Expanded world cup, rebranding and hawk eye

LeinsterDub

http://m.bbc.com/news/business-31924309

Lots of interesting snippets.

I think the expansion of the world cup in 2023 would be the right time given that the top 15 teams can be considered competitive now.

Podge_irl

Think expanding it is reasonably over ambitious goal. As it is only two groups really are in any doubt and I don't think there are any strong teams missing out. A much bigger focus should be put on more funding for the bottom 10 teams in the RWC as it stands.

Wouldn't call anything close to the top 15 teams competitive either

CatFromHue

I find it hard to believe that the teams he's mentioning (Germany, Russia, India, China) will be anyway competitive in 8 years.

Podge_irl

They won't be. Italy have been in the 6N for 15 years and are at best borderline competitive

thebaz

Podge_irl wrote: »

They won't be. Italy have been in the 6N for 15 years and are at best borderline competitive

I agree, if anything the WC should be whittled down to 16.
Unlike soccer, weak teams can really get humiliated in rugby , adds nothing when countries get destroyed by 60 something points, or a 100 plus , as has occurred.
What would the Alll Blacks against India realistically achieve ?

LeinsterDub

Podge_irl wrote: »

Think expanding it is reasonably over ambitious goal. As it is only two groups really are in any doubt and I don't think there are any strong teams missing out. A much bigger focus should be put on more funding for the bottom 10 teams in the RWC as it stands.

Wouldn't call anything close to the top 15 teams competitive either

1 Steady New Zealand 93.70
2 Steady South Africa 88.23
3 Steady Ireland 85.32
4 Steady England 85.11
5 Increase1 Wales 83.90
6 Decrease1 Australia 82.95
7 Steady France 80.02
8 Steady Argentina 78.23
9 Steady Samoa 75.39
10 Steady Scotland 75.22
11 Steady Japan 74.70
12 Steady Fiji 74.57
13 Steady Tonga 74.12
14 Steady Italy 72.01
15 Steady Georgia 71.27

Current top 15. We've really 2 groups here top 7 or 8 and the bottom 7 or 8. 14 beat 10 recently while. There have been big wins for the islanders in recent years and the standard is improving

The Lost Sheep

thebaz wrote: »

I agree, if anything the WC should be whittled down to 16.
Unlike soccer, weak teams can really get humiliated in rugby , adds nothing when countries get destroyed by 60 something points, or a 100 plus , as has occurred.
What would the Alll Blacks against India realistically achieve ?

It would be worst thing possible for IRB(World Rugby) to drop 4 teams from the world cup. Maybe not expand the world cup but look at a World Trophy for next 16 teams who don't make the 20 team world cup and they play for a trophy the same year/same time as world cup...

Teferi

There's a balance to be struck. We can't ringfence international rugby like Cricket has done but at the same time we need to be aware that most teams outside the 6N and 4N teams simply can't compete to a winning standard. More funding for the teams outside the top 10 - 12 international teams and some sort of second tier competition in which the winner is guaranteed entry into the next WC, something like that.

The markets they're aiming for are indeed enticing but how long will you hold that markets interest if they see New Zealand or England putting 100's of points on them?

bilston

As long as it fits with the schedule I see no problem with expanding the WC to 24 teams. The gap has closed a lot in the last few WCs. 20 years ago NZ were putting almost 150 points on Japan in the WC. The game has a changed a lot since then. Sure only 5 or 6 teams can realistically win the thing but it is no different in football.

Swiwi.

In favour of keeping things as they are. I like the way they added an incentive for finishing 3rd in the pool by giving automatic qualification for the next RWC. Realistically for this coming RWC, Pool C is a yawn, Pool B has Scotland v Samoa, Pool D is whether France or Ireland finish top, and Pool A is just exceptional really with Wales, England, Australia, plus Fiji who have tripped up Wales before.

My main gripe is deciding the raankings so far out from the next tournament - that is lame.

I'd be in favour of doing more for the minor teams as per Podge. The other option is to let players move between countries, but realistically all this means is Australia & NZ players re-declaring for the Islands which the NZRFU said they'd support, but wasn't backed by anyone else I don't think, and I'm not sure if I'd be in favour or not - probably not.

I really think this has the potential to be the best RWC to date, there will be at least 2 juicy 1/4 finals (runner-up Pool A vs SA, NZ vs Fra or Ireland) and then both semis and of course the final should be gripping.

NB: is 6th Australia's lowest ranking ever??

thebaz

Swiwi. wrote: »

I really think this has the potential to be the best RWC to date, there will be at least 2 juicy 1/4 finals (runner-up Pool A vs SA, NZ vs Fra or Ireland) and then both semis and of course the final should be gripping.

if we make the final it will most certainly be gripping

Swiwi.

Would anyone be in favour of a plate tournament or similar running at the same time as the main RWC: the matches could be curtain raisers or the like, with the winner gaining entry to the next tournament, a bit like what Teferi said?

LeinsterDub

Swiwi. wrote: »

Pool B has Scotland v Samoa

The Japanese will be targeting the Scots too

LeinsterDub

Swiwi. wrote: »

NB: is 6th Australia's lowest ranking ever??

It is

iDave

Cant believe I'm about to praise FIFA but they did a good job in expanding the game by allowing more teams to compete. I think USA 94 had 24 teams and France 98 was expanded to 32. Getting more Asian and African teams into it increases the sports exposure and participation.
How would a 24 team RWC work? 6 groups of 4 and best 2 runners up in the QFs possibly, like the good ol' HEC.
Would 24 teams have implications for Ireland ability to bid in 2023?

Swiwi.

iDave wrote: »

Cant believe I'm about to praise FIFA but they did a good job in expanding the game by allowing more teams to compete. I think USA 94 had 24 teams and France 98 was expanded to 32. Getting more Asian and African teams into it increases the sports exposure and participation.
How would a 24 team RWC work? 6 groups of 4 and best 2 runners up in the QFs possibly, like the good ol' HEC.
Would 24 teams have implications for Ireland ability to bid in 2023?

Not in favour at present. As it is, I fear for Georgia vs the ABs, I don't see how thrashings help anyone. If you increase it to 24 teams, you are looking at the super-minnows (Singapore, Spain etc) and it would just be all a bit pointless.

ArmaniJeanss

iDave wrote: »

Cant believe I'm about to praise FIFA but they did a good job in expanding the game by allowing more teams to compete. I think USA 94 had 24 teams and France 98 was expanded to 32. Getting more Asian and African teams into it increases the sports exposure and participation.
How would a 24 team RWC work? 6 groups of 4 and best 2 runners up in the QFs possibly, like the good ol' HEC.
Would 24 teams have implications for Ireland ability to bid in 2023?

6 groups of 4 wouldn't have a huge impact #matchwise as it would either

a ) Using the FIFA method Top2 each group + 4 best 3rd places into KOs. This would increase the amount of games from current 48 (4 groups with 10 games each + 8 KOs) to 52 (6 groups with 6 games each + 16 KOs).
Only real problem/decision that isn't currently addressed is where would you play the 8 games in the Round of 16.

or b) Using the Heineken Cup method Group winners + 2 best runners up. This would decrease the amount of games to 44 (6 groups with 6 games each + 8 KOs).

19543261

Swiwi. wrote: »

Not in favour at present. As it is, I fear for Georgia vs the ABs, I don't see how thrashings help anyone. If you increase it to 24 teams, you are looking at the super-minnows (Singapore, Spain etc) and it would just be all a bit pointless.

I'm sure its with mind to how they'll come along before then. Waiting until Gerogia can challenge the All Blacks probably isn't the best approach either.

bilston

Swiwi. wrote: »

Not in favour at present. As it is, I fear for Georgia vs the ABs, I don't see how thrashings help anyone. If you increase it to 24 teams, you are looking at the super-minnows (Singapore, Spain etc) and it would just be all a bit pointless.

NZ will doubtless rack up a score against Georgia but I'd hope the days of Simon Culhane scoring a billion points himself in one game are long gone.

That said I was looking on wikipedia yesterday and I think NZ put 108 on Portugal in 2007 but I think that was the last 100 point win in a WC and I'm sure Georgia are a better side than Portugal.

padser

Swiwi. wrote: »

Not in favour at present. As it is, I fear for Georgia vs the ABs, I don't see how thrashings help anyone. If you increase it to 24 teams, you are looking at the super-minnows (Singapore, Spain etc) and it would just be all a bit pointless.

Agree completely.

The reality is that there are about 12 teams in the world (6 nations, 4 nations, tonga and figi) who can actually field respectable professional teams. Even within that, about 6 of those teams are likely to lose by 20 - 40 points against the top teams.

We add another 8 teams on top already and it doesn't really improve the tournament as I see it. Some of the mismatches at the World Cup are already at best unentertaining and at worst dangerous.

At the moment to win the World Cup you need to do the following (assuming you are a real contender)
- play your second string twice against minors
- play most of your first team once against the third seed, taking off 5/6 players at half time
- play 4 competitive matches

If we are changing the World Cup format, I'd rather see a few fewer teams and a greater number of high quality matches, get rid of a minnow from each group and make the winner play 5.5 competive matches rather than 4.5 as is currently the case

19543261

So its about short-term versus long-term.

irishbucsfan

19543261 wrote: »

So its about short-term versus long-term.

No, not really. There is no long-term benefit from minnows being hammered by teams everyone knows is going to beat them.

A World Trophy event with equal funding is what they should pursue. Georgia are not going to improve at all by being hammered by New Zealand. They are going to improve by playing competitive fixtures against the likes of Romania, Japan, Uruguay and even test matches against the likes of Italy/Scotland.

19543261

I dont think improving the teams being fielded is the goal; as the article says: "to promote the sport in their countries.". The short term being the state of the tournament as a current spectacle.

Podge_irl

Well I think massively one-sided matches are a pretty lousy spectacle...

Swiwi.

I still can't see why they don't run 2 simultaneous tournaments: the big boys and the minnows. With the winner of the minnows RWC gaining an entry into the next tournament and support to facilitate that in terms of competitiveness.

Ideally, it would be nice for rugby to be so strong that the RWC could support a round of 16, like the football tournament, but that is way way off.

Podge_irl

Swiwi. wrote: »

I still can't see why they don't run 2 simultaneous tournaments: the big boys and the minnows. With the winner of the minnows RWC gaining an entry into the next tournament and support to facilitate that in terms of competitiveness.

Ideally, it would be nice for rugby to be so strong that the RWC could support a round of 16, like the football tournament, but that is way way off.

Money I imagine.

Would be brilliant though.

Swiwi.

Podge_irl wrote: »

Money I imagine.

Would be brilliant though.

You could only make it work by having the other games as curtain raisers, or else pricing tickets at about €5. But personally, watching a close and keenly fought game between say Russia and Spain before watching NZ v France, I'd be quite keen.

I'd rather watch Russia and Spain play out a thrilling (if technically a bit basic) 25-20, then NZ beat Georgia 60-3.

irishbucsfan

19543261 wrote: »

I dont think improving the teams being fielded is the goal; as the article says: "to promote the sport in their countries.". The short term being the state of the tournament as a current spectacle.

So I'm in Bulgaria at the moment, do you think watching their country losing by 120 points at any sport is going to attract anyone to the sport at all? Of course it wouldn't. However beating Turkey at anything would get them excited. Noone would care about Ireland in the cricket world cup if we lost every game, but when we beat England the country becomes interested.

19543261

I dont know. I'm not for or against, only wondering about the reasoning behind making such a move.

LeinsterDub

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Georgia are not going to improve at all by being hammered by New Zealand.

Not sure why but the Jungle Book is stuck in my head.

Georgia have reached the top and had to stop. They want to be a man, man cub.

Or in clearer English they've reached the top of their current level they need to be playing the best now to close the gap

irishbucsfan

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Not sure why but the Jungle Book is stuck in my head.

Georgia have reached the top and had to stop. They want to be a man, man cub.

Or in clearer English they've reached the top of their current level they need to be playing the best now to close the gap

Yeah Georgia have, I'd agree. They're the best in the ENC (Romania as well I suppose) and there needs to be some kind of bridge between that and the 6 Nations, absolutely. The ring fencing of elite international rugby in Europe should be ended, and Rugby Europe should be in charge of everyone. I think it'd be the best thing possible for rugby at the moment.

However the World Cup change wouldn't affect them so much I wouldn't say. More the bottom of ENC 1a and ENC 1b

LeinsterDub

Swiwi. wrote: »

I still can't see why they don't run 2 simultaneous tournaments: the big boys and the minnows.

Teams would rather play in and lose big in McCarthy cup than win the Ring cup

timaru89

Think people are probably being a bit harsh on Georgia, they're probably close enough to the Pacific islanders. They ran Scotland and Argentina close in 2011. The likes of Uruguay and Namibia are who I'd be more worried about getting thrashed this year. Don't think a 24 team tournament would help as teams like South Korea would surely get destroyed. 20 teams is the right amount for now.

19543261

Its in 8 years.

timaru89

Even in 8 years time will the standard of the teams currently outside the top 20 improve enough to merit inclusion though? I'd like to think it would but not so hopeful. Hopefully the sport grows in larger countries like Germany.

Nermal

Swiwi. wrote: »

You could only make it work by having the other games as curtain raisers.

That's the key. Even if they don't get a TV audience, they'll still get good support. Why isn't this done more often? Is it worries about the pitch being destroyed or something like that?

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, not really. There is no long-term benefit from minnows being hammered by teams everyone knows is going to beat them.

A World Trophy event with equal funding is what they should pursue. Georgia are not going to improve at all by being hammered by New Zealand. They are going to improve by playing competitive fixtures against the likes of Romania, Japan, Uruguay and even test matches against the likes of Italy/Scotland.

Swiwi. wrote: »

Not in favour at present. As it is, I fear for Georgia vs the ABs, I don't see how thrashings help anyone. If you increase it to 24 teams, you are looking at the super-minnows (Singapore, Spain etc) and it would just be all a bit pointless.

Who cares if one of their four matches is uncompetitive? Sure they learn nothing from getting hammered by New Zealand, but the World Cup is the ultimate platform for a minnow team to learn against other nations. By learn I am talking about Georgia v Ireland in 2007. The perfect combination of a Georgia team pumped to the nines, and an Irish team with the yips. Don't tell me Georgia didn't learn from that game. You give them a meaningless friendly against us and under no pressure we will probably win comfortably. The world cup and the added spotlight is what lets them perform.

2011, Tonga beat France, but lost to Canada who drew with Japan. France go on to a final that they probably should have won. It doesn't matter that New Zealand put almost 80 points on Canada and Japan because their other games showed them they could mix it with boys who could mix it with boys who could win the world cup. Scotland beat Georgia in that world cup with 4 penalties and a drop goal couldn't score a try, and still only barely lost to England 16-12. The reason these results are possible is because performing at the world cup gives those players the incentive to perform harder, to prepare better and you know it's what their unions are pushing for four years.

If Georgia is your example of a team who "doesn't benefit from getting hammered by New Zealand and therefore shouldn't be in the world cup" you are basically confining the World Cup to about 8 teams. You're also ignoring the history of the World Cup, the purpose of the World cup and about half the name of the "WORLD" Cup.

I'm actually angry that people are using this reason to oppose expansion. There are lots of good reasons to oppose expansion. Groups of four give minnows less matches. A round of 16 would effectively make the pool stage pointless for tier 1 nations. But "they're not good enough to even be on the same pitch as us" is not a reason. They obviously want to be, who are we to say otherwise.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So I'm in Bulgaria at the moment, do you think watching their country losing by 120 points at any sport is going to attract anyone to the sport at all? Of course it wouldn't. However beating Turkey at anything would get them excited. Noone would care about Ireland in the cricket world cup if we lost every game, but when we beat England the country becomes interested.

Are you actually using a cricket as an example of why minnow nations shouldn't be allowed in World Cups? We didn't beat England this time round, they weren't even in our group. We got absolutely whacked by India, South Africa and Pakistan. They beat us without even trying. That doesn't mean Cricket in Ireland didn't HUGELY benefit from our presence in the WC. It was on national news every day, despite being aired at like 3am.

Contrary to popular belief Ireland's cricketing success didn't start when we beat England in 2011, but when we beat Pakistan in 2007. That game against a country we couldn't give a damn about is what led to players being awarded professional contracts for the first time in 2009, 2 years before beating England. The world cup is the only reason Ireland has a cricket team.

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

Are you actually using a cricket as an example of why minnow nations shouldn't be allowed in World Cups? We didn't beat England this time round, they weren't even in our group. We got absolutely whacked by India, South Africa and Pakistan. They beat us without even trying. That doesn't mean Cricket in Ireland didn't HUGELY benefit from our presence in the WC. It was on national news every day, despite being aired at like 3am.

Contrary to popular belief Ireland's cricketing success didn't start when we beat England in 2011, but when we beat Pakistan in 2007. That game against a country we couldn't give a damn about is what led to players being awarded professional contracts for the first time in 2009, 2 years before beating England. The world cup is the only reason Ireland has a cricket team.

Yes exactly my point. Noone was interested until we beat Pakistan. People were more aware this time around but the interested was once again ignited by a victory, against the West Indies.

People don't care about the platform, they care about their country being successful.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Georgia beat Spain by something like 50 points recently enough. I honestly don't see what Saapain has to add to the competition at the moment.

Podge_irl

No one is saying tier 2 nations shouldnt be at the World Cup and to be fair Georgia are a bad example to be using as they would be in any World Cup format really. Expansion however would involve teams a lot lot worse than Georgia being involved. Developing the ENC and providing more test matches will do a hell of a lot more for Germany etc than expanding the World Cup.

And right now I think expanding it would be a crappy spectacle. I just have no interest in watching 100 point humpings and don't think it helps anyone.

irishbucsfan

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Georgia beat Spain by something like 50 points recently enough. I honestly don't see what Saapain has to add to the competition at the moment.

Yeah, and you'd have to think that if they're going to add 4 teams then at least 2 of those will have to be drawn from the ENC. I just don't see what benefit teams at that level are going to get from being hammered by the big guys. (Talking about the likes of Russia/Spain)

I don't think a 2nd tier world competition is necessarily the answer either, I think an improvement to the continental competitions is where these guys are going to see the biggest benefit.

padser

We are getting sidetracked talking about Georgia, they are at a reasonable level and on their day could beat one of the lower 6 nations teams (I think there should be some type of relegation / promotion potential for them into the 6 nations).

The right teams to look at in the World Cup are Namibia and Russia (RWC 2011)

Namibia, 49-25 (Figi), 49-12 (Samoa), 87-0 (South Africa) and 81-7 (Wales)

Russia, 6-13 (United States), 53-17 (Italy), 62-12 (Ireland), 68-22 (Australia)

These are the teams at the bottom end of what we already have in the competition. They ship between 60 and 90 points when playing a top 8 nation and 50+ points against top 12 nations. The only genuine competitive match eom was involved in was Russia against United States (another minnow). Namibia v Figi also looks like it was at least a genuine match albeit Figi by 20+ points.

Now, I struggle with the notion that we should be putting 4 teams that are weaker than these two into the competition. I don't think it leads to a sceptical that grows the game in these countries and it definitely reduces the standard of the competition.

A second string, curtain raising competition would be a much better option.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes exactly my point. Noone was interested until we beat Pakistan.

Oh was that your point? I thought your point was people only care when we beat England? The same way Bulgarians only care when they beat Turkey no?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Noone would care about Ireland in the cricket world cup if we lost every game, but when we beat England the country becomes interested.

Maybe I am mistaken? So you're saying that if we beat any test playing nations in cricket outside the world cup people will care? Without googling how many people on this board can tell me which test playing nation we beat in July 2010?We have won that crappy European cricket thing before, including two years ago, and it go no press time here, I only found out about it googling random cricket stats to use in this post.

Georgia beat Spain by something like 50 points recently enough. I honestly don't see what Saapain has to add to the competition at the moment.

26-13 and 13-23 were Georgia's last two results against Spain. A 13 point and a 10 point margin of victory. Dunno where you're getting that 50 point malarkey from. Even if they did beat them by 50 points recently who cares? Individual results are rarely a good indicator of form, All Blacks beat Ireland by 60 points a week after needing a last minute drop goal to win against us.

I agree with people who say their annual European competition needs to be better. I agree with people who say we need more "Tibilisi Cups" and "Quadrangular tournaments". But an idea of a second tier world cup is frankly offensive. "oh hey, you get to play on the pitch before us or any of the fans arrive, you're going to get second degree refs and no TV coverage maybe in 40 years time your children's children will be allowed qualify for the real thing, hope you're pumped".

Give me an example of any other sport that has a second tier tournament run parallel that people actually pay attention to. I don't mean a Cup, Plate and Bowl, and I don't mean running the U20s at the same time as the 6N.

To anyone saying that the second tier world cup will act as qualification incentive.

1. That already happens, they're called qualifiers they're currently more meaningful than a second tier world cup would be, and still no one watches them.
2. Actually losing out on playing your qualifying matches is probably a deterrent, because teams need the experience.
3. If you're saying that the top team from outside the top 20 is capable of being in the world cup, do you really think there is that large a gap to the other 3?

Again, there are plenty of reasons why it's not a great idea. But "I'd find it boring to watch" and "they're not good enough to be on the same pitch as us" is not one of them.

Swiwi.

This thread needs a poll

errlloyd

Swiwi. wrote: »

This thread needs a poll

I disagree. I think this is a thread where the discussion is absolutely necessary. Ideas need to be engaged with. With the upmost respect, I think posters who post that "Georgia getting hammered by the All Blacks does nothing for Georgia, QED Georgia shouldn't be in the World Cup" do need to be challenged on the idea that playing a competitive match against the All Blacks has suddenly become the prerequisite for playing in a world cup.

irishbucsfan

errlloyd wrote: »

I disagree. I think this is a thread where the discussion is absolutely necessary. Ideas need to be engaged with. With the upmost respect, I think posters who post that "Georgia getting hammered by the All Blacks does nothing for Georgia, QED Georgia shouldn't be in the World Cup" do need to be challenged on the idea that playing a competitive match against the All Blacks has suddenly become the prerequisite for playing in a world cup.

Noone actually said Georgia shouldn't be in a World Cup. The whole Georgia discussion is a massive red herring, I fear (although I haven't checked back) I may have been responsible for that.

The prerequisite for playing in a world cup should be that the benefit to the nation outweighs the reduction in quality of the competition (given the World Cup actually pays for development of rugby in those nations as it stands). I don't believe that Spain playing in the World Cup would lead to this, or even really benefit them at all. I'm hugely excited about the development of rugby in Europe, but I think if we change the World Cup to achieve this we're changing the wrong competition.

Bridge93

I think 20 is plenty. Football is infinitely more played across the world and only has 32.
Playing in a World Cup should be an honour and an achievement, not a right to any team remotely functionable. You can't just hand out places. More teams will just dilute it and the competition will go on too long as rugby games can't be played off as quick as football.

20 is perfect.
Any more and you start getting hammerings from team like Samoa never mind the ABs. The depth in rugby is not there yet.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Georgia are not going to improve at all by being hammered by New Zealand. They are going to improve by playing competitive fixtures against the likes of Romania, Japan, Uruguay and even test matches against the likes of Italy/Scotland.

Okay, so we're beyond "they're simply not good enough to play" and we've reached "do they add value to the competition". Maybe the value of the competition is where you (and probably Swiwi) and I differ on this. You guys seem to think the objective of the World Cup should be having the best possible World Cup the World cup can be and all that matters is those 6 weeks. I think you've defended that position by saying it is then a bread winner for money that can be invested in the tier 3 and beyond rugby.

If all you value is competitive matches between tier 1 nations you get plenty of them every year. The World Cup is not meant to be an extension of the 6n & Rugby Championship. The World Cup is meant to be a platform for lesser nations. I gave you analysis in my first post as to why I believe that playing world cup games is more beneficial than playing "tests" which are effectively friendlies.

But even if I agreed with you, I also think all of these tier 3 teams add value in the current 20 team format. (Now I disagree with a 24 team format, because I think groups of 4 wouldn't be good.) Firstly I struggle to see how they take away value. Their matches get watched, they have fans, it's less interesting for the Neutral, but I watch all of Ireland's world cup games regardless of who they are against so I am sure they get lots of viewers which is one measurement of value. Another measurement of value is whether they push up the quality of their group. I think France and NZ group in 2011 demonstrates they do, every team in that group was capable of beating the team above them, some of them either did or came very close. That to me pushes up the value.

I was pretty angry when I started posting here last night, many of the posts were pretty patronising and we have good posters on this board for some of the countries mentioned. So if we're going to have this discussion all I am asking is that people offer some analysis and reason to back up their points, instead of just arbitrarily naming countries and saying they don't deserve it.

Podge_irl

errlloyd wrote: »

Again, there are plenty of reasons why it's not a great idea. But "I'd find it boring to watch" and "they're not good enough to be on the same pitch as us" is not one of them.

Why?

Detracting from the spectacle is a very important reason and teams not being good enough to provide meaningful competition is a very good reason.

The world cup provides an enormous percentage of the funding for World Rugby and they need it to be as marketable a product as possible - for the benefit of all rugby playing nations. I most certainly don't want to see the number of teams reduced but I don't see what value - for either the competition or the teams involved - there is in adding more teams.

Podge_irl

errlloyd wrote: »

But even if I agreed with you, I also think all of these tier 3 teams add value in the current 20 team format. (Now I disagree with a 24 team format, because I think groups of 4 wouldn't be good.) Firstly I struggle to see how they take away value. Their matches get watched, they have fans, it's less interesting for the Neutral, but I watch all of Ireland's world cup games regardless of who they are against so I am sure they get lots of viewers which is one measurement of value. Another measurement of value is whether they push up the quality of their group. I think France and NZ group in 2011 demonstrates they do, every team in that group was capable of beating the team above them, some of them either did or came very close. That to me pushes up the value.

Absolutely no one is suggesting reducing the number of teams, so the competitiveness of the groups in 2011 isn't all that relevant. On top of that it was basically the only group that was uniformly somewhat competitive.

The current 24th ranked team is South Korea. I don't want them in a world cup, I think the idea is nonsense.