RWC absurdity

strassenwo!f

Once again, we see the absurd situation of having the draw for the RWC almost 3 (yes, three!) years before the event actually happens.

As a result, internationals between teams in the same groups at the event will be overshadowed by the forthcoming event, with weakened sides being put out, interesting tactics being withheld, etc.

As a result, the rugby-watching punter will lose out. For no obvious benefit.

The usual reason trotted out is that this gives teams, travel agents, etc, time to prepare is obvious bs, as a draw seven months prior to the far bigger football world cup never seems to cause a problem.

So, rugger folk, what's the real reason for this absurdity?

rrpc

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Once again, we see the absurd situation of having the draw for the RWC almost 3 (yes, three!) years before the event actually happens.

As a result, internationals between teams in the same groups at the event will be overshadowed by the forthcoming event, with weakened sides being put out, interesting tactics being withheld, etc.

As a result, the rugby-watching punter will lose out. For no obvious benefit.

The usual reason trotted out is that this gives teams, travel agents, etc, time to prepare is obvious bs, as a draw seven months prior to the far bigger football world cup never seems to cause a problem.

So, rugger folk, what's the real reason for this absurdity?

The actual qualification is based on the previous RWC; the top three in each pool qualify for the next RWC.

What's happening now is the seeding of those top 12, not their qualification.

thomond2006

I don't like the fact that draws are done this early either, but perhaps it's done now to give as much time as possible for the cities to plan for facilities required and security etc.

Also I'm sure the Unions want to know as early as possible where they are playing so they can scout cities for team bases, hotels, training grounds etc.

strassenwo!f

rrpc wrote: »

The actual qualification is based on the previous RWC; the top three in each pool qualify for the next RWC.

What's happening now is the seeding of those top 12, not their qualification.

I know that that is what is happening now.

But what is happening in a few days is the draw for the competition. Almost three years in advance. Why?

cgpg5

strassenwo!f wrote: »

I know that that is what is happening now.

But what is happening in a few days is the draw for the competition. Almost three years in advance. Why?

I agree. Theoretically you could have a group with Australia, Samoa and perhaps Fiji (we'll assume Samoa get second seeds). Australia may go off the boil completely in 3 years and at that stage could be ranked between 5 and 8. Samoa could go way backwards too (lack of gametime, lack of top players etc.). Fiji were poor at rwc2011 and may well be the same at 2015.

On the other scale you could have a group with NZ, England (who could move up to top 4 at that stage) and Argentina who are bound to improve between now and 2015.

The ridiculous thing is in an instance like that, it is unlikely of course, but you could have 3 teams in one group who are all seeded higher than all the teams in another group by the time 2015 comes around.

Having the draw so early really is silly when you look at it from that perspective.

JustinDee

The tiers in intl rugby union are far smaller than those in soccer, ie the gap between the top and lower ranked teams. This alleged shadowing of tactics etc is unavoidable, even if draw was nearer. The game while simple overall, runs in far more intrinsic manner than soccer. Squads, tactics etc all change. Three years is a long time in rugby. If you are a lower tier union, you will need plenty of time to prepare your budget, training facilities, accommodation preferences etc.

These 'issues' the poster brings up are in fact non-issues. If anything, they are benefits.

irishbucsfan

I think they nail down the seedings this early so the previous World Cup is as strong as possible, because lower ranked teams don't play as many test matches in the interim years and are therefore at a disadvantage. World Cup matches are worth more remember.

JustinDee

cgpg5 wrote: »

I agree. Theoretically you could have a group with Australia, Samoa and perhaps Fiji (we'll assume Samoa get second seeds). Australia may go off the boil completely in 3 years and at that stage could be ranked between 5 and 8. Samoa could go way backwards too (lack of gametime, lack of top players etc.). Fiji were poor at rwc2011 and may well be the same at 2015.

On the other scale you could have a group with NZ, England (who could move up to top 4 at that stage) and Argentina who are bound to improve between now and 2015.

The ridiculous thing is in an instance like that, it is unlikely of course, but you could have 3 teams in one group who are all seeded higher than all the teams in another group by the time 2015 comes around.

Having the draw so early really is silly when you look at it from that perspective.

Fiji were missing more than a third of their squad due to boycott on their military and cohorts.

Teferi

JustinDee wrote: »

The tiers in intl rugby union are far smaller than those in soccer, ie the gap between the top and lower ranked teams.

Can you expand on what you mean here? Do you mean that a Tier 3 or lower is more likely to beat a higher tier team? I'd disagree if you do, you are far more likely to see an upset in soccer over rugby - the top 8 - 12 teams are far too dominant in rugby.

cgpg5

Teferi wrote: »

Can you expand on what you mean here? Do you mean that a Tier 3 or lower is more likely to beat a higher tier team? I'd disagree if you do, you are far more likely to see an upset in soccer over rugby - the top 8 - 12 teams are far too dominant in rugby.

Agree completely. Northern Ireland held Portugal recently and the difference in ranking is absolutely insane. Sorry for being a tad OT but I agree completely here. Upsets are way more frequent in soccer

CatFromHue

JustinDee wrote: »

Fiji were missing more than a third of their squad due to boycott on their military and cohorts.

I thought it was more like one player in the end.

I do agree with the OP though it is pretty bizarre to be doing it now. Aren't the teams hotels and training bases provided for by the host nation and don't the IRB pay alot, if not most, of the costs for the lower ranked teams?

totallegend

Lads, it is for one reason only; to give the maximum possible window for selling tickets.

The RWC is not a guaranteed money spinner like the soccer version, plus there is a huge geographical spread of a comparatively small pool of fans.

So, if you're holding it in Japan, you're massively dependent on fans from Europe, South Africa and Down Under to make it a success. To get the maximum number of punters, you have to give the maximum time for planning.

tolosenc

JustinDee wrote: »

The tiers in intl rugby union are far smaller than those in soccer, ie the gap between the top and lower ranked teams. This alleged shadowing of tactics etc is unavoidable, even if draw was nearer. The game while simple overall, runs in far more intrinsic manner than soccer. Squads, tactics etc all change. Three years is a long time in rugby. If you are a lower tier union, you will need plenty of time to prepare your budget, training facilities, accommodation preferences etc.

These 'issues' the poster brings up are in fact non-issues. If anything, they are benefits.

But lower tier unions won't qualify until summer 2014 at the earliest. If the 2014 AIs was the cutoff, then it'd be better, as we'd have a much fairer representation of the strength of teams going in.

Look at Ireland, we are qualifying based on a squad with the likes of BOD, who probably won't make the next World Cup, and we don't have a replacement that's within an asses roar of his quality.

CatFromHue

totallegend wrote: »

Lads, it is for one reason only; to give the maximum possible window for selling tickets.

The RWC is not a guaranteed money spinner like the soccer version, plus there is a huge geographical spread of a comparatively small pool of fans.

So, if you're holding it in Japan, you're massively dependent on fans from Europe, South Africa and Down Under to make it a success. To get the maximum number of punters, you have to give the maximum time for planning.

Were Ireland played their games in New Zealand would have had little or no bearing on people wanting to go to New Zealand for the last RWC I'd say.

From the people I did know who were thinking of going it was more about trying to save cash and get time off work than what they'd do in NZ when they got there. Even then they only started doing a rough budget a year out from the comp.

JustinDee

Teferi wrote: »

Can you expand on what you mean here? Do you mean that a Tier 3 or lower is more likely to beat a higher tier team? I'd disagree if you do, you are far more likely to see an upset in soccer over rugby - the top 8 - 12 teams are far too dominant in rugby.

You're talking about gaps. I'm talking about teams participating.

ArmaniJeanss

JustinDee wrote: »

Three years is a long time in rugby. If you are a lower tier union, you will need plenty of time to prepare your budget, training facilities, accommodation preferences etc.

Eh, many of the lower tier nations won't actually qualify until 2014, so they don't get the 3 years to prepare and make accomodation preferences.
Its the top 12 only who get this advantage - they get to know their schedule early, nab the best hotels, best training facilities, and the lower tiers get to pick from what the big boys didn't particularly fancy.

But yeah, all the rugby administrators are fully behind the minnows and support them in every way possible. "Enjoy the 3 games in 11 days schedule we have prepared for you".

JustinDee

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Eh, many of the lower tier nations won't actually qualify until 2014, so they don't get the 3 years to prepare and make accomodation preferences.
Its the top 12 only who get this advantage - they get to know their schedule early, nab the best hotels, best training facilities, and the lower tiers get to pick from what the big boys didn't particularly fancy.

But yeah, all the rugby administrators are fully behind the minnows and support them in every way possible. "Enjoy the 3 games in 11 days schedule we have prepared for you".

Wasn't a fan of the scheduling myself but the IRB did say this issue would be addressed for 2015.

Israel_Dagg

Gives teams a focus for the next 3 years. They know they'll have to beat such a team etc.

Also makes it more exciting for us knowing the draw for it. Have longer to look forward to it

ArmaniJeanss

JustinDee wrote: »

Wasn't a fan of the scheduling myself but the IRB did say this issue would be addressed for 2015.

I see nothing in what little has been released about the proposed schedule to suggest it'll be anything but more of the same.
Imo, the Top 2 seeds in each group will play on the 4 successive weekends (Fri/Sat/Sun games) whilst the bottom 3 seeds will have the same squashed schedule as before.

In fairness to the IRB, with groups of 5 teams and only 24 days to complete the groups, clearly not everyone can have a nice Day 1/8/16/23 rota.
On the other hand I doubt there has much real demand amongst the top tiers for it to be made fairer.

padser

JustinDee wrote: »

The game while simple overall, runs in far more intrinsic manner than soccer..

What do you mean by this sentence? (Possibly check the meaning of the word "intrinsic", either you don't understand it or you left a word out of the sentence!)

fitz

CatFromHue wrote: »

Were Ireland played their games in New Zealand would have had little or no bearing on people wanting to go to New Zealand for the last RWC I'd say.

From the people I did know who were thinking of going it was more about trying to save cash and get time off work than what they'd do in NZ when they got there. Even then they only started doing a rough budget a year out from the comp.

No, but as someone who travelled, it had a huge impact on how we attended in terms of travel and accommodation. We booked a camper-van a year and a half in advance. If you're travelling that far, the lead times for getting things organised so that you don't miss out or get scalped on price are not inconsiderable, and that's just for the travelling punter.

The logistics of the way the RWC was staged in NZ must have taken ages to get right. It was a brilliantly organised event, but you could see that was because they had thought of everything, and put a huge effort into making things run smoothly.

Podge_irl

The tier 1 nations were never going to play on anything other than successive weekends in NZ for mere television practicalities. Given the time difference to the biggest TV markets it was a necessity. There is much more scope for having tier 1 teams on weekday evenings in England (sadly, the time zone problem returns for Japan).

twinytwo

thomond2006 wrote: »

I don't like the fact that draws are done this early either, but perhaps it's done now to give as much time as possible for the cities to plan for facilities required and security etc.

Also I'm sure the Unions want to know as early as possible where they are playing so they can scout cities for team bases, hotels, training grounds etc.

Rest assured however, if the seedings were not the way the powers that be wanted them, the draw would be delayed.... for example if by some freak results there was a chance that NZ,SA and Aus could end up in the same group, the draw would be delayed

JF100

Fitz: "The logistics of the way the RWC was staged in NZ must have taken ages to get right. It was a brilliantly organised event, but you could see that was because they had thought of everything, and put a huge effort into making things run smoothly."

I do not think that the Representatives of Samoa, Tonga, Japan or even Argentina would agree with you Fitz.
The IRB was disgraceful in its organised and deliberate bias towards the Tier I nations.
The referees' performances for example towards these teams were also an absurdity; (Owens v Samoa is a prime example).

The IRB makes FIFA look like the Catholic Church..!

ArmaniJeanss

Podge_irl wrote: »

The tier 1 nations were never going to play on anything other than successive weekends in NZ for mere television practicalities. Given the time difference to the biggest TV markets it was a necessity. There is much more scope for having tier 1 teams on weekday evenings in England (sadly, the time zone problem returns for Japan).

Meh, I humbly predict that there'll basically be an identical structure, with the num 1 and 2 seeds in each group playing their 4 group games over the four weekends (Friday to Sunday) and the lower tier nations stuck with midweek games and 3 games in 11 days rotas.
And we'll complain and say something should be done and the IRB will promise to look into it.

fitz

JF100 wrote: »

I do not think that the Representatives of Samoa, Tonga, Japan or even Argentina would agree with you Fitz.
The IRB was disgraceful in its organised and deliberate bias towards the Tier I nations.
The referees' performances for example towards these teams were also an absurdity; (Owens v Samoa is a prime example).

The IRB makes FIFA look like the Catholic Church..!

What the hell do ref's have to do with it?
This is about why the draw is held so early.
I'm just saying having seen the infrastructure that was put in place for the fans, there's a huge amount of work involved, and from what I saw, it went off without a hitch.

I'm not just talking about IRB work, I'm talking about what the country, and particularly the host towns, did to prepare for the event and the influx of people.

I don't think the lead time for the draw is unreasonable.

The scheduling for the lower tier nations, on the other hand, needs to be addressed.

Klunk_NZ

twinytwo wrote: »

Rest assured however, if the seedings were not the way the powers that be wanted them, the draw would be delayed.... for example if by some freak results there was a chance that NZ,SA and Aus could end up in the same group, the draw would be delayed

>>>> Implying Sanzar even have 20% of the power The four nations hold over the IRB.

>>>>> Implying It is possible for NZ SA Aus (Historically the 3 best rugby nations) to be in rankings 1-4 5-8 9-12 respectively.

I reject your suggestion.

CatFromHue

fitz wrote: »

I'm just saying having seen the infrastructure that was put in place for the fans, there's a huge amount of work involved, and from what I saw, it went off without a hitch.

I'm not just talking about IRB work, I'm talking about what the country, and particularly the host towns, did to prepare for the event and the influx of people.

I don't think the lead time for the draw is unreasonable.

For me the fan infrastructure is put in place regardless from a few years out.

For the host towns it's the difference between your getting a team and getting this team i.e. they get to know the teams name.

conf101

CatFromHue wrote: »

For me the fan infrastructure is put in place regardless from a few years out.

For the host towns it's the difference between your getting a team and getting this team i.e. they get to know the teams name.

Isn't that quite important though. Getting a top team like Ireland or France means you'll attract much larger visitor numbers than getting someone smaller like Fiji or Japan. Knowing this helps towns/cities prepare themselves well in advance

fitz

conf101 wrote: »

Isn't that quite important though. Getting a top team like Ireland or France means you'll attract much larger visitor numbers than getting someone smaller like Fiji or Japan. Knowing this helps towns/cities prepare themselves well in advance

Exactly. The make up of the group will have an impact on the numbers of travelling fans, the stadia that should be used to cater for how many fans the games in a particular group will attract, etc...

I don't it's a case that it couldn't be done closer to the time, but I think the longer lead time makes it an easier job.

snow mad

JF100 wrote: »

Fitz: "The logistics of the way the RWC was staged in NZ must have taken ages to get right. It was a brilliantly organised event, but you could see that was because they had thought of everything, and put a huge effort into making things run smoothly."

I do not think that the Representatives of Samoa, Tonga, Japan or even Argentina would agree with you Fitz.
The IRB was disgraceful in its organised and deliberate bias towards the Tier I nations.
The referees' performances for example towards these teams were also an absurdity; (Owens v Samoa is a prime example).

The IRB makes FIFA look like the Catholic Church..!

really do they make fifa look that bad

Ciaran-Irl

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think they nail down the seedings this early so the previous World Cup is as strong as possible, because lower ranked teams don't play as many test matches in the interim years and are therefore at a disadvantage. World Cup matches are worth more remember.

That's a good reason actually. Never thought of that.

padser

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

That's a good reason actually. Never thought of that.

It's a bye product, not a reason.

There is no way the irb structure the draw to favor lower ranked teams, the entire competition organization revolves around the big teams.

padser

twinytwo wrote: »

Rest assured however, if the seedings were not the way the powers that be wanted them, the draw would be delayed.... for example if by some freak results there was a chance that NZ,SA and Aus could end up in the same group, the draw would be delayed

The timing the draw is announced well in advance. I don't see how they would do this.

It's not like FIFA where they "announced" an extra rule of seeding playoffs after thru realized strong teams were in the playoffs. They were in the fortunate situation that they had never specified previously it would be an open draw.

In this case, the irb wouldn't have any wiggle room.