Can we go to 16 for the World Cup?

[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

Just in case anyone missed these previously, please read posts #48 & #52 in the following thread http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?p=4540186#post4540186

 

[jim_57]

I would go with 12 teams with an unusual format.

Pool A - 1st through to semi's, 2 and 3 through to quarters.
England (Auto Qualifier)
Australia (Auto Qualifier)
5,6 or 7
8,9 or 10

Pool B - Top 2 in quarters
New Zealand
5,6 or 7
8,9 or 10
11 or 12

Pool C - Top 2 in quarters
France
5,6 or 7
8,9 or 10
11 or 12

Those 4 Automatically qualify and the 4th 4N entrant in 2011 if it's not France.

All qualifiers to be given a ranking and put into a draw. The super group still exists but it's a bit less blatant.

 

[babyg]

I reckon nothing ives a country a shot in the arm like actually being in a world cup, so I would rather see those last qualifying games actually part of the cup. So my structure would be ten qualifyers and then the last 4 to play off for 2 spots in the pools. So that's 14 teams overall but only 12 in the pool stages.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I expect it will be 12 teams in four pools of three but that would suck I reckon. Two pool games is not enough, as I think last year proved. The minimum should be three. Honestly, I'd have two pools of six and just have semis and a final. Seven games is the maximum length you could hope for so it just fits. This is similar to my two pools of five preference from last year but with six in each pool it means even numbers so all teams can play every round without byes or cross-pool games like I proposed for last year (which most people didn't like). It would mean two rounds played mid-week and three rounds on weekends, plus semis and final to make it five weeks all up. There would be a few problems with this but at least there's no super pool, every team gets plenty of games and there's heaps of football for us fans. I might even mock up a schedule this afternoon to see what it might look like (on the boss's time I might add).

 

[roopy]

Let's look at the sides that could make up the four sides that miss out if we go for 12 over 16 - USA, Russia, Lebanon and South Africa.
If we compare them with Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands and Fiji - they have 100 times the population, 200 times the spending power, they offer diversity, global appeal, sponser appeal - basically they offer our game the chance to expand - while the PI countries offer ready made quality teams.
We need the PI countries right now, but in the long term, we need the other countries much, much more.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It's a fair point. What the RLIF has to decide is, will including countries like the USA (with its potential for revenue but less likely to be competitive) be worth the extra expense and the lack of competitiveness? I don't know. Russia might not even be playing in a year or two the way they're going.

 

[druzik]

Let's look at the sides that could make up the four sides that miss out if we go for 12 over 16 - USA, Russia, Lebanon and South Africa.
If we compare them with Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands and Fiji - they have 100 times the population, 200 times the spending power, they offer diversity, global appeal, sponser appeal - basically they offer our game the chance to expand - while the PI countries offer ready made quality teams.
We need the PI countries right now, but in the long term, we need the other countries much, much more.

That is a very dangerous thing to say... you can't go round effectively denying teams a place just because "they dont fit" an image. POsitions need to be earnt full stop. If your not good enough then you dont get in... there should be no ifs or buts, otherwise why should any team bother?

Its an argument that has been raging on the RLIS forum, where people are saying that even if the Cook Is won the PNC they should not be given a spot but it should go automatically to PNG... whats the point of having a PNC... also next year it was said that France is more important so they should be the team to get in... so why bother with the ENC? If the Cook Is win on the weekend then they deserve to be there.

It will be a test of the competence of the RLIF, NRL, RFL, ARL on how well they can promote and sell the games next year.

Ultimately the solution is to have a menaigful regional tournament(s) where all nations compete and earn their place into an expanded 6N and second tier 4N tournament.

 

[jim_57]

That is a very dangerous thing to say... you can't go round effectively denying teams a place just because "they dont fit" an image. POsitions need to be earnt full stop. If your not good enough then you dont get in... there should be no ifs or buts, otherwise why should any team bother?

Its an argument that has been raging on the RLIS forum, where people are saying that even if the Cook Is won the PNC they should not be given a spot but it should go automatically to PNG... whats the point of having a PNC... also next year it was said that France is more important so they should be the team to get in... so why bother with the ENC? If the Cook Is win on the weekend then they deserve to be there.

It will be a test of the competence of the RLIF, NRL, RFL, ARL on how well they can promote and sell the games next year.

Ultimately the solution is to have a menaigful regional tournament(s) where all nations compete and earn their place into an expanded 6N and second tier 4N tournament.

Nobody suggested they should not be given a spot as far as I remember. I simply said I think it would be a better result for the game as whole if the underdogs didn't get up in this one.

 

[roopy]

That is a very dangerous thing to say... you can't go round effectively denying teams a place just because "they dont fit" an image. POsitions need to be earnt full stop. If your not good enough then you dont get in... there should be no ifs or buts, otherwise why should any team bother?

Its an argument that has been raging on the RLIS forum, where people are saying that even if the Cook Is won the PNC they should not be given a spot but it should go automatically to PNG... whats the point of having a PNC... also next year it was said that France is more important so they should be the team to get in... so why bother with the ENC? If the Cook Is win on the weekend then they deserve to be there.

It will be a test of the competence of the RLIF, NRL, RFL, ARL on how well they can promote and sell the games next year.

Ultimately the solution is to have a menaigful regional tournament(s) where all nations compete and earn their place into an expanded 6N and second tier 4N tournament.

Shoot ourselves in the foot, because it's the RL way.
Meanwhile, soccer uses every method and technique they can dream up to make sure they get the right 'outcomes' in their WC qualifiers - including making it near impossible for Aus to qualify for decades because they have no political 'swing' in the soccer world.
Let's get back to the original point i have been trying to make, and you all seem to be missing by as far as you possibly can, we need 16 teams to get the teams in that can spread our game. 12 gives us the same old faces again and puts the boot into all the expansion countries for no reason other than it's someones idea of 'fair'.

 

[Misanthrope]

Meanwhile, soccer uses every method and technique they can dream up to make sure they get the right 'outcomes' in their WC qualifiers - including making it near impossible for Aus to qualify for decades because they have no political 'swing' in the soccer world.

But it was possible. The RLIF simply needs to engineer their qualifying process in similar ways. If you give whatever group the USA is in an automatic berth (say one featuring Jamaica, Canada, and Argentina) - you practically guarantee their inclusion without handing it to them in an obvious way.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Jamaica could actually be a strong contender if they bring in English players.

 

[International RL]

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.

You shouldn't underestimate the benefits of strong international challengers to RL in it's dominant markets (Australia, NZ, England).

Ok, so CIslands might not add much through their own domestic comps - but if they were playing brilliant footy and challenging Australia, then that would engage the Australia audience and the inbuilt market that Rugby league has here. If International matches become regularly competitive the ratings should be amazing given the built in audience in QLD and NSW who just want to see a close game, along with the casual/bandwagon supporters in those markets and other non RL states.

Do I want to see a competitive USA? Absolutely, and I've stated that on numerous occassions. But at the same time I think we should never look down our noses at 'small' nations because they can't grow the pie. Competition will grow the pie in itself.

For what it's worth, I don't think 16 is the way to go. 12 should be the number, or even if it's kept to 10 I wouldn't care that much. It's important that the matches are of a good standard and that qualifying means something. Every kid gets a prize makes it a bit meaningless. Furthermore I think we can learn from Cricket (07) and Union (07?) with their expanded world cups. It was long, boring and full of meaningless fixtures that no-one cared about. What this did was kill off any interest, so that by the time the 'big' (and inevitable) clashes rolled around, no-one cares. It's a world cup, the games need to mean something, it needs to be high stakes and it needs to be unpredictable - that's how you engage an audience.

What was the best RL World cup? 1995 probably? I think there is something in that as a lesson.

 

[Bulldog Force]

Pool A

Australia
Papua-New Guinea
Lebanon
USA

Lebanon will get beaten in every one of those games.

 

[Goddo]

I'm against going to 16. Not because of quality of lower ranked teams, because at 16 we have the same problems at 12 with quality of lower ranked teams as has been pointed out. The World Cup has to turn a profit or it is a waste of limited international league funds. How many smaller games which no one cares about will be played, draining money?

We currently have say 3 teams who can win the thing (England only just making the cut), then several okay sides (Wales, Fiji, France, PNG, Scotland, Ireland, Samoa, Tonga, Lebanon) then no hopers (unless they play each other) below.

To go to 16, I think 2 major things have to change:

1) We need at least 6 teams that can on their day win the thing (currently 3) that then generate interest in developed countries with a high GDP. When this happens, other developed nations take note and want to be involved. This means targeting a few sides and building them up.

Given the current structures of the game, I would go for France (continental presence and rivalry with England), PNG (strongest Pacific country) and Wales (a second good British Isles team would put pressure on the remaining 2 to perform, create rivalry and interest). Get them on Par with England in quality.

This is why Union is successful: South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, England, France, Wales can all win the cup. Who cares how abismal Italy, Japan and Fiji and the rest are? It means in a 4 pool cup, the quality is there for at least 2 good pools and then the run to the final.

2) Focusing on crowds (at the game and watching on TV) and being in a hosts national interest. Even if it means giving the rights away to international league for free, we must be promoted and on TV in participating developed nations. Its no good paying to fly Ireland to Australia for a world cup if noone in Ireland knows its even on or watches a game.

Crowds are tied to quality (which ties into point 1) but also prestige of the event. Think about Soccer world Cups, the Olympics and Rugby World cups. How often have they been used as nationalist tools to promote a national public image? China 2008 Olympics, South Africa 1995 Rugby WC, Germany 2006 Soccer WC.

We need to make our game an important event to a nation that hosts it, be it Australia or anywhere else. Rugby gained massive support in 95 because of South Africas national struggles rather than the type of sport being played or the quality. We need to make similar oportunities if possible. How about a Rugby League World Cup in Japan? Or Argentina. We need to think outside the square on this one.

So for mine, with only 3 quality teams, 12 teams forming 4 pools of three that are quickly over after 3 weeks, then get the good sides playing off is optimal for now, or else there are too many crap matches.

 

[druzik]

I'm against going to 16. Not because of quality of lower ranked teams, because at 16 we have the same problems at 12 with quality of lower ranked teams as has been pointed out. The World Cup has to turn a profit or it is a waste of limited international league funds. How many smaller games which no one cares about will be played, draining money?

We currently have say 3 teams who can win the thing (England only just making the cut), then several okay sides (Wales, Fiji, France, PNG, Scotland, Ireland, Samoa, Tonga, Lebanon) then no hopers (unless they play each other) below.

To go to 16, I think 2 major things have to change:

1) We need at least 6 teams that can on their day win the thing (currently 3) that then generate interest in developed countries with a high GDP. When this happens, other developed nations take note and want to be involved. This means targeting a few sides and building them up.

Given the current structures of the game, I would go for France (continental presence and rivalry with England), PNG (strongest Pacific country) and Wales (a second good British Isles team would put pressure on the remaining 2 to perform, create rivalry and interest). Get them on Par with England in quality.

This is why Union is successful: South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, England, France, Wales can all win the cup. Who cares how abismal Italy, Japan and Fiji and the rest are? It means in a 4 pool cup, the quality is there for at least 2 good pools and then the run to the final.

2) Focusing on crowds (at the game and watching on TV) and being in a hosts national interest. Even if it means giving the rights away to international league for free, we must be promoted and on TV in participating developed nations. Its no good paying to fly Ireland to Australia for a world cup if noone in Ireland knows its even on or watches a game.

Crowds are tied to quality (which ties into point 1) but also prestige of the event. Think about Soccer world Cups, the Olympics and Rugby World cups. How often have they been used as nationalist tools to promote a national public image? China 2008 Olympics, South Africa 1995 Rugby WC, Germany 2006 Soccer WC.

We need to make our game an important event to a nation that hosts it, be it Australia or anywhere else. Rugby gained massive support in 95 because of South Africas national struggles rather than the type of sport being played or the quality. We need to make similar oportunities if possible. How about a Rugby League World Cup in Japan? Or Argentina. We need to think outside the square on this one.

So for mine, with only 3 quality teams, 12 teams forming 4 pools of three that are quickly over after 3 weeks, then get the good sides playing off is optimal for now, or else there are too many crap matches.

Have a read of my blog.

 

[Goddo]

Dissagree with you on a few things. From an Australian perspective:

1) Don't bite the hand that feeds you. There would be no international league without Australia. And generally, the rules that the NRL play under are fine.
2nd ref was to speed up the play the ball due to dodgy tackles and wrestling training coming into the game in Australia, as well as making it easier on the refs.
Its had problems (especially refs contradicting each other) but has adressed the immediate problem in the game. It might end up being phased out again once officials are happy with the ruck, especially as some refs have shown they aren't up to NRL yet.

Many of the rules that define our game were created in Australia (limited tackles, 4 points for tries, 10m defensive line, 40/20 kicks, video ref, et cetera) so adaption isn't a bad thing. Disharmony between Northern Hemisphere and Southern has meant no rule changes in Union is really holding it back at the moment, as the game gets more and more boring.

On Steve Ganson, both Australia and NZ were baffled by some of his calls. Even the Pommy comentators (who are increadibly meek) thought he was crazy a couple of times.

2) I agree with you on locking players into a nation for 4 years. Great idea. We need to make it prestigous to play for nations other than Australia in the Pacific. There are blokes who are Australian through and through who are now choosing to be kiwis and give up origin (like Bryson Goodwin) becuase the prestige is there. thats a good sign. We need that with other countries in the Pacific. Imagine if Hayne chose Tonga over Australia permanently.

I think we need to look at how people qualify for State of Origin too, so blokes like Hayne can play for NSW and Tonga.

You say league are the only ones that do this, but union is pretty bad too. there is something like 10 non-Australians and a kiwi coach in the team heading to England right now. Soccer is just as bad. We just need to put our foot down a bit more, and make it financially atractive to play for teams other than Australia and lock them in.

If Australian clubs were allowed to have 1 player outside the salary cap if they were recruited directly from Tonga, Samoa or PNG and the said player could only play for that country would be good too. You would see some players get skilled up quickly and bring more depth to the international comp. Thats 16 NRL quality players on top of what there is in the NRL now going home to 3 national teams. Makes a PNG v England or Tonga v Australia game more interesting.

All in all, I think they are starting to make some real progress with international league, and the powers that be probably will agree with us on these ideas, its just not so easy to implement them, and we need to steadily grow the game, step by step. 10 to 12 for the next WC is good. 16 is going too far.

 

[bobbis]

Assuming teams improve at a reasonable rate:

2013 12 teams in UK
3 pools of 4, including a 'super pool', 6 team finals

2017 14 teams in NZ
1 super pool of 4, 2 other pools of 5, 8 team finals

2021 16 teams in Australia
By this point hopefully the standard will have improved and the game grown to a sufficient extent that a 'super' pool is done away with. 4 pools of 4, 8 team finals.

At the moment the 'super' pool games are the money spinners. You can point to the RWC and say that people don't mind watching 100 point thrashings. However there's at every stage sufficient uncertainty to maintain interest. 16 is a bridge too far.

 

[RedVee]

I wouldnt mind a second level international series being played at the same time as the World Cup. These games could be placed as curtain raisers to the World Cup game. The crowds get 2 games, the junior nation players get exposure to the bigger grounds and their facilities, and (hopefully) get exposed to bigger crowds than they may be used to. This game could be televised on delay after the main game.
Example from last WC, Cook Islands Vs Lebanon could have been the first game, followed by Aust Vs NZ at SFS. Wales Vs USA prior to Engalnd Vs PNG; or prior to Ireland Vs Tonga etc etc

Don't know if it would have been financially viable, but perhaps the TV rights may have been slightly increased by having a few more games.

 

[Knownothing]

You say league are the only ones that do this, but union is pretty bad too. there is something like 10 non-Australians and a kiwi coach in the team heading to England right now.

Who are the ten non-Australians in the union team? Are you saying that only people born in Australia should be able to represent Australia - even the children of bona fide migrants are not Australian enough?

 

[Scubby]

For me it has to be 12 teams in 3 pools of four. I would break it down in the following:

Example

Pool 1
Aus (1)
Eng (3)
Fiji (5)
Irel (12)


Pool 2
NZ (2)
PNG (4)
Fra (6)
Wales (11)

Pool 3
Cooks (7)
Lebanon (8)
Samoa (9)
Tonga (10)

Top of pool 1 automatically goes through to SFs. Second in pools 1 & 2 play-off against top two in pool 3. This makes a balanced comp with all three pools competitive. It also has the top six seeds fighting for 2 automic SF place and 2 SF qualifying places. Pool 3 is competitive and rewarded with SF qualifying play-off places.