Rugby World Cup general discussion
-
one assumes that 24 teams means 6 pools of four. With 6 pool winners and two best runner-ups going through.
Which will make the pool stages even more irrelevant, and see the minnows cop harder poundings as the lower ranked sides try and get their points diff up as high as possible.
-
one assumes that 24 teams means 6 pools of four. With 6 pool winners and two best runner-ups going through.
Which will make the pool stages even more irrelevant, and see the minnows cop harder poundings as the lower ranked sides try and get their points diff up as high as possible.
@mariner4life said in Rugby World Cup news:
one assumes that 24 teams means 6 pools of four. With 6 pool winners and two best runner-ups going through.
Which will make the pool stages even more irrelevant, and see the minnows cop harder poundings as the lower ranked sides try and get their points diff up as high as possible.
IMO, They won't cop harder poundings for the reasons you mention, because the minnows only have to handle 3 games rather than 4, and the scheduling will be even with even numbers in pool, rather than 5. So, no short turnarounds, which used to shaft the minnows up until 2015 before WR attempted to even it out a bit in 2019 draw.
A more valid reasoning for assuming they may cop bigger poundings though is because we're adding 4 weaker teams, but I also don't think there's any/much difference between 19th and 24th best team in world at moment. (but if adding teams on geography e.g. Asia 2 or Africa 3, then that is a lot weaker than the 11th best European country etc)
The 5 team pools are a real weakness iMO from a tournament integrity POV, with WR having to play God a bit with the draw.
-
Obviously. The holy grail for a tournament structure is either 16 teams or 32 teams.
The 20 team tournament has been a reasonable compromise IMO of structure v competitiveness v expansion.
And after 20 years with 20 team structure they got it to the point where the pool stages were really interesting by the 2015 and 2019 tournaments.
A 24 team (6 pools of 4 qualifying into a Last 16) structure will make the pool stages less interesting for fans of the top 10 countries (who are the majority obviously in sheer numbers) but more interesting for teams 11 to 20, and by adding 21 to 24 - then obviously they'll find it more interesting than not competing at all.
And to be honest, the Round of 16 is equivalent of a 'Matchweek/matchday 4' and will be virtually the same as the Pool of Death(s) last round we currently have, in terms of interest and drama. The real payoff for Round of 16 , (being better than current last weekend of pool play, rather than equivalent to it), will be a further 20 years into the future.
24 teams is clunky outcome, that I'd suggest you'd want to move on from as quickly as possible. Even 28 teams (7 pools of 4 qualifying into a Last 16) would be infinitely more interesting at the pool stage.
Soccer spent 4 tournament with 24 teams (1982 to 1994), I'd suggest the 28 team compromise as soon as possible. As 32 teams still seems a long way away.
-
if it was me trying to "grow" test rugby i would cut the RWC to 16 teams, but make every team bar the hosts and the defending champions qualify.
That way you have a glowing pinnacle of a tournament, and you also force NZ and Aus to play games in Fiji/Tonga/Samoa/Cook Islands etc, and the 6 Nations sides to play in Germany and Poland. Meaningful test matches against tier one one sides at home will do more i reckon than their current ritual slaughter for content every 4 years.
In rugby, more is almost always less. We are not soccer, we will never be soccer. FIFA are expanding the World Cup, because they can (even though i think it's a dumb move). They have a team like Egypt at 35 in the rankings, a nation with a multi-level professional competition, and a national team that boasts the 2nd best striker in the world's biggest league. Rugby has the Czech Republic at 35, who have 5,000 registered players, most of which are kids.
-
It is about the top 24. That means adding the likes of Canada USA and Spain with Russia Hong Kong Kenya and Brazil battling for a spot. Without the Rwc incentive these countries will continue to fester. They are leagues ahead of Czechs and not far below Namibia Chile etc.
-
I think this whooshed past everyone
"The possibility of holding the event between June to September is being explored..."
Grow up
-
if it was me trying to "grow" test rugby i would cut the RWC to 16 teams, but make every team bar the hosts and the defending champions qualify.
That way you have a glowing pinnacle of a tournament, and you also force NZ and Aus to play games in Fiji/Tonga/Samoa/Cook Islands etc, and the 6 Nations sides to play in Germany and Poland. Meaningful test matches against tier one one sides at home will do more i reckon than their current ritual slaughter for content every 4 years.
In rugby, more is almost always less. We are not soccer, we will never be soccer. FIFA are expanding the World Cup, because they can (even though i think it's a dumb move). They have a team like Egypt at 35 in the rankings, a nation with a multi-level professional competition, and a national team that boasts the 2nd best striker in the world's biggest league. Rugby has the Czech Republic at 35, who have 5,000 registered players, most of which are kids.
Or kiwis living in Czech Republic who join their local rugby club
-
Or kiwis living in Czech Republic who join their local rugby club
@Billy-Tell the language has many crossovers with Polish eh.
-
I think 24 is too many, but if they could a find a simple format for 20 that would help grow the game and reward a better international standard.
-
one assumes that 24 teams means 6 pools of four. With 6 pool winners and two best runner-ups going through.
Which will make the pool stages even more irrelevant, and see the minnows cop harder poundings as the lower ranked sides try and get their points diff up as high as possible.
@mariner4life said in Rugby World Cup news:
one assumes that 24 teams means 6 pools of four. With 6 pool winners and two best runner-ups going through.
Which will make the pool stages even more irrelevant, and see the minnows cop harder poundings as the lower ranked sides try and get their points diff up as high as possible.
From the article:
six groups of four teams, with all group winners and runners-up progressing, along with the three best third-place teams.
Not sure I trust either their maths ...
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby World Cup news:
one assumes that 24 teams means 6 pools of four. With 6 pool winners and two best runner-ups going through.
Which will make the pool stages even more irrelevant, and see the minnows cop harder poundings as the lower ranked sides try and get their points diff up as high as possible.
From the article:
six groups of four teams, with all group winners and runners-up progressing, along with the three best third-place teams.
Not sure I trust either their maths ...
-
@Stargazer It's not difficult to understand why rugby is in a poor position when the best refereeing pool includes Paul Williams, Wayne Gardner and Nic Berry.
-
if it was me trying to "grow" test rugby i would cut the RWC to 16 teams, but make every team bar the hosts and the defending champions qualify.
That way you have a glowing pinnacle of a tournament, and you also force NZ and Aus to play games in Fiji/Tonga/Samoa/Cook Islands etc, and the 6 Nations sides to play in Germany and Poland. Meaningful test matches against tier one one sides at home will do more i reckon than their current ritual slaughter for content every 4 years.
In rugby, more is almost always less. We are not soccer, we will never be soccer. FIFA are expanding the World Cup, because they can (even though i think it's a dumb move). They have a team like Egypt at 35 in the rankings, a nation with a multi-level professional competition, and a national team that boasts the 2nd best striker in the world's biggest league. Rugby has the Czech Republic at 35, who have 5,000 registered players, most of which are kids.
@mariner4life said in Rugby World Cup news:
if it was me trying to "grow" test rugby i would cut the RWC to 16 teams, but make every team bar the hosts and the defending champions qualify.
That way you have a glowing pinnacle of a tournament, and you also force NZ and Aus to play games in Fiji/Tonga/Samoa/Cook Islands etc, and the 6 Nations sides to play in Germany and Poland. Meaningful test matches against tier one one sides at home will do more i reckon than their current ritual slaughter for content every 4 years.
In rugby, more is almost always less. We are not soccer, we will never be soccer. FIFA are expanding the World Cup, because they can (even though i think it's a dumb move). They have a team like Egypt at 35 in the rankings, a nation with a multi-level professional competition, and a national team that boasts the 2nd best striker in the world's biggest league. Rugby has the Czech Republic at 35, who have 5,000 registered players, most of which are kids.
That makes sense until you realise they're addicted to revenue, which means more meaningless fixtures involving the tier one nations.
-
@Daffy-Jaffy said in Rugby World Cup news:
Will be interesting if all of those players' club form translates to the world stage.
I didn't realise that Fifita was doing so well.With the midfield covered well by Moala and Fekitoa, I wonder if there will be a temptation to use Piutau at 10 and Folau at 15.
Backline of Pulu, Piutau, W Havili, Moala, Fekitoa, Paea, Folau could be exciting.
Pity they are in Pool B as they could do some damage in C or D.
Still they might make Ireland and SA put out stronger sides than they would like to. -
@Kirwan said in Rugby World Cup news:
I think 24 is too many, but if they could a find a simple format for 20 that would help grow the game and reward a better international standard.
Like 4 pools of 5?
-
@booboo well Pickerill gets to go too, so yeah...
