2008 World Cup Details - Terrible News

[League Freak™]

I think its good that they are looking to get actual Rugby League playing nations involved.

 

[knights 2004]

heres my thoughts.
since its 10 teams and 5 are getting auto qual, the other 5 should gain entry via two qualification comps.

a pacific comp - tonga samoa etc etc
an a euro comp - wales ireland etc etc
(just chuck america and the other weird ass countries into either one of these comps)
top 2 teams from each comp gain entry + 1 extra team (3rd plays 3rd from each comp)

now in my opinion, the WC will contain

Australia
NZ
Eng
France
PNG
+
Wales
Ireland
Tonga
Samoa
(insert some other team here)

it will have to be 2 pools of 5 or 2 of 3 and 1 of 4

Opening game at Aussie Stadium

Pool matches in newcastle, townsville, sydney suburban grounds like parra, central coast, gold coast, perth, melb, brisbane, some in NZ.

Final to be played at Suncorp Stadium (we would sell 52 000 in brisbane but not 83 000 for telstra, and its better to have a full ground)

 

[ucantseeme]

12 teams would not sacrifice quality lebanon,fiji,scotland would not be much behind no 8 9 10

That's true, but you have to think about the financial side of it. The tournament needs to be viable and selling tickets for a Fiji vs Scotland game won't be easy. In fact selling tickets for any of the games that don't involve the big 3 will be tough as the goodwill of the league community only extends so far. Not to mention the ratings if all the games are shown on free-to-air TV.

Keep in mind these lesser nations are amateurs (ie. aren't paid to play) and would have to take time off work/study and find money to come out here for (most likely) one game then go home.

 

[Copa]

Good god!!!! Some teams will have to compete hard to get a place... how dare they do that for a world cup!

 

[nadera78]

I don't get some people. The RLIF is feedng us s**t, but apparently we should be happy just to be fed!

We all want a successful comp, and we want qualifiers and competitive teams on the filed come the main tournament. So why on earth can the RL authorities not take the simple, sensible option of having 12 teams playing in a balanced, organised comp? It's not that bloody difficult.

The 2000 RLWC was a disaster for a number of reasons, terrible planning, the worst autumn weather in decades, an absolutely disgaceful series of attacks on our game by the rahrah's and their lackies in the media. But most of the opportunities for those attacks were presented to them by RL itself with a poorly planned and implemented tournament.

Now the RLIF have shat themselves and bottled out of having a proper tournament. This has got lazy-arse RL stamped on it in big letters. They just simply can't be bothered to put on a proper show, that would require some action, commitment and determination.

 

[BatiFan]

That's true, but you have to think about the financial side of it. The tournament needs to be viable and selling tickets for a Fiji vs Scotland game won't be easy. In fact selling tickets for any of the games that don't involve the big 3 will be tough as the goodwill of the league community only extends so far. Not to mention the ratings if all the games are shown on free-to-air TV.

Keep in mind these lesser nations are amateurs (ie. aren't paid to play) and would have to take time off work/study and find money to come out here for (most likely) one game then go home.

Are you for real? Do you know how many Fijian, Samoan, Lebanese, Italian etc. ex pats there are in Sydney??? If you are trying to tell people on this forum that a Lebanon vs Fiji game played at Parramatta Stadium featuring the likes of Hazem El Masri, Robbie Farrah, Wes Naiqama, John Sutton etc. would not fill to near capacity you are crazy. Sure you wouldnt fill Telsta or Aussie Stadiums, but you wouldnt expact that would you. Samoa vs Tonga at Campbelltown or Penrith with a proper build up and promotion and you fill both those stadiums.

Australia's multi-cultrualism and league loving public would allow for more nations to be supported. However, our so called expert RLIF which consits of a whopping 4 people, with 2 from OZ, one each from NZ and England have decided in the best interests of themselves to go with 10. We all cant reverse the decision and although we all would like to see more nations involved, it will be good to see more than just 3 teams (OZ, NZ, GB) playing come 2008.

 

[ucantseeme]

sensible option of having 12 teams playing in a balanced, organised comp

Some of you just don't get it. RLWC is a 3 horse race so 10 teams makes sense both credibilty wise & money wise. RUWC was a 5 horse race so they could have more teams in their tournament. Soccer WC is probably a 10 horse race so they have 32 teams in their tournament.

It's kind of like the A-League where they only have 8 teams playing. They could have gone for more but in order to have a tight and viable comp, 8 was the best option.

If the 2008 RLWC is successful & the currents minnows show signs of great improvement then the next RLWC can be expanded but at the moment 10 is fine.

 

[Ari Gold]

I don't get some people. The RLIF is feedng us s**t, but apparently we should be happy just to be fed!

We all want a successful comp, and we want qualifiers and competitive teams on the filed come the main tournament. So why on earth can the RL authorities not take the simple, sensible option of having 12 teams playing in a balanced, organised comp? It's not that bloody difficult.

The 2000 RLWC was a disaster for a number of reasons, terrible planning, the worst autumn weather in decades, an absolutely disgaceful series of attacks on our game by the rahrah's and their lackies in the media. But most of the opportunities for those attacks were presented to them by RL itself with a poorly planned and implemented tournament.

Now the RLIF have shat themselves and bottled out of having a proper tournament. This has got lazy-arse RL stamped on it in big letters. They just simply can't be bothered to put on a proper show, that would require some action, commitment and determination.

Look outside your stupid little square, just because you think that 12 teams is the best option, it doesnt mean the tournament won't be succesful and well organised.

 

[griff]

10 teams can work, 12 teams could have worked, even 16 teams could have worked if done right.

I think this is a safety first option but that's fine. Hopefully there will be a decent geographical spread of competitors and the minnows get a realistic chance to qualify and the qualification is an impetus to international development.

 

[Dread]

Anyone who thinks 'the more teams the merrier' is completely deluded about the international state of our game and needs to take a serious look at themself.

10 teams. None of these pseudo international efforts like Greece or Malta. f**king beautiful.

 

[JW]

Anyone who thinks 'the more teams the merrier' is completely deluded about the international state of our game and needs to take a serious look at themself.

10 teams. None of these pseudo international efforts like Greece or Malta. f**king beautiful.

Agreed 100%.

 

[Polynesian Warrior]

If the Poms want any chance at winning they will play as a united GB & I team. If the RLWC was going on now how would you rate their chances if they took out Brian Carney, Keiron Cunningham, Iestyn Harris and called themselves England. Besides having teams like Scotland and Ireland featuring with some NRL ring-ins whose surnames start with "Mc" would damage the integrity of the tournament not to mention weakening GB to the point where instead of a 3 horse race it becomes a 2 horse race, between NZ & OZ.

Similarly if the Kiwis were split into NZ and NZ Maori and other Polynesian teams it would weaken NZ to the point where OZ are assured of victory no matter what. GB and NZ need to be at full strength to have even a slight chance of beating OZ.



A 10 team tournament is the smartest way to go. If you have more than that you will have cricket scores which will kill the integrity of the tournament. Remember how everyone on this forum mocked the integrity of the RUnion WC when OZ beat Namibia 142-0. It would be the same for league except more savage as league doesnt have the cash for comment deals set up with various media outlets to shield it.

Let's be honest, no matter how many teams they have only 3 are capable of winning. It's the Tri-Nations with 7 new challengers, the Dec-Nations.

You know, like triathlon and Decathlon.....;-)

Looks like the IRLF took the easier route . Bugger the rest and lets go straight for the Quater finals .
Union made a profit with all those cricket scores and I think league could also make a profit even with cricket scores .
Even the kangaroo's are capable of putting on cricket scores against NZ and England .
But they should have invited the rest to join in the celebrations .

Miss oppotunity I think !

 

[Pig Champion]

Trouble is PW, when it comes to RL there are too many out there who would see cricket scores in RL as a reason to deride the WC and I'm just talking about the RL press.

I was a believer in "Big is Better" but now I think get this RLWC right, develop qualifiers, make a clear and transparent structure and pathway for the future and hopefully stick to it.

I think more emphasis should be put on the qualification process and eligibility to the tournament. It is being addressed but set it in stone. We have too much history of changing the goalposts.

 

[Ari Gold]

Looks like the IRLF took the easier route . Bugger the rest and lets go straight for the Quater finals .
Union made a profit with all those cricket scores and I think league could also make a profit even with cricket scores .
Even the kangaroo's are capable of putting on cricket scores against NZ and England .
But they should have invited the rest to join in the celebrations .

Miss oppotunity I think !

Just like the IRB missed the opportunity of japan hosting a Union World Cup..? ;-)

 

[Polynesian Warrior]

Just as well Japan didn't host the 2011 RWC .;-)


[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Though there has been widespread criticism of the decision to pick New Zealand to host the seventh World Cup, IRB officials say it was attention to detail and thorough planning, rather than an old boys' network, that saw New Zealand succeed. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Concerns about the Japanese union's ability to host a tournament the size of a World Cup, a poor track record promoting rugby in Asia and a poorly prepared initial bid tender counted against Japan.
[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3491652a1823,00.html
[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Im sure Japan would host RWC in the future when they are ready .
[/font]

 

[iggy plop]

Just as well Japan didn't host the 2011 RWC .;-)


[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Though there has been widespread criticism of the decision to pick New Zealand to host the seventh World Cup, IRB officials say it was attention to detail and thorough planning, rather than an old boys' network, that saw New Zealand succeed. [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Concerns about the Japanese union's ability to host a tournament the size of a World Cup, a poor track record promoting rugby in Asia and a poorly prepared initial bid tender counted against Japan.
[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3491652a1823,00.html
[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Im sure Japan would host RWC in the future when they are ready .
[/font]

Tell someone who cares.

 

[magpie_man]

my setup:

New Zealand
Australia
England
France
Papua New Guinnea

West-European Cup Winners: Wales
Pacific Cup Winner: Cook Islands
Mediteranean Cup Winners: Lebanon
East-European Cup Winners: Russia
Atlantic Cup Winners (i.e. USA, Jamaica, South Africa, Argentina): USA

Pool A - New Zealand, France, Wales, Lebanon, USA (10 games)
Pool B - Australia, England, PNG, Cook Islands, Russia (10 games)


Top 6 (2 games) - Pools A and B Leaders with week off: New Zealand, Australia

England v Wales - England
France v PNG - France

Semis (2 games) -

New Zealand v France - New Zealand
Australia v England - Australia

3rd Place (1 game) -

England v France

Final -

New Zealand v Australia

 

[screeny]

The qualification route (or desired route) seems superb and I can't understand people bagging it.

All the nations which play RL, and which have a domestic comp or set up, can be involved, so Serbia can have a tilt at the finals. That they know they have zero chance of qualification isn't important.

Also the likes of Malta etc will be tested. Are they for real or are they only making the right noises to try and get into the WC? If they aren't invited to qualify due to inferior criteria will they give up? Interesting to see.

The onyl thing that's a bit rubbish is 10 teams. A serious tournament just cannot have uneven groups...but sheesh, RL refuses to be serious sometimes.

 

[Polynesian Warrior]

Tell someone who cares.

Thanks for caring

 

[griff]

The onyl thing that's a bit rubbish is 10 teams. A serious tournament just cannot have uneven groups...but sheesh, RL refuses to be serious sometimes.

But the RUWC had uneven groups. Oh wait, now I see what you are saying :lol:

The qualification will be pointless if they have no chance in hell of making it. There needs to be a chance of a small team being able to win through - so I think the number of teams should have been higher.