Should the World Cup be expanded to 24 teams?

[Welshdragon2000]

Quite simply should the World Cup be expanded? And when?
There is not much difference between the teams ranked 18th-24th so the margin of defeat against tier 1 sides would not be much different. World rugby is very keen to grow the game in countries like Brazil and Hong Kong which would benefit hugely from an expanded World Cup.

Personally I would like to see an expanded World Cup but I'm not sure about whether it should be expanded for 2023 or 2027. It is anyone's guess of how far the game will grow in these years. Personally I believe that 2023 would be best for expansion but it's anyone's guess as to when the right time is.

 

[Brigantine]

I think it's good how it is now.

18th-24th might not be much different, but the RWC is mainly about the top 4-8 teams. 8th-24th is a big gap still.

If we want a big tournament for 9th-24th or thereabouts, we can hold it in Lions tour years. (but it won't be a big money spinner). Or we can just watch the Americas Rugby Championship, Pacific Nations Cup, Africa Gold Cup and Rugby Europe Trophy grow in strength and profile, and give more of those teams test matches.

If the Americas Rugby Championship does well, then they could look at a Pacific 6 Nations with Japan and two of Georgia/Russia/Hong Kong instead of having North American teams.
(I suspect Hong Kong will seriously drop in the rankings when they have to defend their RP against more non-Asian teams, so the case to include them isn't that strong)

That said, Hong Kong/Korea, Namibia/Kenya and Uruguay/Brazil need more games against each other. Europe is fine on its own.

 

[duncanb]

Depends how many one sided games you want to watch.
The lower ranked teams by performance need to make a case.
At present they sadly are not doing so.
If competitiveness deems it I would support.

 

[bushytop]

How do you suggest the group stage format would work because imo the top two teams from each group should ALWAYS qualify... but to make that feasible it would either have to remain 4 groups (but of 6 teams rather than the current 5... seems a lot of teams per group) or if it were changed to 6 groups of 4 only the top 2 2nd place teams would qualify and I think that is tough on teams that would get a tough draw.

The reason for this is divisible numbers leading all the way to one. ATM 8 teams qualify for the quarter finals, which then divides down to 4 then 2, and the eventual winner. The only expansion that would work would be to have a second round of 16 teams (which I don't think there is the quality for currently) which would then go to, 8, then 4, then 2 etc. If for arguments sake, we did have six groups and two teams qualify from each, you would get 12 teams through, which after the following round would be down to 6 then down to 3... and then where do you go. This is the reason that darts players like to aim for 16 (or 8) as their double, it divides down on evens and doesn't leave them with an odd until it gets to one.

I think it will expand eventually but it will be a big move (format wise) and like is said, I hope it doesn't go to group winners plus 2 top 2nd place teams (just to ensure an 8 team knock out) as there will always be tough groups and it's tough on teams who would have maybe lost 1 game but are sent home.

 

[stus768]

Considering the amount of money and resources World Rugby have to throw at the smaller, tier 2/3 teams to make them even slightly competitive I don't think it's feasible to add any extra.

 

[Thingimubob]

I'm definitely not against it and believe it's definitely a goal for the future, just potentially more of a long term one rather than one for next 2 world cups or so.

Format would be tricky to work out as others have pointed out, but plenty out there that could work.

One option that I'd lean towards is to look at the format UEFA brought in for their 24 team Euro 2016 tournament:

6 Pools of 4 (3 games each in the pools)

6 group winners and runners up go through to the last 16, plus the top 2 third placed sides.

Then simply last 16 > Quarter Finals > Semis > Final

Should be the same number of games to the final as now, just with one group game being replaced by a knock out.

Far from perfect tbf, and one that was probably slightly more suited to European football than World Rugby (higher concentration of top level teams I guess), but I don't think it'd be detrimental for the tournament.

That said, I do imagine some people probably not liking the idea of 3rd placed sides going into the knock outs, but I personally don't mind the idea!

Who would the 4 extra teams be though - one from each continent maybe?

However - I'd say expanding the Junior World Cup from 12 teams to 16 (maybe 20 eventually) should be World Rugby's focus imo. The 3 pools of 4 system with no quarter finals is a bit daft, plus would be beneficial to expose the Tier 2 age grade sides to what is a fairly high level of competition. Japan did actually put in some great performances, and were slightly unlucky to draw both NZ and Australia, but now won't be in the tournament next year as they narrowly lost to Ireland in the 11th - 12th place play off. Seems kinda harsh, and I definitely think having them, along with say the USA, Samoa and someone else (Canada, Tonga, Uruguay etc) would make it a better competion.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I think 2027 at the very earliest. We need to get beyond the stage where it's NZ v 3 or 4 teams hoping to fluke a win before expanding.

The format could then just follow the current 24 team Euros with 4 best third place sides sneaking through. I don't think uncompetitive group games are much of a blight on the tournament but having no competitive group games and uncompetitive round of 16 games would be.

 

[Thingimubob]

I think 2027 at the very earliest. We need to get beyond the stage where it's NZ v 3 or 4 teams hoping to fluke a win before expanding.

The format could then just follow the current 24 team Euros with 4 best third place sides sneaking through. I don't think uncompetitive group games are much of a blight on the tournament but having no competitive group games and uncompetitive round of 16 games would be.

Definitely agree with the first bit, once rugby gets past that stage then it'll be definitely ripe for expansion.

I don't think the 24 team format would actually change things that much competitiveness wise.

Looking at the seeding used for 2019 - I came up with the following bands for a 24 team tournament:

Band 1

New Zealand, England, Australia, Ireland, Scotland, France

Band 2

South Africa, Wales, Argentina, Japan, Georgia, Italy

Band 3

Fiji (Oceania 1), USA (Americas 1), Russia (Europe 1), Africa 1 (Likely Namibia), Tonga (Oceania 2), Uruguay (Americas 2)

Band 4

Samoa, Canada, Germany, Hong Kong, Africa 2 (Zimbabwe I imagine?), Cook Islands (This ones up in the air as none have yet qualified, plus the whole Romania/Spain/Belgium disqualification mess - used these teams for now either way)

The matches between band 1 and 2 should mostly be competitive when looking at recent results, and while a lot of the Band 3/4 teams will be on the end of some hammerings, we all know that the PI teams on their day can cause most teams above them headaches.

Definitely does create the possibility of far more lopsided groups than we have now (NZ, Japan, Russia and Hong Kong would likely be a massacre), you will still likely have very competitive groups, for example you could have Scotland, Wales, Fiji, Samoa.

Same for the last 16 - you'd still have a mismatch or two, especially if NZ for example were to end up with the weakest 3rd place qualifier. But at the same time you'd probably end up with England vs SA, or Ireland vs Wales etc.

Anyway, my point is that it could definitely work and be a positive move for the tournament in the future. If the USA can build on beating a Tier 1 nation for the first time (like Japan have done since beating Wales in 2013), and others start to do the same then this would definitely be a great improvement for the Rugby World Cup.

 

[FNS]

Not possible given the current level of nations. There`s is a 20 point gap between 1/2/3 and 8/9/10 in a good day for the later. Beyond that there is a 40+ plus injuries. Sadly rugby while a semi global sport is not well adapted to take more teams.

There is not strong point to lesser teams to build on. Ex. In football as can be seen on the currently WC, lesser teams can defend with 9/10 players and try to counter attack and if moderately fit they can sustain a match and get a 1-1 or a 0-0. In rugby if you are not on par on size and fitness you will lose no matter what strategy you employ. That`s because stopping the ball involves physical contact while in foot ball stopping the ball does not. Same happens to all full contact, semi contact sports, ex. Handball(boring as **** xD).

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I would like to see a plate cup added for those teams finishing 3rd in the pools, bowl and shields for the 4th/5th teams to play for like they do for the sevens.

 

[DumbAmerican]

Why not have single play in games for the last 4 spots in pool play as the first day of the World Cup?

If the point is to try and increase interest in those lower level countries, a single competitive match under the "World Cup" brand name would probably be better than a handful of matches where the country gets crushed. It would also prevent the pool play from becoming less competitive.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

my thoughts re the WC have been to look at the qualifying rather than the tournament itself.

At the moment something like the top 8 get automatic qualification to the next one, remove that, only the current champ and the host gets automatic entry.

Make the three years between WC's more interesting with top tier teams having to lower tier teams home and away to qualify, the AB's (when we're not world champs) having to play tonga, samoa, fiji home and away. there'll be blow outs but it would give actual meaning to games.

 

[smartcooky]

How do you suggest the group stage format would work because imo the top two teams from each group should ALWAYS qualify... but to make that feasible it would either have to remain 4 groups (but of 6 teams rather than the current 5... seems a lot of teams per group) or if it were changed to 6 groups of 4 only the top 2 2nd place teams would qualify and I think that is tough on teams that would get a tough draw.

The reason for this is divisible numbers leading all the way to one. ATM 8 teams qualify for the quarter finals, which then divides down to 4 then 2, and the eventual winner. The only expansion that would work would be to have a second round of 16 teams (which I don't think there is the quality for currently) which would then go to, 8, then 4, then 2 etc. If for arguments sake, we did have six groups and two teams qualify from each, you would get 12 teams through, which after the following round would be down to 6 then down to 3... and then where do you go. This is the reason that darts players like to aim for 16 (or 8) as their double, it divides down on evens and doesn't leave them with an odd until it gets to one.

I think it will expand eventually but it will be a big move (format wise) and like is said, I hope it doesn't go to group winners plus 2 top 2nd place teams (just to ensure an 8 team knock out) as there will always be tough groups and it's tough on teams who would have maybe lost 1 game but are sent home.

Six groups of four.

If you want quarter finals, then the six group winners plus the two highest placed runners up = 8.
If you want a round of 16, then the top two from each group plus the four highest placed third placed teams = 16.

Not in favour, just saying that its not insurmountable.

 

[smartcooky]

my thoughts re the WC have been to look at the qualifying rather than the tournament itself.

At the moment something like the top 8 get automatic qualification to the next one, remove that, only the current champ and the host gets automatic entry.

Make the three years between WC's more interesting with top tier teams having to lower tier teams home and away to qualify, the AB's (when we're not world champs) having to play tonga, samoa, fiji home and away. there'll be blow outs but it would give actual meaning to games.

Not in favour of it being as drastic as that. IMO, only four countries should qualify automatically

The host country
The two finalists from the previous RWC
The winner of the Bronze medal match at the last RWC (it could make this game more meaningful)

Should the host be the champion, the runner up or the bronze medal team, the fourth place is taken by the bronze medal runner up.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

that works too

how we do it is secondary to the idea of moving some focus more towards the qualifying. the gap at the moment between tier 1 and tier 2 is too big.


The only time some of these teams meeting top tier opposition is on a foreign country once every four years if they're lucky.

spread it out a little and give them a chance to grow on their home turf with thousands of their fans reeving them up

 

[bushytop]

Six groups of four.

If you want quarter finals, then the six group winners plus the two highest placed runners up = 8.
If you want a round of 16, then the top two from each group plus the four highest placed third placed teams = 16.

Not in favour, just saying that its not insurmountable.

Agreed, I'm also not in favour... in either scenario. 8 would sacrifice four 2nd place teams, which is extremely harsh. With 16, I just don't think a 3rd place team should qualify out of a group of four.

I'm all for expansion when it is feasible but it just seems to me that until there are 32 teams to a level somewhere near the current top 20, it would fubar the competition.

 

[Brigantine]

Except any team that can make the Semifinals is in no doubt of being able to qualify in the first place. So it amounts to the same thing

 

[Immenso]

Yes. Expand as soon as possible.

Need to get rid of these 5 team pools which create lopsided gaps between games and see USA putting out their B team against South Africa because they are targeting a game 3 days later.

24 team, 6 groups of 4, with a round of 16. Which is the same number of games as the current format for the finalists. (Same format as FIFA 86 and 90 world cups)

Anything between 16 teams and 32 teams is a compromised format, but 24 is less compromised than 20, and means we get to the balanced 32 team format quicker.

 

[Brigantine]

4 groups of 6. 5 pool matches, but no lop-sided gaps. Do away with the Quarter finals, Pool winners go straight to the Semis. Same number of games as the current format for the semifinalists, but you get to keep competitive pool games too to keep things interesting.

Teams that come 2nd in Pool can have Bowl finals, I guess.

 

[Joele]

Best format for a 24 team tournament would be ;
6 Pools of 4,
Top two from each group qualify (12 teams) ,the four teams with most group points automatically qualify for the quarter Finals with the remaining 8 teams playing in a playoff, with the 4 winners advancing the the quarter Finals with the 4 teams which achieves automatic quarter final qualification.