Rugby World Cup should follow the lead of Sevens Rugby

That is a legitimate concern, but I don't see that happening. National rugby teams have too much pride to be so cynical, they will always want to do the best that they can. In any case, not matter what tweaking is done the Cup will always be the ultimate prize.

Nice thoughtful article. But I think I have a better way to play out the Plate,Bowl and the Shield for unlucky teams that have not gone further in the tournament. - the 3rd placed teams from each Pool will play for the Shield ( the match ups- ENG vs JAP & ITA vs GEO) - the losers of the QFs will play for the Bowl (possible match ups- SCO vs WAL & FRA vs ARG) - the 3rd/4th playoff match will play for the Plate (it will make this match worth something to play for. So far it's a dead rubber and pointless. No one wants to play in this match after a SF loss) The 4th and 5th placed teams from each Pool will miss out completely. The main reason for that is that they have not qualified for the next World Cup. They will have to go back and start their campaign again to qualify. The 3rd placed teams who have already qualified for the next tournament, should be rewarded by playing for something. That is for this instance , the Shield. It will give unlucky teams like England and especially Japan something to play for. Week 1- SHIELD SF 1 SHIELD SF2 QF1 QF2 QF3 QF4 Week 2- BOWL SF 1 BOWL SF 2 SHIELD FINAL CUP SF1 CUP SF2 Final week- -BOWL FINAL -3rd/4th playoff for the PLATE - WORLD CUP FINAL No draining on the players, with each team advancing will play the same amount of games as the Cup Finalists. I can understand the article is about helping the minnows, but it will drain the players out with extra games and it will also not fit within the 3 weeks of Finals rugby. Also for the main reason I mentioned earlier, the teams that miss out in the top 3 will have to go back home early. I think this is a great concept to make the WC more enjoyable, giving the fans more rugby all the way to the end. It will increase the number of attendances and will also bring in more viewers and ratings. P.s One last thing, make the three lesser trophies have names that's worth playing for. A few examples - - The Jonah Lomu Shield - The Rugby Bowl - The Royal Plate. It might work. :-)

If you have a lower tier trophy the 2nd Tier teams will not need to try as hard. They can throw their games against Tier 1 teams in their pool cause the only game that will matter will be the one against the other 3/4 contender. It is a nice idea but the ultimate prize needs to remain the World Cup. Japan and Fiji were unlucky not to make the next round. In a 32 team World Cup with 4-team pools they would have certainly.

Some good points, amazing system! Problem is wearing out players for that amount of time in that amount of games, what made sevens fun is how compact it was and the party environment, which can't be guaranteed for each game

Lindsay, with respect, it is really very uncomplicated, and involves a grand total of 2 more games than your suggestion (while giving the opportunity of extra games to all of the teams involved - I don't really understand why the 5th place getters are not worthy of being given that opportunity, or why the development benefits shouldn't be extended to them. They got to the World Cup finals after all). You could also argue that asking some of these teams to play 3 more games is starting to be a bridge too far for them, and that these subsidiary competitions should not be part of the final week of the cup itself. That Fiji would only be in the 4th tier competition this time around is unlucky for them, but in any competition there'll be someone who's unlucky. I don't think that's a fundamental flaw, and I don't think getting the opportunity to win the plate in your system as opposed to the bowl under another is really that big a deal.

I have been thinking exactly the same as this. 24 teams in 6 pools. (3 pool games each) Top 12 teams plus 4 best 3rd place team go through to a 16 team knockout stage for the Cup. The 8 first round losers in the Cup play the remaining 8 teams who didn't make the first stage in the Cup.This would be a 16 team knockout for the Shield. Winners of the first round of the Shield automatically qualify for the next world cup. You could have a 8 team knockout for a Bowl but I'm not sure how many crowds you would get for that or how realistic it is in terms of scheduling time. This way basically every game has more at stake than the match itself. It also means even pools. Plus it doesn't mean more games for the tier 1 teams. There isn't such a huge difference between teams ranked 17 - 24 in the world in my view. At least we don't want there to be. I have been thinking about this for a few weeks now. What I have come to realise is that somehow we need the top 28 National teams to be professional or semi-professional. Look at Uruguay. A country punching fair above it's weight. They can't go further unless we can find a way for their top 50 players to be professional or semi-professional. Same with Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Romania, Namibia, etc. I note that as far as I can remember the All Blacks have usually played their first game of the season against a tier 2 team. There is also the Pacific Cup and similar competitions. Perhaps what is required is a World Cup Qualifier Series. To be played every year except World Cup year. The top 8 teams in the world would be excluded. It would only be open to the next 20 teams. I guess that is a logistical nightmare. Perhaps this needs more thought.

Romania already has a semi-pro competition which actually has sides that field almost entirely pro teams. Sure they don't get paid enough to attract more than a handful of second rate Kiwis and Aussies, but there are plenty of Islanders making a living playing rugby in Romania. Georgia is a bit behind that level, but the competition would still be semi-pro at least.

To be honest, if you're going to have Namibia and Uruguay at the world cup, the next four teams are no worse. Kenya beat Namibia recently and Russia has previously made a world cup, which they qualified for ahead of the likes of Romania (who entered a repecharge and beat Uruguay). Russia, Spain, Chile, Zimbabwe, Kenya are all about the same level of those bottom handful of teams. If you move to groups of 4, the weak teams have less games against strong sides anyway, so total number of "blow outs" will be the same even with a few more weak teams, whilst you're providing wider exposure to more players and potential fans. It also means more teams get to experience knock out rugby, instead of a team like Japan, who won as many games as Scotland and South Africa, having to go home. It would also correct the awkward draw situation of having five teams and meaning short turn arounds for each team. Personally I see a huge number of advantages to this system, though I recognise that like all ideas it has weak points.

Fair enough. A 5th place final series is probably a bit generous. I’m just looking at giving lower ranked teams more experience. However I will conceded that the world cup is not the place to gain experience. Tier 1 teams should be playing tier 2 and 3 teams more often outside the world cup, but that is getting onto a new topic entirely.

They would still be playing for international rankings, similar to any test match. In that sense, the games wouldn't be any less meaningful than any international match.

Great article Simon, I have been talking about this all tournament tonight I sat down to draw up some options only to get emailed your article when I was finished. So many teams deserve an extra week or two at the World Cup playing at an appropriate level. Canada were sensational but go home without a win. England and Fiji I feel sorry for as it could so easily have been us! And of course Japan. I would support the third and fourth placed teams going into the plate. Accommodating the losers from the Cup quarter final adds too much complexity. The Plate final would replace the current painful 3rd place game on the Thursday night. If games were won based on form decided by Pool Standings that may see an England v Japan Plate Final. We then create the Minnow's Mug where the 5th placed teams have a simple AvB, CvD, winners play in the Mug Final on Tuesday night after the Semis. This year that may be a USA v Canada match up. The USA has more registered rugby players than Australia surely this would be a good marketing move. I agree with a lot of the comments from others that there needs to be greater obligation on Teir 1 countries to play the Teir 2, but we must be prepared for the consequences, Remember the last time we played a friendly against Samoa in 2011. Perhaps an Australia A side is needed to take up this challenge. Back to this World Cup, and daring to dream a little, the Wallabies are 50% through a Grand Slam tour of UK. When we beat France in the Final having passed Ireland and Scotland we will have beaten the next top 8 teams in a calendar year. The alternative to this is that somehow the All Blacks don't choke against France and after 7 previous attempts the Rugby Gods deliver an Australia v New Zealand World Cup Final.

But having something less than what already exists would lessen the reward for participating?

That would be a great alternative, but the tier 1 nations would not vote for it, as it would mean changing the cartel of them playing each other in the June and November internationals.

There already is a'sister' comp the ENC aka Six Nations B

Automatic qualification is already a carrot in pool play. The idea is also ridiculous it's a World Cup not an reward for participating

No - 5th should go home. There has to be a consequence of coming last in your pool. We're not giving prizes for participation here.

If you had automatic qualification as a carrot - semi finalists get automatic qualification - with two bowl and plate winners getting their RWC spot assured, then you might offer a genuine incentive. You also promote more qualification games, which I also agree is needed. I agree, Simon, the showing by the lower ranked teams deserves recognition in some formal way that provides these teams with additional games be they in or outside the RWC tournament.

Rugby fans keep moaning that it needs to grow to new countries but aren't prepared to do anything serious about it. Italy and Scotland have had it easy for far too long, Georgia and Romania are more than capable of competing with them now. The fact is that if Spain or Germany were as good as the current Tier 2 nations, they would be in next year.

Simmo I can't see a pro comp working well in the USA. Your best bets are Georgia and Romania who can set up semi pro comps, similar to Russia.

There isn't enough quality teams for 24 nations - maybe with the development of professional comps in new countries it may be possibly, but I want to see Georgia, Romania, Canada, USA all pressing for quarter final spots first (joining Samoa and Japan) I think Georgia will get there within two world cups (maybe similar to Japan) as the government is prepared to invest in the sport, and its becoming popular there. Romania will slowly get there, they have a semi-pro comp, but rugby isn't very popular in Romania. Canada and USA have much bigger problems.