Sign in to follow this  
RayCee

England Australia / Same WC Group

Recommended Posts

In WCs, Australia and England are always in the same group. RL is the only sport I know of that puts two of the highest seeds in the same group. Imagine having Germany and Brazil in the same group every Football WC. Summary:

+ Supposed to guarantee a good crowd.

- Gives England a poorer win loss record as they nearly always loose.

- It's tough on other teams in the group.

Surely it's time to put this to bed and spread the seeds across the groups evenly. I'm not sure the crowd factor is sufficiently profitable to justify the move. It just seems fairer that way. Opinions please?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically I'd say it's because of the crowd numbers. I think the highest crowds have been for OZ/ENG games so by putting them both in the same pool you guarantee at least 1 game between them. 

The win/loss record doesn't really matter since we don't use that (or World rankings) to determine entry to tournaments. Maybe in the future? Also, because of the way points for RLIF rankings are weighted according to the strength of the opponent, the top 3 can only move up or down by playing each other. England could beat Scotland 10 times and wouldn't move as far in the rankings as beating OZ or NZ once. In fact the process is self-entrenching - every time England thumped a lower-ranked country that country's strength rating (for the purpose of RLIF ranking points) would drop so they would get even fewer points the next time they beat them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

Historically I'd say it's because of the crowd numbers. I think the highest crowds have been for OZ/ENG games so by putting them both in the same pool you guarantee at least 1 game between them. 

The win/loss record doesn't really matter since we don't use that (or World rankings) to determine entry to tournaments. Maybe in the future? Also, because of the way points for RLIF rankings are weighted according to the strength of the opponent, the top 3 can only move up or down by playing each other. England could beat Scotland 10 times and wouldn't move as far in the rankings as beating OZ or NZ once. In fact the process is self-entrenching - every time England thumped a lower-ranked country that country's strength rating (for the purpose of RLIF ranking points) would drop so they would get even fewer points the next time they beat them.

How about having more evenly matched groups? In 2013 for example, Ireland had to face Aus, Eng and Fiji. They didn't have any hope of progressing. If England had been replaced by a lesser ranked side, maybe Ireland would have fancy their chances of actually nicking a win. As it was, I knew they had no hope in that group. All you could call it was a pool of death for them. I think it's fairer to spread the highest seeded teams.

Edited by RayCee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they are putting the 1 and 3 ranked  teams together, Lebanon still got through

The 2nd ranked team with some contenders as we have seen with NZ V Tonga

The rest in the other group(s)

Its unlikely that any other teams would have made the quarters other than Ireland instead of Samoa.

Edited by Allora
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit I’ve never liked the system of ‘super groups’ in Rugby League World Cup formats.

Hopefully if the next World Cup is 16 teams then the top four seeds will be spread evenly across the four groups.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every world cup since 1995  has been set up for a potential England v Australia final...win the opening game gave you the easier semi,theoretically,but tonga have obviously chucked a huge spanner in the works this time...though I'm not actually worried about Tonga in our semi...I reckon it'll be a game too far for em.......hopefully.

 for the next world cup,with 16 teams,hopefully the 4 semi finalists from this world cup will be seeded for the groups in 2021 keeping the big 3 (4) apart..we might just have to stomach some blow outs...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, RayCee said:

In WCs, Australia and England are always in the same group. RL is the only sport I know of that puts two of the highest seeds in the same group. Imagine having Germany and Brazil in the same group every Football WC. Summary:

+ Supposed to guarantee a good crowd.

- Gives England a poorer win loss record as they nearly always loose.

- It's tough on other teams in the group.

Surely it's time to put this to bed and spread the seeds across the groups evenly. I'm not sure the crowd factor is sufficiently profitable to justify the move. It just seems fairer that way. Opinions please?

It should just be like a normal competition for the next WC, instead of the weird, laughing stock, mickey mouse structures we always seem to hack together because we don't want teams to lose games by too much or whatever.

So... 16 teams. 4x4. Top 4 seeds in a group each. Top 2 from each group progress to the QFs. We've all made mock ups of it, you know what I'm talking about.

One thing which I think would be cool is that, due to us having a clear "Big 3" it should mean that the 4th group will be a "Group of Death" of sorts. For example, an improved Tonga are the top seed in the group, then with Fiji as a losing quarter-finalist (Hopefully!) and a much improved France team you end up in a position where all 3 are potentially taking the points off each other. The 4th nation in that group may or may not also put the cat among the pigeons That would generate a bit of a buzz, I reckon and be interesting for neutrals. Everyone loves a group of death, it's exciting, the stakes are high.

The supergroup structure doesn't really work that well when Wales and USA were still getting towelled up in the groups that they were put in to prevent that from happening. My point is, you play 3 games, you could get badly beaten in all of them like Wales and USA, or just badly beaten in some of them like France or Scotland. Doesn't seem to make much difference which group the team is placed in.

Edited by UniSamX
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, UniSamX said:

The supergroup structure doesn't really work that well when Wales and USA were still getting towelled up in the groups that they were put in to prevent that from happening. My point is, you play 3 games, you could get badly beaten in all of them like Wales and USA, or just badly beaten in some of them like France or Scotland. Doesn't seem to make much difference which group the team is placed in.

It seemed to work better in 2013 but not at all in 2017. I did some looking into it and came up with this:

Points scored 2013: 901

Points scored 2017: 1,020

Average per game 2013: 42.9

Average per game 2017: 48.6

Average winning margin 2013: 19.7

Average winning margin 2017: 32.0

So the margins in games grew much more than the points scored. So yes, I agree with what you have said 100%.

You can read more detail here:

https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/2017/11/rl-wc-2017-group-stage-summary.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, time to get rid of the convoluted group system currently in place.

I would like to see two groups of 8 with games played mid week with semis and a final.

Problems would see seven group games fit in a tiny schedule. Requirement would be larger squads and increased costs for nations that may struggle to afford.

Benefits would see more games for the fans and more opportunities for lower nations to compete against the best and their similar standard opponents.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Yep, time to get rid of the convoluted group system currently in place.

I would like to see two groups of 8 with games played mid week with semis and a final.

Problems would see seven group games fit in a tiny schedule. Requirement would be larger squads and increased costs for nations that may struggle to afford.

Benefits would see more games for the fans and more opportunities for lower nations to compete against the best and their similar standard opponents.

I like your idea about larger groups and the benefits you mentioned. The downside is fitting a longer tournament into the crowded season already. The NRL and SL seasons would have to be reduced to fit it in and getting that to happen would be an issue. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RayCee said:

I like your idea about larger groups and the benefits you mentioned. The downside is fitting a longer tournament into the crowded season already. The NRL and SL seasons would have to be reduced to fit it in and getting that to happen would be an issue. 

Mid week games would see a five week tournament like it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Tonga now clearly making up the big 4, surely it's time to have 4 groups with each of the big four heading that group. Top two in each group go through to the quarters. Yes, there will be some blow out scores, but it gives the opportunity for the big four to experiment a little. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-11-14 at 4:44 AM, roughyedspud said:

Every world cup since 1995  has been set up for a potential England v Australia final...win the opening game gave you the easier semi,theoretically,but tonga have obviously chucked a huge spanner in the works this time...though I'm not actually worried about Tonga in our semi...I reckon it'll be a game too far for em.......hopefully.

 for the next world cup,with 16 teams,hopefully the 4 semi finalists from this world cup will be seeded for the groups in 2021 keeping the big 3 (4) apart..we might just have to stomach some blow outs...

We can still avoid blowouts (or the worst of them at least) with 16 teams, as follows:

Group A - three teams advance to quarter-finals

Previous Winner, highest ranked previous Semi-finalist, highest ranked previous Quarter-finalist, highest ranked qualifier

Group B - two teams advance to quarter-finals

Other previous Semi-finalist, third highest ranked previous Quarter-finalist, fourth and fifth highest ranked qualifiers

Group C - two teams advance to quarter-finals

Previous Runner-up, second highest ranked previous Quarter-finalist, second and third highest ranked qualifiers

Group D - one team advances to quarter-finals

Lowest ranked previous Quarter-finalist, three lowest-ranked qualifiers

* Quarter-finals use a bracket system, third from Group A shifts to the other bracket

Quarter-Finals

A 1st Group A vs. 2nd Group B
B 1st Group B vs. 2nd Group A
C 1st Group C vs. 3rd Group A
D 1st Group D vs. 2nd Group C

Semi-Finals

E Winner A vs. Winner B
F Winner C vs. Winner D

Final

G Winner E vs. Winner F

So although the semi-finalists and quarter-finalists are mostly split up in this format, the groups would still be fairly even if the rankings are accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, johnh1 said:

With Tonga now clearly making up the big 4, surely it's time to have 4 groups with each of the big four heading that group. Top two in each group go through to the quarters. Yes, there will be some blow out scores, but it gives the opportunity for the big four to experiment a little. 

Absolutely. It doesn't seem to bother or affect the Union game who have group stages which consist of a couple of good/very good teams and two lesser lights who usually end up on the end of a hiding, but their fans tend to look on it as marvelous festival of rugby skills on display as opposed to ours who always tend to look at the negative.

The OP is correct, starting with England vs Australia needs to stop. the WC should build slowly towards the meeting of the best sides at the business end of the tournament as it only happens every four years and should be seen as an extra special event. We already play OZ and NZ multiple times between WC's.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SilentAssassin said:

Absolutely. It doesn't seem to bother or affect the Union game who have group stages which consist of a couple of good/very good teams and two lesser lights who usually end up on the end of a hiding, but their fans tend to look on it as marvelous festival of rugby skills on display as opposed to ours who always tend to look at the negative.

The OP is correct, starting with England vs Australia needs to stop. the WC should build slowly towards the meeting of the best sides at the business end of the tournament as it only happens every four years and should be seen as an extra special event. We already play OZ and NZ multiple times between WC's.

Well said SA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

We can still avoid blowouts (or the worst of them at least) with 16 teams, as follows:

Group A - three teams advance to quarter-finals

Previous Winner, highest ranked previous Semi-finalist, highest ranked previous Quarter-finalist, highest ranked qualifier

Group B - two teams advance to quarter-finals

Other previous Semi-finalist, third highest ranked previous Quarter-finalist, fourth and fifth highest ranked qualifiers

Group C - two teams advance to quarter-finals

Previous Runner-up, second highest ranked previous Quarter-finalist, second and third highest ranked qualifiers

Group D - one team advances to quarter-finals

Lowest ranked previous Quarter-finalist, three lowest-ranked qualifiers

* Quarter-finals use a bracket system, third from Group A shifts to the other bracket

Quarter-Finals

A 1st Group A vs. 2nd Group B
B 1st Group B vs. 2nd Group A
C 1st Group C vs. 3rd Group A
D 1st Group D vs. 2nd Group C

Semi-Finals

E Winner A vs. Winner B
F Winner C vs. Winner D

Final

G Winner E vs. Winner F

So although the semi-finalists and quarter-finalists are mostly split up in this format, the groups would still be fairly even if the rankings are accurate.

So if I get this right, the previous WC decides the groups for the following WC. An interesting concept I need to think about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RayCee said:

So if I get this right, the previous WC decides the groups for the following WC. An interesting concept I need to think about. 

Well we know that there will 16 teams next time and the 8 quarter-finalists qualify automatically.  There's definite interest in moving toward the type of format used by FIFA and others but that proved disastrous in 2000, so I've taken a stab at creating a balance between that format and the ones we've had since 2008 given those parameters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Well we know that there will 16 teams next time and the 8 quarter-finalists qualify automatically.  There's definite interest in moving toward the type of format used by FIFA and others but that proved disastrous in 2000, so I've taken a stab at creating a balance between that format and the ones we've had since 2008 given those parameters.

8 other teams will need to qualify, 6 European ones and 2 American ones according to Wikipedia.  Below France, heritage Ireland, heritage Italy, heritage Scotland (in the event that Scotland isn't suspended or expelled for barely having any domestic structure) and Wales when they're at full strength there's a big drop off in ability so there will be some weak teams among those 8 qualifiers.  If the organizers don't want to see some huge blowouts they had better put the three weakest qualifiers in with Lebanon in a group with only one of the teams advancing and arrange the other groups intelligently too.

Edited by Big Picture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Big Picture said:

8 other teams will need to qualify, 6 European ones and 2 American ones according to Wikipedia.  Below France, heritage Ireland, heritage Italy, heritage Scotland (in the event that Scotland isn't suspended or expelled for barely having any domestic structure) and Wales when they're at full strength there's a big drop off in ability so there will be some weak teams among those 8 qualifiers.  If the organizers don't want to see some huge blowouts they had better put the three weakest qualifiers in with Lebanon in a group with only one of the teams advancing and arrange the other groups intelligently too.

I read the Wiki article. With six Euro slots to fill, I was thinking it finally be Serbia's chance to crack the big time, unless Russia have other ideas.

Two from North America. Although the Cook Is are now part of that grouping it seems:

http://www.cookislandsnews.com/sport/league/item/66648-smoother-path-to-league-world-cup

The Cooks are a good side so if only two go through, then that's a tough group to get through. USA, Canada, Jamaica, Cook Is, South Africa for example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Big Picture said:

8 other teams will need to qualify, 6 European ones and 2 American ones according to Wikipedia.  Below France, heritage Ireland, heritage Italy, heritage Scotland (in the event that Scotland isn't suspended or expelled for barely having any domestic structure) and Wales when they're at full strength there's a big drop off in ability so there will be some weak teams among those 8 qualifiers.  If the organizers don't want to see some huge blowouts they had better put the three weakest qualifiers in with Lebanon in a group with only one of the teams advancing and arrange the other groups intelligently too.

Won't Lebanon have qualified as one of this WCs quarter finalists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - Dec 2017

Rugby League Books On Sale Here

League Express - Every Monday