Emerging States & Melbourne Miss out?

[griff]

The Kangaroos are the only real national brand that Rugby League has left and if they are restricting it to just NSW and Qld that would just signal that RL is not a national sport and that the Kangaroos aren't really a national side. This would not only harm RL in emerging states but also harm the Kangaroos (and international RL) in NSW and Qld.

A couple of matches at Members Equity in Perth and a big Kangaroos match in Melbourne would be enough to send the right signal while still playing it safe enough and learning from the mistakes of RLWC 2000.

I haven't thought it through but that would be a way of avoiding embarassing scorelines and mismatches yet allowing more nations to compete.

If the pools are structured in a smart way you could minimise mismatches. You could even have a 16 team World Cup structured in such a way to put traditional rivals together, maximising crowds and minimising blowout scorelines. Say if each of the 8 quarter-finalists is given direct entry to the WC and there are two quarter-finalists and two qualifiers per group. So Australia play England, NZ play Samoa, PNG play France, Lebanon play Italy, USA play Russia etc in the group games.

eg

Group 1A
Australia
England
Tonga
South Africa

Group 1B
New Zealand
Samoa
Scotland
Fiji

Group 2A
Wales
Ireland
Lebanon
Italy

Group 2B
PNG
France
Russia
USA

QF1: winner 1A v runner-up 2B
QF2: winner 1B v runner-up 2A
QF3: winner 2B v runner-up 1A
QF4: winner 2A v runner-up 1B

SF1: winner QF1 v winner QF2
SF2: winner QF3 v winner QF4

F1: winner SF1 v winner SF2

 

[rugged]

Poor Tonga and South Africa.

 

[griff]

Poor Tonga and South Africa.

Tonga nearly beat NZ at the 95 WC. But anyway, it is just an example - could be different countries.

In any World Cup - Basketball, Rugby League, Union, Cricket - there are always going to be the powers and the minnows. The key is structuring the comp in such a way as to minimise the blowouts and maximise the success of the WC.

 

[Copa]

A national team playing in Canberra would be good in the RLWC or anytime really.

We are going to have A RU international this year in Canbera..Oz "A" Vs Jnr All Blacks...... I bet it will sell out too because of good marketing.

Some international RL would be great in Canberra..... although they'd probably just put up a poster in town an expect everyone to turn up.

 

[griff]

A national team playing in Canberra would be good in the RLWC or anytime really.

We are going to have A RU international this year in Canbera..Oz "A" Vs Jnr All Blacks...... I bet it will sell out too because of good marketing.

Some international RL would be great in Canberra..... although they'd probably just put up a poster in town an expect everyone to turn up.

I think a decent international in Canberra (say Aus v NZ) should sell out, and has the potential to revitalise RL in the ACT. Of course it would have to be promoted well.

The problem with this ever happening is (1) the shocking lack of internationals in Australia and (2) lack of structure and forward planning in international RL.

If we knew even 4-5 years ahead of time who would be playing and where (whether that be tours, tri-series, world cups whatever) instead of the 9-10 months notice we have at the moment we would be able to plan ahead and spread internationals every few years around deserving cities like Canberra, Townsville, Melbourne, Perth etc.

Aside from that Canberra Stadium is a definite must for a couple of games when Australia hosts the RLWC.

 

[rugged]

I think a decent international in Canberra (say Aus v NZ) should sell out, and has the potential to revitalise RL in the ACT. Of course it would have to be promoted well.

What they need is really great crowds for obscure countries who are playing each other too. These need to be in small stadiums obviously. They will need to do some really organised ticket selling strategies like happened with the RWC 2003. If they can create enough hype they will be OK. Also, with the RWC there were tickets available for about $5 for when smaller countries were playing at Suncorp. Good for those families who just wanted a little taste of the world cup but weren't that financial.

 

[griff]

What they need is really great crowds for obscure countries who are playing each other too. These need to be in small stadiums obviously. They will need to do some really organised ticket selling strategies like happened with the RWC 2003. If they can create enough hype they will be OK. Also, with the RWC there were tickets available for about $5 for when smaller countries were playing at Suncorp. Good for those families who just wanted a little taste of the world cup but weren't that financial.

That's absolutely true.

They aren't going to get the sort of crowds for the minor games that the RUWC got but as long as they are not lost inside massive stadiums like in RLWC 2000 it will be ok. In 2000 they played Cook Is v NZ in a 25,000 seat stadium in Reading - clearly they have to avoid ridiculous decisions like this.

Momentum and TV are important - if the first couple of games have big crowds and no empty seats visible on FTA TV this will hype up the event and make the later games more popular.

They need to pick the right matches for FTA TV (unlike in 2000, when Sky got first pick). So most people on the BBC saw the RLWC start with Ireland v Samoa in front of 1,500 people instead of Aus/Eng in front of 30,000, and it was hard to dig the event out of that whole.

It is about controlling the perception as much as it is about the realities.

 

[ruggabugga]

Unfortunately, the reality is that the general public consider the reality of international league to be a contrived situation whereby most of the players live and play the game in Australia but pretend to be nationals of the team colours they play under.

Who said it?...... Fool some of the people all of the time etc...ooh bite me! :roll: :roll:

 

[screeny]

That's why comps such as the recent pacific cup and rim are so necessary coz it gets the islands nations playing.

However, idiots like Geoff Carr have already said "there are loads of Island players in the NRL so those nations will be competitive" or words to that effect! He just doesn't get it....he truly believes strong islander sides made up of NRL players just for the WC is a good thing, rather than having them established and playing regularly every year at home and abroad.

 

[ruggabugga]

Screeny.

Don't u understand that the economics of league are such that this is the only way the game can pretend to be international. A CLUB BASED GAME WILL CARE ABOUT CLUBS a NATIONALLY FUNDED GAME WILL CARE ABOUT DEVELOPING NATIONAL COMPETITORS WITHIN A COMMERCIALLY VIABLE TIMEFRAME......UNDERSTAND? :idea: :idea:

 

[taipan]

Thats why there are competitions up and running in Ireland,Wales,Scotland,France Lebanon for example.That is why there are tri series,tests,SOO to help fund international development.Plus grants from Govt such as Sport England, which has helped the code expand throught England and not just the North.
So we dont need a perceived economics lesson,funding is already in place via the tri series to move international rugby league forward .
2008 is 4 years away not tomorrow.As a recent world cup has shown in another code,there were plenty of players not excactly home grown players of the countries they represented.So to lecture rugby league on eligibility rules is a tad hypocritical.

 

[dimitri]

Thats why there are competitions up and running in Ireland,Wales,Scotland,France Lebanon for example.That is why there are tri series,tests,SOO to help fund international development.Plus grants from Govt such as Sport England, which has helped the code expand throught England and not just the North.
So we dont need a perceived economics lesson,funding is already in place via the tri series to move international rugby league forward .
2008 is 4 years away not tomorrow.As a recent world cup has shown in another code,there were plenty of players not excactly home grown players of the countries they represented.So to lecture rugby league on eligibility rules is a tad hypocritical.

cough cough


scottish rugby union


:lol:

 

[hgfds]

There isnt anywhere near the amount of matches for the rlwc as the ruwc,matches are going to be held in nz so there may only 9 pool teams in australia,so whoever gets the matches are going to be lucky

 

[griff]

There isnt anywhere near the amount of matches for the rlwc as the ruwc,matches are going to be held in nz so there may only 9 pool teams in australia,so whoever gets the matches are going to be lucky

Which ever way they structure it (2 pools of 5, 3 pools of 4, 4 pools of 3, 2 pools of 6, 4 pools of 4...) they need to make sure there are a decent amount of matches. After paying all the costs of getting all the teams here, the more matches you have should make more of a profit. Also stadium hire becomes cheaper the more matches you hire it for etc.

 

[Jeffles]

I envisage around 30 matches for 10 teams. That's enough to take at least 4 matches outside (Melb, Adel, Perth, CHCH).

 

[griff]

I envisage around 30 matches for 10 teams. That's enough to take at least 4 matches outside (Melb, Adel, Perth, CHCH).

Say you had 10 teams in 2 groups of 5.

That's 20 group games, add in 4 quarters, 2 semis, 1 final = that's 27 matches.

12 teams in 2 groups of 6 would give 37 matches.

So you add just 2 more teams but you get 10 more matches and 10 more chances to have games in emerging states.

 

[rugged]

As long as you can get the 12 it would be a good idea.

 

[griff]

As long as you can get the 12 it would be a good idea.

Of course they could get the 12. They could get 16 fairly easily as well. And that is without teams like the Maori or made up teams full of Australians like Malta/Greece.

 

[screeny]

But griff 16 teams would make qualifiers pretty obsolete so therefore is undesirable IMO. We need to start thinking of ourselves as a sport that runs regional qualifiers.

12 teams is perfect and ensures that at least some strong-ish sides (perhaps one HN side) misses out, which in turn adds to the credibility of the process.

 

[griff]

But griff 16 teams would make qualifiers pretty obsolete so therefore is undesirable IMO. We need to start thinking of ourselves as a sport that runs regional qualifiers.

12 teams is perfect and ensures that at least some strong-ish sides (perhaps one HN side) misses out, which in turn adds to the credibility of the process.

Really I think it is the mere fact of having a regional qualifying process is what makes the tournament credible rather than how extensive the qualifying is.

Making the qualifying process too exhaustive would not be worth the expense, as long as every nation with a domestic competition in place gets a chance to be there. Having qualifiers where a (relatively) big nation plays a minnow (say France v Serbia) I think would be counterproductive and a waste of time and money.

Also the more nations at the WC, the more benefit they will get. Those extra 4 developing nations would benefit much more from being in the main event than missing out, even if they do go to a second tier Emerging Nations series.

Here is just an example of how a meaningful regional qualifying could still work with a 16 team WC.

The 8 quarter-finalists from RLWC 2000 should get in automatically, then I think a fairly short and inexpensive system of regional qualifiers is the way to go for the remaining teams. These could be one off matches between 2 possible qualifiers, and a Pacific Cup could double as a regional qualifying tournament.

Americas
USA v Canada (possibly also with Argentina/Jamaica?)

Eastern Europe
Serbia & Montenegro v Russia (Georgia/Ukraine/Estonia?)

Western Europe
Scotland v Holland

Africa
Morocco v South Africa

Pacific (top 3 from the Pacific Cup)
Tonga, Fiji, Cook Is, Niue, New Caledonia

Asia
Lebanon v Japan