2013WC Pools...

[bender]

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.

I dont really want to see a 16 team world cup, but for the sake of the exercise:

Group 1 - England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales
Group 2 - New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji
Group 3 - Australia, Italy, Greece, Lebanon
Group 4 - France, PNG, USA, Russia

Top team in each group goes through to a top 5 (decided on for and against) . 5 th team will be the side with the best for and against across all of the groups.

Group 1 games - Would be huge as all british sides get to play their main rival - England. England Ireland had massive tv ratings at the 2000 world cup.

Group 2 games - are a lot closer than they appear. It isnt out of the question for NZ to lose a game (through a shocking performance). If this happens they are in no way a lock for the final qualifying spot, on goal difference.

Group 3 games - Australia will face mainly expats, but realistically, these are the players that will be well positioned to give them a run for the money, although as we all know, Australia would win each game (a problem with all bar the super pool format.

Group 4 Games - Close pool between 4 teams with deserving domestic competitions. Not totally unrealistically for the winning team to get two bites at the cherry.

Semis - The top 5 system would mean that there is no such thing as a dead group game (unlike every other world cup system). Also, Each of the big 3, must perform at their best and get a good for and against or else they might end up having to walk the sudden death route just to make the final. (even Australia is at risk of this).

 

[SteveM]

I dont really want to see a 16 team world cup, but for the sake of the exercise:

Group 1 - England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales
Group 2 - New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji
Group 3 - Australia, Italy, Greece, Lebanon
Group 4 - France, PNG, USA, Russia

Top team in each group goes through to a top 5 (decided on for and against) . 5 th team will be the side with the best for and against across all of the groups.

Group 1 games - Would be huge as all british sides get to play their main rival - England. England Ireland had massive tv ratings at the 2000 world cup.

Group 2 games - are a lot closer than they appear. It isnt out of the question for NZ to lose a game (through a shocking performance). If this happens they are in no way a lock for the final qualifying spot, on goal difference.

Group 3 games - Australia will face mainly expats, but realistically, these are the players that will be well positioned to give them a run for the money, although as we all know, Australia would win each game (a problem with all bar the super pool format.

Group 4 Games - Close pool between 4 teams with deserving domestic competitions. Not totally unrealistically for the winning team to get two bites at the cherry.

Semis - The top 5 system would mean that there is no such thing as a dead group game (unlike every other world cup system). Also, Each of the big 3, must perform at their best and get a good for and against or else they might end up having to walk the sudden death route just to make the final. (even Australia is at risk of this).

Here in the UK the RLWC just got shot down because of the Super Group concept. As luck would have it no one actually watched the WC on TV anyway.

All the games rated way below a normal ESL game.

The comp really was a total joke.

 

[Cheezel]

Here in the UK the RLWC just got shot down because of the Super Group concept. As luck would have it no one actually watched the WC on TV anyway.

All the games rated way below a normal ESL game.

The comp really was a total joke.

20,000 + fans who came out to Aus didn't think so. I red the package highlights killed it along with games that England played in.

 

[ed313909]

Was looking forward to the 2013 WC but just heard it will be in England!!!!!!
Whoever made this decision should be crucified.
Say goodbye to Tongan. Samoan, Fijian, Australia and NZ supporters (75% of the audience) and hello to pathetically small english crowds that will not turn up to watch PNG vs Samoa etc etc etc.
This Will be exactly the same as the 2000 WC and will put international rugby league back years.
CAN NOT BELIEVE IT!!!!!!!!!!

 

[IanG]

Teams in no order:
Australia, New Zealand, England, France, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Papua New Guinea, Scotland, Ireland, Russia, South Africa, Cook Island, Lebanon, Wales and USA

 

[adamkungl]

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.

I like this idea. Well, the gist of it. I strongly disagree with 4th place in the super pool being rewarded with a semi final playoff.

Unfortunately, until at least 2 more teams can realistically beat one of the big 3, a super group results in the most entertaining, financially viable competition. The aim of 2017 should be to ditch the super group.

In regards to the 2 teams that can realistically challenge for the title, I think France is the most likely, with PNG not far behind. A PNG side in the NRL, though a bit of a pipe dream due to various issues, would go a huge way to achieving this, and is worth pursuing when we aim for a 20 team comp in the future.

The biggest issue preventing Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji from being more competitive is player eligibility. Few players will currently choose to play for a PI team when they can play for Australia or NZ. I honestly have no idea how to make this a more attractive option. You could give them more games, but that doesn't change the fact that playing for Aus or NZ is the highest honour the NRl has to offer.

What are the teams most likely to feature in a 12 team 2013? At a guess...

Australia
New Zealand
England
France
Papua New Guinea
Scotland
Ireland
Fiji
Tonga
Samoa
--------- the 10 teams from the 2008WC, plus...
Lebanon
USA

maybe. From what i've gathered on here, other possibilities include Cook Islands, Russia, Wales, Italy. I think there are more i've forgotten.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I think by 2017, Russia might be a real power house. Not Aus, NZ or England powerhouse, but top 8 maybe. Hopefully by 2017, France will be as competitive as England.

 

[adamkungl]

I just had a read of nospam18.com

There are a *lot* of teams aiming for 2013WC qualifiers. Makes me wonder where the sport will be in the next 10-20 years

 

[adamkungl]

Format idea, not sure if its already been posted -

Pool A
Australia, New Zealand, England, France

Pool B
Ireland, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Lebanon

Pool C
Scotland, Tonga, Samoa, USA

Week 1-3
Pool games: Each team plays other teams in their pool once. 18 games

Week 4 6 games
Semi 1: A 1st vs B 1st
Semi 2: A 2nd vs C 1st
Semi 3: A 3rd vs B 2nd
Semi 4: A 4th vs C 2nd

Ranking Final 1: B 3rd vs C 3rd
9th and 10th place

Ranking Final 2: B 4th vs C 4th
11th and 12th place

Week 5 3 games
Ranking semi 1: Semi 1 loser v Semi 3 winner
Ranking semi 2: Semi 2 loser v Semi 4 winner

Ranking Final 3: Semi 3 loser v Semi 4 loser
7th and 8th place

Week 6 3 games
World Cup Final: Semi 1 winner v Semi 2 winner
1st and 2nd place

Ranking Final 4: Ranking Semi 1 winner v Ranking semi 2 winner
3rd and 4th place

Ranking Final 5: Ranking semi 1 loser v Ranking semi 2 loser
5th and 6th place

30 games.

Pros:
-Results in fair rankings
-Top 2 from super pool get a shot at the final, rather than the top 3 as in 2008

Cons:
-Too many games?
The ranking semis could be removed, with the losers of Semi 1 playing for 3rd and 4th place, and the winners of Semi 2 playing for 5th and 6th place. But in my opinion that doesn't give a fair indication of those positions.
-Possibility of repeat matches in Ranking Semis. Ideally we would want no repeat matches at least until finals.

 

[Goddo]

We have to work around how many teams can viably win the comp, as that determines how many profitable games can be scheduled.

At the moment 3 can realistically win it so i would favour a 12 team 3 pool comp with 1 super pool as has been put forward.

But if we have 4 or more teams who are in with a good shot of winning it, 4 pools of 3 then winner v runner up of pools into semis is the way to go. Depends entirely on quality available which is best.