Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Working Class Rugger » Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 14:20

It was just an idea.

Posts: 4337
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 14:26

UEFA's Euro 2016 (that had 24 teams, 6 groups of 4) drew Round of 16 matches this way:

Match 1: Runners-up Group A vs Runners-up Group C
Match 2: Winners Group D vs 3rd Place Group B/E/F
Match 3: Winners Group B vs 3rd Place Group A/C/D
Match 4: Winners Group F vs Runners-up Group E
Match 5: Winners Group C vs 3rd Place Group A/B/F
Match 6: Winners Group E vs Runners-up Group D
Match 7: Winners Group A vs 3rd Place Group C/D/E
Match 8: Runners-up Group B vs Runners-up Group F

I don't like it because the way to make every match important to T1s would be to have a free 1 to 16 ranking to determine the Round of 16 matches. As in rugby teams play just once a week it could be feasible for fans to travel.

Best 1st vs 4th best 3rd
2nd best 1st vs 3rd best 3rd
3rd best 1st vs 2nd best 3rd
4th best 1st vs Best 3rd
5th best 1st vs 6th best 2nd
6th best 1st vs 5th best 2nd
Best 2nd vs 4th best 2nd
2nd best 2nd vs 3rd best 2nd
Last edited by victorsra on Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 14:29, edited 1 time in total.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 239
Joined: Sun, 19 Feb 2017, 18:10
National Flag:
GeorgiaGeorgia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby BigG » Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 14:27

[quote= A clean out after three games might also lead to additional job offers in better leagues for t2&3 players.
Also every team has one game they can win in the group stage. Nobody, and I mean nobody apart from absolutely die-hard fans like us, wants to see a loser-round. It is only played in 7s to avoid hours without a game.[/quote]

a looser-round is practiced in all sport except football. In basketball, handball, volleyball.

I suggest this because A) group losers play only three games at WC. It is not fair. WC participants deserve to play more.
b) It is interesting to find out which one is the best at T2 or T3 level. I assure you that games between those teams will more interesting than for example All Blacks vs. Georgia.

Posts: 4337
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 14:32

I suggest this because A) group losers play only three games at WC. It is not fair. WC participants deserve to play more.
b) It is interesting to find out which one is the best at T2 or T3 level. I assure you that games between those teams will more interesting than for example All Blacks vs. Georgia.


If you do double-headers in days without other matches and using stadiums that received less matches it could work. It is a $ matter, only this. But such a Challenge Trophy champion should have some interesting prize...
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 302
Joined: Mon, 12 Mar 2018, 02:19
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Blurandski » Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 14:40

victorsra wrote:
I suggest this because A) group losers play only three games at WC. It is not fair. WC participants deserve to play more.
b) It is interesting to find out which one is the best at T2 or T3 level. I assure you that games between those teams will more interesting than for example All Blacks vs. Georgia.


If you do double-headers in days without other matches and using stadiums that received less matches it could work. It is a $ matter, only this. But such a Challenge Trophy champion should have some interesting prize...


If they did a 17-24 and a 9-16th placement round the top 12 and 17th should auto qualify.

Posts: 2814
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Armchair Fan » Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 15:19

If there are placement rounds you will see even more Tier 2 and 3 players declining to play because their clubs need them while Tier 1 stars play RWC.
Last edited by Armchair Fan on Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 17:53, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 239
Joined: Sun, 19 Feb 2017, 18:10
National Flag:
GeorgiaGeorgia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby BigG » Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 17:36

[quote="
If they did a 17-24 and a 9-16th placement round the top 12 and 17th should auto qualify.[/quote]

This is good idea indeed. It makes sense if the best 12 teams get automatic qualification and/or some other privileges.

Posts: 1973
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Coloradoan » Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 18:55

Armchair Fan wrote:If there are placement rounds you will see even more Tier 2 and 3 players declining to play because their clubs need them while Tier 1 stars play RWC.


Not just the pros, but amateurs too. They have jobs and lives they put on hold for a RWC, as well. Some people seem to think we live in a world where rugby players aren't real people.

Posts: 302
Joined: Mon, 12 Mar 2018, 02:19
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Blurandski » Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 19:41

Coloradoan wrote:
Armchair Fan wrote:If there are placement rounds you will see even more Tier 2 and 3 players declining to play because their clubs need them while Tier 1 stars play RWC.


Not just the pros, but amateurs too. They have jobs and lives they put on hold for a RWC, as well. Some people seem to think we live in a world where rugby players aren't real people.


Looking at the top 30 sides in the world:

Already fully pro: T1, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Japan, Romania, USA, Russia, Canada, Namibia (tbc going forward following Welwitschias issues) (19)

Firm plans to be fully pro by 2023: Uruguay, Brazil, Chile, Hong Kong (Wester Force League) (4)

Already mostly pro, with a decent chance of all being pro by 2023, albeit playing abroad: Georgia, Spain (2).

That leaves us with Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Kenya, Germany. We should not be planning our WC around amateurs come 2023.

Posts: 1973
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 19:00
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Coloradoan » Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 20:29

Blurandski wrote:
Coloradoan wrote:
Armchair Fan wrote:If there are placement rounds you will see even more Tier 2 and 3 players declining to play because their clubs need them while Tier 1 stars play RWC.


Not just the pros, but amateurs too. They have jobs and lives they put on hold for a RWC, as well. Some people seem to think we live in a world where rugby players aren't real people.


Looking at the top 30 sides in the world:

Already fully pro: T1, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Japan, Romania, USA, Russia, Canada, Namibia (tbc going forward following Welwitschias issues) (19)

Firm plans to be fully pro by 2023: Uruguay, Brazil, Chile, Hong Kong (Wester Force League) (4)

Already mostly pro, with a decent chance of all being pro by 2023, albeit playing abroad: Georgia, Spain (2).

That leaves us with Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Kenya, Germany. We should not be planning our WC around amateurs come 2023.


It's not about planning a RWC around amateurs. It's about recognizing that rugby players are human beings with jobs, whether those jobs are in rugby or outside of rugby, and that asking them to take additional weeks off of those jobs in order to play some games no one cares about is asinine.

Posts: 4360
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 22:30

victorsra wrote:UEFA's Euro 2016 (that had 24 teams, 6 groups of 4) drew Round of 16 matches this way:

Match 1: Runners-up Group A vs Runners-up Group C
Match 2: Winners Group D vs 3rd Place Group B/E/F
Match 3: Winners Group B vs 3rd Place Group A/C/D
Match 4: Winners Group F vs Runners-up Group E
Match 5: Winners Group C vs 3rd Place Group A/B/F
Match 6: Winners Group E vs Runners-up Group D
Match 7: Winners Group A vs 3rd Place Group C/D/E
Match 8: Runners-up Group B vs Runners-up Group F

I don't like it because the way to make every match important to T1s would be to have a free 1 to 16 ranking to determine the Round of 16 matches. As in rugby teams play just once a week it could be feasible for fans to travel.

Best 1st vs 4th best 3rd
2nd best 1st vs 3rd best 3rd
3rd best 1st vs 2nd best 3rd
4th best 1st vs Best 3rd
5th best 1st vs 6th best 2nd
6th best 1st vs 5th best 2nd
Best 2nd vs 4th best 2nd
2nd best 2nd vs 3rd best 2nd


There’s actually are much easier system. FIFA system is too convoluted with determining which 3rd place team play how. These easiest solution is this:

Runner Up A v Runner Up D
Winner B v 3rd place 1st or 2nd
Winner F v Runner Up E
Winner C v 3rd Place 2nd or 1st
Runner Up B v Runner Up C
Winner A v 3rd Place 3rd or 4th
Winner E v Runner Up F
Winner D v 3rd Place 4th or 3rd

The top half of the Round of 16 would be assigned 3rd Place teams ranked first and second. In the event both teams are matched up with opponents they’ve already played in the pool stage they switch places.

Posts: 4337
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Wed, 12 Sep 2018, 22:53

Which is not fair. Groups E and F runners up will have to play group winners, while the rest of the runners ups will play other runners ups.

It is better to rank everybody from 1 to 16 IMO and create a commercial system to deal with the uncertain playoffs draw.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 4360
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 13 Sep 2018, 01:45

But the problem is teams and fans will want to have an idea of where they will be playing in the second round, to be able to set up training facilities, hotels, etc. Ideally yes, your system makes much more sense and is fairer from a competition perspective, but it only makes sense if all the R16 matches are played in close proximity to each other. That might work ok in France where you've got cities that are only 2-3 hours drive from each other, but when you get to countries like Australia and the USA there are huge gaps between the stadiums. Your proposal works best if there's a centralised location for the entire tournament, doesn't work so good if teams are spread all around the country and they have no idea where they'll finish on the ladder until the last game of the pool stage. New Zealand could easily be ranked first on Friday after their last pool match, and then 2 days later could easily drop to sixth due to other results. The only solution I can see is if the R16 matches are in 2 venues only that are very close to each other, but I don't like the idea of R16 matches being limited a few locations. Ideally you'd want R16 to be played across a minimum of 4 venues, each hosting 2 matches over the weekend.

Posts: 190
Joined: Sun, 21 May 2017, 09:02
National Flag:
PolandPoland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby rey200 » Thu, 13 Sep 2018, 09:03

Keep it simple! So what if Group E and F have a SMALL disadvantage? Makes the draw matter even more, that's good in my opinion. With 3rd teams advancing you could say that having a weak 4th in a group is unfair too. Yes it is. But that's what you have to deal with having a tournament with a number of teams other than 2^n
Ceterum censeo Sex Nationes esse augendas.

Posts: 4337
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Thu, 13 Sep 2018, 12:34

thatrugbyguy wrote:But the problem is teams and fans will want to have an idea of where they will be playing in the second round, to be able to set up training facilities, hotels, etc. Ideally yes, your system makes much more sense and is fairer from a competition perspective, but it only makes sense if all the R16 matches are played in close proximity to each other. That might work ok in France where you've got cities that are only 2-3 hours drive from each other, but when you get to countries like Australia and the USA there are huge gaps between the stadiums. Your proposal works best if there's a centralised location for the entire tournament, doesn't work so good if teams are spread all around the country and they have no idea where they'll finish on the ladder until the last game of the pool stage. New Zealand could easily be ranked first on Friday after their last pool match, and then 2 days later could easily drop to sixth due to other results. The only solution I can see is if the R16 matches are in 2 venues only that are very close to each other, but I don't like the idea of R16 matches being limited a few locations. Ideally you'd want R16 to be played across a minimum of 4 venues, each hosting 2 matches over the weekend.


Yes I know the venues problem. But in those soccer competitions you always have 2 diferent cities as possibilities in the Round of 16. The fans need to bet between two venues. Or more than this in UEFA Euro's case.

The Rugby World Cup always has less options for venues in the playoffs. What if the 8 matches of the Round of 16 are split between 3 venues? Not that centralized. It is possible if the 8 matches are split along 3 days (let's say Friday 1 match, Saturday 3 matches, Sunday e matches and Monday 1 match). Of course the venues that hosted the Round of 16 might not be the same hosting the Quarter finals, to allow more cities watching the playoffs. It would avoid the centralization you dont like. At least 5 cities hosting matches in the Round of 16 + Quarter finals.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Working Class Rugger » Thu, 13 Sep 2018, 22:50

victorsra wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:But the problem is teams and fans will want to have an idea of where they will be playing in the second round, to be able to set up training facilities, hotels, etc. Ideally yes, your system makes much more sense and is fairer from a competition perspective, but it only makes sense if all the R16 matches are played in close proximity to each other. That might work ok in France where you've got cities that are only 2-3 hours drive from each other, but when you get to countries like Australia and the USA there are huge gaps between the stadiums. Your proposal works best if there's a centralised location for the entire tournament, doesn't work so good if teams are spread all around the country and they have no idea where they'll finish on the ladder until the last game of the pool stage. New Zealand could easily be ranked first on Friday after their last pool match, and then 2 days later could easily drop to sixth due to other results. The only solution I can see is if the R16 matches are in 2 venues only that are very close to each other, but I don't like the idea of R16 matches being limited a few locations. Ideally you'd want R16 to be played across a minimum of 4 venues, each hosting 2 matches over the weekend.


Yes I know the venues problem. But in those soccer competitions you always have 2 diferent cities as possibilities in the Round of 16. The fans need to bet between two venues. Or more than this in UEFA Euro's case.

The Rugby World Cup always has less options for venues in the playoffs. What if the 8 matches of the Round of 16 are split between 3 venues? Not that centralized. It is possible if the 8 matches are split along 3 days (let's say Friday 1 match, Saturday 3 matches, Sunday e matches and Monday 1 match). Of course the venues that hosted the Round of 16 might not be the same hosting the Quarter finals, to allow more cities watching the playoffs. It would avoid the centralization you dont like. At least 5 cities hosting matches in the Round of 16 + Quarter finals.


From an Australian point of view considering it's the NSW State Govt. looking to bid for 2027 you could look to run the R16 and beyond in a single centralised location in this case Sydney. Or even in places like Newcastle or Wollongong which is very commutable from Sydney. Which might be the option long term. Look to have these games hosted in locations that are commutable from a central hub.

Posts: 4360
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 13 Sep 2018, 23:21

A centralised location is a terrible idea for all the playoff matches, because it effectively shuts down the tournament for the rest of the country. R16 matches should be spread across the venues. Look, there’s just no solution to the Round of 16 that doesn’t negatively effect some teams more than others, the only fair solution is if the top 2 teams are the ones to progress which itself makes things awkward. The only other fair solution I can think of is to do the R16 matches randomly as part of the RWC draw, so once the pools are drawn the do a draw for who will play whom in the R16. Split up the pool winners and runners up, then randomly pick the teams.

Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 04:50

thatrugbyguy wrote:A centralised location is a terrible idea for all the playoff matches, because it effectively shuts down the tournament for the rest of the country. R16 matches should be spread across the venues. Look, there’s just no solution to the Round of 16 that doesn’t negatively effect some teams more than others, the only fair solution is if the top 2 teams are the ones to progress which itself makes things awkward. The only other fair solution I can think of is to do the R16 matches randomly as part of the RWC draw, so once the pools are drawn the do a draw for who will play whom in the R16. Split up the pool winners and runners up, then randomly pick the teams.


I was talking more from a NSW centric bid perspective. And commutable can mean very different things depending on which country is hosting it. Another option could be to work in ticket packages that reserve accommodation for the games but not necessarily by individual name in the cities elected to host the R16 and beyond. Once the 16 are determined then the purchasers can secure accommodation by quoting a register ticket number etc. Could also make it that the teams that play their R16 in a certain city will also be playing their 1/4 finals in the same city. So from our perspective say we designate our 4 largest cities to host the R16. That would be Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. Those would also host the corresponding 1/4 between both sets of winners.

Posts: 4360
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 05:13

The other option is to just say tough luck. You're not guaranteed your team will play in the location you think they will after the pools stage, and that's true even for now with the current format. France wasn't expected to finish second in 2007, and yet still thousands of French people crossed the channel to Cardiff. Some people will be happy to go the quarter final game they pre-booked, others will try and swap their tickets. People will have 5 or 6 days to make changes and organise flights to the city the game is at. People will just have to be wary that they may buy packages to games they weren't expecting to attend.

Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 05:28

thatrugbyguy wrote:The other option is to just say tough luck. You're not guaranteed your team will play in the location you think they will after the pools stage, and that's true even for now with the current format. France wasn't expected to finish second in 2007, and yet still thousands of French people crossed the channel to Cardiff. Some people will be happy to go the quarter final game they pre-booked, others will try and swap their tickets. People will have 5 or 6 days to make changes and organise flights to the city the game is at. People will just have to be wary that they may buy packages to games they weren't expecting to attend.


There's no guarantee but you can make it easier for fans to plan.

Posts: 2318
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 06:26

BigG wrote:a looser-round is practiced in all sport except football. In basketball, handball, volleyball.

I suggest this because A) group losers play only three games at WC. It is not fair. WC participants deserve to play more.
b) It is interesting to find out which one is the best at T2 or T3 level. I assure you that games between those teams will more interesting than for example All Blacks vs. Georgia.


A loser-round is never played in any football code. The reason is the turnaround days. Basketball, Handball and Volleyball (and ice-hockey). Even field-hockey with 5 games in 10 days at their group stage, only plays one placement game.

A RWC with a single placement game means, that players are not out for 4 more days as in all the other sports above, but for basically 10-14 days more (Time from the last game to the placement game and then in theory same time to play the next game) (whereever it is)). 2 more weeks away from their jobs/clubs for playing a team they already meet outside of the RWC.

I like the theoretical idea, but in practice this is simply not doable and more important contraproductive.
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: 37
Joined: Mon, 21 May 2018, 12:45
National Flag:
NambiaNambia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby JLJordaan » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 11:15

I've also thought about this problem for a while, but there might be a solution.

So with the 6 pool model, we could have two bigger groups which includes 3 pools each (group North and South). The top 8 of each group will be ranked and will play R16 matches against one another (basically quarter finals within their respective groups). The venues will be split in half (north/south) thus ensuring you will have an easier choice (50/50) when buying a ticket for the R16 matches. It will also mean that if your team is not playing at the venue you bought a ticket for, you could easily trade it and commute to the other venue. In a country like Australia or the US, this could still be a problem though, but better than four venues spread across a continent.

Taking France2023 as an example, the North group R16 matches could take place at Lille and Stade France (maybe Parc des Princes), and the South group will have its matches at Marseille and Lyon.
If South Africa gets the 2027 world cup, then you could effectively split it between the Pretoria/Jo'burg group and the Cape group.

After this, the quarter finals will take place two venues as the usually do, but the North and South groups will play against each other, thus avoiding any rematches from the pool phase.

I admit, this is not a perfect model, but it makes it easier for both teams and fans in deciding where they will have their base camp when traveling around the host country.

Posts: 4360
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 11:48

I don’t know if there’s an answer that works for everybody. The third place qualifies is where the issue is because it’s going to be luck of the draw as to who finishes in the top 4.

Posts: 2318
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 12:33

thatrugbyguy wrote:I don’t know if there’s an answer that works for everybody. The third place qualifies is where the issue is because it’s going to be luck of the draw as to who finishes in the top 4.


That's a wrong assumption. It is not luck of draw. It makes sure that from the strongest groups more teams advance. Out from this 4 teams advancing, maybe one or only two will be kind of lucky. But in rugby especially with bonus points, this luck is so seldom, that we don't even need discuss it. It is a fair system and in rugby it will work even better than in soccer.

JLJordaan wrote:I've also thought about this problem for a while, but there might be a solution.
So with the 6 pool model, we could have two bigger groups which includes 3 pools each (group North and South). The top 8 of each group will be ranked and will play R16 matches against one another (basically quarter finals within their respective groups). The venues will be split in half (north/south) thus ensuring you will have an easier choice (50/50) when buying a ticket for the R16 matches. It will also mean that if your team is not playing at the venue you bought a ticket for, you could easily trade it and commute to the other venue. In a country like Australia or the US, this could still be a problem though, but better than four venues spread across a continent.
Taking France2023 as an example, the North group R16 matches could take place at Lille and Stade France (maybe Parc des Princes), and the South group will have its matches at Marseille and Lyon.
If South Africa gets the 2027 world cup, then you could effectively split it between the Pretoria/Jo'burg group and the Cape group.
After this, the quarter finals will take place two venues as the usually do, but the North and South groups will play against each other, thus avoiding any rematches from the pool phase.
I admit, this is not a perfect model, but it makes it easier for both teams and fans in deciding where they will have their base camp when traveling around the host country.


No offence, but in Germany we would call it "den Bock zum Gärtner machen" (make the buck the gardener).

A maximum of two unlucky teams (most likely one or two of them aren't even unlucky, because they are the worst teams) might be created in the 6*4 teams-system.
Your idea is to create an overcomplicated system which creates even more injustice. So not only some 4/6 thirds might be lucky or 2/6 unlucky, but now everyone else is in the pot as well AND, that's the biggest problems with 8 groups of 3 is, you again create different turnarounds. One team will have their break between there first and their second game and this team is heavily favoured.
Sorry, I seriously hate that format.

About the ticket followers, if you want to follow i.e. England, buy their follower ticket. If a RWC doesn't happen to be in Ireland or Wales, hotel beds are not a problem.
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: 4337
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Fri, 14 Sep 2018, 15:05

Let's think about the country that matters, France. It could be like this:

Round of 16
Match 1 - Friday - 3rd vs 14th, in Paris
Match 2 - Saturday - 6th vs 11th, in Bordeaux
Match 3 - Saturday - 2nd vs 15th, in Paris
Match 4 - Saturday - 7th vs 10th, in Lille
Match 5 - Sunday - 8th vs 9th, in Lille
Match 6 - Sunday - 1st vs 16th, in Paris
Match 7 - Sunday - 5th vs 12th, in Bordeaux
Match 8 - Monday - 4th vs 13th, in Bordeaux

(Note: teams closely ranked are in the same cities, which could alow you to predict the venue... ex, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd I put playing in Paris / 4th, 5th and 6th in Bordeaux / 7th and 8th in Lille)


Quarter Finals

Saturday - Winner 1 vs Winner 2, in Lyon
Saturday - Winner 3 vs Winner 4, in Marseille
Sunday - Winner 5 vs Winner 6, in Lyon
Sunday - Winner 7 vs Winner 8, in Marseille

Semifinals
Saturday - in Paris
Sunday - in Paris

3rd place - in Toulouse
Final - in Paris

*Paris, Marseille, Lyon, Lille and Bordeaux are the 5 biggest stadiums in the RWC 2023
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 19 guests