27 replies to this topic

[Gregory]

The format for next year's World Cup is bizarre to say the least. How can it be fair that three teams get to qualify for the quarter-finals from one group, and only one from another?! On top of this, those teams who win their three team group will have to play the WINNERS of the other two! Some reward for winning your group! For example, if Wales win their group, it will mean a quarter-final vs Australia or England. At least they'll have home advantage at the Racecourse Ground!

[brooza]

The alternative would have been to spread the bigger teams out around the groups and end up with each group containing a team that just smashes every other team in the group. At least this way there are 2 fairly competitive groups

[bowes]

It's still silly but a big improvement on 2008 where one group provided 3 semifinalists and the winners of the other 2 played off for the other semi final spot. I didn't watch it on principle.

[keighley]

The format is contrived but it gives the smaller teams a chance. That is how we eneded up with Fiji in the semi finals last time They were not in a group with the big boys and so got into the knock out stages.

This time Wales should qualify from their group and if they get Australia at Wrexham in the quarters that is their cup final. You can hope for a big crowd and an upset.

If you had been placed in a group with two of the big boys, the group stage is where you would have finished with no plum 1/4 final tie in sight.

Not an ideal situation but I think it works.

[Methven Hornet]

The format is contrived but it gives the smaller teams a chance. That is how we eneded up with Fiji in the semi finals last time They were not in a group with the big boys and so got into the knock out stages.

This time Wales should qualify from their group and if they get Australia at Wrexham in the quarters that is their cup final. You can hope for a big crowd and an upset.

If you had been placed in a group with two of the big boys, the group stage is where you would have finished with no plum 1/4 final tie in sight.

Not an ideal situation but I think it works.

It does work given the constraints the competition works under.

The tournament has to have at least one game between England and Australia, both for the crowd income and the TV income/contract.

That being the case, then the traditional 4 team/top two qualify type of group would mean that the two minor nations sharing England and Australia's group are playing for nothing. They literally have no chance of qualifying. Fiji (twice), Russia and South Africa suffered like this in 1995 and 2000.

Having the four best sides in the 'super-pool' last time, with the three top sides qualifying for the semis, together with the best of the rest, worked very well. It could have been even better had PNG played off with the winner of pools B & C for the semi spot, but time pressures prevented that.

The 2012 world cup is using a variation of the same idea, and I'm looking forward to it. Until international rugby league develops to the extent where all world cup finalists are reasonably competitive with each other, we'll have to have some similar system of avoiding blowouts.

[keighley]

Totally agree with that Methven. Another bonus is that the group games are not total blowouts and, if things happen, the occaisonal upset could occur or you get games where the result is in doubt because of the eveness of the teams competing.

[sigesige00]

I do not understand why the qualifiers finished in 2011, while the tournament is in 2013. Why so early?
And I support the idea of a 16-team World Cup.

(World Ranking)
Group A 01 08 09 16
Group B 02 07 10 15
Group C 03 06 11 14
Group D 04 05 12 13

Winners of each group qualify for the final stage, and 2nd finishers of each group automatically qualify for the next World Cup.

Yes, there will be a smashing games like 120-0, but this would have more chance of spreading interests in RL in many countries.

[deluded pom?]

I do not understand why the qualifiers finished in 2011, while the tournament is in 2013. Why so early?
And I support the idea of a 16-team World Cup.

(World Ranking)
Group A 01 08 09 16
Group B 02 07 10 15
Group C 03 06 11 14
Group D 04 05 12 13

Winners of each group qualify for the final stage, and 2nd finishers of each group automatically qualify for the next World Cup.

Yes, there will be a smashing games like 120-0, but this would have more chance of spreading interests in RL in many countries.

Why not

(World Ranking)
Group A 01 05 09 13
Group B 02 06 10 14
Group C 03 07 11 15
Group D 04 08 12 16

Surely that would be fairer. Otherwise you'd have the favourites playing the rank outsiders in the first phase. 120-0 beatings don't exactly do much for the team on the wrong end in my opinion.

[Dave T]

It's just a seeded tournament.

Plenty of tournaments seed things so that they get the best players playing each other at various stages of the tournaments.

[sigesige00]

Why not

(World Ranking)
Group A 01 05 09 13
Group B 02 06 10 14
Group C 03 07 11 15
Group D 04 08 12 16

Surely that would be fairer. Otherwise you'd have the favourites playing the rank outsiders in the first phase. 120-0 beatings don't exactly do much for the team on the wrong end in my opinion.

No, in that format, the 5th team (Papua New Guinea or Wales or Fiji or other) will have to beat Australia or New Zealand/Aotearoa or England in the first stage, while the 4th team will be safe. This is neither fair nor spectacular. There should be an exciting battle for the 4th place.

[deluded pom?]

No, in that format, the 5th team (Papua New Guinea or Wales or Fiji or other) will have to beat Australia or New Zealand/Aotearoa or England in the first stage, while the 4th team will be safe. This is neither fair nor spectacular. There should be an exciting battle for the 4th place.

So you'd give the fifth ranked team a better way of qualifying then you would the fourth ranked team! Where's the reward in improving your world ranking? Surely the idea behind seeding, which is what both our formats are, is to have the top four seeds in the semis.

[thirteenthman]

It's still silly but a big improvement on 2008 where one group provided 3 semifinalists and the winners of the other 2 played off for the other semi final spot. I didn't watch it on principle.

The 2008 tournament provided some excellent matches in groups 2 and 3 because the 'smaller' nations were pitted against each other. Ironically, some of the biggest blowouts occured in group 1 which contained the 'big 3' with the Aussies easily winning each of their group games by big scores. I can see the arguments both ways, but in terms of providing closer contests, the 2008 format did work. In a sport where everyone knows we have 3 teams far better than the rest, surely its better to seed the tournament to avoid having even more blowouts?

[bowes]

16 teams could have worked as there's the 2 smaller groups where the extra teams wouldn't get thrashed. Would probably have the runners up of Europe and Atlantic in as the other 2

[keighley]

16 teams would have been good but I think the RFL are still haunted by the spectre of the last world cup in the UK which had 16 teams and crashed and burned, mostly I think because we had the worst November weather in living memory.

[deluded pom?]

A steady increase in the number of participants WC on WC works for me. We don't want to put teams in that are not up to the task yet even in the "weaker" groups. If we continue to increase the teams we'll get to the magic sixteen in the not too distant future.

[South Wakefield Sharks]

Format for the World Cup is well thought out and works well for rugby league. There's no point pretending we're something we're not. The sport's growing year on year. The 2008 World Cup was a good one, this one will be bigger and better.

The fixture format is good too. Opening ceremony and double header under the roof at Millennium Stadium; double header semis at Wembley and then final at Old Trafford.

Can't wait. Just hope the fixture timing allows fans to get to as many games as possible.

[brooza]

Just hope the fixture timing allows fans to get to as many games as possible.

I've already got agreement from my manager to carry 10 days leave from this year to next so I can get to as many matches as possible

[keighley]

This will be my retirement trip. My wife wanted to go to Hawaii. I said, But, love , there s only AMNRL teams in Hawaii, this will be better.

[deluded pom?]

This will be my retirement trip. My wife wanted to go to Hawaii. I said, But, love , there s only AMNRL teams in Hawaii, this will be better.

I hope the bruises heal soon.

[sigesige00]

16 teams would have been good but I think the RFL are still haunted by the spectre of the last world cup in the UK which had 16 teams and crashed and burned, mostly I think because we had the worst November weather in living memory.

In order to popularise RL, the World Cup should be expanded.