Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby victorsra » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 02:37

imo 4 groups of 6 is out of the table, because this realy would mean more dates required and clubs won't accept it. Too much politicaly problematic. 6 groups of 4 + R16 means the current calendar can be used, no need of more dates.

Posts: 111
Joined: Thu, 17 Jul 2014, 19:55
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby The Do » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 08:11

I hate the idea that in a 6 pools x 4 teams, some teams who finished 3rd in their pool advance but others in the same situation don’t. Say the ABs have won their “tough” match out of the 3 pool games, who is to say that they will not rest all of their star players knowing a one point win is enough instead of racking up 60 point on say Namibia. Great for Namibia but what about say, Tonga. They are in another group and their opponents decided to not take it easy giving them a hiding. How is that fair if it goes to for and against over different pools? How is it fair that a different pool’s results which you have no direct input to can decide whether you progress or not. It needs to be all pool’s top 2 etc.

User avatar
Posts: 6442
Joined: Sun, 27 Apr 2014, 11:50
National Flag:
ItalyItaly

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby Canalina » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 08:41

I would prefer too a 4 pools x 6 teams format, but it would be like playing a whole Six Nations, plus quarterfinals, semi and final. Could be very tiring, for the spectators and mostly for the players.
That's indeed a problem of an eventual expansion: both the 4x6 and the 6x4 formats seem having some contraindications

Posts: 2437
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby sk 88 » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 10:37

antlat wrote:Why is everyone assuming that a 24 team World Cup will involve 6 groups of 4 teams??

What if they decide on 4 groups of 6 teams?????


This is a good point, rugby administrators are so stupid they could conceivably push for an even stupider format than we currently have.

Posts: 2437
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby sk 88 » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 10:40

The Do wrote:I hate the idea that in a 6 pools x 4 teams, some teams who finished 3rd in their pool advance but others in the same situation don’t. Say the ABs have won their “tough” match out of the 3 pool games, who is to say that they will not rest all of their star players knowing a one point win is enough instead of racking up 60 point on say Namibia. Great for Namibia but what about say, Tonga. They are in another group and their opponents decided to not take it easy giving them a hiding. How is that fair if it goes to for and against over different pools? How is it fair that a different pool’s results which you have no direct input to can decide whether you progress or not. It needs to be all pool’s top 2 etc.


That is an issue. But its a smaller issue, and one of fewer others, than the current format. No one thinks 24 is perfect or the end state of the RWC. But it is better than the current 20 team format.

Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby thatrugbyguy » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 11:11

Someone is going to have to explain to me the difference between a knockout round featuring 3rd placed teams and the fourth round of pools matches that we currently have have. You’ve literally got the exact same number of games being played. I do not understand the objection.

Posts: 703
Joined: Fri, 15 Aug 2014, 13:57

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby Raven » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 11:20

sk 88 wrote:
The Do wrote:I hate the idea that in a 6 pools x 4 teams, some teams who finished 3rd in their pool advance but others in the same situation don’t. Say the ABs have won their “tough” match out of the 3 pool games, who is to say that they will not rest all of their star players knowing a one point win is enough instead of racking up 60 point on say Namibia. Great for Namibia but what about say, Tonga. They are in another group and their opponents decided to not take it easy giving them a hiding. How is that fair if it goes to for and against over different pools? How is it fair that a different pool’s results which you have no direct input to can decide whether you progress or not. It needs to be all pool’s top 2 etc.


That is an issue. But its a smaller issue, and one of fewer others, than the current format. No one thinks 24 is perfect or the end state of the RWC. But it is better than the current 20 team format.

I'm not to convince nor force anybody into an idea, but the more I think over a 24 team world cup (with 6 pools of 4) the more I'm backing it. Yes, the point difference might play a big role to decide which 4 teams out of 6 (!!!) make it to the next round and we might see some "strange" or mismatched elimination rounds (ie. Nr1/Nr2 in Ranking v Nr 15/16th) but in a one off I imagine the weaker side trying to put an upset - which is the main thing we're going for... We'll also get some pretty exciting ones, imagine a Nr8 vs a Nr11 in ranking... We "eliminate" the Band 4 v Band 5 games in the Pool phase (if we are honest, these look good politically, but there's nothing at stake...), to see some extra Tier 2s vs Tier 1s which is necessary for the developing nations, and at the same time it opens a real chance for more than just the odd T2 to make it to quarters.

If instead we have 4 pools of 6, these lower band games keep multiplying, and again, it wouldn't have a real impact on the elimination round, if anything it enables the "upset" to go less noticed.

Let's say for instance, we have a pool of 6 with:
New Zealand - France - Italy - Americas 1 (for the sake of argument, USA) - Africa 1 (FSOA, Namibia) - Asia 1 (FSOA, Hong Kong)

If HK or Namibia beat USA, and USA beats Italy it'll come down to point difference in the pool anyway. Or Italy beats France and USA beats Italy... Most likely, Italy will have an advantage in point difference, therefor still coming ahead of the USA.

If we have a 4 team Pool;
New Zealand - Italy - USA - Asia 1,

...and (ie) USA beats Italy in a 1-off, then Italy probably still gets through, depending on the other pool differences, BUT with US as second, they advance with more likely a better (closer) fixture in the Round of 16....

Hope I managed to make sense of what I am saying / thinking / self imploding of excitement about... The longer the pool phase the lesser chance a small nation has of making it through as they start wearing down. And yes, the pool draw will become a REAL luck game... as it is now we basically know who's qualifying, maybe 1 or 2 doubts; and almost in every pool we have a clear candidate to make it to the next round.

Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 11:34

I think the end state should be 8 pools of 4. And I think we could be ready for that as early as 2031 but more likely 2035.

2027 should be 24 teams (6 groups of 4).

User avatar
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon, 28 Apr 2014, 23:16
National Flag:
NetherlandsNetherlands

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby Silver Fox » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 11:46

The Do wrote:I hate the idea that in a 6 pools x 4 teams, some teams who finished 3rd in their pool advance but others in the same situation don’t. Say the ABs have won their “tough” match out of the 3 pool games, who is to say that they will not rest all of their star players knowing a one point win is enough instead of racking up 60 point on say Namibia. Great for Namibia but what about say, Tonga. They are in another group and their opponents decided to not take it easy giving them a hiding. How is that fair if it goes to for and against over different pools? How is it fair that a different pool’s results which you have no direct input to can decide whether you progress or not. It needs to be all pool’s top 2 etc.

How is it fair to be drawn in a pool with e.g. New Zealand or South Africa, or with New Zealand AND South Africa for that matter, instead of Wales?
What makes a short tournament attractive are it's relative unpredictabilty, unforseen events and possible upsets. That's what writing the storybook of a memorable tournament.
If we want fairness and predictability we should take the world rankings and give the cup to the top team.

Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby thatrugbyguy » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 12:30

Chester-Donnelly wrote:I think the end state should be 8 pools of 4. And I think we could be ready for that as early as 2031 but more likely 2035.

2027 should be 24 teams (6 groups of 4).


The sport would need a minimum of 40 competitive teams to make 32 viable. We’re probably at 26-28 maximum at present.

Posts: 703
Joined: Fri, 15 Aug 2014, 13:57

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby Raven » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 13:02

thatrugbyguy wrote:
Chester-Donnelly wrote:I think the end state should be 8 pools of 4. And I think we could be ready for that as early as 2031 but more likely 2035.

2027 should be 24 teams (6 groups of 4).


The sport would need a minimum of 40 competitive teams to make 32 viable. We’re probably at 26-28 maximum at present.


You're being too generous. I see 24 - 26, tops!

Imagine it has taken so long to make a 20 team tourney into a 24 team one, how long will it be until we see a 32 one! Also, we cannot expect the RWC to grow that much as it is a contact sport and the amount of games per team has to come into consideration. A longer Qualy process and a WC with the 24 best teams in it might just be the right model.

Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 13:43

I think a 32 team Rugby World Cup could be closer than we think.
Teams currently ranked 31 to 34

31. Korea. The number 3 team in Asia. If an East Asia professional rugby league can be established, or if enough Korean players can play in the Japanese professional rugby league, a Korean team could be competitive.

32. Kenya. Kenya already has a professional sevens team. They were in the repechage tournament for the 2019 RWC and they were pretty good. Certainly their forwards are big and strong enough. They just need some more high level competition.

33. Colombia. Could soon have an SLAR team, or develop their own elite level league.

34. Poland. Poland has one of the stronger leagues in Europe and could have a team in whatever the new continental shield will be.

An expanded RWC would also virtually guarantee the ERC and ARC teams would all qualify for every RWC which could act as an incentive for those countries to invest more in rugby.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby victorsra » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 14:19

Chester-Donnelly wrote:I think a 32 team Rugby World Cup could be closer than we think.
Teams currently ranked 31 to 34

31. Korea. The number 3 team in Asia. If an East Asia professional rugby league can be established, or if enough Korean players can play in the Japanese professional rugby league, a Korean team could be competitive.

32. Kenya. Kenya already has a professional sevens team. They were in the repechage tournament for the 2019 RWC and they were pretty good. Certainly their forwards are big and strong enough. They just need some more high level competition.

33. Colombia. Could soon have an SLAR team, or develop their own elite level league.

34. Poland. Poland has one of the stronger leagues in Europe and could have a team in whatever the new continental shield will be.

An expanded RWC would also virtually guarantee the ERC and ARC teams would all qualify for every RWC which could act as an incentive for those countries to invest more in rugby.


It would depend on how those countries will achieve professionalism at the same time they build a proper U20s development. It is indeed possible to have the teams ranked 17-32 levelled, provided rugby offers a more open system.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby victorsra » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 14:21

sk 88 wrote:
antlat wrote:Why is everyone assuming that a 24 team World Cup will involve 6 groups of 4 teams??

What if they decide on 4 groups of 6 teams?????


This is a good point, rugby administrators are so stupid they could conceivably push for an even stupider format than we currently have.



4 groups of 6 is impossible. French and English clubs won't accept 8 weeks. Forget.

Posts: 703
Joined: Fri, 15 Aug 2014, 13:57

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby Raven » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 14:24

It's too many maybes and if's.

We might (a biiiiig MIGHT) see closer scores between the 20th and 34th in the ranking (and it's already a massive step) but between the 34th and top 10/12 it wouldn't make any sense (almost as having this "discussion" today!) And again, it would be best to see more competition in the qualifiers and have THE BEST 24 in the World Cup, instead of opening a swing door for everybody to experience the RWC feeling.

User avatar
Posts: 2176
Joined: Thu, 26 Jun 2014, 05:56
Location: Zemo Vera, Tbilissi, GEORGIA

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby FLIDTA RISXVA » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 14:46

Canalina
expansion already happened in the past

I'd rather recall REASONS for EXPANDING from 16 to 20

MINOR) USA and FIJ missed on RWC 1995 -- could not make 16

MAJOR) RWC 1999 had FIVE host countries and EACH wanted OWN POOL

:::

Alas, since then schedule | tab-makers have been neglecting
OBVIOUS deficiencies of 4 POOLS OF FIVE

1) Tabs get balanced only after CONCLUSION of Pool stage -- at any other moment
they hardly show the reality as teams have played not equal number of games

2) It's impossible to even REST periods for all FIVE teams -- to make FAIR schedule

:::

Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 14:51

The benchmark is Namibia. If a team is at a similar level to Namibia they are good enough for play in the world cup. If Namibia can comfortably beat them then they're not.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby victorsra » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 15:19

Raven wrote:It's too many maybes and if's.

We might (a biiiiig MIGHT) see closer scores between the 20th and 34th in the ranking (and it's already a massive step) but between the 34th and top 10/12 it wouldn't make any sense (almost as having this "discussion" today!) And again, it would be best to see more competition in the qualifiers and have THE BEST 24 in the World Cup, instead of opening a swing door for everybody to experience the RWC feeling.


It would be cool if 32 teams could be involved in a RWC Qualy main phase, qualifying 24 for the RWC. For exemple, during the 2025 B&I Lions window. Of course, in 2025, Home Nations and the Southern nation that faces them (I guess Australia) would have nothing nothing to fear about missing Lions Tour players. The same way, a team like South Africa could simply field a development squad and have other matches at the same moment if the want.

Exemple:
A: FRA, ITA, GEO, BEL
B: ENG, SCO, RUS, POR
C: IRE, WAL, SPA, ROM
D: NZL, JAP, TON, HKG
E: AUS, FIJ, SAM, KOR
F: SAF, NAM, KEN, ZIM
G: ARG, CAN, CHL, COL
H: USA, URU, BRA, PAR

Best 2 of each group = RWC.

Playoffs in 2026:

In July, 4ths vs 8 teams from Regional Qualifiers, keeping regionalization. Exemple:

BEL vs RET1 - NED
POR vs RET2 - SWI
ROM vs RET3 - GER
HKG vs Oceania 1 - PNG
KOR vs Asia 1 - MAY
ZIM vs Africa 1 - UGA
COL vs North America 1 - BER
PAR vs South America 1- PER

In November, 3rds vs July winners, by Ranking - 8 spots in the RWC. Exemple:
GEO vs ZIM
RUS vs KOR
SPA vs BEL
TON vs PAR
SAM vs COL
KEN vs ROM
CHL vs HKG
BRA vs POR

This model would have many thrashing results, like Samoa vs Colombia, indeed. But, in the Qualy it is ok to happen (it already happens, like Samoa/Tonga vs Oceania Cup champions, PNG/TAH/COOK....). It is part of a development path. Nobody will care if this happens in a Qualy, provided player welfare is not at risk. Teams like Paraguay and Colombia will be professional, the bigger question lies over Korea, Kenya, Zimbabwe.... the injury concern is always related to amateurs vs pros, not pros vs pros.

Posts: 99
Joined: Sun, 11 Mar 2018, 17:39
National Flag:
IrelandIreland

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby Grayday88 » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 15:35

I have wondered if you could have 8 groups of 3 top 2 reach knockouts and bottom 8 play off in a Plate competition whereby the winner reaches the Next World Cup.i do appreciate that would mean that 17 teams are automatically qualified for the next World Cup but it means all teams play at least three games and at least one winnable game for all teams

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby victorsra » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 16:57

Would be back again with the schedule problem.

People find ludicrous the inter-groups system Rugby League has, but I actualy believe it could offer a solution if groups of 3 are prefered.

Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby Chester-Donnelly » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 17:23

There is no problem with pools of 3 playing in a cross pool format. It is maybe the best format for 24 teams.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby victorsra » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 17:25

Probably Band 1 vs Band 1, Band 2 vs Band 2, Band 3 vs Band 3.

Bands 1 vs Band 1 could be the opening round.

Posts: 2437
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby sk 88 » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 17:28

Raven wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:
Chester-Donnelly wrote:I think the end state should be 8 pools of 4. And I think we could be ready for that as early as 2031 but more likely 2035.

2027 should be 24 teams (6 groups of 4).


The sport would need a minimum of 40 competitive teams to make 32 viable. We’re probably at 26-28 maximum at present.


You're being too generous. I see 24 - 26, tops!

Imagine it has taken so long to make a 20 team tourney into a 24 team one, how long will it be until we see a 32 one! Also, we cannot expect the RWC to grow that much as it is a contact sport and the amount of games per team has to come into consideration. A longer Qualy process and a WC with the 24 best teams in it might just be the right model.


You could run a 64 team World Cup in the same games as the current World cup (16 groups of 4, R16, QF, SF, F is 7 games just the current RWC).

In terms of further expansion, if we were to get to 24 teams and it was accepted as a success you could move to 28 before moving to 32 without particularly affecting the tournament model.

But that's all moot until we get to 24 teams first.

Posts: 703
Joined: Fri, 15 Aug 2014, 13:57

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby Raven » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 17:29

Why complicate things when they could be easier....

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: 2023 Draw, Thoughts?

Postby victorsra » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 17:41

I prefere 6 groups of 4. It works for UEFA and worked once for FIFA. Not perfect, but easier.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests