Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BenGilesRL

RLWC 2017 format?

45 posts in this topic

RLWC 8 teams Max teams can be decided via qualifiers forget all these made up teams in country's RL doesn't exist like Ireland,Italy,Scotland etc .the game didn't catch on in 100+ years it's not gonna happen now!!

2x Groups of 4

Major Group

Australia

England

New Zealand

France

Minor Group

Fiji

Samoa

PNG

USA

1 and 2 in Major group into Semis 3 and 4 playoff against 1 and 2 from minor group ,similar to NRL Finals System

Quarter Finals

Major 3 v Minor 4

Minor 3 v Major 4

Winners meet Major 1 and 2 in Semis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did it work for Ireland (hiding to nothing, poor crowd),

France (great crowds little to cheer),

PNG (hiding to nothing),

Italy (deserved more games),

Scotland (almost didn't qualify undefeated, left with a hiding),

USA (left with a hiding)

3 Quarter Finals one sided

To name a few?

Not saying this current format is or or isn't the way to go, just opening it up for discussion.

 

PNG weren't on a hiding to nothing.  They should have gone through.  Ireland probably suffered for doing well last time out.

 

To be honest, your system is no better as a guarantee that there'll be no teams leaving with a hiding. At some point along the line, Australia, England and NZ are going to have to meet smaller nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its not over but now we're into the semis and can reflect on the tournament positives and weaknesses, I thought of this...

Group A:Australia, England, New Zealand

Top 2 to Semi-Final

Group B, Group C, Group D (all four teams)

Top 2 of each group into next round.

Top Group B plays 2nd Group C.

Top Group C plays 2nd Group D.

Top Group D plays 2nd Group B.

Quarter-Finals

Highest ranked winner v Next highest ranked winner

3rd Group A plays lowest ranked winner.

Semi-Finals

1st Group A v QF lowest ranked winner

2nd Group A v QF highest ranked winner

Final.

15 teams, possibility of only 2 big scores - one in QF one in Sf.

What do you think?

So the top two from group A play two goes before semis. The teams from other groups will play five games before semis.

Fans only get to see top teams play four games. They will not bother watching the rest of the games. Resulting in lower income, less TV coverage and less sponsors.

This is a very poorly thought out competition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep it the same. Competitive competitions never work for everyone. This competition has given some of the minnows a good crack AND an opportunity to play against the big boys. Something we lack is continuity and strive for perfection; it won't happen. Stop meddling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have stated on previous threads that the QF stage is probably the weakest link of an otherwise excellent tournament format.

 

However, I dont agree with dropping to 8 teams and feel that we should probably stick to the current format albeit with better seedings re group allocation.

 

Ultimately what the World Cup needs is for Fiji to progress to the stage where if they play well and one of the big 3 (or maybe even just Eng/NZ) play poorly they can win. We also need PNG and France to start punching their weight.

 

In an ideal world the QFs would look something like this

 

1. Australia

2. England

3. New Zealand

4. Fiji

5. France (Albeit built on more than just the Catalans Dragons.  The inclusion of Toulouse and maybe even a 3rd French side is of immeasurable strategic importance to our game)

6. Papua New Guinea (We really need a PNG side in the NRL)

7. Tonga

8. Samoa

 

It would be great to see Wales homegrown efforts come to fruition, but any side based on part-time Championship players is (and quite rightly so) going to struggle badly on the world stage.

 

The beauty of the current format is that it gives the minor RL nations a chance to come to the party and be competitive, the difficulty is when you try and merge the minnows and giants together at the QF stage, but the only solution to this problem is for the minnows to improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if there are one sided games!!!! It's does happen you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Group A: England, Australia, New Zealand (top 2 to semis)

Group B: France, Scotland, Tonga, Cook Islands

Group C: Samoa, PNG, USA, Wales

Group D: Fiji, Ireland, Italy, Canada?

Top 2 from B C D qualify for next round

Winners of these games = 3 teams.

Best two play each other, worst ranked plays 3rd group A.

Winners enter semis, worst ranked plays 1st Group A, best ranked plays 2nd Group A.

So say Aussies and NZ top the group they would then have to wait going on for 3 weeks for another game. Surely you want the top teams playing to keep the interest going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if there are one sided games!!!! It's does happen you know.

 

I've no problem with one sided games and as a Scot, its been fantastic to see Scotland making a QF and playing against the Kiwis.

 

However, ideally what you want is a situation, where even a heavy favourite knows that its possible to lose if they play poorly and the oppostion plays out of their skins.

 

With the greatest respect the first 3 QFs didnt fall into this category and we were fairly fortunate that the matches were as close they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep it the same - it has worked fine this time.

 

Maybe expand to 16 by growing Pool C and Pool D, whilst doing away with the cross-over game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could reverse the groups, presumin the same teams qualify....

Group A, Aus, Eng, Fiji

Group B NZ, France, Samoa

One crossover game, top 2 go through,

Group C Scotland, Italy, Tonga, Ireland

Group D US, Wales, PNG, Cooks

Top 2 through,

Bearing in mind PNG and Ireland didnt get tonked by too much the quarters should work out better

The crossover games from the A&C should be more intense as well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could reverse the groups, presumin the same teams qualify....

Group A, Aus, Eng, Fiji

Group B NZ, France, Samoa

One crossover game, top 2 go through,

Group C Scotland, Italy, Tonga, Ireland

Group D US, Wales, PNG, Cooks

Top 2 through,

Bearing in mind PNG and Ireland didnt get tonked by too mucho the quarters should work out better

The crossover games from the A&C should be more intense as well!

You can't have two tough groups and have the same number of teams qualifying as from the easier groups. You would end up with the team that is clearly the fourth best team Fiji with virtually no chance of making the quarters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I'd consider changing would be separating the big teams from being in the same group, but instead having them in a cross group game.

I.e.

Group A - Australia(1), Samoa(5), Ireland(12)

Group B - New Zealand(2), Scotland(6), Cook Islands(11)

Group C - England(3), France(7), Italy(10), PNG(13)

Group D - Fiji(4), USA( 8), Tonga(9), Wales (14)

Cross group games between 1&2, 6&12, 5&11.

Top two from each group go through.

Think that would be a lot simpler to understand and a fairer system (whilst also giving a slight handicap for the other sides disguised as a cross-group game that could also be the opening game).

*Just to note, the rankings aren't official by any stretch. I'm just going off how well the sides did in this WC (or how I think they'll do from here!)

This is how it should be done.Replace Cook Is with Tonga so that we can get a tasty cross pool match and fix the draw so that Australia play England in a semi rather than a minnow and you would have the perfect world cup.Well done Wellsy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't have two tough groups and have the same number of teams qualifying as from the easier groups. You would end up with the team that is clearly the fourth best team Fiji with virtually no chance of making the quarters.

Good point although would Scotland or US have beat fiji?

Are they really the fourth best, would france have beat them?

Additionally if the cross game was NZ vs AUS then it would set up winner takes all with fiji vs england, france vs Samoa these would be more meaningful than the doesnt matter we have both qualified games we saw after this years first round!! (France & fiji wins....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@statties

"So the top two from group A play two goes before semis. The teams from other groups will play five games before semis.

Fans only get to see top teams play four games. They will not bother watching the rest of the games. Resulting in lower income, less TV coverage and less sponsors.

This is a very poorly thought out competition"

Not if they play each other twice - four games, one week off. Great rugby league throughout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy with this competition's set up - I think it's worked well. Sure, three of the QFs were fairly one-sided, but that's going to happen whatever, given the superiority of the leading three nations.

 

My only tweaks would be to increase Groups C&D to four nations each, with no cross-fixtures, and, as now, with only the Group winners progressing. 

 

Also, the big downside to this year's Group A is that the third placed team was effectively decided in Round 1 when Fiji defeated Ireland: next time, in the Group with two of the big three, I'd have the two lower ranked nations play last.

This seems right to me.There are other minnows who could take those two extra spots like Lebanon, Canada, Jamaica and South Africa for example. Having any of those countries (except Canada)would give the WC a bigger geographical spread and make it even more of a WORLD cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Group A - All games played in capital cities of Australia.

Australia, England, 7-8, 11-12

Group B - All games played across NZ

NZ, Fiji, 7-8, 11-12

Group C - All PNG games played in PNG, the rest in northern Australia.

PNG (5), 9-10, 13-14, 15-16

Group D - Played in "regional" and suburban grounds.

6, 9-10, 13-14, 15-16.

Quarters - Played in Gold Coast, Townsville, Newcastle & Wellington.

A1 V B3

B1 V A3

C1 V B2

D1 V A2

Semi Final DH in Brisbane

Final in Auckland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, we have 29 countries in the world rankings and ALL these should be involved in qualifying. Those that don't qualify should be in an emerging nations tourney with maybe some of the starter countries. The many World cups was a great idea but I felt they were too far away from the actual tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems right to me.There are other minnows who could take those two extra spots like Lebanon, Canada, Jamaica and South Africa for example. Having any of those countries (except Canada)would give the WC a bigger geographical spread and make it even more of a WORLD cup.

With hindsight it sounds logical, but i am presuming nobody was expecting the smaller games to be so successful.......Lets remember there are more teams in this world cup than the last! 

 

Countries should prove they are investing in their domestic leagues and the world cup team is a product of this...not the other way round as some suggest!!!

 

Also if countries have to qualify it makes their international matches between world cups more meaningful, and will ensure that they get full turnouts of squad members who just want to play in the big games!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With hindsight it sounds logical, but i am presuming nobody was expecting the smaller games to be so successful.......Lets remember there are more teams in this world cup than the last! 

 

Countries should prove they are investing in their domestic leagues and the world cup team is a product of this...not the other way round as some suggest!!!

 

Also if countries have to qualify it makes their international matches between world cups more meaningful, and will ensure that they get full turnouts of squad members who just want to play in the big games![

Don't we just want the best World Cup possible? I mean rewarding countries where they are developing local players will not necessarily result in the best teams playing in World Cup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't we just want the best World Cup possible? I mean rewarding countries where they are developing local players will not necessarily result in the best teams playing in World Cup?

I would sooner watch England vs France, than England vs some English/ aus blokes who have learnt the Scottish anthem and been given a whistle stop tour of Edinburgh! !!

I mean come on pat Richards had earnt about 14 caps before even stepping foot in Ireland!! And that was by chance that a game was held there!! If he felt irish hes had about 7 years to get a 10 pound ryanair flight to Dublin. ...

Canada, Jamaica, South Africa all would have left a far greater legacy, Lebanon also!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017