A World Cup format to encourage the minnows

Surely a less complex solution, that would allow minnows a passage into the quarter finals, could work as follows: Retain the four groups of five, but change how many qualify for the knockout rounds. The top team in each of the four groups would qualify directly for the quarter finals. The teams that come second and third in their pools would qualify for a 'Play-Off Round'. These second and third placed teams would play eachother (Group A 2nd vs. Group B 3rd, Group B 2nd vs. Group A 3rd etc.) in this play off round and the winners would advance to the quarter finals and join the four other group-topping teams, with the losers eliminated. This format could potentially see some minnows with a chance at making the quarter finals. The best example of this is the 2003 World Cup. If my suggested format had been adopted, the tournament could have looked like this: Australia, France, England and New Zealand finished first in their groups, and so would advance direct to the quarter finals. Ireland, Scotland, South Africa and Wales came 2nd in their groups, and would advance to the play offs, while Argentina, Fiji, Samoa and Italy finishing third, and also advancing to the play-off stage. The Play-Off Stage would be as follows: Ireland vs. Fiji Argentina vs. Scotland South Africa vs. Italy Wales vs. Samoa With the exception of South Africa-Italy, these matches could easily fall either way. Fiji have never beaten Ireland, but it isn't too hard to see them troubling the Irish. Argentina has always been competitive against Scotland, having beaten Scotland eight times in their twelve matches since 1990, including the RWC 2007 Quarter Final. Wales have lost 2 out of their 3 World Cup Matches against Samoa, only beating them by 7 points a few days ago. On their day, we could see three relative minnows in the quarter finals. Surely this format would be a better option the current system or a two-tiered system.

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.

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

Its a knotty problem. At present I don't think it matters because we can go another RWC (or maybe two) on 20 teams. But the improvement in the "minnows" this time is palpable, and its tempting to start to think about more than 20 teams. As I understand it, the problem is that there isn't enough time available to extend the duration of RWC - is that correct? This is apparently because it will clash with regional tournaments before and after RWC. If so, then that limits options. If it went to 24 teams, the preferable option for me would be 4 pools of 6, so that each team plays 5 pool matches instead of 4 as occurs presently. But there are real logistic difficulties with that, and these in turn feed into the problem of cumulative injuries. I think it is Sheek below who makes a very good suggestion re 6 pools of 4 teams. This is very attractive at the pool end - each team plays just 3 pool matches each. But it really complicates things in the after pool stage. Should a larger RWC be played over two years - initial pool matches in one season followed by the higher pool matches and finals in the second year? It means that the first year clashes with soccer world cup, but does this really matter?

Small nation teams need to work harder to get to the Quarter finals or Semi's. I dont think the usual top 5-6 rugby teams should be held responsibile for constantly qualifyng for the Quarters and semi's during each world cup. The opportunity to qualify and win is there and is standard for all teams - they just have to seize it!!

How would you get your quarter finalists out of 24 teams and don't say the HEC format which is a joke where clubs like Biarritz who barely make the top 6 in France waltz through the draw end up getting a home quarter final.

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.

You can't have bowl and plate tournaments in a serious World Cup

Someone already suggested this earlier in the thread. Oh look I think it was me. :)

I think the 20 team format for the RWC is excellent. It's a right fit for rugby, & I can't see it changing for the next 12-16 years at least. Certainly the IRB can try to be fairer in spreading the quick turnarounds between all the teams in each pool. I thought they tried to do that anyway. Obviously, & primarily for broadcasting reasons, the better teams will get the better draws, which is understandable. You also need to keep in mind the bye in world cup pool matches doesn't quite work the same way as in say a normal home & away comp. If you don't believe me, have a look at the draw for pool B. I tried to do a sequence in order of byes for each team in each pool, but in pool B, it doesn't follow a specific pattern. For example, if you assume one team will have a bye for every two matches, well it doesn't work for the 5th & 6th matches since these both involve England, although 6 days apart! With respect to the 7s format of the first 8 contesting the cup; the second 8 contesting a plate, & perhaps the bottom 4 (for the world cup) contesting a bowl, this certainly has some appeal. But keep in mind each world cup already requires 48 matches. By adding a plate & bowl knock-out would add a further 10 matches (7 for the plate without a playoff, & 3 for the bowl). It would also mean the number of matches played by each country would go from a minimum 4 to a minimum 5 (with a maximum 7 remaining the same). But is rugby ready for a 58 match format? (Keeping in mind the 32 team FIFA world cup plays a total of 64 matches).

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?

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.....

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.

Is there a more PC word out there than "minnows"?

Yes yes yes!!!

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

I'm pretty sure the rugby league world cup tried something similar. Really you're just moving the one sided games around. Instead of having mismatches in the pools and tight games in the knockout stages you'll have tight games in the pools and then some apalling mismatches in the knockout stages. I see very little attractive about that.

Makes good sense Mike.

Good one Mike

Alternative way: Introduce a Plate and have a play-off for it. So, the top four teams who didn't make the cup quarter finals get to play semis and a final for the plate. It means more matches, but doesn't actually interfere with the RWC schedule - the two plate semis are played between the cup quarters and semis, at two of the minor grounds; The plate final is played between the cup semis and finals, also at a minor ground. The interest from the countries that do make it to the plate series would be intense - they are actually participating in a final. The rugby is likely to be quite interesting, with a charm and uncertainty that top 6 rugby often lacks. And, it would add a real edge to the pools matches, because now there would be a new dimension for the minnows to play for during the pools - even if they have no realistic hope of making the quarter finals, they still need to perform well enough to get into the plate semis. Finally, it gives the minnows something unique to play for, which they have a realistic chance of getting - any team which qualifies for the RWC these days would have to consider themselves a chance of taking the Plate home.