2021 World Cup Format

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

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.

yeah but equally why does 1 team wining 2 matches in the group stages go out but a team winning 1 or even none go through? etc

in any format there are always issues.. 

 

[17 stone giant]

2 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

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?! 

Haha. It was only an idea - I'm not saying that I would do it. I just thought that since the top three nations are so far ahead of the rest (with the exception currently of Tonga, who have exploited the heritage rules to improve their competitiveness), then maybe giving the rest of the teams some other motivation, might help. As things are, and have been for as long as I can remember, success for the other teams means getting to a semi final where you are 99% certain to get thrashed.

[glossop saint]

Just now, RP London said:

yeah but equally why does 1 team wining 2 matches in the group stages go out but a team winning 1 or even none go through? etc

in any format there are always issues.. 

 

Because it is easier to beat weaker nations than it is to beat stronger nations. Unfortunately we have quite a range of quality on the international scene.

Everyone will have their opinion on which format works best, just like they will on whether a nines world cup is a good idea or whether bringing gb back is good. The discussion is interesting and we will never no if there is a right answer and can only get behind whatever is chosen, as I will be by attending whatever games I can.

[glossop saint]

8 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

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.

Haha. There could be some interesting groups or some very lopsided groups.

[RP London]

1 minute ago, glossop saint said:

Because it is easier to beat weaker nations than it is to beat stronger nations. Unfortunately we have quite a range of quality on the international scene.

Everyone will have their opinion on which format works best, just like they will on whether a nines world cup is a good idea or whether bringing gb back is good. The discussion is interesting and we will never no if there is a right answer and can only get behind whatever is chosen, as I will be by attending whatever games I can.

no i know that but its not a great look to admit that those sides are so weak that we're only letting 1 of them go through no matter how well they do early in the tournament etc.. 

found it a bit difficult and at times embarrassing explaining it to people. I get the feeling a thrashing is easier to explain "yeah they weren't very good!" rather than "well what we do is contrive it so that we dont let the poor teams play the good teams so that the thrashing wont look silly etc"

never like the super group format as you can probably tell and glad we are moving back. also think we can have some great games within this, along with maybe a couple of thrashings but I dont see this as an issue (look at football and RU and there are some thrashings there too.. even at semi final stage in Brazil!)

[Exiled Wiganer]

I could see us having 12 competitive sides by 2021, if we build the game. The Pacific Cup, with the Hunters benefiting PNG and Fiji looking at an NSW Cup side in 2020, will produce 6 battle hardened nations. England are pretty handy, and if the game gets its act together, and they get home games, France should be good. I see no reason why we can't use the intervening period to make sure that Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Lebanon (assuming they all qualify) can put their very best foot forward. I see the answer to concerns about nothing mattering other than traditional big games to make sure that the 8 teams in the third and fourth pots are as strong as possible. In most cases, we only need them to be as strong again as they were in previous World Cups. I welcome the challenge that this draw places on our game, rather than feel scared that it will all fall apart.

[Dunbar]

44 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

We are 3 weeks in and more than half of the games have been played. The quarter finals in the WC produce some terrible attendances because we only really have a week at best to sell them and they through out good but not great fixtures.

Had we put in place something along the lines of the super groups. Right now we could be selling an Opening game with massive opening ceremony in London of say, NZ v Tonga on Friday night Haka v Sipi Tau, followed up with Englands opening match against say France at another large stadium in london and Australia v Fiji on the Sunday.

The next week we come north could have Tonga v Samoa Sipi Tau v Siva Tau at Elland Road Friday night and England v Australia at St James' Park prime time Saturday night,

The next week we have NZ v Samoa at Elland Road Haka v Siva Tau England v Fiji at the Etihad with likely with something riding on it, and Australia v France

We could be selling tickets for them pretty much now.

Then in the quarter finals you could very easily have England v Samoa, NZ v Fiji, Australia v someone, Tonga v someone. Then semi finals of England v Tonga, Australia v NZ or some form thereof.

You know what, I think you are right. I think we could market and sell those games very well.

But I hate the idea. I hate having 'Super Group's' where we sacrifice the likes of PNG and other smaller passionate RL nations and any chance they have of progessing through the group stages just so that the big teams can play manufactured games in front of big crowds while all the time knowing they will qualify anyway.

I will stick with my preference for the group stages giving all teams a chance to progress and let our great sport produce entertainment and drama.

[glossop saint]

10 minutes ago, RP London said:

no i know that but its not a great look to admit that those sides are so weak that we're only letting 1 of them go through no matter how well they do early in the tournament etc.. 

found it a bit difficult and at times embarrassing explaining it to people. I get the feeling a thrashing is easier to explain "yeah they weren't very good!" rather than "well what we do is contrive it so that we dont let the poor teams play the good teams so that the thrashing wont look silly etc"

never like the super group format as you can probably tell and glad we are moving back. also think we can have some great games within this, along with maybe a couple of thrashings but I dont see this as an issue (look at football and RU and there are some thrashings there too.. even at semi final stage in Brazil!)

I'm very wary of comparing us to other sports and their results and formats. I think we need to do what is best for us. I think that despite the flaws I think the super groups work best. I would rather have those difficult conversations and enjoy what is likely to be a closer set of games but can definitely see the pros of this format.

[RP London]

4 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

I'm very wary of comparing us to other sports and their results and formats. I think we need to do what is best for us. I think that despite the flaws I think the super groups work best. I would rather have those difficult conversations and enjoy what is likely to be a closer set of games but can definitely see the pros of this format.

as much as i agree that we shouldnt look to always copy other sports there is also a reason why loads of other sports use a tried and tested format. 

I also agree that we should do the best for us. 

The other bits i totally disagree with, I think the Super Group is rubbish as you may just as well have that group and be done with (I know this can be levelled at just having the semis and a final etc or just have a 4 nations).. I'd also much rather have the "yep they got thrashed" conversation as it happens everywhere.

so guess, though we are coming from the same angle of doing the best we can, that we wont agree in the end.

[Dunbar]

Super Groups are great if you follow a big team.  In 2008 Australia, New Zealand and England could have a great time playing each other knowing that they would qualify for the semi finals anyway.

And who cares if we screwed over Papua New Guinea and gave their national team from their national sport no chance of winning a game in a world cup.

[17 stone giant]

13 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

just so that the big teams can play manufactured games in front of big crowds while all the time knowing they will qualify anyway.

I think the above is the key point that has to be remembered here. Even if we had group matches of, say, England vs Australia, there isn't much jeopardy involved. Everyone knows that both teams are going to be in the semi-finals anyway, irrespective of who wins this match. The only difference it really makes is who you meet in the semi-final.

 

[glossop saint]

18 minutes ago, RP London said:

as much as i agree that we shouldnt look to always copy other sports there is also a reason why loads of other sports use a tried and tested format. 

I also agree that we should do the best for us. 

The other bits i totally disagree with, I think the Super Group is rubbish as you may just as well have that group and be done with (I know this can be levelled at just having the semis and a final etc or just have a 4 nations).. I'd also much rather have the "yep they got thrashed" conversation as it happens everywhere.

so guess, though we are coming from the same angle of doing the best we can, that we wont agree in the end.

It does happen everywhere and I think can be dismissed if It Is a one off. This could potentially be half of the games. I think that new spectators are probably more bothered about the game itself than the whole competition so would rather impress them with a close game than watch a thrashing but be able to tell them how fair the format is.

Agree to disagree. But interesting to have the debate.

[glossop saint]

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Super Groups are great if you follow a big team.  In 2008 Australia, New Zealand and England could have a great time playing each other knowing that they would qualify for the semi finals anyway.

And who cares if we screwed over Papua New Guinea and gave their national team from their national sport no chance of winning a game in a world cup.

Super groups are also good if you are a fan of a smaller team. Having 3 close games is most interesting than 2 thrashing and 1 close one.

Also, I suspect most people had Lebanon as the whipping boys of one of the super groups last time round but they turned it round. Similarly Scotland in 2013 (I think But might be wrong there).

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

Super groups are also good if you are a fan of a smaller team. Having 3 close games is most interesting than 2 thrashing and 1 close one.

Also, I suspect most people had Lebanon as the whipping boys of one of the super groups last time round but they turned it round. Similarly Scotland in 2013 (I think But might be wrong there).

It was Cumbrian Fantastic who pointed out that last time Samoa won 0 group games and drew one and went through to the knock out stages while Ireland won 2 group games but did not go through.

It is not just a question of preferences, the Super Group format is inherently unfair.

[glossop saint]

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It was Cumbrian Fantastic who pointed out that last time Samoa won 0 group games and drew one and went through to the knock out stages while Ireland won 2 group games but did not go through.

It is not just a question of preferences, the Super Group format is inherently unfair.

It COULD be argued that it was a better and more enjoyable tournament for Ireland as they got to win games and so it is unfair on Samoa. I wouldn't dare argue that on this forum though.

All cup tournaments are unfair based on the fact that you play different teams. I agree that this is 'fairer' than the super groups but I think that we lose so much more because of it. I don't think that it is worth it.

[Dunbar]

39 minutes ago, glossop saint said:

It COULD be argued that it was a better and more enjoyable tournament for Ireland as they got to win games and so it is unfair on Samoa. I wouldn't dare argue that on this forum though.

All cup tournaments are unfair based on the fact that you play different teams. I agree that this is 'fairer' than the super groups but I think that we lose so much more because of it. I don't think that it is worth it.

With respect, you are looking at benefits of the Super Group structure from the perspective of a fan from a team whose nation it is designed to benefit.

If a Papua New guinea fan had said in 2008 that their team had been sacrificed so that England, New Zealand and Australia could progress to the semi finals but the tournament benefited from it then it would carry more weight.

[glossop saint]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

With respect, you are looking at benefits of the Super Group structure from the perspective of a fan from a team whose nation it is designed to benefit.

If a Papua New guinea fan had said in 2008 that their team had been sacrificed so that England, New Zealand and Australia could progress to the semi finals but the tournament benefited from it then it would carry more weight.

2008 was a bit before my time as a rugby league fan so I can't speak too much about it but I do agree that that was incredibly unfair on PNG.  I think the way that the current super groups have worked in the last 2 world cups is better.  Would people have expected Lebanon to go through at the expense of France in 2017? Maybe, but both teams had a good chance of going through.  The PNG v France game was very tight in 2013 and obviously there was the draw between Samoa and Scotland last year.  It is no longer the case that there are sacrificial teams in the super group like 2008.

I possibly am looking at it from a bias point of view being an England fan but I would also class myself as an expansionist, both in this country and internationally.  I think that the best way to do this is to have a thriving tournament with as many well matched games as possible creating a buzz both in those individual games and on a whole throughout the country.  

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

1 hour ago, glossop saint said:

It COULD be argued that it was a better and more enjoyable tournament for Ireland as they got to win games and so it is unfair on Samoa. I wouldn't dare argue that on this forum though.

All cup tournaments are unfair based on the fact that you play different teams. I agree that this is 'fairer' than the super groups but I think that we lose so much more because of it. I don't think that it is worth it.

It could be argued that way but that's not my recollection that was how Ireland felt, my recollection is that they felt hard done by.

It COULD be argued that Scotland didn't try in their first 2 games of the 2017 world cup (not an opinion I hold btw) as they knew they only needed to win the last game to go through so they saved everything for that. Under the new format all teams will need to win 2 games (or win 1 and draw 1 at the very least) to go through. That means a pot 3 nation has to beat a pot 1 or, more likely a pot 2 team to go through, which is something that is a very realistic possibility

[FearNothing]

I think we're coming onto one of the best parts of this discussion now..... 

 

It's not just the Auz v Eng or Tonga v NZ later in the tournament that are going to be cracking games under this format, it's also going to be the ones between the 2nd, 3rd and 4th teams in the groups that have massive potential to throw up some unexpected stonkers of contests   And that will make the whole tournament better IMHO. Yes, top seeds v bottom of group probably will be blow-outs, but all those other group games could really make the comp light up...

[Mumby Magic]

Sorry if its been said but should be 4x4 groups. Seeded pots.

[glossop saint]

2 hours ago, Cumbrian Fanatic said:

It could be argued that way but that's not my recollection that was how Ireland felt, my recollection is that they felt hard done by.

It COULD be argued that Scotland didn't try in their first 2 games of the 2017 world cup (not an opinion I hold btw) as they knew they only needed to win the last game to go through so they saved everything for that. Under the new format all teams will need to win 2 games (or win 1 and draw 1 at the very least) to go through. That means a pot 3 nation has to beat a pot 1 or, more likely a pot 2 team to go through, which is something that is a very realistic possibility

Maybe.  But Ireland had to play easier teams.  Maybe Scotland didn't try in their first two games.  But they then had to play Samoa who were a stronger team than who Ireland had to play.  

I agree that this system is 'fairer' but I still don't think that it will best for us in our situation.

[Jim from Oz]

8 hours ago, Southerner80 said:

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

Exactly my point! It is about packaging and promoting the rugby league World Cup as an event not to be missed! You can’t simply put on a  tournament and then do nothing to get people excited about it,

this is what happened with the rugby league World Cup in Australia in 2017! The promotion, marketing and packaging of this event was appalling.

[Spidey]

3 hours ago, Mumby Magic said:

Sorry if its been said but should be 4x4 groups. Seeded pots.

That’s exactly what it is

[Dunbar]

3 hours ago, Mumby Magic said:

Sorry if its been said but should be 4x4 groups. Seeded pots.

 

4 minutes ago, Spidey said:

That’s exactly what it is

There we go, got the whole thing sorted in under 3 hours... don't know why the RLIF finds it so difficult.

[deluded pom?]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

 

There we go, got the whole thing sorted in under 3 hours... don't know why the RLIF finds it so difficult.

A total waste of four and a half pages.