Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2015
Rugby World Cup may expand in 2023, says governing body
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="William18" data-source="post: 715203" data-attributes="member: 38439"><p>Based on the current World Rankings here is what a 6 pool 24 team tournament would look like:</p><p></p><p>Pool A: 1. New Zealand, 12. Fiji, 13. Tonga, 24. South Korea</p><p>Pool B: 2. South Africa, 11. Japan, 14. Italy, 23. Portugal</p><p>Pool C: 3. Ireland, 10. Scotland, 15. Georgia, 22. Namibia</p><p>Pool D: 4. England, 9. Samoa, 16. United States, 21. Spain</p><p>Pool E: 5. Wales, 8. Argentina, 17. Romania, 20. Uruguay</p><p>Pool F: 6. Australia, 7. France, 18. Canada, 19. Russia</p><p></p><p>Canada have France, Ireland, Italy and Romania in 2015 while USA have South Africa, Scotland, Samoa and Japan. I don't think under the 24 team tournament that either team really has a better format. I'm also not sure how many of those games between the bottom two in each team would be very close.</p><p></p><p>I think that the current 20 team format enables a good range of abilities at the World Cup. One of my favourite things about the World Cup in 2011 were the competitive pool games. Ireland vs Australia and South Africa vs Wales were very memorable. I look at that pool stage and don't see too many games that would draw me in. How many of those games am I getting up at 3am for? I also don't think we need a round of 16 nor do I much like only the two best teams overall making it through to the next stage. That just simply rewards negative and cynical play.</p><p></p><p>At some stage we will have to address this because the World Cup will probably need to be expanded. I think we should do that when teams 19 and 20 like Namibia and Uruguay have shown that they can play competitive games.</p><p></p><p>What we really need is a system which allows teams like Georgia, USA and Romania the chance to play against the big boys more often. 3 big games every 4 years will not help these teams develop. I think one way to do this is to open up World Cup qualifying. Only the host nation should qualify automatically. All the other 19 spots should be filled up by qualifiers. In New Zealand we shouldn't have to play 10 qualifying games or anything but we should have to play at least 1 or 2. World Cup qualifiers are the only way to mandate teams to play the smaller nations unless there is a lot of money involved. I just don't think we should expand to 24 until we look after the first 20.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="William18, post: 715203, member: 38439"] Based on the current World Rankings here is what a 6 pool 24 team tournament would look like: Pool A: 1. New Zealand, 12. Fiji, 13. Tonga, 24. South Korea Pool B: 2. South Africa, 11. Japan, 14. Italy, 23. Portugal Pool C: 3. Ireland, 10. Scotland, 15. Georgia, 22. Namibia Pool D: 4. England, 9. Samoa, 16. United States, 21. Spain Pool E: 5. Wales, 8. Argentina, 17. Romania, 20. Uruguay Pool F: 6. Australia, 7. France, 18. Canada, 19. Russia Canada have France, Ireland, Italy and Romania in 2015 while USA have South Africa, Scotland, Samoa and Japan. I don't think under the 24 team tournament that either team really has a better format. I'm also not sure how many of those games between the bottom two in each team would be very close. I think that the current 20 team format enables a good range of abilities at the World Cup. One of my favourite things about the World Cup in 2011 were the competitive pool games. Ireland vs Australia and South Africa vs Wales were very memorable. I look at that pool stage and don't see too many games that would draw me in. How many of those games am I getting up at 3am for? I also don't think we need a round of 16 nor do I much like only the two best teams overall making it through to the next stage. That just simply rewards negative and cynical play. At some stage we will have to address this because the World Cup will probably need to be expanded. I think we should do that when teams 19 and 20 like Namibia and Uruguay have shown that they can play competitive games. What we really need is a system which allows teams like Georgia, USA and Romania the chance to play against the big boys more often. 3 big games every 4 years will not help these teams develop. I think one way to do this is to open up World Cup qualifying. Only the host nation should qualify automatically. All the other 19 spots should be filled up by qualifiers. In New Zealand we shouldn't have to play 10 qualifying games or anything but we should have to play at least 1 or 2. World Cup qualifiers are the only way to mandate teams to play the smaller nations unless there is a lot of money involved. I just don't think we should expand to 24 until we look after the first 20. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2015
Rugby World Cup may expand in 2023, says governing body
Top