Should the World Cup be downsized?

Green Giant

As I'm sure you know, there are 20 teams at the Rugby World Cup. Of these, four have a realistic chance of winning, four will be expecting to emerge from the group, two or three will think they have a chance of upsetting the apple cart and the rest are cannon fodder.

Take the likes of Portugal and Namibia. Their sole purpose at the tournament is to be hockeyed by, well, everyone (yes, I'm aware that Namibia ran us close). Would it be better if the RWC was reduced from 20 teams to, say, 12 so that the minnows can keep their dignity? Or should they be allowed to have their moment in the big time, no matter how many hundreds of points they lose by?

Thoughts?

jameshayes

Maybe in 4/8/12 years these teams will be the favorites... it took france 52 years to win the FIFA world cup...

Diarmuid

Green Giant wrote:

Would it be better if the RWC was reduced from 20 teams to, say, 12 so that the minnows can keep their dignity?

If that's your criterion, maybe they should reduce it to 4 teams to keep Ireland/England/Italy/Northern Hemisphere dignity intact.

pwd

The English cricket team were saying the same thing about the cricket world cup.
But Ireland and Bangladesh, the minnows, beat respected teams and got past the group stages.
It sounds like sour grapes to say this sort of thing really. Georgia and Numibia put in respectable performances against an off-form Irish team. I think it's a good thing generally to allow weaker teams into tournaments.

komodosp

Or how about a two-tiered world cup, kind of like the FA cup where the higher division teams enter at a later stage...

i.e. not just extended qualifiers it would be included in the whole festival that is the world cup finals, so the teams would get the exposure, but they only really play the other minnows and the winners of that pool stage move on to join the whales in the next round...

They could even have their own kind of lesser trophy like the triple crown or like the provincial finals in GAA, to help raise the profile of rugby in those countries.

komodosp

To be honest I would hate to see the number of teams reduced, it would be a step backward in terms of world rugby...

Eoin

Could there be a compromise? e.g. a plate for the teams who don't get out of their pools or something like that?

I think the lower ranked teams have acquitted themselves very well, and it wouldn't do anything for the tournament to have a tri-nations, six-nations + Argentina competition.

komodosp wrote:

Or how about a two-tiered world cup, kind of like the FA cup where the higher division teams enter at a later stage...

Does that not effectively exist at the moment, in that the teams that didn't make the QF of the previous event have to qualify?

Zambia

No way , look at Argentina they used to be hockeyed by everyone.

The exposure to world rugby does them no harm plus you have to give these sides something to play towards and World cup Qualification gives them that.

True they are up against blokes trained on budgets that they can only dream of but with the recognition they bring to the sport in their country's. The youth are inspired to follow them.

It would be far to boring to not have the minnows.

komodosp

Does that not effectively exist at the moment, in that the teams that didn't make the QF of the previous event have to qualify?

Well it does, but like I said not like extended qualifiers... Make it part of the world cup finals where the profile can be raised, rather than just the odd match every couple of weeks/months whatever

MrJoeSoap

Leave it as it is and let the smaller nations keep catching up. At least Ireland win games in the present format...

Akrasia

The Georgia/Argentina game was one of the most exciting games of the WC so far.

The WC should absolutely not be downsized and made more elitist. These teams (including argentina) are isolated and don't have any real stage to perform. This is their only chance to play world class competitive rugby and I say let them prove themselves and go for it.

thebaz

yeah , i think it should be reduced to 16 - while i am delighted to see the emergence of a new competitive team like Georgia -- but what does New Zealand running up a 100 points against Portugal tell you , or Japan getting slaughterd by the Aussies do for the game ?
16 teams would be better IMO

pd101

thebaz wrote:

yeah , i think it should be reduced to 16 - while i am delighted to see the emergence of a new competitive team like Georgia -- but what does New Zealand running up a 100 points against Portugal tell you , or Japan getting slaughterd by the Aussies do for the game ?
16 teams would be better IMO

Yeah your probably right. Concentrate on getting 16 reasonably competitive teams before expanding it again. Have some sort of second tier competition for those that fail to qualify. Second tier competition could also bring up the quality of the even smaller teams.

Eoin

thebaz wrote:

yeah , i think it should be reduced to 16 - while i am delighted to see the emergence of a new competitive team like Georgia -- but what does New Zealand running up a 100 points against Portugal tell you , or Japan getting slaughterd by the Aussies do for the game ?
16 teams would be better IMO

Look at the world rankings here; Georgia and Romania are in the top 16. Italy already got a pounding and they are in the top 10. England and Ireland would probably get a severe beating from NZ on current form. Unless you made the world cup a 4 or 5 team affair, there's going to be spankings somewhere along the line.

90 point margins may not be great for the game, but maybe a plate for the 3rd ranked team in each pool could help. Personally I think that if the likes of Portugal and Japan are happy to go out and risk a beating, then it's their call. Maybe playing on such a stage is enough reward for them.

Italy were the whipping boys of the 6N, now they are a team that not many teams relish playing, even if the odds are still in favour of a win.

MrJoeSoap

thebaz wrote:

yeah , i think it should be reduced to 16 - while i am delighted to see the emergence of a new competitive team like Georgia -- but what does New Zealand running up a 100 points against Portugal tell you , or Japan getting slaughterd by the Aussies do for the game ?
16 teams would be better IMO

Well if the World Cup was reduced to 16 teams the chances are Georgia wouldn't have even been in this World Cup. There should always be a chance for the so-called "weaker" nations to prove themselves. Look at how much Georgia and Namibia have come on in the past four years. England put 84 past Georgia last time, and they lost to Uruguay and were quite comprehensively beaten by Samoa.

As for Portugal and Japan, they were never going to be able to match the All-Blacks or Wallabies, but then again very few countries can, its just the nature of the sport at the moment. The fact that the smaller teams are even there competing might mean that the sport will take off in those countries, a la Georgia and Namibia.

I seem to remember Brazil hammering China and Costa Rica in the Soccer World Cup, and who could forget Germany against the Saudi's? Nobody talks about downsizing that.

thebaz

MrJoeSoap wrote:

I seem to remember Brazil hammering China and Costa Rica in the Soccer World Cup, and who could forget Germany against the Saudi's? Nobody talks about downsizing that.

Rugby is different to soccer in that repect , the likes of Northern Ireland or Finland could get a freak draw against Brazil ... whereas Japan , Italy , Fiji would never get a result against the All blacks or Australia , much more chance of humiliation in rugby

just to state i welcome the expansion of the game , but don't think mass defeats do anything for the game

Eoin

thebaz wrote:

Rugby is different to soccer in that repect , the likes of Northern Ireland or Finland could get a freak draw against Brazil ... whereas Japan , Italy , Fiji would never get a result against the All blacks or Australia , much more chance of humiliation in rugby

just to state i welcome the expansion of the game , but don't think mass defeats do anything for the game

But they do have a chance of a result against other teams - and on the world stage, which will give them far better coverage. As I said, mass defeats are a real likelihood unless you bring the number of teams way down.

MrJoeSoap

I take your point baz, but I still think that the fact that these countries are even there is good for the sport. Sure they get hammered by the big teams, but they also play three other games, and eventually that will be good for them and raise their level, and I'm sure we will see the drubbings become less and less spectacular.

Rugby would not be fun if it was just the elite 16 over and over again.

jmayo

It is nice to see Georgia etc doing well but how good is it to see a team being hammered out the gate by the real WC contenders i.e. South Africa, Australia and New Zealand ?

How many competitive matches do these lower ranked countries play between world cups?
Will the RFU finally acknowledge the existence of these teams and try and bring them on board either the 6 or tri nations ?
Look what it has done for Italy, forget their dispaly against NZ.
Argentina exists as pointed out by their coach after win over France.

I think the professional era has helped these countries because their players can now get to play competive rugby in the top leagues. That helps the base back home.
Saying that it has also screwed certain south sea island nations.

Rugby is no longer the old boys club game, which was elitism either based around certain small geographical pockets, certain races or posh schools in most countries.
Wales and New Zealand qwould have been the exception.
Limerick was the exceptioon in Ireland.