Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Posts: 3044
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Mon, 11 Nov 2019, 16:02

Rarofra wrote:
Yeah, I get your point, but pools of 3 are more disturbing when 2 teams qualify for next round (as It happens in volleyball frequently) because the teams sometimes can make an informal "deal" and find a result that qualifies both. However with just one team advancing, I think this issue is reduced. If you are in the last game playing for a draw, that's because you had a better performance before and deserved it.


On the other hand I always felt the formats with best 3rd ranked qualifying or creating unbalanced pools by default are much more 'unfair' because it seems the fate of the intermediate level teams is much more dependent of the draws than in a format where all pools give the same number of spots.


We are talking about groups of 4 though. Which makes a big difference. Also we are talking about 2 teams out of 6 thirds not making it. This more than evens out unlucky draws. De facto it makes it even more just than in soccer, as a possible "horror" group would still have most likely the third make it to the Octavos as in rugby the bonus points make a big difference. The closer the group the more likely the third makes it out of the group stages.

Rarofra wrote:About the lenght, the current RWC already have bye rounds with the pool of 5 format, so I believe it wouldn't be really affected.


No, it is exactly longer than the length of the one bye in the in-between-round. A week makes a difference for clubs to wait for their players.


thatrugbyguy wrote:What if we did things slightly differently.

8 groups of 3 (top 2 progress)
4 groups of 4 (winners progress)
Semi-final
Final

Teams still play a maximum of 7 games. We still have the issue of short turnaround times in the first round, however, if it can be scheduled so there’s at least 5 days break between group matches it might be workable.


Then 8 teams go for a RWC to play only two meaningful games. also once again those uneven schedule, where one team has 10 days between matches and the other two teams 5 days.
In theory it looks good, but I hate it in reality.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 5897
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Mon, 11 Nov 2019, 16:34

Yes, 8 groups of 3 mean 2 matches for some T2/3s, a bit frustrating (going down from 4 now). Unless we go back to that idea of a 3rd inter-groups match in the groups phase for everybody.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 6
Joined: Sun, 10 Nov 2019, 01:15
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Rarofra » Mon, 11 Nov 2019, 17:15

RugbyLiebe wrote:
Rarofra wrote:
Yeah, I get your point, but pools of 3 are more disturbing when 2 teams qualify for next round (as It happens in volleyball frequently) because the teams sometimes can make an informal "deal" and find a result that qualifies both. However with just one team advancing, I think this issue is reduced. If you are in the last game playing for a draw, that's because you had a better performance before and deserved it.


On the other hand I always felt the formats with best 3rd ranked qualifying or creating unbalanced pools by default are much more 'unfair' because it seems the fate of the intermediate level teams is much more dependent of the draws than in a format where all pools give the same number of spots.


We are talking about groups of 4 though. Which makes a big difference. Also we are talking about 2 teams out of 6 thirds not making it. This more than evens out unlucky draws. De facto it makes it even more just than in soccer, as a possible "horror" group would still have most likely the third make it to the Octavos as in rugby the bonus points make a big difference. The closer the group the more likely the third makes it out of the group stages.

Rarofra wrote:About the lenght, the current RWC already have bye rounds with the pool of 5 format, so I believe it wouldn't be really affected.


No, it is exactly longer than the length of the one bye in the in-between-round. A week makes a difference for clubs to wait for their players.


What I mean is that with two teams qualifying from each group you won't have to complain to get 3rd and not advance while other guys are making it doing the same of you (OK, bonus points and whatever, but here is where the 'luck' factor weights more, since your destiny can depend of other groups). You can get a group of death and the 3rd team advances being good enough or you can just be decent enough to trash the lowest ranked team, lose for the top teams and get a 3rd spot. This RWC had this perfect example. Italy got a pool with 2 of top 3 teams of the tournament but also arguably the two weakest teams. Maybe, they could battle for 2nd if they had fell in place of japan, but also it would be hard to guarantee 3rd in other groups, but no one can argue that after the draw, everybody knew exactly what was needed to do in each group to advance, not depending of results in other groups.Also, in your proposal you has 8 teams palying 3 games, 8 teams playing 4, and only 5 teams playing 5 more games, while in my proposal we have 6 teams palying 3 games and all other 18 teams playing 5+ games.

On the other hand, you have a good point when you said before that you couldn't care less for a battle for 13th even ensuring a spot in the next RWC. It's possible that a big part of the fanbase would agree with you and the idea of a 'bowl tournament' would never prosper. I like this idea, because as a brazillian I'm really used to see Brazil being trashed in early stages of 7's tournaments and so keep rooting for them in the 'bowl' games. But maybe most of the fanbase has not this midset and wouldn't be really interested in this.

victorsra wrote:Yes, 8 groups of 3 mean 2 matches for some T2/3s, a bit frustrating (going down from 4 now). Unless we go back to that idea of a 3rd inter-groups match in the groups phase for everybody.


That's a great idea! IMO better than the 6 pool of 4 format because it's 'fairer' and also viable. The only weak point is 8 teams playing only 3 games but is better than only 2 matches. Also, 3 matches for a team is not so bad if we consider that football already has this number of games for half of the teams and until 1999 many teams also played only 3 games in RWC.

Posts: 2141
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby sk 88 » Mon, 11 Nov 2019, 19:37

thatrugbyguy wrote:What if we did things slightly differently.

8 groups of 3 (top 2 progress)
4 groups of 4 (winners progress)
Semi-final
Final

Teams still play a maximum of 7 games. We still have the issue of short turnaround times in the first round, however, if it can be scheduled so there’s at least 5 days break between group matches it might be workable.


I'm struggling to visualise that, do you have a dummy schedule?

Posts: 5565
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Tue, 12 Nov 2019, 05:01

This is a quick mock up. It's got some issues, especially when matches are played, and it means some teams will only get to play 2 matches, and it still means the first 2 weeks have teams playing uneven schedules still, but 5 day gaps are better than 3 by a large margin. It's not perfect by any means, but in terms of fairness it's as close as you're likely to get. Essentially, we switch around what Rarofra wrote.

Week 1
Fri - A1
Sat - B1, C1, D1
Sun - E1, F1, G1
Mon - H1

Wed - A2
Thu - B2, C2

Week 2
Fri - D2, E2, F2
Sat - G2, H2

Mon - A3
Tue - B3, C3
Wed - D3, E3, F3
Thu - G3, H3

Winners and Runners up progress to Round 2 (Groups I-L)
• Results from previous round count in Round 2

Week 3
Sun - I1, I2
Mon - J1, J2
Tue - K1, K2
Wed - H1, H2

Week 4
Sat - I3, I4, J3
Sun - J4, K3, K4
Mon - H3, H4

Group winners to Semi-finals.

Week 5
Sat - Semifinal 1
Sun - Semifinal 2

Week 6
Fri - Bronze Final
Sat - Final

Posts: 3044
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Tue, 12 Nov 2019, 07:55

Rarofra wrote:
victorsra wrote:Yes, 8 groups of 3 mean 2 matches for some T2/3s, a bit frustrating (going down from 4 now). Unless we go back to that idea of a 3rd inter-groups match in the groups phase for everybody.


That's a great idea! IMO better than the 6 pool of 4 format because it's 'fairer' and also viable. The only weak point is 8 teams playing only 3 games but is better than only 2 matches. Also, 3 matches for a team is not so bad if we consider that football already has this number of games for half of the teams and until 1999 many teams also played only 3 games in RWC.


I struggle to see how a inter-group-match is fairer. Doesn't it make schedule uneven and more injust and also harder to follow as a fan? I mean if you are unlucky, with who you inter-group, there are even scenarios, where you are eliminated even if you have the best record against the other teams in your group.
I mean it is interesting to juggle around with different scenarios, but I think the "injustice" of 4 lucky thirds is way overestimated even compared to the impact draws have at the 20-team-RWC.

No idea, how to actually put the downsides of each format in mathematic probabilities, so we have hard facts what we actually do talk about.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 6
Joined: Sun, 10 Nov 2019, 01:15
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Rarofra » Tue, 12 Nov 2019, 08:48

RugbyLiebe wrote:I struggle to see how a inter-group-match is fairer. Doesn't it make schedule uneven and more injust and also harder to follow as a fan? I mean if you are unlucky, with who you inter-group, there are even scenarios, where you are eliminated even if you have the best record against the other teams in your group.
I mean it is interesting to juggle around with different scenarios, but I think the "injustice" of 4 lucky thirds is way overestimated even compared to the impact draws have at the 20-team-RWC.

No idea, how to actually put the downsides of each format in mathematic probabilities, so we have hard facts what we actually do talk about.


Just to clarify my point, what I don't like about the best 3rd formats is that you can be eliminated after your final game due the result of a match between two teams that basically has nothing to do with you during the tournament since your team will never be able to measure himself against them. Rugby never had so many concerns as other sports with last round schedule because the natural gap between tier 1 and the other teams always made the last round have one decisive game at most for each group. On the other hand in football, for example, to avoid deceptions after your game, both group matches happen simultaneously at last round. With 3rd best teams qualifying you can also have this issue. On the other hand with two teams advancing, you can be unlucky with the draw, but after this you know exactly what you need to do inside your group to pass or not, not risking to depend of results from other groups that can be easier or tougher than yours due the draws.

I agree that inter-group has a problem if the three teams of one group wins all matches or at least all matches against two of their adversaries. However, I don't see this happening soon also due the current gap between top teams and the rest.

Posts: 3044
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Tue, 12 Nov 2019, 10:34

Rarofra wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:I struggle to see how a inter-group-match is fairer. Doesn't it make schedule uneven and more injust and also harder to follow as a fan? I mean if you are unlucky, with who you inter-group, there are even scenarios, where you are eliminated even if you have the best record against the other teams in your group.
I mean it is interesting to juggle around with different scenarios, but I think the "injustice" of 4 lucky thirds is way overestimated even compared to the impact draws have at the 20-team-RWC.

No idea, how to actually put the downsides of each format in mathematic probabilities, so we have hard facts what we actually do talk about.


Just to clarify my point, what I don't like about the best 3rd formats is that you can be eliminated after your final game due the result of a match between two teams that basically has nothing to do with you during the tournament since your team will never be able to measure himself against them. Rugby never had so many concerns as other sports with last round schedule because the natural gap between tier 1 and the other teams always made the last round have one decisive game at most for each group. On the other hand in football, for example, to avoid deceptions after your game, both group matches happen simultaneously at last round. With 3rd best teams qualifying you can also have this issue. On the other hand with two teams advancing, you can be unlucky with the draw, but after this you know exactly what you need to do inside your group to pass or not, not risking to depend of results from other groups that can be easier or tougher than yours due the draws.

I agree that inter-group has a problem if the three teams of one group wins all matches or at least all matches against two of their adversaries. However, I don't see this happening soon also due the current gap between top teams and the rest.


Fair point with the fate in the hand of other teams from other groups after you played your last game.
But that's also the case in an inter-group-format. Especially with 3 teams. Also your ranking is as well directly affected by teams you a) don't rank against or b) you don't even play against. With only the best 4 group thirds advancing you can also say, that you know exactly that you need to finish 2nd to be sure you make it to the Octavos. You only get a possible second advance chance, if your group was pretty close and you made at least some points against the top2. A single victory over the 4th placed team is most likely not enough.

I think that's my basic point. If you are 3rd and advance it is a gift, but not something you can rely on. It is not unfair, if you fail the 4 lucky 3rds. And even more important nobody is privileged to advance before the tournament.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 305
Joined: Sun, 31 Aug 2014, 11:36
National Flag:
PakistanPakistan

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby jservuk » Tue, 12 Nov 2019, 11:03

Only thing that fits 24 teams is the FIFA 86-94 and Euro 2016 formula. The best bit of it is more meaningful games, and because you are effectively also competing against teams in 3rd place in other groups it should result in more positive tactics.

Or 6 groups of 4 , top 2 qualify giving 12, but the 4 teams with the best overall record go through to last 8, leaving the remaining to effectively have a play-off to get to the last 8 proper. I.e we have 2 rounds of 'quarter finals'.

I don't like groups of 3 - a team can get knocked out after just one game, as happened with Spain in 1982 (ENG-GER 0-0, GER-SPA 2-1 .. Spain final game against England did not matter to them ... they were out already). I suppose in this example it only arose because of the drawn game, which is unlikely in Rugby.

Posts: 5897
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Tue, 12 Nov 2019, 12:49

Rarofra wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:I struggle to see how a inter-group-match is fairer. Doesn't it make schedule uneven and more injust and also harder to follow as a fan? I mean if you are unlucky, with who you inter-group, there are even scenarios, where you are eliminated even if you have the best record against the other teams in your group.
I mean it is interesting to juggle around with different scenarios, but I think the "injustice" of 4 lucky thirds is way overestimated even compared to the impact draws have at the 20-team-RWC.

No idea, how to actually put the downsides of each format in mathematic probabilities, so we have hard facts what we actually do talk about.


Just to clarify my point, what I don't like about the best 3rd formats is that you can be eliminated after your final game due the result of a match between two teams that basically has nothing to do with you during the tournament since your team will never be able to measure himself against them. Rugby never had so many concerns as other sports with last round schedule because the natural gap between tier 1 and the other teams always made the last round have one decisive game at most for each group. On the other hand in football, for example, to avoid deceptions after your game, both group matches happen simultaneously at last round. With 3rd best teams qualifying you can also have this issue. On the other hand with two teams advancing, you can be unlucky with the draw, but after this you know exactly what you need to do inside your group to pass or not, not risking to depend of results from other groups that can be easier or tougher than yours due the draws.

I agree that inter-group has a problem if the three teams of one group wins all matches or at least all matches against two of their adversaries. However, I don't see this happening soon also due the current gap between top teams and the rest.


I never proposed 3 intergroup matches. I hate that sort of model.

The idea i posted here is 2 matches inside the group + 1 intergroup match based on some criterea. I suggested a model based on the draw, with like group headers facing each other and so on.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 5897
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Tue, 12 Nov 2019, 13:31

victorsra wrote:The idea of 8 groups of 3, with 3 matches for each team (2 matches inside the group and 1 inter-group match) could work. This would be followed by Round of 16. It would be very important to finish top of the group because of the playoffs draw, obviously.

Its major problem is how to define which inter-group matches would be played - the criterea. The inter-group matches must be pre-defined, prior to the WC, because they'd help with the schedule, making the fxtures the way if we had a 32-teams WC.

Let's try to throw light.

Groups:
A: NZ, USA, RUS
B: SA, TON, URU
C: ENG, SAM, SPA
D: FRA, GEO, CAN
E: AUS, FIJ, ROM
F: IRE, ITA, NAM
G: WAL, JAP, BRA
H: ARG, SCO, HKG

What if the intergroup matches are selected according to the groups draw? 1st pot vs 1st pot, 2nd pot vs 2nd pot, 3rd pot vs 3rd pot? Close encounters.

The fixtures could work like this:



Probably this works better if the groups are drawn by the ranking. This would mean for exemple Group G with teams ranked 7th, 10th and 23rd and Group H with 8th, 9th and 24th. The intergroup matches would be closer and 9th playing 10th is not necessarily an advantage over 7th playing 8th.

Is it really fair? No, T1s have tougher fixtures. But it makes the WC more fun. It is basically offering T2s an easier way.
But if T1s think with the pocket, they are playing more attractive matches for audiences.

I know the majority will see as a "horrible" format, but who cares? Its funny to draw this things anyway.


This is the model with 1 intergroup match for each team.

Let's simulate that group I used as exemple. It has one problematic situation: a team can win all group matches but lose the intergroup match and finish 2nd.

If:
Round 1 - ARG vs WAL (intergroup) - ARG 0 pts
Round 1 - SCO vs HKG - SCO 5 pts
Round 2 - ARG vs HKG - ARG 5 pts
Round 2 - SCO vs JAP (intergroup) - SCO 4 pts
Round 3 - HKG vs BRA - BRA 4 pts, HKG 1 pt
Round 3 - ARG vs SCO - ARG 4 pts, SCO 1 pt

Table: SCO 10 pts, ARG 9 pts, HKG 1 pt

But it could use the 6Ns concept and having a bonus point for a team that beats all teams from their own group. This would mean:

Table: ARG 10 pts, SCO 10 pts, HKG 1 pt, with the first tiebreak being the match between teams. If the sequence of the matches is that one, it creates a perfect situation that whoever wins the last match will be in the top.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

User avatar
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby NaBUru38 » Tue, 19 Nov 2019, 14:21

jservuk wrote:Only thing that fits 24 teams is the FIFA 86-94 and Euro 2016 formula


Not true.

NaBUru38 wrote: My proposal is having four groups of six teams, where each groups is split in two, and teams cross-play (like in the 6-team Nations Cup). For example:

o- Group A: New Zealand, Samoa, Namibia (A1), France, Scotland, Russia (A2).
o- Group B: South Africa, Argentina, Canada (B1), Wales, Tonga, Spain (B2).
o- Group C: Australia, Fiji, Uruguay (C1), Ireland, Italy, Hong Kong (C2).
o- Group D: Japan, United States, Brazil (D1), England, Georgia, Romania (D2).

(I put all European teams on the right side, but it's not an actual requirement).

As you can see, there are many competitive matches, including top tier New Zealand vs France, South Africa-Wales, Australia-Ireland, Japan-England, and lower tier Namibia-Russia, Canada-Spain, Uruguay-Hong Kong, and Brazil-Romania.

As I said before, the knockout phase would have 12 teams.

If you simulate some matchups, you will see that every match would count a lot. There would be few if any dead rubbers.

Posts: 589
Joined: Mon, 03 Jun 2019, 19:53
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Edgar » Tue, 19 Nov 2019, 15:07

Looks like four separate leagues.

Will require five rounds for the group stages and take about a month to complete that stage.

None but the elite will have any chance of reaching the play-offs.

Tailend will be cluttered with dead rubbers.

Teams will rest key players for easy games.

Attrition will become the major factor as teams arrive at the play-offs with all kinds of injury issues.

Minnows will get battered more often than ever.

Entire tournament will take close to two months with emphasis mostly on protracted group stage.
(World Rugby has stipulated it does not want a longer tournament)

68 games in total, increase of 20 on current format, and 16 more than the 24-team 1986 - 1994 FIFA World Cups.

None but the indoctrinated will have any idea what's going on.

:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Meanwhile, Hong Kong just moved up to 21st in the rankings. That 2nd Asian team is not so far away. :thumbup:
Their match with Spain this weekend will be most intriguing.

User avatar
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby NaBUru38 » Tue, 19 Nov 2019, 16:31

My format would have 3 matches in the regular phase, which is perfect.

Posts: 3044
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 21 Nov 2019, 09:56

NaBUru38 wrote:My format would have 3 matches in the regular phase, which is perfect.


Lets think this through.

Japan-USA 21-19 (points: 4-1)
USA-Brazil 35-7 (points: 5-0)
Japan-Brazil 35:6 (5-0)
Japan-England 13-21 (0-4)
USA-Georgia 28-24 (5-2)

Tables:
1. USA 10
2. Japan 9

Japan eliminated?
I am not sure who actually progresses and how you want to manage 12 teams progressing.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

User avatar
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby NaBUru38 » Thu, 21 Nov 2019, 18:13

NaBUru38 wrote: My proposal is having four groups of six teams, where each groups is split in two, and teams cross-play (like in the 6-team Nations Cup). For example:

Group D: Japan, United States, Brazil (D1), England, Georgia, Romania (D2).


RugbyLiebe wrote:
NaBUru38 wrote:My format would have 3 matches in the regular phase, which is perfect.


Lets think this through.

Japan-USA 21-19 (points: 4-1)
USA-Brazil 35-7 (points: 5-0)
Japan-Brazil 35:6 (5-0)
Japan-England 13-21 (0-4)
USA-Georgia 28-24 (5-2)

Tables:
1. USA 10
2. Japan 9

Japan eliminated?
I am not sure who actually progresses and how you want to manage 12 teams progressing.

My proposal is that three European teams would play the three non-European teams.

Posts: 468
Joined: Mon, 12 Mar 2018, 02:19
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Blurandski » Fri, 22 Nov 2019, 02:50

A RWC format first and foremost needs to be simple.

And any teams that are competing to advance need to be able to play each other, I hate WR competitions where teams only play teams in other pools, it looks ridiculous.

Plus the 'big' matches in that format are irrelevant. It doesn't matter who wins the NZ v France, Australia v Ireland matches, because both sides will progress in first place in their group anyway, making them in effect dead rubbers.

Posts: 5897
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Fri, 22 Nov 2019, 05:34

There is another simple format:

8 groups of 3.
1sts go straight to the Round of 16
2nds and 3rds play a Qualy round to R16s.
= 48 matches in total

However, this means 6 matches for the 8 best teams, which is not good: less matches wiith teams that draw more audience. Half of the matches are playoff matches, which is interesting for TV fans, but bad for pre selling tickets.

Exemple of schedule, keeping the current 44 days:

A: SAF, USA, SPA
B: ARG, SCO, HKG
C: AUS, ITA, CAN
D: FRA, TON, URU
E: NZL, GEO, NAM
F: WAL, JAP, BRA
G: ENG, SAM, RUS
H: IRE, FIJ, ROM

Thu - SAF X USA
Fri - ARG X SCO
Sat - AUS X ITA / FRA X TON / NZL X GEO
Sun - WAL X JAP / ENG X SAM / IRE X FIJ
Mon -
Tue - USA X SPA
Wed - SCO X HKG
Thu - ITA X CAN
Fri - TON X URU
Sat - GEO X NAM / JAP X BRA / SAM X RUS
Sun - FIJ X ROM / SAF X SPA
Mon - ARG X HKG
Tue - AUS X CAN
Wed - FRA X URU
Thu - NZL X NAM / WAL X BRA / ENG X RUS
Fri - IRE X ROM
Sat - QP, QP- USA X HKG / SCO X SPA
Sun - QP [iTON X CAN[/i]
Mon - QP ITA X URU
Tue - QP, QP GEO X URU / JAP X NAM
Wed - QP SAM X ROM
Thu - QP FIJ X RUS
Fri -
Sat - R16, R16, R16 SAF X TON / FRA X USA / ARG X ITA
Sun - R16, R16, R16 AUS X SCO / ENG X JAP / IRE X GEO
Mon - R16 WAL X SAM
Tue - R16 NZL X FIJ
Wed -
Thu -
Fri -
Sat - QF, QF SAF X ARG / AUS X FRA
Sun - QF, QF NZL X WAL / ENG X IRE
Mon -
Tue -
Wed -
Thu -
Fri -
Sat - SF
Sun - SF
Mon -
Tue -
Wed -
Thu -
Fri - 3rd
Sat - F
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 22 Nov 2019, 06:23

A format I haven't seen discussed is 4x6. Drop the quarters altogether and go straight to the semi's. Everyone would gets minimum of 5 games.

Posts: 3044
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 22 Nov 2019, 12:00

Working Class Rugger wrote:A format I haven't seen discussed is 4x6. Drop the quarters altogether and go straight to the semi's. Everyone would gets minimum of 5 games.


Actually we have discussed this and realized, that it means that too many teams will be out of the competition way too soon.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 399
Joined: Wed, 18 Jun 2014, 08:34

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Natal » Fri, 22 Nov 2019, 12:15

This is all getting a bit circular. Surely the least worst option is to follow the current FIFA/UEFA model and include the four best third-placed teams in the round of 16. I used to be sceptical of this model (I think it's made football's group stages quite stale), but I've recently come to think that this is the only realistic option for rugby. The most persuasive arguments against this format are:

1) It makes it impossible for a big team to crash out in the pool stage;
2) A third-placed team playing last might be able to work out how to sneak through with a mutually beneficial bonus point;
3) Ranking teams based on results against different teams seems unfair (a team's point difference would be way worse in a group featuring NZ as the top seed compared to, say, France, who always seem determined to give the other team a chance!).

In response to (1): that is already the case; and in the FIFA format, an upset in the group stage would instead increase the chances of two big teams meeting early in the round of 16.
In response to (2): a shift to the French/Super Rugby bonus point model would go some way to fixing it.
I have no solution to (3), except to say that this problem is less severe than the problems facing other formats.

Posts: 5897
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Fri, 22 Nov 2019, 14:40

We are discussing new formats only for fun. WR will choose 6 groups of 4.

4 groups of 6 will never happen because it means more weeks of clubs losing players.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Previous

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zgs and 12 guests