2013WC Pools...

[Coastbloke]

Should there be a Super Pool as in the 2008 WC....??

Say there are 12 teams, would it be better to have a Super Pool, or perhaps the Big 3 in separate pools..Also should it be 3 or 4 pools..??

Like this (Some teams are speculative... )

Pool 1:

Australia
England
NZ
PNG

Pool 2:

France
Samoa
Ireland
Fiji

Pool 3:

Tonga
Wales
Sth Africa
United States or Scotland...

OR......

Pool 1:

Australia
PNG
Samoa


Pool 2:

NZ
Tonga
United States

Pool 3:

England
Wales
Ireland

Pool 4:

France
Fiji
Sth Africa or Scotland

 

[Non Terminator]

Where did Lebanon go?
Seriously, I did enjoy watching the big teams battle and the smaller teams battle.
The biggest win a team had in that competition was when Australia played Fiji. Maybe they're onto something there...

 

[Coastbloke]

Sorry, I looked into my crystal ball and alas, Lebanon didn't make the qualifiers...

 

[Non Terminator]

I would like to say we'd dig that up in years to come but we both know that won't happen. :lol:

 

[mono_mal]

I'd personally like to see:

POOL A @ ENGLAND (2 SEMI QUALIFIERS)
England
Australia
Fiji
Lebanon

POOL B @ WALES/SCOTLAND (1 SEMI)
New Zealand
Wales
Samoa
Scotland

POOL C @ FRANCE/IRELAND (1 SEMI)
France
Papua New Guinea
Ireland
Tonga

 

[Rovelli]

My idea.

Keep the Big 4. Top 2 to get a straight passage into the semis (let's say Aus, NZ). Would make NZ/Eng meaningful.

Other 8 get split into 2 pools of 4. Pool winners play the other teams that finish 3rd and 4th in the Big 4 (Eng, say PNG) for a spot in the semis.

Then semis and final.

23 games total.

 

[mattystans000]

Superpool should stay, regular blowouts detract from the interest in each match - especially in the australian market. However, like in the 2008RLWC the minnows should be given the opportunity once they rech the finals. I'd prefer something like the following format:

Pool A:
Australia
New Zealand
England
France (or 4N qualifier)

Pool B:
Fiji
Ireland
Tonga
Lebanon

Pool C:
Scotland
Samoa
Wales
Papua New Guinea

Pool B1 and Pool C1 face off in elimination semis against Pool A3 and A4 finishers. Winners face Pool A1 and A2 finshers in the semis. Possible room for playoffs for Pool B and C winners between top two nations in each pool, if wanted.

This would mean the top 4 nations are guaranteed starts in the finals but the incentive is there for them to finish as best as possible to gain an advantage in the semis. It also avoids the long road to the inevitability of the big 3 making the finals anyway, and still gives minnows a chance to test their arm against the top nations.

My idea.

Keep the Big 4. Top 2 to get a straight passage into the semis (let's say Aus, NZ). Would make NZ/Eng meaningful.

Other 8 get split into 2 pools of 4. Pool winners play the other teams that finish 3rd and 4th in the Big 4 (Eng, say PNG) for a spot in the semis.

Then semis and final.

23 games total.

beat me to it.

 

[Rovelli]

Hehe...great minds think alike tho.

Just thought 3 teams qualify out of 4 from the Super pool would only give one team in eight a chance to make the semis, which wouldn't be too fair I guess.

It was tough for PNG in 2008 to not have a chance to get into the semis after finishing last in the Super pool. Our proposed formats give them a chance to do so.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I think by 2013, Tonga and Samoa will be able to compete with the top 3. France maybe aswell.

Pool A
Australia
England
NZ
Wales

Pool B
France
Ireland
PNG
Tonga

Pool C
Scotland
Lebanon
Fiji
Samoa

Finals Round 1_______________Semi Finals_______________FINAL
3rd Pool A vs 1st Pool C-----2nd Pool A vs Winner Round 1----Winner Semi Final
1st Pool B vs 2nd Pool C-----1st Pool A vs Winner Round 2----Winner Semi Final

Thats 23 matches. Not including placing finals, but I really dont think we need them to be honest.

 

[Cheezel]

The Super Pool was a huge success. I think the RLIF will stick with it in 2013. It is the best way to maximise TV revenue for the event.

The fact that the teams in Pool 2 & 3 finished with a win a piece shows how competitive the next 6 nations are. This is a big improvement from the 2000 RLWC.

You would assume that the RLIF will want to spread the international feel and increase the amount of teams to 12 and open up a position for an Atlantic qualifier.

The finals format should see the top 2 in the Super Pool and top team in Pool 2 & 3 qualify for the semi-finals.

With the amount of International games going on over the next 4 years (Four Nations / European Cup / Pacific Cup etc) you would assume that the skill level of competing nations should move up a notch by 2013. Hopefully this will mean that the semi finals will be much more competitive.

It would be great to see an upset come semi-final time.

 

[jim_57]

Pool A - 3 through
Australia
England
5,6 or 7
8,9 or 10

Pool B - 2 Through
France
5,6 or 7
8,9 or 10
11 or 12

Pool C - 2 Through
New Zealand
5,6 or 7
8,9 or 10
11 or 12

A random draw for most teams.

All teams but 1st in Pool A go into a six team knockout, then the 3 winning teams join 1st in group A in the semi's. I made a thread for it a while ago if anybody wants mnore details.

 

[Panadol]

mmm wells here's what I would like to see done with the 2013 WC

Super Pool (S)
S1 - Australia
S2 - NZ
S3 - England
S4 - France

Pool A
A1 - Wales
A2 - Fiji
A3 - Tonga
A4 - Lebanon

Pool B
B1 - PNG
B2 - USA
B3 - Scotland
B4 - Ireland

Round robin matches (guarantees 3 matches each)
Top of pool S advances to Semi, Rest of pool S goes to quarter final
Top of pool A and B move to quarters
2nd of pool A and B fight to qualify to quarter

Soooo...

Qualifier
A2 vs B2 ---> Q1


Quarter
S3 vs S4 ---> Z1
Q1 vs S2 ---> Z2
A1 vs B1 ---> Z3

Semi
S1 vs Z1
Z2 vs Z3

winners move to Final

I think this system has many advantages:
- Rewards 1st in super group
- Rewards Top of A and B with a pathway to semi
- All round robin maches are made crucial, higher position in group means better rewards
- Disadvantages 3rd and 4th of super group, but they are at least guarantee no knockout from the round robin stage
- Gives minnows more opportunity (2nd position in A and B given a chance)
- Gives every nation at least 3 matches
- Minimises the chance of high cricket score games

But If i calculated correctly, it would take about 5.5 weeks to complete (25 matches), and one of the super group does not advance to semi.

 

[Coastbloke]

With the amount of International games going on over the next 4 years (Four Nations / European Cup / Pacific Cup etc) you would assume that the skill level of competing nations should move up a notch by 2013. Hopefully this will mean that the semi finals will be much more competitive.

It would be great to see an upset come semi-final time.

You know, I know that France finished 10th in the WC, but I am still convinced if it was France that played Australia in the Semi at the SFS instead of Fiji, it wouldn't have been a 50 point shellacking...

And by that, I don't mean if France had made it to the semis and won the games to get there, but if hypothetically France was playing Australia from the position they finished...

In the end, I'm sorta glad they didn't get to the semis because of the amount of Australians in the team...

 

[IanG]

Oh sh*t no not the sh*t format we has last year. Bring back the 16 teams one they back in 2000

 

[Cheezel]

You know, I know that France finished 10th in the WC, but I am still convinced if it was France that played Australia in the Semi at the SFS instead of Fiji, it wouldn't have been a 50 point shellacking...

And by that, I don't mean if France had made it to the semis and won the games to get there, but if hypothetically France was playing Australia from the position they finished...

In the end, I'm sorta glad they didn't get to the semis because of the amount of Australians in the team...

Yep, I know what you mean. I am sure the French would have made a game of it. I think Bobby G will put some passion back into the French. He has made a good start by only picking French players ;-). Will wait to see how they go against england on the weekend.

 

[Cheezel]

Oh sh*t no not the sh*t format we has last year. Bring back the 16 teams one they back in 2000

As much as I liked the format from 2000, League just doesn't have the depth of teams to have a decent top 16. At least at the moment anyway.
The lopsided scorelines gave the Union biased media the ammo to shoot down the tournament. And just to cap it off it lost money .

Maybe in 2017, That gives League 9 years to develop the game in minnow nations and hopefully raise the standard that would allow a return to the 2000 format.

Love it or hate it the Super Pool was pretty successful in 2008. The just need to change it so the top two (not the top 3) qualify for the semis.

At least all other nations gave themselves a chance of making the Semi-finals and the two teams backed to finish last made the qualifying semi-final and the team back to make the semi (France) finished last.

That's what made it interesting. You could go to just about any pool match with no idea of which team would win. Bring back the 2000 Format and those intersting games are gone!!!

 

[hutch]

i know the super pool worked in some ways for the last world cup, it did make a bit of money, but i think that it took away from the tournament in general. the media basically ignored the other 6 teams, and they didnt exist on channel 9. also, it gives other nations (and the general public) the feeling they are not worthy of facing the 'big' countries. their players deserved better. these countries would also have missed out on sponsorship and exposure by being hidden away during the last cup.

every team deserves an equal chance, and no country is more important than another. lets have even pools, like every other succesful world cup on earth. it is also ridiculous that 3 teams from one pool go through to the semis. i wish our leaders had more faith in the product, or at least tried to build the product, and you're not going to build it unless countries such as tonga, france etc get to play the top countries on the biggest stage.

12 teams, 4 pools of 3, quarters, semis, final = winner!

 

[Cheezel]

it is also ridiculous that 3 teams from one pool go through to the semis.

Yep I agree 3 teams qualifying from the Super Pool was the main issue. By doing this they effect the status of Pool 2 & 3.

If they keep the Super Pool and change it to the top 2 then all of a sudden Pool 2 & 3 have a semi final spot up for grabs. I think this will improve the importance of Pool 2 & 3. We just need a smokey in Pool 2 & 3 capable of causing an upset.

Rugby League has always been inovative and I think the Super Pool was the right format for the WC in 2008. Unless something drastic happens between now and 2013 I can't see the format changing. The RLIF will want to continue with packaging the Super Pool as a revene generator.

Hardcore rugby league fans like us ;-) would love to have a normal format but your average punter won't watch or attend a game if they know it's going to be a one-sided affair. drum roll........2000 RLWC

 

[bowes]

No Super pool, it turns the tournament into a laughing stock. 4 groups of 3 would be good, as it means smaller teams only play 2 games anyway, so not too many blowouts. Although as a compromise mono mal's structure above, of 2-1-1 going through would be semi-credible.

If they can't let smaller teams play bigger teams due to being scared of blowouts (which happen in any world cup anyway), then I'd rather see an 8 team world cup (and an emerging nations?) than a 4 nations and emerging nations together like last 'world cup'

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Oh sh*t no not the sh*t format we has last year. Bring back the 16 teams one they back in 2000

The reason why we dont do that is because we would probably put the top three nations into seperate pools. That dosent guarentee competitiveness. Which turns us into a laughing stock.

Not to mention, the 2000 WC was a complete and udder failure.

I think maybe in 2017 we might be able to scrap the Super Pool as France, Tonga and Samoa should be able to compete with the big three. Maybe even the USA if they get professional.

Seeing as you would like to see a 16 team competition, please, why dont you present a format and pools that would be competitive, assures the 2 best teams in the final and creates public interest. Oh, and money. If we have the same format as we did in 2000, we would end up having 31 matches and without a Super Pool, there would be no way for us to have a financially viable WC.