Rugby World Cup may expand in 2023, says governing body

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31924309
World Rugby boss Brett Gosper has said a future World Cup could enlarge the number of teams taking part without losing competitiveness.

Both England 2015 and Japan 2019 will have 20 teams, but 2023 may be larger.
Mr Gosper said allowing fringe nations into the event would allow them "to promote the sport in their countries".

Full story at the above link. Any thoughts?

I think this is primarily about increasing TV revenue in new markets. Should the tournament be expanded to 24 teams, markets like Russia and USA will be pretty much guaranteed entry. It affords emerging markets like Brazil, Korea and Germany more of a chance to gain inclusion. Olympic recognition for Sevens could potentially spring the door open for a country like China who place huge value on glory in that event. Brett Gosper is looking to capitalize on this.

From a sporting point of view, it could lead to a few blowout victories for tier 1 nations.

 

[psychic duck]

Full story at the above link. Any thoughts?

I think this is primarily about increasing TV revenue in new markets. Should the tournament be expanded to 24 teams, markets like Russia and USA will be pretty much guaranteed entry. It affords emerging markets like Brazil, Korea and Germany more of a chance to gain inclusion. Olympic recognition for Sevens could potentially spring the door open for a country like China who place huge value on glory in that event. Brett Gosper is looking to capitalize on this.

From a sporting point of view, it could lead to a few blowout victories for tier 1 nations.

The sport's not strong enough yet for 24 teams. You'd hope in 8 years time it will different though, but currently sides in the lower half of the tournament like Tonga, Georgia or Canada wouldn't really be troubled by any team not at the tournament.

By the way, USA are already pretty much guaranteed entry into a 20 team tournament.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Yeah, in terms of the competition I don't see it doing any good. We're not in the situation of footy where we can just bring in another 4 teams and there wont be a massive difference in competitivity. We're also not in the position of cricket where we're denying emerging nations a chance to compete at the WC.

Leave it as it is, it's grand.

 

[psychic duck]

Yeah, in terms of the competition I don't see it doing any good. We're not in the situation of footy where we can just bring in another 4 teams and there wont be a massive difference in competitivity. We're also not in the position of cricket where we're denying emerging nations a chance to compete at the WC.

Leave it as it is, it's grand.

The major plus point of 24 teams would be balancing out the pools to just 4 teams. The current 5 team in a pool system means that the smaller sides are always going to get toasted by midweek turnarounds as they don't have the depth in the squad to deal with them. Namibia played the same XV throughout the last tournament and by the time they got to play Wales (with 3 days rest from playing SA) they were completely out of gas.

The major negative is the risk of the pool stage becoming simply a non event. New Zealand's pool at the next World Cup as it stands isn't the most tense, extending could lead to a pool where the second seeds are Fiji or Tonga, and the list of bottom seeds could be someone like Portugal or Hong Kong.

 

[Shaggy]

So how's this going to work? Six pools of four, with the winner of each pool plus the next best two teams progressing to the quarter finals?

If so, that's a little cut throat, but I guess it would add extra excitement to the pool play, and stop teams throwing games.

The alternative is Four pools of Six, but due to scheduling restraints and the pressures of lack of squad depth, it looks like this option would hinder the growing nations, rather than help them

 

[smartcooky]

So how's this going to work? Six pools of four, with the winner of each pool plus the next best two teams progressing to the quarter finals?

If so, that's a little cut throat, but I guess it would add extra excitement to the pool play, and stop teams throwing games.

The alternative is Four pools of Six, but due to scheduling restraints and the pressures of lack of squad depth, it looks like this option would hinder the growing nations, rather than help them

!986 FIFA World Cup had 24 Teams in 6 groups of 4 resulting in four knock-out rounds instead of the usual three.

12 teams (winners and runners up in each group) plus the 4 best third placed teams proceed to the knock-out phase

Round of 16
Quarter Finals
Semi Finals
Final

 

[psychic duck]

FIFA World Cup 1982 would be the model to follow in a 24 team format. The 1986 format would render the pool stages a waste of time just to get rid of 8 teams and uses complicated 'best 3rd place system'.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Good luck getting domestic rugby to okay an extra group stage.

 

[smartcooky]

Good luck getting domestic rugby to okay an extra group stage.

Not a problem. What you gain on the extra group stage, you lose by not having Ro16 or quarter finals

1982 - (24 teams) 3 group games + 2 group games + SF + Final = 7 matches

1986 - (24 teams) 3 group games + Ro16 + QF + SF + Final = 7 matches


and RWC Since 2003 (20 teams) 4 group games + QF + SF + final = 7 matches

 

[j'nuh]

My proposal:
- Top 8 teams are divided by four "primary" groups.
- Next 4 teams into two "secondary" groups.
- Next 8 teams into the "primary" groups.
- Final 4 teams into the "secondary" group.

Por ejemplo, by current rankings:
Group A: New Zealand, Argentina, Tonga, Uruguay
Group B: South Africa, France, Italy, Russia
Group C: Ireland, Australia, Georgia, Canada
Group D: England, Wales, USA, Romania
Group E: Samoa, Fiji, Spain, South Korea
Group F: Scotland, Japan, Namibia, Portugal

Top two from Groups A-D, top team from Groups E-F progress. Competitive and doesn't water down the big clashes in the group stages, whilst also trying to avoid a lot of big scoreline fixtures.

 

[ncurd]

A shield tournament for the bottom 12 teams wouldn't be a bad idea...

 

[djwizard84]

TV-rights will play a hug thing in this new decision. I just want to let you know that for the first time, here in Mexico, we will have live and complete transmission of the tournament. 99% increase after perhaps 2 minutes quick recap of the all blacks tournament victory.

24 team tournament will be great, just if top 10 nations decide to go an play against the other more often. Otherwise it will be always your sport.

 

[nickdnz]

I'm not at all against it. It gives teams like USA and Canada a better chance at getting a victory come RWC - so some of those third tier teams have games they can be confident of being competitive in. It also allows teams which are growing but haven't yet fully pushed into that top 20 - teams like Spain as an example - get a chance to compete and grow interest in those countries. I'm personably in favour of expansion. Yes there may be an additional blowout per pool - but there will also likely be an additional relatively competitive game per pool for the teams currently seeded bottom.

 

[psychic duck]

My proposal:
- Top 8 teams are divided by four "primary" groups.
- Next 4 teams into two "secondary" groups.
- Next 8 teams into the "primary" groups.
- Final 4 teams into the "secondary" group.

Por ejemplo, by current rankings:
Group A: New Zealand, Argentina, Tonga, Uruguay
Group B: South Africa, France, Italy, Russia
Group C: Ireland, Australia, Georgia, Canada
Group D: England, Wales, USA, Romania
Group E: Samoa, Fiji, Spain, South Korea
Group F: Scotland, Japan, Namibia, Portugal

Top two from Groups A-D, top team from Groups E-F progress. Competitive and doesn't water down the big clashes in the group stages, whilst also trying to avoid a lot of big scoreline fixtures.

Sounds too much like Rugby League's attempt to pass off a world game for my liking. Also that format would essentially sees Japan turning up and only getting one decent fixture at the tournament, would be disappointing for any nation to get to the biggest tournament in the world and then get one of the Spain/Korea/Namibia/Portugal groups.

A shield tournament for the bottom 12 teams wouldn't be a bad idea...

Yes it would.

Good luck getting domestic rugby to okay an extra group stage.

Same amount of games either way.

 

[William18]

I'm not at all against it. It gives teams like USA and Canada a better chance at getting a victory come RWC - so some of those third tier teams have games they can be confident of being competitive in. It also allows teams which are growing but haven't yet fully pushed into that top 20 - teams like Spain as an example - get a chance to compete and grow interest in those countries. I'm personably in favour of expansion. Yes there may be an additional blowout per pool - but there will also likely be an additional relatively competitive game per pool for the teams currently seeded bottom.

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.

 

[OneBlackEye]

Wow, this is a brilliant idea, the WC is really lacking in pointless mid-week games just now.

The hardest part is choosing what teams to include.

We should probably have a team of clowns captained by Spongebob Squarepants, we really need to develop the game at a grassroots level and this should get the childrens viewing numbers up. Maybe a drunk amateur club side chosen in a world lottery, just for the banter. Then obviously there should be a team that is just Jeremy Clarkson. And finally there could be an NFL superstar team so we can decide once and for all which is the better sport.

This thing is going to be a ratings mega-hit! People will be so surprised when I tell them I used to watch the World Rugby Cup of World Rugby before it was presented by Ronald McDonald.

 

[smartcooky]

Wow, this is a brilliant idea, the WC is really lacking in pointless mid-week games just now.

The hardest part is choosing what teams to include.

We should probably have a team of clowns captained by Spongebob Squarepants, we really need to develop the game at a grassroots level and this should get the childrens viewing numbers up. Maybe a drunk amateur club side chosen in a world lottery, just for the banter. Then obviously there should be a team that is just Jeremy Clarkson. And finally there could be an NFL superstar team so we can decide once and for all which is the better sport.

This thing is going to be a ratings mega-hit! People will be so surprised when I tell them I used to watch the World Rugby Cup of World Rugby before it was presented by Ronald McDonald.

This has to be hilarious post of the month. Can't agree with the the idea about Jezza though. What if he punches the referee and gets Red Carded?

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.

I have always been an advocate of a Confederations Cup style of competition, held annually in three years out of four (not RWC year) during one of the inter-hemisphere test windows. A Tier 2 team hosts the competition, involving maybe eight teams each year comprising of Tier 2 first sides, and some Tier 1 "A" sides. For those Tier 2 sides not involved in this in any given year, a tour to the SH during the test window for matches against Super Rugby teams. I'd pay to watch games like Crusaders v Georgia, or Hurricanes v Russia. These Tier 2 teams need regular matches against stronger opposition than themselves, but not too strong. There is no benefit for teams playing an opposition that totally over-matches them, other than the obvious... tackling practise and practicing restart kicks.

 

[Feicarsinn]

This has to be hilarious post of the month. Can't agree with the the idea about Jezza though. What if he punches the referee and gets Red Carded?




I have always been an advocate of a Confederations Cup style of competition, held annually in three years out of four (not RWC year) during one of the inter-hemisphere test windows. A Tier 2 team hosts the competition, involving maybe eight teams each year comprising of Tier 2 first sides, and some Tier 1 "A" sides. For those Tier 2 sides not involved in this in any given year, a tour to the SH during the test window for matches against Super Rugby teams. I'd pay to watch games like Crusaders v Georgia, or Hurricanes v Russia. These Tier 2 teams need regular matches against stronger opposition than themselves, but not too strong. There is no benefit for teams playing an opposition that totally over-matches them, other than the obvious... tackling practise and practicing restart kicks.

Meh, I think this is one of the biggest myths in rugby. Look at Italy. Are their players better for regularly playing tier 1 sides? Has there been any noticeable improvement in Italian rugby since their sides went into the Pro 12? The big benefit of the tier 1 nations playing the smaller sides is exposure - look how many people turned up to watch the All Blacks play the US in Chicago. Games against 'A' sides or local sides wont do that. That's why the Churchill Cup and the IRB Nations Cup didn't really have that much of an effect.

That's why a move like expanding the WC is a more attractive option for World Rugby. It opens up new markets and gives the game a chance to grow in the countries involved, meaning new players down the road. Is it the best way to do things? I don't know, I'm not sure that you should use your premier competition as a tool to grow the game at the cost of its quality. It's all about balance.

If WR and the tier one nations really want to do more they've got to help out with internal structures and coaching. In my opinion everything else is just papering over the cracks.

 

[barkinghooker]

They should already be using a 'bowl style' competition for the minnows. In the current WC format why not have third and fourth place from each group break off in to its own competition(5th place teams go home early ). It would be good TV for the tier 2 fans and bring them romance to the game. Would it be that difficult to get that in place by 2019 ?

 

[goodNumber10]

Meh, I think this is one of the biggest myths in rugby. Look at Italy. Are their players better for regularly playing tier 1 sides?

The only thing that improves these players is playing strong domestic rugby week in week out be it in their home nation or overseas.

An international once a year isn't going to do the same development.