Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby sk 88 » Wed, 09 Oct 2019, 16:29

I don't think Italy are capable of scoring 150 unopposed!

Posts: 5542
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Wed, 09 Oct 2019, 23:32

mcv_T2 wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:If you can tell me scenario where teams could potentially collude with each other to prevent another team from qualifying I'd like to hear it, because the scoring method of rugby as far as I can tell more or less prevents that type of situation from happening.


OK. Then imagine this hypothetical group...

The classification before the last round is:

Group A:
England ...... 10 points
Argentina ... 6 points
Georgia ...... 4 points
Namibia ...... 3 points

And the last round is:

13:00 - Argentina x Georgia
17:00 - England x Namíbia

If Argentina beat Georgia by 30 x 7 in this last round, they get 5 points and Georgia get 0 points. At the table Argentina will have 11 points, and Georgia the same 4 points.
Then, before start their game at 17:00, Namibia will be able to know they need just two bonus points to surpass Georgia at the table (and be one of the first 3rd). The same with England: they will know they just need two points to be the number one at the group.


That’s impractical in rugby. Football’s scoring method makes it relatively easy for teams to collude in a way where a specific result would favour both. Rugby’s scoring method makes it virtually impossible for the same situation to occur. And besides, could anybody seriously believe a team like England would simply allow Namibia to score 4 tries and lose to them by 7 points? Rugby is not football, you’re never going to get a situation like what happened at the 82 World Cup.

Posts: 5542
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 10 Oct 2019, 00:44

I just want to add, I understand the reasoning behind the final round of games being played at the same time. But to me anyway, I can't see any justification for it in rugby as it's a completely different sport than football. Overall, I just keep thinking of the players and what they would be likely to do, the attitude from every rugby player is to compete even if you're the stronger team. No team, whether they are playing the All Blacks or Namibia, want their try line to be crossed and don't want to give up bonus points. But I'm happy to be proven wrong too. Maybe there is some type of football style collusion that could happen that hasn't been discussed. I don't know. But until I hear a compelling reason for it I don't think the final pool games need to be scheduled at the same time.

Posts: 59
Joined: Fri, 06 Jun 2014, 13:30
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby MLB3BB2 » Thu, 10 Oct 2019, 05:48

sk 88 wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by a "worthless match"


Agreed that "worthless" is a subjective term, with a more objective assessment for 1v16, 2v15, 3v14 and 4v13 in a round of 16 is that they'd be major mismatches, and in my opinion worthless. Teams finishing 3rd in their pools don't deserve to continue playing for the title and having them do so cheapens the pool stage; however, having the 6 teams finishing 3rd in their pools play for the final 3 automatic qualifying spots for the following RWC (if the number of automatic qualifying spots is expanded from 12 to 15) gives them a reason to play an extra match and gives 2 more teams an extra match than a round of 16 would, and against closely matched competition. It's also likely most of the top 4 finishers from the pool stage will go on to play a total of 6 matches (assuming there would be a match for bronze/3rd) and I think they'd welcome some rest after the first 3 matches if they got a bye in the 1st elimination round. If need be, there could be a bit less rest between the end of the pool stage and the 1st elimination round (involving teams 5-12) and/or between that and the following round in order to avoid a disadvantage of too much time off for teams 1-4.

Posts: 2997
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 10 Oct 2019, 08:57

MLB3BB2 wrote:
sk 88 wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by a "worthless match"


Agreed that "worthless" is a subjective term, with a more objective assessment for 1v16, 2v15, 3v14 and 4v13 in a round of 16 is that they'd be major mismatches, and in my opinion worthless. Teams finishing 3rd in their pools don't deserve to continue playing for the title and having them do so cheapens the pool stage; however, having the 6 teams finishing 3rd in their pools play for the final 3 automatic qualifying spots for the following RWC (if the number of automatic qualifying spots is expanded from 12 to 15) gives them a reason to play an extra match and gives 2 more teams an extra match than a round of 16 would, and against closely matched competition. It's also likely most of the top 4 finishers from the pool stage will go on to play a total of 6 matches (assuming there would be a match for bronze/3rd) and I think they'd welcome some rest after the first 3 matches if they got a bye in the 1st elimination round. If need be, there could be a bit less rest between the end of the pool stage and the 1st elimination round (involving teams 5-12) and/or between that and the following round in order to avoid a disadvantage of too much time off for teams 1-4.


What you are missing here is the 7th vs. 8th matches, that do indeed spice things up. Also who says, that a 12nd ranked side can't beat the 3rd ranked side? That could be a game of 12th ranked Australia against England after the group phase. Also this is actually not even how this works, as teams don't get scheduled based on a imaginative overall ranking.

Also the rest-time is not an issue as the Octavo-finalists play the exact same number of games they do now. So all what de facto changes is that one meaningless group game is changed into a game of win or go home.

Breaks of a team are boring, as we all will experience this very weekend, with the Typhoon-cancelled matches.
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: 855
Joined: Thu, 01 May 2014, 11:25
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Canadian_Rugger » Thu, 10 Oct 2019, 16:01

MLB3BB2 wrote:
sk 88 wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by a "worthless match"


Agreed that "worthless" is a subjective term, with a more objective assessment for 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, etc in a round of 16 is that they'd be major mismatches, and in my opinion worthless. Teams finishing 3rd in their groups don't deserve to continue playing for the title, but playing for the final 3 qualifying spots for the following RWC gives them a reason to play an extra match. It's likely most of the top 4 finishers from the pool stage will go on to play a total of 6 matches (assuming there would be a match for bronze/3rd) and I think they'd welcome some rest after the first 3 matches.


#1 would most likely be the NZ All Blacks. Lets be honest, NZ are far and away better than any other team. Wales haven't beaten them since 1953 and have played them 25 times. Some of them have been absolute mismatches 46-6 in 2016, 55-3 at the 2003 RWC. The idea that the 16th ranked team shouldn't play the #1 ranked team because it's a mismatch doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Why even have a RWC with the logic applied by certain home nation fans?

I'm a huge ice hockey fan and International Hockey is more interesting than test rugby because they actually let the #1 country play the #15 country in the world. They don't have closed competitions and nations have the ability to work there way through the numerous divisions and compete against the best.

The sport is of course dominated by 6 or 7 countries but upsets are able to happen. Belarus knocking Sweden out of the 2002 Winter Olympics. #15 ranked beating the #1 ranked country filled with NHL Superstars. You would never see it in Rugby.

Posts: 98
Joined: Tue, 18 Nov 2014, 15:06
National Flag:
ScotlandScotland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby honestly_united » Thu, 10 Oct 2019, 16:46

I think 6 groups of 4 is the best way to go and the fairest for turn around etc.
Day 1 Group A
Day 2 Group B
..
Day 6 Group F
Day 7 Group A
etc

Then top to in each group and the 4 best 3rd places in the last 16 is the way to go

so something like

1st Group A vs 3rd place team
2nd Group A vs 2nd Group D
1st Group B vs 3rd place team
2nd Group B vs 2nd Group C
1st Group C vs 3rd place team
1st Group D vs 3rd place team
1st Group E vs 2nd Group F
1st Group F vs 2nd Group E

4 best in group stage then ranked so you can play a team from your group in the last 16 or quarter final.

It also gives an incentive to the 3rd and 4th ranked teams to try and go for either a try bonus or losing bonus in all matches as that could be difference between a last 16 place or not

Posts: 2997
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Mon, 14 Oct 2019, 09:22

FACT checking my predictions what the unequal turnarounds could produce.

RugbyLiebe wrote:So I took a look at which games are influenced by unjust turnaround times or said differently, which teams are disadvantaged because of this stupid format.
If I missed a game please tell me, I will edit it into my post.

I define a disadvantage if you have less than 5 rest days between games.

Pool A:
Russia - Samoa (only four days rest time for Russia after the Japan game and that in their only other game they stand a bit of a chance)

Russia lost 9:34, which is a higher loss than against Japan. They were up at half-time with 6:5

Scotland - Japan (4 days of rest after the Russia game for Scotland, probably won't make a big difference, as Scotland is way above Russia)
Scotland seemed to have managed the disadvantage quite well, but still: the short turnaround might have been the nail in the coffin for their quarter-final-hopes.

No disadvantages for Samoa, Japan and Ireland (but Ireland gets away with 5 days turnaround between the games against Japan and Russia).

Samoa is the biggest disappointment for me outside of the cartel-nations. They made nothing on their chances. Scotland probably missed the quarter-finals because of the turnaround

Pool B:
Italy-Canada (4 days after the Namibia game, a good chance for Canada to get a better result, than expected)

48-7 for Italy. Nothing more to say

New Zealand - Namibia (4 days after the Canada match. I doubt it will make a big difference, but maybe Namibia manages a tighter score, maybe also Canada gets a bit out of it

71-9 for the Blackness. Biggest scoreline of the tournament.

South Africa - Canada (4 days after their Italy match)
66-7 for the Bokke. 2nd Biggest scoreline of the tournament.


No disadvantages:
Namibia, Canada. So Canada is basically involved in 3 games around unequal rest times, as they were the last team to qualify, that's actually a good solution imho, but it still might make a small difference

NZ and SA simply to good for the rest - or Canada and Nabimiba simply too bad for them and Italy. I am a bit scared what the results of those two teams would have been against rested NZ+SA-teams, but they would have probably played their second choice players anyway

Pool C:
England - USA (4 days after the Tonga match. that is an interesting one, lets see if USA can profit from it)
45-7 for England is a respectable result for the USA. If I remember that right one of the matches, were the minors should have went for more penalty kicks on goal

Argentina - USA (4 days after the England game. Again, a chance for the USA to keep it close
47–17 an okay result again for the USA, but also nothing special

France - Tonga ( 4 days after their game against the USA)

Tonga nearly won it, but finally went down 21-23.

USA -Tonga (4 days after the game against Argentina, that's a tough one, as it heavily prefers Tonga in what could be a close match).
31:19 for Tonga. You can definitely say, that there was a disadvantage for the USA, as they were in the lead up until the infamous 50-60 minute mark, most teams with a short-turnaround start to feel their heavy legs

No disadvantages for Tonga

Imho huge favours for Tonga (number of rest days 6, 8, 7) against the USA in what is the game to win for both teams in that group. Especially as all the other teams in that group have at least one time two games within 4 days.
Tonga nearly made that upset and used their advantage very well

Pool D

Fiji - Uruguay (4 days after their game against Australia. Fiji should still win it, but that's a good chance for Uruguay to get a surprise result, if there wasn't there next game)

Uruguay did create that surprise

Georgia - Uruguay ( 4 days after the Fiji game, basically robs Uruguay of their only game they probably hoped for, also they have to chose if they go all in against Fiji or Georgia. Shouldn't be that way)
Uruguay lost big time, because of the turnaround

Georgia - Fiji (4 days after the Uruguay game, you all see the pattern. )
Georgia lost big time, because of the turnaround


Wales -Uruguay (4 days after the Fiji game. I don't believe this will make a difference at all, also Wales gets a time to give their fringe players some game time).
35-13 to Wales and it looked close for a long time

No disadvantages: Australia
The schedule ruins the otherwise more interesting run for the 3rd place, with a favour for Fiji, who will have a better starting position in the most important game for rank 3. Bad "luck" for Georgia.

Uruguay made the most of their advantages, Fiji got lucky in the deciding game and auto-qualified ahead of Georgia/Uruguay only because of the turnaround in the Georgia game

Conclusion:

The shorter turnaround creates a more exciting time in Pool A and an okay schedule in Pool B. In Pool C it might create an upset by Tonga, who profit by far the most from the schedule of all 20 teams. In Pool D it basically puts the competition for place 3 down and puts a huge penalty on Georgia. Imho the worst of all as it directly will affect direct qualification chances for 2023.

Oceania as a whole benefits massively from the schedule and has a big chance to have tier-2-teams auto-qualify this time (and not 0 like in 2015).


Conclusion after the group stage.
Scotland and Georgia are the big losers of the uneven schedule. Samoa and the USA maybe the countries of lost opportunities, Uruguay/Georgia first profit and then loses because of it, Fiji first loses, but then profits in the end.
The big winners are Tonga, who probably wouldn't have finished 4th without the schedule.
There is no problem in having SA and NZ short turnarounds (at least not against teams who struggle to qualify for the World Cup.
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: 1264
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby NaBUru38 » Mon, 14 Oct 2019, 15:46

I know that I love to invent strange tournament formats that nobody else dislikes. Someday I might convice people of then, but not today.

However, i insist that a 24-team World Cup should have 8 or 12 playoffs teams, not 16.

Posts: 38
Joined: Tue, 27 May 2014, 19:42
National Flag:
IrelandIreland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Stephem » Wed, 23 Oct 2019, 19:58

RugbyLiebe wrote:
Blurandski wrote:
rey200 wrote:
victorsra wrote:
Formats like that also encourage thrashing the smaller teams, rather than easing off after four tries, as often happens now.

My preferred solution is to give a few pools an extra Ro16 slot from the start in return for a harder (higher seeded) pool. Also helps keep a fixed bracket.


Like this? Using the Ranking to seed:

A: 01, 07, 18, 24 - 2 spots - NZ, FRA, URU, HKG
B: 02, 08, 17, 23 - 2 spots - WAL, JAP, SPA, BRA
----
C: 03, 12, 13, 22 - 3 spots - ENG, ITA, USA, NAM
D: 04, 11, 14, 21 - 3 spots - IRE, FIJ, GEO, CAN
E: 05, 10, 15, 20 - 3 spots - SA, ARG, TON, RUS
F: 06, 09, 16, 19 - 3 spots - AUS, SCO, SAM, ROM

Could work!


oh man, I've tried to "improve" your idea and now i clicked somewhere and everything is gone. The base of the idea is to have imbalanced groups, where - without any upsets - the round of 16 is played like this: 1st vs 16th, 2nd vs 15th ... 8th vs 9th. Everything according to the seeding the draw is based on. I'll write it down again, but it took me some time... and I don't have the will to continue now :|

edit:
A: 09, 12, 18, 24 - 2 spots
B: 10, 11, 17, 23 - 2 spots
----
C: 01, 08, 13, 22 - 3 spots
D: 02, 07, 14, 21 - 3 spots
E: 03, 06, 15, 20 - 3 spots
F: 04, 05, 16, 19 - 3 spots

ladder:


E1 vs D3
A2 vs F2

D1 vs E3
A1 vs C2

F1 vs C3
B2 vs E2

C1 vs F3
B1 vs D2

no group game rematches until the semis.


Exactly! It keeps the fixed bracket, doesn't encourage thrashing smaller sides, and is decently fair (imo). It's far preferable to the 'best' third place nonsense.

So going off rankings we'd have:

A: Scotland, Italy, Uruguay, HK - 2 spots
B: Argentina, Fiji, Spain, Namibia - 2 spots
----
C: NZ, Japan, USA, Canada - 3 spots
D: Wales, France, Georgia, Portugal - 3 spots
E: England, Australia, Samoa, Russia - 3 spots
F: Ireland, South Africa, Tonga, Romania - 3 spots

England vs Georgia
Italy vs South Africa

Wales vs Samoa
Scotland vs Japan

Ireland vs USA
Fiji vs Australia

NZ vs Tonga
Argentina vs France


It basically means, that being ranked 19th or 20th one year out of the world cup gives you a way better chance of making the next stage than being ranked 17th or 18th.
I see where you all coming from, but shouldn't the World Cup itself determine who is worth to move on?



Ok, I read this a while ago and finally have had a chance to post this. If we plug this weighted pool format into the current world cup I feel it really shows the benefits.

Each of the 4 strong groups should have a team ranked 1-4, a team ranked 5-8, a team ranked 9-16, & a team ranked 17-24. The 2 weaker groups have two teams ranked 9-16 & two teams ranked 17-24.

To make this as similar to this WC as possible, I've moved the 4th seeded nation in each pool into the weaker pools with 4 teams that weren't at the tournament.

Group A: Ireland, Scotland, Japan, Russia
Group B: Australia, Wales, Georgia, Uruguay
Group C: Samoa, Fiji, Spain, Brazil
Group D: New Zealand, South Africa, Italy, Canada
Group E: England, France, Argentina, USA
Group F: Tonga, Namibia, Romania, Hong Kong

Winners of A, B, D & E play 3rd in those pools, 2nd in those play 1st or 2nd in C & F. Meaning a bracket of:

Japan v Georgia
South Africa v Namibia

France v Tonga
Wales v Scotland

New Zealand v Argentina
Ireland v Samoa

Australia v Fiji
England v Italy

To summarise the strong pools:
All group winners now have an additional knock out match against a 3rd seeded team instead of what is usually a dead rubber.
All 2nd ranked teams play a 3rd ranked side in the group and as a knock out match. Imagine if Aus v Fiji & France v Tonga were knock outs this year!
Each position matters as you'll get a more favorable draw the better you do.

To summarise the other 2 pools:
The main downside I see is that the 4 3rd ranked teams here will miss out on a match v the top 4 seeds. However they still get a crack at a 2nd ranked team in the last 16.
The 4 4th ranked teams have two shots at a 3rd ranked team to qualify.

User avatar
Posts: 1264
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby NaBUru38 » Thu, 24 Oct 2019, 20:32

I used to think that a two-tier World Cup would be good. But now I think the opposite.

Posts: 2997
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 25 Oct 2019, 07:16

Stephem wrote:

Ok, I read this a while ago and finally have had a chance to post this. If we plug this weighted pool format into the current world cup I feel it really shows the benefits.

Each of the 4 strong groups should have a team ranked 1-4, a team ranked 5-8, a team ranked 9-16, & a team ranked 17-24. The 2 weaker groups have two teams ranked 9-16 & two teams ranked 17-24.

To make this as similar to this WC as possible, I've moved the 4th seeded nation in each pool into the weaker pools with 4 teams that weren't at the tournament.

Group A: Ireland, Scotland, Japan, Russia
Group B: Australia, Wales, Georgia, Uruguay

Winners of A, B, D & E play 3rd in those pools, 2nd in those play 1st or 2nd in C & F. Meaning a bracket of:

Japan v Georgia




a) I think some groups got mixed up as you have two 3rds (Japan vs. Georgia) playing each other.

b) I simply don't like the idea of determing before a tournament who is the strongest side and then favour it in schedule or possible qualification chances for the next round.
I know rugby is famous for this, but I prefer a tournament where everyone has exactly the same chances to progress and you simply play what is in front of you. No backroom shenanigans before a tournament. The main flaw with your proposition is, that one lost game shortly before the groups are determined based on your World Rugby ranking will lead to an outcome which makes a big difference.

c) I also don't like the desperate concept, that necessarily the "best teams" on paper have to make the Octavos. A sport lives from upsets and lucky wins or decisions and let's be honest here: that's exactly what rugby is lacking due to its cartel system. If a team finishes third but doesn't make it to the Octavos due to a worse point difference, so be it. That's a story, that's something unpredictable, that's something exciting. I also think that it will change the crybaby attitude a lot of rugby fans have and will lead to more respect for non-cartel-nations in the long run.

Stephem wrote:The 4 4th ranked teams have two shots at a 3rd ranked team to qualify.

I didn't understand this part at all.
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: 38
Joined: Tue, 27 May 2014, 19:42
National Flag:
IrelandIreland

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Stephem » Fri, 25 Oct 2019, 14:52

A) In real life, Japan won their group, so they received the 'easier' path that Ireland were seeded to have. Ireland took Scotland's 2nd seeded route. Scotland took Japan's 3rd seeded route.

B) Like what happened with South Africa being 2nd seeds in their group? They proved the seeding wrong and knocked out a group winner in the quarter.

C) Every sport has the top teams seeded. Would you really prefer an open draw where NZ, SA, Aus & Eng could be in the same pool?

D) Looking at Brazil as an example, if they beat either Fiji or Samoa, as well as Spain, they would likely qualify for the last 16

Posts: 2997
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby RugbyLiebe » Mon, 28 Oct 2019, 09:38

Stephem wrote:A) In real life, Japan won their group, so they received the 'easier' path that Ireland were seeded to have. Ireland took Scotland's 2nd seeded route. Scotland took Japan's 3rd seeded route.


I understand now. Bad choice to use the real outcome in a hypothetical scneario. Stick to the seeds otherwise it is only confusing.

Stephem wrote:B) Like what happened with South Africa being 2nd seeds in their group? They proved the seeding wrong and knocked out a group winner in the quarter.

Your point is? They weren't favoured in advance, they always knew, like in every other group, that you needed to finish at least 2nd.

Stephem wrote:C) Every sport has the top teams seeded. Would you really prefer an open draw where NZ, SA, Aus & Eng could be in the same pool?

No, I simply don't want one group to be heavily favoured because of this. Seeds are an important thing, but not if they are used to determine which group has one more team qualifiying for the quarters.

Stephem wrote:D) Looking at Brazil as an example, if they beat either Fiji or Samoa, as well as Spain, they would likely qualify for the last 16

So your point is, that because they got unlucky in the group draw in your scenario, they have to beat two teams, while, if they were in another group one single victory would be enough. Are you sure that makes sense?
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: 104
Joined: Tue, 13 Nov 2018, 00:10
National Flag:
ChileChile

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby ficcp » Tue, 05 Nov 2019, 20:32

I am not convinced of a RWC with 24 teams if the 4 marginal countries (respect to RWC 2019) do not have the possibilities to play T2 and T1 teams before the tournament and get better prepared for it. It is necessary to avoid the extreme high scores (Example : South Afica against Brazil, Spain or Korea). It would also apply for teams such as Namibia, Canadá and USA which got heavy losses in the recent tournament.

I agree that the 5 teams per pool system is not convenient because the rest time between matches is quite unequal among the teams.

So, I would think in a development period of 2 or 3 RWC with the following choices :

A. 5 pools of 4 teams : The QF would be formed by 5 winners and 3 "best runners up".

B.- Two different tournaments with promotion and relegation. the RWC "A" for the best 16 teams (4 of each pool) and the RWC "B" for the following 12 teams (the last of each pool plus 8 others arriving from classification).

Once there is a critical mass of 24 competitive teams, the RWC could be permanently established with that quantity of competitors.

Posts: 535
Joined: Mon, 03 Jun 2019, 19:53
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Edgar » Wed, 06 Nov 2019, 08:51

ficcp wrote:I am not convinced of a RWC with 24 teams if the 4 marginal countries (respect to RWC 2019) do not have the possibilities to play T2 and T1 teams before the tournament and get better prepared for it. It is necessary to avoid the extreme high scores (Example : South Afica against Brazil, Spain or Korea). It would also apply for teams such as Namibia, Canadá and USA which got heavy losses in the recent tournament.

I agree that the 5 teams per pool system is not convenient because the rest time between matches is quite unequal among the teams.

So, I would think in a development period of 2 or 3 RWC with the following choices :

A. 5 pools of 4 teams : The QF would be formed by 5 winners and 3 "best runners up".

B.- Two different tournaments with promotion and relegation. the RWC "A" for the best 16 teams (4 of each pool) and the RWC "B" for the following 12 teams (the last of each pool plus 8 others arriving from classification).

Once there is a critical mass of 24 competitive teams, the RWC could be permanently established with that quantity of competitors.


I think we can all agree that World Rugby is going to have to do a lot of work leading up to expansion, including the integration of fringe teams through fixtures with 1st and 2nd tier nations. Adding them to major tours, including the AIs, is the easiest way of going about this, as I've discussed before. If World Rugby is targeting 2027 for such a development, that gives them eight years and 16 seasons to work with.

5 pools of 4 teams was trialed in 1999, of course, and proved unpopular with the teams, for much the same reason as 5-team pools - unequal scheduling. Going directly to quarters just makes it too tough to get out of the group stages. A two tier World Cup is a Mickey Mouse concept of the rugby league variety, and the second tier tournament would not be a World Cup at all. Better to just expand the qualifying repechage tournament separately and call it a qualifying repechage tournament; not a B World Cup.

But rugby can certainly go to 24 by 2027. We already have a tournament in which half the teams have no chance of winning it, so a few more isn't going to make much difference, providing they're not totally out of their depth. & let's not forget Romania and Spain will be back, which means we're really only looking at finding two more worthy contenders in addition to the usual suspects.

A six pool tournament would be far more suitable in such a vast and densely-populated nation as the US as well, allowing for the games to be spread around more. But the World Cup needs to be the main thing in town while it's on. A tournament played in second rate stadiums in the shadow of NFL or NBA could do irreparable damage to the image of rugby's World Cup.

NB: This, to me, makes more sense than Japan joining the Rugby championship:

World Rugby could hand Japan an invitation into an expanded Six Nations in a bid to capitalise on the recent World Cup in the country.

According to the Daily Mail, the idea has been “floated about in private” since the Rugby Championship – the Southern Hemisphere equivalent of the Six Nations – wasn’t sold on including Japan in their competition.


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/japan-coul ... 57185.html

Posts: 5709
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby victorsra » Wed, 06 Nov 2019, 13:07

I don't see WR making any different format than 6 groups of 4 followed by Round of 16. It is about number of matches, to sell tickets and broadcast. They need more matches to sell if they are going to have more teams involved. Nobody will suggest less matches. BTW, the host country makes money with tickets, as this is the stake that goes to the hosts.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 104
Joined: Tue, 13 Nov 2018, 00:10
National Flag:
ChileChile

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby ficcp » Wed, 06 Nov 2019, 15:47

[quote="Edgar"][quote="ficcp"]I am not convinced of a RWC with 24 teams if the 4 marginal countries (respect to RWC 2019) do not have the possibilities to
A six pool tournament would be far more suitable in such a vast and densely-populated nation as the US as well, allowing for the games to be spread around more. But the World Cup needs to be the main thing in town while it's on. A tournament played in second rate stadiums in the shadow of NFL or NBA could do irreparable damage to the image of rugby's World Cup.

I agree with you that a 24 teams format wuld be very suitable for USA (maybe USA+Canada ) but how many individual countries could organise it in this way in the future?

Posts: 104
Joined: Tue, 13 Nov 2018, 00:10
National Flag:
ChileChile

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby ficcp » Wed, 06 Nov 2019, 16:29

Edgar :
If by 2027 the additional 4 teams plus those of low performance in 2023 (the would probably qualify for 2027) have not developed in competitive outfits they would suffer heavy losses against the seeded and second teams of each group. WR must pour money in development of fringe teams be T2 or T3.

You must agree that matches between NZ, SA ,AUS or England on one side smashing the likes of Romania, Brazil, Kenya or Korea on the other in Seattle, Las Vegas. Sacramento or Boston would not contribute a lot to the difusion and promotion of the sport in USA. These and other cities can provide an excellent enviroment (Fifa cup in 1994 was an example of that) but Rugby must be attractive on the pitch to people who pay their tickets and also to TV viewers.

Posts: 535
Joined: Sun, 06 Dec 2015, 06:42
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby snapper37 » Wed, 06 Nov 2019, 17:56

ficcp wrote:Edgar :
If by 2027 the additional 4 teams plus those of low performance in 2023 (the would probably qualify for 2027) have not developed in competitive outfits they would suffer heavy losses against the seeded and second teams of each group. WR must pour money in development of fringe teams be T2 or T3.

You must agree that matches between NZ, SA ,AUS or England on one side smashing the likes of Romania, Brazil, Kenya or Korea on the other in Seattle, Las Vegas. Sacramento or Boston would not contribute a lot to the difusion and promotion of the sport in USA. These and other cities can provide an excellent enviroment (Fifa cup in 1994 was an example of that) but Rugby must be attractive on the pitch to people who pay their tickets and also to TV viewers.



Fifa isn't a good comparison as everybody understands Soccer. 89%ish of americans probably have never heard of rugby and if they have have no clue on how its played. Would the Yanks care enough to Watch England vs Uruguay on a Wednesday night in Sept? Doubt it. Japan is a very different society, Americans attention spans are short, their mindset is about what is good for themselves not what's good for the whole, unlike the Japanese.

Posts: 104
Joined: Tue, 13 Nov 2018, 00:10
National Flag:
ChileChile

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby ficcp » Wed, 06 Nov 2019, 19:18

I get your point : USA would not be ready to organise a RWC yet. Nevertheless, the attendances to Soldier Field in Chicago were 61.000 for Eagles-All Blacks in 2014, 62.300 for Ireland-All Blacks in 2016 and 31.000 for Eagles-Maori AB in 2018.

So, if there is an adequate and intense promotion, the american citizens assist to watch Rugby. In case USA gets the 2027 or 2031 RWC, there is time to develop a critical mass of fans around the teams participating in MLR.

Posts: 1400
Joined: Thu, 06 Apr 2017, 17:09
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Tobar » Wed, 06 Nov 2019, 21:52

snapper37 wrote:
ficcp wrote:Edgar :
If by 2027 the additional 4 teams plus those of low performance in 2023 (the would probably qualify for 2027) have not developed in competitive outfits they would suffer heavy losses against the seeded and second teams of each group. WR must pour money in development of fringe teams be T2 or T3.

You must agree that matches between NZ, SA ,AUS or England on one side smashing the likes of Romania, Brazil, Kenya or Korea on the other in Seattle, Las Vegas. Sacramento or Boston would not contribute a lot to the difusion and promotion of the sport in USA. These and other cities can provide an excellent enviroment (Fifa cup in 1994 was an example of that) but Rugby must be attractive on the pitch to people who pay their tickets and also to TV viewers.



Fifa isn't a good comparison as everybody understands Soccer. 89%ish of americans probably have never heard of rugby and if they have have no clue on how its played. Would the Yanks care enough to Watch England vs Uruguay on a Wednesday night in Sept? Doubt it. Japan is a very different society, Americans attention spans are short, their mindset is about what is good for themselves not what's good for the whole, unlike the Japanese.



Well....uhhh that was a sweeping statement. I agree that the Japanese would be much more committed than most Americans but I think you underestimate interest in new sports, especially if the tournament is marketed well in the area leading up to it. Besides, there will be tons of foreign fans traveling for these games.

People worry too much about additional blowout games - the math works out where there’s really only 3 or 4 more Tier 1 matchups vs the bottom ranked teams (and fewer Tier 1 vs Tier 2 matches per pool). Depending on the matchup, some of those games won’t even be that bad.

Posts: 5542
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 07 Nov 2019, 00:00

How many expats are in the US as well? I know there are big Irish and Italian communities, and I imagine a lot of South American's probably call the US home as well.

Posts: 1400
Joined: Thu, 06 Apr 2017, 17:09
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Tobar » Thu, 07 Nov 2019, 13:07

thatrugbyguy wrote:How many expats are in the US as well? I know there are big Irish and Italian communities, and I imagine a lot of South American's probably call the US home as well.


There are loads of expats but not tons from countries where rugby is #1. Lots of English, Irish and Australian people here who would likely go support their country even if they aren’t huge rugby fans. There are very few Argentines or Uruguayans here.

Posts: 3751
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: Increase the RWC to 24 teams

Postby Armchair Fan » Thu, 07 Nov 2019, 13:47

There aren't many Uruguayans even in Uruguay...

Argentina could work in Miami, but you're overthinking. In a RWC you've got plenty of neutrals who fulfill their journey attending lesser games and promoters equally gift lots of tickets to schools and locals.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests