Different World Cup Format

[bender]

There are a million different plans for a World Cup format so here is one I thought of which is an attempt to address the Quality vs Quantity argument. Here is something different for discussion. The sides play each other in the qualifying rounds.

Group 1
Australia
England
New Zealand
Bye

Group 2
Wales
Ireland
Scotland
Lebanon

Group 3
W Samoa
Tonga
France
PNG

Group 4
Canada
Morocco
South Africa

Group 5
Italy
USA
Cook Islands

Group 6
Russia
Tartasan
New Caledonia

Group 7
Japan
Greece
Serbia

Now, the winner of groups 4 to 7 play off with each other in a sudden death knockout to decide the winner of the ‘Plate’. Groups 1, 2 and 3 play each other once, while the bye gives a team 4 points plus a 60 point points for bonus. Teams from Groups 1,2 and 3 are ranked on a premiership table with each other. A traditional final 5 finals system is used with the top 4 sides from Groups 1 to 3 qualifying and the 5th placed side playing off against the 5th ranked side.

The advantages of this system are that all of the development sides get a game but there are not to many lopsided games. Unlike the Union world cup, every pool game would be important since there is a slim chance that even a side like Australia, England or New Zealand may not qualify, if they do not play well. The tournament would have meaning for minnow countries because they have a chance at winning several games as opposed to the union game where they at best have one competive game for the whole tournament. The final 5 is something which is traditionally a rugby league inspired and related idea and is something which gives the tournament a rugby league identity as opposed to a copying of the soccer tournament.

Anyway, just thought it was worth discussing, anyone agree or disagree with such a format?

 

[Jeffles]

Too complicated and too many nations.

 

[roopy]

I heard a good idea that was suggested for the Union WC, and I think it would work for us as well.
The idea is for the top teams to be seeded to come into the comp in the second round.
Basically, the top four teams sit out while the bottom 16 sides divide into four pools and the top sides from each pool go through to the final 8 teams.
The final 8 are put into two pools and play each other once - top two from each pool going through to the knockout semis.

This format would make it hard for teams to spring an upset, but it would also minimise the number of lopsided games as well.

 

[ibeme]

I heard a good idea that was suggested for the Union WC, and I think it would work for us as well.
The idea is for the top teams to be seeded to come into the comp in the second round.
Basically, the top four teams sit out while the bottom 16 sides divide into four pools and the top sides from each pool go through to the final 8 teams.
The final 8 are put into two pools and play each other once - top two from each pool going through to the knockout semis.

This format would make it hard for teams to spring an upset, but it would also minimise the number of lopsided games as well.

It would also have the top sides fully rested and injury free, ready to absolutely slaughter the weaker and battle weary sides who have just slugged their guts out for the last few weeks. It'd be like sending lambs to the slaughter. I don't think we'd want the first 100-0 score-line to be a semi-final.

Who would be the fourth team seeded team? Unless we improve the standard below the top three, there'd be a massive gulf between the fourth and third placed play-off teams.

I don't have a better alternative though.

 

[bender]

Too complicated

The structuring of the fixtures is complicated but the actual tournament is simple. It is really a plate competition. and a simple top 5. from a premiership table. There is no need to sort the groups when explaining and listing the competition. The main plate winner does get a playoff for 5th spot, but i dont think this would make things too bad.

and too many nations.

I do agree there may bee too many nations. But, remember that the Plate competition is really an emerging nations style tournament, with no side in it having a coees chance of winning the competition. Presumably, the plate games would be played as a double header to the main pool so that these players experience playing before large crowds. The usual argument is that we need as many teams as possible balanced against as few thrashings as possible. This system solves both problems.

 

[Eskimo Sharkie]

How about scrapping the World Cup altogether?

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of any other country getting within 60 points of Australia, New Zealand or Great Britain. Play a tournament with the emerging nations alone, which would involve Russia, USA, France, South Africa, Lebanon, Morocco, PNG, Fiji etc. Then draw a composite team out of all these nations to compete as a Rest of the World squad against the big Three.

This would be played as early round fixtures to be capped off with a series involving Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand and the Rest of the World. Each team plays the other team once (could even make it twice) and then the two top placed sides play off for the World Cup (or whatever it is going to be called). Make it a biennial fixture or even an annual one. It would give these emerging countries something to play for and regular top flight football for all us internationally starved rugby league fans.

 

[ibeme]

How about scrapping the World Cup altogether?

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of any other country getting within 60 points of Australia, New Zealand or Great Britain. Play a tournament with the emerging nations alone, which would involve Russia, USA, France, South Africa, Lebanon, Morocco, PNG, Fiji etc. Then draw a composite team out of all these nations to compete as a Rest of the World squad against the big Three.

This would be played as early round fixtures to be capped off with a series involving Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand and the Rest of the World. Each team plays the other team once (could even make it twice) and then the two top placed sides play off for the World Cup (or whatever it is going to be called). Make it a biennial fixture or even an annual one. It would give these emerging countries something to play for and regular top flight football for all us internationally starved rugby league fans.

I like this idea, atleast until the weaker nations are strengthened enough to put up some competition as individuals, or until the rest of the world team becomes unbeatable - whichever comes first. I think it would expedite the growth and improvement of other nations.

 

[dimitri]

scrapping the world cup is a stupid idea

it further detracts from the tournament

the more we delay a world cup

the less chance it has of ever being successful again

we have the worlds 2nd lonmgest running world cup

time to give it respect

aus, nz, eng/gb will be the 3 favourites

but look at the yawnyawn

people got behind the underdogs

league would be no different


people in townsville could get behind PNG


people in WA could get behind South AFRICA etc etc


remember its an EVENT
a celebration

the scores dont matter

just ask yawn yawn fans
(aus v namibia 142-0)

 

[Jeffles]

Why combine the tournament under one name if they are being treated as two separate tournaments.

Also, scores do matter. They mattered in 2000 and they will matter now. The reason people pay less attention in Union is because are caught up in evet excitement. But they still touched on it. People are still more likely to complain of blowouts in RLWC than RUWC because of the big gap in nations. There is a gap in Union but it doesn't kick in until later.

 

[ibeme]

scrapping the world cup is a stupid idea

it further detracts from the tournament

the more we delay a world cup

the less chance it has of ever being successful again

we have the worlds 2nd lonmgest running world cup

time to give it respect

aus, nz, eng/gb will be the 3 favourites

but look at the yawnyawn

people got behind the underdogs

league would be no different


people in townsville could get behind PNG


people in WA could get behind South AFRICA etc etc


remember its an EVENT
a celebration

the scores dont matter

just ask yawn yawn fans
(aus v namibia 142-0)

I don't think we should scrap the world cup, but I don't think we should have it too soon either. The rest of the world concept would be the perfect filler. It would raise the profile while improving player talent and depth across the developing nations, all in preparation for the world cup. Maybe have a couple of these events prior to a fully-fledged world cup, including coaching clinics and all of that sort of stuff.

I think another idea, although I'm not sure where or when it would be applied, is to play a tournament with mixed teams. Instead of the developing nations getting slaughtered by the top three, have combined sides with no national allegiances. Scatter the top players throughout the teams. That way, the nobodies get to play not againt, but alongside the stars. What they'd learn from these players in just preparing for the tournament and each match would be priceless.

 

[dimitri]

think another idea, although I'm not sure where or when it would be applied, is to play a tournament with mixed teams

im not sure if mixed teams would work

they seem to have it in rugby yawnyawn

where the males and the females play together and it just becomes a soft game where there is little or no defensive hits

 

[ibeme]

think another idea, although I'm not sure where or when it would be applied, is to play a tournament with mixed teams

im not sure if mixed teams would work

they seem to have it in rugby yawnyawn

where the males and the females play together and it just becomes a soft game where there is little or no defensive hits

I meant mixed nationality, to enable the Andrew Johns of the league world to team up with the Neville Nobodies.

 

[dimitri]

i was joking

:shock: