Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Sat, 01 Apr 2017, 07:22

You're talking about making the tournament a week longer. And the problem with the 4 pool 6 team format is the shear number of pointless games involved.

Posts: 31
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 11:00
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby BertSolomon » Sat, 01 Apr 2017, 07:39

thatrugbyguy wrote:The paradox is as long as uneven pools exist we are never going to truly know the level of competitiveness. We don't know whether Japan would have beaten Scotland had both teams had the same scheduling in 2015.


A very good point. The format is fundamentally flawed, yet we'll have had it for five tournaments by 2019.

Posts: 476
Joined: Thu, 15 Dec 2016, 11:18
National Flag:
KenyaKenya

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Neptune » Sat, 01 Apr 2017, 09:06

The Do wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:The paradox is as long as uneven pools exist we are never going to truly know the level of competitiveness. We don't know whether Japan would have beaten Scotland had both teams had the same scheduling in 2015.


Hence why if it goes to 24 teams, you need to have 4 pools of 6. Everyone would have the same criteria to get to the next round and not some 3rd placed teams in the pool progress but other 3rd place teams don't.


6 pools of 4 makes more sense mathematically and logistically.

Posts: 476
Joined: Thu, 15 Dec 2016, 11:18
National Flag:
KenyaKenya

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Neptune » Sat, 01 Apr 2017, 09:16

Anyway, I think we should not even be talking about this, since it's not one of the things among WR's agenda. For now let's have the usual 20 team format with 12 auto qualifiers as per the status quo. We can talk about this in another 30+ years. :)

Posts: 85
Joined: Thu, 17 Jul 2014, 19:55
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby The Do » Sat, 01 Apr 2017, 09:29

Neptune wrote:
The Do wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:The paradox is as long as uneven pools exist we are never going to truly know the level of competitiveness. We don't know whether Japan would have beaten Scotland had both teams had the same scheduling in 2015.


Hence why if it goes to 24 teams, you need to have 4 pools of 6. Everyone would have the same criteria to get to the next round and not some 3rd placed teams in the pool progress but other 3rd place teams don't.


6 pools of 4 makes more sense mathematically and logistically.


True, it does but is it fairer?

Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Sat, 01 Apr 2017, 09:55

The Do wrote:
Neptune wrote:
The Do wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:The paradox is as long as uneven pools exist we are never going to truly know the level of competitiveness. We don't know whether Japan would have beaten Scotland had both teams had the same scheduling in 2015.


Hence why if it goes to 24 teams, you need to have 4 pools of 6. Everyone would have the same criteria to get to the next round and not some 3rd placed teams in the pool progress but other 3rd place teams don't.


6 pools of 4 makes more sense mathematically and logistically.


True, it does but is it fairer?


100%: yes
In so many ways
-even rest times
- in closer pools do have way bigger chances to progress as a 3rd. Especially in rugby where you get bonus points
-the final round is played at the same time. No team (apart from the very best) will know that they are already through).
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: 476
Joined: Thu, 15 Dec 2016, 11:18
National Flag:
KenyaKenya

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Neptune » Sat, 01 Apr 2017, 10:00

RugbyLiebe wrote:
The Do wrote:
Neptune wrote:
The Do wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:The paradox is as long as uneven pools exist we are never going to truly know the level of competitiveness. We don't know whether Japan would have beaten Scotland had both teams had the same scheduling in 2015.


Hence why if it goes to 24 teams, you need to have 4 pools of 6. Everyone would have the same criteria to get to the next round and not some 3rd placed teams in the pool progress but other 3rd place teams don't.


6 pools of 4 makes more sense mathematically and logistically.


True, it does but is it fairer?


100%: yes
In so many ways
-even rest times
- in closer pools do have way bigger chances to progress as a 3rd. Especially in rugby where you get bonus points
-the final round is played at the same time. No team (apart from the very best) will know that they are already through).


This format will also make it easy for teams like Scotland whom sorry to say always ride on WR's back. :geek:

Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Sat, 01 Apr 2017, 10:44

The Do wrote:
True, it does but is it fairer?


In truth both formats are flawed. 6 Pool format means having to have 3rd place teams qualify for the second round, 4 Pool format means having far too many games with little baring on the quarterfinalists. On less of course you have 4 teams from each group progress, but then you're adding yet another week of matches. 16 and 32 really are the only numbers that work sadly.

User avatar
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby NaBUru38 » Sat, 01 Apr 2017, 19:55

A six groups is worse than four groups, as the top teams are split into more groups.

About the longer schedule, I disagree.

The 2015 World Cup had group matches form Sept 18 to October 11, and the quarter-finals were played on October 17-18.

With four groups of six, groups could play on Sept 1-4, 7-10, 13-16, 19-22 and 26-27.
The quarter finals could be played on October 2-3.

Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Sat, 01 Apr 2017, 21:55

The tournament will be seven weeks long with that format. A week longer than now.

Posts: 31
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 11:00
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby BertSolomon » Sun, 02 Apr 2017, 07:26

NaBUru38 wrote:About the longer schedule, I disagree.

The 2015 World Cup had group matches form Sept 18 to October 11, and the quarter-finals were played on October 17-18.

With four groups of six, groups could play on Sept 1-4, 7-10, 13-16, 19-22 and 26-27.
The quarter finals could be played on October 2-3.


Nearly right - only 3 rounds of pool matches with 6 groups of 4 (instead of five rounds with 4x5) so less time needed.

Pool matches would run from Friday 18 September to Sunday 4 October - 17 days for 36 games. So you'd probably have 3 or 4 games on some weekend days and 2 on all other days (excluding the opening day with just one match). Equal rest for teams within each pool between games.

The round of 16 matches would be played weekend of 10-11 October, maybe starting on Friday 9.

Posts: 1658
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 11:42
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby YamahaKiwi » Sun, 02 Apr 2017, 08:22

Exactly. 6x4 gives you the same length for the event (2nd round knockout games would be the same weekend as the 4th weekend of pool games in the current format), AND the 2nd round knockout gives you way more knockout fixtures than the current format, which are the games that most get the fans interested. it also gives T2 teams like Japan the realistic chance to make post-pool play and have a one off chance of knocking over a higher ranked team. And once you get into one-off matches anything can happen, and especially with the steady growth and competitiveness of most T2 teams, there could be some juicy 2nd round fixtures by the time of 2023, along with at least 2-3 T1 v T1 ones in that round as well.

And importantly, as you say, it gives everyone the same rest periods in pool play which has been such a bugbear with the current format. It's not a perfect format with the complicated nature of the drawing for the 2nd round, but it's far better than the current format IMHO. It also gives growing T3 teams a real shot in the arm for trying to make it to the RWC and makes it worth putting in extra investment for those unions.

Also we've had the experience in every 20 team RWC so far of T2 & 3 nations putting out B teams for one of their games because they don't have the depth to be competitive for all four games. 6x4 with three pool games would allow T2 & 3 teams to field their best team for every pool game, and if they made the 2nd round knockout games, they'd still be in a better shape to field their best lineup barring any injuries as they would have a weeks rest before their knockout game.

Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Sun, 02 Apr 2017, 08:31

Imagine a 6 team pool that looks like this:

New Zealand
Scotland
Italy
Samoa
Namibia
Russia

More than half of the All Blacks matches would be little more than a formality. Not only that but even if you were to somehow condense 5 pool matches into 3 weeks to keep the tournament the same length as it currently is you're asking a hell of a lot even for professional players, let alone teams who have a majority of amateurs.

Posts: 1658
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 11:42
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby YamahaKiwi » Sun, 02 Apr 2017, 09:14

Exactly. You'd be risking the value of the event by having so many "B" matches. And remember RWC tickets are not cheap! Already the fact that we have some games in the pool rounds where T2 and 3 teams put out a virtual B side detracts from the value of the event. RWC still makes 95% of WR's revenue. They cannot risk so many dud matches, especially as the event has slowly but steadily been getting more and more competitive over the last three RWCs. If you have a 24 team RWC it's going to probably mean a few more blowouts than there would've been for the last few RWCs before, but with only three pool games per team in a 6x4 format at least those blowouts will still be fairly limited, and indeed as I've said T2 and T3 teams will at least have the luxury of putting out their best lineups or close to in every game which would help competitiveness in those fixtures. Or if say the USa played a debutant Germany in one of their pool games, USA would be able to rest a few of their best starters, giving the Germans a better chance to compete, while the USA still would probably get a comfortable win and be able to go full tilt at the other two teams in their pool.

User avatar
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby NaBUru38 » Sun, 02 Apr 2017, 14:44

thatrugbyguy wrote:Imagine a 6 team pool that looks like this:

New Zealand
Scotland
Italy
Samoa
Namibia
Russia

More than half of the All Blacks matches would be little more than a formality. Not only that but even if you were to somehow condense 5 pool matches into 3 weeks to keep the tournament the same length as it currently is you're asking a hell of a lot even for professional players, let alone teams who have a majority of amateurs.


Current six-team groups:

o- New Zealand, Wales, Fiji, Romania, United States, Germany
o- England, South Africa, Argentina, Italy, Spain, Kenya
o- Australia, France, Japan, Samoa, Canada, Namibia
o- Ireland, Scotland, Tonga, Georgia, Uruguay, Russia

Current four-team groups:

o- New Zealand, Japan, Russia, Germany
o- England, Georgia, Tonga, Uruguay
o- Australia, Fiji, Samoa, Kenya
o- Ireland, Argentina, Italy, Canada
o- Scotland, Wales, Romania, Namibia
o- France, South Africa, United States, Spain

As I sad, with more groups, the top teams are split away.

Posts: 31
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 11:00
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby BertSolomon » Mon, 03 Apr 2017, 13:13

YamahaKiwi wrote:Already the fact that we have some games in the pool rounds where T2 and 3 teams put out a virtual B side detracts from the value of the event. RWC still makes 95% of WR's revenue. They cannot risk so many dud matches, especially as the event has slowly but steadily been getting more and more competitive over the last three RWCs. If you have a 24 team RWC it's going to probably mean a few more blowouts than there would've been for the last few RWCs before, but with only three pool games per team in a 6x4 format at least those blowouts will still be fairly limited, and indeed as I've said T2 and T3 teams will at least have the luxury of putting out their best lineups or close to in every game which would help competitiveness in those fixtures.


Another plus for me is that almost every game would have something riding on it, with 16 of 24 teams qualifying for the next phase. With only 8 out of 20 qualifying in 2015, I reckon half of all pool matches were meaningless for one of the two teams playing. Fiji were out by day 6 of a 44-day tournament.

Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Mon, 03 Apr 2017, 16:01

I actually do like the 6 possible groups of 4. At least one highlight game + one or two or even three close games.
The favourites all have one game were they are challenged andnit is over in 18 days - then every game counts all or nothing.
I also wouldn't see the negative side of the last16. 4 teams get a bonus based on never giving up and gaining bonus points for that matter (not the luck of one goal more or less like in soccer).
Also you definitely will have the best 8 teams in the quarter final. As the group 1st will play against the group 3rds in the quarters.
I think this would be a big instant success.
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: 1658
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 11:42
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby YamahaKiwi » Tue, 04 Apr 2017, 07:11

Yip, I'm all for this format. This is what FIFA had from 1986 to I think 1994? The only World Comp I've seen with 4x6 is basketball, which with far less contact than rugby can hold more matches in a shorter period far more easily.

naBUru38, do you realise you're asking teams like Russia, and even Japan, Georgia and USA to play FIVE pool games. As I said, they're struggling with playing four at the moment. Five is absolutely going to cripple them. We will see so many B side games it won't be funny.

Also it's going to increase the percentage of pool games overall in the competition. I guarantee you most fans don't want that. They want more one off knock-out games. The current percentage of knockout games is 8/48 (16%). A 6x4 event with 16 team knockout 2nd round would give you 16/52 (31%), a doubling of those type of games. A 4x6 format with QFs, meaning an extra week of event play at best, gives you 8/68 (11%). This would remind me of one of the recent Cricket World Cups where pool play seemed to go on, and on, and on. Infact it was quite hard really retaining any interest in the event as it just dragged on!

The other great thing about a 6x4 format 24 team RWC, is that at 52 games (and 51 if you get rid of the 3rd place game which I'd like to) it's only a few more than the current number. This means you can hold a 24 team RWC with probably the same number of venues as currently, or maybe only one extra. Venues are a huge cost for RWCs. With twenty extra games in a 4x6 format there is no way you will be able to have close to the same number of venues. You'd probably need an extra 3-5.

Let's remember that when looking at a 24 team RWC, WR are also going to be looking at how much more cost it will be v additional revenue. I would argue that a 6x4 is going to be far more cost friendly from both a host and WR perspective than a 4x6 that will have far higher costs across the board in terms of extra venues, transportation, and accommodation, and with so many pool games, would probably see far more lightly sold games meaning revenue would not actually be that much higher when adjusted after costs. Sometimes less is more!!

To me a 6x4 group and 2nd round 16 team knockout format is better across the board in competitiveness, player welfare, time needed for the event, host and WR logistic organisation, in costs, and in retaining public interest.

User avatar
Posts: 726
Joined: Thu, 17 Jul 2014, 10:29
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Horsehead » Tue, 04 Apr 2017, 11:38

YamahaKiwi wrote:To me a 6x4 group and 2nd round 16 team knockout format is better across the board in competitiveness, player welfare, time needed for the event, host and WR logistic organisation, in costs, and in retaining public interest.


This.

The rugby world cup is a long tournament, 4 groups of 6 would make it too long. 6 groups of 4 is easily the best option all round until the sport is ready for a 32 team world cup. I think it is a better format than what we have now purely for the fairer playing schedule that has really screwed over teams

Posts: 39
Joined: Sun, 19 Feb 2017, 18:10
National Flag:
GeorgiaGeorgia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby BigG » Tue, 04 Apr 2017, 12:06

6 pools of 4 makes more sense mathematically and logistically.[/quote]

Yes, it does. It also does not require a longer format. Qualification system should be taken from soccer (Soccer WC 1986-994) However, there is one important issue to be discussed. In this case eliminating teams will play only 3 games those who eliminate in 1/8 finals - 4 games. It is not enough and fair. In this regard it would be desirable to have games respectively for 9th, 13th, 17th and 21st places. Therefore teams who eliminate at group stage or in 1/8 finals will play 2 more games. It means that at WC total number of games will increase significantly, but the best four will still play 7 games.

P.S. Let's also think about teams who are going to eliminate in 1/4 finals.

Posts: 1333
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby sk 88 » Thu, 06 Apr 2017, 16:32

Another advantage of 6 pools x 4 teams is that it can easily be expanded to 28 teams and 7 x 4 in future on the way towards a 32 team tournament.

Posts: 854
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 07 Apr 2017, 04:31

YamahaKiwi wrote:Yip, I'm all for this format. This is what FIFA had from 1986 to I think 1994? The only World Comp I've seen with 4x6 is basketball, which with far less contact than rugby can hold more matches in a shorter period far more easily.

naBUru38, do you realise you're asking teams like Russia, and even Japan, Georgia and USA to play FIVE pool games. As I said, they're struggling with playing four at the moment. Five is absolutely going to cripple them. We will see so many B side games it won't be funny.

Also it's going to increase the percentage of pool games overall in the competition. I guarantee you most fans don't want that. They want more one off knock-out games. The current percentage of knockout games is 8/48 (16%). A 6x4 event with 16 team knockout 2nd round would give you 16/52 (31%), a doubling of those type of games. A 4x6 format with QFs, meaning an extra week of event play at best, gives you 8/68 (11%). This would remind me of one of the recent Cricket World Cups where pool play seemed to go on, and on, and on. Infact it was quite hard really retaining any interest in the event as it just dragged on!

The other great thing about a 6x4 format 24 team RWC, is that at 52 games (and 51 if you get rid of the 3rd place game which I'd like to) it's only a few more than the current number. This means you can hold a 24 team RWC with probably the same number of venues as currently, or maybe only one extra. Venues are a huge cost for RWCs. With twenty extra games in a 4x6 format there is no way you will be able to have close to the same number of venues. You'd probably need an extra 3-5.

Let's remember that when looking at a 24 team RWC, WR are also going to be looking at how much more cost it will be v additional revenue. I would argue that a 6x4 is going to be far more cost friendly from both a host and WR perspective than a 4x6 that will have far higher costs across the board in terms of extra venues, transportation, and accommodation, and with so many pool games, would probably see far more lightly sold games meaning revenue would not actually be that much higher when adjusted after costs. Sometimes less is more!!

To me a 6x4 group and 2nd round 16 team knockout format is better across the board in competitiveness, player welfare, time needed for the event, host and WR logistic organisation, in costs, and in retaining public interest.


I agree, less is more. Three pool games also ensures that teams will have adequate recovery periods between games leading to more full strength squads and thus a more competitive overall Cup. A round of 16 would be more optional in my opinion but I certainly wouldn't be upset if it were added. Probably would be a big performance incentive for teams.

Posts: 191
Joined: Sun, 31 Aug 2014, 11:36
National Flag:
PakistanPakistan

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby jservuk » Fri, 07 Apr 2017, 19:15

The weakness I have found groups of 4 teams is that by the end of game 2 you can get 1 or 2 teams eliminated (England in 2014). This is especially a pity for teams who rarely get to go there. Losing the first game often makes the second game in the group much more tense and nervy, and very enjoyable for the neutral. Perhaps this is why international football has declined -0 the group mentality dominates long term thinking for most teams. Have 4 or 5 games means there is more time for a group to unfold. It would also mean more big games as each group would have 2-3 big teams fighting it out. When was the last time Germany, Brazil had really tough group games in FIFA WC? This is where RWC has it right - each group does have a t least one blockbuster.

Posts: 2279
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Fri, 07 Apr 2017, 19:26

Germany, Brazil had really tough group games in FIFA WC?

Germany and Brazil are exception in football, as they never failed to qualify for a WC (Germany was left out just in 1950, because of the war.. and in 1930 when most Europeans decided not to travel to Uruguay) and rarely struggle in groups phase (1930s aside, Brazil just failed to go to the 2nd phase in 1966, while Germany was never eliminated in the groups phase).

All other major powers were eliminated in the groups phase at least once in the last 4 WCs: Italy (2010, 2014), France (2002, 2010), England (2014), Spain (2014), Argentina (2002)... FIFA WC become a rollercoster.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 2847
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Fri, 07 Apr 2017, 23:41

jservuk wrote:The weakness I have found groups of 4 teams is that by the end of game 2 you can get 1 or 2 teams eliminated (England in 2014). This is especially a pity for teams who rarely get to go there. Losing the first game often makes the second game in the group much more tense and nervy, and very enjoyable for the neutral. Perhaps this is why international football has declined -0 the group mentality dominates long term thinking for most teams. Have 4 or 5 games means there is more time for a group to unfold. It would also mean more big games as each group would have 2-3 big teams fighting it out. When was the last time Germany, Brazil had really tough group games in FIFA WC? This is where RWC has it right - each group does have a t least one blockbuster.


The truth is a lot of nations are just happy to be there, it's not really about progressing to the second round.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 10 guests