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
The World Cup format, going forward
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="ZeFrenchy" data-source="post: 756199" data-attributes="member: 47244"><p>I would love to see more teams playing. I have personal ties with Chile, so I would really really love seeing them play a WC. But, trying to look at it from the outside, I don't think it is a good idea. The gap in level is just huge, and I think two representatives of "very low tiers" is enough, as were Namibia and Uruguay this time. </p><p>I'd say we expand the qualification tournament, to end geographical inequities. This time round Uruguay beat Russia, Zimbabwe and Hong Kong. I would expand it to eight teams playing for two spots and make a real event out of it.</p><p></p><p>And reducing the number of teams to 16 is a definite no for me.</p><p></p><p>For the main draw, I think the current format is the least bad. All the alternatives with 20 teams have drawbacks. In particular, I would try to avoid ranking teams that have not played each other and that have played different opposition, and the current format is pretty much the only one I can think of that does so. </p><p></p><p>Ncurd's proposition does so too, but it just adds a few more games. Compared with this edition, it would add one more week, with an extra weekend of mostly matches of no suspense. It would be: Wal/Aus vs Jap, Fra/Ire vs Geo, Arg vs Ita and Eng vs Sco. Not bad, but I don't think it's worth the extra week.</p><p></p><p>A few options arise when considering five pools of four. This would also make the Australia-England-Wales-Fiji scenario less likely. When doing this, you can do it like in 1999: first places qualify directly, and second places plus best third placed play knock outs. Downside with this is that lower tier nations have less games and less possibilities of an upset.</p><p></p><p>In any case, I think a bowl for the non qualified is a must.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Fixed that for you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ZeFrenchy, post: 756199, member: 47244"] I would love to see more teams playing. I have personal ties with Chile, so I would really really love seeing them play a WC. But, trying to look at it from the outside, I don't think it is a good idea. The gap in level is just huge, and I think two representatives of "very low tiers" is enough, as were Namibia and Uruguay this time. I'd say we expand the qualification tournament, to end geographical inequities. This time round Uruguay beat Russia, Zimbabwe and Hong Kong. I would expand it to eight teams playing for two spots and make a real event out of it. And reducing the number of teams to 16 is a definite no for me. For the main draw, I think the current format is the least bad. All the alternatives with 20 teams have drawbacks. In particular, I would try to avoid ranking teams that have not played each other and that have played different opposition, and the current format is pretty much the only one I can think of that does so. Ncurd's proposition does so too, but it just adds a few more games. Compared with this edition, it would add one more week, with an extra weekend of mostly matches of no suspense. It would be: Wal/Aus vs Jap, Fra/Ire vs Geo, Arg vs Ita and Eng vs Sco. Not bad, but I don't think it's worth the extra week. A few options arise when considering five pools of four. This would also make the Australia-England-Wales-Fiji scenario less likely. When doing this, you can do it like in 1999: first places qualify directly, and second places plus best third placed play knock outs. Downside with this is that lower tier nations have less games and less possibilities of an upset. In any case, I think a bowl for the non qualified is a must. Fixed that for you. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2015
The World Cup format, going forward
Top