The big news at the moment is the draw at the World Cup. And the so-called minnows are getting the rough end of the pineapple, of that there is little doubt.
Rugby is a demanding game, a bruising, energy-sapping contest, and those demands on the body require time to heal. Having a squad of 30 helps but not every nation can field that many genuine starters.
All the major nations have a B team of marginal players they are blooding for future campaigns.
This contest is important to everyone in the rugby community. It should not be treated lightly and have to pander to interests that do not have the quality of competition as their primary and only goal.
The concern for the hopes and aspirations of all players, coaches and their supporters and fans should be paramount.
Therefore we must look closely at the draw which is not conducive to good rugby, does not allow the players enough time to recover and rightly should be considered farcical.
The current pool system has an odd number of teams in each pool which means there are byes. TV interests would like a constant stream of games for their viewers. Both of these are counter to the quality of competition, which would ensure more fans are converted to the game.
We do not need any general perception that rugby is a game which can be unfairly won, we have as an underlying principle of the laws that every phase has to be a contest.
We need to adapt that mish-mash of interests into a cohesive whole.
At the moment here are 20 teams in four pools with a round robin format that generates 40 games before the finals begin.
If we adopt five pools of four teams we eliminate the byes and could play all 10 pool games on a weekend, two on Friday and four each on Saturday and Sunday.
However this round robin yields only 30 games and is completed in three weekends. Also we have five pool leaders, but then three others trying to fit into eight finals spots.
The laws of who gets through should be relatively easy to work out. Any ties with equal points get a finals spot, and then countbacks including such factors as number of tries, total points scored, biggest margins etc.
This could create a drama but if the competition laws are well known then at least we have been open about it.
To make up some games we could adopt the plate and bowl concept from Sevens Rugby.
Those who finished in the top eight could play the first round of the finals. Four teams drop out. The winning four go on to the semis while the four that drop out play a semis and finals for the plate, those that drop out of the plate semis play for the bowl.
Another system would be seeding. A system where the team seeded first plays four teams seeded lower over four weekends and so on should be relatively easy to set up and with care taken to the weighting should be perceived as a fair system.
By that I mean that if the team ranked one played the team ranked twentieth four times that would be palpably unfair, especially if the team ranked second had to play the team in third spot four times.
This would re-create the forty game-number, and those ten games per weekend could be played in the Friday, Saturday and Sunday format.
This leaves us with no pool winners or runners up to contest the finals. Again the bonus point system combined with count-back mechanisms should be able to determine the finalists.
The IRB has to put the contest and the game of rugby first and other considerations a distant second. The legitimate complaints of some teams are an embarrassment to the game.
The players are the life and soul of rugby and all steps must be taken to ensure the playing field is as level as the combined intellectual might of the rugby community can make it.
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
Cheers all, It seems we all agree that this is not the fairest method to run a world standard Rugby competition. Sticking to a weekend games only format seemingly would eliminate most of the problems. We simply do not need mid-week games to hold the interest of the converted and to convert fans we need to be able to present ourselves as a sport which at all times and all levels is most interested in the welfare of the players and the spirit of the contest.
sk
Guest
bullying the samoan player you critisied them??? Marc Livermont said the same thing and got no attention, the Samoan player got in trouble for being stupid and insenitive enough to compare being given a rough sceduale to slavery, apartied and the holocost not because he disagreed with the IRB
Johnno
Guest
to complicated Brian and that way is fair at least but the tournament lacks rhythm then, and if some groups are tougher than other so if you come 2nd or 3rd in a group you would of otherwise come 1 or 2, then the finals format would be less standard.
Brian
Guest
What was wrong with the 1999 format of 5 groops of 4. The 5 runner-up and best placed 3rd had to play mid-week to make up the QF lineup. It was tough on them but at least it was fair as they had failed to win their group.
sheek
Guest
I agree the number of teams per pool, & the bye isn't the problem. It's simply wrong to present this as the cause of the problem. The problem is that quite clearly, the top ranked nations have been favoured almost every time, as opposed to most of the time. While the top seeds play each game 6-7 days apart, most minor nations have several 4 day turnarounds. The fairest thing would be that everybody, including the top seeds, have at least one quick turnaround each. The top seeds can still play most of the matches in the most attractive time slots. But this way it's fairer to everyone. And shame on the IRB bullying the Samoan player who criticized them publicly. Shoot the messenger, eh. The IRB is clearly wrong in this matter, but doesn't have the collective guts to admit it.
Mark Roth
Guest
Looking at the schedule, I don't think having five team groups and byes are the problem. The problem is that each "round" of the comp is split over two, three and sometime four days. The higher ranked teams all seem to have their advantages by playing on the first day one of one round and the last day of the next round. A fairer draw could easily be made simply by having each pool play its two games each round on the same day. Obviously there would still be the bye that would give teams unequal rest and rightly higher seeded teams should have the more advantageous byes. But no more would one team have four days rest every time out while another gets six. Or, even simpler, extend the tournament a week and give each pool one day each week for the first five weeks of the comp to play its pool games. Week Six would be the quarterfinals on Saturday and Sunday. Week Seven sees the final on whatever day the organizers and television preferred.