Can we go to 16 for the World Cup?

[AlbertRosenfeld]

Richard Lewis has recommended that we go with twelve.

The argument against that is that there will be litttle difference in standard between the bottom two or three in a 12 team competition, and the next two or three.

Consider the possible contenders based on current form:

Australia *
New Zealand *
England *
France *
Papua-New Guinea *
Wales
Fiji
Ireland
Scotland
Samoa
Tonga
Lebanon

USA
Russia
Cook Islands
South Africa/Jamaica/Serbia/ Czech Republic/ Italy/ Spain/Germany/Ukraine?

If we go with sixteen, then we can have four pools of four, with the top two from each pool qualifying for the quarter finals, then have semi finals, then a final.

Pool A

Australia
Papua-New Guinea
Lebanon
USA

Pool B

New Zealand
Fiji
Scotland
Russia

Pool C

England
Samoa
Ireland
Tonga

Pool D

France
Cook Islands
Wales
(South Africa/Jamaica/Serbia/ Czech Republic/ Italy/ Spain/Ukraine/Germany)?

* Automatic qualifiers

 

[Misanthrope]

I'm not adverse to the sixteen team competition. Union has shown that it's possible to have a successful tournament and still have a few 110-0 style score lines.

The problem isn't the drubbings handed out to minnows - it's just the lack of credible challengers for the title. Outside of Australia and New Zealand, the gap back to England is noticeable, and the gap back to the next list of nations is colossal.

 

[roopy]

I say it's madness to not go with 16, and USA and Russia should be included automatically - and we should spend a million dollars on both of them to make sure they can field the best teams they possibly can (top coach and a month long training camp and lead up games for both sides).
If we want the game to thrive in the massive markets of the USA and Russia, wishful thinking won't do it - we need to make the effort and spend the money.

 

[AlbertRosenfeld]

I'm not adverse to the sixteen team competition. Union has shown that it's possible to have a successful tournament and still have a few 110-0 style score lines.

The problem isn't the drubbings handed out to minnows - it's just the lack of credible challengers for the title. Outside of Australia and New Zealand, the gap back to England is noticeable, and the gap back to the next list of nations is colossal.

The advantage of sixteen is that you can credibly go to quarter finals, which is where the real tension rises in the race for a quarter final spot. The assumption should be that Australia, New Zealand, England and France do not play each other in the quarter finals.

 

[Non Terminator]

I heard a suggestion to put France and Papua New Guinea in the same pool, a sort of "pool of death" sort of thing.

 

[AlbertRosenfeld]

I say it's madness to not go with 16, and USA and Russia should be included automatically - and we should spend a million dollars on both of them to make sure they can field the best teams they possibly can (top coach and a month long training camp and lead up games for both sides).
If we want the game to thrive in the massive markets of the USA and Russia, wishful thinking won't do it - we need to make the effort and spend the money.

Then you and people who agree with you have to make your case to Richard Lewis. Because so far he has laid down a marker of his preference for twelve.

 

[Misanthrope]

I say it's madness to not go with 16, and USA and Russia should be included automatically - and we should spend a million dollars on both of them to make sure they can field the best teams they possibly can (top coach and a month long training camp and lead up games for both sides).

Handing out spots just cheapens the World Cup. It's bad enough that in a ten team World Cup more sides were gifted spots than earned it. Give the USA a chance to play against other nations in their region (Jamaica, Japan, South Africa, Canada etc) and give that group automatic qualification. It's how FIFA ensures that the US make the World Cup every year regardless of how poorly they might be playing.

 

[adamkungl]

I think 12 is the way to go now. Then 16 in 2017. Its painstakingly slow waiting 4 years at a time for any improvement, but I think this is how it has to be to maximise profit and credibility, which in turn will benifit future World Cups.

I posted a tournament format in the 2013 Pools thread which I think is the way to go.

 

[AlbertRosenfeld]

As I understand the plan, 2012 will be the year of the playoffs for the World Cup.
Teams 1-5 will automatically qualify. So everyone else will have to playoff for the remaining seven places.

If we go to sixteen, there are three things that could be done:

(1) Let everyone playoff for the remaining eleven places.

(2) Automatically qualify teams 6-12 and let the others play off:

USA
Russia
Cook Islands
Jamaica
Serbia
Czech Republic
Italy
Spain
Germany
Ukraine

(3) Along the lines of roopy's thinking, automatically qualify teams 6-15 and let the playoff be for 16th:

South Africa
Jamaica
Serbia
Czech Republic
Italy
Spain
Germany
Ukraine

This last group are the really undeveloped nations, and at the moment cannot compete with the three (13-15) immediately above them.
It could be an incentive for them to develop themselves.

 

[roopy]

We need USA to be a strong league nation far more than they need us.

As much as i love the effort of Cook Islands, including a country with a population of 20k and a GNP of three coconuts a year over a country with a population of 300 million and over 20% of the world's economy still is madness.
Cook Islands adds nothing to league in money terms, while we could double the size of international league with the money that drops out of Ruperts pockets when he puts his feet up.

 

[bender]

The problem with 16 is not just that there is not enough quality, because there is. The problem is that the group games are not meaningful enough with the usual format and also that the if we have 16 qualifiers, then there is not really enough competition in the qualifiers ie every team in the qualifying tournaments (virtually) makes it. . I cant really see how they could fix this problem.

Although, thinking out loud, what about 4 groups of 4 with the top team in each group going through to a top 5 set up (decided on points difference) and the fifth team spot going to the best placed second placed team. That might spice up the qualifiers. It would mean that none of the big 3 could take things easy, because if they did, they might go to sudden death on averages. And the others, remaining would also need to push hard, as i think every team would fancy their chances of snaring the 5th spot.

With 16 teams and this format, the big guns could be legitimately split and their games would still hold interest. In the 4th group, You could have France, PNG, Fiji and Wales. 4 very evenly matched sides, all of who have good domestic development. This group would get good crowds in both France and Wales and would be an excellent reward for sides that have developed very well. Having 16 teams, also allows Scotland and Ireland to be drawn with England which would be good for publicity in England and the home nations as well. The Extra Qualifying spots would also mean that Russia or USA or both could get easier paths and a side like Serbia or Cook Islands, or Jamaica might even have a realistic path to sneak in the final berth.

Personally i have a bit of a problem with the impact on the qualifiers, but i think a top 16 and top 5 combination might work for the main part of the tournament.

 

[AlbertRosenfeld]

We need USA to be a strong league nation far more than they need us.

As much as i love the effort of Cook Islands, including a country with a population of 20k and a GNP of three coconuts a year over a country with a population of 300 million and over 20% of the world's economy still is madness.
Cook Islands adds nothing to league in money terms, while we could double the size of international league with the money that drops out of Ruperts pockets when he puts his feet up.

Good points. But then you are manipulating the competition to promote future development, rather than have a fairly evenly matched second tier competition, between most of those nations below the top three.

I am hopeful that by 2013, if Toulouse has completed its second year of Super League, and the PNG team is in the Queensland Cup on its way into the NRL, France and Papua New Guinea will be firmly established not too far behind England.

 

[yakstorm]

We need USA to be a strong league nation far more than they need us.

As much as i love the effort of Cook Islands, including a country with a population of 20k and a GNP of three coconuts a year over a country with a population of 300 million and over 20% of the world's economy still is madness.
Cook Islands adds nothing to league in money terms, while we could double the size of international league with the money that drops out of Ruperts pockets when he puts his feet up.

Whilst I see what you're saying, I don't think its fair or good for the development of the sport as a whole if we start 'leaving' or 'forcing' nations out at the expense of ones which have a greater potential.

League is still a sport after all, and allowing the minnows to qualify add the whole 'underdog' and 'fairytale' appeal that tournaments need just as much as the big nations.

I think what we need to do rather than making it harder for someone like the Cook Islands to qualify, we need to work out strategies on bringing the USA up to a level they can qualify on their own.

Whether that is concessions on residency, assisting with allowing 'qualified' players to participate in more matches, doing high performance camps, scholarships with SL and NRL club, or whatever I believe would be a better strategy, and would at least go a long way to helping make the USA more competitive in the tournament.

 

[roopy]

Whilst I see what you're saying, I don't think its fair or good for the development of the sport as a whole if we start 'leaving' or 'forcing' nations out at the expense of ones which have a greater potential.

League is still a sport after all, and allowing the minnows to qualify add the whole 'underdog' and 'fairytale' appeal that tournaments need just as much as the big nations.

I think what we need to do rather than making it harder for someone like the Cook Islands to qualify, we need to work out strategies on bringing the USA up to a level they can qualify on their own.

Whether that is concessions on residency, assisting with allowing 'qualified' players to participate in more matches, doing high performance camps, scholarships with SL and NRL club, or whatever I believe would be a better strategy, and would at least go a long way to helping make the USA more competitive in the tournament.

That's why we need to go to 16.
I don't want to force the Cooks out - I want USA and Russia in.

 

[jim_57]

Whilst I see what you're saying, I don't think its fair or good for the development of the sport as a whole if we start 'leaving' or 'forcing' nations out at the expense of ones which have a greater potential.

League is still a sport after all, and allowing the minnows to qualify add the whole 'underdog' and 'fairytale' appeal that tournaments need just as much as the big nations.

I think what we need to do rather than making it harder for someone like the Cook Islands to qualify, we need to work out strategies on bringing the USA up to a level they can qualify on their own.

Whether that is concessions on residency, assisting with allowing 'qualified' players to participate in more matches, doing high performance camps, scholarships with SL and NRL club, or whatever I believe would be a better strategy, and would at least go a long way to helping make the USA more competitive in the tournament.

It would be great to see something like that happen, If we could an NRL and/or SL club to go along with it it would be great. Russia should have been doing this a long time ago with SL or Championship clubs. For Russia to imporve they really need to look at getting thier best players on exchange with UK/French clubs. Maybe the RLF shoukd make a quota of atleast 2 junior/senior players from developing European countries.

 

[Poul]

I'm in favour of a 12 team World Cup for 2013. I think 16 is too many, too soon. I would have 4 "Automatic" qualifiers, i.e., the current 4 Nations teams plus 4 "Pacific" teams ,and 4 "Euroatlantic" teams. The 4 Pacific teams would come from the Pacific Cups 5 teams and the Euroatlantic teams would also include South Africa and Lebanon. The top 3 teams from the European Cup would qualify, with the 4th teams having to play off against the winner of an "Atlantic Cup".
I would have 3 groups of 4 . I really liked the idea of the Super Pool from last year's World Cup, and I would retain, and extend it, for 2013, by having all of the current 4 Nations teams in it. The 2nd Pool would include the 4 Pacific teams, and the 3rd Pool the Euro(atlantic) teams. The Super Pool taems would then play "quarterfinals" against teams in the other pools according to their ranking. i.e., Winner and runner up in Super Pool would play the 2nd pcae geters in the other two pools whilst 3rd and $th in the Super Pool would play the winners of the other two pools. This would mean that there would be interest in all the games, and most would likely be quite competitive, with the possible exception of some of the "quarterfinals"
I know a lot of posters here don't like the idea of the "Super Pool", but I really think it is the way to go, and was a big reason for the success of last year's World Cup. I think I will forward my suggestion to the RLIF

 

[druzik]

The problem with 16 is not just that there is not enough quality, because there is. The problem is that the group games are not meaningful enough with the usual format and also that the if we have 16 qualifiers, then there is not really enough competition in the qualifiers ie every team in the qualifying tournaments (virtually) makes it. . I cant really see how they could fix this problem.

Although, thinking out loud, what about 4 groups of 4 with the top team in each group going through to a top 5 set up (decided on points difference) and the fifth team spot going to the best placed second placed team. That might spice up the qualifiers. It would mean that none of the big 3 could take things easy, because if they did, they might go to sudden death on averages. And the others, remaining would also need to push hard, as i think every team would fancy their chances of snaring the 5th spot.

With 16 teams and this format, the big guns could be legitimately split and their games would still hold interest. In the 4th group, You could have France, PNG, Fiji and Wales. 4 very evenly matched sides, all of who have good domestic development. This group would get good crowds in both France and Wales and would be an excellent reward for sides that have developed very well. Having 16 teams, also allows Scotland and Ireland to be drawn with England which would be good for publicity in England and the home nations as well. The Extra Qualifying spots would also mean that Russia or USA or both could get easier paths and a side like Serbia or Cook Islands, or Jamaica might even have a realistic path to sneak in the final berth.

Personally i have a bit of a problem with the impact on the qualifiers, but i think a top 16 and top 5 combination might work for the main part of the tournament.

World cups should represent only about 1/4 to 1/3 of the nations that play a sport... at the moment ther is anout 40 nations so 12 is about right for now.

The problem with the wualification for 2013 is that once again we have botched the international program. Despite all the tournaments happening (which are great) they are all in effect ad-hoc and in the over all scheme provide very little.

What we should have done is from next year had regional championship qulaifiers involving ALL nations in that region... the top ranked teams like Engalnd, France, Australia, New Zealand could have done tours.

In 2011 Regional championships would have been help and WC qualifiers started for the teams that didnt make it to the Regionals. The top 4 teams in the regionals would get promotion to either a 6N or second tier 4 Nations.

2012 The 6N tournamsnt would have the finalists of the Pacific and European regions (Aus, NZ, Eng, Fra) and the top two of a qualifier tournament held by the 3rd placed team and the winner of the atlantic cup. The 4N would have had the remaining qualifier, the 2nd placed atlantic team and the 4th places Pacific and european nations. The ^n teams would get automatic qualification to the WC as would the finalists of the 4 N. So there 8/12 spots decided. Through the WC qualifiers you would have 2 more spots for europe, one more for the Pacific and one spot for a repechage that involves the two remaining teams from the 4N. The next best 8 qualifiers that dont make it go into a second tier international cup.

2013 World Cup. 4 groups of 3, top 2 in each group go to the quarters, semis, 3/4 play off and final. in the International cup 2 groups of 4 where top two teams in the groups go to a quarter finals against the bottom 4 of the WC... semis, 3/4 play off and final. The remianing 4 teams in the international cup can go into a semi final, 3/4 play off and final and play for a world plate.

With this all the international cup and world plate games would be able to be the openers for the main game in the WC. So the fans of the host nations would see 20 of the world top teams playing in meaningful tournaments.

I will start to discuss this more in tomorrows blog on my website.

 

[bartman]

I'd go with 12 - which is an increase from 10 - but hold a 6-way competition for the additional two spots.

The 4 countries that don't go into the main draw for the 12-team RLWC can play their own second tier level tournament as part of their development and hopefully eventual ascension to top level country status.

 

[Misanthrope]

You want to hand berths to the ten previous entrants?

 

[bartman]

No, not all automatic berths... good point.

Since it will be held in the northern hemisphere, I'd probably give the 5 automatic ones we've had, and also add Wales Ireland and Scotland to make a top 8 pre-qualified.

So maybe an 8 way tourney before 2013 to decide/rank for the last 4 spots, and help the countries that are developing but not anywhere near full-time (USA, Cook Islands, Malta, whoever) get some practice in against national teams that should make the final 12 if they're good enough (Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Lebanon).