How would FIFA-style qualifiers look in Rugby League?

[langpark]

So basically, as you all know, in soccer, EVERY nation (that plays the game) has the right to take part in the qualifiers. In Rugby League, there are currently 36 RLIF ranked nations. If they all had the right to play in the qualifiers, then we might be left with something like this:

Pacific: (8)
Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, Niue

Asia: (2)
Lebanon, Philippines

Africa: (2)
South Africa, Morocco

North America: (3)
USA, Canada, Jamaica

Europe: (21)
England, France, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Italy, Serbia, Russia, Belgium, Germany, Norway, Ukraine, Malta, Greece, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Czech Republic, Sweden, Hungary, Latvia.



Might end up looking something like this:

Pacific (6 spots)
1. Australia
2. New Zealand
3. Papua New Guinea
4. Fiji
5. Samoa
6. Tonga
7. Cook Islands
8. Nuie

Asia-Africa-North America (2 spots)
1. Lebanon
2. USA
3. Canada
4. South Africa
5. Jamaica
6. Morocco
7. Philippines

Europe Group A: (2 spots)
1. England
2. Scotland
3. Russia
4. Spain
5. Norway
6. Sweden
7. Hungary

Europe Group B: (2 spots)
1. France
2. Ireland
3. Italy
4. Malta
5. Germany
6. Denmark
7. Netherlands

Europe Group C: (2 spots)
1. Wales
2. Serbia
3. Ukraine
4. Greece
5. Czech Republic
6. Latvia
7. Belgium


It would be spread across two years and you would play every team in your group, once at home and once away. What would be the main pro's and con's to a system like this?

 

[Last Week]

Too many useless matches, especially the Pacific pool. Only two wouldn't qualify.

Travel, especially with the Asia/Africa pool you have created, would be ridiculous. Especially with only two spots available. Just not worth it.

I like the idea of having the WC based on regional qualifiers and not necessarily the best 14 teams in the world.

If we were to do it where every nation that plays is allowed to participate in the qualifiers, more pools, less matches. Europe would need more spots purely because of the amount of nations that are there. Only 28.57% of Europe can qualify but 75% of the Pacific can qualify? On the other side of the coin, if we evened that up, quality teams in the pacific would be replaced by mediocre teams from Europe.

I like the way we're doing it now in Europe. A tiered qualifying system. Ideally it wouldn't be the same tournament as the European Championships but here we are.

The changes I would like to make to our World cup is having less automatic qualifiers. Semi finalists from the previous WC only. (assuming that the host nation was a semi finalist) The benefit from this is the qualifying process is more relevant.

Like right now, the Asia Pacific qualifiers was just a one off game. And the two legged match between Sth Africa and Lebanon is pointless, although options are limited there. Hosting both matches in Sth Africa though is unfair though. The pacif

The qualifiers would be completed at least a full year before the World Cup. Give the participating nations more time to get things sorted out like sponsors, players, coaches, etc etc.

 

[langpark]

Too many useless matches, especially the Pacific pool. Only two wouldn't qualify.

Travel, especially with the Asia/Africa pool you have created, would be ridiculous. Especially with only two spots available. Just not worth it.

I like the idea of having the WC based on regional qualifiers and not necessarily the best 14 teams in the world.

If we were to do it where every nation that plays is allowed to participate in the qualifiers, more pools, less matches. Europe would need more spots purely because of the amount of nations that are there. Only 28.57% of Europe can qualify but 75% of the Pacific can qualify?

Well said. Perhaps I should have started the post by saying: If money/travel costs were not an issue.....


I know what the cons of such a system would be, but let me mention a few of the possible pros:

1. Places like PNG and tiny pacific nations, guaranteed to host Aus and NZ, would be massive! Pandemonium and great for the game in those places!
2. Would it encourage more nations to finally get serious about joining RLIF and developing Rugby League? There are many more nations that have been 'lingering' for a few years, but are not yet in the rankings (Japan, Thailand, Ghana and now a few in South America starting up).
3. Guaranteed matches for some nations. Many of the nations in that list of 36, have not played a match in over a year. This would change that.
4. Some much-needed publicity for the minnows. A place like Hungary hosting England, would be huge for the game in Hungary. Forget the scoreline for a minute, they could make a massive event out of it, attract new viewers sponsors and players. English players could also run some coaching clinics there too the day before or after. Fans may start following the team around too, further contributing to the (tiny) coffers of these minnows.

Anyway, I admit, it is lightyears away right now, but something like this should be the eventual goal.

Also, I expect within two years; Poland, Bosnia, Ghana and one south American nation to have achieved RLIF status. This number will steadily keep growing, which may then allow even further regional segregation.

If we were to do it where every nation that plays is allowed to participate in the qualifiers, more pools, less matches. Europe would need more spots purely because of the amount of nations that are there. Only 28.57% of Europe can qualify but 75% of the Pacific can qualify?

Best short-term solution I'd say to that, would be to combine Asia and Pacific, so there would be 10. Therefore 6/10 are going through. Still not ideal, but a bit better. Or even two groups of 5, with Aus in one and NZ in the other.

 

[Last Week]

I don't think we can ignore the blow out scorelines. Especially with the media rugby league seems to get, blow-outs will be the only thing reported on. I can't see more damage than good. That's why I stress the that the teired system is the best way to go, especially for Rugby League.

I also don't think the different qualifying regions need to have the same amount of nations in them. I'd be much happier keeping them separate where possible (difficult for Africa and Asia).

Now not every region/continent deserves to have guaranteed entry into the World Cup. (Africa for example). I've always been a fan of the repechage rounds. Either two legged or 1 at a neutral location.

As an example, the winner of Africa would play the runner up of the North American region for a spot.

 

[deluded pom?]

I'd like to see a qualification process for the EC rather than the same four teams year in year out. The EC could be every two years instead of every year. Sixteen teams in four groups of four with group winners progressing to the EC.

 

[siv]

A few comments

We all know Australia NZ and England will qualify so we might as well leave them out of the qualifiers and let them play a 3N

Americas Cup is working for Canada US and Jamaica. We just have to continue South Americas expansion

Asia Cup needs to include HK Thailand and Japan

ME & Africa Cup will work also

A Pacific Cup 6N is a qualifier series with a precurser Pacfic Shield where top 2 push up into Pacific Cup

In.Europe regional conferences seem to work well to qualify for a 6N Euro Shield where top 2 qualify for a 6N Euro Cup

So who qualifies
- Big 3
- Top 3 Pacific
- Top 3 Europe
- Top America's
- Winner Africa v Asia

Then a Top 2 of a 4N Repocharge Pacific 4 & 5 Euro 4 Ameicas 2

 

[langpark]

We all know Australia NZ and England will qualify so we might as well leave them out of the qualifiers and let them play a 3N

But I think one of the best things about a system like this is that each pacific nation would be guaranteed to host the Aussies and Kiwis once each across the two years! Just think how great that would be!? Even if it's a 2nd-3rd string side (against the likes of Niue and Cook Islands). Would be a massive event in these places and would hopefully 'force' the networks and media to take more of an interest in the qualifiers!

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Unlike football, the gulf between the best and the worst in rugby league is far greater. Putting Tier 1 nations against Tier 4 nations is just going to be a massacre.

A stacked system over four years is what is best at this stage of international development IMO. But I agree that everyone should have to qualify (unless you're the hosts) and this should be announced BEFORE any matches have happened, not after. It's ridiculous that they decided the quarter finalists automatically qualified AFTER they were played. That's just picking and choosing nations.

Anyway, I'd go with:
2017: RLWC, including 3rd place play off.
Top 3 into Tri Nations and are automatic qualifiers for next RLWC.

2018: Tri Nations (likely Australia, England, New Zealand)
European Cup (top 4 European sides, likely France, Wales, Scotland, Ireland)
Pacific Cup (top 4 Pacific sides, likely Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, PNG)
Winners of both qualify for RLWC and 6N
Americas Cup (USA, Canada, Jamaica)
Afro-Asian Cup (South Africa, Lebanon, Morocco)
Winners play off in Intercontinental Cup (Mid-season test next year) for RLWC and 6N spot.
European Shield qualifiers (group competition to progress to next round of WC qualifiers).

2019: Mid-season Intercontinental Cup (Americas Cup winners vs Afro-Asian Cup winners).
6N (Tri Nations plus Euro/Pacific/IC Cup winners)
European Shield Finals (group competition to determine 4 WC qualifiers)
Pacific Shield (group competition to determine 3 WC qualifiers)
Americas Shield (winner qualifies)
Afro-Asian Shield (winner qualifies)

2020: Tours and warm-up competitions building to WC (basically so the Aussies can take their "year off").
Intercontinental Shield (highest ranked remaining from Euro/Pacific/Americas/Afro-Asian Shields play off for final WC spot).

2021: 16-team RLWC.

Everyone has a route to the Cup this way and know exactly where and when they'll be playing. Most also have a shot at an early qualification. No huge mismatches. A real schedule.

 

[Pommy]

The third ranked team (England) just beat the fifth ranked team (France) 84-4 without even trying.
League has some way to go before there is any point in such a system taking place.
Ozzies mock England and they have every right to but we all know deep down that the top three are miles away from the rest.

 

[deal.with.it]

There was 13 better players for france sitting on the sideline "unavailable"