Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

World Cup Format (merged threads)


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 tim2

tim2
  • Coach
  • 8,264 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 10:34 AM

Whoever came up with the format for the World Cup is a genius.

Considering how much stick it got at the time, it has worked out well over 2 cups now. I hope if we increase to 16 that they retain the main element of ensuring competitive group games. You could easily add 2 more lower ranked teams to the C/D groups and still have the same 3+3+1+1 qualification.

This format has blown the ponderous qualification groups in Cricket and RU out of the water. Soccer gets away with it because the teams are more evenly matched in the first place, and good coaching helps lesser teams keep the scores down.
North Derbyshire Chargers - join the stampede

Marathon in 2014 - the hard work starts now

#2 flyingking

flyingking
  • Coach
  • 697 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 10:55 AM

Love the format and the competitive games that result. Normally World Cups in any sport start slowly and build. This one has started with a bang and just kept exploding.
www.twitter.com/flyingking2

#3 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,504 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 10:59 AM

I take issue that it worked well last time. PNG got a helluva raw deal.

 

But I agree that this new, improved formula is just about right.


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#4 superten

superten
  • Coach
  • 364 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:07 AM

early days yet lets see how aus v Ireland and Fiji go along with eng v ire and Fiji. Also a bit harsh on Ireland in same group with three teams who all made the semis finals last time.
Chief Crazy Eagle

#5 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,368 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:13 AM

Having the best two finishers from group C and D to the QFs rather than gp winners would pep it up a bit. Wales beat USA and Cooks and they'll still make it, and if Italy lose to Tonga (c is stronger than D) then they're out having comfortably beaten Wales.


 

You Can't Buy Team Spirit

 

 

 

 


#6 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 19,875 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:20 AM

This year's format has been spot on so far. The only complaints I've seen about it have been from people who haven't actually thought it through.

 

In addition, as more countries achieve a realistically competitive level in future years, Groups C & D can be expanded to 4 teams and the QF qualification can be made more straightforward.


A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#7 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,504 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:21 AM

Having the best two finishers from group C and D to the QFs rather than gp winners would pep it up a bit. Wales beat USA and Cooks and they'll still make it, and if Italy lose to Tonga (c is stronger than D) then they're out having comfortably beaten Wales.

 

Would it ?  That'd mean you'd only have two teams through from Groups A and B - which would put Fiji and Ireland in the same boat as PNG in 2008.


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#8 tim2

tim2
  • Coach
  • 8,264 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:25 AM

PNG did get a rough draw in 2008, but that can happen. Although they didn't progress, PNG did show how good they were at the top level.

I still worry about going back to a regular 4x4 system without the lower teams getting a lot better than they are.
North Derbyshire Chargers - join the stampede

Marathon in 2014 - the hard work starts now

#9 superten

superten
  • Coach
  • 364 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:26 AM

might have been better to have group A and B with three teams and C and D with four . ALL three in A and B would make quarter finals with one team in C and D making up the 8 . POOL A would play all pool B in group stages for position in quarter finals with quarters lining up like A1 V C1 A2 V A3 B1 V D1 B2 V B3 . TEAMS IN POOL A ENGLAND , NEW ZEALAND AND SAMOA . POOL B AUSTRALIA , FRANCE AND FIJI . So in group stages England would play France , Fiji and Australia . While Australia could have played England , New Zealand and Samoa. (Please note this is just an example don't jump on me saying why this team and not that team.) pool c Wales , Tonga , Scotland , Cook Islands all play each other.
pool d PNG , USA , Ireland , Italy all play each other.
If needs be could have c winner v d runner up and d winner v c runner up for place in quarters to make groups more interesting. Only an idea or option
Chief Crazy Eagle

#10 ehbandit

ehbandit
  • Coach
  • 590 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:26 AM

the format is working well, I like it

#11 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,368 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:28 AM

Would it ?  That'd mean you'd only have two teams through from Groups A and B - which would put Fiji and Ireland in the same boat as PNG in 2008.

 

No, no. Just two teams from C and D with the best records.


 

You Can't Buy Team Spirit

 

 

 

 


#12 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,612 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:48 AM

might have been better to have group A and B with three teams and C and D with four . ALL three in A and B would make quarter finals with one team in C and D making up the 8 .

So what's the point if the group stage for teams in A and B? You've effectively given them a bye. Their group games are pretty meaningless.


POOL A would play all pool B in group stages for position in quarter finals

So everyone in group A could lose to everyone in group B, yet they'd all qualify? What an awful prospect.

If needs be could have c winner v d runner up and d winner v c runner up for place in quarters to make groups more interesting. Only an idea or option

So you'd also effectively add an extra round? When would that round take place?

Do you just sit around and think of awful ideas to write about?! Are you Gary Hetherington?!
Posted Image

#13 Grinner

Grinner
  • Coach
  • 450 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:49 AM

Yes, it's working well.  If we went to 16 teams (as I think we should), I'd introduce a playoff for teh weaker groups i.e. for 1st C v 2nd D and vice versa, as otherwise the lower groups would be over as competitions too qickly if only one team qualified from each group.

 

A: 3 from 4 to QF

B: 3 from 4 to QF

C: 2 from 4 to play-off for QF

D: 2 from 4 to play-off for QF



#14 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,504 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:49 AM

might have been better to have group A and B with three teams and C and D with four . ALL three in A and B would make quarter finals with one team in C and D making up the 8 . POOL A would play all pool B in group stages for position in quarter finals with quarters lining up like A1 V C1 A2 V A3 B1 V D1 B2 V B3 . TEAMS IN POOL A ENGLAND , NEW ZEALAND AND SAMOA . POOL B AUSTRALIA , FRANCE AND FIJI . So in group stages England would play France , Fiji and Australia . While Australia could have played England , New Zealand and Samoa. (Please note this is just an example don't jump on me saying why this team and not that team.) pool c Wales , Tonga , Scotland , Cook Islands all play each other.
pool d PNG , USA , Ireland , Italy all play each other.
If needs be could have c winner v d runner up and d winner v c runner up for place in quarters to make groups more interesting. Only an idea or option

 

Snag with that is that it relegates Groups A and B to warm up games.  And the last week games in Groups C and D are likely to have at least one meaningless game - maybe both.  It's not a better option than what we have.


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#15 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,172 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:52 AM

This is not the same format as last time. Similar principle, but they went slightly too far to get all of the big 3 in the same group.

 

This works much better and feels more like a normal seeded tournament than a Tri Nations with a few other teams thrown in.



#16 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,504 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:53 AM

No, no. Just two teams from C and D with the best records.

 

Mmmmm - I'd hate to lose the head-to-head element.  I'm not even keen on the cross-group games but accept they're a practical option to keep everyone playing and provide a minimum of three games.


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#17 Grinner

Grinner
  • Coach
  • 450 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 11:58 AM

So you'd also effectively add an extra round? When would that round take place?

 

 

Whilst I agree with the rest of your points, I think that having only one team from a group of 4 qualfying is too harsh, teh group would be over after the first round of matches. 

 

It's easy enough to accelerate the programmes for groups C & D to fit in the extra playoff:
 
1st Weekend: first round for all
Following Thursday/Friday: 2nd round for C & D
2nd Weekend: 2nd round for groups A &B
Following Tuesday/Wednesday 3rd round for C & D
3rd Weekend: 3rd Weekend for A&B (fri/sat), play-offs for C&D (sunday/monday)
4th Weekend: QF


#18 tim2

tim2
  • Coach
  • 8,264 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:04 PM

I like the 3+3+1+1 for the time being, even if C+D have 4 teams too.

Ideally Ireland v Fiji would have been the last group game (assuming it was a qualification decider and that neither beat Eng or Aus) but getting the show on the road with a big game was probably preferable.

Yes, 2008 was different but it established a principle that was derided at the time but has worked well. I'd love to get to the point where a regular 4x4 with 2 qualifiers from each was viable, but it isn't. And I fear that the momentum for international rugby, with meaningful games for all the tier 2 and tier 3 sides, will be lost and we'll be no further on in 2017 in terms of more locally based players and more teams challenging the big 3.
North Derbyshire Chargers - join the stampede

Marathon in 2014 - the hard work starts now

#19 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,504 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:05 PM

 

Whilst I agree with the rest of your points, I think that having only one team from a group of 4 qualfying is too harsh, teh group would be over after the first round of matches. 

 

It's easy enough to accelerate the programmes for groups C & D to fit in the extra playoff:
 
1st Weekend: first round for all
Following Thursday/Friday: 2nd round for C & D
2nd Weekend: 2nd round for groups A &B
Following Tuesday/Wednesday 3rd round for C & D
3rd Weekend: 3rd Weekend for A&B (fri/sat), play-offs for C&D (sunday/monday)
4th Weekend: QF

 

 

Better option - if we want to move up to 16 countries


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

#20 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 19,875 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:08 PM

If it was 4 groups of 4, then the seeding across the groups could be more even. The 'big three' plus the next best of the rest would head their respective groups etc. and nobody (apart from RL fans) could accuse the RWC of being contrived. 

 

Two qualify from each group, meaning (probably) the top seed (and big crowd draw) plus one other, which would make each group a real dogfight for qualification. And if one of the top-seeded teams doesn't make it? Sensation! Headlines! Publicity!


A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users