Your WC 2013 Format

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Ah yep, 17, got it now.

Lets hope the RFL can do some good work here. They seem like a "can do" administration so lets hope they set high (but reasonably achievable) goals for the World Cup.

I just hope we get as many games on FTA here in Aus as possible. Its not unreasonable to have 2 matches a night (on weekends) dedicated to the WC when its on. Its late night after all.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Also, it should be debated. Teams will be seeded, should they be seeded based on World rankings or previous World Cup performances? Because the highest seed usually has the easier run through. (note the amount of times its been NZ vs Eng to play Aus in a final of almost every tournament in the last 20 years. How often do we see Aus vs Eng or NZ to play the other in the final?)

 

[CQ Italia]

Wouldn't be confident in placing Lebanon as "sure things" to qualify.

 

[donny donny]

Every team would have to play 6 games to reach the final but it does require an extra round because of uneven group numbers and more matches overall than other formats.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Hmm.

 

[docbrown]

Re: donny donny's post

I love the graphics but the problems I see are the time line is potentially 8 weeks or 6 weeks condensed with mid-week games (which could be a bigger problem). Also 2 of the Top 5 teams are easily knocked out in the super group which you'll likely find out in Round 3 or 4 who they are. Then in Week 1 of the finals A2 v A3 is another repeat game of a pool round match.

Here's the format I proposed for 2017 in Australasia but England could use it as well:

I'd rather like to see the teams pooled as follow by rank/qualification:

Pool A - Teams ranked 1,3,5,7
Pool B - Teams ranked 2,4,6,8
Pool C - Teams ranked 9,11,13
Pool D - Teams ranked 10,12,14

So a possible pool grouping would be (rankings just off the top of my head as an example):
Pool A - Australia, England, Papua New Guinea, Ireland
Pool B - New Zealand, Fiji, France, Tonga
Pool C - Samoa, Scotland, Wales
Pool D - Lebanon, Russia, United States

Each pool team plays each other once over 18 games in total - over 3 weeks. A bonus point system can be used so:

5 pts - Win by 13+
4 pts - Win
3 pts - Extra time win
2 pts - Draw
1 pt - Extra time loss
0 pts - Loss
-1 pt - Loss by 13+

The reason being that from the pools the qualifiers would be
Pool A - Top 2 Teams
Pool B - Top 2 Teams
Pool C - Top Team
Pool D - Top Team

plus the next 2 highest teams on points from pools A & B, which is why bonus points and minus points come into play. So in theory, all four teams from Pool A or B can qualify, or 3 from each pool. It means the bottom ranked teams in Pools A & B are also effectively playing against each other for a spot. No need for an awkward super pool and the games are still all high quality. So 6 of the Top 8 and 2 of the bottom 6 teams qualify.

Then the final team games over 3 weeks ranked as follows:

SF#1: A1 v D1
SF#2: B1 v C1
SF#3: A2 v Wildcard 2
SF#4: B2 v Wildcard 1

The two wild card games should be swapped pools where possible to avoid a repeat match

Then:
SF#5: SF1 v SF4
SF#6: SF2 v SF3

Then:
Third place playoff: losers of SF#5 & SF#6
World Cup match: winners of SF#5 v SF#6

6 weeks cup format, 26 games, still has close ranked pool matches


This said, I think it would be smart of England to play the Scotland, Wales, France and lesser Ireland pool games in those countries in order to maximise crowds and revenues. So 1 in Ireland, 3 in France, 1 in Scotland, 2 in Wales, 11 in England.

 

[Springs]

Not bad but keep the normal 2-1-0 points system.

And please do not have games in Ireland and Scotland this time. They struggle to draw 1,000 fans. By all means have Wales and France home games in Wales and France, but for others stick to the Northern heartlands.