Rework of IRL/RLWC

[Martyn Sadler]

9 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

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

But the best sport is.

[Harry Stottle]

39 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

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

 

Exactly , should have left it as it was.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Like this year from '17's format?

The removal of structure fiddles is a positive step forward from 2017's nonsense.

[Gerrumonside ref]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Exactly , should have left it as it was.

Was it a successful tournament in 2017?

Heavily criticised in many areas I seem to remember.

[Gerrumonside ref]

3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

But the best sport is.

You’ll have to qualify that.

[bobbruce]

33 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Exactly , should have left it as it was.

 4 teams and no final. 

[SydneyRoosters]

5 hours ago, Barley Mow said:

It might be worth holding back on such claims when you don't know the background of who you might be engaging with.

I can say the exact same thing

[Barley Mow]

8 minutes ago, SydneyRoosters said:

I can say the exact same thing

I don't think anyone else has made the claims you did.

In any event I think I saw a post from you saying you'd been a little too bullish, so I think we can leave it there.

[David Dockhouse Host]

Our latest review show. YouTube and podcast.

 

 

 

Check out Rugby League World Cup Round Up With special Guest from Dockhouse Rugby Pod on Amazon Music.

https://music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/dadc0608-e15b-4b4a-bf09-ffef7ace5f28/episodes/3296cb71-0cea-4d36-a3f0-f695c9663471/DOCKHOUSE-RUGBY-PODRUGBY-LEAGUE-WORLD-CUP-ROUND-UP-WITH-SPECIAL-GUEST?ref=dm_sh_3BwGg5xPIKktd8rCb4LeKluo1

 

[theswanmcr]

8 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The difference was that The organisers, in my view, made a mistake when they moved away from the underlying logic of the 2017 tournament.

The last thing we need is a change of format again.

The two most popular world cups (football and rugby union) both use the simple seeded 4 groups with top 2 going through to knockout phase. That should give you a clue that it works.

Yes there will be blow outs - there used to be loads in football in the 80s and union still has some. But the answer is to play more internationals, ensure heritage rules work for us and keep a settled structure and calendar for once so we can continue to build the game.

[Martyn Sadler]

22 minutes ago, theswanmcr said:

The last thing we need is a change of format again.

The two most popular world cups (football and rugby union) both use the simple seeded 4 groups with top 2 going through to knockout phase. That should give you a clue that it works.

Yes there will be blow outs - there used to be loads in football in the 80s and union still has some. But the answer is to play more internationals, ensure heritage rules work for us and keep a settled structure and calendar for once so we can continue to build the game.

And when we have done that, I agree that it will be by far the best system.

But until then, we need a format that will work as things are, not as we would like them to be.

[theswanmcr]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

And when we have done that, I agree that it will be by far the best system.

But until then, we need a format that will work as things are, not as we would like them to be.

You don’t have the best system (as you admitted) and then get rid of it.

The recent Women’s Euros had a fair few 4 and 5 nil games, England thrashed Norway 8-nil. No one is calling for structure change and it is regarded as the most successful yet.

Union had the likes of Japan and Argentina hammered each game and gradually over 3 or 4 tournaments they improved to where they are now.

The format does work and we are at the start of the process of keeping and building upon it.

[Maximus Decimus]

There is a heck of a lot of whatabboutery on this thread. There is a big difference between a mismatch between nations that play a sport and a mismatch between nations where one does and one doesn't.

Scotland have been playing for over 20 years with zero benefit, and Ireland are not much better. A world cup with nations like these is a world cup built on foundations of sand.

The worst WC of all time was a 16 team WC. I don't think it's a coincidence that the 2nd worst looks set to be a 16 team WC as well. 

[Hughsehhh]

10 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

There is a heck of a lot of whatabboutery on this thread. There is a big difference between a mismatch between nations that play a sport and a mismatch between nations where one does and one doesn't.

Scotland have been playing for over 20 years with zero benefit, and Ireland are not much better. A world cup with nations like these is a world cup built on foundations of sand.

The worst WC of all time was a 16 team WC. I don't think it's a coincidence that the 2nd worst looks set to be a 16 team WC as well. 

You must be fun at parties

How can you possibly judge it objectively when the second round has only just started. I for one am loving it, haven't missed a game on TV yet and but for personal circumstances would have been been at 5/6 games over the course of the tournament, depsite living down south 

[Maximus Decimus]

2 minutes ago, Hughsehhh said:

You must be fun at parties

How can you possibly judge it objectively when the second round has only just started. I for one am loving it, haven't missed a game yet and but for personal circumstances would have been been at 5/6 games over the course of the tournament, depsite living down south 

You're right I am great at parties.

However, when there are 3 people listening to Morris Dancing tunes I don't claim it's the best party I've ever been to.

[theswanmcr]

10 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

There is a heck of a lot of whatabboutery on this thread. There is a big difference between a mismatch between nations that play a sport and a mismatch between nations where one does and one doesn't.

Scotland have been playing for over 20 years with zero benefit, and Ireland are not much better. A world cup with nations like these is a world cup built on foundations of sand.

The worst WC of all time was a 16 team WC. I don't think it's a coincidence that the 2nd worst looks set to be a 16 team WC as well. 

Your first part is correct - but that’s not a reason to bin the 16 teams format.

We need to toughen up squads and have a minimum number playing in domestic competition. Then the likes of Scotland (who are a joke) can’t play unless they get their act together with a home league. Jamaica do have clubs and have domestic players in the squad and that’s the way forward.

Just seen the Jamaica try v NZ and that is what it’s all about!

[Maximus Decimus]

2 minutes ago, theswanmcr said:

Your first part is correct - but that’s not a reason to bin the 16 teams format.

We need to toughen up squads and have a minimum number playing in domestic competition. Then the likes of Scotland (who are a joke) can’t play unless they get their act together with a home league. Jamaica do have clubs and have domestic players in the squad and that’s the way forward.

Just seen the Jamaica try v NZ and that is what it’s all about!

The problem is that many of the arguments could have been applied the exact same way in 2000. The reality is that no progress has been made in many of these nations.

Sticking with 16 guarantees that at least 6/7 will be almost entirely low-quality artificial nations for the foreseeable.

Yes this tournament has been handled badly, but we cannot ignore the effect the lack of competition and artificial nations has on the prestige of the tournament.

[Tommygilf]

Jamaica absolutely proving why 16 is fantastic tonight. What a moment.

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Jamaica absolutely proving why 16 is fantastic tonight. What a moment.

It was, for the 3 domestic players in the team tonight playing in a World Cup against New Zealand will be a night they will never forget. Hopefully it will inspire many more Jamaicans to take up the game.

[Martyn Sadler]

2 hours ago, theswanmcr said:

You don’t have the best system (as you admitted) and then get rid of it.

The recent Women’s Euros had a fair few 4 and 5 nil games, England thrashed Norway 8-nil. No one is calling for structure change and it is regarded as the most successful yet.

Union had the likes of Japan and Argentina hammered each game and gradually over 3 or 4 tournaments they improved to where they are now.

The format does work and we are at the start of the process of keeping and building upon it.

It's the best system when you have 16 teams that are of roughly equal quality, which clearly we don't have.

And there's a difference between having a "fair few" one-sided games and the majority of games being very one sided.

[Tommygilf]

24 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

It's the best system when you have 16 teams that are of roughly equal quality, which clearly we don't have.

And there's a difference between having a "fair few" one-sided games and the majority of games being very one sided.

I assume you would have Samoa in your reduced numbers world cup. You know Samoa who have been beaten by England by almost as much as NZ beat Jamaica tonight.

The problem with this logic is it becomes very easy to talk yourself into a tri-nations, or even just an Ashes tour. The problem is obviously when the Australians decide to apply the same logic, and don't include us.

[Jughead]

The Jamaican’s reactions to scoring a try at a point of a game that was gone in terms of a sporting contest is everything that is good about the international game and sport in general. Like every team that takes to the field, success is relative. For Greece, even qualifying was success after the oppression faced by the Greek government and for Jamaica, being the first to do what they’ve done and being the first to score tries on the field was success. They aren’t going to win the World Cup but success comes in many forms. Denying nations or clubs success by their own definition is not something that sits right with me and embodies everything that is anti-rugby league. 

[theswanmcr]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

It's the best system when you have 16 teams that are of roughly equal quality, which clearly we don't have.

And there's a difference between having a "fair few" one-sided games and the majority of games being very one sided.

I think you’re obsessed with systems/structures of all kinds! 

It is the proven best system for most major sporting world cups. It works perfectly well for RL now as a way to grow the game - and will do again if we stick with it and develop nations, give them more games and have competitive qualification processes.

Tonight’s game was one sided but so what. We are obsessed with blow outs but they happen elsewhere. Tonight we had the magic and story of Jamaica’ first try - which you wouldn’t have under your system.

[yipyee]

After watching a few more games I went back and reviewed the last world cup.

This was a 14 team world cup and Scotland was in a strong group. They got beat 74-6 (i think) off NZ.

However the structure was 2 x 4 and 2x3 with 3 progressing from the groups of 4 and 1 progressing from the group of 3.

The groups were seeded to try to get competitive games.

Not sure then why expanding to 16 they didn't stick with the exact same structure but make the 2 weaker groups teams of 4.

So Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, England, France, Aus, NZ, PNG in the strong groups, top 3 progress.

Everyone else in the weaker groups, 2 winners progress.

Winner of group plays winner of weaker groups , 2nd play 3rd of other groups .. simples

[theswanmcr]

22 minutes ago, yipyee said:

After watching a few more games I went back and reviewed the last world cup.

This was a 14 team world cup and Scotland was in a strong group. They got beat 74-6 (i think) off NZ.

However the structure was 2 x 4 and 2x3 with 3 progressing from the groups of 4 and 1 progressing from the group of 3.

The groups were seeded to try to get competitive games.

Not sure then why expanding to 16 they didn't stick with the exact same structure but make the 2 weaker groups teams of 4.

So Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, England, France, Aus, NZ, PNG in the strong groups, top 3 progress.

Everyone else in the weaker groups, 2 winners progress.

Winner of group plays winner of weaker groups , 2nd play 3rd of other groups .. simples

It was a rubbish convoluted system which is why it was scrapped - why should one of the better stronger teams have a harder route to the quarters than a lesser teams? It’s ludicrous… and also not simples!

As it stands we have a fairer system that is easy to understand. The seeding of 1 to 4 leads to potential final crunch group games like Samoa v France and Ireland v Lebanon if it goes to the form book. Everyone has a much more equal chance of making the next phase too.