Rugby League World Cup 2021 (Merged Threads)

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Intake Don said:

I thought if England win there QF they play at the Emirate’s wherever they finish in the group is that not the case? 

 

23 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Who knows! According to the RL press it is, according to the RLWC customer service (and advertised website) it isn't.

The Emirates semi features the winner of QF 2 v QF 4 - England will be in one of those QF's either eay, so yes, if England make the semi final they will play at the Emirates. 

[Stuff Smith]

OK, we're getting technical here.

They're scanning a bar code or a QR code. What difference does it make if it's on paper or on a screen?

For once, I'm not being facetious: can someone PM me and explain please?

(Oh hold on, maybe they're not scanning anything. Maybe it is like the dark ages. Do we get River Caves too?)

Edited October 4, 2022 by Stuff Smith

[Maximus Decimus]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

The Emirates semi features the winner of QF 2 v QF 4 - England will be in one of those QF's either eay, so yes, if England make the semi final they will play at the Emirates. 

The plot thickens. Surely this greatly reduces the need for England to have to play at Wigan?

I've always had a difficult relationship with the RLWC, but one thing I admired about this one was the bravery to move away from relying on England vs Australia in the first game.

It appears it is just contrived in a less obvious way than before. They've clearly tried to ensure England make the final by ensuring we play neither Aus or NZ before it. However, we are far from guaranteed to make it anyway and I fear might not even make the semi-finals.

[Just Browny]

22 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

The plot thickens. Surely this greatly reduces the need for England to have to play at Wigan?

I've always had a difficult relationship with the RLWC, but one thing I admired about this one was the bravery to move away from relying on England vs Australia in the first game.

It appears it is just contrived in a less obvious way than before. They've clearly tried to ensure England make the final by ensuring we play neither Aus or NZ before it. However, we are far from guaranteed to make it anyway and I fear might not even make the semi-finals.

It's not contrived, NZ have a lower seeding because England were finalists in the last World Cup while NZ went out in the QFs.

[Maximus Decimus]

13 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

It's not contrived, NZ have a lower seeding because England were finalists in the last World Cup while NZ went out in the QFs.

England can't play a team from Group B or C until the final, but can play another team from Group A twice.

That's not how any other sport organises a tournament like this. It also happens that Group B and C contains Aus and NZ, by far the traditionally strongest teams in international RL.

I'd call that contrived and more than a little suspicious.

[overtheborder]

13 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

England can't play a team from Group B or C until the final, but can play another team from Group A twice.

That's not how any other sport organises a tournament like this. It also happens that Group B and C contains Aus and NZ, by far the traditionally strongest teams in international RL.

I'd call that contrived and more than a little suspicious.

To be fair I think even the football world cup has that sort of scenario (haven't researched to confirm but I remember England having that potential scenario previously). Problem is in the RLWC, whether England would play Aus/NZ early or late, it could potentially appear contrived for different reasons. I don't believe it's contrived, I think with seeding you always have a couple of the theoretically strongest sides not meeting until the final.

[Mr Frisky]

21 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

England can't play a team from Group B or C until the final, but can play another team from Group A twice.

That's not how any other sport organises a tournament like this. It also happens that Group B and C contains Aus and NZ, by far the traditionally strongest teams in international RL.

I'd call that contrived and more than a little suspicious.

What about every tennis grand slam- they have 2 sides to a draw.

[Mr Frisky]

4 minutes ago, overtheborder said:

To be fair I think even the football world cup has that sort of scenario (haven't researched to confirm but I remember England having that potential scenario previously). Problem is in the RLWC, whether England would play Aus/NZ early or late, it could potentially appear contrived for different reasons. I don't believe it's contrived, I think with seeding you always have a couple of the theoretically strongest sides not meeting until the final.

Yes, if your going to win it you will have to play tje best team at some point.

[Maximus Decimus]

5 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

What about every tennis grand slam- they have 2 sides to a draw.

That's a straight knockout tournament, not one involving groups. Players cannot play each other twice.

Other team sports don't have this system. They do have seeding of course but teams can only meet again if they make the final. We're not talking about the top 2 seeds England and Aus both winning all their games and meeting in the final, England cannot play them even if they have a bad tournament.

In a 32 team WC there is not a team that England could only meet in the final. This is standard for all tournaments like this.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

That's a straight knockout tournament, not one involving groups. Players cannot play each other twice.

Other team sports don't have this system. They do have seeding of course but teams can only meet again if they make the final. We're not talking about the top 2 seeds England and Aus both winning all their games and meeting in the final, England cannot play them even if they have a bad tournament.

In a 32 team WC there is not a team that England could only meet in the final. This is standard for all tournaments like this.

Yes, the format is slightly different than other 16 team comps, but then all our World Cups have used different formats.

One of the attractive things about this tournament is that the final cannot be a repeat of a game that has already been staged in the rest of the tournament. 

That was possible in past tournaments in many cases, and happened in 2017, 2008 and 1995. It was about 3 seconds away from happening in 2013 too. 

The downside is that there is potential for England to play Samoa again in the semis at Arsenal after playing them in Newcastle. 

In reality, the format looks fine and the majority won't dig and evaluate the options. It is a welcome move from the past formats for me. 

[Damien]

The format is fine and this is easily the least contrived World Cup. Its probably the first one that seems a normal enough format to non RL fans.

[Mr Frisky]

44 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

That's a straight knockout tournament, not one involving groups. Players cannot play each other twice.

Other team sports don't have this system. They do have seeding of course but teams can only meet again if they make the final. We're not talking about the top 2 seeds England and Aus both winning all their games and meeting in the final, England cannot play them even if they have a bad tournament.

In a 32 team WC there is not a team that England could only meet in the final. This is standard for all tournaments like this.

This isn't a 32 team WC.

[Damien]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

Yes, these things are always subjective, but a couple of big, well known anthems will help the atmosphere. 

You are quite right in that it is subjective. The Kaiser Chiefs have some well known anthems that I think will go down well in a stadium setting. They are a fair bit newer than the whole indie, Britpop 90s Grand Final bands we have seen and a lot more relevant with Ricky Wilson still on TV a fair bit.

I'm just glad the organisers are doing something, I think it is important from a prestige angle that an opening event is taken seriously. Its been lacking in recent World Cups.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

You are quite right in that it is subjective. The Kaiser Chiefs have some well known anthems that I think will go down well in a stadium setting. They are a fair bit newer than the whole indie, Britpop 90s Grand Final bands we have seen and a lot more relevant with Ricky Wilson still on TV a fair bit.

I'm just glad the organisers are doing something, I think it is important from a prestige angle that an opening event is taken seriously. Its been lacking in recent World Cups.

I've only read a few things on Twitter, including the bands own post, but it appears to have been received very positively. 

I like the sound of the Welcome that they are doing at St James Pk. I know it is based around a lot of flags, but that is fine when introducing nations, but having a strong headline band and some of the displays with flags in the crowd sound positive and should create a good look inside the bowl. 

When you add the fan zone at quayside, including a firework display on Saturday evening, I'm really looking forward to it. 

I just hope it is done well, and not Alex Simmons shouting across a car park. 

[Just Browny]

9 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

That's a straight knockout tournament, not one involving groups. Players cannot play each other twice.

Other team sports don't have this system. They do have seeding of course but teams can only meet again if they make the final. We're not talking about the top 2 seeds England and Aus both winning all their games and meeting in the final, England cannot play them even if they have a bad tournament.

In a 32 team WC there is not a team that England could only meet in the final. This is standard for all tournaments like this.

This new thing of looking for conspiracies is a bit of fun but both the tournament structure and the principle if England playing at a larger stadium regardless of whether they are 1st or 2nd in the group* are both fine. 

 

 

*This doesn't excuse the woeful communication on the matter.

[Maximus Decimus]

8 hours ago, Mr Frisky said:

This isn't a 32 team WC.

Well instead look at pretty much any 16 team tournament with groups ever hosted where the same thing applies - there are no teams that cannot meet until the final. Even the 16-team 2000 RLWC was organised along these lines, hence why we didn't play Australia in the first match and again in the semi-final.

You have to question why they've decided to break with the universally recognised format, it's obviously been done for a reason. Maybe the Emirates semi-final is the reason, or maybe they want England to avoid the big boys before the final.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Just Browny said:

This new thing of looking for conspiracies is a bit of fun but both the tournament structure and the principle if England playing at a larger stadium regardless of whether they are 1st or 2nd in the group* are both fine. 

 

 

*This doesn't excuse the woeful communication on the matter.

In the 1966 FIFA World Cup, England's semi final, by original draw, should have been played at Everton.

Obviously, you can't move for people being livid that, for reasons of both getting a massive crowd and giving the host country as much of an advantage as possible, it was played at Wembley instead.

[Mr Frisky]

1 minute ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Well instead look at pretty much any 16 team tournament with groups ever hosted where the same thing applies - there are no teams that cannot meet until the final. Even the 16-team 2000 RLWC was organised along these lines, hence why we didn't play Australia in the first match and again in the semi-final.

You have to question why they've decided to break with the universally recognised format, it's obviously been done for a reason. Maybe the Emirates semi-final is the reason, or maybe they want England to avoid the big boys before the final.

Maybe its to try and get Oz and NZ to the final by avoiding England?

England got to the final last time in an open format - at the end of the day as long as the rules are set before it starts then it doesn't really matter - you still have to beat the best teams to win it.

[Just Browny]

6 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Well instead look at pretty much any 16 team tournament with groups ever hosted where the same thing applies - there are no teams that cannot meet until the final. Even the 16-team 2000 RLWC was organised along these lines, hence why we didn't play Australia in the first match and again in the semi-final.

You have to question why they've decided to break with the universally recognised format, 

I think it's a WEF thing.

Or maybe the answer is in your post; the only time we have used "the universally recognised format" we nearly killed international RL for good.

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Well instead look at pretty much any 16 team tournament with groups ever hosted where the same thing applies - there are no teams that cannot meet until the final. Even the 16-team 2000 RLWC was organised along these lines, hence why we didn't play Australia in the first match and again in the semi-final.

You have to question why they've decided to break with the universally recognised format, it's obviously been done for a reason. Maybe the Emirates semi-final is the reason, or maybe they want England to avoid the big boys before the final.

We've manipulated the formats for years, with a quite simple and clear objective of controlling and staging big events. I think creating two halves of a draw at knockout stage helps to create a visible route for teams, which allows for an element of control when staging games. In other tournaments there can be a wide range of outcomes, there are fewer available here. 

I also think it holds up under scrutiny. Ignoring where world rankings are right now, New Zealand are lucky to retain their seeding in the top 4 if we based this on the last WC (which we half do as we auto qualify based on it). England and Australia were the strongest two teams at the last WC and they as top seed avoid each other. Tonga had a stronger WC than the Kiwis, so there is a logic which suggests we have the tougher draw. Overall, England don't have an artificially easy route. 

After years of manipulating the tournament so that we were guaranteed to meet the Aussies and Kiwis, I think it's refreshing that the big game we are talking about is Eng v Samoa, and the next one is the hope that we get to play Tonga in the semi finals. 

[gingerjon]

 

[Jughead]

https://www.zerotackle.com/multiple-stars-could-be-forced-out-of-world-cup-by-admin-issue-123791/amp/

Farcical. Embarrassing. Amateurish. Rugby League. 

[nadera78]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

 

I'm assuming that's an ARL issue, because every player at this tournament - male, female, wheelchair - is supposed to be getting the same pay from the RLWC, which individual nations are free to top up if they wish.

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, Just Browny said:

This new thing of looking for conspiracies is a bit of fun but both the tournament structure and the principle if England playing at a larger stadium regardless of whether they are 1st or 2nd in the group* are both fine. 

 

 

*This doesn't excuse the woeful communication on the matter.

I don't think it's anything like a conspiracy to wonder why they've decided to come up with a format that has a small but significant difference to other similar tournaments.

After all, this is a tournament that in every incarnation since they extended it in 1995 has not only had England and Australia in the same group, but in all but one they have opened the tournament with that game (The only other being Aus vs NZ). This wasn't a coincidence but specifically contrived that way to ensure the tournament starts with a high-profile game.

The draw was made in a specific way that seems fair enough. I'd just be interested in when they decided not to go for the usual format for the knockouts and whether it was done prior to the draw.

It seems awfully fortunate that we will definitely avoid the two teams who've knocked us out of every tournament until the final.

[gingerjon]

42 minutes ago, nadera78 said:

I'm assuming that's an ARL issue, because every player at this tournament - male, female, wheelchair - is supposed to be getting the same pay from the RLWC, which individual nations are free to top up if they wish.

That does rather imply that the match payment from the RLWC is ... not high.