jim_57

Disagree, the main thing that could be confusing was the Pool C & D “crossover” games which wouldn’t be an issue with 16 teams. Without the “crossover” games it’s quite a simple format with 16 teams. 3 each from the strong groups, 1 each from the minor groups.

Instead of drastically changing it and splitting in to tiers or reducing teams we could keep it at 16 so all teams get their moment in the sun but we go back to the format of 2013 & 2017 (+2 teams in the minor pools). So 6 of the top 8 teams play each other round robin in the pools then the best 8 head in to the finals. Split seeding in to 4 tiers of 4 teams. A&B - 1,1,2,3. (3 to quarters) C&D - 2,3,4,4. (1 to quarters) Best of both worlds and we’ve used it before successfully. Plenty more opportunities for the likes of Aus, NZ, England, France, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, PNG etc to play each other in the other 3 years, well at least there should be. tldr - Go back to the 2013 format with 2 extra teams. IRL is generally hard to come by so why not go with a format we’ve used successfully in the past that gives us far more of the top 8/12 nations playing each other?

- Of course there would be occasional “hard luck” stories like that from Pools C & D but at the end of the day there would only be one team from the top 8 seeded teams in each of those groups so fair representation would make the finals. If Ireland were in a Minor group this year with say Lebanon & Jamaica but Cook Island instead of NZ would we say they are deserving of a quarter final if they beat Jamaica & Cook Islands but lose to Lebanon? - That I can see too, counter argument is that we pretty much knew the makeup of the finals after week 1 for most groups under this format. There were some potential variables like Ireland Vs Lebanon and at a stretch PNG V Cook Islands. Group winners were all decided after the first game, it could be argued that was poor scheduling though when all the predicted & actual top 2 teams played each other first up. I think there is pros & cons for both but if we can have all the same teams involved but with a few more blockbuster pool games and less blowouts it’s definitely worth a look.

I definitely think 16 is the number, but the format I think we should at least look at it. In hindsight maybe we should have stuck with the same format from 2013 & 2017 just with 2 extra teams. Ultimately they didn’t and I’m fine with that either way, I’ve enjoyed the World Cup but an argument could be made that we’ve had more World Cups with a Super Pool(s) of some sort than without recently so it wouldn’t be a major shakeup to revert to it next time. I guess the question is if a 16 team “Super Group” World Cup could be more commercially and financially successful then would it be better to switch back? If we do we should definitely stay with that format long term and embrace it as our way of doing things.

We shouldn’t retract but other 16 team formulas may be an option worth exploring. The 2013-2017 format worked well enough for example, just add 1 team each to Pools C & D and remove the “crossover” games. It worked in 2013 for what was arguably our most successful World Cup to date.

Yeh I guess you could anchor it around NZ and maybe Australia and try and maximise crowds for the PI games dispute not getting as much ticket revenue. As you say it will still be on at good times for sponsors. Reading those quotes it’s clear they want NZ to be the main host and Australia may or may not be involved, going off that I could the breakdown being something like this is Australia isn’t involved. NZ - 12 pool games, 6 finals. PNG - 3 pool games, 1 quarter final. Fiji - 3 pool games. Hawaii - 2 pool games. Tonga - 1 pool game. Samoa - 1 pool game. New Caledonia - 1 pool game. Vanuatu - 1 pool game. Of course I can see it reverting to the “safe” option and NZ & Australia hosting most games with some in PNG and maybe some other nations. The travel bill alone for the above tournament would be pretty substantial.

A Pacific World Cup is an idea I’ve floated several times, it will be interesting to see if they can make it stack up. Potential host locations mentioned are interesting: NZ (main host), Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Vanuatu & Hawaii as well as “maybe” Australia. I’d look at New Caledonia as well for a French game and definitely PNG which I assume is a given although not mentioned.

Well said. Even though their national teams are mostly heritage born they do have a reasonable representation of Tongan/Samoan born players in professional & semi-professional Rugby League. For countries of their size even if we had comprehensive systems in place they are never going to produce vast numbers of NRL first graders year on year like PNG and to a lesser extent Fiji could.

Northern Hemisphere teams should be playing 2-3 mid-season internationals to “get a head start” on the Southern Hemisphere teams who now won’t play at all until the post-season period. England can play CNAS if they still wish and the 2 next best Euro teams in a 3 nations with no final, next best 3 play each other as well. As for a structure a simple structure like this would be good so everyone knows what they are doing and what they are aiming for. Year 1: Northern & Southern Hemisphere tournaments, split in to tiers of 4-6. Year 2: 6 Nations. Tier 1 - 2 Northern Hemisphere, 4 Southern Hemisphere. Tier 2 - 4 Northern Hemisphere, 2 Southern Hemisphere. Year 3: Tours & tournaments organised and World Cup qualifiers as required. Year 4: World Cup. Obviously the development side of it is separate to this but there definitely needs to be a structure in place for that development to reap rewards at the international level. Last thing we want is countries like Ireland or Italy to start developing players but those players and heritage players aren’t interested in Internationals because they mean nothing outside of World Cup years.

Pacifique Treize were looking at a QLD Cup side based in New Caledonia pre-covid but that seems to have gone quiet. That would have been a good way for France to send down 4-5 players a year. As it stands it would definitely be worth some sort of program where 5-10 players young players a year are sent to NRL and Super League clubs to train & play in their systems.

I wasn’t disagreeing, just posting to give people an idea of the heritage pool for those countries should they choose to use it since @Harry Stottleasked.

https://www.instagram.com/hecanplayfor/?hl=en Nigeria & South Africa could call on some decent heritage players if they choose to. Can’t see either beating Cook Islands but you could argue they’d be just as strong as USA/Canada, one of which will get a spot.

A European opponent they can beat would probably be best to start the tournament.

Yeh Fiji have been more hit than miss this year, their side is also far weaker than it could be with injuries and “injuries”. Tonga Vs Samoa is pick of the bunch but I’m looking forward to England Vs PNG just as much. I always enjoy watching Fiji play but don’t hold out much hope for them this time.

Thanks. After doing some digging on hecanplayfor the only country I could see maybe breaking the status quo if they go down the heritage route is Germany. The likes of Nigeria, South Africa, Greece, Serbia etc will likely go down to the usual suspects. USA & Jamaica have been gifted spots really.

I vaguely remember the decision was made when USA was penciled in as host but that may be my mind playing tricks on me as that was a while ago. Ideally it should have been Europe 7, Pacific 7, MEA 2 & Americas 2 playing a repecharge tournament for 2 spots.

It’s basically what we had previously but with 4 teams in Pools C & D instead of 3, no “crossover” games. Like I said I was a supporter of moving to the current format but you have to question if it couldn’t be improved or better suited to our situation moving forward. I am against dropping numbers though.

I’d like to double down on my assertion that the format is fine but I’d simply be being stubborn not to question if it is the best fit for RL based on the evidence. As long as it stays at 16 I could live with a return of the Super Groups, just have 3 qualify from Pools A & B and 1 each from C & D as in 2013 & 2017 but add 1 more team each to C & D to make it 16. So loosely based off current rankings you could have something like. Seed 1 - Australia, NZ, England, Tonga. Seed 2 - Samoa, Fiji, PNG, Lebanon. Seed 3 - France, Ireland, Wales, Cook Islands. Seed 4 - Italy, Scotland, Jamaica, Greece/USA (likely to replace Greece in 2025). Pools A & B - 1, 1, 2, 3 Pools C & D - 2, 3, 4, 4 A - Australia, England, Lebanon, Wales (3 to quarters). B - NZ, Tonga, Samoa, Ireland (3 to quarters). C - Fiji, France, Italy, Jamaica (1 to quarters). D - PNG, Cook Islands, Scotland, USA (1 to quarters). Hard to argue something like that wouldn’t keep the scores down and the 8 that are good enough will still make the finals. Countries like Jamaica still get their time on the big stage whilst avoiding the top 4.

So essentially the only likely change is USA replacing Greece. Barring of course someone like Serbia or Germany stacking their team with heritage players. Do Cook Islands go straight in to the repecharge or would they have to face other Asian & Pacific teams first like Phillipines or Solomon Islands? Not that any team will trouble them.

They don’t really fit in the Pacific tournaments though so any games they get in Australia will probably be ad-hoc. They used to regularly play in Europe in the late 00s and early-mid 10s, they were in European World Cup qualifiers and some other tournaments.

They don’t seem to fit in the plan of returning the Oceania Cup so they should definitely be looked at by European opponents more often, including England. Ideally they’d be in a full strength European or Northern Hemisphere Cup.

Agreed. The 3 years between World Cups is where teams like Greece and England should be kept apart by the systems in place ensuring some more evenly matched games & tournaments. For a World Cup I am fine with some games that will be blowouts but unique matchups that we normally wouldn’t see. The wily and elusive “second tournament” would be perfect for a more condensed & competitive tournament with perhaps 6 teams and a couple of tiers. I’d have Northern & Southern Hemisphere tournaments the year after the World Cup acting as qualifiers for this with the top 12 being sorted in to 2 tiers of 6. Gives meaning to the regional tournaments. Regarding the OP I’m sure France would love being left out of their own World Cup.

Jamaica 23 - 16. Ireland players to get turned back around in Singapore.

Ireland have looked poorly coached and illl-disciplined this tournament which is a major shame, they had a side that on paper could have done a lot better. Heritage arguments aside they probably have the best available at the moment. I think they could provide a competitive game mid or post season against England with or without NRL players but that will probably be ignored and they’ll fade out like Scotland after the 2016 4 nations. I’m sure Keary, Myler, Seniors, Joliffe etc would be more interested in playing next year if there were some decent games up for grabs. As it stands they’ll be playing the likes of England B and Spain.

I really have no idea why he hasn’t given Kris a run in the centres with Hiku, he’s been in good form this year. IMO Timoko should have been there but Kris has had a good year yet CNK who was playing reserve grade at the same club this year has gotten better opportunities.