Jeffles RLWC Proposal

[Jeffles]

The RLIF is all talk about it at the moment. And a Southern Hemisphere tournament too.

For hosts I'd like to see Aust. (most pool matches and finals), NZ (their pool matches only and maybe a semi final) and PNG (their pool matches only).

As for teams, I like the idea of 10 teams. 2 Groups. Each team is seeded in their group by world ranking/qualifying position.

Each team plays the other 4 teams in their pool once and they have a fifth match against the corresponding seed in their pool.

E.g.. Australia (assume they are seeded 1 in their pool)
They play 4 matches against the other teams in their pool and they play a fifth match against the top seed of the other pool (most likely NZ or GB or England, depending on circumstances). That way Australia plays a team seeded 1 (other pool), 2,3,4,5 (their pool). That's even

The cross pool match seems bias. But I argue against that. I think it's a good idea because you get a couple of extra blockbusters for the coffers (Aust v NZ for example). Also it pits all teams against sides of similar ability. This gives low (5th) ranked nations the chance of a victory. I don't think this would disadvantage any team in a group, since every country would play a team seeded 1,2,3,4, and 5.

Then they have semi finals and a final (3rd playoff optional).

That's 5 rounds of pool matches, a semi final round and a final round. 7 rounds that can be covered in 6 weekends (ie. 5 weeks) by playing one midweek round or 5 weekends (one month) by having 2 midweek pool matches. Aside from the midweek round/s, leave the matches to weekends for maximum exposure.

Total matches = 28 (or 29 if you want a 3rd place playoff).

As for teams competing I'd go as such:

Splitting GB into home nations:
Auto Entry - England, France, Wales, Aust, NZ, PNG
Qualifiers - 2 from Europe/Middle East/Africa, 2 from East Asia/Pacific/Americas

Playing as GB Lions:
Auto Entry - GB, France, Aust, NZ, PNG
Qualifiers - 2 from Europe/Middle East/Africa, 3 from East Asia/Pacific/Americas

I haven't mentioned which other countires should/shouldn't be there. Leave that to qualifying. Many nations display erratic form based on opoosition and the availability of professional players so it is difficult to judge that. Leave the judgment to the qualifying (which can occur the season before). I gave automatic entry to the nations that participated in the old World Cup (1954-1992).

What do you all think?

 

[bazza]

Interesting concept with the cross-pool game. That overcomes the problem of not having enough close games whenthe competition is split into pools.

I would go for a smaller tournament with 8 teams. The advantage would be that it could be finished in a month and would have decent standards of teams. This would be safe if you want to keep costs down and keep crowds interested in quality games.

 

[Jeffles]

Good call bazza. I thought about 8 but I was leaned towards 10 so that some more fringe nations could participate. That's just my opinion. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Big Bunny]

I would love to see PNG host a pool, but the commercial reality won't allow that to happen. I want the world cup to make money, so that it can go towards PNG and other nations that need urgent help. Giving them a few home games isn't going to help them as much as an injection of funds will.

 

[Jeffles]

Thanks Big Bunny. I guess you have a fair point factoring in the exchange rate.

I am more concerned regardsing format. Pools and draw. I think the other stuff is less important.

 

[dimitri]

8 teams is not enough for a world cup

10 or 12 is a much better number

id also like to see an emerging nations cup played at the same time involving nations such as greece, italy, morocco etc etc

 

[Jeffles]

They had 10 teams for the 1995 RLWC. It had a good balance of up and comers, close results, and not too many thrashings.

 

[AuckMel]

8 teams sounds right. Lets not make the mistake Union did, and have teams in there just for the sake of it.

Two groups of 4, three qualifying games, top 4 into the semis.

Aus, NZ, France, PNG and England all get direct entry, 3 other teams get to qualify.

Those teams could play a home and away series over two years, with the top 3 teams qualifying.

Venues:

Wellington or Christchurch, Auckland, Townsville. Games in either, Gosford, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney and Port Moresby.

I also think since Maori players aren't allowed the option of a 2nd team to choose from, all players should only be allowed to pledge their allegiance to one nation.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I think 10 teams is the minimum. 8 teams would really be a backward step (5 in 1992 inc. GB, 10 in 95 and 16 in 2000), it makes the game look small and would limit involvement from developing nations. If you were to assume Aust, NZ, England. Wales, PNG and France get in there's only two more spots and with the grandparent rule Ireland, Scotland and Lebanon will probably take them, leaving no room for smaller nations.

I think we should assume that some of the promising nations will be more competitive by 2007/08 and go for 10 or more. It's hard to logistically run 12 or 14 I know, but they managed in the cricket and I don't think we should limit teams based on tricky numbers.

PNG must host games. I can understand the need for money, but if they can't even host their own national team in a world cup what's the point in even trying in PNG. It would be the biggest event in the country's history I reckon (other than independence). If they can't host a few RLWC games, when can they? The PNG people need to see more top-class footy and more of their national team, if they are deprived of this over the next 10 years there's little hope. You can give the PNGRFL as much RLWC revenue as you like, but seeing their team on home soil is worth a whole lot more.

Also, can we compete in 2007? RUWC, Cricket WC etc. I think maybe a smaller tournament in 2007 for the centenary, maybe including 4-6 teams and then a full RLWC in 2008. When are the Olympics? Hope it wouldn't clash. 2008 is a long way off, I know, but more time to plan, more time to build up the lower teams etc.

Anyway, it's alright to hypothesise, but it's up to the RLIF to decide on it... crap... that could be our downfall.

 

[deluded pom?]

If we`re serious about getting the RLWC back on track then we have to be looking at staging it in 2005 and thereafter on a four yearly cycle . In these years there isn`t any serious competition from other major sporting events . No Olympics ,no soccer WC ,no RUWC ,no cricket WC and no soccer European Nations Cup .

 

[Big Bunny]

I think 10 teams is the minimum. 8 teams would really be a backward step (5 in 1992 inc. GB, 10 in 95 and 16 in 2000), it makes the game look small and would limit involvement from developing nations. If you were to assume Aust, NZ, England. Wales, PNG and France get in there's only two more spots and with the grandparent rule Ireland, Scotland and Lebanon will probably take them, leaving no room for smaller nations.

I think we should assume that some of the promising nations will be more competitive by 2007/08 and go for 10 or more. It's hard to logistically run 12 or 14 I know, but they managed in the cricket and I don't think we should limit teams based on tricky numbers.

PNG must host games. I can understand the need for money, but if they can't even host their own national team in a world cup what's the point in even trying in PNG. It would be the biggest event in the country's history I reckon (other than independence). If they can't host a few RLWC games, when can they? The PNG people need to see more top-class footy and more of their national team, if they are deprived of this over the next 10 years there's little hope. You can give the PNGRFL as much RLWC revenue as you like, but seeing their team on home soil is worth a whole lot more.

Also, can we compete in 2007? RUWC, Cricket WC etc. I think maybe a smaller tournament in 2007 for the centenary, maybe including 4-6 teams and then a full RLWC in 2008. When are the Olympics? Hope it wouldn't clash. 2008 is a long way off, I know, but more time to plan, more time to build up the lower teams etc.

Anyway, it's alright to hypothesise, but it's up to the RLIF to decide on it... crap... that could be our downfall.

I honestly do understand the passion with which some people would like to see PNG hosting a pool, but let's look at the facts (as annoying as they might be, to me included). The World Cup isn't going to be anymore than 10 teams, it will most likely be the 8 that none of us want. You won't get 3 pools out of that, so if NZ are included then that's PNG out of hosting anyway. Playing just their pool games there is a strain on funds as well and offers nothing to PNG's future.

The Cup needs to be a money spinner, in order to help drag PNG out of their current hole. I'd much rather see half a million go to them to further their international future for the next 5-6 years, rather than see them up the creek without a paddle just so they can host loss making games in a rickety old 10,000 seat 'stadium.'

Jeffles, fair enough on wanting to work out pools etc, it is worth the thought.

 

[JOBPS]

Australia, New Zealand, England, France and Wales should be the strongest teams in 2007, the Pacific Islands are a bit touch and go. If they were allowed access to their best players then they could make a real go of it and progress well.

Ireland and Scotland will hopefully have more professional players in Super League by then (I mean players who were actually born in Ireland and Scotland), but they could also rely on the Grand-Parent rule to strengthen their squads.

Teams like Lebannon are also likely to want to be included and probably have the ability and a good base of Australian players to choose from.

Russia and America will also want to enter - they will have had nearly 10 years of good development by and their officials will want their players playing the game at the highest level in order to progress them even more.

Greece and Italy could also muster up pretty good teams - especially Italy. Afew Union converts, maybe a couple of French based players and a dozen or so NRL/Super League players with Italian ancestry would help the games development no end.

I think 14 teams is the way forward, 2 groups of 7 with the top three of each group going into another group (Like the cricket World Cup)

The 14 teams would ideally be:

Australia, New Zealand, England, Wales, France, PNG, Samoa, Tonga, USA, Russia, Ireland, Scotland, Lebannon and Italy.

 

[hgfds]

I think 16 the ruwc has shown that internationals can draw support away from the capital cities and that the ozzies will support the underdogs ,heck they even played the ruwc in launceston,let the full members of the rlif or the teams in the 7s go through without expensive qualifers ,these are ,oz,nz,eng,fra,scot,ire,png,wal,samoa,tonga,fiji,lebanon,,russia,south africa,then we have nth qualifer morrocco,serbia,greece,italy,holland,pacific qualifer,usa,arg,jap,cook islands,newcal,

 

[dimitri]

the fact is that in australia we should be able to have more teams than in eng because on the whole we get better crowds


games in country areas such as wollongong, gosford, newcastle, townsville, etc should sell out no problems


games in brisbane, gold coast, canberra, melbourne, perth, adelaide and sydney wil all get respectable crowds if promoted right

also the weather in australia is a lot better


crowds for some rlwc2000 games were as low as 2000-4000 from memory

i reckon in australia we could hold games in hobart and they would get more than 4000 there

thats just my opinion

so if the crowds are going to be good, and this is promoted as a festival of international rugby league

then any less than 12 teams would be ludicrous

 

[Jeffles]

I think 10 is OK. You'ss still get thrashings but nothing near 142-0.

8 is a possibility too. I still like the idea of cross pool games if it were 8 because it is a real cash booster and it gives all teams an even chance at a win.

8 teams with a cross pool match is 19 matches (20 with a 3rd place playoff). That seems OK for fundraising. But if that was to occur I'd like a corresponding internationals (possibly a tournament) for emerging nations.

If it were 8 teams.

Auto Entry - Aust, NZ, GB, PNG, France
Qualifiers - 1 from Pacific/East Asia/Americas, 1 From Europe/Middle East/Africa + one other (a playoff between runners up in each qualifying group)

 

[dimitri]

if it were to be 12 teams id have

aus
nz
eng
ireland
scotland
wales
france
png
lebanon
+3 qualifiers

NOT HAVING LEBANON would be absolutely ridiculous
they are the 4th or 5th best nation in the world
many of their players like the el masris were born there
the crowds they'll pull in sydney will be too good to refuse

 

[Kurt Angle]

Why RLWC in 2007 ?

Then we are competing against RU and cricket and whatever else.

2005 would of been perfect, as a beginning of a 4 year rotation, next will be 2009.

I know we deserve some sort of celebration in 2007 for Oz's 100 years, but it doesn't have to be a world cup, and not 2008, we should know not to go head to head against the olympics. Only Euro Soccer can do that.

Call it the 'Australian Centennial International Challenge' or something like that.

8 teams there.

12-16 teams in 2009 for a world cup.

I agree with dimitri, Lebanon would fill Parramatta Stadium if they played in Sydney.

Pity about there being no profit for the match, cuz you'd need to hire 10,000 security guards for the crowd

 

[Jeffles]

I agree about the years Kurt Angle and Deluded Pom. 2009, 2013 etc is the way to go. The 2007 tournament has been mooted to celebrate 100 yrs of the game down under.

Perhaps a 2007 tournament, a small challenge in 2010 (if the Commmonwealth Games are on in the middle of the year with the Euro Champs then it would be OK to have it at the end of the year) and then in 2013 to start a 4 year rotation.

 

[dimitri]

i dont think the rywc will be a problem

australians only seem to follow sporting events held in aus these days

 

[GBTwo]

i dont think the rywc will be a problem

australians only seem to follow sporting events held in aus these days

They can't even manage that.

So much for a sporting nation.