Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yes, there are big scores and games that aren't competitive for 80 minutes.

But it is the fans of the nations that are getting the wins that want to reduce the numbers while the nations, players and fans of the teams on the wrong side of the scores have embraced the tournament for what it is and everything that is great about it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


12 countries

4 groups of 3

Top 2 qualify

QF, SF, Final

Removes one blow out game, provides plenty of opportunity for jeopardy & trims a week (which the NRL would like)

(3rd placed teams play SF & Final)

World Cup 5 years, to create a mid-cycle window for a GB v Aus series

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

Scotland v Italy, for example. 

Ireland v Lebanon, too. Many would have picked Ireland to win given their squad. 

Yes, I backed Ireland -4 v Lebanon so that was an upset going by the betting.

So was Scotland v Italy as you say. And Samoa v England.

In hindsight all look easy now, but they always seem to afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JT RL said:

12 countries

4 groups of 3

Top 2 qualify

QF, SF, Final

Removes one blow out game, provides plenty of opportunity for jeopardy & trims a week (which the NRL would like)

(3rd placed teams play SF & Final)

World Cup 5 years, to create a mid-cycle window for a GB v Aus series

Not for me. I would want teams 13-16 involved, but likely not in the same format as this competition. I also think groups of 3 are a bit inefficient - still need 3 game dates and RL takes more recovery time than cricket - and open to corruption as those in final game know what is needed of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JT RL said:

12 countries

4 groups of 3

Top 2 qualify

QF, SF, Final

Removes one blow out game, provides plenty of opportunity for jeopardy & trims a week (which the NRL would like)

(3rd placed teams play SF & Final)

World Cup 5 years, to create a mid-cycle window for a GB v Aus series

I've never understood why when there are, say, 4 pools of 3, they don't pair pools and have each of the Pool A teams play each of the teams in Pool B. That way 3 matchdays still gives 3 games. You are ranked against other teams who've played the same opposition and can then play 1st v 2nd within that table for the knockout round that follows. Not 'obvious' but not impossible to follow either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, N2022 said:

Not for me. I would want teams 13-16 involved, but likely not in the same format as this competition. I also think groups of 3 are a bit inefficient - still need 3 game dates and RL takes more recovery time than cricket - and open to corruption as those in final game know what is needed of them.

If there are more teams, there will be more mis-matches, in front of low crowds. The format will not change that.

It’s likely that some of the national teams (that get hammered) don’t exist after the cup (eg Russia)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, League of XIII said:

The classic tournament format used for this world cup simply hasn't worked - too many one-sided games that has arguably contributed to the poor attendances. No amount of positive spin will make me enjoy watching the likes of Greece and Jamaica getting spanked by Tier 1 nations. We're starved of international RL so much that not having a format that allows Tier 1 nations play each other as much as possible seems a wasted opportunity.

This begs the question - what's the best tournament format for a RL world cup that will produce meaningful, interesting and competitive group games? Here's a suggestion that some will scoff at (but secretly agree with).

I propose creating two separate men's world cup competitions:
- An 'Elite' World Cup 
- A 'Development' World Cup

Format
- 8 teams in each competition
- 2 groups of 4 in each competition 
- Groups based on tier/ranking 
- Group teams play each other once 
- Playoff system used for quarter finals that rewards higher placed teams. For example:

Elite quarter finals:
   - 1st G1 v 4th G2
   - 2nd G1 v 3rd G2
   - 3rd G1 v 2nd G2
   - 4th G1 v 1st G2 

Men's Elite World Cup

Group 1
Australia
New Zealand
England 
Tonga

Group 2 
Samoa 
Papua New Guinea
Fiji
Lebanon

Example knock out stages (based on likely results):

Q1: (1st G1 v 4th G2) Australia v Lebanon 
Q2: (2nd G1 v 3rd G2) New Zealand v Fiji
Q3: (3rd G1 v 2nd G2) England v Papua New Guinea
Q4: (4th G1 v 1st G2) Tonga v Samoa 

S1: (Winner Q1 v Winner Q4) Australia v Tonga
S2: (Winner Q2 v Winner Q3) England v New Zealand 

Final: Winner S1 v Winner S2

Men's Development World Cup

Group 3
France 
Ireland
Cook Islands
Italy

Group 4
Greece 
Jamaica
Scotland 
Wales

Same format as the elite comp.

Pros
Competitive, high quality group games = higher attendances = higher tournament revenue.
'Development' nations have something to play for/ a realistic chance of winning something.
Easier to select suitable venues for group games. E.g. Group 1 games should take place in 20k+ stadiums in the heartlands. Group 3 and 4 games should take place in smaller stadiums, mainly outside the heartlands (where locals aren't as savvy to the quality of the teams).

Cons
Format is not as easy to understand for casual viewers not familiar with a playoff type system.
'Development' nations don't get the chance to play Tier 1 nations (minor point in my view).
Having separate men's world cup competitions may look daft?

The last point is no doubt the key thing the naysayers will point out. But realistically the Group 3 and 4 teams have zero chance of winning a RL world cup so why not give them something to play for? Football has the Champions League and the Europa League so why can't RL do something similar? It would still be a festival of rugby league with 16 teams.

You know it makes sense. 
 

No 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JT RL said:

If there are more teams, there will be more mis-matches, in front of low crowds. The format will not change that.

It’s likely that some of the national teams (that get hammered) don’t exist after the cup (eg Russia)

So you would cut the number of teams and games to reduce the risk of any mismatches. Maybe you think just NZ, Eng and at a push one other in a group to see who meets Aus in the final? Missed opportunity for some wider appeal / entertainment to my mind. I am happy for nations 9-16 to be there but think there's a better format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each to his/her own.

2 minutes ago, N2022 said:

So you would cut the number of teams and games to reduce the risk of any mismatches. Maybe you think just NZ, Eng and at a push one other in a group to see who meets Aus in the final? Missed opportunity for some wider appeal / entertainment to my mind. I am happy for nations 9-16 to be there but think there's a better format.

Fair play, each to his/her own. But, no I wouldn’t suggest a procession to see who plays Aus.

12 teams .. 4 groups .. just like this time .. but remove 4 teams, who are a little too weak / without a domestic structure supporting the national team.

5 year cycle. Opens up plenty of opportunities for meaningful & well structured international rugby league. And of course, add in an annual England v France fixture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to stick with the 16 , and with equal groupings , no ' Super Groups ' otherwise as has been suggested , a 3/4 team comp to decide who plays the Aussies in the final 

I've been to the Lebanon v Jamaica match today , even bought my ' Reggae ' Bob cap , I knew who was going to win and by a sizeable margin , as I've suggested on that match thread , maybe a West Indies team as in cricket would make them more competitive , but no doubt many will say that isn't right , and I'd not disagree with them 

RL is that sort of game , today Jamaica were again trying to ' defend ' by doing short kick offs , even having a ' sneak ' kicker at one point to try to gain possession as that's the best way to prevent a high scoring defeat , the high wind didn't help them 🙄

Edited by GUBRATS
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

This annual fixture v France seems to be the solution to world's problems

Given all the grief currently in the world, wouldn’t that be great 

Inflation, energy cost squeeze, war around the world, millions of displaced people just wanting to get on with life … and all RL needs to do is set up an annual game .. at a nice ground .. dates fixed in advance for the next 10 years … Saturday afternoon .. France v England … simple fix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

16 teams. Two groups of 4 involving the strongest 8 teams, with 3 from each group going to the quarters, and two groups of 4 involving the weaker teams with only the top team progressing to the quarters

Seems reasonable to me and, as I'm looking at the margins across these last half dozen games, needed. I get that people might enjoy seeing lots of tries, but teams scoring 70+ gives legitimacy to the arguments of fans of other sports who question the tournament's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

They’ll have more money than the developing nations will have for sure.

Again though, what is the alternative?

The alternative to nothing? The skint RFL and NZRL aren’t going to pump money that they don’t have into developing nations, they haven’t even got money to help clubs in their own countries, are you aware of the state of the game in the south of England? It’s easy to spend other people’s money on an Internet forum and like you I wish they had some to spare to help others out, but it’s just not realistic. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Eddie said:

The alternative to nothing? The skint RFL and NZRL aren’t going to pump money that they don’t have into developing nations, they haven’t even got money to help clubs in their own countries, are you aware of the state of the game in the south of England? It’s easy to spend other people’s money on an Internet forum and like you I wish they had some to spare to help others out, but it’s just not realistic. 

I find this hugely patronising and disappointing coming from you.

It also shows that you have no alternative model to put forward.

I also said the richer developed nations and I notice you have deliberately excluded Australia from this conversation.

Edited by Gerrumonside ref
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Limit Heritage Nations to Only 8-10 heritage players per squad.

8 Teams

Australia

Wales

New Zealand

France

England

Fiji

Papua New Guinea

And one more nation ?

Basically I’m implying we have a proper World Cup like every other sport. Those 7 nations are the only nations that play the sport, there for they should be the only nations in the World Cup.

Heritage filled nations are an absolute joke and make a full mockery of international rugby league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

16 teams. Two groups of 4 involving the strongest 8 teams, with 3 from each group going to the quarters, and two groups of 4 involving the weaker teams with only the top team progressing to the quarters

 

I do think something like this works better. having the big teams facing each other at least once means we don't have a couple of weeks of watching mainly walk over romps. still keeps these developing nations involved too which is vital; and also means they may actually get some joy in the competition rather than getting flogged 3 times over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, SydneyRoosters said:

Limit Heritage Nations to Only 8-10 heritage players per squad.

8 Teams

Australia

Wales

New Zealand

France

England

Fiji

Papua New Guinea

And one more nation ?

Basically I’m implying we have a proper World Cup like every other sport. Those 7 nations are the only nations that play the sport, there for they should be the only nations in the World Cup.

Heritage filled nations are an absolute joke and make a full mockery of international rugby league.

What is your definition of playing the sport? The likes of Jamaica and Greece certainly play the sport and had domestic players in the World Cup.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

16 teams. Two groups of 4 involving the strongest 8 teams, with 3 from each group going to the quarters, and two groups of 4 involving the weaker teams with only the top team progressing to the quarters

This is the best solution. The current format just isn't working. Yes, every tournament in every sport has blowouts, but very few have almost no competitive matches at all. Just imagine the above proposal:

Group A -  Australia, England, Samoa, Lebanon
Group B - New Zealand, Tonga, Fiji, PNG
Group C - France, Italy, Wales, Jamaica
Group D - Ireland, Scotland, Cook Islands, Greece

The only issue I see is that Lebanon and PNG might feel a bit hard done by should they finish bottomof the group. But what is more advantageous, be in a tough group and only need 1 win out of 3, or be in an easier group and have to win all 3?

Perhaps the bottom two teams of Group A/B play against the top two teams of Group C/D as a knockout round before the quarterfinals? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I find this hugely patronising and disappointing coming from you.

It also shows that you have no alternative model to put forward.

I also said the richer developed nations and I notice you have deliberately excluded Australia from this conversation.

I’ve already said that the NRL are minted but would never fund developing nations, let’s face it they couldn’t care less, I’m surprised they’re at this World Cup tbh. I don’t have an alternative mate, other than the countries doing it themselves, which probably isn’t viable either. It’s a sorry situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, N2022 said:

Seems reasonable to me and, as I'm looking at the margins across these last half dozen games, needed. I get that people might enjoy seeing lots of tries, but teams scoring 70+ gives legitimacy to the arguments of fans of other sports who question the tournament's worth.

I’ve had a few texts from (non RL) pals today questioning the RLWC’s worth, and even as a passionate advocate of the international game and expansion I’m struggling to argue against them so far. Hopefully things will light up next weekend. I’ve been looking forward to this for years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

What is your definition of playing the sport? The likes of Jamaica and Greece certainly play the sport and had domestic players in the World Cup.

My definition would be

Being Capable of producing consistent first grade talent out of a rugby league system.

Bar these 7 Nations only 2 first grade players come from a rugby league system in other countries.

Ronan Michael

Ireland

1 Game

 

Kayal Iro

Cook Islands

1 Game

 

I do not count Tonga with Konrad Hurrell as he did not play rugby league in Tonga and is a union Product.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SydneyRoosters said:

My definition would be

Being Capable of producing consistent first grade talent out of a rugby league system.

Bar these 7 Nations only 2 first grade players come from a rugby league system in other countries.

Ronan Michael

Ireland

1 Game

 

Kayal Iro

Cook Islands

1 Game

 

I do not count Tonga with Konrad Hurrell as he did not play rugby league in Tonga and is a union Product.

The sport only has 2 fully professional leagues. It is simply impossible as things stand to meet the bar you are setting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...