RWC 2023 looks like it will be a great tournament. The tournament host, France, is one of the favourites. The number of teams which have a real chance to win is the greatest ever and the gap between the best and the rest continues to narrow.
But now that each team gets at least a five-day turnaround between pool matches, the pool stage will take a week longer to complete – about a month. Also, there will be a glut of matches in one part of the week and nothing happening in the other part of the week.
A potential solution to this is to play mid-week matches. But obviously that wouldn’t follow the desire of World Rugby to make rugby safer for the players.
One way to allow mid-week matches to be played, and to give the players a proper rest, would be to increase the squad size.
The squad size has already been increased from 31 to 33 players for RWC 2023. If the squad size was increased to, say 50 players, then mid-week matches could be played while allowing players an adequate rest between matches.
It would allow teams to play two matches per week. The draw could be configured so there would be matches on each day. It could even increase the rest time between matches as players wouldn’t need to play two matches in a row. Also, players could still be flown in to cover injuries. The squad would be trimmed at the end of the pool stage.
This change would be for RWC 2027 as it’s far too late to change the format of RWC 2023.
The pool stage would be more interesting as there would be matches on each day. It would make the pool stage more like a two-week long festival of rugby. Rather than fluctuating between feast and famine for a month.
It would make watching the World Cup more interesting as there would be no days without play. It would also make attending the World Cup (or taking leave to watch every match on tv) more viable, as it would reduce the time away from work and accommodation costs.
It would be better for advertisers as there would be matches played each day. There would be new footage to report, not just replays, video of teams training, and coaches blathering. It would also concentrate the period which the viewers are exposed to the advertising.
After a while viewers become numb/annoyed by repetitive advertisements. This is not helpful for advertisers as the highest value matches are at the end of the tournament.
Another benefit of this approach is that it would provide top level exposure for more players. Also, with the matches more spread out, matches that might’ve been overlooked in the current pool format would be more likely to get more viewership.
Players, from smaller nations, could end up getting contracts in more lucrative markets; eventually bringing that experience back home. It could show sponsors that some of the weaker nations have a general level of talent which would make investment in their local competitions viable.
Richie McCaw lifts the 2011 Rugby World Cup. (Photo by Tim Clayton/Corbis via Getty Images)
It would also make the pool stage more interesting for stronger nations. As the pool stage would function as a de facto trial before the squads were trimmed for the knockout stage. This intra-squad competition would bring out the best in the players and make the pool matches more compelling viewing.
The most seemingly obviously downside is the increased accommodation bill, bigger squads mean more rooms and probably more support staff. But this would be offset by saving two weeks due to the shorter duration of the pool stage.
There would have to be some sort of restriction of players playing matches back-to-back (unless there was some sort of ridiculous injury crisis). World Rugby would want to avoid a situation where 23 players of one squad played all four pool matches. As many of the weaker nations would want their best 23 on the pitch to try to get bonus points (or an unlikely win against the stronger teams).
Apart from reducing the length of the tournament. Saving two weeks opens the possibility to add more, high value, matches.
RWC 2023 will have the most competitive pools matches of any tournament yet; hopefully RWC 2027 will be even more competitive. This means some quality teams will miss out on the knockout stage. This could be avoided by adding an earlier round of knockout matches before the quarter finals.
The top four from each pool would go into the first knockout stage. This would be a real benefit for weaker nations which are less likely to make the quarter finals. The additional knockout matches would allow for more grudge matches to occur e.g. Samoa vs Tonga.
Though there is the argument that having four of the five teams, per pool, advance to the knockout stage could invalidate pool play to a degree – making it a seeding tournament.
No doubt RWC 2023 will be an awesome spectacle. I’m sure it will bring a high level of play and some surprises. I’m sure RWC 2027 will be awesome too, even if it keeps the current format. But it would be even better if the pool stage was sped up, and if there was another round of knockout matches.
NaBUru38
Guest
It would be much easier if groups had an even number of teams, so there would be no byes. I would prefer 24 teams split in four groups if six teams with a 3-vs-3 format.
Anthony Barber
Guest
RWC should go to 32 teams like the Football WC. The group stage would be shorter with 3 games rather than the present 4. The group stages can be seen as a Rugby Festival, for the bottom 16 teams. Their participation is whats important. Rugby would benefit from the exposure. The top 16 teams would play a round of 16 game in lieu of the 4th group game. The RWC draw should be seeded and made 18 months out from the WC. A draw made on rankings would have the top 8 teams playing in separate groups, eg; Group A teams 1 and 16. Group D teams 4 and 13 Group E teams 3 and 14. Group H teams 2 and 15. Should they keep winning the top two ranked teams would only meet in the WC final. WR needs to be more generous about participation in RWC.
woodart
Roar Rookie
good post. lower tier international teams often dont get many games. while they are at the world cup, it seems logical to have them play another couple of games, and there would be good matchups.
Rusty
Roar Guru
double thumbs up on a Plate finalist - similar to the Sevens circuit
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
The point of World Cup is to find the best team. Providing a spectacle for the fans should be the next priority. The additional round of knock out games would give you what you seem to be hung up on, allowing the weaker teams to play their best team against a stronger side. There isn’t much point in doubling the length of the pool stage just so the weaker teams can play their best team against the stronger teams.
Biltong
Guest
The day tactical substitutions became a thing the day of 15 man rugby was over.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
I don't follow your argument that it would be "balanced" by the extra KO game (not even to a degree). For me, every team should field their strongest side as often as possible at the WC and regular Test matches. Obviously, it would be nice with games every day (like the football world cup) but if every team going to have a chance to field their best players, it is more or less impossible.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Have the draw only a max of 9 months out . That way it not only more accurately seeds teams according to current performances but discourages coaches who are downgrading rugby in the intervening years to apparently focus on The World Cup . They know who they are .
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
Sounds good. I think making use of a 'Plate' and a 'Bowl' system would get really good for the smaller nations as they would be more high-level exposure.
Kevin
Guest
I would increase the number of teams to 24 and have 6 groups of 4. This ensures 6 days between matches, and the pool stage in 3 weeks. Then I would have a "plate" and a "bowl", similar to sevens, this will still give 4 games per team. For the plate and bowl the matches may be played in the same stadium to attract people from 4 different countries to attend. All of this would also mean more rugby matches during 6 weeks, incentives for lower tier nations and the posibility to play each other in a more competitive enviroment.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
I love the way fatigue played its part in games I watched growing up TF. That should be part of any sport as having a big motor can set some players apart from others.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
There is a lot of food for thought there Spew. I like a lot of it but do see some issues. Id love to see a "A" world cup run at the same time maybe. Each team has a No1 side and a reserves side. Interchangeable up to top squad but not down to Reserves squad. That gives double the amount of games but would need to be more than just a reserves then top side game day as that wont bring in more revenue. Maybe run the top sides on the weekend and have the reserves world cup run mid week.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
The USA was one win away from taking Chile's place. It surprised me that that they missed out.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
A true competitor always wants a chance to redeem themselves. I bet the All Blacks were keen as to play the 3rd vs 4th play off in RWC 2019. They had high expectations after their good quarter final win but got comprehensively outplayed in the semifinal. They played well against Wales. It allowed them to end a disappointing campaign with a win and to salvage some wounded pride. I really like the 'Plate' idea. It would keep the followers of the team that miss out on the 'Cup' route a reason to keep watching.
scrum
Roar Rookie
I cannot see the players liking the 3 v 4. If you have made the semis your goal obviously is to go to the final. Hugely disappointing to the losers when they go down and really the there is no big deal being winner of 3 v 4. The only reason it is there is as a money raiser. My concept of a Plate would give those lower ranked teams real incentive.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
Agree. That's what rugby is all about.
Brian
Guest
I don't know why they ditched the 1999 model. 5 groups of 4 with each group winner getting a weeks rest whilst the rest play and 2nd Round. Made the first round crucial for the big nations with 5 getting through, having 11 get through the groups gave more teams a chance to do so and having an even number of teams in a group meant the whole group stage could be done fairly in 3 weeks
Max power
Guest
Japan is the only top 20 country by population that plays in the RWC
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
It would be a good way of supporting/promoting the teams that don't make the quarter finals. Assuming those games have decent viewership (it seems to work in Sevens), it would show sponsors that those teams are worth investing in.
The Ferret
Roar Rookie
100% agree. If you can only use 5 of your 8 subs it allows you a couple of tactical subs and injury cover. I want to see nimble scummy carve up some tired tight 5 before feeding a wide pass to a fit wing who burns the tired center in the 68th minute.