Setting a 4-year structure that works. 6 Nations, Euro and Pac Cups, ROTW, World Cup

[Hollywood Jesus]

OK, so I'm not a big contributor to the International forum. I don't have the extensive knowledge of smaller nations that many here seem to have.

However, I do regularly read this forum and love getting little bits of information and then telling other league fans about the little bits of information I get here regarding what's going on outside the Aus/NZ/Eng triangle.

It seems that whilst many things are starting to come together recently (France in 4N, Pac Cup winner next year, successful WC last year etc) there still isn't a well established 4-year cycle that includes as many of the nations as possible in meaningful contests.

So, I've read some good ideas here and thought I'd take a stab at getting people to put down a 4-year schedule that they believe works. I'll start with my own but I think others will have a better chance at nailing it.

NOTE: I've taken some ideas from around this forum and used them. Sorry if I don't give credit where it is due.

NOTE: Whilst we will no doubt debate each others ideas, please try to be constructive and offer a schedule yourself. Let's not turn this into something where we basically just criticise each other.

OK, so I think the first step is finding a good way to divide the world up so we can then develop schedules and meaningful pathways.

Major Nations: Aus, NZ, Eng, France (yes, I'm including them permanently here)

Europe: Already have Euro Cup, Bowl, Plate pathway. Would include western Asian countries such a Lebanon, UAE etc

Pacific: Now have Pacific Cup that has meaning. PNG, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Cook Is.

ROTW (Rest of the World): USA, Jamaica/WI, South Africa, Japan, Russia.

Now:

*I'd look to making a Six Nations Tournament - Aus, NZ, Eng, France, Euro, Pac winners

*Pac and Euro Cups would be staged in conjunction with Six Nations so they finish on the same weekend. Two weeks after these three tournaments finish, I would have the winner of Pac/Euro Cups play the Pac/Euro teams that were in Six Nations for a spot in the next 6N tournament.

Pretty standard stuff but it leaves us with the OTW group that have no meaningful tournament on their own, nor pathway to the Big 3 tournaments.

I'd give them a tournament of their own that was played, once again, in conjunction with the Big 3 tournaments. Someone else has suggested that the winner and runner-up in this kind of tournament be given entry into an expanded 6 team Pac Cup. I like this idea and think it could work. I'd play the tournament in whatever Hemisphere wasn't hosting the 6N and I'd play them as openers to whatever Cup was being staged in that Hemisphere (we've already hired the ground, after all, and league fans in these minor nations might be drawn to attend double headers featuring minnows).

I'd also stage the Euro/Pac as openers to the 6N when held in same hemisphere to save costs of hiring new grounds etc and also to allow greater possibility of broadcasting because the infrastructure would already be set up for 6N.

I'd then have a 4-year schedule that went:

Year 1 - 6N in Europe with Euro Cup openers, with Pac/ROTW double played in Sth Hem.
Year 2 - 6N in Aus/NZ with Pac Cup, with Euro/ROTW double played in Nth Hem.
Year 3 - WC qualifiers with Top 5 (Aus, NZ, Eng, France, PNG) doing what they want because they're automatic qualifiers. They can arrange Test series or even take the year off to give their players a break if they want.
Year 4 - World Cup

Note: In all cases of promotion/relegation, I'd have it set up so that the teams contesting for a spot play immediately after the tournaments finished.

Example: PNG are in 6N and Fiji win Pac Cup. Two weeks after the tournaments finish, PNG v Fiji to see 6N entrant the following year.

But this leaves problems, considering 6N is only played in Years 1 & 2.

So, I'd have it so that at the end of Year 2, this promotion/relegation game turned into a WC qualifying game. The winners would get automatic entry into the Year 4 WC and give us 7 WC teams selected already.

This leaves 5 spots for a 12-team WC format. 2 to Pac, 2 to Euro and a Repecharge Euro 3 v Pac 3.

In order to know who gets entry into the next 6N in Year 1 of the next cycle, just use rankings at the end of the WC.

So, you'd have:

Year 1
*6 Nations in Europe - Aus, NZ, Eng, France, Euro 1 and Pac 1 (based on previous WC rankings);
*Euro Cup played as opener to 6N;
*Pac Cup played in Sth Hem, including ROTW1 and ROTW2 based on rankings;
*ROTW Tourny played as openers to Pac Cup;

*6N Euro and Pac teams playing Euro/Pac Cup winners, two weeks after tournaments finish, for spot in Year 2 6N. ROTW winner plays lowest ranked ROTW team from Pac Cup for spot in Pac Cup Year 2. Highest ranked ROTW team from Pac Cup stays in it for Year 2.

Year 2
*6 Nations in Aus/NZ - Aus, NZ, Eng, France, Euro 1 and Pac 1 (based on winners of promo/releg);
*Pac Cup played as opener to 6N;
*Euro Cup played in Nth Hem;
*ROTW Tourny played as openers to Euro Cup;

*6N Euro and Pac teams playing Euro/Pac Cup winners for automatic WC qualification. ROTW winner plays lowest ranked ROTW team from Pac Cup for spot in Pac Cup Year 3. Highest ranked ROTW team from Pac Cup stays in it for Year 3.

Year 3
*Top 7 (Aus, NZ, Eng, France, PNG, Euro, Pac) are free to do what they want. Rest, organise Test series, whatever;
*Euro Cup played in Nth Hem to decide 2 spots for WC;
*Pac Cup played in Sth Hem to decide 2 spots for WC;
*Euro 3 vs Pac 3 for final spot in WC;

* Dunno what to do with ROTW here. Play it anyways just so these teams have something to do? Play it in US to increase profile?

Year 4
*World Cup;
*Euro and Pac spots for 6N in following year decided by rankings after WC.

Does this work?

Is it, for starters, financially viable?

Does it give every team and every region enough meaningful games as well as a fair shot at qualifying for the various tournaments, including the WC?

What happens when WC is expanded to 16 teams?

Anything else I've missed?

 

[wain]

hollywood,
beat me to it by a matter of hours, curse you

Ive been putting together my own thoughts on the international stuff, and now that Ive joined the forum, was coming on today to jot down some thoughts for sharing...and crazy enough...had the exact same idea with the 6Nations concept as you have.

6 nations has a lot of merit...slowly getting another 3 nations to match experience with the big 3.

Top 3 from each Euro/Pacific, with France/Eng to be permanent top 2 for Euro and Aus/NZ for Pacific. The 3rd seed from each region would be a play off from previous years 6N and winner of that regions step-up(Euro nations/Pac cup) a couple of weeks after the conclusion so they have the next full calendar year to prepare.

One difference I like though, is placing in 2 pools, the main reason to shorten the tournament...and also works in well with dual-hosting.

Pool A:
Pacific 1 and 3 in a pool with Euro 2
with Pool B:
Euro 1 and 3 with Pacific 2

Obviously, the top 2 seeds from the region thats hosting, would host matches. That would mean we would (usually) have Australia and NZ host when in southern hemisphere (seeds 1 and 2) while england and France would host when in northern hemisphere (seeds 1 and 2).

2 weeks of pool matches with Pool A winner vs Pool B runner-up in SF1, and Pool B winner vs Pool A runner-up in SF2. 3rd place teams would have week off and play as a curtain raiser to final the following week.

I also like that it would keeps the top nations a little more separated until the finals...keep interest in tournament without Aus unleashing hell (for now...hopefully the others can match consistently in the near future). Builds the finals a bit more if they havent already matched up in the pool matches.

I have other thoughts regarding the international game, but for now...thats my thoughts...and pretty similar with what you have written.

Good thinking mate, keep it up.

 

[roopy]

One thing that international league has to take into account is how fast some countries are developing.
No point making plans a decade ahead when teams like Fiji, Ireland, etc come out of nowhere - and who's to say that Spain, Russia, USA, South Africa or even China might not be top 10 nations in 10 years time.
IMO our decision to have 12 sides in the next WC is already looking stupid in less than a year, and in another 4 years it will look insane.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Well you need to then make sure that you have a system that allows them to come through the major tournaments and get fair matches, roopy, which is exactly the point of this thread.

If, 2 years out from the World Cup, it seems that 16 nations is a better option, surely it would be possible to switch the format and include 16 teams?

There would be a greater need for stadiums and media infrastructure but surely that can be taken care of within 2 years?

Which comes back to the question of designing a system outside of the WC that gives these teams/regions meaningful games and tournaments so that they can develop over the years and the potential for expanding the WC is fulfilled sooner rather than later.

So, what is that system?

 

[LeagueXIII]

I believe a WC every four years with a 4 Nations tournament half way between would be perfect fill the other years with tours (Ashes) and one off tests.

 

[The Tank]

Aren't Russia part of the RLEF?

 

[flamin]

Aren't Russia part of the RLEF?

Yes.



I don't like the idea of a 6 nations just yet as it is basically half a WC and takes a lot of the gloss off what should be the game's premier competition. I also think that 12 nations is the way to go this time round for the WC. It should be an achievement to qualify for the tournament itself.

The key is, and I believe bender mentioned it in another thread, making games between the 2nd tier nations profitable and competitive. From the 4th ranked team to probably the 12th, any side could could beat any other while playing at home. Now are we seeing competitions between these nations get TV coverage, sponsorship and crowds of 1000 - 10000. We should focus on growing these competitions til 2013 at least while also giving these nations a chance to play games against the top 3.

 

[wain]

flamin - fair call with the taking gloss of the WC as an event. I agree, but I guess I still see the possiblity of having 6 competitive nations at the top outweighs that fact. I think the build-up going into a WC where 5 or 6 teams are a possible winner is too big to ignore and is more important I guess, but thats just my opinion.

Hollywood Jesus - the whole 'rest of the world' thing is a tricky one isnt it? Not really enough talent or teams to be more region-specific at this stage of the game. Ideally, I would love to see an Americas group which would cover both Nth and Sth America (so far that is only really USA and Jamaica) and possibly an African/middle east group.

I would love to see them have a direct qualification spot into the WC...even though it may not be strongest teams, having different regions involved i think helps credibility.

And before people shoot that down, soccer follows this idea...right now, Portugal and Argetina struggling to qualify while teams Australia and USA are already in...not sure if its fair - but Im not against it.

Would love to know others thoughts?

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Hollywood Jesus - the whole 'rest of the world' thing is a tricky one isnt it? Not really enough talent or teams to be more region-specific at this stage of the game. Ideally, I would love to see an Americas group which would cover both Nth and Sth America (so far that is only really USA and Jamaica) and possibly an African/middle east group.

I would love to see them have a direct qualification spot into the WC...even though it may not be strongest teams, having different regions involved i think helps credibility.

And before people shoot that down, soccer follows this idea...right now, Portugal and Argetina struggling to qualify while teams Australia and USA are already in...not sure if its fair - but Im not against it.

Would love to know others thoughts?

Yeah, it is tricky.

I actually think it is the only real sticking point.

As it stands, we have a nice Euro and nice Pac set up and even if these groups alternate for a Four Nations it works.

But the likes of USA, Jamaica, South Africa, Japan etc are kind of left in limbo. For starters, none of them would be up to the level of Pac Cup so just chucking USA and Japan in there would lead to slaughter for some time to come.

The only course I see is to give them their own little grouping but it would be expensive because of how far apart they all are.

Even if this was done, this group still shouldn't be funnelled straight into a Five Nations because they're not up to standard. So they need to sit below one of the Pac/Euro comps and Pac makes sense because it is smaller - Europe already has plenty of teams and it doesn't make sense to cram them further whilst leaving Pac with only a handful.

If someone else can think of a way to fit the ROTW into a meaningful schedule I'd love to hear the idea.

 

[hutch]

great thread hollywood jesus, you should post in the international section more often!

im still working on the specifics of my ideal 4 year schedule, but there are a few things i would like to see implemented.

i would like to see a mid year break in the nrl and super league every year for 4 weeks. i know its not likely to happen, but i just feel that there is a a lull during the nrl during origin time, and i dont think clubs should be disadvantaged by playing with weakened teams during this time. also, and the most importantly, it would give all nations the chance to play rep games and test matches and not just australia. while we play origin, we can also have either a pacific cup, or 3 test series between nations such as png v fiji with full strength teams. nz can play their own origin series (kiwi roots), and maybe every 2nd or 4th year play a 3 test series v pacific islands, and of course the anzac test played in the 4th week. they can play a full european cup over 4 weeks in the northern hemisphere.

the main advantage for international rugby league is that by having mid year games for all nations, players can choose who they wish to represent knowing that they will play meaningful tournaments, and not have to declare for australia and origin. not that another nation has "lost" one of there players to origin or australia as some people like to claim, but you get the feeling it may happen one day. the other major change would be the one nation for life rule, and this would be easier to implement with every nation guaranteed of playing games.

i would also reintroduce the domestic player rule. this would have been one of the best things to come out of the world cup until tonga had a sook. either 4 or 5 players in every 17 should have been produced domestically, regardless of where they now play their rugby league. it would give nations an incentive to develop their own players and not rely on australia and nz. fiji are a great example of how this can be successful.

i havnt got the end of season tests sorted yet, and i havnt included nations such as usa, jamaica, south africa which obviously need to be looked after as well, but there are just a few ideas amongst many i would like to see happen one day. there was talk at the start of this year of an 'international' weekend to happen, but they seem to have been scared off from channel 9 as usual, because i remember gallop or love giving some excuse that it would be too hard to work in with their tv contract.

 

[wain]

Hutch - agree with your idea about mid-year breaks...its amazing how so many of us are on the same page, pity the organisers arent.

I had the idea of 'representative rounds' where the comps take a break from domestic to focus on International. 3 rounds, to coincide with Origin. I thought, similar to you, that this would allow minor nations to have more of a focus. That would hopefully get players committed rather than wanting to play for the big 3, or in particular, State of Origin.

I also like the idea of getting a global company for naming rights of the rep rounds, not only for money, but also for media attention. Having other games played same weekend as Origin would allow media to report on that as well, perhaps reporting on all results from the 'coca-cola rep round 1'.

So, a standard weekend might look like:

Fri - Tonga v Samoa (all 3 rep rounds, 1 game each in Sydney, Tonga and Samoa)
Fri - France v Wales
Sat - NZ origin (1 off used as selection for NZ matches in other 2 rep rounds)
Sat - War of the Roses (English selection similar to NZ origin)
Sun arvo - Fiji v PNG
Sun night - NSW v QLD

meanwhile, the next rep round (which would be a month or so apart, as in SOO) the NZ would have chosen their team and could have either a home-and-away series with Fiji for example...or could be part of a 3 way tournament with PNG and Fiji, in which those two nations already played first week. England could do the same, but with France and Wales for example.

So, after 3 'coca-cola rep rounds', we are left with meaningful matches as part of tournaments in which countries have got to have good, solid hit-outs with their full-strength squads.

And, with some more media attention, the mind-set of zero international credibility starts to slowly shift.

Sad news is, I wrote to Steve Mascord and proposed my thoughts, but he said it was brought up at the NRL CEO's meeting earlier this year, and they said no to the stand-alone weekends(for Origin or internationals)...so I guess it's all for nothing.

anyway, thoughts from a guy with way too much time on his hands, and too much frustration towards the people in charge.

Thoughts?

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I for one dont like the idea of International weekends. The whole concept of International weekend was brought up to take advatage of State of Origin and the posibility of it being played on a stand alone weekend, and the excess of players that wouldnt be competing.

If we have Rep Weekends, the SL and NRL competitions are shortened by 3 weeks yes? Why not just keep Origin on Wednesdays, have no breaks in the club season and extend the International season by a few extra weeks. We could also fit in the World Club Challenge after the Grand Finals that way.

Suspense needs to be built up for each event. Club season is perfect for building suspense for the Grand Finals, Grand Finals are perfect for the World Club challenge and then the International Season can begin. Start off with 3 weeks of test matches or tours, then a month of International tournaments like the Pac and Euro Cup and the 4Nations.

As for SOO, it is a proven success on Wednesday nights, and if it is played after the WCC, there is potientially players that would be selected that havent played for 6 weeks.

1st week of March - 2nd week of September, NRL and SL Seasons - SOO mid year as is now. 26 weeks including Finals+2week break after GF

1st Week of October, WCC then 2 week break.

3rd week of October - 4th week of November, International season, 6 weeks.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I've gotta disagree TEZ and say that I totally agree with the stand alone weekends.

I have some different ideas to wain but I think it could work:

*SOO
*NZ v Pac Islands Origin-ish series, PNG v Fiji
*In Europe you have plenty of options - Eng, France, Wales, Ire, Scot in 1v1 series. Eng v Celts etc

Basically your entire weekend would be kick arse representative football.

I essentially see it as an unfair advantage that only Australia gets to warm up to end of season internationals by playing Origin. Australian players are allowed to walk away from their Clubs for this, whilst the likes of NZ and the Pac Islands aren't allowed to. Not only do they get tough football to harden themselves up but they get early opportunities to play important combinations together eg Australia get to put 1, 6, 7 and 9 together for a tough 3-game series in the middle of the year which gives them an amazing advantage at the end of the season.

Not only would rep weeks during the Club season kick arse to watch but it would make a level playing field for all international teams.

 

[wain]

Tezza - fair call. I guess the thoughts of putting on other rep stuff at the same time of origin has 2 purposes in my opinion:
- keeping players from turning their back on minor nations in order to play origin.
- most fans complain about either weakened teams or lack of publicity for the club games during origin period...this would mean that wouldnt be an issue.

I like the idea of the WCC at the end of the domestic season though, definitely adds more credibility.

 

[wain]

so, now that we know the winners and rankings...a 6 nations tournament (top 3 from each hemisphere) would look like this in Aus/NZ next year.

pool A
Aus (SH 1)
France (NH 2)
PNG (SH 3)

pool B
Eng (NH1)
NZ (SH2)
Wales (NH3)

----------------------
play everyone in pool once (3 weeks) across Aus/NZ.
eg.

week 1
Aus v France (Perth/Adelaide/Canberra)
NZ v Wales (Christchurch)

week 2
Aus v PNG (Nth Queensland/Newcastle)
Eng v Wales (Perth/Canberra) (thinking of number of England immigrants?)

week 3
PNG v France (Darwin/Port Moresby)
NZ v Eng (Auckland)

-----------------------
then...knockout semis
Pool A (1) v Pool B (2)
Pool B (1) v Pool A (2)

eg.
week 4
Aus v Eng (Brisbane/Sydney)
NZ v PNG (Wellington)

--------------------------
then final between winners.

eg.
week 5
Aus v NZ (Brisbane/Sydney) (Australia to host purely for $ reasons)



What do you guys think?

I like that it keeps some of the big boys apart until the finals. The only problem I see is who lack of crowds for finals if Aus and/or NZ didnt win through in first place of their pools. As much as Im for promoting the game in Melbourne, I left them out of hosting because they have the ANZAC test next year...would rather it go to Darwin, Perth or Adelaide.

The idea with the 6 nations, rather than 4 nations ( where 1 team continually drops back to other ranking tournaments) is that we are speeding up the progress of the fringe countries who can hopefully step up soon. I dont think its helping the progress with only 1 Northern hemisphere country competing next year.

 

[thommo4pm]

I like it, it's a good idea....but I'd be concerned people would see it as a mini world cup.

I believe the emerging nations need some exposure to the top nations, to help drag them up....sure there may be some floggings...but that's how they learn.

But the idea behind your proposal is good.
It would cost a fair amount of $$$ though I'd imagine to stage that type of event.

 

[Rastus_in_Melbourne]

I believe a WC every four years with a 4 Nations tournament half way between would be perfect fill the other years with tours (Ashes) and one off tests.

Winner.

 

[typicalfan]

i know it sounds pedantic but i would still like time allowed for one on one test series and have the Ashes still. Got to try as much as possible not to plug the schedule too much with fixtures otherwise the nrl players will feel half assed when they do it.

great ideas though

 

[Billythekid]

i know it sounds pedantic but i would still like time allowed for one on one test series and have the Ashes still. Got to try as much as possible not to plug the schedule too much with fixtures otherwise the nrl players will feel half assed when they do it.

great ideas though

Why do we even have an ashes? In RL it means SFA to me and it is a total waste of time.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Why do we even have an ashes? In RL it means SFA to me and it is a total waste of time.

Well then you havent been following the game for that long. The Ashes has massive meaning. Hell I knew of the RL Ashes before I heard of Crickets.