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

#41 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,596 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:51 PM

Not necessarily.

Although I actually think that the Group C teams will win all the cross-group games.

The only potential flaw with this format. Again, avoidable with better seeding competitions running up to the tournament to determine which group you're in.
Posted Image

#42 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 19,849 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:58 PM

From Twitter and (I hope!) tongue in cheek: "The @RLWC2013 format is a joke. Should be two groups of 7 then half way split into 3 groups 2 of 5 and 1 of 4. Then a playoff" :biggrin:


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


#43 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,487 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:58 PM

The only potential flaw with this format. Again, avoidable with better seeding competitions running up to the tournament to determine which group you're in.

 

No - I disagree. It has minimum impact on the head-to-head games. I'd be gutted if I was a player and beat the other two teams in the group, yet lost out because another team had an easier cross-group game.


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

#44 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,487 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 01:59 PM

From Twitter and (I hope!) tongue in cheek: "The @RLWC2013 format is a joke. Should be two groups of 7 then half way split into 3 groups 2 of 5 and 1 of 4. Then a playoff" :biggrin:

 

:laugh:


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

#45 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,596 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 07:19 PM

No - I disagree. It has minimum impact on the head-to-head games. I'd be gutted if I was a player and beat the other two teams in the group, yet lost out because another team had an easier cross-group game.

I'm confused. What do you mean?
You've said it has minimum impact, but then say that if you were a player you'd be gutted if it happened? Surely that would be an impact?
Posted Image

#46 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 9,596 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 07:26 PM

One way to avoid the big nations being in the same group would be to have it this way:

Group A: England, Ireland, Fiji
Group B: Australia, Papua New Guinea, France
Group C: New Zealand, Wales, Samoa, USA
Group D: Tonga, Italy, Cook Islands, Scotland

Two go through from each group.
England and Australia play each other in a cross group game. Ireland and France. Fiji and PNG.

The groups appear even, but you still get that big opening game. And at the same time it doesn't effectively end the WC for loser of the other game in Group A (Ireland are effectively out now as they won't beat Aus or Eng).
Posted Image

#47 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,487 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 07:35 PM

I'm confused. What do you mean?
You've said it has minimum impact, but then say that if you were a player you'd be gutted if it happened? Surely that would be an impact?

 

All the cross group games being won by teams from the  same group has minimal impact.


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

#48 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 08:49 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!


With the quality of teams in this WC that is the way we should go next time. The reason the current systems in place is because of the big mis matches in previous WC.

#49 Aucks Warriors

Aucks Warriors
  • Coach
  • 236 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 02:12 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.

Not a fan of it at all. Why can't we just be like other WCs and have four pools. Blowout happens in cricket and union but its not a big issue at all for them.



#50 Human Punk

Human Punk
  • Coach
  • 297 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 08:18 AM

One way to avoid the big nations being in the same group would be to have it this way:

Group A: England, Ireland, Fiji
Group B: Australia, Papua New Guinea, France
Group C: New Zealand, Wales, Samoa, USA
Group D: Tonga, Italy, Cook Islands, Scotland

Two go through from each group.
England and Australia play each other in a cross group game. Ireland and France. Fiji and PNG.

The groups appear even, but you still get that big opening game. And at the same time it doesn't effectively end the WC for loser of the other game in Group A (Ireland are effectively out now as they won't beat Aus or Eng).

I have to say, that looks about perfect for a 14 team comp - I think the current setup is pretty good, but that tops it.



#51 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,487 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 08:31 AM

Not a fan of it at all. Why can't we just be like other WCs and have four pools. Blowout happens in cricket and union but its not a big issue at all for them.

 

Is that because they have stronger international structures than us ?


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

#52 Griff

Griff
  • Coach
  • 7,487 posts

Posted 30 October 2013 - 08:31 AM

One way to avoid the big nations being in the same group would be to have it this way:

Group A: England, Ireland, Fiji
Group B: Australia, Papua New Guinea, France
Group C: New Zealand, Wales, Samoa, USA
Group D: Tonga, Italy, Cook Islands, Scotland

Two go through from each group.
England and Australia play each other in a cross group game. Ireland and France. Fiji and PNG.

The groups appear even, but you still get that big opening game. And at the same time it doesn't effectively end the WC for loser of the other game in Group A (Ireland are effectively out now as they won't beat Aus or Eng).

 

Not bad.


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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users