How should the RWC be organised in future?

There are still too many non-matches in RWCs. OK the hundred-point killers have gone, but the 60+pointers are still in evidence.

Many v2 posters will argue that T2/3 sides' exposure is good. But I disagree. I believe that only true competition is real competition.

My proposals:

The next four years up to 2015:

Each country in the IRB to agree on a fair Rankings system. One country one vote.
(Tier 1 countries call all the shots in everything else in rugby)

This is what I suggest for the 2019 finals onwards -

Taking any RWC final as year zero:

Year 1: The current (as of the time of the draw) IRB ranking teams (1-12) go into the pot as seeds 1, 2 and 3 and the 4th seed pot remains vacant save the qualifiers' 'qualifying pot'. The RWC draw is made.

Years 2-3: On a basis agreed during the 2011-15 rankings decision, the seeds play each other home and away to earn the right to fill the RWC seed 4.

Additionally in any RWC year, a T1 Nation (or collective) should host a seeded knockout competition between the next sixteen non-RWC qualifiers.

when u have the games against the minnows though, you can try different players and different combinations, plus the fact the scores arent as high as 2007 or 2003.

Well if you want to go the route where only the top sixteen countries play in the actual RWC for the William Webb ellis trophy then if the next 16 are there to play in a competition at the same time, call it the plate, shield, toffee whatever.

These matches can then be played during the week and they will have the same rest time as the other tier one nations who would play on weekends.

I think this is a better option than removing them totally from the equation.

They will still feel part of the experience, even though they will then play in their "own" competition, this way it will also expand the world cup from 20 teams to 32.

cricketfan90 wrote:when u have the games against the minnows though, you can try different players and different combinations, plus the fact the scores arent as high as 2007 or 2003.

One triumphant minnows' team is more than enough. And it would be the feistiest minnow in the shoal.

As far as the seedings go, i think 12 months out to the week before the RWc starts they must take the world rankings and based on that put the teams according to their seedings in the pools.

The same will go for teams ranked 17-32.

If we are going to use the rankings for anything then at least let it have value in determening the teams seedings correctly.

I think double points for the RWC is ridiculous

biltongbek wrote:Well if you want to go the route where only the top sixteen countries play in the actual RWC for the William Webb ellis trophy then if the next 16 are there to play in a competition at the same time, call it the plate, shield, toffee whatever.

These matches can then be played during the week and they will have the same rest time as the other tier one nations who would play on weekends.

I think this is a better option than removing them totally from the equation.

They will still feel part of the experience, even though they will then play in their "own" competition, this way it will also expand the world cup from 20 teams to 32.

I argue that a T1 nation should host the 'plate'.

This is because it would be like a paralymics where only a T1 nation could hope to support it. And it could become an important addition to national CVs when presenting their own RWC bids.

p.s. paralympics means parallel olympics before anyone complains.

this what I would like (dont think its achievable) :
- 2 groups of 6 teams each with 1st two of the group to qualify to the the semis (no QF so duration or tournament stays the same)
- who qualifies for those 12 spots: 1st of 4 of the 6N of the previous year(s) , 1st 3 of the 4N + PI last winner would automatically qualify. the other 4 spots would be awarded through 2 qualification tournaments (one for europe/NA and another one for SH/PI/ASIA).

that would be a hell of a tournament in terms of tough competition

Portnoy wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Well if you want to go the route where only the top sixteen countries play in the actual RWC for the William Webb ellis trophy then if the next 16 are there to play in a competition at the same time, call it the plate, shield, toffee whatever.

These matches can then be played during the week and they will have the same rest time as the other tier one nations who would play on weekends.

I think this is a better option than removing them totally from the equation.

They will still feel part of the experience, even though they will then play in their "own" competition, this way it will also expand the world cup from 20 teams to 32.

I argue that a T1 nation should host the 'plate'.

This is because it would be like a paralymics where only a T1 nation could hope to support it. And it could become an important addition to national CVs when presenting their own RWC bids.

p.s. paralympics means parallel olympics before anyone complains.

Yes, it must be hosted by the same nation hosting the RWC, that is the only way it will give them the feeling they are part and parcel of the same exposure.

The trouble with the RWC format is that the IRB have the same opinion you have - the minnows don't count. Cricket has the same problem.

If you look at football and Fifa, they have embraced the smaller countries, invested in them and supported them. All the countries are on the same level in that they play qualifiers and friendlies against each other.

Maybe the IRB should make all teams other than the hosts qualify? That would give the minnows a platform to play the bigger nations.

Another problem with the RWC is the five teams in a group which means many of the smaller nations games are within a few days meaning teams like Japan field weaken teams against New Zealand.

AS I have already stated on another thread the idea format would either be 16 teams (4 groups of 4 teams) - a backward step in my opinion or 32 teams (8 groups of 4 teams) - possibly too big of a tournament right now for rugby.

My idea was to have 24 teams (6 groups of 4 teams). This would spread the bigger teams out in the group stage. There would still be big scores but the smaller nations would be in 'weaker' groups (more groups would equal a greater spread of teams) and therefore have more chance to win games anf progress.

There would then be four knock phases starting with a round of 16. This format would also mean teams would have to be on their game from the start and would offer a different type of tournament to the nations formats.

RubyGuby wrote:I t9whihink double points for the RWC is ridiculous

That is why I propose a whole four years to thrash out seedings and rankings. We are at a convenient point - loss making NZ RWC, profitable 2015, Japan (who knows?)

Has anybody actually asked or spoken to the players of the tier two teams?

I am pretty sure that for them they are gald and proud just to be there and to have qualified through the respective Zone Qualifiers etc.

For a lot of these teams their aim is to finish 3rd and assume automatic qualification for the next tournament.

nagaski

bedfordwelsh wrote:Has anybody actually asked or spoken to the players of the tier two teams?

I am pretty sure that for them they are gald and proud just to be there and to have qualified through the respective Zone Qualifiers etc.

For a lot of these teams their aim is to finish 3rd and assume automatic qualification for the next tournament.

I'm not sure that this is entirely relevant. Nobody asked the citizens of Hiroshima or Nagasaki if they approved.

However, what I am proposing is to allow the best of the worst and a plate tournament.

This is what I would do:
world Cup 1

Pool A
1 New Zealand (Host Nation)
2 France (automatic)
3 Tonga (automatic / Would be Oceania 1)
4 Canada (Americas 1)

Pool B
1 England (automatic)
2 Argentina (automatic)
2 Scotland (automatic)
4 Georgia (Europe 1)

Pool C
1 Australia (automatic)
2 Ireland (automatic)
3 Italy (automatic)
4 Japan (Asia 1)

Pool D
1 South Africa (automatic)
2 Wales (automatic)
3 Fiji (automatic)
4 Namibia (Africa 1)

Basically have the automoatic qualifiers as normal, i.e. the top 2 Nations who finish in this world cups pool stages, as well as the top 3 teams who are placed 3rd, from the previous World Cup. Tonga get picked ahead of Samoa, as they were an automatic qualifiers, but in the 16 team tournaments, only 2 of the 3 island teams qualified.
With 5 qualifiers one from each continent, Europe, Asia, Africa, Americas, Oceania


Below that have a World Cup Shield competiton, playing at the same time:
16 teams - 4 from Europe, and 3 each from Oceania, Asia, Americas, and Africa. so we'd have something like this:

Pool A
1 Samoa (Oceania)
2 Morocco (Africa)
3 Chile (Americas)
4 Russia (Europe)

Pool B
1 Cook Islands (Oceania)
2 United Arab Emirates (Asia)
3 Uruguay (Americas)
4 Romania (Europe)

Pool C
1 Paupa New Guinea (Oceania)
2 Hong Kong (Asia)
3 Tunisia (Africa)
4 Portugal (Europe)

Pool D
1 Kazakhstan (Asia)
2 USA (Americas)
3 Zimbabwe (Africa)
4 Spain (Europe)

Why are Samoa there, they've been one of the better minnows since the world cup started get rid of Namibia.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Why are Samoa there, they've been one of the better minnows since the world cup started get rid of Namibia.

So you want to eliminate an entire continent, and stop them from progressing, for one island in the pacific?


Samoa didnt qualify for the 1987 world cup, Tonga wasn't in 1991, Fiji wasn't in 1995 etc.
Tonga and Fiji automatically qualified for the 2011 one, so they would make it. While Samoa had to qualify by beating Paupa New Guinea.
So you would either make Tonga and Samoa play off for a World Cup place, and the loser goes into the weaker World Cup.

I'm not sure that stopping the minnows playing against the bigger nations make the minnows any better.

The idea should surely be that the the smaller teams get stronger. For that then surely need more games against the top teams (no just one or two games every four years) to gauge themselves and see where to improve.

I would scrap automatic qualification for all teams and have proper qualification for all teams like the football world cup. This would ensure the smaller nations play bigger nations more often.

I have already mentioned that I think a 16 team world cup is a backwards set. If you are going to have 32 teams playing at once you may as well have a 32 team world cup in the same format as the football world cup though that is probably too big.

Here is my idea post on another thread:-

A 24 team world cup in a similar style to the Italia '90 World Cup.
- You would have six groups of four teams.
- There would still be seven games to win the World Cup.
- The bigger teams would be better spread out in the Group stage.
- Smaller nations would have less games against bigger nations and a better chance of winning/ progressing. (16 teams into knock out stage).
- The bigger knock stages would make the World Cup even more different to the nations tournaments.
- There would be less room for mistakes from teams so all teams would have to be on their game from the start of the tournament.
- I would have only the hosts qualifying automatically. Every other team would come through regional/ continental qualifying.
- You could have something like 10 teams from Europe, 5 from the Americas, 5 from Oceania, 2 from Africa and 2 from Asia.

Based on IRB rankings (with a little artistic licence with confederations) the draw would look something like this:

Group A:- New Zealand, Wales, Japan, Spain
Group B:- South Africa, Scotland, Georgia, Chile
Group C:- Australia, Italy, Tonga, Uruguay
Group D:- England, Argentina, Fiji, Russia
Group E:- France, Samoa, USA, Portugal
Group F:- Ireland, Canada, Romania, Namibia

sportsville wrote:Here is my idea post on another thread:-

A 24 team world cup in a similar style to the Italia '90 World Cup.
- You would have six groups of four teams.
- There would still be seven games to win the World Cup.
- The bigger teams would be better spread out in the Group stage.
- Smaller nations would have less games against bigger nations and a better chance of winning/ progressing. (16 teams into knock out stage).
- The bigger knock stages would make the World Cup even more different to the nations tournaments.
- There would be less room for mistakes from teams so all teams would have to be on their game from the start of the tournament.
- I would have only the hosts qualifying automatically. Every other team would come through regional/ continental qualifying.
- You could have something like 10 teams from Europe, 5 from the Americas, 5 from Oceania, 2 from Africa and 2 from Asia.

Based on IRB rankings (with a little artistic licence with confederations) the draw would look something like this:

Group A:- New Zealand, Wales, Japan, Spain
Group B:- South Africa, Scotland, Georgia, Chile
Group C:- Australia, Italy, Tonga, Uruguay
Group D:- England, Argentina, Fiji, Russia
Group E:- France, Samoa, USA, Portugal
Group F:- Ireland, Canada, Romania, Namibia

Just two simple questions.

How do the amateurs hold down their jobs?

Would we see a return of the 100+ game dullfests?

sportsville wrote:Here is my idea post on another thread:-

A 24 team world cup in a similar style to the Italia '90 World Cup.
- You would have six groups of four teams.
- There would still be seven games to win the World Cup.
- The bigger teams would be better spread out in the Group stage.
- Smaller nations would have less games against bigger nations and a better chance of winning/ progressing. (16 teams into knock out stage).
- The bigger knock stages would make the World Cup even more different to the nations tournaments.
- There would be less room for mistakes from teams so all teams would have to be on their game from the start of the tournament.
- I would have only the hosts qualifying automatically. Every other team would come through regional/ continental qualifying.
- You could have something like 10 teams from Europe, 5 from the Americas, 5 from Oceania, 2 from Africa and 2 from Asia.

Based on IRB rankings (with a little artistic licence with confederations) the draw would look something like this:

Group A:- New Zealand, Wales, Japan, Spain
Group B:- South Africa, Scotland, Georgia, Chile
Group C:- Australia, Italy, Tonga, Uruguay
Group D:- England, Argentina, Fiji, Russia
Group E:- France, Samoa, USA, Portugal
Group F:- Ireland, Canada, Romania, Namibia

I personally think that this is the best option. It would not only give the minnows more of chance by putting them against teams of similar ability but would also allow the scheduling of games to be fairer. Seeing as there are 6 groups you could assign each group a day to play on (not saying this is the best system so help me out!). So there are 2 games played daily (NZ v Wales and Japan v Spain on say Monday) so something to watch throughout the week barring 1 day (the same as at the moment). It would also give every team a full week to rest/prepare for the next match, rather than just the big boys. Only issue with this for me is how to decide which teams play on the weekends, as the bosses will obviously want all the main teams to play at this time but if each group is assigned a day that would not be the case.

sportsville wrote:
I have already mentioned that I think a 16 team world cup is a backwards set. If you are going to have 32 teams playing at once you may as well have a 32 team world cup in the same format as the football world cup though that is probably too big.

That is assuming that in any rugby is on a par with footy in global interest.

The RWC may be the third most important global contest (which is debatable). But even if it is, then it a distant third.

"Group A:- New Zealand, Wales, Japan, Spain
Group B:- South Africa, Scotland, Georgia, Chile
Group C:- Australia, Italy, Tonga, Uruguay
Group D:- England, Argentina, Fiji, Russia
Group E:- France, Samoa, USA, Portugal
Group F:- Ireland, Canada, Romania, Namibia"

A 3/4-week dull-fest of unequal matches only to be salved at the quarter-final stage (again).

Plus yo have to persuade the TV companies to televise at least 50% more hopeless contests.

A hopeless idea which will not work.

I think the problem with the midweek games - as well as unfair resting times - is teams targeting specific games.

For instance, Romania played Scotland and got a week off. They played their strongest team and ran them close (Scotland were lucky to get all 5 points). Scotland then had another game 4 days later against Georgia and failed to pick up the bonus point. England played Georgia 4 days later and put them to the sword in the latter stages, taking the bonus point. Then, a week later England play a weakened Romania team, who are focusing on a match with Georgia a few days later.

I'm not saying that the IRB have rigged it for England, but with the way the schedules have panned out England had easier games against Georgia and Romania than Scotland did, and as such have taken one more point (could have easily been two) from these matches. Now, were Scotland to beat England this weekend, that one point could be crucial, especially if Argentina go on to beat either a tired Georgia or an understrength Georgia after their midweek battle with Romania.

The first and second seeds (some might say rightly) get a definite advantage in the pool stage. Giving England an advantage over Georgia is one thing, but when a third seed with a genuine chance of qualifying (as Scotland and Samoa had) get held back by the scheduling then it starts to become a real issue in my opinion.

Robbo, from https://www.606v2.com/t14312-the-slaughter-of-the-innocents#519293

"
A quick analysis of rest days between games based on rankings coming into the RWC (5/9/11)

rkg/nat/1st/2nd/3rd/total/average

1 nzl 7 8 8 23 7.7
2 aus 6 6 8 20 6.7
3 saf 6 5 8 19 6.3
4 fra 8 6 7 21 7
5 eng 8 6 6 20 6.7
6 wal 7 8 6 21 7
7 sco 4 9 6 19 6.3
8 ire 6 8 7 21 7
9 arg 7 8 7 22 7.3
10 sam 4 7 5 16 5.3
11 ita 9 7 5 21 7
12 ton 5 7 10 22 7.3
13 jap 6 5 6 17 5.7
14 can 4 9 5 18 6
15 fij 7 8 7 22 7.3
16 geo 4 10 4 18 6
17 rom 7 7 4 18 6
18 usa 4 8 4 16 5.3
19 rus 5 5 6 16 5.3
20 nam 4 8 4 16 5.3"

and

"of those with the fewest (16) rest days:

Sam - nam (4) wal (7) fij (5) saf
Usa - ire(4) rus (6) aus (4) ita
Rus - usa (5) ita(5) ire(6) aus
Nam - fij (4) sam (8) saf (4) wal"

Is it also unreasonable to have the teams who weren't good enough to automatically qualify though to have a more favourable draw than nations who earned the right to play here automatically?

Of the 4 teams who get the bum draw, 3 of them Samoa, USA and Russia would not of qualified for this tournament if it was 16 teams, the other being Romania.

A lot of nations have had to qualify for world Cups before, Wales had to qualify in 1995, by knocking out Portugal and Spain, before playing Romania and Italy to find out where they would be seeded!

Namibia wouldn't beat a pub team. they're rubbish

I get rankings and pool selection based on that principle but in my view that is where the handicapping should end.
How can you justify Namibia playing 4 games in 16 days and the ABS 4 in 23? This just weights the comp further in favour of the bigger sides and means the comp is not being played on a level playing field.

Sportsville, I don't like your format - we'd be drawn against NZ in the pool stages

Gatts wrote:I get rankings and pool selection based on that principle but in my view that is where the handicapping should end.
How can you justify Namibia playing 4 games in 16 days and the ABS 4 in 23? This just weights the comp further in favour of the bigger sides and means the comp is not being played on a level playing field.

If there was an RWC with only sixteen teams then they could all be played on Fri Sat Sun over four weekends (just over three weeks).

Minimal mismatches and fair(er) recovery periods for all participants.

Clearly fairer, I'm in.

Save the Ireland v Australia, Argentina v England and France v NZ (and the forthcoming Scots v Eng game I suppose), there have been no key games.

Only Ireland have turned have this RWC on its head this time around and I bless them for that. Even an idiot like me has predicted over 90% of the results correctly.

Roll on the quarters when the tournament really begins - and let us not have to suffer another pageantry of useless contests.

What is the point or the RWC?
Aside from determining the Champion, it is surely to spread the game to other nations who never get the chance to play the big teams. Big scoreline - so what?

I'd have 32 teams divided into 8 groups in a pre-RWC qualifying stage. The top two from each group would then qualify for the RWC finals comprising four pools of four teams, with the knockouts to follow as present.

Each of these groups in the qualifying stage should be based in different countries, but NOT in tier 1 nations. This would create some local interest in the game and give some smaller nations a chance at playing a big team (as well as making the finals). The games would have a meaning and so should attract some commercial interest. These games would also replace the nothing status of the pre-rwc friendlies for the bigger teams. It would also even out the disparity between the 3N teams who are going into the RWC with the advantage of high level competitive rugby behind them when everyone else hasn't.

Every team making the final sixteen would then have made it there on recent merit rather than some idiosyncratic ranking system decided three years before and the competition would have equal rest periods for all the teams.

The Great Aukster wrote:What is the point or the RWC?
Aside from determining the Champion, it is surely to spread the game to other nations who never get the chance to play the big teams. Big scoreline - so what?

I'd have 32 teams divided into 8 groups in a pre-RWC qualifying stage. The top two from each group would then qualify for the RWC finals comprising four pools of four teams, with the knockouts to follow as present.

Each of these groups in the qualifying stage should be based in different countries, but NOT in tier 1 nations. This would create some local interest in the game and give some smaller nations a chance at playing a big team (as well as making the finals). The games would have a meaning and so should attract some commercial interest. These games would also replace the nothing status of the pre-rwc friendlies for the bigger teams. It would also even out the disparity between the 3N teams who are going into the RWC with the advantage of high level competitive rugby behind them when everyone else hasn't.

Every team making the final sixteen would then have made it there on recent merit rather than some idiosyncratic ranking system decided three years before and the competition would have equal rest periods for all the teams.

Practicalities. Teams (particularly the T1s) and the media need to plan and prepare. Could you imagine the ensuing chaos and the anti-rugby hype in the red tops (not forgetting the Sydney Morning Herald, The New Zealand Herald and the dear old Irish Independent.

biltongbek wrote:Well if you want to go the route where only the top sixteen countries play in the actual RWC for the William Webb ellis trophy then if the next 16 are there to play in a competition at the same time, call it the plate, shield, toffee whatever.

These matches can then be played during the week and they will have the same rest time as the other tier one nations who would play on weekends.

I think this is a better option than removing them totally from the equation.

They will still feel part of the experience, even though they will then play in their "own" competition, this way it will also expand the world cup from 20 teams to 32.

I agree withthis 100%

Can't increase the size of it, the clubs are prob annoyed enough about the lenght of it.

Hosting both together makes sense, midweek and weekend games.

To decide who goes into which could be arranged through qualifiers in the years before, with there being automatic places as well.

I proposed that the top sixteen rankers get qualified for the RWC PLUS the next sixteen seeds get to play a seeded knock-out in a Tier 1 nation.

The best of the worst will get the 'experience'.

And the best of the rest of the worst will get a gong.

The World Cup is currently 7 weeks long running from the 9th of September to 23rd of October.
If you used the 8 pools of 4 teams, football system then the cup would need to be 7 weeks long, so there is no reason why the football version could not work, it could also eliminate the 4 day turnaround for tier B nations because pools would only be 3 games long not 4.

Though I would presonaly eliminate the 3rd/4th place play off as I think it's pointless.


A
1 New Zealand
2 Italy
3 Romania
4 Uruguay

B
1 Scotland
2 Argentina
3 Namibia
4 Paupa New Guinea

C
1 Australia
2 Samoa
3 Georgia
4 Hong Kong

D
1 Wales
2 Fiji
3 Morocco
4 Tunisia

E
1 South Africa
2 Tonga
3 Russia
4 Portugal

F
1 Ireland
2 Japan
3 Chile
4 Kazakhstan

G
1 France
2 Canada
3 Cook Islands
4 Spain

H
1 England
2 Usa
3 United Arab Emrites
4 Zimbabwe

AlynDavies wrote:The World Cup is currently 7 weeks long running from the 9th of September to 23rd of October.
If you used the 8 pools of 4 teams, football system then the cup would need to be 7 weeks long, so there is no reason why the football version could not work, it could also eliminate the 4 day turnaround for tier B nations because pools would only be 3 games long not 4.

Though I would presonaly eliminate the 3rd/4th place play off as I think it's pointless.

Still you confuse RU and footy as being in any way equal commercially.

A 32 team group stage would almost guarantee at best a selective TV coverage in the group stages.

My opinion is that a 16 side RWC would draw in more media competitors,

Hell fire BBC R5 couldn't be arsed to compete with the Poopie TalkSport to get radio coverage.

In the big scheme of things rugby is way down the list of commercial/media imperatives.

Portnoy

You rightly say that rugby is way down the list of commercial/media imperatives, so how would a competition involving no teams going to the RWC generate any interest in fans or media?

It's the same with a plate competition for the losers at the RWC. Who wants to see it or more importantly spend any money to see it, when there are plenty of 'real' games available.

Having 8 prelim groups hosted by different countries means there would only be six games to sell per country, half of which involve the home nation, possibly two more involving a T1 team and therefore only one game that might lack appeal in that country.

I don't see why someone like ROG needs two years to think about playing Australia. It implies that the other tests in the interim are devalued compared to a single RWC POOL game. Teams can change plans at short notice as has been shown after Christchurch, but they don't need to anyway as the winner of pool A would be in Aukland, B in Dunedin, C in Rotorua etc. If a team wants the security of playing in a certain stadium they can earn that right by winning their pool. Most of them move all over the country now anyway so what's the difference?

As for the red top media - who cares? Will they do anything to edify the sport or are they determined to drag it down to the level of soccer? Their woeful reporting wouldn't be missed.

Alyn Davies,I don`t know about automatically qualifying,BUT Argentina and SAMOA.would be first sides outside of 3Ns and 6Ns if restricted to 16sides.
Fiji,Canada,Tonga,USA and Japan would make up the rest.
Namibia,Georgia,Romania,and Rusia would probably the discarded

I think all teams other than the hosts should have to qualify. That way the small nations would get more experience against bigger nations.

QUESTION - How many days rest do rugby players need between games?

i dont like plates, there are meaningless.

its all about spreading rugby and getting other nations up to a competitive level.

so alot of help is needed in alot of countries.

so from my point of view- its not about adding more teams to the RWC(untill they are good enough), but its creating more tournaments-

the 6n's and 3n's are closed shops.

european,afrrican ,asiansouth american championships (or group some continents together)should be played on even years instead of the 6n's and 3n's. keep the old formula every other year if needed.

Its a long process but the world could be playing rugby if the right measures are taken

Mystic

A plate tournament could be made meaningful if it has a reward at the end of it, whther this is financial (would certainly help Romania or many of the PI teams) or qualification for the next RWC.

Obviously, having 5 teams per group doesn't work well, and extending this to 6 teams would lengthen the tournament by a week and simply lead to a greater number of mis-matches.

My suggestion:
Top 12 ranked teams qualify by right, taking 3 places in 4 groups
Teams 13-16 have to play a one-off qualifying match the week before the tournament proper against 4 teams qualifying from Euro, Africa, Oceania/Pacific and American qualification tournaments.

Winners of the qualifying match make up the 4th team in each group.

Losers of the qualifying match form a 5th group competing for a shield / plate / whatever - guarantees them 4 matches (qualifier plus 3 group matches) at a competetive level. Could be played as curtain raisers to the group matches, so giving the players an opportunity to play in good stadia and with significant crowds. Winners of the shield get automatically seeded 13th for the next tournament, to increase their chance of making the main draw of the following tournament.

My suggestion

Give the ABs the cup to keep as they won't be playing in any more RWC apparently due to lack of opportunity to cash in...clearly their plan is to win it this time and never return it!!

sportsville wrote:I think all teams other than the hosts should have to qualify. That way the small nations would get more experience against bigger nations.

QUESTION - How many days rest do rugby players need between games?

I'd say 5 or 6. If I was a competition organiser (for something like the Heineken Cup or the Aviva Premiership) I'd be reluctant to make a team play on a Sunday one week and a Friday the next.

There was some talk elsewhere of a 2 tier 4Ns or 6 Ns if this included promotion/relegation and counting towards RWC that might help.
Does the European Rugby Council or whatever it used to be called still exist
back in the Amateur days.
France especially played Rumania[Romania]now Spain, Italy,Portugal etc.

emack2 wrote:There was some talk elsewhere of a 2 tier 4Ns or 6 Ns if this included promotion/relegation and counting towards RWC that might help.
Does the European Rugby Council or whatever it used to be called still exist
back in the Amateur days.
France especially played Rumania[Romania]now Spain, Italy,Portugal etc.

http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/

Thank you Portnoy,doubt it is the same one that involved International matches

France used to play in both the 5 Nations and the European Nations Cup.

The European Nations Cup still exists and includes pretty much every European Nation not involved with the Six Nations. It has a home-and-away divisional structure, with promotion and relegation between the divisions. The top few divisions all have 6 teams (similar to the Six Nations) providing 10 games, played over 2 seasons. The current tournament is the 2010-12 tournament, Georgia currently sit top of Division 1A after 5 games, with Romania, Portugal, Russia, Spain and Ukraine making up the division. The 2010-12 ENC will not be used to determine World Cup 2015 Qualification, so I assume the 12-14 tournament will be.

Ok I thought about it a bit more how it could work and here is the best I can come up with:

Seeding:
Pot 1
4 Nations - New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Argentina - Pools A,C,E,G
6 Nations, top 4 teams - England, France, Ireland, Wales - Pools B,D,F,H

Pot 2
6 Nations (bottom 2 teams) + 6 nations B (top 2 teams) - Scotland, Italy, Georgia, Romania - Pools A,C,E,G
Pacific Nations Cup teams - Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Japan - Pools B,D,F,H

Pot 3
Top 4 Americas teams - Canada, Usa, Uruguay, Chile - Pools A,C,E,G
6 Nations B (bottom 4 teams) - Portugal, Russia, Spain, Ukraine - Pools B,D,F,H

Pot 4
Asian 5 Nations teams - Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, UAE, Sri Lanka - Pools A,C,E,G
Top 4 African Teams - Namibia, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Tunisia - Pools B,D,F,H


Thoretical Pool Layout:
Pool A
1 New Zealand
2 Scotland
3 Canada
4 Hong Kong

Pool B
1 England
2 Samoa
3 Portugal
4 Namibia

Pool C
1 South Africa
2 Italy
3 USA
4 Kazakhstan

Pool D
1 France
2 Fiji
3 Russia
4 Zimbabwe

Pool E
1 Australia
2 Georgia
3 Uruguay
4 UAE

Pool F
1 Ireland
2 Tonga
3 Spain
4 Ivory Coast

Pool G
1 Argentina
2 Romania
3 Chile
4 Sri Lanka

Pool H
1 Wales
2 Japan
3 Ukraine
4 Tunisia

After the pools the teams will be placed in 4 different competition, based on their final pool standings.

Rugby World Cup - Top placing of each pool, quarter finals:
New Zealand (Pool A Winner) Vs England (Pool B Winner)
South Africa (Pool C Winner) Vs France (Pool D Winner)
Australia (Pool E Winner) Vs Ireland (Pool F Winner)
Argentina (Pool G Winner) Vs Wales (Pool H Winner)

Rugby World Shield - Second placed teams in each pool, quarter finals:
Scotland (Pool A Runner-up) Vs Samoa (Pool B Runner-up)
Italy (Pool C Runner-up) Vs Fiji (Pool D Runner-up)
Georgia (Pool E Runner-up) Vs Tonga (Pool F Runner-up)
Romania (Pool G Runner-up) Vs Japan (Pool H Runner-up)

Rugby World Cup Plate - Third placed teams in each pool, quarter finals:
Canada (Pool A Third Place) Vs Portugal (Pool B Third Place)
USA (Pool C Third Place) Vs Russia (Pool D Third Place)
Uruguay (Pool E Third Place) Vs Spain (Pool F Third Place)
Chile (Pool G Third Place) Vs Ukraine (Pool H Third Place)

Rugby World Cup Bowl Fourth placed teams in each pool, quarter finals:
Hong Kong (Pool A Fourth Place) Vs Namibia (Pool B Fourth Place)
Kazakhstan (Pool C Fourth Place) Vs Zimbabwe (Pool D Fourth Place)
UAE (Pool E Fourth Place) Vs Ivory Coast (Pool F Fourth Place)
Sri Lanka (Pool G Fourth Place) Vs Tunisia (Pool H Fourth Place)

Basically even if the lower teams do take a tonking in the pool stages they always have the potential of winning a trophy at the end.

The beauty of this tournament, is despite it's size can ALL take place over 6 weeks not 7, so it is actually SMALLER than the existing format!

Like it where do i sign.

Have long advocated a second comp within RWC along the lines of the Sevens.

Problem is Alan that logisitically that is a huge nightmare for the host so the costs will go through the roof.

Any change in the format needs to be accompanied by a change in the way home unions can profit from it