Rework of IRL/RLWC

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, GeordieSaint said:

It’s not really. In theory, the 3rd team in Pools A and B could qualify without winning a game - a draw against 4th with a better points difference. That would do wonders for the competition’s integrity. 

This format is absolutely fine. The only group without 3 good/decent sides is the Australian pool. Every game can’t be close. We should stop trying to manufacture that with poor formats lacking integrity and instead invest in developing the sport with a long term view; not quick fix short termism.

Disagree Geordie.

[Martyn Sadler]

9 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

It’s not really. In theory, the 3rd team in Pools A and B could qualify without winning a game - a draw against 4th with a better points difference. That would do wonders for the competition’s integrity. 

This format is absolutely fine. The only group without 3 good/decent sides is the Australian pool. Every game can’t be close. We should stop trying to manufacture that with poor formats lacking integrity and instead invest in developing the sport with a long term view; not quick fix short termism.

At the moment I would pay quite a lot to see a drawn game.

Every game can't be close, but if we're talking about the competition's integrity and audience appeal, every game shouldn't be so one-sided.

[bobbruce]

10 hours ago, rlno1 said:

To avoid the big scorelines what about introducing a set up like the 20/20 World Cup? It is essentially played in two phases. First phase finds the strongest of the minor nations who then join the top 8-10 nations.

 

I do like that idea as it would battle harden these countries. Also give them some game time together before they have to step up and play the more experienced countries. 

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

It’s not really. In theory, the 3rd team in Pools A and B could qualify without winning a game - a draw against 4th with a better points difference. That would do wonders for the competition’s integrity. 

This format is absolutely fine. The only group without 3 good/decent sides is the Australian pool. Every game can’t be close. We should stop trying to manufacture that with poor formats lacking integrity and instead invest in developing the sport with a long term view; not quick fix short termism.

Yeah we've been down this route before and it generally sees a couple of stronger nations shafted, and have no chance of getting to the quarter finals, while a couple of weaker sides waltz their respective groups.

[Martyn Sadler]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

Yeah we've been down this route before and it generally sees a couple of stronger nations shafted, and have no chance of getting to the quarter finals, while a couple of weaker sides waltz their respective groups.

Give us the examples!

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Give us the examples!

RLWC 2013 where PNG and Ireland had no chance of qualifying while the much weaker Scotland and USA walked their groups. Swap those teams and PNG and Ireland make the quarter finals with ease.

[GeordieSaint]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

RLWC 2013 where PNG and Ireland had no chance of qualifying while the much weaker Scotland and USA walked their groups. Swap those teams and PNG and Ireland make the quarter finals with ease.

Tonga 2013 as well - won 2 games but didn’t qualify whilst the French won 1 and did. 

[bobbruce]

5 hours ago, SydneyRoosters said:

There’s a difference between being out skilled and out worked.

Wales put in everything against a team full of NRL players, they were just outskilled at the death, Too much first grade talent for the Welsh To handle.

Then there’s Scotland’s performance, don’t get me wrong Skill was a massive factor but most of the tries Australia were scored through sheer lack of effort from the Scottish, for example the Cleary Try, Alex Walker didn’t even feel like tackling him. Another was Kieran Buchanan simply not tackling Jack Wighton in what was a easy tackle and about 10 other Aussie tries. There was no signs of effort and they simply wanted to go home after the first 20 minutes.

You don’t miss 50 Tackles if your only being Out-skilled.

Italy have missed 40 odd tackles in the first half. 

[gingerjon]

God spare us endless structure fiddlers.

[Martyn Sadler]

16 minutes ago, Damien said:

RLWC 2013 where PNG and Ireland had no chance of qualifying while the much weaker Scotland and USA walked their groups. Swap those teams and PNG and Ireland make the quarter finals with ease.

PNG had every chance of qualifying. They didn't because they lost 8-9 to France.

Ireland had a deficit of 110 points in three matches, while Scotland defeated Tonga and drew with Italy, suggesting they were stronger than Ireland.

In any case, the nine games that were played in the weaker groups C and D had an average winning margin of 6.67 points. In other words, every game was potentially very close, which should be what we are aiming for if we are to encourage interest and development in some of the weaker nations.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

PNG had every chance of qualifying. They didn't because they lost 8-9 to France.

Ireland had a deficit of 110 points in three matches, while Scotland defeated Tonga and drew with Italy, suggesting they were stronger than Ireland.

In any case, the nine games that were played in the weaker groups C and D had an average winning margin of 6.67 points. In other words, every game was potentially very close, which should be what we are aiming for if we are to encourage interest and development in some of the weaker nations.

This is nonsense on stilts.

[Martyn Sadler]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

This is nonsense on stilts.

And this is eccentricity on stilts!

One of these days you'll come out with a decent argument instead of making silly comments, although I'm not holding my breath.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

And this is eccentricity on stilts!

One of these days you'll come out with a decent argument instead of making silly comments, although I'm not holding my breath.

Okay, I'll take a minute.

This whole "every game has to be close and mean something" is the kind of meat raffle thinking that led to such absolute guff as the middle eights and *yet again* is all about rugby league trying to make something nice and comfortable for its less competitive sides without wanting to do any hard work at all that would make them sustainably and consistently stronger and so not need a distorted competition.

It's the failed thinking that has led to rugby league being where it is today. It belongs in the past.

[GeordieSaint]

15 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

PNG had every chance of qualifying. They didn't because they lost 8-9 to France.

Ireland had a deficit of 110 points in three matches, while Scotland defeated Tonga and drew with Italy, suggesting they were stronger than Ireland.

In any case, the nine games that were played in the weaker groups C and D had an average winning margin of 6.67 points. In other words, every game was potentially very close, which should be what we are aiming for if we are to encourage interest and development in some of the weaker nations.

What about Tonga? Won more games than France and PNG but didn’t go through due to the fabricated structure that lacked integrity.

Agree with GJ.

[Jughead]

England should be wound up as an international side. When was the last time they beat Australia?

[Gerrumonside ref]

Can’t keep tinkering and expect any credibility for the tournament.

 

[eal]

There are too many teams and the constant blowouts make it largely not worth watching. The argument that the minnows will get better with the exposure doesn't stack up as teams full of heritage players that have no continuity and only gather as a group every four years will never get better - every RLWC is essentially a stand alone project for them. Unless the RLWC is paired with regular international fixtures played by teams with long term goals nothing will ever change.

[Martyn Sadler]

10 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Okay, I'll take a minute.

This whole "every game has to be close and mean something" is the kind of meat raffle thinking that led to such absolute guff as the middle eights and *yet again* is all about rugby league trying to make something nice and comfortable for its less competitive sides without wanting to do any hard work at all that would make them sustainably and consistently stronger and so not need a distorted competition.

It's the failed thinking that has led to rugby league being where it is today. It belongs in the past.

You are missing the point entirely and I'm not sure what the middle eights have to do with this.

And it also has nothing to do with making something "nice and comfortable" for the less competitive sides, whatever that means and I really don't know what your last paragraph is supposed to mean.

It's about making a competition that recognises the disparities in the strength of the competing nations, gives them all a chance of competing against their peers, while, most importantly, creating a tournament that will produce exciting matches that will draw people in to the tournament.

Of the eight Round 2 games, the only one that seems to have any chance of giving us a close game is the clash between Lebanon and Ireland.

You may enjoy watching one-sided matches, but most people don't, which is why our ticket sales generally are disappointing.

If England hadn't played so well against Samoa, I think the tournament would have been in big trouble.

But if England can maintain that standard, and even win the World Cup, then the players will have rescued the game, as they very often do.

[Martyn Sadler]

17 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

What about Tonga? Won more games than France and PNG but didn’t go through due to the fabricated structure that lacked integrity.

Agree with GJ.

Tonga lost to Scotland, who went through.

It was a very exciting game in Workington, as I'm sure you will remember.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

It's about making a competition that recognises the disparities in the strength of the competing nations, gives them all a chance of competing against their peers, while, most importantly, creating a tournament that will produce exciting matches that will draw people in to the tournament.

There is no evidence that an artificially constructed tournament works any better than one where you just seed the groups and leave alone.

No evidence that having created your little made-up and safe version more people get drawn in.

No evidence it creates more memorable or well-attended games.

No evidence that it actually helps the countries develop into better sides - we've had three gimmick tournaments in a row before this one after all. Should they not have improved by now?

Your options are all about avoiding hard work and then covering up the results of that failure with gimmicks that give the impression of development and competitiveness.

Nah. We should be done with that.

[GeordieSaint]

10 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Tonga lost to Scotland, who went through.

It was a very exciting game in Workington, as I'm sure you will remember.

That doesn’t address my point. Tonga didn’t go through despite winning more games than France due to the unfair nature of that competition’s structure. Thankfully, that’s now gone.

[Gerrumonside ref]

The group phase in most sporting competitions is usually about separating the wheat from the chaff.

Not every game can be close, not every team can qualify.

Nothing has really transpired that wasn’t predictable except the winning margin for England and maybe the Tonga-PNG match.

I don’t really understand the knee jerk reaction and the desire to rip up the format after so few games.

I also think it’s wrong to say that the ticket sales are purely down to mismatches on paper.

Why aren’t people focusing more on the great rugby league they are seeing.

If the semis and final have blowout scorelines then I would be concerned, but not in a group phase.

[GeordieSaint]

2 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

The group phase in most sporting competitions is usually about separating the wheat from the chaff.

Not every game can be close, not every team can qualify.

Nothing has really transpired that wasn’t predictable except the winning margin for England and maybe the Tonga-PNG match.

I don’t really understand the knee jerk reaction and the desire to rip up the format after so few games.

I also think it’s wrong to say that the ticket sales are purely down to mismatches on paper.

Why aren’t people focusing more on the great rugby league they are seeing.

If the semis and final have blowout scorelines then I would be concerned, but not in a group phase.

Rugby league is obsessed with perfection and artificially trying to manufacture ‘every minute matters’. In reality, sport is not like that. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

God spare us endless structure fiddlers.

Like this year from '17's format?

[Martyn Sadler]

Just now, gingerjon said:

There is no evidence that an artificially constructed tournament works any better than one where you just seed the groups and leave alone.

All tournaments are artificially constructed

 

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

No evidence that having created your little made-up and safe version more people get drawn in.

"Made up and safe" is a silly mis-characterisation, but I think you'll find that some of the crowds in 2013 for the two weaker pools were generally better than the equivalent games nine years later and that is with a very significantly smaller marketing budget.

 

18 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

No evidence it creates more memorable or well-attended games.

I've already pointed out that the C and D games from 2013 produced an average margin of 6.67 points - rather more memorable than one-sided points tests.

 

19 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

No evidence that it actually helps the countries develop into better sides - we've had three gimmick tournaments in a row before this one after all. Should they not have improved by now?

Wouldn't you say that the South Pacific countries have developed into better sides?

Anyway, the factors that might cause them to improve are many-sided. You can hardly hang all the responsibility onto the particular format of a World Cup.

21 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Your options are all about avoiding hard work and then covering up the results of that failure with gimmicks that give the impression of development and competitiveness.

Avoiding hard work by whom?

Which gimmicks?

And at the moment I would rather welcome the impression of competitiveness.

23 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Nah. We should be done with that.

We are done with it and look where it has got us.

Of the ten World Cup games so far, only two have had a final scoreline with a margin of less than 20 points.

I'm delighted that you think that's great, but I suspect you're in a minority.