Trans-tasman bid for RLWC2017

[deal.with.it]

Have a look at 2003 aus rwc crowds. How do we get them for pool matches? What type of marketing? Anyone remember the rwc?

 

[Springs]

Well if so many people weren't so negative about international rugby league we might get bigger crowds. But about half of the posters on this international forum just shoot down anything to do with it, saying it's a farce or a joke. Fans are the same. Most Australians think Origin is more important. A lot of fans don't care at all about the international scene. And when reporters and sporting identities rubbish it as well the marketing isn't going to change the attitude. Hopefully this year's world cup can change the attitude a bit.

 

[mattystans000]

Have a look at 2003 aus rwc crowds. How do we get them for pool matches? What type of marketing? Anyone remember the rwc?

I'd rather look at RLWC08 crowds as a better indicator, average tournament crowd was 16,331.

Pool A (Aus, NZ, Eng, PNG) had an average crowd of 20,650.
Pool B (Fij, Sco, Fra) had an average crowd of 9,407.
Pool C (Ire, Ton, Sam) had an average crowd of 8,851.
Playoffs & Semi Qualifier (Ton, Sco, Sam, Fra, Ire, Fij) had an average crowd of 7,394.
Semi Finals averaged 21,257.
Final had a crowd of 50, 599.

So in Pool's B, C, & the Playoffs with "minnow" nations, there's some classic aussie reluctance to support the game of rugby league itself, particularly at international level, as opposed to their readiness to support their own clubs and state. But it's still respectable enough I think and will hopefully grow on the back of memories of a successful 2008 & 2013 pair of RLWC tournaments, even with a 4 pools of 4 system.

 

[docbrown]

I'd rather look at RLWC08 crowds as a better indicator, average tournament crowd was 16,331.

Pool A (Aus, NZ, Eng, PNG) had an average crowd of 20,650.
Pool B (Fij, Sco, Fra) had an average crowd of 9,407.
Pool C (Ire, Ton, Sam) had an average crowd of 8,851.
Playoffs & Semi Qualifier (Ton, Sco, Sam, Fra, Ire, Fij) had an average crowd of 7,394.
Semi Finals averaged 21,257.
Final had a crowd of 50, 599.

Good post but I'd suggest that if they really want to increase crowds then increase the number of games involving the big 3 is the way to go - hence why I'd support a Top 6 Cross Over system.

The more matches involving minnows the lower the crowds.

Under a 4 x 4 system you would have -

Pool A -
Team 1 - Australia
Team 5 - Wales
Team 9 - Ireland
Team 13 - Italy

Pool B -
Team 2 - New Zealand
Team 6 - PNG
Team 10 - USA
Team 14 - Russia

Pool C -
Team 3 - England
Team 7 - Fiji
Team 11 - Scotland
Team 15 - Serbia

Pool D -
Team 4 - France
Team 8 - Samoa
Team 12 - Tonga
Team 16 - Lebanon

You may as well give the Big 3 automatic finals qualification... the race for 2nd place might be interesting but watching the Big 3 smash the minnows in 9 of these pool games is a bad look.

Compare that though to the Top 6 -

7 big games:
AUS v ENG
AUS v WAL
AUS v NZ
AUS v PNG
NZ v FRA
NZ v PNG
NZ v ENG

6 others (3 including england):
ENG v WAL
ENG v NZ
ENG v FRA
FRA v PNG
FRA v WAL
WAL v PNG

Which not only has 7 big marquee pool games to sell but overall the games will be much closer. Plus in both pools there's a chance that only 1 team from that pool might make it. Every game counts and every team could potentially be eliminated if they lose a single match depending on other results.

 

[Springs]

Well I like the way it is now. I'd rather try the current format in Aus & NZ first. The difference being use the qualifiers better this time. Rank the top 4 teams by the previous 4 Nations and use 2016 Pacific and European Cups to qualify for the remaining 4 spots in Pools A & B. Then have more qualifying tournaments for the last six spots.

If we can get rid of the silly notion that a 100-0 scoreline in a New Zealand-Japan union game is alright, but a 100-0 scoreline in an Australia-Russia league game is a farce, then maybe 16 teams could work.

 

[mattystans000]

I agree that 4x4 system does open the tournament to criticism for lop sided matches and forgone conclusions for first place if the Big 3 are split up. But your system comes off as being weird, contrived, and too complex to be taken seriously as a world cup format, no offence to you intended, just for suggesting an alternative system to draw more interest. But it would leave the RLWC open to criticism (when has it ever not been tho) because it would have the media beg the question, why and why not just play a 6 Nations instead? Just to say tho that FIFA WC, 8x4, 16>8>4>2 simple system, RWC 4x5, 8>4>2 simple system again, albeit with many a blow out throughout the tournament.

What if, under a 4x4, 8>4>2 system for RLWC17 the pools were split as such:

Pool A (Aus, Eng, Sam, Lbn)
Pool B (NZ, Fra, Ton, Sco)
Pool C (Png, Wal, C.Is, Ita)
Pool D (Fij, Ire, Usa, Rus)

Now under this seeding of teams, I believe you would have about 60% of games being close/competitive. Its a simple system, easily recognisable as a World Cup system when compared to others, and whilst Pool A would be handed to Aus & Eng, both Pools B, C & D would all be wide open for at least the 2nd finals qualifying position, Pool C would be quite competitive in particular.

Otherwise we could see a 4x4 tournament go with 2 Super Pools with 3 qualifiers each, and 2 Pools with only 1 qualifier each, but again, its just laying the game out there for all the criticism in the world imo. My opinion is the game is strong enough and will still be in 2017 to handle a 4x4 system, where the most exciting pool games might not necessarily involve Australia, but certainly shouldn't be non existent either.

 

[bender]

Since, unlike most people, i like pie in the sky threads from time to time, and in honour of South Africa, who could cause one of the greatest sporting upsets of all time if they win this bid, i am going to suggest 20 teams with a merger of all the bids.

Group 1 - Based in Australia - Australia, Lebanon, Italy, Scotland
Group 2 - Based in New Zealand - New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu
Group 3 - Based in Australia - England, Cook Islands, Ireland, Wales
Group 4 - Based in Australia - PNG, Fiji, France, Jamaica
Group 5 - Based in South Africa - South Africa, USA, Russia, Canada

winners into a top 5 with Group 4 / 5 winner - sudden death

semis played in australia

 

[docbrown]

If we can get rid of the silly notion that a 100-0 scoreline in a New Zealand-Japan union game is alright, but a 100-0 scoreline in an Australia-Russia league game is a farce, then maybe 16 teams could work.

I don't think have 100-0 thrashings is a good look in either code.

Pool A (Aus, Eng, Sam, Lbn)
Pool B (NZ, Fra, Ton, Sco)
Pool C (Png, Wal, C.Is, Ita)
Pool D (Fij, Ire, Usa, Rus)

I can understand why you might think that splitting the top teams from the bottom is contrived - it is purposefully manufactured to create closer results and increase crowds. However the pools are design to be fair against each other.

If I were to look at the RLIF rankings of the teams you've listed -
Pool A - 1, 3, 18, 17
Pool B - 2, 4, 12, 11
Pool C - 6, 5, 17, 13
Pool D - 7, 9, 9eq, 14

Pools A & B are foregone conclusions and Pools C & D are of a totally different standard to A & B. Maybe you're going for Top 8 & Bottom 8 split but why are teams 11, 12, 17, 18 in the harder pools...?

Surely if you consider a Top 6 contrived then you can see the same under what you're proposing. I'd hardly consider those even pools. If you want a Top 8 & Bottom 8 Structure the only fair system is -

Pool A - 1, 3, 5, 7
Pool B - 2, 4, 6, 8
Pool C - 9, 11, 13, 15
Pool D - 10, 12, 14, 16

Even if you idealised it like that I still disagree that your pool system is closer. Remember in a Top 6 the worst scenario is 1v6. Yours is 1 v 7.

And again, you're going to have less attractive matches.

Compare -

Pool A - Aus, Eng, Wal, Fij
Pool B - NZ, Fra, PNG, Sam

AUS v ENG
AUS v WAL
AUS v FIJ
ENG v WAL
ENG v FIJ
WAL v FIJ
NZ v FRA
NZ v PNG
NZ v SAM
FRA v PNG
FRA v SAM
PNG v SAM

You've really only got that one big top tier game. Compare that to this list -

7 big games:
AUS v ENG
AUS v WAL
AUS v NZ
AUS v PNG
NZ v FRA
NZ v PNG
NZ v ENG

6 others (3 including england):
ENG v WAL
ENG v NZ
ENG v FRA
FRA v PNG
FRA v WAL
WAL v PNG

and it only requires staging one extra game...

 

[Springs]

I don't think have 100-0 thrashings is a good look in either code.

I don't think so either but my point was the media and the fans don't seem to care when it happens in union, but when it happens in league they bash it to hell and back. I remember the criticism the 08 tournament got after Australia thrashed England. It didn't matter that nearly every other group game was close.

 

[mattystans000]

I don't think so either but my point was the media and the fans don't seem to care when it happens in union, but when it happens in league they bash it to hell and back. I remember the criticism the 08 tournament got after Australia thrashed England. It didn't matter that nearly every other group game was close.

Very true Springs, I think we're all pretty aware of how the media manages to place International Rugby League in a poor light, and paint a rosy picture for Union, yet there's only been the 1x 3 figure score posted in a RLWC since its inception in 1954 (Aus 110-4 Rus RLWC2000), yet the 2011 RWC was the first & only of its kind to not have a 3 figure score posted, plenty of the regular 80-90+ scores again tho.

And Doc, I think we're going to end up agreeing to disagree, haha. But yes, I can see how my system was somewhat contrived, I think far less so than yours tho. When I was seeding the pools I hadn't looked at the rankings or wanted to inadvertently create some sort of top8/bottom8 system; In general I just split the Big 3 into 2 of the 4 pools, NZ in it's own and Aus, Eng together (again). I tried for a mostly Euro, Pacific, Euro, Pacific split in each pool where possible to be honest, USA's the only odd one out.

Looking at RLWC95 the Pools were:
Pool A (Eng, Aus, Fij, S.Af) Foregone Aus & Eng.
Pool B (NZ, Ton, PNG) Foregone NZ.
Pool C (Wal, Sam, Fra) Would be a toss up between Wal & Fra today.

Looking at RLWC2000 the Pools were:
Pool A (Aus, Eng, Fij, Rus) Foregone Aus & Eng.
Pool B (NZ, Wal, Lbn, C.Is) Foregone NZ, Wal.
Pool C (PNG, Fra, Ton, S.Af) Foregone PNG, Fra. Tonga a darkhorse today?
Pool D (Ire, Sam, Mao, Sco) Possibly considered an even Pool today.

If RLWC2017 was:
Pool A (Aus, Eng, Sam, Lbn) Foregone Aus & Eng.
Pool B (NZ, Fra, Ton, Sco) Forgone NZ, 2nd between Fra & Ton.
Pool C (Png, Wal, C.Is, Ita) Close-ish but like Png, Wal.
Pool D (Fij, Ire, Usa, Rus) Forgone Fij, Ire, but close games.

I think basically the difference between what I've suggested and yourself, from my point of view is, yours draws on what could basically be replaced by a 6 Nations tournament of Aus, Eng, NZ, Fra, Wal, Png, which will hopefully happen soon anyway. And my system is trying to avoid 100-0 scorelines with having somewhat closely matched teams together, instead of a total separation of top, middle and bottom teams.

The fairest system to be honest would be 4x4 Pools split on rank:
Pool A (1, 5, 9, 13)
Pool B (2, 6, 10, 14)
Pool C (3, 7, 11, 15)
Pool D (4, 8, 12, 16)

But I don't think anyone from the fans to the tournament organisers, who have to market the event and sell it to both fans and media would like that, considering the obvious potential for near 100-0 blowouts, but I'll argue that my system is the next best system and fairly in line with how previous RLWCs have gone about splitting and grouping the top and bottom teams. (And the only reason I have Aus & Eng together again for the 4th RLWC in a row is because Eng will ensure that hypothetical Pool A isn't a total pushover for Aus, otherwise Aus & NZ would maybe be together instead, but that can't happen in NZ are to host they're own pool and Aus co-hosts too.)

The excitement of the tournament imo, should be a focus on matches the public wouldn't normally see, or nations they wouldn't be aware play RL, for the group stages; And a focus on those marquee games in the Knockout stages as being major draw cards, leading up to the World Cup Final itself.

As opposed to marquee Top 6 matches in the group & Knockout stages, which will probably result in far less focus or attention on the lower ranked pools to the point where those games are possibly a financial detriment.

 

[docbrown]

I don't think so either but my point was the media and the fans don't seem to care when it happens in union, but when it happens in league they bash it to hell and back. I remember the criticism the 08 tournament got after Australia thrashed England. It didn't matter that nearly every other group game was close.

Agreed but I still say League is best served by trying to avoid the scenario altogether.

If RLWC2017 was:
Pool A (Aus, Eng, Sam, Lbn) Foregone Aus & Eng.
Pool B (NZ, Fra, Ton, Sco) Forgone NZ, 2nd between Fra & Ton.
Pool C (Png, Wal, C.Is, Ita) Close-ish but like Png, Wal.
Pool D (Fij, Ire, Usa, Rus) Forgone Fij, Ire, but close games.

I think basically the difference between what I've suggested and yourself, from my point of view is, yours draws on what could basically be replaced by a 6 Nations tournament of Aus, Eng, NZ, Fra, Wal, Png, which will hopefully happen soon anyway.

Well that's true but I think the gulf between 1 and 13 is still quite large.

I don't think the negative perception of a Top 6 would be as bad as you might think as other world cups have use split ranked pools in the past, including Rugby League.

We had one in 2008 remember. The problem there is that it was a foregone conclusion so the pool game were meaingless. Under a Top 6 with cross over games any team in either pool can be eliminated. It will all come down to the final round of pool games.

The fairest system to be honest would be 4x4 Pools split on rank:
Pool A (1, 5, 9, 13)
Pool B (2, 6, 10, 14)
Pool C (3, 7, 11, 15)
Pool D (4, 8, 12, 16)

True and I think we both agree it would be the most lopsided.

but I'll argue that my system is the next best system and fairly in line with how previous RLWCs have gone about splitting and grouping the top and bottom teams. (And the only reason I have Aus & Eng together again for the 4th RLWC in a row is because Eng will ensure that hypothetical Pool A isn't a total pushover for Aus, otherwise Aus & NZ would maybe be together instead, but that can't happen in NZ are to host they're own pool and Aus co-hosts too.)

I guess my main issue with your draw -

Pool A (Aus, Eng, Sam, Lbn)
Pool B (NZ, Fra, Ton, Sco)
Pool C (Png, Wal, C.Is, Ita)
Pool D (Fij, Ire, Usa, Rus)

Is that it's not really based on any fair logic. It's not seeded/ranked in any even way between the different pools. It does seem basically rigged in a random kind of way. I mean I know you're saying its not an even draw but I don't think teams like Samoa & Lebanon, Tonga & Scotland would appreciate being played into pools in such a manner.

At the end of the day, I still suggest that the pools should be seeded in a logical and fair manner.

As opposed to marquee Top 6 matches in the group & Knockout stages, which will probably result in far less focus or attention on the lower ranked pools to the point where those games are possibly a financial detriment.

I suppose there's some merit in that but again I believe there's still a similar degree of games between other teams.

The other variations of the Top 6 format are

14 Teams - Top 6 & Bottom 8
Pool A - 1, 3, 5
Pool B - 2, 4, 6
Pool C - 7, 9, 11, 13
Pool D - 8, 10, 12, 14

and the alternative 16 format which has no middle-4

16 Teams - Top 6 & Bottom 10
Pool A - 1, 3, 5
Pool B - 2, 4, 6
Pool C - 7, 9, 11, 13, 15
Pool D - 8, 10, 12, 14, 16
However the minnows play 4 games each...


But my preference has been for -

15 Teams - Top 6 & Bottom 9
Pool A - 1, 3, 5
Pool B - 2, 4, 6
Pool C - 7, 10, 13
Pool D - 8, 11, 14
Pool E - 9, 12, 15
however it is hard to do cross-over games with 3 pools of 3 unless they play 4 games. If they play 4 games that means there's more unattractive minnow games. But you can ensure regardless of seeding that attractive minnow games like Samoa vs Tonga are definitely played.

And because every pool involves cross overs, it will all come down to the last week of play. That's why cross over games are so important.

With the Finals Qualifiers as
Pool A & B Winners
Pool AB next best 2 wildcards
Pool C, D & E winners
Pool CDE next best wildcard

The other main point of the Top 6 format is to ensure Australia, New Zealand and England all play each other during the pool rounds.

 

[mattystans000]

Good post, I still think the 4x4 system is the future tho, ahead of any of the other systems you've put forward, mostly just for the simplicity of the 4x4 system, and that it's clear what each team has to do to qualify for Knockouts and every team in every pool has an equal chance.

To further add to the fairness of what I put forward earlier, this time i'll try and put some method behind the madness this time around. If all future RLWCs followed this format for 16 team tournament's, i'd probably be content:
........._____________
Pool A |1, 3,| |09, 11|
Pool B |2, 4,| |10, 12|
Pool C |5, 7,| |13, 15|
Pool D |6, 8,| |14, 16|

You could describe this (and text draw it as i've tried) as splitting the Top 16 ranked teams into groups of 4, Pools A & B have the Highest Ranked 4 and the Lower Middle 4 between them, while Pools C & D have the Upper Middle 4 and the Lowest Ranked 4 between them. That means that each Pool has a difference in rank, in order from highest to lowest, of 2, 6, 2 between the 4 teams, and 10 ranks between highest and lowest in each pool.

Just to put a caveat on the rankings, for anyone else reading the thread: I would assume qualifying will make a more and more prominent part of the RLWC process with every tournament, so instead of being the exact Top 16 according to the RLIF, there would be teams from x teams from Europe, y teams from the Pacific, z teams from the Atlantic, etc, with various ranks between them. So the rankings 1 to 16 would be relative, so the lowest ranked team that qualifies could be ranked 22 for instance and would take the place of 16th, and so on.

I think this would adequately satisfy the need to have close ranked Pool matches, and further Pools C & D would be much closer than A & B and not entirely foregone conclusions. Pools A & B (and any pool featuring any of the Big 3 in any system) would for the time being be forgone conclusions as far as the Big 3 Nations making the Knockouts, but its almost a necessary evil in a sense, it's just a fact that they're better than many other nations and will be for a while yet. That's no excuse to implement a biased system I would propose tho, such as a SuperPool ala RLWC08 (however, that wasn't bad for the tournament in all truth).

I guess the one thing I'd argue is that going ahead into the future of RLWCs, the necessity to replicate 4 Nations matches by grouping the Big 3 together throughout the Group stages, and then see them all over again in the Knockout stages, shouldn't be a priority. It should more & more be about promoting the minnow nations, getting the people to see them in their only chance on the biggest stage once every four years, and getting that underdog spirit and support behind them in the group stages, then along come the drawcard/marquee games of the Knockouts and the WC Final.

 

[roughyedspud]

yeah.....it will probably be the same format as this years world cup....

 

[mattystans000]

yeah.....it will probably be the same format as this years world cup....

Well maybe, but didn't we all get taken aback just a bit when, going from 10 teams in RLWC08, they went not to 12 but 14 teams for RLWC13? Such an odd number for an World Cup, but it does make for a good sensible system since the format gained detail, but I don't see why it will be kept again when there's going to be the chance to move up to 16 teams. That said, if it doesn't go up to 16 teams, I would like the current system to be retained. Should go up to 16 tho imo.

 

[Aragorn]

Who else would host it apart from Australia/NZ? :lol:

Papua New Guinea

 

[Butters]

Papua New Guinea

Seriously? :?

 

[docbrown]

Good post, I still think the 4x4 system is the future tho.

Yeah but probably not until there are at least a good top 4-8 teams that consistently beat each other.

 

[mattystans000]

Yeah but probably not until there are at least a good top 4-8 teams that consistently beat each other.

True, I think we're heading towards that right now tho with a Top 6 emerging. We definitely have the Big 3, and now, a Next 3 of France, PNG, & Wales. And I can only see those nations getting closer and closer together, and by RLWC17, whilst that split will still largely be there, we will be confident enough as a game to back international league's strength, and a 16 nation RLWC, on the back of these 6 nations all firing at the same time.

 

[deal.with.it]

Not to mention if the pac islands get regular matches with nrl stars choosing them, we will have a top 3 and then a top 10

 

[East Coast Tiger]

There's a very good chance that only one of this so-called "next 3" will even get out of the group stages of this year's tournament. And that might be only because two of them are in pool B in which only one side misses out. Wales won't get out of pool D, despite the "draw" being well and truly rigged to help them, and France or PNG have to beat Samoa to get to the quarters, which is not gauranteed. The fact remains that the nations who can put out (mostly) home grown squads like France, PNG and Wales still might not be able to beat the ring-in teams full of NRL players like Samoa, Tonga and Cook Is. At least not in the RLWC whan all the ring-ins are present. The question is, will that still be the case by 2017, will the situation improve, or will it get worse?