2021 World Cup Format

[Evil Homer]

10 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I was wondering about the Cook Islands . I watched them in 2013 and they seem to have gone off the radar 

They tend to get passed by because of the lack of proper structure and appropriate competition in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly when it comes to the RLWC as the Asian nations don't meet criteria to enter yet and the other Pacific nations usually tend to make the quarter finals and so qualify automatically. The Cooks qualification route last time was just a single knockout match with Tonga which they obviously lost, and this time they don't have any opposition in their region at all so are just placed directly into the repechage with South Africa and the American runner-up (ironically they will probably be favorites to qualify from this). It's a similar situation for South Africa too in terms of the lack of regional opposition for the qualifiers, hopefully by the next WC the likes of Philippines, Vanuatu, Thailand and some of the African nations will meet the entry criteria to give them a bit more of a competition in those regions.

[17 stone giant]

I hope Tonga and Samoa are again in the same group.

I hope England get PNG and France, and also New Zealand in the semi-final, so we can play Australia in the final.

Dear Santa, please can I have.....

[Oliver Clothesoff]

Is there much point to a qualification process? We have a good spine of competing Nations (England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Australia, NZ, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, PNG, Cook Islands) who are always there at World Cup’s and forcing some to play Qualifiers, when most teams in those qualifiers qualify anyway, just seems a waste. 

I’ve named twelve teams there and there’s scope for a European Championships and an Oceanic Championship with six sides in each competition that could take place instead of qualifiers for some. We could have Four Nations for the top sides, even a Five or Six Nations if needs be. 

We’ve got 12 teams there, you could have qualification for the other nations, the likes of USA, Canada, Jamaica, Italy etc qualifying whilst the “top twelve” develop the International game further. 

[Evil Homer]

39 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Is there much point to a qualification process? We have a good spine of competing Nations (England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Australia, NZ, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, PNG, Cook Islands) who are always there at World Cup’s and forcing some to play Qualifiers, when most teams in those qualifiers qualify anyway, just seems a waste. 

I’ve named twelve teams there and there’s scope for a European Championships and an Oceanic Championship with six sides in each competition that could take place instead of qualifiers for some. We could have Four Nations for the top sides, even a Five or Six Nations if needs be. 

We’ve got 12 teams there, you could have qualification for the other nations, the likes of USA, Canada, Jamaica, Italy etc qualifying whilst the “top twelve” develop the International game further. 

Wales didn't qualify in 2008. Cook Islands didn't qualify in 2017. So yes, there is, and your post was pretty dumb.

[Southerner80]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

really really big risk here,

We arent likely to see a really big game until the 5th week of a 6 week competition. They have a massive job on to sell those early rounds to casual fans and make sure it doesnt look like 2/3rds of the competition is a preamble to the main stuff starting.

Big risk in competition that guarantees that there are only games between the big three and they are going to be games with no lead in time etc.

Im really worried we have picked a format that other sports use because others use it not because it suits RL.

Agree. We should look at cricket rather than football for a way to structure it all.

The test series v NZ shows that there is a appetite for multiple games v the same team. 

Tournament should open with England v OZ 

Week after NZ v Tonga. 

I do also wonder how much good is done by having Scotland and Ireland in if there are no development officers employed out there.... Surely South Africa and Russia and Spain make more strategic sense.... Personally I would do alot more to make it a world Cup... Ie more varied nations and then make the draw a certian way to keep the likes of Russia playing PNG and France and Wales rather than England. 

While say the Cooks have some good good players, it won't grow the game to have them there but for Spain to make a WC might give RL a boost there and open up lucrative markets for us! 

 

[17 stone giant]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

They have a massive job on to sell those early rounds to casual fans and make sure it doesnt look like 2/3rds of the competition is a preamble to the main stuff starting.

Unfortunately, that is precisely how it does and will look, but I'm really not sure what, if anything, they can do about it. They can't really afford to eliminate any Tier 1 teams before the semi-final stage, and so it's inevitable that the tournament will always be structured so that the semi-finalists are Australia, New Zealand, England, and one other - most probably Tonga. And, yes, I know that NZ didn't make the semi-final in 2017, but that was due to a shock result in the knockout stage, and possibly an unexpected result against Tonga in the group stage, rather than the structure itself. I'm sure the expectation was that NZ would top their group and eventually progress to another SF against England.

Sadly, there just aren't enough competitive teams for there to be much risk to the top teams, before the semi final stage.

[Number 16]

7 hours ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Personal insults. On the ignore list you go. 

Snowflake?

[MatthewWoody]

8 hours ago, Southerner80 said:

Agree. We should look at cricket rather than football for a way to structure it all.

The test series v NZ shows that there is a appetite for multiple games v the same team. 

Tournament should open with England v OZ 

Week after NZ v Tonga. 

I do also wonder how much good is done by having Scotland and Ireland in if there are no development officers employed out there.... Surely South Africa and Russia and Spain make more strategic sense.... Personally I would do alot more to make it a world Cup... Ie more varied nations and then make the draw a certian way to keep the likes of Russia playing PNG and France and Wales rather than England. 

While say the Cooks have some good good players, it won't grow the game to have them there but for Spain to make a WC might give RL a boost there and open up lucrative markets for us! 

 

Scotland and Ireland make sure games are actually watchable. You have to sell tickets at the end of the day. 

[SilentAssassin]

happy with this, it's how the format should be.

I don't see that many blow out fixtures, we have seen in the past the likes of Samoa, PNG, Fiji and even Scotland, Ireland and Wales more than capable of giving the top nations problems in one off games and their fixtures against the big boys of the group are going to be like cup finals to them. Hopefully France can be stronger too, but with the Catalans and now toulouse contingent they ought to be a tricky game for anyone in the N/H. obviously the minnows of each group may well get a pasting here or there, but scores like 100-0 etc against minnows.. happen regular in the R/U World cup and it doesn't bother them so why should we be?

[cookey]

There is a thread on this topic in the RL section of BBC Sport in anyone would care to leave their thoughts.

 

[bamfordsbeans]

I believe this format  is the best  way to go.

It is a statement of intent that we are not having to manufacture fixtures and we have a vibrant and emerging international game.

The biggest issue overall is how the Aussies refuse to play certain years and have such a strong hand over countries like NZ,Tonga,Samoa etc.

To have a gap of 3 years (and even 2020 isn't confirmed) when the 2 biggest countries in the game don't play each other is extremely harmful to all aspects of the game.

[MatthewWoody]

While it's true that this is the best/more balances format, it is also true that it leaves us without top team v top team up until the SF.

In other sports, mentioned by many here, they have balanced game since the pool stage as they have more competitive nations, while we don't.

But it's a risk worth taking and will build and build and build towards the semifinals.

Plus, this kind of format makes us even more need the so called heritage players, as having games actually worth watching becomes more important than ever. This, if we want to have a chance to sell the whole event. 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

1 hour ago, Number 16 said:

Snowflake?

You’re funny. Got no problem with people debating a different opinion but that’s the thing, the degenerate couldn’t do that, they could only resort to insults straight away. No point talking with clowns like that then, is there?

[Toby Chopra]

Seems a big risk to me. Are the general public really put off by the unbalanced groups? I don't think they really look that closely. But they do notice England vs Australia at a landmark stadium to open the tournament. It's gonna be hard to hit those bold ticket targets when the best we can offer in the opening weeks is England vs Samoa or some such. Could we really book a 50k stadium for that? 

That said, what will be important is that the pot 2 and 3 teams don't get completly blown away by the big four in the groups. England racking up some good wins will be good for tournament momentum and if the BBC do a good job getting the tries out on social media we could start to reach out beyond usual RL fans. But if all the pool games are 50-0 then we might have a problem. 

England's pool games should be in Newcastle, Lancashire and London, which will maximise the audience base for them. 

Still though... Rugby League World Cup in England! Hurry up already! 

[Southerner80]

42 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

Scotland and Ireland make sure games are actually watchable. You have to sell tickets at the end of the day. 

I get your point that they beef up the tournament.. Is that enough though? 

Would it not be better to try to get more nations involved and expand the games profile? 

[MatthewWoody]

Just now, Southerner80 said:

I get your point that they beef up the tournament.. Is that enough though? 

Would it not be better to try to get more nations involved and expand the games profile? 

Hmm, yes and no. 
I mean, while in the long term it'd be very important to "expand the games profile", it is also true that a World Cup full of 90-0 scores wouldn't help the game.
And I just don't think the exposure the likes of Spain, etc. would get at home would justify it. 
Last World Cup, Ireland was one of the best squads and I believe it has helped sell the product. 
So I'm not sure that'd be enough (and I'm not exactly sure Spain are doing more than Ireland, Italy, etc. locally, given they have often played internationals with homegrown players and have produced some players who now play in England/Aus), but surely with this new format we need professional-semiprofessional players to play... in my opinion

[glossop saint]

Looking at the comments then I am probably in the minority but I enjoyed the format of the last 2 world cups. The only change I would have made is to have 4 teams instead of 3 in groups C and D to avoid cross group games.

This format risks a slow start to the competition with the risk that at least half of the games being blow out scores. We need to hit the ground running given the high crowd targets and I'm not sure that will happen. I hope that I am wrong.

[MatthewWoody]

Just now, glossop saint said:

Looking at the comments then I am probably in the minority but I enjoyed the format of the last 2 world cups. The only change I would have made is to have 4 teams instead of 3 in groups C and D to avoid cross group games.

This format risks a slow start to the competition with the risk that at least half of the games being blow out scores. We need to hit the ground running given the high crowd targets and I'm not sure that will happen. I hope that I am wrong.

You're right. 
Although the 2013 and 2017 format was far from perfect, at least we've seen some very enjoyable and well balanced game. In 2013 the Welsh public had the chance to see England v Kangaroos in the 1st game, etc. 
 

[RP London]

10 hours ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Is there much point to a qualification process? We have a good spine of competing Nations (England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Australia, NZ, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, PNG, Cook Islands) who are always there at World Cup’s and forcing some to play Qualifiers, when most teams in those qualifiers qualify anyway, just seems a waste. 

I’ve named twelve teams there and there’s scope for a European Championships and an Oceanic Championship with six sides in each competition that could take place instead of qualifiers for some. We could have Four Nations for the top sides, even a Five or Six Nations if needs be. 

We’ve got 12 teams there, you could have qualification for the other nations, the likes of USA, Canada, Jamaica, Italy etc qualifying whilst the “top twelve” develop the International game further. 

While I get what you are saying here you can already see Scotland falling back, Lebanon improving, potential in the USA and Canada (especially with the growth of Toronto hopefully).. Serbia may come through with Red Star, Italy are growing domestically with teams playing the French leagues and so on. So for me I would say that we have to have things in place now (even if they do seem a little convoluted) to cover for when this starts to happen. 

We complain of not enough international RL but world cup qualifiers concentrate the mind on organising the games rather than having to rely on teams organising "friendlies". 

Not sure the format is correct but a qualification process is a must.. IMHO for a world cup to be a world cup every team in the world should at some point be knocked out of it.. in football the tournament is the "world cup finals", the actual world cup has been going on for 2-3 years.

IIRC the quarter finalists from the previous one qualify automatically for the next so in a way you are not far off the 12 you are mentioning with qualification for all those below that.

[Lounge Room Lizard]

I think the Cook Islands have major money problems and cant afford to travel much to play Qualifiers let alone travel to England. It doesnt help being 15 small islands with a small Population 

[Dunbar]

As a sport we cannot be too nervous about keeping the big teams apart in the group stages.

This is a World Cup and we have to sell it as such. If the audience is hard core Rugby League fans then we are not using the World Cup to showcase our sport to a new audience and we have to take that opportunity.

As a Rugby League fan I know that Tonga are a better team than Fiji and Samoa at the moment but the casual sports fan will see names like Samoa and Fiji and see an opportunity to watch a good game of rugby.

Let's have some confidence that our sport produces a great product on the pitch and that names like Fiji, France, Samoa and PNG will attract an audience... if we do have the greatest game then we cannot be worried that it is only great when it is England playing Australia.

We can have a festival of Rugby League played by 16 teams which then culminates in some intense and hugely entertaining knock out games.

We are always talking about other sports selling the event, well now it is our turn to create an event again.

[SilentAssassin]

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But that is the worry, Casual sports fans know that England, Australia and NZ are better than everyone else. Them being in different means why bother watching the group stages. We know who is going to win them.

Its also a simple maths problem. In 2013, England v Australia, England v NZ and NZ v Australia accounted for 188k out of 450 attendees. That sequence of matches cant happen under this format.

but in Union we also know that the 3 S/H teams plus the 5 nations will progress to the QF's pretty much every time, yes you may have a more competitive group system overall but it doesn't take away from the fact the usual suspects will still be there in the latter stages. The challenge is to the likes of France, Lebanon , Wales and Ireland to keep improving. Tonga already look a threat to the big 3. Samoa and Fiji have also shown they are capable too on any given day.

[Dunbar]

12 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But that is the worry, Casual sports fans know that England, Australia and NZ are better than everyone else. Them being in different means why bother watching the group stages. We know who is going to win them.

Its also a simple maths problem. In 2013, England v Australia, England v NZ and NZ v Australia accounted for 188k out of 450 attendees. That sequence of matches wont happen under this format.

If everything goes to form then the semi finals will be a combination of England, New Zealand, Australia and one other and the final will be two of England, New Zealand and Australia... so the equivalent of those three big matches will happen again.  And if they don't we will have enjoyed a World Cup full of huge shocks and headlines.

But this is beside the point.  People attend World Cups and other big sporting events because of the occasion.  It is a celebration of the sport.  If we are afraid that some teams are better than others and so we can predict the winner then we don't believe what we say that we have a great sport to watch and enjoy.

[Dunbar]

10 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

but in the RWC in the group stages Ireland and Scotland will play each other, NZ and SA, England, France and Argentina, Australia and Wales.

I don't see how having England, Australia and NZ basically have 4 weeks of walkovers makes for a more interesting tournament than what we had.

Just 12 months ago New Zealand lost to both Tonga and Fiji and were knocked out at the quarter final stage.  Now you are saying it will be 4 weeks of walkovers in three years time.

Have some faith that our sport can produce entertainment without it being manufactured.

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It wont. It cant. This format cannot produce those three matches under any circumstance. At best, we will see 2 of the 3.

It is a celebration of the sport. So why arent we celebrating the sport? why arent we celebrating what is great about the sport? England v Australia, NZ v Tonga, Tonga v Samoa. There is a decent chance literally none of those games will happen, and its very very likely that if they do, they don't happen until the knock out stages so we can't build our WC around them.

If there are no shocks whatsoever in the group stages than the quarter finals will be England, Australia, New Zealand and Tonga facing Lebanon, Samoa, PNG and Fiji.

They will be very good games.  As will the semi's.  As will the final.