World Cup Format Rethink

[Kai M]

Sorry, but I insist that any format in which mismatches like NZ vs Namibia (the kind where one team has a 40 million to one odds to win the game) is the norm is foolish, cruel, a dumb format and in my book unnecessary.

I would prefer to see this sort of format instead: [Format A] Gp A is the teams seeded/ranked 1-4 only; B is 5-8; C is 9-12, D is teams seeded 13-16; Group E is the underdog teams 17-20 (based on a mixture : 55% results from the current world rankings; 45% from the three previous world cup tournaments. Each stage one group plays 4 games: SF1, SF2; WvW; LvL. One WW winning team goes up a level from levels B to E into A-D and one LL team goes down a level. Then each team's 3rd, 4th, & 5th games are played against the three other teams in their group. Yeah, I know this format does not give all teams the chance to go into the final four, but let's be honest, only very few teams could get into these anyway.

OR, even better [format B]: an annual ladder system that grows:
Year1: the top 6 teams play in Event A; teams ranked 7-10 play in Event B; two special qualifying events are held for a place in the Yr 2 group C
Year 2: the top 4 teams play in Event A; teams ranked 5-8 play in Event B; teams ranked 9-12 assemble to play in Event C
Year 3: the top 6 teams play in Event A; teams ranked 7-10 play in Event B; 11-14 in Event C; two special qualifying events are held for a place in the Yr 4 group D
Year 4: the top 4 teams play in Event A; teams ranked 5-8 play in Event B; teams ranked 9-12 assemble to play in Event C and 13-16 in Event D
Year 5: the top 6 teams play in Event A; teams ranked 7-10 play in Event B; 11-14 in Event C; 15-18 in D ; two special qualifying events are held for a place in the Yr 6 group E ; ..... the competition continues to grow like this until we have 40 teams in it or viability limits may occur .

Each event is hosted by the venue with the most commercial potential among its participants, except that once every three years the hosting is decided by whoever has not hosted it for the longest, with ties broken by favouring the commercial viability.

Overall, these formats would allow for some good, proper, close rugby, in games that both teams can realistically hope to win, making good viewing and good playing every time. It would be great. I would personally reccommend that people tune in to watch various events and not just their own one, as there would be some great action, and good viewing rugby occurring at all levels. Yes, the battle for 10th or 15th or 20th or 25th or 30th place are all great battle games that are well worth watching (a million times more so than the top 3 vs 18-20 are).

These two alternatives are also worth mentioning:

Format C: The top-seeded 12 teams all play in Groups C, D and E, from which two teams per group go forward into the Quarter-Finals; and other 8 play in groups A & B from which one team per group goes into the QF.

and format D :
round 1 of games: seeds ranked 10 v 11; 9 v 12; 1 v 13; 2v14; 3v15,... 9v20 with all teams in one big pool (with points given for opponent difficulty and for score margin of win);
round 2: 1st place so far vs 6th; 2nd vs 7th; 3v8; 11v16, 12v17, ... 16v20 in the standings so far
round 3: 1st place in the standing so far vs 2nd (game A); 3v4 (game B); 5v6 (game C); .... 19v20 in the standings so far
round 4: Winner A vs Winner B; W C vs L A (in the second tier game); WDvLB (third tier); WEvLC (4th); ....
round 5: loser of WA&WB game vs W of 2nd tier game; L of second tier game vs W of third tier game; ... and the bottom five teams unify and join forces to play vs the top team (if top team loses this they take the losing margin into the first place game; if they win it they take 5% of their winning margin into this game)
round 6: WA vs W1 for 1st & 2nd place; W2vL3 (of 3rd); W3vL4 (for 5th); ....


I think format A for 2023 and then B for all the years from then on is the best way forward, but there are many other ideas that are not far beneath it in goodness

 

[Goodey]

It sounds like you don’t really want a World Cup, you want an ongoing rankings league like the rest of international rugby conforms to, where teams stick to their own tier.

The World Cup is a one off event every four years, where things are a level playing field between everyone, and is the only time this happens. Giving that up for more rugby that’s driven by tier and ranking doesn’t interest me at all.

This is before you consider how rankings are so disputable, especially at the fringes between tiers.

If you want fewer matches like NZ-Canada, I would start with:

- Make sure that the best 20 teams are actually at the World Cup by not having the cheating that kicked out two much better teams.

- Make the draw fairer so the two strongest and weakest teams don’t end up in the same group.

I would be on board with having groups of four rather than groups of five, which would remove the problem of teams with no depth trying to cope with midweek fixtures. But at minimum I want a World Cup.

 

[Zapphod]

Why not just run a cup/plate format with the top 8 playing for the "cup" and the next playing for the "plate".
Scrap the 3rd - 4th game for the two finals.

You can then decide whether you use world rankings or a promotion relegation system to decide who ends up in which pool.

 

[bushytop]

Why not just run a cup/plate format with the top 8 playing for the "cup" and the next playing for the "plate".
Scrap the 3rd - 4th game for the two finals.

You can then decide whether you use world rankings or a promotion relegation system to decide who ends up in which pool.

This has been brought up a few times in the past and is something I think is a pretty good idea... would be a fill up of games when the knock outs start (as it stands there will only be rugby on the weekends at that point) and further competitive rugby for the teams who do not qualify.

A few of the posters from the countries one would assume would be involved though (Georgia, Italy etc) said their unions are firmly against it... can’t remember why but their reasons did seem somewhat valid. If you have a mooch around the old threads you may be able to find the previous discussions.

 

[Which Tyler]

Sounds like the OP wants a league structure, not a cup

A few of the posters from the countries one would assume would be involved though (Georgia, Italy etc) said their unions are firmly against it... can’t remember why but their reasons did seem somewhat valid. If you have a mooch around the old threads you may be able to find the previous discussions.

Money.
They'd need to pay their players for longer, accomodation for longer, more transport etc. Especially when your down to an extra week or two for the semi-pros and amateurs who have a day job to get back to. There's a big difference between taking 4 weeks off work, and taking 6.
It's the same reason that expansion to 24 teams gets shot down. However much I'd like 24 teams with cup, play & bowl knockouts, it's just not practical for the tier 2 nations, let alone the tier 3

 

[bushytop]

Sounds like the OP wants a league structure, not a cup

Money.
They'd need to pay their players for longer, accomodation for longer, more transport etc. Especially when your down to an extra week or two for the semi-pros and amateurs who have a day job to get back to. There's a big difference between taking 4 weeks off work, and taking 6.
It's the same reason that expansion to 24 teams gets shot down. However much I'd like 24 teams with cup, play & bowl knockouts, it's just not practical for the tier 2 nations, let alone the tier 3

Yeah that was it. Shame... you’d like to think the extra TV revenue the broadcasts of additional games would bring would more than cover those expenses but hey ho.

 

[Which Tyler]

Yeah that was it. Shame... you’d like to think the extra TV revenue the broadcasts of additional games would bring would more than cover those expenses but hey ho.

It probably could, though there aremp other times and places that also demand that RWC cash. But could they replace the lost jobs for those dentists and plumbers with mortgages to pay?
It would probably end up being extra money for longer at the competition, at the cost of less money to grow the game domestically in those countries, a reduced coaching staff for them, and less training time (generally paid for by hand-outs from WR - who only earn anything from RWCs - except 2011, and risked much reduced profit in 2019).
It's a balancing act, and one I think is working right now.

 

[bushytop]

It probably could, though there aremp other times and places that also demand that RWC cash. But could they replace the lost jobs for those dentists and plumbers with mortgages to pay?
It would probably end up being extra money for longer at the competition, at the cost of less money to grow the game domestically in those countries, a reduced coaching staff for them, and less training time (generally paid for by hand-outs from WR - who only earn anything from RWCs - except 2011, and risked much reduced profit in 2019).
It's a balancing act, and one I think is working right now.

Yeah I can’t argue WT... I’m just talking from a purely selfish point of view as I’m gonna have some pretty huge withdrawals when we get to weekend only ball.

 

[Which Tyler]

Yeah I can’t argue WT... I’m just talking from a purely selfish point of view as I’m gonna have some pretty huge withdrawals when we get to weekend only ball.

Me too, and I still support 4 pools of 6, with top 2, middle 2 and bottom 2 all going through to knock-out rugby, and suspect that everyone would get enough out of it to make it worth it (providing those amateurs still have a job to go back to). But it's a hell of a risk, especially if we also want to grow the game into more currently-unprofitable areas like Japan, USA or even Italy / Argentina

 

[bushytop]

Me too, and I still support 4 pools of 6, with top 2, middle 2 and bottom 2 all going through to knock-out rugby, and suspect that everyone would get enough out of it to make it worth it (providing those amateurs still have a job to go back to). But it's a hell of a risk, especially if we also want to grow the game into more currently-unprofitable areas like Japan, USA or even Italy / Argentina

I’m all for growing the game bud... I’m one of the few on here who is up for promotion and relegation in the 6 Nations. I also championed the Nations League... as long as there was a pathway for all nations. My opinion is, the most sure fire way to grow the game is a path way system that guarantees reward for achievement. Tier one self-preservation is currently preventing this.

 

[TheOvalBall]

There should be Tiers.

Tier 1 - Rankings 1-8
Tier 2 - Rankings 9-20

And both those Tiers should have their own Cup competitions. Promotion/Relegation should also be part of the structure.

 

[Which Tyler]

I’m all for growing the game bud... I’m one of the few on here who is up for promotion and relegation in the 6 Nations. I also championed the Nations League... as long as there was a pathway for all nations. My opinion is, the most sure fire way to grow the game is a path way system that guarantees reward for achievement. Tier one self-preservation is currently preventing this.

Yup, me too, I see both sides or the argument, and often end up writing devil's advocate positions. I think any promotion/relegation would need play-off type safety net, to make sure we're not killing Scottish rugby rugby just because Gergia beat Romania - and that scheduling a play-off is a PITA until it's established, but... I want it anyway.

There should be Tiers.

Tier 1 - Rankings 1-8
Tier 2 - Rankings 9-20

And both those Tiers should have their own Cup competitions. Promotion/Relegation should also be part of the structure.

I disagree. The minnows benefit hugely from these matches. They are the highlight of the players' careers, and a valuable lesson for what's required to improve, not to mention a chance to get some "proper" coaching for a year, exposure domestically etc etc - and that's if they lose every match by a cricket score.
International rugby is already too much of a closed shop, closing it further is a terrible (IMO) solution.
Beyond that; why would you randomly assign the top 8 as top tier, and not the top 10? When would you draw your kind in the sand for what counts? How often would that line be redrawn? What happens if you miraculously succeed in improving the tier 2 nations by denying them the opportunity to improve themselves, and suddenly you have 10 fully professional nations with professional domestic teams (given that we currently have 12 of those 10 of them included in the top tier of both international and domestic rugby) - when do you expand tier 1 to include those better tier 2 teams?

 

[bushytop]

Yup, me too, I see both sides or the argument, and often end up writing devil's advocate positions. I think any promotion/relegation would need play-off type safety net, to make sure we're not killing Scottish rugby rugby just because Gergia beat Romania - and that scheduling a play-off is a PITA until it's established, but... I want it anyway.
I disagree. The minnows benefit hugely from these matches. They are the highlight of the players' careers, and a valuable lesson for what's required to improve, not to mention a chance to get some "proper" coaching for a year, exposure domestically etc etc - and that's if they lose every match by a cricket score.
International rugby is already too much of a closed shop, closing it further is a terrible (IMO) solution.
Beyond that; why would you randomly assign the top 8 as top tier, and not the top 10? When would you draw your kind in the sand for what counts? How often would that line be redrawn? What happens if you miraculously succeed in improving the tier 2 nations by denying them the opportunity to improve themselves, and suddenly you have 10 fully professional nations with professional domestic teams (given that we currently have 12 of those 10 of them included in the top tier of both international and domestic rugby) - when do you expand tier 1 to include those better tier 2 teams?

Yup, I deffo agree about there being a play off needed.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

If you tier it you'd be knocking teams like Japan and Argentina out of the tournament who've made their mark from the third tier in multiple tournaments each now... And we absolutely should do that, **** em.

 

[ncurd]

Honestly the only change Id make is reducing it down to 16 team from 20. Russia, Nambia, Canada, USA and Uruguay what have they actually bought to this tournament? Making up the number isn't good enough if they can't compete with the 4th place teams.

The other is I'd like to see is a shield but understand the reasons.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Honestly the only change Id make is reducing it down to 16 team from 20. Russia, Nambia, Canada, USA and Uruguay what have they actually bought to this tournament? Making up the number isn't good enough if they can't compete with the 4th place teams.

The other is I'd like to see is a shield but understand the reasons.

Uruguay brought one of the best results of the pool stages...

 

[ncurd]

Uruguay brought one of the best results of the pool stages...

Okay fair enough for Uruguay the rest are shocking though.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I’ve always said that I think they should introduce a bowl and shield competition within the RWC so 3rd to 5th placed teams get to play after they have been knocked out of the main competition. 3rd and 4th place teams can play for the Shield and the last placed teams play semis and final for the bowl. More practise for 2nd tier and 3rd tier.

 

[Goodey]

How would people feel about the world T20 format from cricket?

For those unfamiliar, the top 8 ranked teams auto qualify for a second pool stage. The 9th-16th ranked sides first compete in two pools where the group winners join them.

In the second round, the top two from each pool of five make it to the semis.

These numbers would have to be raised a bit as there are more top tier rugby sides than cricket sides, but what are your thoughts on the general concept?

 

[Reiser99]

My issue is not with WC's, but with the years in between. Tier 1 nations have a complete monopoly on playing each other outside of the world cup. Yeah they have a couple of games against the Pacific Islands now and again and Japan have forced their way up there. I feel there needs to be more opportunity outside of the world cup for some of the teams lower down to play the top teams as once every 4 years doesn't expose them to the top level enough. Having said that rugby schedule is already packed, so not sure how easy it would be without losing money.