England 21 & France 25 article

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Sadly, only 13,000 people are interested in rugby league in Leeds.

Thank god we have Caddick to pay people to come to Grand Finals and Wembley dressed in the right colours, and Gary Hetherington to fudge the numbers with the RFL.

[Oxford]

To be honest that article in the OP reads like a letter to League Express and should be treated that way.

[GeordieSaint]

What is it with this sport wanting short term fixes for long term problems? Mental stuff… I think it was GJ who said the focus needs to be on development in the time between world cups rather than manufacturing bonkers formats in the WCs themselves - absolutely the right approach. 

[Archie Gordon]

18 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

What is it with this sport wanting short term fixes for long term problems? Mental stuff… I think it was GJ who said the focus needs to be on development in the time between world cups rather than manufacturing bonkers formats in the WCs themselves - absolutely the right approach. 

"Rather than" isn't needed, though.

Can't I be in favour of massive development between RLWCs and also in favour of "bonkers formats" in the RLWC itself?

[GeordieSaint]

2 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

"Rather than" isn't needed, though.

Can't I be in favour of massive development between RLWCs and also in favour of "bonkers formats" in the RLWC itself?

We’ve been around this argument before. We really don’t need to manufacture formats to try and develop competition. We need to have confidence over time the smaller teams will get better with development. Let them demonstrate it every four years rather than trying to ‘shield’ them from the big teams. I am pretty certain the likes of Greece and Jamaica would tell you “no thanks” to shield them. Have confidence in ourselves and focus on the future rather than protectionism and short sightedness.

[Archie Gordon]

21 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

We’ve been around this argument before. We really don’t need to manufacture formats to try and develop competition. We need to have confidence over time the smaller teams will get better with development. Let them demonstrate it every four years rather than trying to ‘shield’ them from the big teams. I am pretty certain the likes of Greece and Jamaica would tell you “no thanks” to shield them. Have confidence in ourselves and focus on the future rather than protectionism and short sightedness.

Fine. But that's not the point I was making.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

3 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:

We need to have confidence over time the smaller teams will get better with development. Let them demonstrate it every four years rather than trying to ‘shield’ them from the big teams.

Whilst I agree in part, we also need to acknowledge that, unlike sports such as football, rugby league is a sport where physicality is often the dominant factor. So nations lacking players from full-time pro competitions are always going to struggle to match the physicality of nations who can draw on these players. IMO, no amount of development is going to sufficiently bridge the gap between nations unless they progress to having full-time pro comps (or teams in full-time comps). So a more contrived/less straightforward WC format may be a necessary evil until we ever get to that point. For me, the 2 x seeded groups of 4 with 3 qualifying from each group, and the 2 x minnow groups of 4 with 1 qualifying from each group for the quarters is the least worst option, as it still involves the same opportunity for 16 nations to participate.

[eal]

One could argue that including minnow nations in World Cups hoping it will spur development is more of an attempted short term fix and avoiding the hard yards than unorthodox World Cup formats with fewer teams.

Just because a country has 50-100 guys who play rugby league (or 30 in the case of Scotland) doesn't mean they should be included in a World Cup. We have seen that Scotland playing in a World Cup has had no effect over the game thereone way or the other - there would be the same footprint of the game there whether they had been included or not.

[Keith989]

1 hour ago, eal said:

One could argue that including minnow nations in World Cups hoping it will spur development is more of an attempted short term fix and avoiding the hard yards than unorthodox World Cup formats with fewer teams.

Just because a country has 50-100 guys who play rugby league (or 30 in the case of Scotland) doesn't mean they should be included in a World Cup. We have seen that Scotland playing in a World Cup has had no effect over the game thereone way or the other - there would be the same footprint of the game there whether they had been included or not.

Nations can get complacent if they are all but guaranteed to qualify and are happy to remain as a development nation so long as they get their jolly up every 4 years. I recon this is what happened to Canadian union and now they are an absolute basket case. 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Keith989

[eal]

9 hours ago, Keith989 said:

Nations can get complacent if they are all but guaranteed to qualify and are happy to remain as a development nation so long as they get their jolly up every 4 years. I recon this is what happened to Canadian union and now they are an absolute basket case. 

Exactly. Scotland and Ireland RL need not bother with much as they know they should always qualify for a 16-team World Cup by relying on some England and Australian players with grandparents born overseas.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

4 hours ago, eal said:

Exactly. Scotland and Ireland RL need not bother with much as they know they should always qualify for a 16-team World Cup by relying on some England and Australian players with grandparents born overseas.

Same situation with Tonga and Samoa

[Number 16]

42 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Same situation with Tonga and Samoa

Not quite. There is an incentive for those in the Pacific Islands, and it's the ticket to go to Brisbane, Sydney, Auckland etc, should they prove good enough.

For a young Scot the appeal of a ticket to Leigh or Batley is less inviting.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

38 minutes ago, Number 16 said:

Not quite. There is an incentive for those in the Pacific Islands, and it's the ticket to go to Brisbane, Sydney, Auckland etc, should they prove good enough.

For a young Scot the appeal of a ticket to Leigh or Batley is less inviting.

But that isn't down to any effort that Tonga RL or Samoa RL are putting in. The ticket to Brisbane, Sydney or Auckland is still there for a young Scot, should he prove good enough.

[Sports Prophet]

On 28/11/2022 at 19:33, Just Browny said:

I really hate this idea. Hate it. The dead rubber format.

I’m with you. I hate these unequal groups and farcical seeded and non seeded groups or groups of different sizes. As @Damien said, fans have ridiculed these convoluted formats when we have done them in the past and now this author on The Roar wants to bring it back, albeit as his own unique idea lol.

I maintain, the best way to get the most evenly contested and best quality fixtures is to round robin the top nations. Six nations round robin and a final is 16 high quality fixtures. The top four ranked all auto qualify while the next 16 play knockout down to two immediately prior to round robin, for another 14 evenly matched fixtures.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

8 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

fans have ridiculed these convoluted formats when we have done them in the past

9 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Six nations round robin and a final is 16 high quality fixtures.

Do you think fans won't ridicule this suggested format?

[iangidds]

19 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I’m with you. I hate these unequal groups and farcical seeded and non seeded groups or groups of different sizes. As @Damien said, fans have ridiculed these convoluted formats when we have done them in the past and now this author on The Roar wants to bring it back, albeit as his own unique idea lol.

I maintain, the best way to get the most evenly contested and best quality fixtures is to round robin the top nations. Six nations round robin and a final is 16 high quality fixtures. The top four ranked all auto qualify while the next 16 play knockout down to two immediately prior to round robin, for another 14 evenly matched fixtures.

We are starved of high quality international Rl and have just let Austrailia, New Zealand and Tonga leave without any fixture; can we really afford to let massive fixtures go like this whilst we play the likes of Greece and take up fixtures with Ireland and Scotland where the game does not and will not exist .

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by iangidds

[Sports Prophet]

21 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Do you think fans won't ridicule this suggested format?

What is there to ridicule?

16 of the best possible 16 fixtures with the best nations all playing each other. Are you ridiculing the idea?

Edited December 4, 2022 by Sports Prophet

[Sports Prophet]

9 minutes ago, iangidds said:

We are starved of high quality international Rl and have just let Austrailia, New Zealand and Tonga leave without any fixture; can we really afford to let massive fixtures go like this whilst we play the likes of Greece and take up fixtures with Ireland and Scotland where the game does not and will not exist .

 

Exactly my point. In the last World Cup out of a potential six different matchups of the top four ranked nations we got just one, Australia v NZ. A whole World Cup went by with just one top 4 matchup! That’s ridiculous.

My format sees the top six nations all play each other once for sixteen high quality fixtures.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Sports Prophet

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

Just now, Sports Prophet said:

What is there to ridicule?

16 of the best possible 16 fixtures with the best nations all playing each other. How is that ridiculous?

Personally, such a contracted format with so few teams is not my idea of a World Cup, and many others on this forum share that view. I also think this would have a detrimental effect on the development of the game globally, as any realistic hope of qualifying for that WC would be all but gone for the majority of nations.

However, I'm well aware that many others share your view that the WC should contract in order to be of sufficiently high quality. Unfortunately, the sport isn't blessed with dozens of competitive nations all at a similar level (unlike football, for example). So until that point, any WC format is unlikely to please everybody, and there will always be detractors.

[Sports Prophet]

6 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Personally, such a contracted format with so few teams is not my idea of a World Cup, and many others on this forum share that view. I also think this would have a detrimental effect on the development of the game globally, as any realistic hope of qualifying for that WC would be all but gone for the majority of nations.

However, I'm well aware that many others share your view that the WC should contract in order to be of sufficiently high quality. Unfortunately, the sport isn't blessed with dozens of competitive nations all at a similar level (unlike football, for example). So until that point, any WC format is unlikely to please everybody, and there will always be detractors.

My format had 20 nations competing. More than the current formats. I think you need to review the format I suggested if you think I am minimising the number of nations.

I am not a fan of contracting the World Cup, just playing it in a non convoluted manner that still sees the best playing the best.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Sports Prophet

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

My format had 20 nations competing. More than the current formats. I think you need to review the format I suggested if you think I am minimising the number of nations.

Apologies - I have re-read it and now understand it better. But I would argue that this isn't any less convoluted than some of the formats that you have derided. With your suggestion, a team has to play 3 games to qualify, and then 5 games against the best 5 other teams in the world. What sort of state do you think their playing squads will be in by that 8th game? You asked "what is there to ridicule?", but your format is still very flawed - just flawed in different ways to other suggestions.

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Apologies - I have re-read it and now understand it better. But I would argue that this isn't any less convoluted than some of the formats that you have derided. With your suggestion, a team has to play 3 games to qualify, and then 5 games against the best 5 other teams in the world. What sort of state do you think they’re playing squads will be in by that 8th game? You asked "what is there to ridicule?", but your format is still very flawed - just flawed in different ways to other suggestions.

I did think about that actually. There is a flaw there, but the system is practical and logical.

Flaws can be overcome. Convoluted structures will always be convoluted.

For example, squads participating in the knockout stage might be allowed a squad with 5 more players.

You are picking minor, navigable hurdles that are only potentially a problem anyway, to a structure that delivers the the top 6 nations all playing each other. I would have expected a tragic RL man like yourself to be keen as mustard for that.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

4 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I did think about that actually. There is a flaw there, but the system is practical and logical.

Flaws can be overcome. Convoluted structures will always be convoluted.

For example, squads participating in the knockout stage might be allowed a squad with 5 more players.

You are picking minor, navigable hurdles that are only potentially a problem anyway, to a structure that delivers the the top 6 nations all playing each other.

Another issue would be the tournament finishing 2 weeks later in order to accommodate your preliminary knockout phase, which would have a knock-on effect for the start of pre-season - are NRL clubs going to want their players playing 8 international games after a long club season (which could be the case for Samoa, Tonga or Fiji), and starting pre-season 2 weeks' later than they would with the current WC format? The current WC format requires the finalists to play 6 games. But these aren't 6 ultra-high intensity games as they would be with your suggestion. With your idea, my guess would be that the injury rates would be much higher due to the increased intensity of the games, and therefore it would run the risk of the final being the lowest quality game of the tournament due to player fatigue and the toll taken on the playing squads.

You have come up with an idea that seems good at first glance (i.e. 16 high intensity games), but it is riddled with as many if not more flaws as the other formats that you're not keen on. Teams competing in the preliminary knockout may be required to travel across the world for just 1 game. Or they may be away from home for over 2 months and be required to play 8 games - this will carry lots of logistical issues. Also, why are you handicapping what will already be the 2 weakest teams in the pool of 6 by making them play an additional 3 sudden death games before the main tournament starts? Their players will be battered and they'll struggle to get anything like a competitive team on the pitch by game 8, thus undermining your concept of high-intensity games.

Your idea is no less flawed or convoluted than any others that have been suggested. As a sport, we need to accept that there isn't going to be a perfect format for a WC, and that whatever format is chosen will have flaws with it. Your idea is just swapping the flaws associated with the current format for a different set of flaws.

10 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I would have expected a tragic RL man like yourself to be keen as mustard for that.

One of the things I love about the world cup is seeing new nations playing the game on the big stage. Your format doesn't have that (unless you are including the preliminary qualifying knockout phase as part of your world cup, in which case the format is just as convoluted as the ones that you are deriding).

[Guest]

No change to the format. 16 is a good number. The only thing that will work is working with developing nations to improve them. I don't think Scotland or Italy should be eligible until they show an interest in RL. Tonga and Samoa are different because both countries have solid domestic setups which can start producing players. Union often mocks league for being simple but that's actually a strength for the sport. Scotland only has one club with an U16 team and they had to pull out of the U19 champ. I would much rather see Serbia in there and have an additional spot given to the African champions because that's a future growth area for the sport.

 

 

[Tommygilf]

I really do not see the issue with the 16 team, 4 groups world cup format for the mens tournament.

Scheduling could be better. It seemed that by the first round of this world cup each side had played the team they were most likely to beat, which made the 2nd two rounds a bit of a tougher sell, but that is a matter of organisation not fundamental flaws. Given the difficulty of getting a draw in RL and the quality of teams in the world cup, we shouldn't be surprised to see group stages that finish with teams on 3, 2, 1 and 0 games respectively. 

Its fine, build up more nations to get to the level where there is more competition for 1st and 2nd in the groups.