24 Team World Cup

[Omar Comin']

8 pools of 3 teams each - each team plays the others twice. Thus 4 matches per team. Top 2 go through to round of 16.

Same amount of group games as now per team, and 1 more round of play-offs.

Then you'd have match ups like New Zealand vs Namibia and Australia vs Uruguay played twice, which is completely pointless. You'd also have the existing problems associated with an odd number of teams per group and you'd need extra time to finish the tournament.

 

[Dewald Nel]

Then you'd have match ups like New Zealand vs Namibia and Australia vs Uruguay played twice, which is completely pointless. You'd also have the existing problems associated with an odd number of teams per group and you'd need extra time to finish the tournament.

It's a helluva lot cleaner than 6 pools of 4 and having the 4 best 3rd-best sides. Reminds me of 1999. Then teams in New Zealand's group would have no chance, for example, compared to teams from other groups.

You are right about the time, though.

Then 4 pools of 6, with either the top 4 going through to round of 16, or top to to the quarter finals. We can't have a Super Rugby style balls-up at the world cup as well. It needs to remain simple.

Ideal would be a 32-team world cup like football, but there isn't nearly enough rugby depth below the top 20 teams to make that even a remote possibility at this stage.

 

[Omar Comin']

4 pools of 6 takes too long as well.

Luck of the draw will always be part of any cup tournament. I don't see what the problem is with the 4 best 3rd place getters going through. If it was good enough for the soccer world cup then it's good enough for the RWC.

Those 4 teams that manage to sneak in would be those that got an extra win or extra bonus point in their group. There wouldn't be any teams missing out on the round of 16 who have a chance of winning the tournament or even making the semi finals. It'd just be a chance for 4 lower ranked teams (or a decent team that had a tough pool) to play in a huge knockout match against a power of the game.

 

[Dewald Nel]

4 pools of 6 takes too long as well.

Luck of the draw will always be part of any cup tournament. I don't see what the problem is with the 4 best 3rd place getters going through. If it was good enough for the soccer world cup then it's good enough for the RWC.

Those 4 teams that manage to sneak in would be those that got an extra win or extra bonus point in their group. There wouldn't be any teams missing out on the round of 16 who have a chance of winning the tournament or even making the semi finals. It'd just be a chance for 4 lower ranked teams (or a decent team that had a tough pool) to play in a huge knockout match against a power of the game.

That's never happened, at least not since 1998 which is the first one I remember.

Still won't be fair to the teams in the pools of stronger opponents. The current way isn't either, but the equation is simple - top 2 or you're out. There shouldn't be permutations in other pools that are out of your hands to contemplate your fate.

Top 2 or top 4.

 

[Omar Comin']

That's never happened, at least not since 1998 which is the first one I remember.

Still won't be fair to the teams in the pools of stronger opponents. The current way isn't either, but the equation is simple - top 2 or you're out. There shouldn't be permutations in other pools that are out of your hands to contemplate your fate.

Top 2 or top 4.

It happened in the 1986 and 1990 tournaments.

Why is that such a big deal? I know it's not perfect but IMO it's a minor problem that is more than made up for by the advantages of such a format. We're talking about the teams coming 3rd in the pool. Teams have it in their control to come top 2 and guarantee their place in the next round. If they come 3rd then they'll rely on doing better than other 3rd place getters.

In one way it would make it fairer than now because the teams in the hardest pools would have an extra way of making it through to the knockout stages. You'd get those pools with 3 good teams who might all end up on 2 wins and thus all would go through (or the 3rd team might get bonus point losses to the top 2 teams and go through). You wouldn't get a situation like the pool of death in this tournament where a top team is going to miss out on the finals because of a bad draw.

 

[Jagman]

4 pools of 6 takes too long as well.

Does it really? At the moment each team needs to fit in 4 games and (effectively) a bye over 4 weekends. That bye could become the 5th game.

For example, the Wallabies sat out the starting weekend when the rest of the pool A teams played. If there were a 6th team in the pool they would have played each other that weekend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pfitzy]

Here is England's current program in Pool of 5 - average gap is > 7 days

Start tournament on Day 1
8 day gap to Match 2 on Day 9
7 day gap to Match 3 on Day 16
7 day gap to Match 4 on Day 23
7 day gap to Finals on Day 30

So let's alter that for the Pool of 6 setup:

Start tournament on Day 1
5 day gap to Match 2 on Day 6
6 day gap to Match 3 on Day 12
5 day gap to Match 4 on Day 17
6 day gap to Match 5 on Day 23
7 day gap to finals on Day 30

Cascade the 4 pools to fit in as close to that as possible, or have 6 day gaps for everything with some teams moving between 5 and 8.

Not that hard, really. Its mathematics. No-one can get a perfectly identical run, but with 6 teams i.e. 3 matches per pool per "round" with no leftover waiting to take on a weakened/rotated squad, you get a smoother setup.

 

[Omar Comin']

Does it really? At the moment each team needs to fit in 4 games and (effectively) a bye over 4 weekends. That bye could become the 5th game.

For example, the Wallabies sat out the starting weekend when the rest of the pool A teams played. If there were a 6th team in the pool they would have played each other that weekend.

The pool stage is currently held over 3 weeks. 4 games per team are fit in by having teams back up after 4 or 5 days, which leads to teams resting players and targeting certain matches over others (and you end up getting situations where the likes of Romania and Georgia end up playing weakened teams against Ireland and New Zealand because they want to save their better players for a winnable game).

You could fit in 5 games per team in 3 weeks but it'd mean having to play every 5 days or so consistently. That'd make rotating the squad even more important and would be the hardest for the lowest ranked teams. I think if you have 4 team pools you can play the pools over the same period with decent breaks for every team in every game. Surely that would be better as you'd have teams at full strength for every match.

 

[Pfitzy]

Its not 3 weeks. Its 22 days. 23 if you count Day 1

And that is to ignore the fact that only 1 game is played on Day 1, which starts everything on an uneven keel.

 

[Omar Comin']

So pretty much 3 weeks - or 4 weekends. You're talking about playing 5 games over the same time period. It'd be tough, and teams would have to rotate their squads.

The alternative is 3 pool games per team played over about 15 or 16 days, followed by 4 weekends of knockout games.

 

[Dewald Nel]

It happened in the 1986 and 1990 tournaments.

Why is that such a big deal? I know it's not perfect but IMO it's a minor problem that is more than made up for by the advantages of such a format. We're talking about the teams coming 3rd in the pool. Teams have it in their control to come top 2 and guarantee their place in the next round. If they come 3rd then they'll rely on doing better than other 3rd place getters.

In one way it would make it fairer than now because the teams in the hardest pools would have an extra way of making it through to the knockout stages. You'd get those pools with 3 good teams who might all end up on 2 wins and thus all would go through (or the 3rd team might get bonus point losses to the top 2 teams and go through). You wouldn't get a situation like the pool of death in this tournament where a top team is going to miss out on the finals because of a bad draw.

Then there's obviously a reason it's not used anymore. It was most likely causing unnecessary confusion.

A simple, streamline format is nicer to follow and you don't have to explain to people who don't really watch sports, how everything works, even Scousers understand the current format.

 

[Omar Comin']

Then there's obviously a reason it's not used anymore. It was most likely causing unnecessary confusion.

A simple, streamline format is nicer to follow and you don't have to explain to people who don't really watch sports, how everything works, even Scousers understand the current format.

The reason is they expanded to 32 teams. Rugby will hopefully expand to 32 as well in time but isn't in a position to go straight from 20 to 32.

Soccer went from 16 to 24 to 32. They had a different format in the first year of 24 teams (1982) - 6 pools of 4, top 2 from each made it to the 2nd round which was 4 pools of 3, winners made it to the semis. No lucky losers there but they changed it to having a round of 16 with the 4 best 3rd place getters because it's a better format. And even the Scousers understood it just fine. It's not rocket science - there are pools and then there are knockout games.

 

[Dewald Nel]

The reason is they expanded to 32 teams. Rugby will hopefully expand to 32 as well in time but isn't in a position to go straight from 20 to 32.

Soccer went from 16 to 24 to 32. They had a different format in the first year of 24 teams (1982) - 6 pools of 4, top 2 from each made it to the 2nd round which was 4 pools of 3, winners made it to the semis. No lucky losers there but they changed it to having a round of 16 with the 4 best 3rd place getters because it's a better format. And even the Scousers understood it just fine. It's not rocket science - there are pools and then there are knockout games.

Fair enough. I don't care about the format THAT much to argue why I think it's better.

Let it be whatever it will be.

 

[Marcelo]

I support the 24 team World Cup

 

[Pfitzy]

So pretty much 3 weeks - or 4 weekends. You're talking about playing 5 games over the same time period. It'd be tough, and teams would have to rotate their squads.

Which they are already with a 4-day gap. Because most of them are professional athletes.

The alternative is 3 pool games per team played over about 15 or 16 days, followed by 4 weekends of knockout games.

Which IMHO unbalanced and doesn't give teams enough time to get into the Cup before knockout.

The other factor in a 6-team pool situation is the minnows have more competition at their level, and the tiddlers get more experience against bigger teams - something that e.g. Germany would beg for. You also give the established smaller nations like Namibia a tough game that they're a pretty good chance of winning, and lift the whole standard of the competition as well as rugby world wide.

Qualification can be widened, which will make the qualification process more appealing and allow other nations a genuine shot at getting to RWC.

Olympic funding at the same time will be a boost to every position except T5 forwards (at this stage) and allow more players to come up to scratch in terms of technique and fitness.

 

[Omar Comin']

My point is that the rotating of the squads isn't good. I don't mind the 6 team pool option otherwise and I agree with the potential benefits (though I do think it might drag on a bit). But the main problem is that it makes a mockery of the game when you have B teams selected at the world cup. Especially when it's an already weaker team picking a B team against a top side so they can save their players for a more winnable game. We're talking about the showpiece of the sport, it should be the best team available every time.

And I think that the first knockout games in the round of 16 would, for the top teams, still be part of the getting into the tournament phase. Some of the matches between the 5-12 ranked teams could go either way though and I think that would add some excitement.

 

[Pfitzy]

But the main problem is that it makes a mockery of the game when you have B teams selected at the world cup. Especially when it's an already weaker team picking a B team against a top side so they can save their players for a more winnable game. We're talking about the showpiece of the sport, it should be the best team available every time.

That argument is to completely discount the improvement to nations like Japan, Georgia, and others.

Nations don't get better without public support, and that doesn't happen without getting a focal point, which is the world stage.

The Olympics will be a nice boost there, but there are dozens of other "sports" in the Olympics, so it will be diluted from rugby's point of view.

Rugby World Cup is where some accountant from Uruguay gets to ply his trade against a full professional, and have his fans go fucking wild for him back home, and maybe makes kids want to take up rugby, their parents to invest the time, and the sponsors to invest the money.

Elitism is what holds our game back.

 

[aeneas]

Just imagine the squad sizes under any of these expanded formats. For some of the smaller unions the A / B / C and D ranked players would be on tour.

 

[Omar Comin']

Nations don't get better without public support, and that doesn't happen without getting a focal point, which is the world stage.

The Olympics will be a nice boost there, but there are dozens of other "sports" in the Olympics, so it will be diluted from rugby's point of view.

Rugby World Cup is where some accountant from Uruguay gets to ply his trade against a full professional, and have his fans go fucking wild for him back home, and maybe makes kids want to take up rugby, their parents to invest the time, and the sponsors to invest the money.

Elitism is what holds our game back.

I don't disagree with any of that. And I did start this thread. I clearly want to see an expanded tournament. I'd also like to see a lot more 'opening up' of test rugby outside of world cups.

But I want to see a world cup where Georgia play New Zealand at full strength, where Romania pick their best 15 against Ireland. That's what should happen at the world cup. I can't see how that can happen without either increasing the length of the tournament (very unlikely) or moving to 4 teams per pool. Most teams would still get to play at least 4 games in the tournament, and a team like Georgia would get to play in a huge knockout game in the round of 16. That's what would really put them on the world stage.

 

[Jagman]

I think I'm leaning more to 6 pools of 4 than 4 pools of 6.
The cons: It's much harder to predict which teams will play in which finals (for the sake of selling tickets). However it actually becomes more predictable for the top 6 teams as they won't have to face each other and usually the top 6 stand out above the rest. There is no way to tell where teams 7-16 will end up though as it depends on comp points and for and against and the trick will be making it so that two teams won't face each other again in the round of 16, though this might not be avoidable.

The pros: Simpler lay out of games over the weekends without the need for week day games and 4-5 game turnarounds.
The top 8 teams will play less games against the bottom 8 teams. This is crucial I think.
The bottom 8 could play for a Rugby World Plate or something like that. It wouldn't have to involve all 8 teams either, could just be the top 4 or top 2. (I think I've read that there should be another international tournament for minnow nations anyway.) To avoid any teams deliberately losing to play for the plate the teams that make the round of 16 should get automatic qualification for the next RWC. (the last 4 RWCs have had the same 18 of 20 teams anyway.)