Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mumby Magic said:

I get what you are saying but I believe we shouldn't change a thing. When RL leaves things as they are in all aspects of the game, then things will grow. The constant changing at all levels stagnates the game and always will. 


I definitely think 16 is the number, but the format I think we should at least look at it. In hindsight maybe we should have stuck with the same format from 2013 & 2017 just with 2 extra teams. Ultimately they didn’t and I’m fine with that either way, I’ve enjoyed the World Cup but an argument could be made that we’ve had more World Cups with a Super Pool(s) of some sort than without recently so it wouldn’t be a major shakeup to revert to it next time.

I guess the question is if a 16 team “Super Group” World Cup could be more commercially and financially successful then would it be better to switch back? If we do we should definitely stay with that format long term and embrace it as our way of doing things.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 minutes ago, jim_57 said:


I definitely think 16 is the number, but the format I think we should at least look at it. In hindsight maybe we should have stuck with the same format from 2013 & 2017 just with 2 extra teams. Ultimately they didn’t and I’m fine with that either way, I’ve enjoyed the World Cup but an argument could be made that we’ve had more World Cups with a Super Pool(s) of some sort than without recently so it wouldn’t be a major shakeup to revert to it next time.

I guess the question is if a 16 team “Super Group” World Cup could be more commercially and financially successful then would it be better to switch back? If we do we should definitely stay with that format long term and embrace it as our way of doing things.

For me there are two issues with your suggestion:

- the 'Ireland' problem. In 2017, Ireland were beaten by PNG in a close game and then had two good wins. They were knocked out, because there was only one place available from the group. Seemed unfair.

- If you are in the 3rd and 4th groups you are all but out if you lose a game. So, lose your first game and you are playing two dead rubbers unless there is a mathematical miracle.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

For me there are two issues with your suggestion:

- the 'Ireland' problem. In 2017, Ireland were beaten by PNG in a close game and then had two good wins. They were knocked out, because there was only one place available from the group. Seemed unfair.

- If you are in the 3rd and 4th groups you are all but out if you lose a game. So, lose your first game and you are playing two dead rubbers unless there is a mathematical miracle.

- Of course there would be occasional “hard luck” stories like that from Pools C & D but at the end of the day there would only be one team from the top 8 seeded teams in each of those groups so fair representation would make the finals. If Ireland were in a Minor group this year with say Lebanon & Jamaica but Cook Island instead of NZ would we say they are deserving of a quarter final if they beat Jamaica & Cook Islands but lose to Lebanon?

- That I can see too, counter argument is that we pretty much knew the makeup of the finals after week 1 for most groups under this format. There were some potential variables like Ireland Vs Lebanon and at a stretch PNG V Cook Islands. Group winners were all decided after the first game, it could be argued that was poor scheduling though when all the predicted & actual top 2 teams played each other first up.

I think there is pros & cons for both but if we can have all the same teams involved but with a few more blockbuster pool games and less blowouts it’s definitely worth a look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I can only go on personal experience 

I have genuinely had constant comments along the lines of "why is it so badly attended", "massive mismatch and ###### specyavle" "your WC is a***" from lots of people 

From sports fans who are gettable and I know have watched the odd bit of SL when they've caught it on SKY or normal telly 

As I say people can bury their head in the sand if they want 

 

 

There may be an explanation in that you are subliminally conveying your own opinion of the competition.

Our game is repeatedly criticised by  some fans for instability: making changes if something doesn't work immediately, yet here are some posters recommending immediate changes.  😪

Edited by JohnM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The format's perfect.

From now on, bar Australia and New Zealand in the QFs, any team could win or slip up in any of the games en route to the final.

The lower sides are subject to blow outs but its partly the nature of the sport; if you are outgunned and the heads go down its tough to keep the scores tight.  But it's okay!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tonka said:

 

The lower sides are subject to blow outs but its partly the nature of the sport; if you are outgunned and the heads go down its tough to keep the scores tight.  But it's okay!

It's easy to say "it's okay" but.....

There are lots of people who aren't RL fans who are seeing it as a big turn off 

Reputational damage matters 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I can only go on personal experience 

I have genuinely had constant comments along the lines of "why is it so badly attended", "massive mismatch and ###### specyavle" "your WC is a***" from lots of people 

From sports fans who are gettable and I know have watched the odd bit of SL when they've caught it on SKY or normal telly 

As I say people can bury their head in the sand if they want 

 

 

Didn't read it properly that you were quoting from friends so apologies for that.

Personally I'm not burying my head in the sand - I've been very critical of low crowds due to the ticket pricing/venue choice (which is the biggest problem) and the blowouts are not great for new or old fans or casual viewers.

I just think that format change is really the easy option out of this. We may gain some short-term competitiveness if we go back to 12 or 10 teams but many of those same people who slag it off/have sympathy for us will then call us a joke for only having a few countries who play the game. And we'll still likely have the same four teams in the semi-finals anyway.

I understand it is not perfect at the minute but we need to grow the game and its reach and that means stability and keeping a well known and easy to understand format that is proven to work well - it's up to the sport itself to get more teams up to a competitive level.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

It's easy to say "it's okay" but.....

There are lots of people who aren't RL fans who are seeing it as a big turn off 

Reputational damage matters 

I don’t really buy that that many people really like, “Aww I’d love rugby league but in the group stages in the World Cup there were blowouts, soooo”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tonka said:

I don’t really buy that that many people really like, “Aww I’d love rugby league but in the group stages in the World Cup there were blowouts, soooo”

I imagine that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of general sports fans who are choosy like that. I'm one of them. I'll flick between channels and watch something gripping rather than stick with a one-sided battering. These are the folks we're missing out on. They are potential viewers but they are associating the RLWC with blowouts and they will skip past us, I'm afraid. Indeed, they are doing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been giving a lot of thought to a potential format and wonder what people think of this:

2 groups of 5, top team in each group goes straight to semis, 2 v 3 play crossover elimination games for the right to meet in the semis:

Thus, we could have something like this:

Group A
England
Tonga
Samoa
Lebanon
Ireland
 

Group B
Australia
New Zealand
Fiji
Papua New Guinea
France

Quarterfinals
Tonga v Fiji
New Zealand v Samoa

Semifinals
England v New Zealand
Australia v Tonga

Final
England v Australia


I understand that many won't like only 10 teams, but this is a format that doesn't need any rigging and can ensure plenty of competitive games. You could have a secondary tournament for another 8 teams with even a playoff between its two group winners against the last placed teams in this tournament.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eight teams - two groups of four. Previous tournaments SFs qualify automatically - other four spots through a qualification system.  You could have that directly in advance of the main tournament as they used for T20 cricket.

Top 2 in each group into semis (or you could even have QFs with 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 crossovers.

Id expect a lot more close games with a tournament involving England, Australia, NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji and france (should they be the qualifiers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

Eight teams - two groups of four. Previous tournaments SFs qualify automatically - other four spots through a qualification system.  You could have that directly in advance of the main tournament as they used for T20 cricket.

Top 2 in each group into semis (or you could even have QFs with 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 crossovers.

Id expect a lot more close games with a tournament involving England, Australia, NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji and france (should they be the qualifiers).

England have played three of those teams so far and they haven't been close.  You're not going to get rid of dominant games with this but rob the like of Greece getting on the World Stage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 teams 

2 Stronger pools 

2 Normal 

Example 

Pool A Top 3 progress

Australia 

England 

France 

Ireland 

Pool B Top 3 progress 

Samoa 

Tonga 

NZ 

Scotland 

Pool C  Top 1 progress 

Lebanon 

Wales 

Fiji  

Greece 

Pool D top 1 progress

PNG 

Jamaica 

Cook Islands 

Italy 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, tommyace said:

16 teams 

2 Stronger pools 

2 Normal 

Example 

Pool A Top 3 progress

Australia 

England 

France 

Ireland 

Pool B Top 3 progress 

Samoa 

Tonga 

NZ 

Scotland 

Pool C  Top 1 progress 

Lebanon 

Wales 

Fiji  

Greece 

Pool D top 1 progress

PNG 

Jamaica 

Cook Islands 

Italy 

 

That’s been suggested above and is the best option in my opinion. It’s the 2013-2017 format we had with a team added to pools C & D to bring it to 16. Still gives everyone their time on the big stage but adds a lot more competitive matchups to the pool stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have blowout games in the Union world cup.   So I think the world cup format we have should stay.

For me you need to make the potential blow games more of an event, don't play them in an area where you already have played other games.   If you just had one game in the South west and had it has Wales v Tonga for instance, have Jamacia v New Zealand around London,  you already have Aus V Scotland in Coventry which had a good crowd

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've flipflopped on this, previously suggesting 2 WCs of 8 teams.

Keep it as-is but support the lesser nations as much as feasibly possible and then stretch to support them more. It's a once in a 4 years tournament; give the minnows their time  

  • Thanks 1

Running the Rob Burrow marathon to raise money for the My Name'5 Doddie foundation:

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/ben-dyas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Spidey said:

England have played three of those teams so far and they haven't been close.  You're not going to get rid of dominant games with this but rob the like of Greece getting on the World Stage

Just like FIFA "rob the like" of the comoros islands of getting on the world stage?

  How many 'full internationals' have Greece played in their history before" getting on the world stage", who were they against and how did they do.

Id be interested to know what the domestic TV audience was for Greece's games (not picking on Greece btw, just you used Greece as the example)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

Just like FIFA "rob the like" of the comoros islands of getting on the world stage?

  How many 'full internationals' have Greece played in their history before" getting on the world stage", who were they against and how did they do.

Id be interested to know what the domestic TV audience was for Greece's games (not picking on Greece btw, just you used Greece as the example)

Greece played a number of games to qualify for the World Cup. Outside of the top nations plenty of international RL is played. There is a full structure in Europe and full internationals played

Greece even know their fixtures for 2023 - England dont

https://europeanrugbyleague.com/fixtures?filters[fixtures][competition_type]=&filters[fixtures][team]=Greece&filters[fixtures][search]=

Edited by Spidey
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people need to get beyond the point of thinking that any country that has 13 guys (or two in the case of Scotland) who like Rugby League should be playing at the World Cup. It is meant to be an elite event, not on open invitation tournament or one with a qualifying tournaments where almost everyone makes the cut. Two pools of 5 teams for a 10 team tournament is the way to go. If Greece don't qualify so be it, maybe they will try harder and qualify next time.

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

For me, stick with 16 as is, launch proper Pacific/Euro tournaments in the other three years, either as a bigger one-off in the 2nd year after RLWC or as a mini tournament each year.

Keep trying to drive the commercial revenues and profile of both RLWC and these Pacific/Euro tournaments. Create opportunities for the "next best teams" to play regular, meaningful games and hopefully generate both revenue for Int/Euro/Pac RL and interest in the countries that are playing. Not a quick process, but a necessary one. Obviously as any/all of the competitions start to generate revenues, you can then reinvest this into the game to develop countries - both in terms of developing the grassroots game, but also in supporting high performance - things like S&C and medical to help nations become more competitive.

The union WC in 1987 had an average attendance of about 15k which turned into 51k in England in 2015 (despite the hosts crashing out in the group stage) and just under 38k in Japan by 2019 - the same Japan only won 1 game between 1987 and 2011 World Cups! Unfortunately we're probably starting a few steps behind in terms of number of countries playing, but you're not going to create a global tournament with huge interest (2019 union WC generated nearly £4.3b of economic activity according to World Rugby) by cutting your tournament down.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, eal said:

I have been giving a lot of thought to a potential format and wonder what people think of this:

2 groups of 5, top team in each group goes straight to semis, 2 v 3 play crossover elimination games for the right to meet in the semis:

Thus, we could have something like this:

Group A
England
Tonga
Samoa
Lebanon
Ireland
 

Group B
Australia
New Zealand
Fiji
Papua New Guinea
France

Quarterfinals
Tonga v Fiji
New Zealand v Samoa

Semifinals
England v New Zealand
Australia v Tonga

Final
England v Australia


I understand that many won't like only 10 teams, but this is a format that doesn't need any rigging and can ensure plenty of competitive games. You could have a secondary tournament for another 8 teams with even a playoff between its two group winners against the last placed teams in this tournament.

No

Like poor jokes? Thejoketeller@mullymessiah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

Eight teams - two groups of four. Previous tournaments SFs qualify automatically - other four spots through a qualification system.  You could have that directly in advance of the main tournament as they used for T20 cricket.

Top 2 in each group into semis (or you could even have QFs with 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 crossovers.

Id expect a lot more close games with a tournament involving England, Australia, NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji and france (should they be the qualifiers).

No too.

Like poor jokes? Thejoketeller@mullymessiah

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.