gecko18 said:
The next RLWC should be played in 2009 as theirs no competition. However lets be realistic about how many teams should be included, the tournament needs to make a profit and needs to have the appearance of a competitive tournament. The worst thing for RL would be having a 16 teams comp in just to have it loose money and be the subject of ridicule like the last.
I think 10 or 12 teams is the best number. While teams like Nimibia might look like a joke in the RWC their domestic structure is better than all but 4 RL nations, theyve also produced many professional players. Uruguay has about 4000 players thats about 20 times more than US RL. If 16 teams are invited many of them will be of atrocious standard sure they wont get beaten by 142-0 due to the nature of the 2 sports and the fact that half the team will end up being Aussies and English.
From an article about Namibian RU which included an interview with the Namibian coach:
"This vast, but sparsely populated, country have just over 500 active senior players, a meagre 16 clubs and 50 coaches at their disposal."
RL nations with a better domestic structure:
Australia
New Zealand
England
Papua New Guinea
France
Russia
Fiji
etc
Uruguay claims just 550 senior male players, but since Namibia claim 1500 senior male players but only actually have a third of that, Uruguay's actual number is much less, and probably about the same number as play RL in USA.
Further, Uruguay's competition is based on the upper class Polo/Old Boys clubs, and is more of a social participation thing rather than elite sport. The average standard of player in Uruguay RL would certainly be lower than in US RL, which includes a number of former internationals and a number of the more top-level US RU players.
I dont think teams should qualify on the strength of NRL and ESL players available to them. Although Russia got thrashed last WC to be fair the player pool they have is greater than most of the other teams however they relied on grandparent players less. Putting teams like Italy, Japan or the USA into a WC just to make up the numbers will only have a negative impact on media perceptions, the equivelent of including them would be like the IRB including Senegal, the Caymens, Monaco and Andorra in their WC.
No it wouldn't. The standard of the top 16 RU teams in the world is pretty close to the standard of the top 16 RL teams. If the RUWC has 20 teams, then the RLWC could have 16 teams of a similar quality.
Teams like Senegal get beaten 90-0 by Namibia, who themselves get beaten 140-0 by Australia. We will never know what the score would be between Senegal and Australia because the game would never be played as it would put the lives of the Senegal players at risk.
A team like Russia or USA in a RLWC would only get beaten by around 120-0 .
The difference in class between Australia and USA in RL would be much more similar to England and Uruguay in RU than England and Senegal.
Can anyone who advocates a 16 team WC name 16 semi quality teams that wont relly heavilly on Aussies and Englishmen.
OK:
1) Australia
2) New Zealand
3) England
4) Wales (a mix of domestic players, Welsh RL professionals playing in England, and a few grandparent rule players)
5) Scotland (a mix of student internationals, domestic players and GP rule players)
6) Ireland (Irish RL pros, domestic players, GP rule players)
7) Russia (a few thousand Russian domestic players)
8) Papua New Guinea (national sport)
9) Samoa (players from revived domestic comp, Samoans in NZ, Samoans playing professionally)
10) Tonga (domestic comp, Tongan pros)
11) South Africa (players from small domestic comp, South African RL pros playing in England, former RU players)
12) Italy (from fledgling domestic comp, former Italian RU players, GP rule players)
13) Lebanon (domestic players, Lebanon-born RL pros, children of Lebanon-born parents)
14) USA (domestic comp)
15) Fiji (domestic comp, several pros in England and Aus)
16) France (domestic comp, couple of English based professionals)
see also Japan, Morocco, Serbia, Cook Is.
