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!

USA and Canada to host RLWC2025

PARRA_FAN

Coach
Messages
16,988
I could be wrong but is this the first time a World Cup event has been confirmed before two World Cups haven't even been played yet?

Its amazing how far International RL has come and it can only get better.
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,402
Jeez I'd like to see Russia make it in 2025.Imagine a game between the Yanks and the Russians.Even the fans would need helmets.Or heaven forbid the Ukraine v Russia.
Better to play the sport hard and tough on the field, than throwing missiles that hurt ,off it.
I agree with two teams form the Americas.

I still can't figure why rugby league hasn't,pushed the code in places like Cuba.They like contact sports ,boxing in particular.
 

Evil Homer

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,178
I could be wrong but is this the first time a World Cup event has been confirmed before two World Cups haven't even been played yet?

Its amazing how far International RL has come and it can only get better.
9 years is the longest timeframe I can remember for any sporting event being announced. They haven't even announced the host of the 2024 Olympics yet. It's pointless even discussing the tournament at this stage because of how far away it is. To put it into context, 9 years ago George Bush was president and nobody had heard of Barack Obama. In RL terms we probably have 5x as many countries playing the sport now as we did then.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
9 years is the longest timeframe I can remember for any sporting event being announced. They haven't even announced the host of the 2024 Olympics yet. It's pointless even discussing the tournament at this stage because of how far away it is. To put it into context, 9 years ago George Bush was president and nobody had heard of Barack Obama. In RL terms we probably have 5x as many countries playing the sport now as we did then.

9 years is too long for this to be the norm. But this was an irregular event for a few reasons, so...
Hopefully the 2029 WC is announced somewhere around 2023-24. .
 

taste2taste

Juniors
Messages
1,779
Since there's 9 years and very few details at this point we should be able to have some fun speculating and making wishlists :D

Wish List ... or fantasy list... Dana White see's a game of NRL and decides its better than UFC, with the help of a TV contract from CBS he sets up USA's fist professional League comp :cool:
 

Pommy

Coach
Messages
14,657
Here's top of my Wishlist to make the sport a bit more professional 9 years to develop enough referees to ensure they are neutral at every game.
Even for Army Navy they manage to get the RAF to ref.
 

jim_57

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
4,290
Be very interesting to see which way they go in regards to cities & stadiums. As mentioned early I'd like to see them go with a core group of cities to target, with multiple games in each.

Absolute musts for the Tournament
New York
Philadelphia
Washington DC
Chicago
Orlando
LA
Toronto

Then you have any number of big/huge cities to pick from. A few games in Texas would be big.. San Fran, Detroit, Montreal, Jacksonville/Atlanta/Boston etc that have a RL presence already. Options are endless really and truly exciting as a RL fan to be realistically talking about this.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
Keep travel relatively down by regionally focusing 3 of the pools:
B West coast
C Central
D East coast

Pool A features one of the big boys - lets say England for the bigger rivalry factor - and both USA and Canada. And a 4th team France, for similar reasons.
You'd play your 6 games across the 2 countries, with Canada getting 3 home games

Canada v England @ Vancouver
USA v France @ New Orleans

Canada v USA @ Toronto
England v France @ San Francisco

Canada v France @ Montreal
USA v England @ Boston
 
Messages
14,139
If Russia did manage to make it you'd have to have them against the US. Not only for historical reasons but also because it should give the home side a win. I'd try to keep the big three away from them. In fact you'd be doing as much as possible to rig the draw so at least one of the American teams got to the quarters. Put them in together with the two weakest teams, especially if they're someone like Russia.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
If Russia did manage to make it you'd have to have them against the US. Not only for historical reasons but also because it should give the home side a win. I'd try to keep the big three away from them. In fact you'd be doing as much as possible to rig the draw so at least one of the American teams got to the quarters. Put them in together with the two weakest teams, especially if they're someone like Russia.

In the above example i'd Super pool it (3 finals spots) so that 1 of them definitely goes through.
I picked England and France as the most likely to draw a crowd .

The alternative, as you say, is to move away from the super pool concept and put them in a group that they are likely to qualify through. I would be very hesitant to outright rig the draw in their favour - it is a World Cup not a mickey mouse comp, despite what some think.
If you have a pool that is purposely seeded low, for a fair competition it should only worth 1 finals spot. I think this matters, you might not.

Best example I can do:
A (3)
Australia
New Zealand
Fiji
Scotland

B (2)
England
France
Wales
Lebanon

C (2)
Samoa
Ireland
PNG
Tonga

D (1)
USA
Canada
Italy
Serbia
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
An evenly seeded, 2-2-2-2 format could have them grouped with someone like

4th ranked team - Samoa/France
8th ranked team - Ireland/Wales/Scotland
 
Messages
14,139
In the above example i'd Super pool it (3 finals spots) so that 1 of them definitely goes through.
I picked England and France as the most likely to draw a crowd .

The alternative, as you say, is to move away from the super pool concept and put them in a group that they are likely to qualify through. I would be very hesitant to outright rig the draw in their favour - it is a World Cup not a mickey mouse comp, despite what some think.
If you have a pool that is purposely seeded low, for a fair competition it should only worth 1 finals spot. I think this matters, you might not.

Best example I can do:
A (3)
Australia
New Zealand
Fiji
Scotland

B (2)
England
France
Wales
Lebanon

C (2)
Samoa
Ireland
PNG
Tonga

D (1)
USA
Canada
Italy
Serbia
If it's 16 teams I don't see how you can have a super pool. It has to be four pools of four with two going through from each, like 2000. That's one of the big pluses of going to 16; it does away with the unequal and contrived 14 teams system we have now. Even if we still contrive it a bit.

By rig I mean put the two American teams in a pool with at least one weak team and it should see at least one of them get though. You could even put them in with two weak sides. Realistically, we are already doing the same next year and did the same in 2013. In 2013 the draw was clearly weighted to favour Wales to help them make the quarters at Wrexham, and failed. Next year the draw favours PNG in particular. It's nothing new.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
If it's 16 teams I don't see how you can have a super pool. It has to be four pools of four with two going through from each, like 2000. That's one of the big pluses of going to 16; it does away with the unequal and contrived 14 teams system we have now. Even if we still contrive it a bit.

By rig I mean put the two American teams in a pool with at least one weak team and it should see at least one of them get though. You could even put them in with two weak sides. Realistically, we are already doing the same next year and did the same in 2013. In 2013 the draw was clearly weighted to favour Wales to help them make the quarters at Wrexham, and failed. Next year the draw favours PNG in particular. It's nothing new.

Tbh if you use RLIF rankings as seedings, all 3 of PNGs opponents are higher than them. Which is obviously ridiculous, but it's at least a justifiable system.

A 16 weighted format would be 3-2-2-1. So you'd have a Super pool and a Plod pool. I don't mind weighted pools as long as there is a logical and fair seeding behind it.

Placing them with the 2 weakest teams, one of them would likely be Tonga/Wales/Italy/Lebanon, the other Serbia or Russia. Still pretty tough competition. Probably wouldnt look too bad. Kind of shafts the likes of Fiji and Wales or whatever top 8 gets grouped with Australia to accomodate it
 

Pommy

Coach
Messages
14,657
If Russia did manage to make it you'd have to have them against the US. Not only for historical reasons but also because it should give the home side a win. I'd try to keep the big three away from them. In fact you'd be doing as much as possible to rig the draw so at least one of the American teams got to the quarters. Put them in together with the two weakest teams, especially if they're someone like Russia.

If this competition is ever to be taken seriously teams should be seeded and the rest left to the luck of the draw rather than trying to engineer certain games and results.
 
Messages
14,139
Nah. Can't have weighted pools, especially when you're taking it to a new market. It needs to make complete sense and anything other than consistent pools would be confusing and lead to questions.

The good thing about having it in a new market is we don't necessarily have to have two of the big three together. Of course by 2025 I'd hope the big three aren't way ahead of the next few anyway. We need an Australia v England or Australia v NZ game early in the tournament when it's in Australia or England, but in the US these would not necessarily be the biggest games. USA v Russia or USA v Canada would be the big games. We could keep the big three apart in the pools, which is the way it should be anyway if we're fair dinkum. That still allows the teams pooled with them a chance to get through if they're good enough.

So you'd have:

Australia and three others
NZ and three others
England and three others
USA, Canada and two weak/well known countries like Russia.

The best teams will still make the semis but USA or Canada would be given a leg up to at least make the quarters.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
Australia Fiji PNG Scotland

New Zealand Samoa Tonga Lebanon

England France Ireland Wales

USA Canada Italy Russia
 

flamin

Juniors
Messages
2,046
Would you put Canada and USA in the same pool though? I get that it's a big rivalry, especially in Canada, but if you put them together that's one less game featuring a home team and the odds of them both making it to the finals are reduced significantly.
 
Messages
14,139
If this competition is ever to be taken seriously teams should be seeded and the rest left to the luck of the draw rather than trying to engineer certain games and results.
No. If it's to be taken seriously it needs big games, big crowds and big interest. Leaving it to luck and having the USA v Cook Islands or something is killing any hope of success in a new market like the US. Or having them play the Roos first up and lose by 60.

There's far bigger problems with the credibility of the event than placing teams in pools to maximise crowds.
 
Messages
14,139
Would you put Canada and USA in the same pool though? I get that it's a big rivalry, especially in Canada, but if you put them together that's one less game featuring a home team and the odds of them both making it to the finals are reduced significantly.
I'd say the odds of one of them making it significantly increases and the odds of them both getting through would also be higher if you did it like I've suggested and put them in a weak pool. Unless a lot changes, the USA and Canada will be among the lowest ranked teams in the tournament. They're not likely to both get through in separate pools. They're far more likely to both miss out.

And a USA v Canada game in a big tournament could be huge and worth giving up a home game for either. A tournament in North America is going to hang on American and Canadian fans with little rugby knowledge attending games and we are going to have to give them as much reason as possible to do so. To me, that means A. creating a draw that gives them the best chance of success and B. creating fixtures against natural and well-known rivals like each other, Russia, maybe France or Ireland.
 

Pommy

Coach
Messages
14,657
No. If it's to be taken seriously it needs big games, big crowds and big interest. Leaving it to luck and having the USA v Cook Islands or something is killing any hope of success in a new market like the US. Or having them play the Roos first up and lose by 60.

There's far bigger problems with the credibility of the event than placing teams in pools to maximise crowds.

Well we will have to disagree.
 

Latest posts

Top