Jump to content

England 21 & France 25 article


Recommended Posts

Two groups of five teams is the way to go. Group winners straight to the semis, 2nd and 3rd finishers play each other for the other two semi spots.

It is basically impossible for any World Cup to leave a legacy in the sport because nothing is ever planned longterm between the World Cups. They are just stand alone events that exist in isolation essentially.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


21 minutes ago, eal said:

Two groups of five teams is the way to go. Group winners straight to the semis, 2nd and 3rd finishers play each other for the other two semi spots.

It is basically impossible for any World Cup to leave a legacy in the sport because nothing is ever planned longterm between the World Cups. They are just stand alone events that exist in isolation essentially.

So if the 20% possibility occurs that the team top of the group has the "bye" in the last round of the group stage, they have 3 weeks between games???

I really don't understand people suggesting formats with odd numbers in groups, or repecharges, or byes / partial play-offs. Our world cups barely make money, sometimes don't even do that, and entirely fund the IRL. You can't just have teams and squads sitting around for a fortnight not playing.

EDIT: Also, 5 weeks for the group stages, then QF, SF, final. That's a 2 month tournament if the games are 1 week apart !! With only 4 games played each group round !

Edited by stookie
Maths...
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, stookie said:

So if the 20% possibility occurs that the team top of the group has the "bye" in the last round of the group stage, they have 3 weeks between games???

I really don't understand people suggesting formats with odd numbers in groups, or repecharges, or byes / partial play-offs. Our world cups barely make money, sometimes don't even do that, and entirely fund the IRL. You can't just have teams and squads sitting around for a fortnight not playing.

EDIT: Also, 5 weeks for the group stages, then QF, SF, final. That's a 2 month tournament if the games are 1 week apart !! With only 4 games played each group round !

The Rugby Union World Cup has five team pools with no issues. You don't spread the games out over 5 weekends, you condense it down to four weekends and make sure the team with the last round bye isn't one of the favourites. Easy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/11/2022 at 11:37, 2blackrooks said:

I think this is the correct approach,  pitching minnows against full time pros in elite competitions is pointless and damaging to the competition imo.

Let's be honest there is no Wales,  Scotland and Ireland and there never will be but if we grow strongly in other countries that are supportive of the game that will benefit us in the long term.

We have 6 or 7 teams now that we can credibly build a world Cup around or a good quality exportable 6 nations competition. 

I love expansion but sometimes less is more .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, iangidds said:

I think this is the correct approach,  pitching minnows against full time pros in elite competitions is pointless and damaging to the competition imo.

Let's be honest there is no Wales,  Scotland and Ireland and there never will be but if we grow strongly in other countries that are supportive of the game that will benefit us in the long term.

We have 6 or 7 teams now that we can credibly build a world Cup around or a good quality exportable 6 nations competition. 

I love expansion but sometimes less is more .

It's extremely harsh lumping Wales in with countries like Scotland and Ireland. Yes they may not be a strong as we would ideally like but they do have born and bred Welsh players, clubs and things like universities playing the game. They also have a rich history and semi-professional clubs.

It's crazy to write them off just because some other countries, despite next to no domestic activity, have the luxury of being able to field stronger teams solely because they can call on a planeful of heritage players born and bred in Australia.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, iangidds said:

Let's be honest there is no Wales,  Scotland and Ireland and there never will be.

Why? How do these countries differ from Samoa and Tonga, who are almost entirely reliant on heritage players to make them competitive?

13 minutes ago, iangidds said:

We have 6 or 7 teams now that we can credibly build a world Cup around or a good quality exportable 6 nations competition. 

I love expansion but sometimes less is more .

This would be a drastic reduction in the size and scope of the tournament, and would have a massive knock-on effect of reducing growth in other nations due to there being no carrot of a world cup to qualify for. Less would definitely be less with this idea IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

It's extremely harsh lumping Wales in with countries like Scotland and Ireland. Yes they may not be a strong as we would ideally like but they do have born and bred Welsh players, clubs and things like universities playing the game. They also have a rich history and semi-professional clubs.

It's crazy to write them off just because some other countries, despite next to no domestic activity, have the luxury of being able to field stronger teams solely because they can call on a planeful of heritage players born and bred in Australia.

We missed the boat with Wales , it departed a long time ago and we simply will never get the sport off the ground there again in my opinion  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, iangidds said:

We missed the boat with Wales , it departed a long time ago and we simply will never get the sport off the ground there again in my opinion  

The sport is off the ground in Wales. It exists and is played.

If that is your attitude with Wales then we may as well give up everywhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Why? How do these countries differ from Samoa and Tonga, who are almost entirely reliant on heritage players to make them competitive?

This would be a drastic reduction in the size and scope of the tournament, and would have a massive knock-on effect of reducing growth in other nations due to there being no carrot of a world cup to qualify for. Less would definitely be less with this idea IMO.

There has to be a solution where lesser nations can compete with themselves maybe with a strategic plan where growth is tangible. 

Serbia for example needs millions really to get a meaningful competition going to create a couple of good pro clubs and a reasonable international pathway ; money like that is not in the game especially if we only broke even on a 40 million pound turnover from this world cup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

The sport is off the ground in Wales. It exists and is played.

If that is your attitude with Wales then we may as well give up everywhere.

It maybe played , I've been involved there ; reality is its not going to grow to a level that is relevant 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Why? How do these countries differ from Samoa and Tonga, who are almost entirely reliant on heritage players to make them competitive?

This would be a drastic reduction in the size and scope of the tournament, and would have a massive knock-on effect of reducing growth in other nations due to there being no carrot of a world cup to qualify for. Less would definitely be less with this idea IMO.

If you look at what is and has happened due to the last 2 World cups in Tonga and Samoa you would understand better , the countries have gone crazy for the game of rugby league! There is zero chance of that happening in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

The sport is off the ground in Wales. It exists and is played.

If that is your attitude with Wales then we may as well give up everywhere.

Think we certainly need to give up on Ireland and Scotland,  Wales is close to my heart but I'm realistic in knowing the game won't progress unless we suddenly have several million pounds and a superleague team in South Wales

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, iangidds said:

There has to be a solution where lesser nations can compete with themselves maybe with a strategic plan where growth is tangible. 

Serbia for example needs millions really to get a meaningful competition going to create a couple of good pro clubs and a reasonable international pathway ; money like that is not in the game especially if we only broke even on a 40 million pound turnover from this world cup

Considering that 10 million of the 25 million pounds from the government went into general RL infrastructure rather than the tournament, I'd be very surprised if the turnover from the World Cup was any more than 30 million £, if that.

13 minutes ago, iangidds said:

If you look at what is and has happened due to the last 2 World cups in Tonga and Samoa you would understand better , the countries have gone crazy for the game of rugby league! There is zero chance of that happening in the UK.

Even if Tonga and Samoa have gone crazy for RL, so what?  They're too tiny and poor for that to deliver any meaningful benefits for the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Considering that 10 million of the 25 million pounds from the government went into general RL infrastructure rather than the tournament, I'd be very surprised if the turnover from the World Cup was any more than 30 million £, if that.

Even if Tonga and Samoa have gone crazy for RL, so what?  They're too tiny and poor for that to deliver any meaningful benefits for the game.

They are both widely recognised as very good rugby nations and there presence throughout Australia , New Zealand and parts of America is huge . They bring players , eyes , credibility to the game whereas Wales , Scotland and Ireland bring next to none of those.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, iangidds said:

They are both widely recognised as very good rugby nations and there presence throughout Australia , New Zealand and parts of America is huge . They bring players , eyes , credibility to the game whereas Wales , Scotland and Ireland bring next to none of those.

 

I bet I'm been generous in saying there won't be more than 1000 people interested in League in the UK outside of England 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, iangidds said:

I bet I'm been generous in saying there won't be more than 1000 people interested in League in the UK outside of England 

It's late in the year but I see we're still getting entries for most embarrassing post of 2022.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iangidds said:

There has to be a solution where lesser nations can compete with themselves maybe with a strategic plan where growth is tangible. 

Serbia for example needs millions really to get a meaningful competition going to create a couple of good pro clubs and a reasonable international pathway ; money like that is not in the game especially if we only broke even on a 40 million pound turnover from this world cup

I don’t want to labour the point, but game benefited and will benefit hugely from this World Cup financially. The break even comment is essentially about a super profit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

It's late in the year but I see we're still getting entries for most embarrassing post of 2022.

I bet I'm not far off , average combined crowds for the 2 Welsh sides are around 900 people ; how many Irish and Scottish fans are there ?

There are no stars in the Welsh set up anymore , these days no one can be bothered going to watch semi pro rugby with limited sportsmen on the pitch.

Just been realistic rather than negative 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/11/2022 at 22:20, Tosh said:

So how do you increase the player pool of tier2 nations like PNG and Fiji then?

The male player pool in png is already very large. The Hunters help provide pathways for them.

Edited by Copa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/11/2022 at 10:37, 2blackrooks said:

The tired old 'super group' formula. Don't do it. It makes RL look amatuerish and desparate.

If you want to go down the super group route just have a 'world league' i.e. the top 5 teams play each other twice over 2 years. Winners are champions, bottom team relegated to the level below. If you are keen on a grand final then 2 v 3 with the winners taking on the leaders for the title. This could be repeated (minus the play-off) at 3 or 4 lower levels. 

Otherwise the best solution is 3 groups of 4 with the top 2 and two best 3rd places going on to the knock-out stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, iangidds said:

There has to be a solution where lesser nations can compete with themselves maybe with a strategic plan where growth is tangible. 

Serbia for example needs millions really to get a meaningful competition going to create a couple of good pro clubs and a reasonable international pathway ; money like that is not in the game especially if we only broke even on a 40 million pound turnover from this world cup

Concentrate on countries the already have a league - of sorts - up and running. So places like Serbia, Greece and the Lebanon. Make sure they are viable and long term, get them in the press and in the media, make them visible nationally. Then move on to places that are aware of the game - Italy, Catalonia - and repeat the process. The game will then spread slowly but with a solid base.

How much would this cost? No idea. As these leagues would be amatuer or with a very small renumeration at best I shouldn't imagine it would cost any more than an amatuer league in England. One thing is for certain, with regard to cash the IRL is no FIFA, it's not even a World Rugby!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, iangidds said:

I bet I'm not far off , average combined crowds for the 2 Welsh sides are around 900 people ; how many Irish and Scottish fans are there ?

There are no stars in the Welsh set up anymore , these days no one can be bothered going to watch semi pro rugby with limited sportsmen on the pitch.

Just been realistic rather than negative 

Average attendences are notoriously are the limit of interest...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Average attendences are notoriously are the limit of interest...

 

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

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

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...