WC 10 Teams, structure going bad

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Griff said:

Why are we talking about formats which clearly won't happen?

Because practically anything is better than the failed formats the game's administrators are shoehorning us into.

[Big Picture]

As @Hull Kingston Broncopoints out above, 10 teams worked well in 1995.  A similar format now (based on last year's results) could be:

Group A

Australia, Samoa, Tonga, Lebanon 

Group B

New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Qualifier 1

Group C

England, Fiji, Qualifier 2

Cross group matches

New Zealand vs Fiji, England vs Papua New Guinea, Qualifier 1 vs Qualifier 2

With semi-finals and the final that's 18 matches. 

 

[17 stone giant]

5 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

As @Hull Kingston Broncopoints out above, 10 teams worked well in 1995. 

But wasn't HKB saying that he preferred to just have two games for the three team group, which is what happened in 1995 (e.g. no third cross group game).

He described them as meaningless, but actually they're not. They're just unfair, because it means teams don't play the same three opponents. You could even win both games in your group but lose the cross group game and not finish top.

Plus the end tables look a bit weird at first glance, because you've got say 5 wins for the teams, but only 4 losses (the other table having 4 wins and 5 losses).

But having cross group games mean teams play 3 matches and not just 2, like in 1995.

 

[Griff]

8 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

As @Hull Kingston Broncopoints out above, 10 teams worked well in 1995.  A similar format now (based on last year's results) could be:

Group A

Australia, Samoa, Tonga, Lebanon 

Group B

New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Qualifier 1

Group C

England, Fiji, Qualifier 2

Cross group matches

New Zealand vs Fiji, England vs Papua New Guinea, Qualifier 1 vs Qualifier 2

With semi-finals and the final that's 18 matches. 

 

The two top four teams in Group A will be decided by which pair the organisers reckon will generate the biggest crowd.

It's a guaranteed fixture and it will open the tournament.

If the hosts are Australia, it'll be Australia v England.  If the hosts are New Zealand, probably Australia v New Zealand.

[Griff]

39 minutes ago, Damien said:

Because practically anything is better than the failed formats the game's administrators are shoehorning us into.

That would make sense if the decision hadn't already been made.

[Damien]

15 minutes ago, Griff said:

That would make sense if the decision hadn't already been made.

Geez you even contradict yourself with your moaning. One minute you moan saying there are only certain options possible and we should talk about those but yet moan when we talk about those options and say a decision hasn't already been made.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Damien

[BladeHearts]

2 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

His suggestion was that Cunningham and Harris wouldn't have chosen Wales (in 1995) had there not also been a GB team at the time. They were able to choose Wales for the World Cup, knowing that they could still play for GB in the Ashes, Tri-Nations, etc.

Obviously only they will know that for sure, but I agree with Eddie. I don't believe either of them would have chosen Wales if they were playing today.

My point was more that if its GB playing in World Cups etc... there is no decision to make.

Obviously there would be plenty of occasion when the entire side was English which is fair enough if the side is picked on merit, but to take football as an example, maybe even just a Ryan Giggs or Gareth Bale in an English dominated GB squad could have been the difference between how ever many years of hurt it is now and a major championship.

Even if Welsh RL had a golden age and produced 4 or 5 world class players starring every week in the NRL, they'd still have half a team plying its trade in the Championship and below and be hammered on the world stage.  Those same 4/5 players could elevate England from a very good side to a World Cup winning GB side.

In an attempt to get back on topic, the RL World Cup needs quality not quantity and GB winning the trophy would do far more for the competition than pretending they meaningfully play TGG in Greece, Scotland, Wales or Italy ever will.

A World Cup of 8 genuine RL nations achieves that aim and if finances allow by all means bring back the Emerging Nations but restrict it to qualification on birth, parents or residency and drop the grandparent rule.

Edited October 10, 2023 by BladeHearts

[17 stone giant]

1 minute ago, BladeHearts said:

My point was more that if its GB playing in World Cups etc... there is no decision to make.

I'm in agreement with you - I would play as GB for all major events, because I think it's what works best for rugby league.

I also agree that it doesn't matter if it's 13 Englishmen - if they're the best 13 rugby league players in Great Britain, then that's who you pick.

We do that at the Olympics with Team GB. We don't say the 4 x 100m relay team must have 1 English, 1 Scot, 1 Welsh and 1 Northern Irish, because otherwise it's not really a GB team. We pick the best four no matter where they're from.

[Spidey]

GB is an old concept for RL, it needs to be put to bed once and for all.  Don't care what other sports do.  There's nothing wrong with England - its a problem that doesn't need fixing

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, 17 stone giant said:

But wasn't HKB saying that he preferred to just have two games for the three team group, which is what happened in 1995 (e.g. no third cross group game).

He described them as meaningless, but actually they're not. They're just unfair, because it means teams don't play the same three opponents. You could even win both games in your group but lose the cross group game and not finish top.

Plus the end tables look a bit weird at first glance, because you've got say 5 wins for the teams, but only 4 losses (the other table having 4 wins and 5 losses).

But having cross group games mean teams play 3 matches and not just 2, like in 1995.

 

I was talking about 2008, which didn't have cross-group games. It had the winners of B and C playing off in a "quarter final" to determine which one of them went into the semi final with the top 3 from A. It then had cross-group games to determine who finished 7th versus 8th (B2 vs B2), and 9th versus 10th (C3 vs C3). Those were the meaningless games I was referring to.

If this is an 18 match comp, the 2008 model is the only one that fits, so they're planning to do that nonsense again. 

2017 had 14 teams, and I think was the comp with cross-group games?

 

 

[StandOffHalf]

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

As @Hull Kingston Broncopoints out above, 10 teams worked well in 1995.  A similar format now (based on last year's results) could be:

Group A

Australia, Samoa, Tonga, Lebanon 

Group B

New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Qualifier 1

Group C

England, Fiji, Qualifier 2

Cross group matches

New Zealand vs Fiji, England vs Papua New Guinea, Qualifier 1 vs Qualifier 2

With semi-finals and the final that's 18 matches. 

 

I'd prefer that to the 2008 set-up.

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Geez you even contradict yourself with your moaning. One minute you moan saying there are only certain options possible and we should talk about those but yet moan when we talk about those options and say a decision hasn't already been made.

Who's moaning?

Who's saying a decision hasn't been made?

[17 stone giant]

5 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I was talking about 2008, which didn't have cross-group games. It had the winners of B and C playing off in a "quarter final" to determine which one of them went into the semi final with the top 3 from A. It then had cross-group games to determine who finished 7th versus 8th (B2 vs B2), and 9th versus 10th (C3 vs C3). Those were the meaningless games I was referring to.

If this is an 18 match comp, the 2008 model is the only one that fits, so they're planning to do that nonsense again. 

2017 had 14 teams, and I think was the comp with cross-group games?

Apologies for misunderstanding you - thanks for the clarification. And I agree about the 7th v 8th etc. matches in 2008 having very little meaning.

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I was talking about 2008, which didn't have cross-group games. It had the winners of B and C playing off in a "quarter final" to determine which one of them went into the semi final with the top 3 from A. It then had cross-group games to determine who finished 7th versus 8th (B2 vs B2), and 9th versus 10th (C3 vs C3). Those were the meaningless games I was referring to.

If this is an 18 match comp, the 2008 model is the only one that fits, so they're planning to do that nonsense again. 

2017 had 14 teams, and I think was the comp with cross-group games?

 

 

2013 had cross-group matches.

[Griff]

12 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

If this is an 18 match comp, the 2008 model is the only one that fits, so they're planning to do that nonsense again. 

 

I've already given you an alternative 18 game, ten team model so clearly it isn't the only one that fits.

[Griff]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

2013 had cross-group matches.

As did 2017.

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, Griff said:

As did 2017.

I tend to block that tournament out.

Interesting that 2013 is mostly remembered fondly when there's quite a lot of it, looking back and knowing at the time, that simply did not work.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I tend to block that tournament out.

Interesting that 2013 is mostly remembered fondly when there's quite a lot of it, looking back and knowing at the time, that simply did not work.

There was. Importantly it had that feelgood factor, by and large anyway, which I don't think RLWC2021 ever really got and RLWC2017 didn't outside the games in PNG and matches involving Tonga.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I tend to block that tournament out.

Interesting that 2013 is mostly remembered fondly when there's quite a lot of it, looking back and knowing at the time, that simply did not work.

It was, to an extent, a first for RL which helped. It was on a basic level successful, had moved on from 2008, had lots of good in person events and matches, apart from the premier paywall it didn't seem to go entirely unnoticed and had games in a wide variety of places.

It was a step forward, clearly one that needed lots of development, but it was a base for growth that laid a platform for the future. For RL fans in this country at least it was a real glimmer of hope.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

16 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

2013 had cross-group matches.

Ah cool. Couldn't remember. Wasn't a fan of them either to be honest, but at least they weren't as soul crushingly futile as 7th place and 9th place play off games. I mean, who goes to a World Cup and says... "what I'm really wanting to know is, who comes 9th?"       

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

17 minutes ago, Griff said:

I've already given you an alternative 18 game, ten team model so clearly it isn't the only one that fits.

Missed it, I'll go and look for it. 

[crashmon]

1 hour ago, 17 stone giant said:

I'm in agreement with you - I would play as GB for all major events, because I think it's what works best for rugby league.

I also agree that it doesn't matter if it's 13 Englishmen - if they're the best 13 rugby league players in Great Britain, then that's who you pick.

We do that at the Olympics with Team GB. We don't say the 4 x 100m relay team must have 1 English, 1 Scot, 1 Welsh and 1 Northern Irish, because otherwise it's not really a GB team. We pick the best four no matter where they're from.

Olympics is not an applicable comparision as it contains both individual and team sports

Lets look at team sports

1) Football :- England
2) Cricket :- England
3) Union :- England
4) Field Hockey :- England
5) Ice Hockey :- GB
6) Basketball :- GB

7) Netball :- England
8 ) Volleyball :- England (I think)

So its pretty much England apart from the US related sports

Edited October 10, 2023 by crashmon

[Griff]

1 hour ago, 17 stone giant said:

.We do that at the Olympics with Team GB. We don't say the 4 x 100m relay team must have 1 English, 1 Scot, 1 Welsh and 1 Northern Irish, because otherwise it's not really a GB team. We pick the best four no matter where they're from.

Northern Ireland, of course, is not in Great Britain.

[Big Picture]

23 minutes ago, crashmon said:

Olympics is not an applicable comparision as it contains both individual and team sports

Lets look at team sports

1) Football :- England
2) Cricket :- England
3) Union :- England
4) Field Hockey :- England
5) Ice Hockey :- GB
6) Basketball :- GB

7) Netball :- England
8 ) Volleyball :- England (I think)

So its pretty much England apart from the US related sports

You left out

9) Handball :- GB

10) Lacrosse :- England etc.

[Mathius Hellwege]

2 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

Apologies for misunderstanding you - thanks for the clarification. And I agree about the 7th v 8th etc. matches in 2008 having very little meaning.

But now you could make Them a WC 2034 qualifier