RLWC2021 - Exclusively England/Capacity Target Revised

[BuderusIsaBeast]

To put up a counter proposal you could have 2 super groups with 3 teams going through and 2 groups with 1 team going through. So for an example.

Group A - England, Australia, PNG, Ireland
Group B - NZ, Tonga, Fiji, Italy
Group C - Samoa, Lebanon, Scotland, USA
Group D - France, Wales, Cook Islands, Serbia

A1 vs B3 - B1 vs A3 - A2 vs D1 - B2 vs C1
Winner of game 1 vs game 4
Winner of game 2 vs game 3

With this format you could open the tournament at Wembley or Old Trafford with England vs Australia in a game which gets the tournament started strongly. This way you have big games in both the group stages and the finals.

 

[Springs09]

You make some very good points but unfortunately we both no rugby league is marked far harder with our one sided games then union.

While NZ, were hammering there opponents in the 2007 group stages, their difference is the other groups had marquee games to start the tournament. In 2007 these were the likes of England vs SA, Australia vs Wales, and the trio of games between France. Argentina and Ireland.

I’m worried if we start with no super group not only will we have a number of 1 sided games, but there will be few games for fans to really look forward to in the opening weeks.

I agree with you about rugby league needs to continue investing in the international game. However sadly these same issues continue to exist from 2008. A number of countries are still a long way behind and still full of heritage players. I also have to disagree about fans not caring about eligibility but that is a different discussion for another day

So our only marquee games can be England v Australia, Australia v NZ and England v NZ?

There are plenty of opportunities no matter what the make up of the pools for marquee games at least on the level of Argentina v Ireland. England v Fiji and England v Ireland sold out last time round.

There will be a number of one-sided games no matter what the pools.

 

[Springs09]

To put up a counter proposal you could have 2 super groups with 3 teams going through and 2 groups with 1 team going through. So for an example.

Group A - England, Australia, PNG, Ireland
Group B - NZ, Tonga, Fiji, Italy
Group C - Samoa, Lebanon, Scotland, USA
Group D - France, Wales, Cook Islands, Serbia

A1 vs B3 - B1 vs A3 - A2 vs D1 - B2 vs C1
Winner of game 1 vs game 4
Winner of game 2 vs game 3

With this format you could open the tournament at Wembley or Old Trafford with England vs Australia in a game which gets the tournament started strongly. This way you have big games in both the group stages and the finals.

That's not a counter proposal, that's the exact format as 2017 with an extra team in Pools C & D.

 

[adamkungl]

Look I'm not against the Super Pool format of 2017* being repeated, but I'm leaning towards thinking we don't gain all that much from it to be worth the controversy**.

*note 1:
WITH an important change.
Ranks 1 and 2 from pool A and B go through, and the winners of C and D.
BUT teams 7 and 8 are decided 'wildcard' style, the 2 teams with the best record going through rather than 3rd in A and B.
This prevents the scenario where Samoa went through despite not winning a game while Ireland with 2 wins got sent home (Italy also had a better record than Lebanon, fwiw).

**note 2:
Above is an example of the controversy we can avoid by ditching super pools. Contrived formats always come with complications. Keep it simple.


And for what it's worth, the Super Pool didn't gain us shit in 2017.
The Aus v England opener drew an underwhelming crowd and 4th ranked Scotland (NZs Super Pool pairing) bombed spectacularly due to NZ crowd apathy and Scotland tanking in under 12 months.

 

[adamkungl]

You make some very good points but unfortunately we both no rugby league is marked far harder with our one sided games then union.

While NZ, were hammering there opponents in the 2007 group stages, their difference is the other groups had marquee games to start the tournament. In 2007 these were the likes of England vs SA, Australia vs Wales, and the trio of games between France. Argentina and Ireland.

England playing anyone will draw a decent crowd (unlike Aus and NZ fans dogging it), and there are a number of tier 2 teams from France to Fiji that can give them a strong game.
England v France or Ireland would be a really good opener for the tournament.

But the broader point is, if we assume there are only 3 teams worth watching then why have a World Cup at all?

 

[jim_57]

In 2007, merely 2 World Cups ago, the All Blacks went through their group with 309 for 35 against
Italy 76-14
Portugal 108-13
Scotland 40-0
Romania 85-8

In the previous iteration in 2003, Australia knocked up a 90 and 142 in the pools, England an 84 and a 111, and NZ went 53, 68, 70, 91.

In 1999, NZ put 100 on Italy and England 100 on Tonga while Japan got spanked by everyone.

The Rugby League World Cup is currently at best (this is even a stretch) a comparable event to the 1995 Rugby World Cup (where NZ put 145 points on Japan).
Out international development should be benchmarked against early 90s Union, not current Union or Soccer.

The difference is, they keep investing, we wring our hands and make up contrived formats and keep the size down.
Fans don't give a shit about blowouts or even eligibility IF they can see international teams playing meaningful games year in year out.

I see what you're saying, but unfortunately our World Cup is likely to have the eyes picked out of it more than either Onion or Soccer. It's all well and good to say "who cares?" But a lot of people are sheep and will just repeat what media tells them, which unfortunately leaves media with potential to try and derail our World Cup. As sad as it is, we shouldn't be planning our entire world cup around it obviously but should also be very careful not to give too much oppurtunity to those that would try and belittle it, especially seeing as if 750k is the target the organisers will want and need a lot of casual/new fans attending.

 

[jim_57]

What are people's thoughts on venues for the event games? (England games, semis & final)

• Opener - Old Trafford or Etihad Stadium, Manchester
• England 2nd Pool game - Elland Road, Leeds (for lack of a better Yorkshire option)
• England 3rd Pool game - Olympic Stadium, London (Or new Spurs stadium)
• England Quarter - St. James' Park, Newcastle
• England Semi - Anfield, Liverpool
• Final - Wembley Stadium, London

Going to be a very tough ask trying to fill all of those, marketing campaigns targets neutrals are a must.

 

[Last Week]

The media are going to criticise the WC regardless, so worrying about that is a waste of time.

Besides, there are plenty of teams that would produce a good match to open the comp with against England. Tonga, Samoa, Fiji, Lebanon (maybe) and PNG would all give a good performance against England. Ireland, Wales and France might also be good.

I'd pick Tonga. Grudge match from 2017 WC semi.

 

[adamkungl]

I see what you're saying, but unfortunately our World Cup is likely to have the eyes picked out of it more than either Onion or Soccer. It's all well and good to say "who cares?" But a lot of people are sheep and will just repeat what media tells them, which unfortunately leaves media with potential to try and derail our World Cup. As sad as it is, we shouldn't be planning our entire world cup around it obviously but should also be very careful not to give too much oppurtunity to those that would try and belittle it, especially seeing as if 750k is the target the organisers will want and need a lot of casual/new fans attending.

No point trying to please people that are gonna shit on it either way.
And to be honest, the parasites in the Australian media will have little to no influence on crowds or perception in England, thankfully.

The best way for Rugby League to gain media traction in England is to play big games in big cities and take a leaf out of the Wolfpack playbook and promote promote promote.
If we have rubbish like double-headers at Leigh Sports Village you can forget about any media coverage let alone negative media.

 

[adamkungl]

Venue selection using my example draw. Leaving off Manchester Stadium and Warrington HJ Stadium from the shortlist.

A. England, France, Ireland, Italy
B. Australia, Fiji, Lebanon, USA
C. New Zealand, Scotland, PNG, Cook Islands
D. Tonga, Samoa, Wales, Serbia

England v France @ London Stadium
Ireland v Italy @ Sheffield
Australia v Fiji @ Anfield
Lebanon v USA @ Doncaster
New Zealand v Scotland @ Newcastle
PNG v Cook Islands @ Cornwall
Tonga v Samoa @ Hull
Wales v Serbia @ Wigan

England v Ireland @ Sheffield
France v Italy @ Hull
Australia v Lebanon @ Leeds
Fiji v USA @ St Helens
New Zealand v PNG @ Coventry
Scotland v Cook Islands @ Newcastle
Tonga v Wales @ Huddersfield
Samoa v Serbia @ Doncaster

England v Italy @ Anfield
France v Ireland @ Coventry
Australia v USA @ Leeds
Fiji v Lebanon @ Wigan
New Zealand v Cook Islands @ Huddersfield
Scotland v PNG @ Hull
Tonga v Serbia @ St Helens
Wales v Samoa @ Cornwall

QF1 (likely England) @ Old Trafford
QF2 (likely Australia) @ London
QF3 (likely NZ) @ Wigan
QF4 (likely Tonga) @ Newcastle

SF1 (likely England) @ London
SF2 @ Old Trafford

GF @ Wembley

Hull 3
Huddersfield 2
Leeds 2
St Helens 2
Doncaster 2
Wigan 3
Sheffield 2
Coventry 2
Anfield 2
Newcastle 3
Cornwall 2
London 3
Wembley 1
Old Trafford 2


Go big or go home

 

[Perth Red]

Id open with a double header at Wembley, one of them must be Eng v Aus or Eng v NZ.

Final at old trafford with the ditch of death to contend with

 

[adamkungl]

Double headers can die in a fire, second rate rubbish

 

[Springs09]

Id open with a double header at Wembley, one of them must be Eng v Aus or Eng v NZ.

Final at old trafford with the ditch of death to contend with

Why

 

[Springs09]

Double Headers are useless, especially if they are like the ones we had last year.

What do we gain by having a DH at Wembley of say Scotland v Fiji, England v Australia? No one is going to say 'ehh England v Australia at Wembley, nah, oh wait, Scotland plays Fiji beforehand? I'm there!'
We might go from a crowd of 64,500 to 65,000. When we could have 64,00 at Wembley for just England v Australia and then 10,000 at Leeds or Hull or Warrington. People might bitch that Leeds or Hull is half empty but 74,000 > 64,000.

The only 'double headers' we should have is having the women's games before the men's games.

 

[jim_57]

Even if they keep the Super Pool format I think it's time to try something different than an England/Australia/NZ combo to open the tournament. The opener should be marketed as one of the big games even if it isn't the biggest/best matchup on paper.

I'd go England V Ireland or France, it can only help if we build an appetite for England games V european oponents as well. If 50k+ show up to the world cup opener to see England play France, surely it is a good incentive to aim a little bigger in the following years, no more Leigh, please.