team isn't even in the pool.

 

[HowieLO6]

to be honest though, that pool is a massive draw card for me I am excited about hte world cup largely because of that pool, and my team isn't even in the pool.

Bingo. Its entertaining, and a side story that the fans of the teams in other groups will be interested in.

But while this is vaguely-significant, it does continue to keep the Big Ten as a big of a closed shop. What I would have loved to have seen would have been the announcement of maybe the 4-8 best ranked teams who don;t make it into the Cup getting a shield competition to compete for.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

Yeah, but for how long??

Sure the top tier sides will power their way through to reach the QF's, but there is no denying the improvements in some of the lower tier countries and their performances. With rugby growing more popular over the world, their is a sense of inevitability that at some stage, all the pools could be groups of death.

Rugby is becoming more competitive. I don't think this is really going to matter that much sooner or later. Change it if they want but 10 years from now this won't make a difference. Excluding the top 5 or 6 teams in the world, all of the others are beatable on any given day by almost anyone else between rank 6 and rank 20.

I think 10 years from now your going to start seeing the Americans handling all the Celtic teams. They smashed Canada today 41-23 in a warm up and they've got some very good, young, athletic players who are starting to play the game a lot earlier than they were before. Watch out, the Americans are coming.

 

[Maverick1987]

do you mean for the pool or for the whole world cup?

for the pool, i would agree that the best team has the best chance of winning, and therefore it is fair for the participants who care mainly about winning. Like the old cliche goes, to be the best. you've got to beat the best.

But I do believe the draw can influence a teams chance of winning the whole world cup. 2 years out from the 2007 world cup the All Blacks were paying $1.40 to win (that's insane odds, it means their lieklihood of winning was expected to be around 70%. let's say south africa 7% was almost twice as likely as england, australia, france, ireland, argentina, and wales (4% each), even then the all blacks would have been 10 times as likely as the second most likely team), yet many Nzers were seriously worried that we would lose teh quarterfinal, why? because of teh draw! The ABs had it too easy in their pool, while there were 3 teams in teh top 6 in the world in the pool that the ABs would play their quarterfinal against. Teams are much better prepared for big games if they've had tough games beforehand.

I'm not sure how it will pan out with the pool of death this time though. it is probably the toughest pool in a world cup yet, and it could go either way. It might be too tough for teams form that pool to carry all the way through to the final. Or it may jut give the ones that get through to the playoffs a big advantage. Maybe they will be more likely to win the quarters, equally likely to win the semis, but less likely to win the final.

thoughts?

P.S.


out of he world cups i've watched, in my opinion:
95 the best team didn't win
99 the best team won
2003 the best team won
2007 the best team didn't win
2011 debatable.

2007 - You didn't think SA were the best team that year ?? I thought they clearly were . Definitely the best drilled forward pack and set piece in this cup added with the right amount of sparkle in the backs I thought they were well worth their win .

 

[ratsapprentice]

SA in 2007 were scarily powerful - clearly the best side.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Rugby is becoming more competitive. I don't think this is really going to matter that much sooner or later. Change it if they want but 10 years from now this won't make a difference. Excluding the top 5 or 6 teams in the world, all of the others are beatable on any given day by almost anyone else between rank 6 and rank 20.

I think 10 years from now your going to start seeing the Americans handling all the Celtic teams. They smashed Canada today 41-23 in a warm up and they've got some very good, young, athletic players who are starting to play the game a lot earlier than they were before. Watch out, the Americans are coming.

I think that's fantastically optimistic.

 

[Maverick1987]

I think that's fantastically optimistic.

Yeh unless a rugby changes and the yanks can take a breather every 10 seconds or so and wear enough armour that Robocop would be proud ....