Like you I’m sure, for about the last two years, I’ve been hanging out for the World Cup.
During that time I also completely forget how dull, and more or less meaningless a large number of the pool games can be.
I see it coming a month or two out when I look at the draw, but it doesn’t bother me much when I’m seeing the big games scheduled.
New Zealand versus South Africa on the first weekend anyone? Looking forward to that leaves you little time to think about how unexciting a lot of the other matches look.
But then, since about a week or so ago, reality sets in. There are some meaningful matches between teams with a shot at advancing every week and one or two upsets, like Japan over Ireland and Uruguay over Fiji.
But a lot of the matches are just tuneups for the better sides, or the chance to finish third not fourth, or fourth not fifth in their pool for the Samoas and Namibias of the rugby world.
The post-match conversation is mainly along the lines of why didn’t we – insert the name of whatever top ten ranked nation – beat them by more? It’s rarely much of an appreciation of the progress 11-20-ranked team’s made.
For those teams and their fans there’s little excitement. You might push a good team or even, as Uruguay did, even beat one. But really you know you’re going home before any finals get played.
To make the tournament more worthwhile for the lower ranked teams and their fans we really need a two or even three-tiered competition.
Japan have produced the only surprises of the group stage. (WILLIAM WEST/AFP/Getty Images)
I don’t know exactly how best it would work, but I can see the principles and criteria you’d use to draw it up. Reward the high ranked teams who win with the chance to skip finals.
And set the lower ranked teams mainly against other lower ranked teams, at least at first, to let them build confidence and momentum – among themselves and in terms of fan support.
For instance you could have a two-tier set up: top ten ranked teams in tier one and teams ranked 11-20 in tier two. Within each tier the teams play each other (or at least some of the other teams, maybe four of them).
From there, from tier one the top two could go on to directly play in the semis.
The teams that finished 3-6 in tier one would play a finals round against the teams that finished 1-4 in tier 2. They play two rounds of finals to go from 8-4 teams, and then from 4-2
The two survivors go on to a semi against the top two finishers from tier 1.
(Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
By doing that, or something similar.
A) You’re rewarding the ten top-ranked teams with the chance to skip three rounds of finals if they can finish in the top two. That’s a huge carrot.
B) But you’re also putting them against the toughest competition to get there.
C) You’re giving teams in tier two a real chance to win competitively positioned matches. For instance, wouldn’t Samoa like to prove, by advancing that they really are better than Tonga? Or Namibia that they’re better than any of those NH also-rans like Russia or Georgia?
D) And then of course, when we hit the finals you’re giving the top four from that second tier the chance to prove they can beat the tier one nations.
Then the big upsets aren’t just a shakeup and a wakeup call to the big names. They’re eliminations, where giant killing is actually really giant killing.
The formula I’ve suggested here might not be the best. Maybe it should be tiered or structured a little differently, but something along these lines would restore vitality to most of the matches.
We’d see a more even level of competition throughout the passing weeks and a sense of high stakes to way more of the matches. I doubt this is an original proposal at all, but i think it’s worth thinking through again. And we’ve got four years to get it all set up right.
Franklin
Roar Rookie
This is the winning formula. Eventually the wc will only be, or maybe already is, broadcast by outlets that have a steaming option. If people don't care to watch the second tier comp on tv it doesn't matter as it won't replace other content. If the games can't cover costs, they can curtain raise for the tier one finals. It basically becomes Pacific Nations plus Scotland, Argentina, Italy, Georgia. Could be interesting
Harry Jones
Expert
I agree that this should be a 16 team Cup; and have another 16 teams in a B-Cup. This will do three vital things: (1) add more excitement to qualification; (2) not degrade the elite status by having 60-70 score lines; and (3) give Namibia a chance to win a Cup.
pm
Roar Rookie
I heard, I think it was Matt Giteau on rugby ruckus, talking about how for at least some of the pacific island teams plane fare often comes out of the player's own pocket
Bobby
Roar Rookie
Question. Are team costs subsidised by World Rugby to play at RWC's. Accommodation, travel etc etc??
GibbonRib
Roar Rookie
The only problem I have with the format is the pools of 5 teams - teams coming off 3 days rest playing opponents who've had a week's break. 6 pools of 4 would work for me, then a round of 16. Teams play 3-7 games (currently 4-7), 52 matches total (currently 48), total length should be about 6 weeks, the same as today. I'd love to see a plate tournament as well for eliminated teams, but don't think it would stack up financially - costs a lot to keep that many players and support staff housed and fed for weeks on end.
AndyS
Guest
My father speaks to this day of the time his regiment team was destroyed by Fiji. I seriously doubt, win or lose, the same would be true if it had actually been the time they played the local pro team for the chance to face Fiji. Win and he would still only remember Fiji, lose and it would be nothing more than one of life's what-if moments and never mentioned unless with regret.
Footy Franks
Guest
Should be 8 pools of 4 = 32 teams. 2 thru the rest that don’t make the 16 go into a plate comp.
pm
Roar Rookie
Yeah, how much the 'play against the great teams' argument is one I wouldn't want to underestimate , but I would doubt whether it means as much as having a good chance of winning a series of games to earn that chance to do that, and knock them out during the tournament. It would be interesting to survey players from lower ranked nations on that.
pm
Roar Rookie
Good question. The way the rankings work might need to be revised. Beyond me how at all
pm
Roar Rookie
It's not like they would not get the chance in this set up. The teams that finish 1-4 in tier two would, but in more meaningful games.
mzilikazi
Roar Pro
Interesting article , pm. Thank you. I feel that the current setup gives a great chance for the minor teams to take the field with the world's best. It would be interesting to canvas how they feel after coming off with a big score against. I would think that for most players the experience far out weighs the heavy defeat.The comentators at the AB Namibia game mentioned that the scrumhalf for the Namibs had mostly played Uni rugby so far. what a great experience for him. Games are dull ? No, I don't find them thus....some may do. Ebven the lowest ranked teams play very good rugby for spells.
Rob M
Roar Rookie
Great thought starter! Ok here’s an extreme version where every game counts. 3 x Tiers of 6 teams Tiers decided by ranking on 1st day of WC year. Within each tier round robin ie 5 brutal tests over 5 weeks. No “lucky” draws this way. 3 great tier 1 games , Fri/Sat/Sun Same tier 2 and 3 SF Cup 1 v 4, 2 v 3 Plate 5 v 8 (ie 2nd Tier 2), 6 v 7 (1st Tier 2) Bowl 9 v 14, (2nd Tier 3) 10 v 13 (1st Tier 3) Gives Tier 2 and Tier 3 something to really go for during pool games. And 3 finals (forget about losing SFists)
Phantom
Roar Rookie
The idea of a World Cup is in my mind to have real world representation in the big dance. I would prefer an increase to 24 teams 4 pools a tighter playing schedule with a greater focus on minimum/maximum gaps between games to even things up. Teams not at RWC2019 that maybe in line for a call up would be Spain Romania Portugal and Hong Kong. I feel that the tier 2 countries gain a lot from playing in the RWC and despite some onesided encounters they wouldn’t change it for anything. The playoff for 3rd is probably the least interesting game but is an opportunity for a more festival approach despite still wanting to win. Let’s just hope we can see more running rugby and less of a kickathon.
Sheikh
Roar Rookie
Not sure it would necessarily be an additional cost without revenue. The TV companies would have extra content, and the attendances at the 'minor' games at this RWC have been pretty good. Add enough prize money and kudos for winning the plate (maybe a sweetener that the Plate winner gets to host a match with the Cup winner the following year), and the Tier 2 nations would be well up for it.
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
I’ve thought for a long time that World Rugby should add a plate knockout/finals series. Teams finishing 3 & 4th in each pool then play a QF, SF and Final. More games, more TV and fans. Or if they’re worried about selling out an entire stadium for the QF of the plate then they could play the games at the same venues before the Championship QFs. That way spectators get two games! Crowds will be good and more TV money. It will give the teams that just miss out, like Japan/Scotland, Fiji, Samoa, Italy and this time even Argentina something to play for.
dazell
Roar Rookie
Agree the format needs to change, some of the games are just nothing games. :thumbup:
Tooly
Roar Rookie
Which date would you pick for the ratings and seedlings ? Perhaps an average over a year out.
Adzy
Roar Rookie
So the 3rd and 4th place in each pool play in tier 2 QF, the winners of the QF are guaranteed automatic selection to next World Cup the from the Semis they play for seeding (1 to 4) at that next WC. So If you win the tier 2 comp you will be seeded 1 (tier2) and put in pool with seed 4 (tier1) at next world cup.
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
Third and fourth place is usually played by teams that thought they could win the big prize and when that opportunity is gone they aren’t interested anymore. A plate comp would be played by teams that are excited to be in it, particularly if the fifth place team in each pool went home. Everyone would be fighting not to be that team and making the plate would be an achievement.
Adzy
Roar Rookie
If you have a second tier comp that splits after pool play make them play for automatic selection to next World Cup. Then becomes meaningful for the teams as a way to avoid future qualification route.