Increase the RWC to 24 teams

[Neptune Profile]

This is a topic im sure everyone is interested in.
There are so many casualties of the 20 team format.
In Africa we have Kenya and Zimbabwe, Asia - Hong Kong and Korea, Europe - Spain, Germany, Belgium and Russia and in South America Brazil.
My view is that their should be 12 automatic qualifiers from the last world cup, then an additional 7 teams qualify leading to 19 teams. The extra four slots should go to the runners up in Africa, Asia, South America and Europe bringing the total to 23 with the last slot going into a repechege qualification process.
Any opinions are welcome. Thanks

[Figaro Profile]

I don't think you'll find anyone objecting to this in principle on this message board.

I think it's clear that there are a number of teams at roughly similar standard to the weaker teams in the 2015 world cup - certainly Spain, Russia, Kenya and Zimbabwe are not significantly behind Namibia and Uruguay.

[Armchair Fan Profile]

It doesn't look like we're going to see this happening before 2027. And the big issue is what format should be implemented.

[Neptune Profile]

It doesn't look like we're going to see this happening before 2027. And the big issue is what format should be implemented.

The best format is pools of six with four teams each just like the 7s world cup, then the best team from each pool advances to the quarters alongside the best placed 2 teams. This is something which should have started in the 2011 RWC. At the rate rugby is growing, the RWC also needs to expand.

[Neptune Profile]

I don't think you'll find anyone objecting to this in principle on this message board.

I think it's clear that there are a number of teams at roughly similar standard to the weaker teams in the 2015 world cup - certainly Spain, Russia, Kenya and Zimbabwe are not significantly behind Namibia and Uruguay.

My only problem is how do we accomodate an extra Oceania team like the Cook Islands.

[Figaro Profile]

It doesn't look like we're going to see this happening before 2027. And the big issue is what format should be implemented.

The best format is pools of six with four teams each just like the 7s world cup, then the best team from each pool advances to the quarters alongside the best placed 2 teams. This is something which should have started in the 2011 RWC. At the rate rugby is growing, the RWC also needs to expand.

Do you mean six pools of four teams or four of six? Not clear from what you've written.

I don't like formats where the "best 2nd placed" teams go through; this tends to favour relatively strong teams in weak groups at the expense of those in more competitive groups. That happens a certain amount anyway (cf last RWC where Japan didn't qualify despite winning 3 of 4 games) but when you have "best 2nd-placed" formats it's more likely to happen; for example had only six or seven teams qualified from the WC groups you would have had Scotland and France through at the expense of Wales.

[hag Profile]

I'm in favor of bigger tournament it would give the smaller teams more media exposure and thus expanding the sport.
We should have a healthy mix of T1 vs T2; T1 vs T1 and T2 vs T2.
Meaning it is still competitive for all teams and they can play a bigger team.

Might it be an option to have the T2 teams start the tournament and the T1 joining later?

[RugbyLiebe Profile]

I don't think you'll find anyone objecting to this in principle on this message board.

I think it's clear that there are a number of teams at roughly similar standard to the weaker teams in the 2015 world cup - certainly Spain, Russia, Kenya and Zimbabwe are not significantly behind Namibia and Uruguay.

My only problem is how do we accomodate an extra Oceania team like the Cook Islands.

Not at all and why should we?
If they make it through the repechage fair enough.
In reality the Cookies are just Kiwis with Cookies-heritage

1 place to Europe
1 to Africa
2 more place to repechage Asia, Oceania, Europe, Africa, Americas.

[sk 88 Profile Website]

There was a long thread previously, I'm pretty sure everyone was in favour and there was a lot of chat about different formats because 24 does not lend itself to an obvious format.

[DRL Profile]

24 Teams? Yes please!
A World Cup is more than a "who is the best in the world" competition.
Its the Trade fair of World Rugby. Every four years.
With 6 Groups of 4 Teams and a Round of 16 it will become less predictable than in the current format. All Teams have a fair chance to reach the second round.
That does make the tournament way more interessting. Remember Iceland and Wales at EURO 2016.
And it would give Teams from 21-30 in the rankings a chance to reach the WorldCup. Nations like Kenya, Germany, Belgium, Hong Kong (China),Korea who have never been at a World Cup.

[NaBUru38 Profile]

With four extra spots, I would give them:

* 1 for Americas.
* 1 for Europe.
* 1 for Asia.
* 1 for a second world repechage team.

My only problem is how do we accomodate an extra Oceania team like the Cook Islands.

They could play the world repechage, or the Asian repechage.

[victorsra Profile Website]

I prefer to give just 1 spot for each continent and the rest decide in a world repechage in the shape of a World Cup "B" instead of discuss how many places each continent deserves.

[thatrugbyguy Profile]

You'll get few objections about expansion here. I actually think World Rugby are potentially wasting golden opportunities by delaying expansion. They've got enough competitive teams now at the world cup, now the next batch of nations need to be given a chance.

[Neptune Profile]

It doesn't look like we're going to see this happening before 2027. And the big issue is what format should be implemented.

The best format is pools of six with four teams each just like the 7s world cup, then the best team from each pool advances to the quarters alongside the best placed 2 teams. This is something which should have started in the 2011 RWC. At the rate rugby is growing, the RWC also needs to expand.

Do you mean six pools of four teams or four of six? Not clear from what you've written.

I don't like formats where the "best 2nd placed" teams go through; this tends to favour relatively strong teams in weak groups at the expense of those in more competitive groups. That happens a certain amount anyway (cf last RWC where Japan didn't qualify despite winning 3 of 4 games) but when you have "best 2nd-placed" formats it's more likely to happen; for example had only six or seven teams qualified from the WC groups you would have had Scotland and France through at the expense of Wales.

Hi Figaro

I meant to say six pools from A - F with each pool having four teams. This then would find all the rugby championship and six nations teams having their own pools apart from Scotland and Italy. The top teams in each pool automatically progress alongside the best placed 2, just like 7s rugby world cup.

[Neptune Profile]

With four extra spots, I would give them:

* 1 for Americas.
* 1 for Europe.
* 1 for Asia.
* 1 for a second world repechage team.

My only problem is how do we accomodate an extra Oceania team like the Cook Islands.

They could play the world repechage, or the Asian repechage.

NaBUru, why are you excluding Africa with an estimated population of 2Billion people? As it stands there is no team from black Africa in the competition. Sorry to say.

[Neptune Profile]

Russia is also another major casualty of the 20 team format.
If i may speak about Kenya, everyone has seen what they have done at 7's level. You can imagine when given a chance at XVs, what they can do.
Already the top try scorer in the HSBC circuit as it stands is Collins Injera at 235 tries. Prior to 2003, Kenya was nowhere on the World rugby map, but after joining in 2005, Kenya has now become a major player.
Uganda were recently given some space and beat regulars Japan, plus also played very good rugby with their pointman Phillip Wokorach dazzling crowds.
I wonder what is holding World rugby from an expansion to 24. They could be having their reasons, but essentially an expansion will put more money into their pockets through broadcast rights, betting rights and gate collection.
From an analytical and research point of view, South African Satelllite tv company DSTV's subscription shot up by 80% in Nairobi and it's environs when Kenya joined the HSBC 7s circuit. Before that, GO TV were the main cable tv company, and they majorly used to show the English Premier League but never showed rugby, hence fell short to DSTV.
Anyone on this platform from DSTV can give the accurate figures on subscription rates before and after 2006 in Kenya.

[RugbyLiebe Profile]

Now I remember the last thread (think I even started it about how to give out those 24 places).
My conclusion is, stop direct qualification.
Then give Europe (8 places), Oceania (4 places), Americas 4 places, Africa 3 places, Asia 2 places and let the final 3 places be a repechage between the runner-ups from all continents.
So every continent actually wins one place in comparision to the direvt qualifiers as of 2015. Apart from Oceania who wins two places.

There are enough places to grab between the continents to make sure most likely the best teams are there.
Maybe one could talk about a Euro-Asia-playoff for the 2nd Asian spot, as Europe would stay the same otherwise.

[Thomas Profile]

You could have the same argument for Women's XV I know is a different thread but ever since it was reduced from 16 to 12 the women's program has suffered affecting the qualification of T2 Countries.

[thatrugbyguy Profile]

Part of the problem at the moment is new nations aren't being given a shot to qualify. Of the 20 nations who qualified for 2015 at least 18 of them are almost sure to qualify for 2019. The most competitive place up for grabs is probably Africa, and even then Namibia are probably firm favourites. I get the fear of having blowouts again but there needs to be a timetable in place to get developing nations to qualify. I think what's holding World Rugby back is not so much money or revenue, they'll get 4 additional matches with a 24 team format, it comes down to competitiveness. 2015 was statistically the most competitive world cup since 1991, with the highest score of the tournament being 65 compared to 87 in 2011, 108 in 2007 and 145 in 2003.

[Neptune Profile]

Now I remember the last thread (think I even started it about how to give out those 24 places).
My conclusion is, stop direct qualification.
Then give Europe (8 places), Oceania (4 places), Americas 4 places, Africa 3 places, Asia 2 places and let the final 3 places be a repechage between the runner-ups from all continents.
So every continent actually wins one place in comparision to the direvt qualifiers as of 2015. Apart from Oceania who wins two places.

There are enough places to grab between the continents to make sure most likely the best teams are there.
Maybe one could talk about a Euro-Asia-playoff for the 2nd Asian spot, as Europe would stay the same otherwise.

Yes, the direct qualification is also one big monster that world rugby has failed to adress.
Initially, the direct teams were 8, but after one team became a perennial victim of reaching the quarter finals(NOT MENTIONING NAMES), they pulled a few strings behind boardrooms and WR meetings and increased it to 12.
Currently, we only have 7 qualifiers and one repechege, which is so sad.

[Armchair Fan Profile]

You could have the same argument for Women's XV I know is a different thread but ever since it was reduced from 16 to 12 the women's program has suffered affecting the qualification of T2 Countries.

XV WRWC qualifying system is simply a joke. Six Nations, a private tournament, gives four spots (plus Ireland this time as hosts)...

[sk 88 Profile Website]

http://t2rugby.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=137&hilit=24+team+world+cup

Original thread.

[Neptune Profile]

http://t2rugby.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=137&hilit=24+team+world+cup

Original thread.

Thanks sk 88, hadn't seen it, so i started my new thread.

[NaBUru38 Profile]

NaBUru, why are you excluding Africa with an estimated population of 2Billion people? As it stands there is no team from black Africa in the competition. Sorry to say.

Africa has 2 spots, whereas the Americas has 3 and Asia has 1.

Namibia has qualified for Africa, with little success.

[The Do Profile]

I've been thinking about this topic and I'm still on the fence about 24 teams. Yes, I would love to see more diversity in the teams that qualify for the RWC. On the other hand I truly hate the idea of a 24 team World Cup with 6 pools of 4 teams. Who progresses to the 2nd phase of the tournament is too messy and unfair.
WR need to look at a better qualification systems that includes regional qualification and a proper repechage tournament for the last few qualifying spots.