World Cup expands to 14 teams

[deluded pom?]

I hope they don't, but won't hold my breath, insist on England and Australia being in the same group (unless running with the Super Pool concept) just to contrive a way of guaranteeing England progress through and possibly setting up an England v Australia final. If we aren't good enough we aren't good enough. I still don't see a problem with a four team SP and two pools of five. Three to qualify for the semis from the SP and the team that wins the playoff from the two teams that top the other pools.

 

[hutch]

posted this in the wc 2013 thread, so obviously relevant here as well:

Remember the rlif said that once you play a qualifier for a nation you have to stick with them at the next world cup! 12 teams are no longer playing qualifiers! Watch for more nation hopping.
Happy that we have the confidence in having so many test teams though!

it seems to me that although there have been a few positive announcements of late, we are still just figuring things out as we go without really having a plan. we have 4 years to get it right, so hopefully a decent amount of work goes into making this world cup the best one yet.

 

[Jankuloski]

Yup.. that one does escape you when you read the original announcement.

They have to figure out who plays for which nation. Nation switching is the single biggest negative imapct on the World Cup.

 

[roopy]

Hopefully all the countries who qualify automatically will do what Fiji did before the last WC and get government funding to put together the best possible buildup.
Those guys really used the time that early qualification gave them to best effect by sending players to Aussie sides for a few seasons and putting together a pool of around 100 players to select from, and it showed in the end that they had done the groundwork.
Cook Islands will do just as well by all indications.

 

[bowes]

As I mentioned before... my sources tell me...

10 teams from the 2008 WC are automatic

Wales and Cook Is are automatic

the last two spots come from [Lebanon, Serbia, Italy, Russia(?)] and [USA, Jamaica, SA, Japan]

I will also say this. Do not be surprised to see another backfilp and the teams reduced to 19 or even 18 teams playing.

I suspect the teams in the European group will be decided by results in the European Shield (and Bowl?) over the next few years, otherwise I can't see the point of restricting the European teams. I expect it will be that 4 though, unless Russia packs in between now and then. On the other hand the other group looks pretty much as you'd expect if South Africa bother entering.

If they put the top 8 of the last world cup in the 2 Super pools we could have something like the following:

Pool 1
New Zealand
Fiji
Papua New Guinea
Scotland

Pool 2
Australia
England
Ireland
Tonga

Pool 3
Samoa
Wales
USA

Pool 4
France
Cook Islands
Lebanon

That way we could have pools 1 and 2 in England, pool 3 in Wales, 4 in France and have 3 from the first 2 through and 1 from the last 2, meaning we have a chance of getting France and Wales through (though Samoa would probably win pool 3).

 

[nadera78]

England, France and Wales must be in seperate groups. We need the taffs and frogs to play home games in front of decent crowds, and having them in seperate groups means we can get a better spread of games that will pull in good crowds. We'd be wasting one crowd-drawing fixture by making them meet in the group stages.

 

[DINGb@T]

14 is a bizarre number. There has to be a reason for that sort of number to be used.

Personally I'd be going for the 4 team super group with 2 pool groups of 5. That way you don't get the blow outs, you still get the big games between the big teams and the qualifiers would see the 4 top teams ranked 1 to 4 with the top 2 teams from each pool playing in the quarter finals.

And if they're looking at a comp that 'reflects the growing international game' I'm pretty sure they'd want both Lebanon and the US in the comp. That would bring in both the Middle East and the American markets and considering there's no qualifying process for 12 of the teams the RLIF can choose whoever they want.

Also, having only 2 chances to qaulify, one for the northern hemisphere and one for the southern, is also bizarre. Bit of a closed shop really.

 

[deluded pom?]

PNG did OK in 2000 in grotty Euro weather.

Otherwise I totally agree with deluded pom.

I'll rephrase that crmpo. It should have said a UK Autumn. In 2000 PNG were in the French group so would have been in a better climate than we endured in the UK that year. I realise it was without any of their NRL/SLE players but they didn't fare too well when they came over to play Wales and France a couple of years back.

 

[Springs]

Their cannot, or should not, be two groups of five because it means the lesser countries are playing 4 games each while the Super Pool countries are only playing three. Where's the sense in that? There will be twenty games involving the lesser countries while if it were 4-4-3-3 there would only be 6 games between them. The RFL have to think about crowd interest.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Wales and France should definitely get games. France could host a whole pool while Wales could host their own games and others from that pool could be played in England. There will be plenty of decent RL stadia by 2013 that shouldn't cost much/anything to use. In addition to Huddersfield, Wigan, Hull, Leigh, Doncaster, The Stoop, Widnes, Warrington, Wrexham and maybe Headingley there will be Salford, St Helens, Wakefield, maybe Cas and maybe Bradford. Give one game to each of those and you have 80% of games covered. Add in Wembley or Old Trafford for the opening game or final and maybe another bigger stadium like Sheffield or CofM for the England semi and it's done. They just need to think about which games for which grounds. NZ and Australia should both play at least one game in London, whather it be a big one at Wembley or Emirates or a smaller game at The Stoop. Smaller venues like Leigh should get smaller games like USA v Samoa etc.

 

[The Observer]

There is a way for the pools of 4 and 3 to play the same number of games. Teams within the 2 pools of 4 could play other teams within their own pool - 3 games. Teams from one pool of 3 could play the 3 teams from the other pool, leading to 3 games. Do teams absolutely have to play nations within their pool? Perhaps not, as long as the structure of games is consistent and fair compared to that of other teams both within their individual pool, and within their type of pool. If we take Bowes' example (slightly modified) as a possible structure:

Pool 1 - England, Australia, Ireland, Tonga
Pool 2 - Wales, New Zealand, Fiji, Papua New Guinea
Pool 3 - Scotland, Samoa, USA
Pool 4 - France, Cook Islands, Lebanon

A team from pool 1 (e.g. England) plays 3 games within Pool 1 (Aus, Ireland, Tonga). Similarly a team from pool 2 (e.g. Wales) could play 3 games within Pool 2 (NZ, Fiji, PNG). However, a team from pool 3 (e.g Scotland) (Pool 3) could plays games against all 3 Pool 4 teams (i.e. France, Cooks, Lebanon). Similarly a team from Pool 4 (e.g. France) could play 3 games against Pool 3 teams (Scotland, Samoa, USA).


If there are QFs, there is a way to balance the desire to increase their competitiveness yet reward good performance. The top 2 teams from the 4 team pools could automatically be advanced to the QFs, and the first placed teams from the 3 team pools would go. However guaranteeing QF spots to the 3rd placed teams in the 4 team pools, or the 2nd placed teams in 3 team pools could undermine the competitiveness. So maybe the last two spots could be given the next best placed teams on points and F/A. That might mean allow a mix, e.g. 3rd placed in Pool 1, and 2nd placed in pool 4.

 

[Springs]

Wales, France and England don't necessarily need to be in separate groups. If Wales is in the same group as England, than Wales will still host two matches (the non England games). If Wales or France are in Group C or D, then thay will still only host two matches. This is based on the 4-4-3-3 idea. If Wales is in Group A and France in Group B, Wales could host two matches while France could possibly host three.

 

[juro]

I think it will go something like this:

Group A: Australia, England, Wales, PNG (3 to progress)
Group B: NZ, France, Fiji, Ireland (3 to progress)
Group C: Scotland, Samoa, ? (1 to progress)
Group D: Tonga, Cook Islands, ? (1 to progress)

Group C and D teams play a cross-group match each to ensure that every team plays 3 matches before the quarter finals.

Quarter Finals:
QF1: A1 v B3
QF2: A2 V C1
QF3: B1 v A3
QF4: B2 V D1

Semi-Finals:
SF1: Winner QF1 v QF4
SF2: Winner QF2 v QF3

That format looks pretty tasty to me. Lots of good games and very few whitewashes.

 

[nadera78]

Wales, France and England don't necessarily need to be in separate groups. If Wales is in the same group as England, than Wales will still host two matches (the non England games).

Doing it that way wastes a home game. It's much better to give England, France and Wales as many home games as possible, so keep them apart.

 

[pcpp]

Doing it that way wastes a home game. It's much better to give England, France and Wales as many home games as possible, so keep them apart.

I think it is more important to schedule games that are going to attract crowds and media interest (England v Wales). The Welsh are certainly going to be more interested in that than having an extra match in Wales for something like Wales v Lebanon.

Play this in either Widnes or Wrexham and both sides of the border will be able to attend and ensure a full house which would look fantastic for the game.

 

[roopy]

I think it is more important to schedule games that are going to attract crowds and media interest (England v Wales). The Welsh are certainly going to be more interested in that than having an extra match in Wales for something like Wales v Lebanon.

Play this in either Widnes or Wrexham and both sides of the border will be able to attend and ensure a full house which would look fantastic for the game.

It's a world cup just after the olympics.
We saw in Sydney that people who never go to see live sports suddenly catch the fever for a year or two after the olympics, as seen by the Union WC.
Crowds will be far better than you would expect for even small games, because people will go to see anything during the olympics, and that feeling continues for a while.

 

[Springs]

If England play Wales hopefully we will be able to play it in a bigger stadium than Wrexham or Widnes! I think this game should be the game that will be held at the London Olympic Stadium. If it is downgraded to 25,000 then it is perfect size and will most likely be the first Rugby League game played there. Wales can play the other two countries in Wales, preferably in Wrexham and Cardiff.

And it does not waste a home game. Consider this:
Pool A - England, Wales
Pool B- France.

England- 3 games
Wales- 2 games
France-3 games

Or:
Pool A- England
Pool B- France
Pool C- Wales

England- 3 games
France- 3 games
Wales- 2 games

 

[Mullins_y2k]

That format looks pretty tasty to me. Lots of good games and very few whitewashes.

I just think 3 out of four teams progressing is to many...I mean if one team gets absolutely smashed game 1, we could potentially know the top 3 straight away which would detract from the other games. Straight of the bat we would probably be correct in assuming Australia and England will go through therefore the whole round robin is pretty much just a battle between Wales and PNG...so I'm not a fan

 

[Springs]

I just think 3 out of four teams progressing is to many...I mean if one team gets absolutely smashed game 1, we could potentially know the top 3 straight away which would detract from the other games. Straight of the bat we would probably be correct in assuming Australia and England will go through therefore the whole round robin is pretty much just a battle between Wales and PNG...so I'm not a fan

We knew the top 3 progressing in the 2008 World Cup. In fact we all knew the England/New Zealand game would be replayed the week after, it was still a good clash.
With three sides going through we will have a full finals series. The other option is to have 1st Pool A and 1st Pool B go straight to the semis, while 2nd A play 1st c and 2nd B play 1st D, But then since we know Australia and England are going through, wouldn't the other two teams be useless?

 

[Bluebag]

If Lebanon are to play they must come out of their domestic comp and qualify otherwise forget it, who would pay 30 quid to watch A grade players from sydney and would do not good to the domestic comp.

While they have a domestic comp the reps are controlled here not there.