A World Cup format to encourage the minnows
Roar Guru By Billo, 15 Sep 2011 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Namibia, rugby minnows, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup 2011, Russia, Tonga, USA
Related coverage
Like many people on The Roar, I’m keen on seeing how the minnows perform in the Rugby World Cup.
There have been some great matches so far, with the emerging nations falling narrowly short in several of the games.
And I am particularly looking forward to seeing how the USA performs against Russia this Thursday. What a great prospect that is!
The only thing that slightly disappoints me is the knowledge that none of the smaller nations are likely to make the quarter-finals, which will probably be contested by the usual suspects.
But how about a format that would guarantee more matches between the minnows, and would ensure at least two of them make it to the quarter-finals.
This could easily be achieved by retaining the current format of four pools of five nations, but changing the way teams are allocated to the pools and how teams then qualify from the pools to the quarter-finals.
Let’s say that we seed the pools, with two top pools of five, and two secondary pools of five.
The two higher seeded pools would be made up from the ten nations in the Tri-Nations and Six-Nations plus Argentina. The two lower seeded pools would be made up by the other competing nations.
For the quarter-finals, we would have three teams from each of the top-ranking pools, and one team from each of the lower-ranking pools.
This proposal would have many advantages.
It would guarantee much closer games in all the pool matches. It would guarantee more big games for the major TV networks in the pool matches, enhancing the value of the competition.
It would also give real incentives to the so-called minnows to see a route to reach the last eight of the competition.
As it stands at the moment, those of us who are rugby purists, love the clashes of the minnows and the big guns, but the rest of the world tends to see these games as potential one-siders, even if they turn out not to be.
Passionate about your union? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily union email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- Namibia, rugby minnows, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup 2011, Russia, Tonga, USA
September 15th 2011 @ 8:16am
Football United said | September 15th 2011 @ 8:16am | Report comment
that goes against the point of the world cup, which is that the best will qualify for the quarter finals, not those we feel sympathy for. This system was similar to what happened in the RL Cup and was scandalous in that it left PNG with no chance on going further than some of the other teams that were no where near as good as them.When these emerging nations can beat the top 10, which none has yet in this cup, they will qualify and no one will hold it against them. Until then, they will have to wait.
September 15th 2011 @ 8:34am
The Bush said | September 15th 2011 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Also, it takes away the only opportunity many of these teams have to play Top Tier teams. If they only play against each at the World Cup, which they do in the four (4) years between anyway, then they will NEVER get a chance to play against New Zealand et al.
September 15th 2011 @ 10:41am
Bakkies said | September 15th 2011 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Bang on they just have to work harder to get to the Quarter Finals. You have to do more than just scalp a big team.other matches against teams more their level need to be victories too. Argentina did it and they were bottom of our pool in ’91. Canada qualified in that tournament too. It was four team pools back then now they have to work harder. The schedule doesn’t help them but the RWC can’t go on for longer than it already does. Italy have yet to qualify for the Quarters. This RWC seeded teams on form post RWC 2007 (unlike the other tournaments it was done on performance from the previous RWC) and gave more relevance other than bragging rights to the IRB ranking system.
September 15th 2011 @ 8:44am
The Bush said | September 15th 2011 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Billo,
I love your enthusiasm and desire to see the minnows play more games and go further in the tournament, but this definately is not the answer.
As pointed out above, and as I’ll set out below, there are a number of issues with this;
1. It makes the tournament much more difficult for the Wales, Scotlands, Irelands and Argentians of the world.
Wales and Argentina will struggle to qualify this time as it is, they’d have no chance under a system where the “Big Five” get to rip into them. Imagine being in a group whereby two and a half (2.5) spots were on offer and New Zealand and South Africa were both in your group!
2. It means the minnows get little to no game time against the major nations, until suddenly in the Quarter Finals they get a whipping.
You may or may not be aware, but the minnows already play amongst themselves often enough. There is a “Six Nations B” tournament with full promotion-relegation down the levels, a Pacific Nations Cup when Japan plays the PIs and teams like American and Canada recently toured Georgia.
These countries don’t need more games against each other, they need more games against top teams – that’s how you make the next step.
Your idea seems to be based around the desire to achieve two (2) things;
1. Have the minnows play longer in the tournament by realistically making the knock-out stages; and
2. Avoid lop-sides scores.
As to point one (1), there are other ways of giving the minnows more to play for, including expanding the tournament to twenty-(four) teams and having a knock-out stage that consists of twelve (12) or sixteen (16) teams – more spots for everyone, whilst the integrity of the tournament structure is maintained.
As to point two (2), so far this tournament has shown that lop-sided scores are becoming a thing of the past. I expect Georgia and Romania should avoid it entirely, unless England turns it on at some stage. Judging by Frances play against Japan, it is unlikely that Canada or Tonga will recieve cricket scores from them and Ireland failed to do anything more than “beat” the US – I’ve seen less respectable score lines when Australia plays South Africa.
September 15th 2011 @ 2:27pm
Muzza said | September 15th 2011 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Is there a more PC word out there than “minnows”?
September 15th 2011 @ 2:32pm
Mike said | September 15th 2011 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
Ummm, what about “post-colonial dross”… That’s pretty PC, isn’t it?
Seriously, I don’t think minnows is insulting, just reflecting results. And minnows can grow up to be bigger fish.
September 15th 2011 @ 6:12pm
Who Needs Melon said | September 15th 2011 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
I’m with you Muzza. When they are losing 80 nil and things like that then maybe minnows is appropriate. But when they are staying with the ‘big guns’ then I find the term a bit derogatory. 2nd tier nations perhaps? Upcoming nations?
September 15th 2011 @ 8:46am
grandpabhaile said | September 15th 2011 @ 8:46am | Report comment
It’s a useful thought, Billo. and I’d disagree with some of The Bush’s points above.
I would make the top 12 be the first pot from which teams are drawn rather than the top 4. The remaining 8 teams would be in a second pot and drawn at will.
This would break up the cosy consensus amongst the Big 4 or 5 unions about not having to face each other until the knockout stages. They’re gonna have to play each other anyway at some point.
In theory this could you give four pools with a first round draw such as this:
A NZ SA ENG
B FRA AUS, IRL
C ITA, SCO, ARG
D WAL, SAM, TON
To this would be added in a random draw the remaining 8 teams, creating possibly:
A NZ, SA, ENG, JAP, NAM
B: FRA, AUS. IRL, ROM, GEORGIA
C: ITA, SCO, ARG, CAN, RUSSIA
D: WAL, SAM, TON, FIJ, US
Those ranked 3rd at end of pool stage would playoff (Av D and B vC) for an RWC plate instead of the current Bronze 3rd place. On the same day, those ranked 4th at end of pool stage would playoff for RWC Bowl. These would occur the day before the quarter-finals. And the Plate and Bowl finals the day before the semi-finals.
September 15th 2011 @ 9:26am
mitzter said | September 15th 2011 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Yeah I’m more of a fan of a RW plate or bowl.
As stated above the minnows do play each other but rarely do they get to play teams from across the world.
To me it would also be good as it expands the number of games as the biggest problem of the later weeks of the tournament is that there is fewer games
September 15th 2011 @ 10:36am
Bakkies said | September 15th 2011 @ 10:36am | Report comment
The RWC is not a charity event and the cost of hosting more matches is not cheap. The RWC can’t go longer than it’s allotted time frame due to club rugby (Heineken Cup starts later this year) and players are entitled to a break.
September 15th 2011 @ 2:18pm
mitzter said | September 15th 2011 @ 2:18pm | Report comment
oh they’ll make the money back if it’s held under the RWC banner (attendance and broadcast dough), and I’m not saying make it longer – just that all teams will stay longer (some by only one week). All teams surely must be prepared to stay to the final so I think your point is rather moot
September 16th 2011 @ 9:43am
Bakkies said | September 16th 2011 @ 9:43am | Report comment
You can’t have bowl and plate tournaments in a serious World Cup
September 16th 2011 @ 9:46am
Mike said | September 16th 2011 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Why not?
Bear in mind, I think “tournament” is the wrong word to describe some of the suggestions on this site.
To take the example I gave below, why can’t you have say the third place-getters in each pool play off for a Plate? That would mean three extra matches – two plate semi-finals and then a Plate final to determine who gets it.
Its just as serious, but it means its serious for the minnows as well as the top 5. If RWC existed only for the benefit of the top 5 then we wouldn’t bother with an RWC at all.
September 16th 2011 @ 9:07pm
mitzter said | September 16th 2011 @ 9:07pm | Report comment
we don’t have to replicate the soccer world cup.
I think it’s a good idea and shows a lot of guts to keep playing after some losses
September 17th 2011 @ 1:16am
Bakkies said | September 17th 2011 @ 1:16am | Report comment
Than what is it than. The junior World Cup has one for teams that miss out on the quarters but that is only a step up from Schoolboys level. Just don’t see it working and who would watch it. Part of playing in a World Cup is missing out on the quarters. Italy, Wales and Ireland did last time why should they be rewarded with more matches.
September 15th 2011 @ 10:33am
The Bush said | September 15th 2011 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Your idea is drasticaly different to the one suggested by Billo and in fact is simply the current format we have except there is a chance that two (2) super-powers will be in the same pool (unlikely at present).
Your system does not provide the “true” minnows with a better chance of progressing; it is only providing Wales, Italy, Scotland and Argentina and possibly the Islands with a guarnatee of going through. It’s like favouring one (1) set of “minnows” over the other set of “minnows”.
September 15th 2011 @ 8:55am
Brendon said | September 15th 2011 @ 8:55am | Report comment
I would like the idea of a plate or something similar on offer for the teams who don’t make the finals. Similar to the sevens. The top 2 from every pool go to the quarters, then the next two from each pool go to a separate quarter final comp. This comp plays out until we have a winner.That way there are more games on offer and the lower nations get to compete for something until such times as they can make the top quarters. Sort of a tier 1 and tier 2 comp..
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
September 15th 2011 @ 9:32am
Emric said | September 15th 2011 @ 9:32am | Report comment
No I prefer the long term solution to the problem the IRB has engaged in – better funding for the tier-2 Nations to strengthen their teams and provide better coaching, and playing facitilies. Russia, Georgia, Japan, Samoa, Fiji, Canada and the USA have all benefited from this long term plan. It shows great foresight by the IRB
September 15th 2011 @ 9:39am
LeftArmSpinner said | September 15th 2011 @ 9:39am | Report comment
why not just use the existing structure that sevens already use and add 4 more teams so that there are no byes.
And, to ensure that the players are up to it, partially/fund a defined number of players into the best regional comps in the world, Super rugby, top 14, Magners and English. even some grade comps like NPC, SS or the like
September 15th 2011 @ 6:02pm
sheek said | September 15th 2011 @ 6:02pm | Report comment
Leftie,
I’m sure that 24 teams will be the next step, but that might still be some time away – I would suggest at least 12 years, probably more.
When the rugby world cup moves to 24 teams that will create other problems. That is, I would expect a return to 4 team pools. That is, 6 pools x 4 teams. The other way, 4 pools x 6 teams would create far too many matches (60 pool matches vs 36 pool matches).
However, this then creates problems with how you progress the knock-out stages.
Do you go to a group of 16 like the FIFA world cup, then the quarters? Or if you move straight to the quarters, you take each pool winner, plus the best two performed runners-up, which makes things messy.
Or do you go to a group of 12, then the quarters? Anyway, these are problems for the future…..
September 15th 2011 @ 10:18am
Emric said | September 15th 2011 @ 10:18am | Report comment
I tried to edit my other post but it didn’t work so i’m reposting my edit here.
– If the Tier-2 nations continue to manage and hold their own against the top tier nations at this world cup the IRB and tier 1 nations will have to seriously consider their postions, Romania, Georgia, Japan, Russia, USA and Canada need to be added to the EoY northern and southern hemisphare lists. Argentina, Australia, NZ and South Africa should have to pick 3 teir one nations and a mino
So Australia will tour Georgia, France, Scotland and England one year but that might change
New Zealand could tour Romania, England, Ireland and Wales
South Africa could stop in the USA before heading to England, Scotland and France
Argentina might pick to stop in at Canada before heading to the big 3 in Europe
We’ve already seen Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji heading to the likes of Wales and Ireland – but we need to see more of this – Italy must be better engaged in EoY tours as well I don’t remember the last time that they sent a team to NZ to play outside of a world cup
September 15th 2011 @ 10:33am
Mark said | September 15th 2011 @ 10:33am | Report comment
I can see where your coming from in this article. I personally wouldn’t tamper with the world cup, it only happens every 4 years, but expansion of Six Nations, TriNations and Pacific Nations is a must. Pacific Nations must have their first string teams. European clubs have to take a back seat.
Georgia, Romania and Russia should be placed into 6 Nations. Argentina already in Tri Nations.
With the 2 finalists of Pacific Nations each year being elevated to the Tri/4 Nations. It’s all about regular game time.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
September 15th 2011 @ 10:45am
Bakkies said | September 15th 2011 @ 10:45am | Report comment
European clubs enable players from minnow countries to play pro Rugby unlike Super Rugby bar the Rebels which is more of a closed shop. They cannot take a back seat as we will end up with more amateur teams again which doesn’t help Rugby progession.
September 15th 2011 @ 10:33am
clipper said | September 15th 2011 @ 10:33am | Report comment
One of the problems is the RWC is such a huge commercial concern that you wouldn’t want to do anything that would hinder the earnings or turn the crowds around. It’s alright for the funny little world cups like the Boot Throwing world cup and League world cup when only one or two nations can win it, and they wouldn’t get a full house until the final (I think the Boot Throwing world cup got 60k at Helsinki), but there’s huge money in the RWC and the sponsors, TV people et al wouldn’t stand for a formula where the pointy end of the cup didn’t have the best teams play each other.
September 15th 2011 @ 10:39am
Mark said | September 15th 2011 @ 10:39am | Report comment
US and Canada should be placed into Pacific Nations
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.