What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

RLWC2021 - Exclusively England/Capacity Target Revised

morningstar

Juniors
Messages
826
Confirmed all games in England, goodbye supergroups?, expected announcement dates and organisers have apparently lost 250k people...

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-leag...rld-cup-set-to-be-held-exclusively-in-england

The 2021 Rugby League World Cup is set to be played exclusively in England, tournament director Jon Dutton has revealed.

Previous World Cups hosted by the Rugby Football League in 1995, 2000 and 2013 included fixtures in France, Wales and Ireland but government funding will dictate a change in policy for 2021.

Organisers will also break with tradition by not starting the tournament with a clash between England and Australia.

"I think it's fair to say we won't be going to France," said Dutton. "The £25m that has come into the tournament is money for England.

"It's a devolved budget. So it's the same with Ireland and Wales. If a really compelling bid comes to the table, we will have a real good look at it but I don't anticipate that will be the case.

There will be a total of 65 matches in 2021, including women and wheelchair events over five weeks but organisers envisage 14 venues for the 31 fixtures for the men's tournament, down from 21 in 2013.

Dutton says London will definitely stage games and hints that fixtures could also be held in the seven major cities across the north.

The sport in 1895 was born in the north and we should be really proud of our heritage so we've got to find the right balance between celebrating that and also getting a cut-through across the rest of England," he said.

Dutton says the emphasis will be moving venues from towns into cities and into bigger stadia as organisers look to reach a target audience of three-quarters of a million.

There is a July 31 deadline for applications to act as hosts while a decision will be made in December and an announcement next January.

The number of teams will be up by two to 16 and Dutton envisages four pools of four.

"It is for the International Federation to decide but our preference will be for the top four nations, including Tonga, to be the seeded teams," he added.

Qualifying will be completed by November 2019.
 
Last edited:

Springs09

Juniors
Messages
1,903
Not surprised they revised the target after our underwhelming World Cup.

There's really no need for super pools now as teams 4-16 can be wildly different any given year. For example Scotland drawing with NZ then getting smashed 74-6 the next year. Will also get rid of the silly situation where a team can make the semis without winning a game like Samoa last year.

Simple seeded pools could be:
Pool A - Australia, Papua New Guinea, Euro Playoff 2, Euro Playoff 3
Pool B - England, Samoa, Euro Playoff 1, Americas
Pool C - Tonga, New Zealand, Euro Cup 2, Play-off Winner
Pool D - Fiji, Lebanon, Euro Cup 1, Euro Playoff 4

Which going by form would be
Pool A - Australia, Papua New Guinea, Scotland, Italy
Pool B - England, Samoa, Wales, USA
Pool C - Tonga, New Zealand, Ireland, Cook Islands
Pool D - Fiji, Lebanon, France, Serbia
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
Not fussed if they don't take any games out of England, England has enough good cities and venues. Pity if its all in the heartlands other than a token London game though

A target of 750,000 total attendance is double what 2017 achieved
 

Pommy

Coach
Messages
14,657
It would be nice to see a game in France or Cardiff.
I feel Glasgow, Edinburgh or Dublin would probably just be replay of Cairns and Townsville.
If the money has been fronted by a devolved agency then there’s not much that can be done to move games anyway.
 

jim_57

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
4,290
I would have liked to see them wait another World Cup before ditching the Super groups, or adjusting it to one super group, 2 normal and a weaker group (3,2,2,1 qualifier for quarters).

If they go with no super groups I'd hope they'll at least get a bit creative to benifit the draw. Having England in a group with Serbia, Cook Islands and USA has the potential to get the tournament off to a very underwhelming start..

England, Ireland, PNG/Fiji +1

Australia, PNG/Fiji, +2

New Zealand + 3

Tonga, Samoa + 2

A bit of creative manouvering as to garuentee some attractive games in the pools. England open against Ireland who looked their strongest local rival at the last World Cup and play up the rivalry between the nations in general. Then PNG/Fiji leaves a competitive game up the sleeve before finals.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
The wikipedia page has Newcastle, London, Coventry and Cornwall as shortlisted venues off the m62 corridor.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
If they go with no super groups I'd hope they'll at least get a bit creative to benifit the draw. Having England in a group with Serbia, Cook Islands and USA has the potential to get the tournament off to a very underwhelming start.

That would be very poor seeding and should be basically impossible.

The best way to seed fairly is fairly simple, and results in decent matchups

Step 1.
Divide the 16 teams into 4 tiers by RLIF rankings
1 Australia, New Zealand, England, Tonga
2 Fiji, Samoa, Scotland, France
3 Lebanon, PNG, Ireland, Wales
4 Italy, USA, Serbia, Cook Islands
(based on current rankings, obviously this has a lot of room to change over the next 3 years)
The tier 1 teams are seeded into separate pools A B C D

A. England (hosts)
B. Australia
C. New Zealand
D. Tonga

Optional Step 2.
Maximum once per tier and once per pool, place marquee matchups

A. England, (tier 2), Ireland, (tier 4)
B. Australia, (tier 2), (tier 3), (tier 4)
C. New Zealand, (tier 2), (tier 3), Cook Islands
D. Tonga, Samoa, (tier 3), (tier 4)

Step 3.
Randomly draw the remaining places by tier to determine the final groupings.

A. England, France, Ireland, Italy
B. Australia, Fiji, Lebanon, USA
C. New Zealand, Scotland, PNG, Cook Islands
D. Tonga, Samoa, Wales, Serbia

There are some good groups in this example: France Ireland and Italy would be a tight contest for the quarters and they might even give England a scare on a good day.
Fiji and Lebanon would love a crack at Australia.
If NZs poor form run continues there's no reason why someone like PNG couldn't give them a red hot go (or Scotland could return to 2016 form).

Without a contrived system like the Super Pools it's impossible to avoid Australia spanking 1 or 2 or 4 teams, and even with one it still happens.

Other World Cups don't give a shit about floggings in the group stages and nor should we. The All Blacks still regularly put up 100s. The difference between the sports is we shit the bed and shrink our World Cup while they double down on investment and eventually get a return (Japan beating South Africa in 2015 for example)
 

morningstar

Juniors
Messages
826
I’d base the tier one and two seeds on RLWC17’s quarter finalists. They are the only automatic qualifiers anyway and there are some good grudge matches in there.

No dramas if they doctor the draw either. At a minimum they should be looking to keep the Americas/final european qualifier away from the Kangaroos.
 

jim_57

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
4,290
That would be very poor seeding and should be basically impossible.

The best way to seed fairly is fairly simple, and results in decent matchups

Step 1.
Divide the 16 teams into 4 tiers by RLIF rankings
1 Australia, New Zealand, England, Tonga
2 Fiji, Samoa, Scotland, France
3 Lebanon, PNG, Ireland, Wales
4 Italy, USA, Serbia, Cook Islands
(based on current rankings, obviously this has a lot of room to change over the next 3 years)
The tier 1 teams are seeded into separate pools A B C D

A. England (hosts)
B. Australia
C. New Zealand
D. Tonga

Optional Step 2.
Maximum once per tier and once per pool, place marquee matchups

A. England, (tier 2), Ireland, (tier 4)
B. Australia, (tier 2), (tier 3), (tier 4)
C. New Zealand, (tier 2), (tier 3), Cook Islands
D. Tonga, Samoa, (tier 3), (tier 4)

Step 3.
Randomly draw the remaining places by tier to determine the final groupings.

A. England, France, Ireland, Italy
B. Australia, Fiji, Lebanon, USA
C. New Zealand, Scotland, PNG, Cook Islands
D. Tonga, Samoa, Wales, Serbia

There are some good groups in this example: France Ireland and Italy would be a tight contest for the quarters and they might even give England a scare on a good day.
Fiji and Lebanon would love a crack at Australia.
If NZs poor form run continues there's no reason why someone like PNG couldn't give them a red hot go (or Scotland could return to 2016 form).

Without a contrived system like the Super Pools it's impossible to avoid Australia spanking 1 or 2 or 4 teams, and even with one it still happens.

Other World Cups don't give a shit about floggings in the group stages and nor should we. The All Blacks still regularly put up 100s. The difference between the sports is we shit the bed and shrink our World Cup while they double down on investment and eventually get a return (Japan beating South Africa in 2015 for example)

I was being a touch dramatic with that hypothetical, but I'd still line up some "marquee" games if possible for England. I'd be interested to see what they could do with something like England Vs Ireland as the opening game at a 50k+ venue.

If they're realistic about 750k total then every England game should be aiming for 40k+ in my opinion. Targets as of now should be something like this.

Opener - 50k
2× England Pool games - 40k each
England Quarter - 40k
England Semi - 50k
Other Semi - 30k (Or 80k for a double header)
Final - 70k+ (Depending on venue)

That leaves all other games to average 17.9k or higher to achieve the 750 mark.
 
Last edited:

BuderusIsaBeast

Juniors
Messages
554
I think no super groups has the potential to be a disaster. I think we sometimes underestimate how much of a gap there is between some countries.

For example Fiji are arguable the best team in that second group of 4. Yet in the last 2 world cups Australia has beaten 64 to 0 and 54 to 6. Imagine if that’s the closest type of game in Australia’s group. Imagine what they would do to a USA or Serbia. I think England would be similar if they continue to improve. Your relying on a Scotland vs NZ miracle or some countries to gain quality heritage players to make the group stages competive.

I know union has blowouts in the group stages aswell but they also have atleast 1 genuine marquee game in each group.
 

jim_57

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
4,290
I think no super groups has the potential to be a disaster. I think we sometimes underestimate how much of a gap there is between some countries.

For example Fiji are arguable the best team in that second group of 4. Yet in the last 2 world cups Australia has beaten 64 to 0 and 54 to 6. Imagine if that’s the closest type of game in Australia’s group. Imagine what they would do to a USA or Serbia. I think England would be similar if they continue to improve. Your relying on a Scotland vs NZ miracle or some countries to gain quality heritage players to make the group stages competive.

I know union has blowouts in the group stages aswell but they also have atleast 1 genuine marquee game in each group.

That's the thing, Soccer and Union may have blowouts but it isn't often a team demolishes every team in a group, there is normally a closer match up. If Australia don't have England, NZ or Tonga in their group of 4 it's likely they'll go in to the quarters 150+ points scored and probably less than 10 against. Not the end of the world but I would have held on to the super pool for another World Cup at least. Alternatively go to a 3,2,2,1 systemas an in between.
 

Springs09

Juniors
Messages
1,903
I honestly think England v Samoa or Tonga would be a bigger drawcard than England v Ireland, especially if Tonga & Samoa continue to improve.

There is really no difference between super pools and no super pools now. Australia flogging Fiji all the time means nothing. They had lowest-ranked Lebanon in Australia's 'super pool' last year. The only worry for 100+ points is if Australia come up against someone like Serbia or USA.

You could create super pools based on rankings like:
A - 1, 3, 5, 9 - Australia, England, Fiji, Lebanon
2 - 2, 4, 6, 10 - New Zealand, Tonga, Samoa, Papua New Guinea

And the floggings can still turn out just as bad. Lebanon were great last World Cup but this World Cup is away from Australia and they might not have Moses & co nor Fittler. The nature of these teams is that they can go from being competitive to being flogged by 80 in the space of a year. Hence why a 'super pool' of Australia, England, Fiji & Lebanon isn't much different from a regular seeded pool I had above like Australia, Papua New Guinea, Scotland & Italy.

Another advantage is without England and Australia playing each other we have a couple more higher-drawing games as hopefully every England game will sell out and Australia usually draws well in England.
 

Springs09

Juniors
Messages
1,903
Anyway what venues would you choose?

Wembley Stadium, London - Final
Old Trafford, Manchester - Opener + Semi
London Stadium - England Pool Match
City of Manchester Stadium
Anfield, Liverpool - Semi
St James Park, Newcastle - England Pool Match
Bramall Lane, Sheffield
KCOM Stadium, Hull
DW Stadium, Wigan
John Smith's Stadium, Huddersfield
Headingley Stadium, Leeds
Langtree Park, St Helens
Halliwell Jones Stadium, Warrington
Cornwall Stadium, Threemilestone

Leaving out Coventry and Doncaster from the shortlist.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
I'd have Coventry in for sure, get some attention in the midlands, and leave out Manchester Stadium (Old Trafford is enough in Manchester)
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
I think no super groups has the potential to be a disaster. I think we sometimes underestimate how much of a gap there is between some countries.

For example Fiji are arguable the best team in that second group of 4. Yet in the last 2 world cups Australia has beaten 64 to 0 and 54 to 6. Imagine if that’s the closest type of game in Australia’s group. Imagine what they would do to a USA or Serbia. I think England would be similar if they continue to improve. Your relying on a Scotland vs NZ miracle or some countries to gain quality heritage players to make the group stages competive.

I know union has blowouts in the group stages aswell but they also have atleast 1 genuine marquee game in each group.

That's the thing, Soccer and Union may have blowouts but it isn't often a team demolishes every team in a group, there is normally a closer match up. If Australia don't have England, NZ or Tonga in their group of 4 it's likely they'll go in to the quarters 150+ points scored and probably less than 10 against. Not the end of the world but I would have held on to the super pool for another World Cup at least. Alternatively go to a 3,2,2,1 systemas an in between.

In 2007, merely 2 World Cups ago, the All Blacks went through their group with 309 for 35 against
Italy 76-14
Portugal 108-13
Scotland 40-0
Romania 85-8

In the previous iteration in 2003, Australia knocked up a 90 and 142 in the pools, England an 84 and a 111, and NZ went 53, 68, 70, 91.

In 1999, NZ put 100 on Italy and England 100 on Tonga while Japan got spanked by everyone.

The Rugby League World Cup is currently at best (this is even a stretch) a comparable event to the 1995 Rugby World Cup (where NZ put 145 points on Japan).
Out international development should be benchmarked against early 90s Union, not current Union or Soccer.

The difference is, they keep investing, we wring our hands and make up contrived formats and keep the size down.
Fans don't give a shit about blowouts or even eligibility IF they can see international teams playing meaningful games year in year out.
 

Burns

First Grade
Messages
6,037
The issue with that 4N was all on the RFL. Games played on Bonfire Night and at odd venues (Hull KR’s ground and that awful Scotland one they played at)
 

BuderusIsaBeast

Juniors
Messages
554
In 2007, merely 2 World Cups ago, the All Blacks went through their group with 309 for 35 against
Italy 76-14
Portugal 108-13
Scotland 40-0
Romania 85-8

In the previous iteration in 2003, Australia knocked up a 90 and 142 in the pools, England an 84 and a 111, and NZ went 53, 68, 70, 91.

In 1999, NZ put 100 on Italy and England 100 on Tonga while Japan got spanked by everyone.

The Rugby League World Cup is currently at best (this is even a stretch) a comparable event to the 1995 Rugby World Cup (where NZ put 145 points on Japan).
Out international development should be benchmarked against early 90s Union, not current Union or Soccer.

The difference is, they keep investing, we wring our hands and make up contrived formats and keep the size down.
Fans don't give a shit about blowouts or even eligibility IF they can see international teams playing meaningful games year in year out.

You make some very good points but unfortunately we both no rugby league is marked far harder with our one sided games then union.

While NZ, were hammering there opponents in the 2007 group stages, their difference is the other groups had marquee games to start the tournament. In 2007 these were the likes of England vs SA, Australia vs Wales, and the trio of games between France. Argentina and Ireland.

I’m worried if we start with no super group not only will we have a number of 1 sided games, but there will be few games for fans to really look forward to in the opening weeks.

I agree with you about rugby league needs to continue investing in the international game. However sadly these same issues continue to exist from 2008. A number of countries are still a long way behind and still full of heritage players. I also have to disagree about fans not caring about eligibility but that is a different discussion for another day
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top