Did the RLIF make a mistake re super pool

[NK Arsenal]

I've being thinking the last few days about the super pool in the world cup later this year and realised that the RLIF made a mistake.

It's not the concept which is the mistake, I think it is a great idea and will lead to some tight matches. The fact that Papua New Guinea is in there confuses me.

I think that the RLIF should have put France, Samoa or Tonga in the Super Pool instead of PNG because they are stronger Rugby League nations than PNG.

Thoughts?

 

[screeny]

Yeah I agree - but not with France. I would have put Tonga and Samoa in there as both those sides will contain the largest number of SL players. I guess the RLIF looked at the semi finals and wanted to engineer the strongest possible line up.

France, as has been discussed on here at some length, shouldn't have been in the SP for politiical reasons: it's important for France to do well in the tournament.

The biggest error I found was the format - and I love the SP idea and am firmly behind it. However, Kurt Angle I think it was had the best idea.

SP team 3rd place Pool 2 first and SL team 4th place Pool 3 first with winners going to semis. That means France could have been in the SP as they still would have had a chance to play in the semis, and it would have made the whole pool system a lot more balanced.

The situation now, with Pools 1 & 2 playing off just makes the SP and the other two more separate in my view and the comp therefore less smoothly connected as it could have been.

To ensure the pool 2 & 3 teams had three competitive matches they should have played one cross pool match each rather than the crap 'ranking match' which is just pointless again (ranking can be attained after each team has finished its WC campaign).

 

[Chapsta]

PNGRL seems to think its a mistake.

 

[roughyedspud]

yes putting PNG in the super pool is a mistake..personnally i'd have put samoa in there

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Samoa should have been there. With only three sides able to progress to the semis the fourth super pool spot should have gone to the side least deserving of a shot at the semis. As the last qualifier that should be Samoa. And as it turned out, they may well be the next strongest side anyway so it would make even more sense.

 

[NK Arsenal]

Another thing they did wrong imo is give the super pool 3 semi finals spots. The SP should of been given 2 semi spots and the other 2 pools should of been given one each.

 

[Knight87]

winner of the repechage should've been the 4th team in the Superpool (whichever team that is).

 

[hutch]

i know the reason png is in the super pool, although not too sure that i can post it on here as i have no proof other than word of mouth from one of the players in the squad who played in the tests against france. it is very poor form by the arl!

 

[Polynesian Warrior]

I think that the RLIF should have put France, Samoa or Tonga in the Super Pool instead of PNG because they are stronger Rugby League nations than PNG.

Thoughts?

I think France and PNG are strong rugby league nations than Samoa & Tonga . But if your talking about NRL & Sleague players then I guess your right .

 

[Cheezel]

I think France and PNG are strong rugby league nations than Samoa & Tonga . But if your talking about NRL & Sleague players then I guess your right .

Irish Warrior......your posts are so predictable.:crazy: Go back to the Rugby Forums champ!

 

[Evil Homer]

The whole Super Pool is an absolute disgrace and a complete mistake, PNG or not. I appreciate that it is supposed to make money, but to be honest it's an embarrassing farce and there's not even any point trying to defend it.

 

[bowes]

Another thing they did wrong imo is give the super pool 3 semi finals spots. The SP should of been given 2 semi spots and the other 2 pools should of been given one each.

Yeah and one of the big three should have been in another group, like in 1995 maybe New Zealand to let them host their group, or if not then England. Then I'd have fully supported it, but I can't justify defending the world cup when every last person I've mentioned it to has thought it's a complete farce (which to be fair it is)

 

[screeny]

The whole Super Pool is an absolute disgrace and a complete mistake, PNG or not. I appreciate that it is supposed to make money, but to be honest it's an embarrassing farce and there's not even any point trying to defend it.

Why? I defend it as being a good way of ensuring good crowds, good matches and good profit, while allowing the other nations in other pools eminently winnable matches.

True, that the other 6 nations can only send one qualifier to the semis is rubbish but the notion of the SP is a good one.

 

[roopy]

I think the fact that the cricket world cup and Union world cup both saw crowds and TV audiences plumet for non competitive games has made our super pool idea look very good - and i think those sports will have to be taking a close look at our format for their next events.
Soccer has the luxury of dozens of genuinely competitive sides.

 

[Hindyscrack]

yes

 

[adamkungl]

wasn't this discussed months ago?

 

[Evil Homer]

Why? I defend it as being a good way of ensuring good crowds, good matches and good profit, while allowing the other nations in other pools eminently winnable matches.

True, that the other 6 nations can only send one qualifier to the semis is rubbish but the notion of the SP is a good one.

If this is a money making exercise, then we could have just played the Tri-Nations in England again and guaranteed a profit.

A World Cup is supposed to develop the game internationally and give a vibrant feast and celebration of the sport as well as an exciting comp. I do not feel the 2008 WC will satisfy any of these things, and while I appreciate we are desperate to make a profit after 2000 I don't think it's right to engineer the entire thing with this as the only goal in mind. Sure, there may be close games (not guaranteed) but they will mean nothing. Meaningless games = low interest outside people like ourselves who are going to watch a game of league regardless. I think that's part of my issue with the whole thing - living outside the RL heartland in England, it's rare that I get a proper opportunity to promote RL, and when the WC pools were announced I had three separate, open-minded potential fans asking me why Australia, NZ and England were all in the same group and commenting that it seemed a bit contrived and unfair.

If we had wanted to play the Tri-Nations again and make money then I would have had no issue with that - I do not understand why it has been dressed up as a World Cup.

 

[screeny]

I agree with your sentiment that meaingless games will not attract interest - but that's not the SP's fault, it's the fault of the decision to allow only one non-SP team a semi final berth.

As I said above, if the 3rd and 4th placeed SP teams played against winners of other two pools, and all three pool 2 and 3 teams played one cross pool match to ensure 3 meaingful matches, then they would have had the perfect 10-team format IMO.

And the purpose of the WC isn't solely to make money, but that must be a big part of it, obviously, especially if you're as crap as we are.

 

[Poul]

When the Super Pool concept was first announced, I wasn't so keen on it, but know I think it is a brave and inspiring decision. By having the Super Pool, we get to see the Big 3 play each other, a likely 5 times out of 18 matches in total. There's likely to be as few as 4 "uncompetitive" games, or where the result is seen as foregone conclusion; PNG's 3 Super Pool games, and the first semifinal involving the semifinal qualier. So, I think having more than 75% "competitive" games is a big plus for the format. All the games in Groups 2 and 3 will be competitive, whereas this would not have been so with the inclusion of one of the Big 3. If we had had 2 groups of 5, there would have been a lot of lopsided scores, and at the back end of the tournament, the same teams would still have made the semfinals anyway. Also in the 2 group format, one of the Big 3 would most likely miss out on playing one of the other. Would anyone really want to see a World Cup where Australia never got to play either New Zealand or England?
Whilst the format is never going to please everyone, its got my support now, and I urge everyone to get behind it.
Can't wait for the World Cup :crazy:

 

[Poul]

So, the short answer to the question posed by the thread title is, No