24 Team World Cup
- Thread starter Omar Comin'
- Start date
- Status
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
6 by 4 would be best I think. Wouldn't change the length of the Tournament. All the pool games across 17 days (Friday of the first weekend to Sunday of the 3rd weekend), then 16, quarters, semis and finals, I think that's 7 weekends, the same as it currently is?
Muglair
Alfred Walker (16)
Omar Comin' said:
Disagree on all points. Up to a point.
The secondary tournament may be ignored by supporters of the Top 10 teams but a lot of others will be very interested. In particular rugby fans from the 12 countries not currently included, plus the extra interest of the other 4 because they will win some games. Games would be at smaller venues (there are a lot in England for instance) like WIN, Parramatta etc.
Agree that these teams will not improve from this alone. As I noted the flogging every 4 years is important, but a hell of a slow way to improve the quality of rugby in a whole country. The 23 Romanians who played had a once in a lifetime experience and their attendance at the RWC will improve the quality of their football and flow on to the rest of the country. Attendance and involvement in the tournament will likewise have a big impact on the 12 new countries.
They need more competitive games (including top 10) every year, not just every 4th year. This probably requires RWC qualifying to be an ongoing and comprehensive process with regional pools and tournaments part of this process that also force the Top 10 to participate in the qualifying rounds to some extent.
In the long run (ie beyond Pulver's extension) the health of the Australian game is very heavily reliant on the speed of growth of the game globally. The NRL and AFL can be as dominant as they like but ultimately a global presence is what is important. For instance it has not mattered how many own goals soccer has kicked it has not even been able to kill itself.
PS Notwithstanding the Romanians probably have aspirations for the Top 15 I would not be bagging the Kenyans until the Olympics are done and dusted.
I don't think a secondary tournament is necessary. These teams already play this level of nations as their regular test matches. Playing in the RWC is the unusual situation for them and where they get a big benefit of meeting the top teams and getting the opportunity on the world stage.
I agree that the top teams should have annual fixtures against a tier 2 side. Expecting them to play substantial numbers of RWC qualifiers helps no one though. It just creates blow out victories and uneconomic fixtures when space on the calendar for matches is already stretched to the limit.
I agree that the top teams should have annual fixtures against a tier 2 side. Expecting them to play substantial numbers of RWC qualifiers helps no one though. It just creates blow out victories and uneconomic fixtures when space on the calendar for matches is already stretched to the limit.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
The 4 that would be going from competing in the world cup to competing in a secondary tournament will not have extra interest. They will have considerably less interest. Their fans won't travel for it, it won't be broadcast, it won't attract crowds.
In this world cup every team but Uruguay have at least had chances to win games. For example, Canada went through this tournament without a win but should have beaten both Italy and Romania. Do you think their fans are going to be more interested watching them win a tournament against predominantly amateur teams? You're dreaming if you do. Ask fans of tier 2 team what they'd prefer and I'll bet you almost all of them will say they'd be against reducing the world cup to 16 teams and having a secondary competition. Opportunity to play on the big stage is what gives incentive for developing unions to improve.
The world cup needs to be expanded, not contracted or split into tiers. You could have a separate 'trophy' tournament for teams ranked 25-36 or so, but all you'd do under your proposal is ensure the current top teams stay way ahead of everyone else (with a handful of yo-yo teams coming in and out of the top 16). By having 24 teams we'll soon have countries like Spain, Germany, Brazil, Korea etc getting to a higher level and making world cups - and in the longer term making knock out rounds. That's what will really increase the global popularity of the sport.
T
TOCC
Guest
Average winning margin in pool matches:
1991: 20.9(16 teams)
1995: ?
1999: 32.8
2003: 35.7
2007: 30.3
2011: 28.3
2015: 23.5*(still games to play)
A Fox Sports statistic’ analysis reveals Japan, Tonga and Namibia have statistically been the biggest improvers of the World Cup:
— Japan are averaging 5.5pts more per game, and conceding 21pts less per game in the 2015 RWC than their averages from 1987-2011.
— Tonga are averaging 4.3pts more per game, and conceding 7.1pts less per game in the 2015 RWC than their averages from 1987-2011.
— Namibia are averaging 7.9pts more per game, and conceding 18.4pts less per game in the 2015 RWC than their averages from 1999-2011.
1991: 20.9(16 teams)
1995: ?
1999: 32.8
2003: 35.7
2007: 30.3
2011: 28.3
2015: 23.5*(still games to play)
A Fox Sports statistic’ analysis reveals Japan, Tonga and Namibia have statistically been the biggest improvers of the World Cup:
— Japan are averaging 5.5pts more per game, and conceding 21pts less per game in the 2015 RWC than their averages from 1987-2011.
— Tonga are averaging 4.3pts more per game, and conceding 7.1pts less per game in the 2015 RWC than their averages from 1987-2011.
— Namibia are averaging 7.9pts more per game, and conceding 18.4pts less per game in the 2015 RWC than their averages from 1999-2011.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
Fantastic.
One more cycle and we can hopefully get that down to 3 tries, then you can really justify the increase to 24.
One more cycle and we can hopefully get that down to 3 tries, then you can really justify the increase to 24.
BaysideBird
Bill Watson (15)
To do with the structure of the tournament, if it was 24 teams, I looked at the Pacific Nations Cup. That has 2 pools of 3, but instead of playing the two teams in your pool, you play the three in the other. You increase that to 8 pools of three, and voila, 24 teams and either 8 or 16 finalists without having to resort to best finishers.
You could also play the two teams in your pool as well playing the other three in you paired pool. 2 intra-pool and 3 inter-pool games, then the top team from each pool qualifys for the final 8 and so forth.
You could also play the two teams in your pool as well playing the other three in you paired pool. 2 intra-pool and 3 inter-pool games, then the top team from each pool qualifys for the final 8 and so forth.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
TOCC, the average winning margin in 1995 was 27.25 points
If you exclude the 2 thumpings, (Scotlands 89-0 v Cote D'Ivoire, and New Zealand's 145-14 against Japan) that drops to 19.86 points. With only 1 more game above 40 points, and only another 4 above 30.
If you exclude the 2 thumpings, (Scotlands 89-0 v Cote D'Ivoire, and New Zealand's 145-14 against Japan) that drops to 19.86 points. With only 1 more game above 40 points, and only another 4 above 30.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
The fact there's been just 1 victory of 50+ points so far is the best sign IMO. England against Uruguay and South Africa against USA's B team could add to that, but there'd still be a lot less than there were in the last few tournaments.
Bardon
Peter Fenwicke (45)
I said it before on another thread. I'm all for expanding the number of teams in the RWC.
The development of the sport is ultimately about people.
The Romanian players who played Ireland in front of 90,000 people will be the inspiration and in some cases the coaches of the next generation. They'll remember what that day felt like and they'll want the next generation to have similar experiences.
Then someone in the next generation might end up being the coach when they get their first big scalp at a RWC.
Everyone who's had success at a RWC has had someone that inspired them. Having more teams in the RWC is about providing more nations with those inspirational figures. I don't see it as a bad thing.
Here in Japan. At my schools people are actually talking about rugby. Not just to me but to each other. When I first started teaching at these schools I had to motion passing the ball so they'd know I was talking about rugby and not soccer.
Now they know when the games are, who the opposition is, player names etc. This Japan team is going to be a huge inspiration for kids who are at elementary and junior high school.
The RWC in 2019 was always going to boost the profile of Rugby here. But the Olympics is 2020 had been casting a long shadow over the tournament. After Japan's performances at this year's RWC people will really be looking forward to 2019 in it's own right.
The development of the sport is ultimately about people.
The Romanian players who played Ireland in front of 90,000 people will be the inspiration and in some cases the coaches of the next generation. They'll remember what that day felt like and they'll want the next generation to have similar experiences.
Then someone in the next generation might end up being the coach when they get their first big scalp at a RWC.
Everyone who's had success at a RWC has had someone that inspired them. Having more teams in the RWC is about providing more nations with those inspirational figures. I don't see it as a bad thing.
Here in Japan. At my schools people are actually talking about rugby. Not just to me but to each other. When I first started teaching at these schools I had to motion passing the ball so they'd know I was talking about rugby and not soccer.
Now they know when the games are, who the opposition is, player names etc. This Japan team is going to be a huge inspiration for kids who are at elementary and junior high school.
The RWC in 2019 was always going to boost the profile of Rugby here. But the Olympics is 2020 had been casting a long shadow over the tournament. After Japan's performances at this year's RWC people will really be looking forward to 2019 in it's own right.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
I don't think expanding number of teams in RWC actually should be the first area of focus but rather ensuring the tier 2 teams have greater year on year access via exposure to relevant competitions (e.g super rugby or 6 nations expansion) to ensure they are able to develop and compete with tier 1 nations. As otherwise without that sort of grass roots focus you will just end up with tier 2 teams added to RWC getting thrashed 140-0 etc - which is not appealing. The fact we have not had any of these sort of blow outs is why lot of interest in the minnows as all of them have been competitive of sorts without the 100+ scores.
If they continue to develop tier 2 nations as they have focussed on - time to give IRB some credit here with various tier 2 tournaments created like Pacific Nations Rugby Cup but they need their players to play against tier 1 countries without losing them to overseas. Hence why expansion for existing competitions like super rugby, the primiership in UK etc so important as is next level at international level with Rugby Championship and Six Nations (but former I see as more logical easier step perhaps)...
If they continue to develop tier 2 nations as they have focussed on - time to give IRB some credit here with various tier 2 tournaments created like Pacific Nations Rugby Cup but they need their players to play against tier 1 countries without losing them to overseas. Hence why expansion for existing competitions like super rugby, the primiership in UK etc so important as is next level at international level with Rugby Championship and Six Nations (but former I see as more logical easier step perhaps)...
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
But that said agree perhaps seen improvement to increase number of teams for RWC but I don't see why you would go from 16 to 24 as jump too far perhaps given would be getting into tier 3 beyond top 20 nations.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
There's 20 teams now, it would be going from 20 to 24.
Give it 8 years (2019 will be under the current format) and it'll be possible to get another 4+ teams at least to the level that Uruguay and Namibia are at now. Both teams only just qualified for this tournament as it is (narrowly ahead of Zimbabwe, Kenya and Russia). And earlier this year Uruguay lost a match against Chile.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
Namibia, Zimbabwe and Kenya were all tied on 10 points (2 wins and 2 bonus points) in the African Qualifying. In the end, it came down to who beat up Madagascar the most. I don't think either of the other 2 would have disgraced themselves had they made it instead.
In the same vein, the Russians were one result from going in ahead of the Uruguayans. And IIRC, there wasn't too much between Uruguay and the other teams in their division prior to their Qualifier against the States.
So, you give another spot to Europe, another to the Americas, and another to Africa, and you're 1 spot away from a 24 team cup. And rather than permanently give the spot to the Pacific or Asia, you make 2 repechage places instead. Throwing numbers out there randomly, you could "permanently" assign the number of spots each region gets. So:
9 to Europe, increasing the allocation by 1, but leaving them out of cross conference qualifying.
3.5 to Africa, increase the allocation by one, plus the 4th ranked team gets a playoff.
1.5 to Asia, no change, but greater chance of 2nd ranked team getting through.
5.5 to Oceania, no change to allocation, but 6th ranked team now gets a playoff.
4.5 to the Americas, split 2.25 and 2.25 across north and south, with the 3rd placed team from each playing off for the cross conference playoff spot.
It'd avoid a number of issues like we're currently pondering (i.e. allocations have only ever been done for non qualified-teams, do any of the Pacific islands miss out), and you'd likely only have 1 team, either an Asian or Oceanic side that was significantly weaker than what the Namibians or Uruguayans have given us this time around. And if the Africa 4 and Americas 5 sides drew Asia 2 and Oceania 6, we may not even have that.
In the same vein, the Russians were one result from going in ahead of the Uruguayans. And IIRC, there wasn't too much between Uruguay and the other teams in their division prior to their Qualifier against the States.
So, you give another spot to Europe, another to the Americas, and another to Africa, and you're 1 spot away from a 24 team cup. And rather than permanently give the spot to the Pacific or Asia, you make 2 repechage places instead. Throwing numbers out there randomly, you could "permanently" assign the number of spots each region gets. So:
9 to Europe, increasing the allocation by 1, but leaving them out of cross conference qualifying.
3.5 to Africa, increase the allocation by one, plus the 4th ranked team gets a playoff.
1.5 to Asia, no change, but greater chance of 2nd ranked team getting through.
5.5 to Oceania, no change to allocation, but 6th ranked team now gets a playoff.
4.5 to the Americas, split 2.25 and 2.25 across north and south, with the 3rd placed team from each playing off for the cross conference playoff spot.
It'd avoid a number of issues like we're currently pondering (i.e. allocations have only ever been done for non qualified-teams, do any of the Pacific islands miss out), and you'd likely only have 1 team, either an Asian or Oceanic side that was significantly weaker than what the Namibians or Uruguayans have given us this time around. And if the Africa 4 and Americas 5 sides drew Asia 2 and Oceania 6, we may not even have that.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
My bad so there is - 20 to 24 sounds ok then as saw a lot of talk on 16 to 24, but yes four pools of 5 team each - did not put brain to gear to calculate this
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
You also have Spain and Portugal as well as teams you mentioned.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
As long as we are talking about adding 4 teams I am ok with that....and with continuing other grass roots developments to ensure we don't get 100+ floggings....
Would not want more than 4 though....baby steps...
Would not want more than 4 though....baby steps...
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Example of how countries benefited from increased participation is European Challenge Cup (think that is what it is called) where club sides from tier 2 nations can qualify to play in tournament with other leading European first division rugby clubs. Spain, Georgia, Romania and Portugal have all had club sides who have qualified for this which helped exposure against more professional clubs etc....
More of same please
More of same please
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
It is good to see the gap between top tier and second tier teams getting closer.
This gap wont improve by playing every four years against better teams.
We need the IRB to assist funding tours for sub national tier one teams to tier two teams.
Each year we send a Wallabies team to Europe and play basically the same teams on a rotational basis.
It would be great if we could send a "best of the rest" 2nd XV for a spring tour too other teams like Russia and Georgia.
The European teams could do the same to the pacific Islands and Africa each year.
This gap wont improve by playing every four years against better teams.
We need the IRB to assist funding tours for sub national tier one teams to tier two teams.
Each year we send a Wallabies team to Europe and play basically the same teams on a rotational basis.
It would be great if we could send a "best of the rest" 2nd XV for a spring tour too other teams like Russia and Georgia.
The European teams could do the same to the pacific Islands and Africa each year.
- Status