Apologies for the long post:
I’m going to take a more traditional view of what the tournament could look like if we go to 16 teams with 4 pools of 4 teams.
Assuming we take the top 16 teams according to IRL rankings (hypothetically), that is:
Australia, New Zealand, England, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji, France, Netherlands, Cook Islands, Serbia, Wales, Malta, Greece, Ukraine, Lebanon.
We then construct the groups according to the rankings so that we have two sides of the draw culminating in the top 4 meeting in the semis, if results go the way of rankings.
The groups will look like this:
Group A: Australia, France, Netherlands, Lebanon
Group B: NZ, Fiji, Cook Islands, Ukraine
Group C: England, PNG, Serbia, Greece
Group D: Tonga, Samoa, Wales, Malta
Teams play games within each pool, and the top two go into the quarter finals knockout phase.
The games should be hosted in venues that make sense, and within nearby regions to minimise travel during the group games, so without going through all the games, this particular arrangement could have:
Group A could all be hosted in Sydney/Newcastle/Gosford/Wollongong region
Group B could be hosted in Melbourne/Adelaide/Perth/Canberra (a bit more travel but at most a couple hours flight)
Group C could be hosted in PNG
Group D could be hosted in Brisbane/Gold Coast/Townsville/Cairns
NZ v Fiji in Melbourne; Tonga v Samoa at Suncorp etc.
3 weeks of pool games + 3 weeks of finals
Each pool group plays 2 games per week = 8 games per week x 3 weeks = 24 venues to choose from.
The quarter finals would look like this, if results go the way of rankings:
Winner A vs D runner up; Winner B vs C runner up etc
QF1: Australia v Samoa at Sydney
QF2: NZ v PNG at PNG
QF3: England v Fiji at Melbourne
QF4: Tonga v France at Brisbane
Semi-finals are hosted in non-final hosting cities to make it fairer.
SF1: Aus v Tonga at Melbourne
SF2: NZ v England at Sydney
Final: Aus v NZ at Brisbane
Of course, we could get radically different results from the above but the point is that using a traditional tournament structure we will still get the big clashes but also give other countries an opportunity to participate in a fair way.
Also note that even if two teams are in the same group they can still meet in the final.
Why do I post this?
To show that if we move to a more traditional format you increase exposure by allowing more teams to join in, and yes, that includes the developing nations. You also make it look like a more legitimate structure, not some strange structure that is geared towards certain big clashes and is changed every single world cup. This is a ludicrous situation and makes the whole sport lose credibility. We need to regain credibility as a priority.
The downside is that you will have potentially more blowouts in some of the games (compared to the proposed 10 team structure) because you are pairing up the tier 1 nations with developing nations. But honestly we see this in the rugby and soccer as well (to a lesser extent) - it's something we have to suffer through unfortunately.
I’m not sure this is the right solution but wanted to put it out there for discussion. Thoughts?
I’m going to take a more traditional view of what the tournament could look like if we go to 16 teams with 4 pools of 4 teams.
Assuming we take the top 16 teams according to IRL rankings (hypothetically), that is:
Australia, New Zealand, England, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji, France, Netherlands, Cook Islands, Serbia, Wales, Malta, Greece, Ukraine, Lebanon.
We then construct the groups according to the rankings so that we have two sides of the draw culminating in the top 4 meeting in the semis, if results go the way of rankings.
The groups will look like this:
Group A: Australia, France, Netherlands, Lebanon
Group B: NZ, Fiji, Cook Islands, Ukraine
Group C: England, PNG, Serbia, Greece
Group D: Tonga, Samoa, Wales, Malta
Teams play games within each pool, and the top two go into the quarter finals knockout phase.
The games should be hosted in venues that make sense, and within nearby regions to minimise travel during the group games, so without going through all the games, this particular arrangement could have:
Group A could all be hosted in Sydney/Newcastle/Gosford/Wollongong region
Group B could be hosted in Melbourne/Adelaide/Perth/Canberra (a bit more travel but at most a couple hours flight)
Group C could be hosted in PNG
Group D could be hosted in Brisbane/Gold Coast/Townsville/Cairns
NZ v Fiji in Melbourne; Tonga v Samoa at Suncorp etc.
3 weeks of pool games + 3 weeks of finals
Each pool group plays 2 games per week = 8 games per week x 3 weeks = 24 venues to choose from.
The quarter finals would look like this, if results go the way of rankings:
Winner A vs D runner up; Winner B vs C runner up etc
QF1: Australia v Samoa at Sydney
QF2: NZ v PNG at PNG
QF3: England v Fiji at Melbourne
QF4: Tonga v France at Brisbane
Semi-finals are hosted in non-final hosting cities to make it fairer.
SF1: Aus v Tonga at Melbourne
SF2: NZ v England at Sydney
Final: Aus v NZ at Brisbane
Of course, we could get radically different results from the above but the point is that using a traditional tournament structure we will still get the big clashes but also give other countries an opportunity to participate in a fair way.
Also note that even if two teams are in the same group they can still meet in the final.
Why do I post this?
To show that if we move to a more traditional format you increase exposure by allowing more teams to join in, and yes, that includes the developing nations. You also make it look like a more legitimate structure, not some strange structure that is geared towards certain big clashes and is changed every single world cup. This is a ludicrous situation and makes the whole sport lose credibility. We need to regain credibility as a priority.
The downside is that you will have potentially more blowouts in some of the games (compared to the proposed 10 team structure) because you are pairing up the tier 1 nations with developing nations. But honestly we see this in the rugby and soccer as well (to a lesser extent) - it's something we have to suffer through unfortunately.
I’m not sure this is the right solution but wanted to put it out there for discussion. Thoughts?
