Reform of the RWC

spank_inferno

Hi Guys

Just wondering with regard to the many meaningless mismatches in the RWC group stages what do people think of re-structering the championchip?

What about this idea:
- Reduce the tournament to 12 tier1 teams.
- Create a second tournament to run parrallel to the tier1 tournament.

My idea to run them in parrallel would mean to play their games as warm ups to the Tier1 game.
This would allow the minnows to play infront of bigger gates, giving exposure to their talents. Fans get to watch 2 games at the stadium and make more of a day of it. And the minnow nations fans get to be part of the larger world cup atmosphere. Not relegated to 3rd division grounds playing in front of no one.

Linford

spank_inferno wrote:

Hi Guys

Just wondering with regard to the many meaningless mismatches in the RWC group stages what do people think of re-structering the championchip?

What about this idea:
- Reduce the tournament to 12 tier1 teams.
- Create a second tournament to run parrallel to the tier1 tournament.

My idea to run them in parrallel would mean to play their games as warm ups to the Tier1 game.
This would allow the minnows to play infront of bigger gates, giving exposure to their talents. Fans get to watch 2 games at the stadium and make more of a day of it. And the minnow nations fans get to be part of the larger world cup atmosphere. Not relegated to 3rd division grounds playing in front of no one.

One of the ideas of the world cup is to try and open up rugby to a wider audience world wide, reducing the the tournament to 12 tier one teams would completely destroy that.

The games against the so called "minnows" can be very important for the higer ranked teams, the matches for Ireland, France and Argentina v Namibia and Georgia could decide who goes through.

They only thing that should be changed and i think it is being, is that the top 8 are automatically seeded 1-8 for the following WC.

jdivision

I don't agree with that to be honest. Why should somebody like Wales get a higher seeding when they're in an easier pool and are bound to qualify? The same with Scotland historically although at least the Italians have a chance of beating them this time.

Borzoi

spank_inferno wrote:

Hi Guys

Just wondering with regard to the many meaningless mismatches in the RWC group stages what do people think of re-structering the championchip?.

The minnow vs the giants. RWC is the only time these teams get to play the big boys competitively

IMHO the structure is wrong, in the seeding of the top 8, because (excluding our own ingloriuos career) there are 8 nations who are head and shoulders above the rest of the world. If 10 teams or 6 teams got seeded or there were more/less groups, that would also change things. But at the moment the seeding helps maintain the status quo, which is a bad thing

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Punchbowl

spank_inferno wrote:

Hi Guys

Just wondering with regard to the many meaningless mismatches in the RWC group stages what do people think of re-structering the championchip?

What about this idea:
- Reduce the tournament to 12 tier1 teams.
- Create a second tournament to run parrallel to the tier1 tournament.

My idea to run them in parrallel would mean to play their games as warm ups to the Tier1 game.
This would allow the minnows to play infront of bigger gates, giving exposure to their talents. Fans get to watch 2 games at the stadium and make more of a day of it. And the minnow nations fans get to be part of the larger world cup atmosphere. Not relegated to 3rd division grounds playing in front of no one.

Bad idea. The 'Minnows' in my opinion are developing nations, and need these games for ranking points. Italy were considered Minnows not so long ago and would not of developed as quickly as they did were they not added to the 6 Nations. There'll be mismatches at this WC, that's for sure, but only about as many as the Soccer World Cup

marco_polo

spank_inferno wrote:

Hi Guys

Just wondering with regard to the many meaningless mismatches in the RWC group stages what do people think of re-structering the championchip?

What about this idea:
- Reduce the tournament to 12 tier1 teams.
- Create a second tournament to run parrallel to the tier1 tournament.

My idea to run them in parrallel would mean to play their games as warm ups to the Tier1 game.
This would allow the minnows to play infront of bigger gates, giving exposure to their talents. Fans get to watch 2 games at the stadium and make more of a day of it. And the minnow nations fans get to be part of the larger world cup atmosphere. Not relegated to 3rd division grounds playing in front of no one.

Top 16 would be competitive enough, to reduce it to 12 would be far too drastic and would mean fairly decent teams such as Canada and a few of the Pacific Island nations, who are more than capable of giving a good game to the lower tier one nations such as Italy, Scotland etc missing out.

A tier two competition in parallel would be great.

remus808

Borzoi wrote:

The minnow vs the giants. RWC is the only time these teams get to play the big boys competitively

IMHO the structure is wrong, in the seeding of the top 8, because (excluding our own ingloriuos career) there are 8 nations who are head and shoulders above the rest of the world. If 10 teams or 6 teams got seeded or there were more/less groups, that would also change things. But at the moment the seeding helps maintain the status quo, which is a bad thing

10 teams.

I don't Italy or Argentina are in a different class to the rest

Het-Field

I would agree with the overhaul of the World Cup. If there had been major strides in the Rugby playing ability of smaller nations, I would be in complete agreement, however, that has not proved to be the case. We still have a G10 with a variety of also rans who are simply not good enough to compete at this level.

I can see a century of points being racked up by New Zealand against Portugal, while I expect France to do the same against Georgia, and possibly Namibia. In other games Australia will rack up 60 + point wins against Fiji, Japan and Canada, Scotland will tackle Romania and Portugal for at least a half century each, and Ireland are well capable of hitting Georgia and Namibia for 70. England will get though but I doubt either them or South Africa will find it all that easy to run up huge scores against resolute Samoan and Tongan defences. The USA will be a different matter and both England and South Africa will hit the for at least 50.

It would be far better to hold two world cups as other nations try to develop. In World Cup "A" : The All Blacks, The Springboks, The Wallabies, Ireland, Wales, England, France, Scotland, Italy, Argentina, Fiji and Samoa should be separated into two groups, with the top three going through to the last 8. It would push all teams far harder, and it would mean that one (like Wales in 2007) would not find themselves in a Semi Final on the back of being drawn in a weak group, with the prospect of drawing one of the current weakest 6 nations, and easily the poorest of the tri nations.

In World Cup "B" Japan, USA, Canada, Namabia, Zimbabwe, Romania, NZ Maori, Portugal, Georgia, and Russia should be drawn in two groups of five, with the two top teams progressing to the semi final. The winner should be given the cahnce to compete at the next world cup, with the team who performed poorest in World Cup "A" being demoted.

This would encourage developing nations, while force the top nations to continually improve their infrastructure and training methods, which benefit the game as a whole

I like the idea of the B being a precursor to the A Games !

Linford

Het-Field wrote:

In World Cup "B" Japan, USA, Canada, Namabia, Zimbabwe, Romania, NZ Maori, Portugal, Georgia, and Russia should be drawn in two groups of five, with the two top teams progressing to the semi final. The winner should be given the cahnce to compete at the next world cup, with the team who performed poorest in World Cup "A" being demoted.

This would encourage developing nations, while force the top nations to continually improve their infrastructure and training methods, which benefit the game as a whole

I like the idea of the B being a precursor to the A Games !

NZ Maori? Why not have Ireland A, the English Saxons, the French A, Welsh A and Scottish A and cast the other teams into a World Cup "C"

toomevara

Is anyone worried about the potential for serious injury occuring in some of these mismatches? Maybe I'm being hopelessly nannyish but a fixture such as the All-Blacks versus Portugal concerns me on a number of levels, not least of which is the potential for life threatening/catastrophic injury of the Max Britto type.

Having lived in Portugal for a time and watched their team play on a number of occasions, I'd say that in terms of skill level I'd put them at around a mid-top table AIB league team with all due respect. They've Lots of heart and huge commitment but psychologically and physically such a fixture will do nothing for the game, its players or supporters in Portugal, although my friends over there tell me they're treating the AB fixture like their own personal WC final....to me its like putting a bantamweight boxer in with a heavyweight,totally purposeless and incredibly dangerous for the little guy....

Het-Field

Linford wrote:

NZ Maori? Why not have Ireland A, the English Saxons, the French A, Welsh A and Scottish A and cast the other teams into a World Cup "C"

The Maori are a nation of their own. They are not a second string team for developing New Zealand Players. They are very strong and would strenghten a B Grade world cup, as weaker teams would be forced to play difficult and accomplished opposition. All the A Teams are completly inferior to the Maori and would be crapped on

marco_polo

Het-Field wrote:

The Maori are a nation of their own. They are not a second string team for developing New Zealand Players. They are very strong and would strenghten a B Grade world cup, as weaker teams would be forced to play difficult and accomplished opposition. All the A Teams are completly inferior to the Maori and would be crapped on

Confusing the concepts of a country and a representative teams, they do not play any international test matches so how could they play in a world cup. Also if they are so good what is the point in having them there in the B tournament to destroy the weaker teams.

Besides England A beat them in the churchill cup recently.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

spank_inferno

I wouldnt have the NZ Maori in a B world cup.

.... However, It can be argued that the weaker nations wont get any better if they dont play the big teams but I dont think so.
Japan arent any better for NZ putting 140pts on them in the Past.
Better funding from IRB/central governments will help much more.

also: Playing as a curtain raiser to the bigger teams would be great entertainment methinks, mabey even trumping the main event.
Think Wicklow winning tommy murphy cup this year, best curtain raiser ever

philstar

how come some of the matches are taking place in scotland and wales??

i taught it was a french world cup??

LFC5Times

Yeh i think a section B for the weaker teams is the way to go.

Something like they have or used to have for the U.19 world cup

Punchbowl

philstar wrote:

how come some of the matches are taking place in scotland and wales??

i taught it was a french world cup??

Yeah, don't know the official line on it.. I thought they were moving away from the whole multi-nation hosting?

It's not like France doesn't have the Stadiums

RuggieBear

Punchbowl wrote:

Yeah, don't know the official line on it.. I thought they were moving away from the whole multi-nation hosting?

It's not like France doesn't have the Stadiums

only way france could get the welsh and scottish vote.

(If ireland had had a stadium we would have forced the same deal)

Crash

Its pretty standard. odds are we'd have gotten a quarter final if landsdowne was still up, or was finished in time.

Ginger

One of the things that I like about the RWC is getting to see the likes of the USA, Canada & POrtugal getting a run out against bigger more accomplished teams. I reckon it to seeing what happened with italy at the start of the 6 nations. They got slapped about the place but now everyone is rating them to make the QF ahead of Scotland. Would you have seen that 4 years ago?

The same way that we saw Connaught line up against SA and Munster against the USA (who was the underdog there?) its a great boost for teams to get the chance to play the big boys.

Rather than an overhaul of the RWC there possibly needs to be a more improved competition to allow the smaller teams to get better against the more experienced. It did Italy a world of good. I know Argentina are trying to get into the tri nations and the USA & Canada are trying to organise a better competition than the Churchill cup.

Punchbowl

So how come England didn't row in with Twickers?

It devalues the WC in my opinion, there's a much great sense of occasion when they're all being played in the one country.. The Qtr final in Cardiff is the last outside France?

Borzoi

Punchbowl wrote:

So how come England didn't row in with Twickers?

England hates France, and vice versa?