Jump to content

WC 10 Teams, structure going bad

Mathius Hellwege
 Share

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Dave T
Dave T

The biggest problem here is that we are now seeing the outcome of the NRL fully controlling the IRL agenda. And it ain't pretty, no matter how much people try to look on the positive side of things. I

crashmon
crashmon

If they are worried about cost then why not just have 3 groups of 3 and put Aus directly in the SF,  This way those Aussie players would still be free for NRL pre-season friendlies while the group gam

crashmon
crashmon

I was in the sell out Crowd in Bristol for the game between the might of the Cook Islands vs the USA.  PLace was heaving..... So something must have happened to get the people of Bristol (those die in

Posted Images

Griff

Griff

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Damien said:

They are possible, just as bad as each other.

Spidey's is much worse. A sacrificial team in the four team group and two friendlies for places 7-10. 

  • Like 2

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Damien

Damien

Posted
Posted
Just now, Griff said:

Spidey's is much worse. A sacrificial team in the four team group and two friendlies for places 7-10. 

It's not a plan by Spidey. He was simply stating what we had in 2008 with 10 teams and as such it is very likely we will see the same again.

Teams having a single random cross pool game is certainly no better and is highly likely to be more unfair because everyone in a group isn't playing the same teams. That is fundamentally flawed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
17 stone giant

17 stone giant

Posted
Posted

Given the seemingly limited options available (based on 10 teams and the time restrictions), I'd be happy with a 2008 format.

Even if England didn't get out of the super group (assuming we'd be one of the four), at least we'd have played three matches against Australia, New Zealand and PNG/Samoa/Tonga.

According to Wikipedia, PNG weren't best pleased about being the 4th team in 2008, so whether they, Tonga, Samoa would feel the same way this time about being in a super group, I don't know.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Griff

Griff

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Damien said:

It's not a plan by Spidey. He was simply stating what we had in 2008 with 10 teams and as such it is very likely we will see the same again.

Sure, it wasn't invented by Spidey.

In the same way, "my" plan isn't mine, it's just the format for the next World Cup.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StandOffHalf

StandOffHalf

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Griff said:

Sure, it wasn't invented by Spidey.

In the same way, "my" plan isn't mine, it's just the format for the next World Cup.

How do you know that? I hope that 2008 isn't replicated, for what it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
17 stone giant

17 stone giant

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Griff said:

Group A 4 teams 6 games.

Groups B and C 3 teams, with cross group games, similar to 2017, 9 games

Semi finals and final 3 games.

 

I think I'm getting there now. So it would be something like (guessing at the top 4 ranked teams)

A: Aus (1), Eng (4), Fra, Fiji

B - NZ (2), PNG, Cook Islands

C - Samoa (3), Tonga, Wales

After two games have been played in groups B and C, it would be positions B1 v C3, B2 v C2, B3 v C1.

Top team in each group after those cross group matches have been played, advance to SF, joining top two from group A.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liverpool Rover

Liverpool Rover

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Spidey said:

They did it in 2008 - they’ll do it again 

That's because the Super Group is all about having the teams that draw the biggest ratings in the same group and then setting up the knockout stage so two of those teams meet in a semi final and more than likely in the final. It isn't about trying to have competitive games, it's about TV ratings and nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UTK

UTK

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

10 teams in 2030 too...

I must have entirely missed that this was included amongst the despair of the initial 2026 announcement. 

So we're now 11 years AT BEST away from going back to a World Cup with >10 Nations.

We first had 10 teams in 1995, so it will effectively have taken us around 40 years to move forward by the time 2034 rolls around (If it happens at all).

 

The IRL has been responsible for International Rugby League since 1998. 

Aside from the 10 Foundation members in 1998, the IRL has since gained 9 full members (1 being Wales who were previously under GB), 16 affiliate members (2 have competed in a Mens WC, another 2 in a Womens WC), and 29 observers. 

Yet we're still at a 10-team WC until 2034 at the earliest. 

What the ****.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mathius Hellwege

Mathius Hellwege

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

I think I'm getting there now. So it would be something like (guessing at the top 4 ranked teams)

A: Aus (1), Eng (4), Fra, Fiji

B - NZ (2), PNG, Cook Islands

C - Samoa (3), Tonga, Wales

After two games have been played in groups B and C, it would be positions B1 v C3, B2 v C2, B3 v C1.

Top team in each group after those cross group matches have been played, advance to SF, joining top two from group A.

Not "after", it has to be in the "free weeks" that exist for one team diente the odd number of teams

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mathius Hellwege

Mathius Hellwege

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

I think I'm getting there now. So it would be something like (guessing at the top 4 ranked teams)

A: Aus (1), Eng (4), Fra, Fiji

B - NZ (2), PNG, Cook Islands

C - Samoa (3), Tonga, Wales

After two games have been played in groups B and C, it would be positions B1 v C3, B2 v C2, B3 v C1.

Top team in each group after those cross group matches have been played, advance to SF, joining top two from group A.

Lebanon instead the second France or Wales 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Griff

Griff

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

I think I'm getting there now. So it would be something like (guessing at the top 4 ranked teams)

A: Aus (1), Eng (4), Fra, Fiji

B - NZ (2), PNG, Cook Islands

C - Samoa (3), Tonga, Wales

After two games have been played in groups B and C, it would be positions B1 v C3, B2 v C2, B3 v C1.

No - the two teams not playing teams in their own groups will play each other.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crashmon

crashmon

Posted
Posted

If they are worried about cost then why not just have 3 groups of 3 and put Aus directly in the SF,  This way those Aussie players would still be free for NRL pre-season friendlies while the group games are going on.

NZ, Fiji, France

Eng, PNG, Cook Islands

Samoa, Tonga, Leb

This way you have 2 SH and 1 NH team in the groups, and then can still have a  AUS v NZ semi and Eng \ PNG V Tonga or Samoa

Week 1 would looks like

NZ V France

End V PNG

Samoa V Leb

Penrith v Manly
NQ Cowboys V St George

etc

 

OFC I'm having a laugh, but this is the state International RL has become

 

 

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemmy xaan

lemmy xaan

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Damien said:

I have to say that invitation to tender document is really poor too and doesn't exactly sell the World Cup tournaments or make you think these are events worth bidding for.

It just looks cheap and looks like something someone has knocked up in 30 mins with a bit of copying and pasting and then added a bit of spitballing for host contributions.

This struck me as well. No one uses hard-to-read shouty capitals for all of the body-copy. Very much looks like an office trainee cooked it up. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnM

JohnM

Posted
Posted (edited)

Let simplicity, stability, viability and celebration be the defining attributes of the Rugby World Cup.

1. KISS....keep it simple, s......

2. Keep the same scheme for three iterations minimum to build a solid and strong foundation.

3. Limit and fix the countries talking part: England, France, Australia, New Zealand, PNG, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, + two developing countries with their own domestic competitions.

4. All against the backdrop of a celebration of our whole sport .

Learn the lessons from previous wacky  rugby world cup schemes and structures.

Edited by JohnM
  • Thanks 1
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
Go to topic listing

  • 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.