The World Cup format, going forward

[vasysm]

Judging from the experience of the last editions, there is always talk about the unfairness of scheduling in 5-team groups.

Some have proposed to reduce the World Cup to 16 teams, but this, in my opinion, would make rugby go the way of cricket, with a huge gap between top and bottom national teams and the inevitable elitism.

Therefore, let's get radical. How about 24 teams in the World Cup?

6 groups of 4 teams each, meaning 3 group matches for everyone, scheduled with 4 days of rest between them.

At the end of the group stage, 16 teams move on to Round 2: top 2 in the group and the best 4 standings-wise of 3rd place teams. 8 teams are eliminated.

Round 2 has 8 matches. Winners proceed to quarters, semis and the final. No 3rd place match.

Teams which lose in Round 2 enter a Shield competition with its own quarter-final draw, awarding the Shield finalists automatic qualification to the next World Cup.

Shield final should be played before the Cup final, on the same stadium, and the Shield tournament should have its own trophy and prize.

A 6-week schedule could accomodate such a tournament, with rest between matches reduced by a day mostly, but fair for all teams involved.

This would create less lopsided matches and a meaningful competition for minnow teams, which would play in tight matchups for the automatic qualification spots and a shot at Finals Day glory on the best arena.

With 10 teams qualifying for next World Cup out of 24 (instead of 12 out of 20), the qualifying process would be open to more teams and would help growing the game worldwide.

This format would mean 36 group stage fixtures, 8 in Round 2, 8 in Cup and Shield quarters, 4 in Cup and Shield semis and the 2 finals, for a total of 58 matches.

How does it sound?

 

[Toko_11]

I've been a supporter of this idea for a while now but knowing how the top guys hate change almost as much as they hate losing Id say the chances are slim to none...

and I even know the useless arguments we're gonna get from them

ahh the blowouts waste of time...
if you can't get into the top 20 you don't deserve to play the rwc
there are already more than enough teams, if anything we need to reduce it to 16...


Rugby is infested by bull**** artists....

 

[Mumbles119]

I prefer this idea of 24 teams and 6 pools, rather than reducing the number of teams. The picking point that will always come up is the time required for the whole competition and turn-around times in between matches.

My main worry would be because rugby is not like other less attritional sports, a four day turnaround is probably the minimum at this level. A four day turn around is probably workable once during a World Cup schedule, but if it was the norm for the total competition schedule, I think you would see much higher rate of injuries. Plus, a need for larger squads to cope with the demands, which would be a problem for teams with less depth and resources available.

 

[ncurd]

Lets be honest here at the very bottom of this world cup we have some real poor sides in Namibia & Uruguay. I certainly don't advocate reducing teams but increasing is bad as I don't see how brining 4 teams that will struggle to even cause a tier 2 upset brings to the table other than increase games played. I'd like to see one or two more genuine upsets/tournament before increasing teams however.

More teams to knock outs could be good though 1999 had a good idea with it's playoff and it would stop more England esque issues.

Top of each group go to QF's
2nd's and 3rds play each other in a play-off.

I think rounding out the schedule would also benefit some of turnaround this time have been stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Bottom 8 can play a 'shield'

- - - Updated - - -

Overall I really don't want a Cricket world cup situation where there are lots of meaningless games.

 

[TheOvalBall]

The competitiveness shown at this world cup, i think, will constitute a rethink of the pools in future. Having Wales, England and Australia, and even Fiji in one pool is ridiculous.

 

[ncurd]

Spacing didn't work

2D V 3C
V 1A

2C V 3D
V 1B

2B V 3A
V 1C

2A V 3B
V 1D

 

[Toko_11]

Lets be honest here at the very bottom of this world cup we have some real poor sides in Namibia & Uruguay. I certainly don't advocate reducing teams but increasing is bad as I don't see how brining 4 teams that will struggle to even cause a tier 2 upset brings to the table other than increase games played. I'd like to see one or two more genuine upsets/tournament before increasing teams however.

More teams to knock outs could be good though 1999 had a good idea with it's playoff and it would stop more England esque issues.

Top of each group go to QF's
2nd's and 3rds play each other in a play-off.

I think rounding out the schedule would also benefit some of turnaround this time have been stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Bottom 8 can play a 'shield'

- - - Updated - - -

Overall I really don't want a Cricket world cup situation where there are lots of meaningless games.

I agree to a point.. but 3 or 4 teams that only missed out on the RWC are probably the same level as Namibia and URU..

and in few years we could get very promising Germany/Belgium pair up there.. as it stands it would be almost impossible for them to qualify anytime soon but extra slots will create more incentives to work hard..

I'd also think Portugal and Russia are generally better teams than URU and NAM even though Russia lost to Namibia for repechage but that was more due to their terrible coaching for the last 4 years.. *cough* Kinglsey Jones *cough* mr.arriving at the training ground day before the game....

The competitiveness shown at this world cup, i think, will constitute a rethink of the pools in future. Having Wales, England and Australia, and even Fiji in one pool is ridiculous.

Agreed, I'm sorry for Fiji they didn't deserve to be in this group.. probably the best Pacific Island team atm.
Wales Aus Eng in one pool is also a shame.

That is why we need more groups of 4...

lets be honest the 5 group pools were never ideal, we just had to make do.. but now that the game is moving forward we will have opportunities to change and improve.

and if current minnows improved so much why wouldn't the 4 additional teams do the same ? especially when you have some promising prospects like Germany, Russia and Brazil in the fold.

 

[barkinghooker]

Can those extra 4 teams be the barbarians, Nz Maoris , British lions and world XV ?

Say this format was in place for the next world cup those extra four slots would likely be semi pro teams in which they'll rely on World Rugby money as well facing the prospect of losing their non rugby job for six weeks away.

I'd like to see the secondary competition in the twenty team format which could be put in place for the next world cup. Should give England a few more games !

 

[welshpete]

More is better, but as people have said, there will be arguments that there isn't the quality....but that's how teams develop and grow. Top ranked team (NZ) vs one of the bottom 2 (NAM) wasn't a huge blowout (58 is bad, but it's not 145 like they put on Japan in the past) and JAPAN BEAT SOUTH AFRICA - do you need another reason.

How would you normally consider the difference between SA and JAP; now is that gap normally bigger or smaller than the one between JAP and Portugal, or Russia etc...but it will be hard to get the big boys to agree to a 24 team tournament.

Here's a radical thought - if you have the same format as this one, why not give the top ranked teams the short turn arounds? Make NZ/OZ/SA play back to back and give Uruguay and Namibia the benefits of a longer break. The big boys should be able to deal with it? Right?

Answer? It's our ball, we're doing it our way....

 

[valley commando]

Judging from the experience of the last editions, there is always talk about the unfairness of scheduling in 5-team groups.

Some have proposed to reduce the World Cup to 16 teams, but this, in my opinion, would make rugby go the way of cricket, with a huge gap between top and bottom national teams and the inevitable elitism.

Therefore, let's get radical. How about 24 teams in the World Cup?

6 groups of 4 teams each, meaning 3 group matches for everyone, scheduled with 4 days of rest between them.

At the end of the group stage, 16 teams move on to Round 2: top 2 in the group and the best 4 standings-wise of 3rd place teams. 8 teams are eliminated.

Round 2 has 8 matches. Winners proceed to quarters, semis and the final. No 3rd place match.

Teams which lose in Round 2 enter a Shield competition with its own quarter-final draw, awarding the Shield finalists automatic qualification to the next World Cup.

Shield final should be played before the Cup final, on the same stadium, and the Shield tournament should have its own trophy and prize.

A 6-week schedule could accomodate such a tournament, with rest between matches reduced by a day mostly, but fair for all teams involved.

This would create less lopsided matches and a meaningful competition for minnow teams, which would play in tight matchups for the automatic qualification spots and a shot at Finals Day glory on the best arena.

With 10 teams qualifying for next World Cup out of 24 (instead of 12 out of 20), the qualifying process would be open to more teams and would help growing the game worldwide.

This format would mean 36 group stage fixtures, 8 in Round 2, 8 in Cup and Shield quarters, 4 in Cup and Shield semis and the 2 finals, for a total of 58 matches.

How does it sound?

Excellent idea, I'd go along with that and well done yesterday, great team spirit and great coach.

 

[TheOvalBall]

Champions League type drawing with a whole bunch of groups, with top nations seeds on top of each group. That's my take.

 

[vasysm]

Excellent idea, I'd go along with that and well done yesterday, great team spirit and great coach.

Thank you. Good thing the Oaks woke up in time.

 

[Toko_11]

The competitiveness shown at this world cup, i think, will constitute a rethink of the pools in future. Having Wales, England and Australia, and even Fiji in one pool is ridiculous.

Champions League type drawing with a whole bunch of groups, with top nations seeds on top of each group. That's my take.

yup under the current rankings it would be something like this

Top seeds: NZ, Aus, Wales, SA, Ireland, Fra

2nd seeds: Argentina, England, Scotland, Fiji, Japan, Tonga

3rd seeds: Italy, Georgia, Samoa, USA, Romania, Canada

4th seeds: Uruguay, Namibia, Spain, Russia, Chile, Hong Kong (although probably different nations would qualify)

In 4 of the groups we would have active battle for the 2nd place and in 2 other groups battle for the top spot.

 

[ncurd]

That's what happened this time....Wales just happened to be ranked 9th when the draw was done

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Rugby_World_Cup#Draw

Inaccurate positions at a given point in time will always screw the seeding up (like Wales being ranked 2nd last week).

 

[Chistera]

I don't know about having 24 teams, bottom teams are fairly weak, despite great improvement, in this tournament.
The shield tournament would be a great idea. Lower tier nations, and England, would get to play more competitive games.

 

[valley commando]

Thank you. Good thing the Oaks woke up in time.

You have an excellent coach, I remember watching him play for Pontypridd and also coaching, nice guy too.

 

[RedruthRFC]

If that format was to run today, could you give us an example of how the draw could look please @vasysm? While the gap between the big boys and the rest is closing, quality does appear to drop off in the late teens in the world rankings. It strikes me that this format could lead to a lot of mismatches meaning few "big games" early in the tournament and a tournament that only really wakes up in the last few weeks.

Ignoring whether it is a good idea or not, sorry for sounding too negative, but I'm a realist and well aware that the RWC is a cash cow in a professional sport, the most important question that your idea needs to be able to answer before it could ever have legs is how will you make up for the shortfall in revenue resulting from losing a pool game for the big nations and having said nations playing in less valuable time slots? In terms of this World Cup, it would take a heck of a lot of mid-week, 4.45pm Sandy Park or Kingsholm matches to match the profits of an England match at Twickenham on a Saturday night.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

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.

I don't know about having 24 teams, bottom teams are fairly weak, despite great improvement, in this tournament.
The shield tournament would be a great idea. Lower tier nations, like England, would get to play more competitive games.

Fixed that for you.

 

[vasysm]

If that format was to run today, could you give us an example of how the draw could look please @vasysm? While the gap between the big boys and the rest is closing, quality does appear to drop off in the late teens in the world rankings. It strikes me that this format could lead to a lot of mismatches meaning few "big games" early in the tournament and a tournament that only really wakes up in the last few weeks.

Ignoring whether it is a good idea or not, sorry for sounding too negative, but I'm a realist and well aware that the RWC is a cash cow in a professional sport, the most important question that your idea needs to be able to answer before it could ever have legs is how will you make up for the shortfall in revenue resulting from losing a pool game for the big nations and having said nations playing in less valuable time slots? In terms of this World Cup, it would take a heck of a lot of mid-week, 4.45pm Sandy Park or Kingsholm matches to match the profits of an England match at Twickenham on a Saturday night.

I am at work now and got no time to elaborate (may do later), but the football World Cup seemed to do fairly well with a 24-team format between 1982 and 1998, with the big nations getting prime-time slots in group play. Also, Australian prime-time is not the same as English prime-time, so you can work it out somehow to cater to home audiences (a 12:30 pm UK start for Australia is not so bad in terms of people watching in that country).

 

[vasysm]

Taking the current World Rugby ranking, assuming top 24 qualify, seeding the top 6 nations and shuffling things a bit, a possible draw for the 24-team World Cup would look like this:


Pool A

New Zealand
Scotland
Georgia
Uruguay


Pool B

Australia
France
USA
Spain


Pool C

South Africa
Fiji
Italy
Chile


Pool D

Wales
Argentina
Romania
Hong Kong


Pool E

England
Samoa
Canada
Russia


Pool F

Ireland
Tonga
Japan
Namibia


If we make it totally random and don't take into account zonal restrictions, things could get wild.