Best format for RL World Cup

[Mumby Magic]

2 hours ago, ghost crayfish said:

Well, I guess... I did? 

Lol point being. You can hand pick a group for example but who's to say there'll be no blowouts. Let's believe in our sport for once.

[ghost crayfish]

3 hours ago, Mumby Magic said:

Lol point being. You can hand pick a group for example but who's to say there'll be no blowouts. Let's believe in our sport for once.

You asked who says that. I said I do... My point being, in my opinion, it would be a stronger product. 

I've got no problems with blowouts, or minnows, but 3 weeks of almost entirely predictable blowouts, with no standout games on the other end of the scale, is not a great way to build wider interest in the tournament - in fact, in my opinion, it's more likely to make actual rugby league fans lose interest till the finals start. I'm not advocating massive change, but I think some careful manipulation of the draw so we have at least one proper tasty game in weeks 2 and 3 is needed. Shouldn't be hard; with the Big 3, the Pacific nations, and a rising France, we've got a minimum of 8 decent sides these days. 

We've actually never been in a better position to put on a big world cup with lots of high quality games. But there's a chance this tournament will end without England having played any of the other top 4 nations in Australia, NZ or Tonga - at most, they'll only play 1. To me, on our game's biggest stage, that's a bit of a wasted opportunity.

For the next World Cup, they need to put France in a group that they stand a good chance of coming second in - so, say, NZ, Wales, Jamaica, something like that.

Then, put Australia in a group with Samoa and England in a group with Tonga, each with a couple of minnows to flog in the other weeks, then have a really competitive group like Fiji, PNG, Lebanon and Ireland. Time the games right and you have at least one big ticket sellable game each week, a home nation that stands a good chance of progression, and one really competitive group that should produce good games and provide some good storylines. 

Edited November 9, 2022 by ghost crayfish

[Mumby Magic]

7 hours ago, ghost crayfish said:

You asked who says that. I said I do... My point being, in my opinion, it would be a stronger product. 

I've got no problems with blowouts, or minnows, but 3 weeks of almost entirely predictable blowouts, with no standout games on the other end of the scale, is not a great way to build wider interest in the tournament - in fact, in my opinion, it's more likely to make actual rugby league fans lose interest till the finals start. I'm not advocating massive change, but I think some careful manipulation of the draw so we have at least one proper tasty game in weeks 2 and 3 is needed. Shouldn't be hard; with the Big 3, the Pacific nations, and a rising France, we've got a minimum of 8 decent sides these days. 

We've actually never been in a better position to put on a big world cup with lots of high quality games. But there's a chance this tournament will end without England having played any of the other top 4 nations in Australia, NZ or Tonga - at most, they'll only play 1. To me, on our game's biggest stage, that's a bit of a wasted opportunity.

For the next World Cup, they need to put France in a group that they stand a good chance of coming second in - so, say, NZ, Wales, Jamaica, something like that.

Then, put Australia in a group with Samoa and England in a group with Tonga, each with a couple of minnows to flog in the other weeks, then have a really competitive group like Fiji, PNG, Lebanon and Ireland. Time the games right and you have at least one big ticket sellable game each week, a home nation that stands a good chance of progression, and one really competitive group that should produce good games and provide some good storylines. 

We've had great storylines throughout. Again who's to say the Fiji etc group would be competitive. Who's to say if we leave it as it that Jamaica and Greece qualify again, know what to expect and are more competitive?.

[hw88]

16 is the 'best' number for a tournament - 4x4 groups, then 4 QF, 2 SF and a Final.

Unfortunately this is too many for a RL world cup at the present time. Too many teams just aren't up to standard - conceding 10+ tries does nobody any favours. What does the winning team get out of it? Nothing. What does the losing team get out of it? Discouragement. What do the paying public get out of it? Certainly little entertainment. Will it encourage people to take up the game? Possibly but I doubt it - will just see them as a bunch of losers.

Yes, other sports have blow out scores - but not at the rate of 1 or 2 in each group/pool. The very nature of RL means that a mis-match will result in a big score.

So, for the time being, 3 groups of 4 would be best for a RL world cup - top 2 in each group plus the best 2 3rd places to make the QF. Harder to qualify means that the standard will be higher, so fewer mis-matches and a more entertaining spectacle. It should also encourage the countries failing to qualify to try harder and improve faster.

 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

53 minutes ago, hw88 said:

16 is the 'best' number for a tournament - 4x4 groups, then 4 QF, 2 SF and a Final.

Unfortunately this is too many for a RL world cup at the present time. Too many teams just aren't up to standard - conceding 10+ tries does nobody any favours. What does the winning team get out of it? Nothing. What does the losing team get out of it? Discouragement. What do the paying public get out of it? Certainly little entertainment. Will it encourage people to take up the game? Possibly but I doubt it - will just see them as a bunch of losers.

Yes, other sports have blow out scores - but not at the rate of 1 or 2 in each group/pool. The very nature of RL means that a mis-match will result in a big score.

So, for the time being, 3 groups of 4 would be best for a RL world cup - top 2 in each group plus the best 2 3rd places to make the QF. Harder to qualify means that the standard will be higher, so fewer mis-matches and a more entertaining spectacle. It should also encourage the countries failing to qualify to try harder and improve faster.

 

I disagree about 3 groups of 4. The World Cup acts as a stimulus for growth in developing RL countries. Contracting to 12 teams would massively reduce the opportunities for nations to play meaningful internationals as the WC qualification spots would be far fewer.

I'd stick with 4x4, but have two seeded pools where 3 teams qualify for the quarters, and have two minnow pools where only 1 team qualifies for the quarters. Some thought would need to be given as to how those pools are organised, but this would be better than contracting to 12 teams IMO.

[hw88]

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I disagree about 3 groups of 4. The World Cup acts as a stimulus for growth in developing RL countries. Contracting to 12 teams would massively reduce the opportunities for nations to play meaningful internationals as the WC qualification spots would be far fewer.

I'd stick with 4x4, but have two seeded pools where 3 teams qualify for the quarters, and have two minnow pools where only 1 team qualifies for the quarters. Some thought would need to be given as to how those pools are organised, but this would be better than contracting to 12 teams IMO.

Why would it reduce the opportunities to play meaningful internationals? Surely it would increase the number of qualifying matches. Have the 6 group winners/runners-up qualifying automatically that would leave 6 places up for grabs - only 2 less than now.

The seeding of pools and having different numbers of teams qualifying from them just makes the competition look amatuerish. Also it gives other sports (particularly RU) a stick to beat us with. What other sport does it? I can't think of any.

[N2022]

18 minutes ago, hw88 said:

Why would it reduce the opportunities to play meaningful internationals? Surely it would increase the number of qualifying matches. Have the 6 group winners/runners-up qualifying automatically that would leave 6 places up for grabs - only 2 less than now.

The seeding of pools and having different numbers of teams qualifying from them just makes the competition look amatuerish. Also it gives other sports (particularly RU) a stick to beat us with. What other sport does it? I can't think of any.

At World Cup level no sport I know of does anything like this but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying. I think there are more RU fans ribbing RL based on groups generating only 1 or 2 vaguely competitive matches out of 6 than they would in a new 'weighted groups' structure. 

[ghost crayfish]

9 hours ago, Mumby Magic said:

We've had great storylines throughout. Again who's to say the Fiji etc group would be competitive. Who's to say if we leave it as it that Jamaica and Greece qualify again, know what to expect and are more competitive?.

Sure, fine. I happen to have a different opinion than yours and think some manipulation of the pools/draw would help. You don't. Good one. 

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 hours ago, hw88 said:

Why would it reduce the opportunities to play meaningful internationals?

Because there's 4 fewer teams that can qualify.

[Adelaide Tiger]

On 08/11/2022 at 06:32, Mumby Magic said:

And thrice no. Sick of repeating myself. But here goes number 24. The fact and yes it's fact, we constantly change not just the world cup format but league structure the game can't grow. It can't. There is literally no need to change the 16 team format whatsoever. Countries on the edge of qualifying next time round need to know where they stand. Why have a convoluted world cup with all the best in a group. No need. 16 for now and the foreseeable future and I will defend my view no end. 

In addition the lack of fans at games is back all to do with potential blowouts. It's down to marketing and ticket pricing.

Rugby League the most amazing game on the planet but everyone lacks confidence. Have structure don't change things and let it grow.

I am happy with the 16 team format.

We have 7 or 8 teams that can provide competitive games against each other BUT the challenge is to make lesser teams more competitive over the next 3 or 4 WC’s and not just expecting those countries to miraculously become competitive.

The game is littered with failed attempts in countries with no/little previous experience of RL.  Possibly because of ‘external’ influences but also because governing bodies did not have the necessary all round skills or experience to plan or manage continuous growth.  IMHO relying exclusively on one person or a small group to grow the game to a full time competition is quite frankly stark raving lunacy.

So I have a suggestion.  I would ring fence income from this years event to fund a small full time Developing Countries team - maybe just 3 or 4 people initially - under the direction of the International Board.  This team would have skill sets to offer support and guidance - not to take the lead unless specifically asked - to fledgling governing bodies across areas such as dealing with Government Agencies, how to prepare funding submissions, creating sensible action plans, how to approach sponsors, promotion of the game using all forms of media, governance, assist in planning competitions/events, player welfare etc. 

Continued funding would be ring fenced from each WC.  This approach may just enable more countries to make the progression towards creating a local full time competition.  Remember in some countries a full time player would be paid a salary that would be considered very low by our standards.  It may take 10 or 20 years but IMHO it is a better option than what we have now.

Such a Developing Countries team would require few overheads as those people can work from home and use social media to contact other team members and representatives from other countries.  Also once material content is created then it just has to be tweaked to meet differing needs.

As I said, just a suggestion.

P.S. I am aware that the International Board my offer some or all of the above but I not aware that they have full time members doing this.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Adelaide Tiger

[Iceberg Slim]

I don’t think we need super pools we just need a rearrangement of the top 8 

based on history and matchups I would have 

pool a - aus Tonga + 2 minnows

pool b - nz Fiji + 2 minnows 

pool c - England png + 2

pool d - Samoa Lebanon + 2

you will have almost half the amount of blowouts plus if staged over the first 3 weeks you could have up to 4-5 blockbuster matchups. 
 

I believe halving the amount of blowouts by next World Cup would be a huge success

[Sports Prophet]

The most meaningful fixtures for the masses are high quality fixtures.

We have about 8 nations that are capable of delivering good quality football.

Aus, NZ, Eng, Samoa, Tonga, PNG, Fiji and France.

Maximising the number of fixtures these nations play against each other in my opinion will deliver the best outcome for spectators, viewers, broadcasters and sponsors.

Considering tournament span of six weeks is about the limit of a WC proper, I expect the best opportunity to match that most desirable outcome is a six nation round robin with a final for the top 2.

Top 4 ranked auto qualify with the last two places available on a knockout basis  of the next 16 nations immediately prior to the round robin. This could even be devised on a continental basis. 2 x Americas matches; 2x Euro; 2x Pacific; 1x MENA and 1x Quali all coming down to two qualifiers for the stage 2 6 Nation Round Robin series.

Proposal includes:

- 20 nations participating to encourage more national governing bodies of WC inclusion

- 16 do or die fixtures for the lower nations, including continental rivalries to maximise audience interest of lower standard nations

- minimum 5 meaningful matches for top 4 nations.

- six nation round robin and final delivers all 16 of the best possible 16 fixtures that international RL can showcase to the world.

What is not to like?

Edited November 10, 2022 by Sports Prophet

[hw88]

11 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Because there's 4 fewer teams that can qualify.

That would be offset by the increased number of qualifying matches.

[N2022]

Was thinking about this and how there are competing objectives.

We, well some of us, as it appears largely uncompetitive group games don't bother everyone, want to see fewer blowouts and a more meaningful group stage. However, and I only really twigged this today, the organisers probably tolerate a procession because they feel it makes planning and marketing the QF round easier. I accept there are logistics for teams like where will they be, and for organisers like where best to host games, which are better served by being able to anticipate the detail more than a week ahead. But it feels like they're banking on higher early ticket sales from it being 95% sure Aus will meet (say) France in a certain QF, and England (say) Fiji in another. Where actually, if the format did have weighted groups, that first round stage might well contribute far more sales and the QF could still sell in the right locations, particularly if the tournament had built a bit of interest. As someone pointed out, having the top half dozen teams in the world come together every 4 years and knowing several of them will probably only play a couple of the others seems a waste. 

[Liverpool Rover]

As the tournament has gone on it has convinced me that, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, the bigger problem is the modern game and in international RL where teams are made up of players from such caring standards it is exacerbated even more. The game now is loaded in favour of the team in possession and there is just no hiding place for the weaker teams.

[N2022]

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

As the tournament has gone on it has convinced me that, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, the bigger problem is the modern game and in international RL where teams are made up of players from such caring standards it is exacerbated even more. The game now is loaded in favour of the team in possession and there is just no hiding place for the weaker teams.

In terms of helping defence(?) I saw some people on here questioning whether retreating 10 should go. Do they really mean at each PTB? Union has back foot line at ruck and it can take them a dozen or more phases to make it from the halfway to the 22. Is the idea that teams would innovate with little kicks behind?

[Archie Gordon]

There's been talk on this and other threads about whether future RLWCs should be everything under one umbrella (men's, women's, wheelchair, PDRL, student, etc) or eventually separated out as stand-alone events.

My view is that it is best to keep them all under one umbrella, however big they each become. I'm really looking forward to a breathless week of SFs and Fs and it feels kind of like the Olympics or a tennis major - both of which are massively bigger than us but have no issue holding multiple events across men's and women's sports all packaged together. Indeed, it probably makes the whole greater than the sum of each part.

[MatthewWoody]

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/world-cup-jamaica-rugby-league-roy-calvert/

Edited November 15, 2022 by MatthewWoody

[Guest]

One group of top 8 sides where everyone plays each other once, semis and final.

Admittedly there would be no time for it.

Bit like the old Cricket 50 over World Cups, would be great watching.

Edited November 15, 2022 by Leonard

[Jughead]

I don’t think we need to do anything dramatic to the format. Cutting the competition by 25% after the most inclusive tournament we’ve ever had sends out the wrong message entirely and I don’t really think it’s warranted, anyway. It was the first sixteen team tournament since 2000 and while there has been blowout scores, it, at this stage, seems to have been a more positive tournament than 2000 on the pitch, if not always off the field. 

Seeing the emotion of the Jamaican players, the scenes in that Athens pub and the performances of most nations (I can only really think of Scotland and Cook Islands’ final game as really disappointing) I don’t see any need for such drastic changes. 

The gap between the predicted fourth clubs and those in third, let alone those in second and first in each group cannot be closed without fixtures between those nations in such tournaments. It will take time and take some nations many tournaments to get up to standard but it will happen eventually. It also might help player pools if there is the opportunity to face bigger nations instead of being stuck playing the same smaller nations. 

A thought on ticket prices too. I wonder if categorising games, in the way football clubs and some RL clubs do, and ticket prices accordingly would have helped with some attendances, certainly those not involving England. Take Group B for example, Australia v Fiji was the best game in that group, give that category A status, Australia v Italy and Scotland B status. Category A charge one price, category B charge a lower price to try and suit all budgets and appeal to more people. 

[headtackle]

Don’t want to be too controversial but just leave it as it is

Any world tournament has a few one sided meaningless games in the group stages.  Not great to watch but let teams recover from travelling, bed in and give the squad a run out

The key to a good tournament is the knock out games which on the whole have been great

Whilst the Aussies are obvious favourites with Tonga and Samoa we now have a big 5 rather than big 3

Leave as is and if change anything have a plate comp for the teams that don’t get out of groups    

 

[pahars]

The issue isn’t necessarily with the format the issue is that nothing will ever change.

Sure the Pacific Islands within the NRL’s orbit will get better because the NRL wants players and TV content on Origin weekends. 

Everyone else probably no change. No real governing body. No other national interest in indirectly developing another nation.

The staging fee/war chest that was supposed to have caused the ticket prices in this tournament becomes even more ridiculous when you consider the lack of competitive games any beneficiaries would get. 
 

Compare that to the way union and cricket have developed their World Cup also rans over the last 20 years. 

[zylya]

One thing I hadn't quite realised yet is that, in a lot of ways, this is only the 3rd RLWC.

Before 2013, the World Cup was held on a more ad-hoc basis, it was only in 2013 that they decided that it should be every 4 years and have started to take it more seriously, so this is the third iteration of that decision.

There's definitely been some things they could improve upon from this one, but overall I think it's been a fantastic event. I would say the key thing going forward is to keep pushing the profile of the competition and ensuring that there is a regular programme of internationals throughout the World Cup cycle so that people can start to follow their nations.

The RL die-hards are generally going to be more invested in the club stuff over the international game, but there's a lot of people who have watched League for the first time and are more likely to want to follow the National team - especially if they're from London or South England or if they identify with another nation.

I also think the heritage thing is a red herring - haven't really seen anyone complain about it except for existing RL fans. Very little press attention given to the fact that lots of Samoan players were born in Australia. If people have that connection with their ancestry, that's the most important thing AFAIC.

Edited November 15, 2022 by zylya

[Madrileño]

16 teams.

Persevere with it as it is.

If you want to change something,  insist on the presence of a domestic League competition as a minimum criteria for participation.   Anyone who doesn't have one, will soon get one sorted. 

 

[iangidds]

On 09/11/2022 at 04:54, ghost crayfish said:

You asked who says that. I said I do... My point being, in my opinion, it would be a stronger product. 

I've got no problems with blowouts, or minnows, but 3 weeks of almost entirely predictable blowouts, with no standout games on the other end of the scale, is not a great way to build wider interest in the tournament - in fact, in my opinion, it's more likely to make actual rugby league fans lose interest till the finals start. I'm not advocating massive change, but I think some careful manipulation of the draw so we have at least one proper tasty game in weeks 2 and 3 is needed. Shouldn't be hard; with the Big 3, the Pacific nations, and a rising France, we've got a minimum of 8 decent sides these days. 

We've actually never been in a better position to put on a big world cup with lots of high quality games. But there's a chance this tournament will end without England having played any of the other top 4 nations in Australia, NZ or Tonga - at most, they'll only play 1. To me, on our game's biggest stage, that's a bit of a wasted opportunity.

For the next World Cup, they need to put France in a group that they stand a good chance of coming second in - so, say, NZ, Wales, Jamaica, something like that.

Then, put Australia in a group with Samoa and England in a group with Tonga, each with a couple of minnows to flog in the other weeks, then have a really competitive group like Fiji, PNG, Lebanon and Ireland. Time the games right and you have at least one big ticket sellable game each week, a home nation that stands a good chance of progression, and one really competitive group that should produce good games and provide some good storylines. 

Stop talking sense !