The World Cup format, going forward

[TheOvalBall]

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.

That's really good. I like that a lot.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

How would the playoffs work with that though.

Personally I feel we need to sort out what is happening more on a yearly fixture before trying to sort RWC.

 

[ncurd]

See that's massively flawed in the first 3 weeks of competition barring any colossal upsets the only 5 games of note would be Tonga V Japan, Wales V Argentina, fiji V Italy, Scortland V georgia & Australia V france that;s put of 36 games, it doesn't make for an entertaining tournament. Honestly the group of death this time round has been good for as lot of reasons the only bad one is it's taken the host nation out for financial reasons.

 

[j'nuh]

If we want to avoid short turn arounds, just add a week to the competition and don't have midweek games.

Teams 1-5:

Week 1:
2 v 3
4 v 5
1 bye

Week 2:
1 v 5
3 v 4
2 bye

Week 3:
1 v 4
2 v 5
3 bye

Week 4:
1 v 2
3 v 5
4 bye

Week 5:
1 v 3
2 v 4
5 bye

Gives you 8 games a round. Have 2 on Friday, 3 on Saturday, 3 on Sunday.

EZ PZ.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

That would make it way too long, and midweek games allow to fill press pages and to keep people talking about it. I really like midweek games, and I think this time round the schedule has been a lot more even between tier 1 and 2 sides than 2011.

 

[ABs2011]

I like the idea of increasing the number of teams - this world cup has demonstrated that the "mino" teams are catching up. Georgia beat Tonga, ROmania beat Canada and of course, who could forget Japan beta SA. More than that though is the margin of victories appear to have decreased significantly.

I dont like the idea of having a "shield" competition - it has a carnival type ring to it. I'm not sure what the point would be other than to keep minow teams in it for longer. Is there another major sporting World Cup that does anything similar? I can't think of one.

I'm also not a big fan of adding an extra round of knock-outs. I think the current system is a good one in terms of knock-outs. So I would add an extra team to each pool. Increase squad sizes by 3 to 34, and have each team deal with a couple short turn around games, keeping the length of the competition roughly the same.

 

[smartcooky]

If it ain't broken, it don't need fixin'

Smaller nations have close the gap, but IMO, not enough to warrant an increase in the number of teams.

I would like to see a change to the qualfying system though. We have 12 teams that automatically qualify (the top three in each Pool), and the rest of the teams fight it out for the eight remaining spots in a long drawn out and expensive system involoing a lot of travel for the teams involved. Any ideas?

 

[vasysm]

Maybe just go with the usual yearly scheduling and make way automatically in the World Cup for the remaining teams, following WR rankings, one year before the tournament.

Or do a final qualifying tournament in a developing rugby country with a number of invited teams, also according to WR rankings. Like cricket does for the T20 World Cup.

- - - Updated - - -

I would add an extra team to each pool. Increase squad sizes by 3 to 34, and have each team deal with a couple short turn around games, keeping the length of the competition roughly the same.

That would be worse. Dillutes the group play even more and it means 40 matches in the first group stage instead of 36, before any sort of knockouts.

 

[Car]

Having a second group phase isn't a good idea. They abolished them in soccer for a reason (I remember it from the CL and it was awful) and it also sucks in sports like volleyball that still have them. Have another knock-out stage, but please not another group stage.

 

[mdaclarke]

I think the current format is OK. The only issue is the turnaround time for matches. Just increase the time of the competition by 1 week.

 

[Saint4805]

How about not making the draw three years in advance for starters? Completely ridiculous and ignores progress and form in the three years leading up to the WC. Absolutely no need to make the draw so far in advance.

 

[mdaclarke]

How about not making the draw three years in advance for starters? Completely ridiculous and ignores progress and form in the three years leading up to the WC. Absolutely no need to make the draw so far in advance.

Agree 100% 6 to 9 months in advance would be enough to ensure the individual strength of the groups is about right, but would still give enough time for teams and fans to plan their trips.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

Agree 100% 6 to 9 months in advance would be enough to ensure the individual strength of the groups is about right, but would still give enough time for teams and fans to plan their trips.

the November tests a year out from the competition is definitely the right time to do it, 100% agree with you.

 

[ABs2011]

Maybe just go with the usual yearly scheduling and make way automatically in the World Cup for the remaining teams, following WR rankings, one year before the tournament.

Or do a final qualifying tournament in a developing rugby country with a number of invited teams, also according to WR rankings. Like cricket does for the T20 World Cup.

- - - Updated - - -



That would be worse. Dillutes the group play even more and it means 40 matches in the first group stage instead of 36, before any sort of knockouts.

@vasysm Depends what you are trying to achieve mate.

My suggestion expands the tournament (in terms of participants) without elongating it. And means we would see more rugby in the same amount of time (no days off which this tournament has had several of).

Unfortunately given the current level of Rugby around the world, no matter how you structure the tournament you will always have only 5 or 6 teams who are realistically ***le contenders and you really want them all to make the QFs. The danger of expanding the number of groups and introducing an extra round of knock-outs is that you could well lose 1 or 2 of those contending teams before the Qs, perhaps by chance, via a poorly organised/timed draw, or due to one crazy upset (like Japan v SA this year). IMO that is not worth the risk.

 

[vasysm]

This is not an important argument, given that Tier 1 teams play each other every year, in their traditional tours and tournaments. The main purpose of a World Cup is the "world" component, to paint a picture of the state of World Rugby (hint hint ) and make sure all playing nations are involved in qualifying and have their spots on the grand stage of the final tourney.

Upsets happen. So what? The ball is oval, after all, and has a tendency to bounce its own way.

 

[Kiwi_]

Unlike football, there is still a considerable gap between tier nations, yes some upsets occur, very rarely though. I think it's better to wait until the standard improves just a bit more. It's definitely getting better with more widespread coaching and professionalism, give it a little more time before we see it at 24 teams to ensure the quality is good and justified extending it by 4 more teams.

 

[ABs2011]

That would be worse. Dillutes the group play even more and it means 40 matches in the first group stage instead of 36, before any sort of knockouts.

@vasysm Just a quick math check first mate - we currently have 40 group stage matches (not 36) and an increase of an additional team in each group would take that to 60 (not 40). So you'd get a whole lot more rugby and potentially much more out of it for the minow teams that an extra knock-out round.

This is not an important argument, given that Tier 1 teams play each other every year, in their traditional tours and tournaments. The main purpose of a World Cup is the "world" component, to paint a picture of the state of World Rugby (hint hint ) and make sure all playing nations are involved in qualifying and have their spots on the grand stage of the final tourney.

Upsets happen. So what? The ball is oval, after all, and has a tendency to bounce its own way.

you've cherry picked one small part of what I was saying and perhaps missed the point.

Again, more teams, more rugby, same amount of time.

Anyway mate it's just a suggestion.

 

[Tony Manx]

@vasysm
Again, more teams, more rugby, same amount of time .

And yet World rugby is trying to ease the work load on players?

Your and other suggestions of more rugby can only come at the cost of less club rugby and there you run into the problems!

Clubs are owned, in the vast main, by private commercial interests who would never see their way to this! They are also followed in the main by supporters (particularly France) who follow them rather than or more avidly than their Country's team!!

Shock horror maybe but not everyone is enthralled by International rugby!

 

[OverGore]

When one see the level of Uruguay, idk how some can wish to see chili, with all my respect to Chili. Imo, useless to add nations with no professional players/championship. Addin amateur players is dangerous for them, and absolutely useless to watch for the public.
Makin this a rule woudl force federations to work and turn pro. You get pro, u get in WC. or u play in amateurs WC.
Theres a difference of concept between a rugby "festival", and a real WC. rugby festival , u can add all countries from earth, but make it amateur. Real WC should be at best 16 teams .

 

[ABs2011]

And yet World rugby is trying to ease the work load on players?

Your and other suggestions of more rugby can only come at the cost of less club rugby and there you run into the problems!

Clubs are owned, in the vast main, by private commercial interests who would never see their way to this! They are also followed in the main by supporters (particularly France) who follow them rather than or more avidly than their Country's team!!

Shock horror maybe but not everyone is enthralled by International rugby!

your kidding right? We are talking 1 extra game per team every four years!!