2021 World Cup Format

[deluded pom?]

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But NZ won't play Tonga in the group stages, they are unlikely to play them for 4 weeks, if at all.

And it isnt me you need to convince, ill watch anyway. Its everyone else in the country.

I have no idea why we wouldnt put out best foot forward and create a format that will create the best games instead of what we seem to be doing and choosing a format in spite of the games it will create. Its an extra difficulty we have caused ourselves.

Other WCs sell their tournaments as events. Not a series of one off games. Didn't Australia beat Namibia by 100 points plus in the RWC a few years back in front of a healthy crowd who to a man knew what the outcome would be?

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But NZ won't play Tonga in the group stages, they are unlikely to play them for 4 weeks, if at all.

And it isnt me you need to convince, ill watch anyway. Its everyone else in the country.

I have no idea why we wouldnt put out best foot forward and create a format that will create the best games instead of what we seem to be doing and choosing a format in spite of the games it will create. Its an extra difficulty we have caused ourselves and im struggling to see the benefit of doing so.

Sorry, but if we have to engineer a Tonga vs. New Zealand and England vs. Australia fixture to make the World Cup entertaining then our sport is in a very sorry state.

The games that this format throws up will be entertaining because our sport is entertaining.

And the quarters, semi's and final will become increasingly competitive.

[MatthewWoody]

Just now, deluded pom? said:

Other WCs sell their tournaments as events. Not a series of one off games. Didn't Australia beat Namibia by 100 points plus in the RWC a few years back in front of a healthy crowd who knew what the outcome would be?

But rugby union has a bigger number of top/almost top teams, so they easily can affort some 100 points scores because the week after they have an England-Wales or an Ireland-France game where you don't know the result in advance. 
Something we don't have and maybe we'll never have.

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

41 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 group 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 2 of them can and they accounted for 140k of the 450k attendees, that means we have 44k to make up on the missing game which, lets not forget was a double header

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Australia beat Samoa by 46 points in the last WC, and Fiji by 54. NZ beat Samoa by 30pts.

England beat Lebanon and PNG pretty comfortably too.

I hope they are, but they will also be planned on a weeks notice after 3 weeks where the vast majority of the games the big sides have played in have been walkovers.

If I didn't know anything about the 2017 World Cup then I would agree that New Zealand beating Samoa by 30 points would indeed indicate that the games were predictable and 'walk overs'.

But then I do know that New Zealand went on to lose to Tonga in the group stages and then to Fiji in the quarter finals.

To use a New Zealand result from the 2017 Rugby League World Cup as evidence that the game is too predictable is frankly crazy.

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

Just looked it up to check my memory was correct, under the old format:

England win 2 group games and go through

Lebanon win 1 group game and go through

New Zealand win 2 group games and go through

Samoa win 0 group games (1 draw) and go through

Ireland win 2 group games but do not go through

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Rugby_League_World_Cup

I believe that does a greater disservice to our game than blow out scores and makes the case for moving to the new system, it's not about copying other sports it's about fairness and allowing teams to progress to the next stage based on equal criteria. Yes we will probably see some big blow outs in the group games but I believe we can move past that as it goes into the knock out phase.

[Jim from Oz]

19 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

Other WCs sell their tournaments as events. Not a series of one off games. Didn't Australia beat Namibia by 100 points plus in the RWC a few years back in front of a healthy crowd who to a man knew what the outcome would be?

Yep, The score was something like 128-0 and it was played in front of a massive sellout crowd in Adelaide, which isn’t even a rugby playing city!

Yes, it was all about the event, and that’s what RLWC 2021 should be all about! 

[Tonka]

What’s a pot? Am I being thick here?

[Southerner80]

I think there's something to be said for Oz v Eng / NZ opening any RLWC and seeing who comes out on top then and then seeing if over 5-6 weeks combinations and such come together and you get a world champion who didn't win the opener. 

The 4N and Tri N showed us that fans will watch games between the same teams regularly. 

We do as a sport need to ensure some big clashes in groups so to give the tournament a boost to the general public. 

I feel ultimately the 2017 format was very good and it would be wise to stick to 14 teams.... 

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

1 minute ago, Tonka said:

What’s a pot? Am I being thick here?

Better off thinking of it as seeds, Pot 1 = Seeded 1 for each of those teams in their respective groups

[Jim from Oz]

2 minutes ago, Tonka said:

What’s a pot? Am I being thick here?

It’s a round.shaped container into which things are deposited.

[Southerner80]

2 minutes ago, Jim from Oz said:

Yep, The score was something like 128-0 and it was played in front of a massive sellout crowd in Adelaide, which isn’t even a rugby playing city!

Yes, it was all about the event, and that’s what RLWC 2021 should be all about! 

In fairness 2003 was a very different time for union in Oz. It was hot then. They were defending champs. Alot had changed since then and now a game v Namibia in A WC in Union in Oz would sell out now only if the tourists pack it out I feel....

RL we don't have the masses of corporate and rich fans that pack out union and cricket events... So have to think about how to package the WC

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

You know that, but as you have already said, casuals dont.

Its no good these games brilliant, high quality, close games if people don't watch them.

Having a different format allows us to increase the chance of having more of those brilliant close games, but also put on games that attract more fans and that we can sell and having more people watch them. It seems crazy to just hope that happens rather than make it happen.

Other than this being the format others use, there is no benefit to this change. It doesnt give us more chance of close competitive games, it doesnt give us more games we can sell, it doesnt give us more time to plan and market games. It gives us less of all that.

We clearly have a different opinion on how the World Cup attracts potential new fans to our sport.

We can arrange as many New Zealand vs. Tonga and England vs. Australia games as the politics in our sport allows but the nature of a World Cup is tournament style and tournaments turn out different and interesting fixtures.

Your opinion is that we must have New Zealand play Tonga in the World Cup because it is a potentially great game... my view is that Samoa vs. Tonga or Fiji vs. Tonga or Fiji vs. New Zealand is just as exciting to the casual sports fan and if we have any faith in our sport creating great entertainment then we should let the tournament throw out some great matches.

Not one person (and I mean not one) predicted that New Zealand would lose to two tier 2 nations in the last world cup but they did.  I don't know what great fixtures and matches the next world cup will throw out but I am just saying let's have some faith that our sport will do just that.

All of the form and seedings suggest that it will be Australia, England, New Zealand and Tonga in the semi finals.  Let's bookmark this conversation and see in 3 years if there were any upsets.

[MatthewWoody]

The NZ's flop was the very first shock that in a World Cup since being a RL fan...
...I wouldn't use it as proof that our International game can be unpredictable.

[Dunbar]

20 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

This is where you have gone wrong. I dont think that NZ must play Tonga in the World Cup is a potentially great game, I also agree that Samoa v Tonga, Fiji v Tonga, and Fiji v NZ are potentially great games. I would be happy to see any of them.

I think that NZ must play Tonga in the world cup because it is a potentially great game AND it is game we can sell. I think Samoa v Tonga is a potentially great game, and a game we can sell. I also think the same about Tonga v Fiji and NZ v Fiji. I also think the same about Australia v England and England v Tonga and England v Fiji and England v NZ. I dont see why we are implementing a system that risks us having none of those games, guarantees we have few of them, and makes the most likely time we have them the most difficult time to sell tickets and build interest in them.

You are focused on the wrong part of it, i don't doubt the sport will throw up some upsets and some interesting results. It would do that under both (and likely more under the previous system). But we need people to be in the stands and watching on TV when that happens. My problem is that i think fewer will attend and fewer will watch because of this change.

If England, Australia, New Zealand and Tonga top their groups and Lebanon, Samoa, PNG and Fiji finish second then what are the least attractive fixtures we can expect?

If England play Lebanon (probably the least well known name) and Australia play PNG then that still leaves New Zealand and Tonga facing Fiji and Samoa which are two blockbusters.

My point is that it is hard to find a combination which produces unattractive fixtures.

[Big Picture]

1 hour 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.

That's why I would gone with a format where 3 teams advance from Group A, two each from Groups B and C and one from group D to provide the best of both worlds.

[glossop saint]

I think it will be very interesting to bring this thread up in 3 years time. I hope that those who are backing this don't moan about the one sided nature of the majority of group games and the potential lack of momentum as a result. 

There are many factors that could lead to a disappointing world cup but the fixtures, especially the early ones, are a big part of it. This format means that we have to work harder and smarter to make up for it, something as it stands I'm not sure the RFL/RLIF are capable of. It will be a big ask to sell out Wembley, St James and Old Trafford for England v PNG, Lebanon and Spain.

[RP London]

10 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

I think it will be very interesting to bring this thread up in 3 years time. I hope that those who are backing this don't moan about the one sided nature of the majority of group games and the potential lack of momentum as a result. 

There are many factors that could lead to a disappointing world cup but the fixtures, especially the early ones, are a big part of it. This format means that we have to work harder and smarter to make up for it, something as it stands I'm not sure the RFL/RLIF are capable of. It will be a big ask to sell out Wembley, St James and Old Trafford for England v PNG, Lebanon and Spain.

I agree with this but equally with some clever planning you make sure that there are competitive matches going on every few days within those groups.. lets not forget pot 3 v 4 could be competitive as could pot 2 v 3 its not all about the big boys!

[Tonka]

So it’s 1 from pot 1, 1 from pot 2 and 3 from pot 3 in each group?

Seems a pretty good way to do it although it’s slightly skewed isn’t it? (as opposed to random draw)

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, Tonka said:

So it’s 1 from pot 1, 1 from pot 2 and 3 from pot 3 in each group?

Seems a pretty good way to do it although it’s slightly skewed isn’t it? (as opposed to random draw)

that would make 5 in a group and its 4 groups of 4 so think it is 2 from pot 3.

seeded pots is the way every other world cup does it and it does make sense best teams into the knockouts as much as possible.

[17 stone giant]

In the group stages, it's the battle for 2nd place that is most interesting. Even then, it's only to earn the right to get smashed in a quarter final.

Maybe the four beaten quarter finalists could play semi-finals and a final, to compete for a secondary trophy (dunno what you'd call it). They know they can't ever win the World Cup, but to be crowned 'best of the rest' might be a motivation. It would give them something to aim for, other than just turning up to make up the numbers.

[glossop saint]

6 minutes ago, RP London said:

I agree with this but equally with some clever planning you make sure that there are competitive matches going on every few days within those groups.. lets not forget pot 3 v 4 could be competitive as could pot 2 v 3 its not all about the big boys!

I quite agree. Some of the best games in 2013 were between some of the smaller nations. Though you got a lot of those games using the previous format. Of the 6 games in each group on average I would be shocked if more than 2 were within 2 scores and would expect 3 to be more than 20 points, with a couple of them being upwards of 40.

With such high expectations of 2021 I think that a bit of manipulation of the fixtures is needed and this format does make that difficult.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

1 minute ago, 17 stone giant said:

In the group stages, it's the battle for 2nd place that is most interesting. Even then, it's only to earn the right to get smashed in a quarter final.

Maybe the four beaten quarter finalists could play semi-finals and a final, to compete for a secondary trophy (dunno what you'd call it). They know they can't ever win the World Cup, but to be crowned 'best of the rest' might be a motivation. It would give them something to aim for, other than just turning up to make up the numbers.

What about the countries that get knocked out at the group’s? And the countries that don’t qualify? Why don’t we give everyone a trophy?! 

[Tonka]

Sorry I meant 2 from pot 3, a typo 

[17 stone giant]

Just now, glossop saint said:

With such high expectations of 2021 I think that a bit of manipulation of the fixtures is needed and this format does make that difficult.

Let's hope that some of the balls in the draw are hotter than others, so that the person picking them out is able to 'randomly' select Tonga and Samoa in the same group.