What a Rugby World Cup 2011 has been so far. Lots of close matches, the big teams threatened, some great new talent on display. New Zealand has really put on a show.
Canada, Ireland, Wales, Samoa, Georgia, Romania, and Japan have impressed with their development. The developing nations have closed the gap not widened it.
But while that is great to see these developing nations, would it not be good to have a four-pool, 16-team, three-matches-per-group stage?
Every loss in the pool round would be damaging, with even fewer second chances for teams to re-group.
So teams like Namibia would not currently play. Also having fewer teams you could finish the cup in faster time – say 38 days as opposed to 45 days – to maintain interest, while having longer rests between games for every team.
Samoa and Tonga for example have had tough draws.
Tonga had to back up five days after a match versus the host nation and best team in the world, the All Blacks.
And Samoa had to back up four days after their Namibia match to play Wales in crucial pool match. Given Wales had seven days off, that is not fair.
Matches where each pool round is must-win means both teams get up for it. Pressure causes mistakes and the top teams are human to. And they will succumb to moments of anxiety and pressure, knowing there is less in the way of second chances if they lose a pool match.
And the teams outside the big five will really have a nothing-to-lose attitude.
One argument is more teams; more matches in the tournament and more TV ratings. That is true to a point, but more matches does not mean the TV ratings will be higher, as fewer will tune in if the match is not crucial.
The Tri-Nations format, for instance, works best with a less-is-more attitude as well. Every loss is almost make or break, and the teams are more desperate to go at 100 percent for the away win, while bonus points become crucial.
With the format of six matches, three home, three away you can afford to lose two away matches and still win the Tri-Nations. But with four matches, you have to win both your games and still get one on the road.
The argument about World Cups is that they are there to decide champions of the World, not to be trials for players from developing rugby nations to get club contracts.
So great 2011 World Cup, but I would prefer if the IRB went back to the 16-team format. What does everyone else think?
Tom
Guest
I disagree, a 20 nation tournament is much better. These nations can only improve with the exposure they get at these tournaments.. There should be a tournament for the minnow nations..similar to the IRB Junior World Trophy (which is the junior world cup but for the minnow nations who dont qualify for the junior world cup) so say the qualification would be the sameand generally for the world cup teams ranked 1-20 are in the tournament although that varies but yeah you'd have a tournament for those ranked 21-40 would develop the game so much more. These nations will eventually qualify for the World Cup and will have a feel for the experience already. Eventually the tournament will have more new teams with more competition! It will be great!
Rob9
Roar Guru
For sure, as I said it's great that we've grown into the 20 team format and there's a good pool of teams that can compete for those last 5 or so spots at the cup. Not to the point to justify an expansion yet though, and when that day comes I don't think 24 is the right number. Totally agree on a professional league in Argentina. I've heard their backwards thinking union is starting to catch up to the 21st century and this is in the pipelines. I think the cream of the crop will always head to Europe but for the guys that aren't quite there yet, playing at home and having Rugby as their job will help this already great Rugby nations depth out so much. True that it will also benefit the more established rugby nations around them such as Chile and Uragauy and aid the process Brasil's emergence as a force.
Bakkies
Guest
Portugal, Uruguay and probably Tunisia were unlucky to miss out on qualifying. Would like to see another South American nation in Chile step up. Argentina having a pro comp is a must for that part of the world
kovana
Guest
Got some news about the USA vs Ireland match on NBC in the USA. They got 866,000 viewers.. and that was against the NFL opener as well.. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/09/16/us-v-ireland-rugby-world-cup-averages-866000-viewers-plus-us-open-tennis-more/103919/ Also the Canada vs Tonga match got around 300K+ in Canada on TSN.
Colin
Guest
As a rugby fan I could easily follow Canada playing in a second tier world cup. The problem is, all those people who stumbled upon the game being replayed at 8pm because a top sports television station broadcast the tournament would not. There is no way you're reaching new people in countries like Canada by being in a second tier tournament. It perpetuates the idea that your country is second tier (which it is of course still is) while not even being able to play against the best. I get the idea of wanting some sort of qualifying tournament, but there is no way a second tier tournament is getting on tv here, particularly with hockey season starting.
johnnoo
Roar Pro
Exactly sledgehammer , and a key point here is quality V quantity. With rugby developing thanks to pay TV via Euro club leagues and HEK cup at club level, and super 15, and 7evens rugby which is now Olympic sport countries will get good access to the sport of rugby union. And World cups should be that world titles best of best, not trials for players form developing rugby nations to get contracts in Euro rugby union leagues. And qualifying tournaments would be expanded so these him countries could get more home internationals eg Georgia, Romania, Fiji, Samoa,Tonga, Argentina, Canada,Russia, USA. ANd making the World cup like the soccer would be such an achievement, like the soccer's found out in 2005. ANd with 3 pool matches as opposed to 4 if you lose 1 match you are basically gone where as with this format if you lose twice but get 2 wins and some bonus points you cans till sneak through to the Q/F stage, so failure is rewarded more. Imagine if say Australia lost to Irleand and had to pick up say 2 wins vs Italy and Fiji or Samoa in there group. And a Fiji that is switch don not the rabble we see this World cup. And also with the pacific island teams being as equally rested as us with same amount of match turnaround. Would be nerve wracking and exciting. And each match would be more desperate as stakes are higher. And tournament could end faster say 38 days for example, which would help build relations with euro clubs, who pay the bills in reality, and they are losing a stack of quality players from 24 nations, for 45 days plus the build up pre world cup that would of stuffed up there pre season training and early season matches. Instead they will get a lot of players coming back who will be mentally tired. Especially with more teams in the World cup. Current system losing in the group stages does not hurt as much as a format of 16 teams 4 pools of 4 teams. 2 go to Q/F. If the world cup went to 32 rugby does not have the quality like soccer to make it exciting some terrible blow out matches eg New Zealand VS Brazil would be awful for the tournaments credibility. 24 teams is not the answer either. 6 pools of 4 , with best 3rd placing to go through, Not desperate enough int he pool games, and teams would get to many chances to stay alive in the tournament if they play bad. So it rewards mediocrity and slow starters who display early poor form to . Gives teams to much time to get momentum. And in a 16 team format the quilt yo matches would be so high as lease injuries due to more rest time between matches. ANd increase to 35 man squad which i hope the IRB do, and a 16 team 5 week tournament would be really exciting and tonnes of energy and less drops in momentum and vibe of the tournament. World cups Sledgandhammer are sports tittles to decide champion of the World not glorified trials or festivals. And tv ratings would be higher per average match as would excite more neutral rugby fans ANd credibility is the key word. I don't want Rugby world cups to be so diluted and watered down with to many boring matches and thrashings like the last cricket World cup .
sledgeandhammer
Guest
I have seen this idea pushed on the FIRA forum which is where guys from countries like Georgia have a say. It actually makes sense to have 16 teams. The scheduling is improved, the quality of games improves, and getting to the world cup becomes a greater achievement and therefore the qualifying tournaments become more of an event (think Socceroos vs Uruguay). It may sound counter intuitive, but by reducing the teams to 16 you actually help the game expand and give the sport more exposure, not less.
Siva Samoa
Roar Pro
it will never go back to 16 teams and the reason been is mainly financial rewards from having more teams. russia, usa, romania, georgia and even fiji broadcasters paid the irb money to have the games shown at home and thats what the irb want more money to fund the game.
Rob9
Guest
A day will come in the future when the irb will have to make a call on how to expand the tournament. Thankfully 20 teams at the cup will serve us for many years to come. There arent that many quality teams missing out at the moment.
Brad
Guest
I like the idea of the teams that don't make it past the pool stage go through their own knock QF's, SF's and Final, and 4 teams will still miss out. In saying that, this is a comp and not school where everyone gets a go, because it would be unfair i they didn't... On the other hand you could have 2 comps, one playing for the Cup and one playing for the plate (like in 7's). You could have 16 teams playing a 4 tier comp and 8 teams playing a 2 tier comp... It would mean more exposure for minnow team without having to suffer major defeats in the pool matches. And some of these "lesser" games (no offense) are very entertaining. It would make for great midweek entertainment, like the Russia USA match... awesome. Just a thought.
jokerman
Guest
I am surprised there is any support for this idea. Life is about timing and balance, divine timing. Perhaps four years ago, but not now, as the lesser nations are no longer being thrashed. The lesser teams are catching up and adding intrigue to this tournament, to cut them now would be an injustice. They can improve and they will. USA with a bit of exposure could be lethal, I doubt that will happen quickly and it remains as an ideal, but the resources are there. The Island teams can all improve if the IRB stops hindering them with tough conditions. Evolve not subtract.
Tigranes
Guest
Won't be 24 teams, just expanded qualifying tournaments. I agree that the Island teams get short changed in that they have hardly any time to recover...maybe squad size could be expanded to 35 so players can get more recovery?
Rob9
Roar Guru
Yea I'm going to have to go with what seems to be the consensus and say 16 is a step back. The last 2 world cups have actually proved we've grown into the 20 team format. There have been some cracking games involving these teams and it's definately a positive thing seeing the teams outside the top 12 on Rugby's biggest stage. I wrote an article on here recently suggesting a way we can see more of the minnows instead of them slipping back into the shadows for another 4 years. I think the irb's next big decision (when the time comes) is how to exapnd the cup. A few people have suggested 24 but I think pools of 6 is getting to the point where the cup would have to be run over a period of time that is far too long. 28 teams with 8 pools of 3 with an extra knock out round might be the way to go. But then there are the negative sides of some teams only getting the chance to play twice and the exciting pool games like your Aus v Ire and Wales v SA will be taken away cause the top 8 would be spread across all the groups. I'm not a big fan of 5 or 6 grops though where wildcards advance past the pool stages either. We might just have to wait to step up to the fifa model of 32 for the next expansion. Regardless of the next move, what we have now works and shouldn't be messed with.
Matt F
Guest
I think cricket's problem is that the bottom 2 or so teams are so uncompetitive and, because the games take an entire day, it's difficult to schedule more then 2 games a day for TV purposes. I think the teams so far in the RWC have been very competitive and it would be a shame to cut them as they are clearly improving. They certainly do need to make it fairer so maybe they should ensure every team has one 4 day break between a pool game. Whilst a 4 day break is very tough at least this way every team would have to deal with it. Keep in mind that under the format I put up, teams would get 8 day breaks between all pool matches except for the last match but their opponent would have the same break so they're not disadvantaged. You of course will put in rest days between QF's etc. You're right about going straight to QF's. The only issue I had with this is that it means only 1 team out of 4 would qualify, but that's probably better then second round matches with 50+ margins. I've always found it strange when tennis players complain of fatigue in Grand Slams. Whilst they may play one extra round (2 more then some smaller tournaments) the slams go for an extra week so they get a days break between games. In most other tournaments they usually play every day.
johnnoo
Roar Pro
I would not be allbalcks fan. I would have 2nd tier world cups like cricket has and would cup qualifiers to. ANd with pay tv the rugby fans there can get access to top rugby, and still grow the sport. but the World cup has to be looked at as a serious comp no trust a festival style comp. And Russia and USA are about to i think get smashed by Australia now by 40 or 50 points.
allblackfan
Guest
that's what we're seeing now. Russia were RWC debutants but that was a cracking game they played with the US. And these minnow nations have absolutely massive economies. You want the likes of USA, Russia and Canada to stay in the RWC and develop. Turning our back on them is self-defeating.
johnnoo
Roar Pro
But allbacks fan what about the point of higher tv ratings per match. If the matches are of higher quality the 2 teams playing fans and neutral rugby and sports fans more will tune in as it will be more exciting. You wont to keep a tournament excting, not give it an exhibitionist match, feel to it.
johnnoo
Roar Pro
But the World cup Bearfax is that a world cup a title to decide champion of the planet earth or the world in a ny sport. It is not a festival, or an weekend event conference( eg Sydney boat show), or a glorified trial for players form developing nations to get Euro club contracts. The World cup should be about tough rugby to decide the best team in the World. And by playing to may developing nations , the top teams lose players to injury and have to sometimes have quick turnarounds that hurt the quality of each match. Example Samoa on both counts. Had a 4 day turn around where as Wales got 7 . Massively unfair. lost key players to injuries VS Namibia, now they will almost defanitly be out of tournament. Very unfair. if they got 6 or 7 days rest like Wales it would be different matter. and Soccer World cup goes for 31 days. Rugby has to go a bit longer coz matches are tougher, but why not have 16 where you can wrap it up in 38 to 40 days, and each match is of higher quality. It is a World cup not an exhibition tournament or a glorified trial for Euro club contracts. And as for the soccer argument. In soccer recovery form matches is easier so you can have more teams, and still maintain quality as teams recovery will be better, and in soccer you can play back up matches faster coz of recovery faster. And AUstralia has had ot fight tooth and nail to qualify for 32 team world cup 32 year break, but World football has changed since we came into Asia. We have gone in via a easy qualification method. But in many ways we are close to Asia and in relate yew would of got into World cup earlier if Asia let us. But for years Asian football had this deep fear of Australia. Now with globalisation and technology and full time professionalism Asia sees the value having a medium sized nation like Australia offers. But in next 40 years as Asian football develops Australia will not qualify for every soccer World cup now ay at least that is simply my opinion. If rugby players could recover in 4 days like in soccer i would have no issues with 20 teams or even 32 in rugby . But because of this tight scheduling it has hurt a quality team like Samoa who I retarded as a serious World cup contender, as good as Australia and Irleand. But this 20 team format has killled off certain contenders and that is not good. Why did Samoa have to suffer but teams like Irleand and Wales and England benefit. And Samoa is capable of beating all those teams, and Australia to as proven. Wales win yesterday was Wales 1st win VS Samoa in a World cup. And no coincidence Samoa had a 4 day turnaround, due to this current scheduling format.
johnnoo
Roar Pro
Well yes AndyS energy wise if it went up until say 49 days . That is Seven weeks my energy and enthusiasm would dampen. Say the RWC started on a monday or ended on say a wednsday i would just get bit bored. The current format is not bad 45 days. But if you had a 16 team tournament you could cut it down to 40 days or even 38. So that keeps the momentum going. Rugby and Soccer are different sports, and the recovery is faster from soccer matches for players. But that goes for about 31 days I think. SO it keeps the energy going and enthusiasm up. As you cram in more matches at faster rate. Olympics goes for 17 days. RWC goes for 45, pushing it to 48 49 days may kill of interest levels and maintaining momentum. RWC used to be 16 teams and worked fine. ODI cricket world cup is 12 or 14. I have no issues with ODI cricket World cup being reduced to 10 or 12 teams max. RWC now if you had 16 teams with Rugby nations getting better thanks to club pro rugby in Europe , a 16 team RWC all teams would be even closer matched now. Group stages a loos would really hurt. Current format with 20 teams you can get to Q/F only having 2 wins. In 4 group teams 1 loss and no more 2nd chances, you can only afford 1 loss. And I don't think 32 teams is the answer . Having 4 knockout rounds over 4 weekends is overkill. Soccer world cup it seems to work because teams can back up form round of 16 to Q/F in 4 days, as recovery rates are faster for soccer players than rugby players, as it is less physically bruising on the human body.
Bearfax
Guest
Sorry Johnnoo and I usually agree with your comments. This time defintely NO. Reducing the teams at a World Cup is reducing participation, number of people viewing the game, devolving the standard of the game in smaller union countries. A lot of these players in the World Cup are showing their wares to big money clubs and getting opportunities and experience which then is taken back to home countries to improve the game. Your suggestion would probably destroy any chance Australia has for example in getting to a soccer world cup if they reduced that comp to 16 teams....and the game would never grow here, because top players would seek nationisation in other countries, such as England, to gain access to play at World Cups. We need the minions of the game to grow and if that means interrupting local comps through lengthening the World Cup duration once every half decade, so be it.