World Cup seeding (2019 onwards)

Disclaimer: I understand that with England falling to 5th in the latest IRB World Rankings, this article from an England fan might seem a little conveniently timed. But the seeding system for 2015 has been decided and will be based on IRB rankings at the start of December this year. I have no problem with this and no desire to see that changed for the upcoming tournament - those are the rules and everyone knows them. Saying that:

In association football, the host Nation takes a top seed position. In Rugby, this hasn't really been an issue, as the World Cup has always been hosted by one of the historic top 8 nations in the World, who would expect to qualify for the quarter-finals regardless of what pool they're drawn.

However, with the Rugby World Cup soon to be hosted in non-traditional rugby nations (starting in 2019 with Japan), should the IRB offer the host nation a guaranteed top seed spot from 2019 onwards? The argument for is the tournament holds the local interest better if the host doesn't get pumped in the group stages, while the argument again is that the seeding hasn't been achieved by merit.

I'm against seeding in general (I'd much prefer to see no seeds, or more realistically 4 seeded and 16 unseeded teams), but I think if we are to have seedings then the host should get one and would like to see the IRB implement a change for 2019.

What does everyone else think?

Well someone is going to be pretty unhappy if they end up in a pool with three strong nations.

also, if the game was to be taken to a country who is not expected to qualify for the World Cup (e.g. China) should that country be given automatic qualification?
I don't really see any country like that be given hosting rights so this problem probably won't eventuate.





I don't mind if the host country gets top seeding or not. It could turn the tournament on its head and allow a lesser nation to squeak into the quarters or beyond. It would be great to watch, unless you're from the nation that misses out

I have always been against seedings on principle,BUT see the need for PR reasons.In the event of a non tier one side being the host country of course they are Automatically Qualified.BUT to have them seeded IF they were maybe
12 or 14 in the rankings it would look pretty silly.If the Draw was TODAY it would be NZ ,SA,Aus,and Argentina.!!!!France frankly unless they try in ALL there matches unlike 2007 and 2011 doing just enough to qualify for KO stages.Should NEVER be seeded.

robbo277 wrote:
I'm against seeding in general (I'd much prefer to see no seeds, or more realistically 4 seeded and 16 unseeded teams), but I think if we are to have seedings then the host should get one and would like to see the IRB implement a change for 2019.

What does everyone else think?

I think it's as much a grand excuse for a party as anything else I've heard but not in the slightest bit fair. Home advantage is enough of a non-merit seeding for any side. You might as well say give the host side an automatic quarter-final spot. 'Oh no' people would say, 'we're not suggesting giving them an crass advantage - top seeds still have to fight through their pool'. Of course they do so why should they get pool preferences? 'Oh, to give them an advantage, see.'

Seeding in any knock out tournament is vital.

It is the same principal as tennis, you can't have the two est tennis players meet each other in the quarter final, simply because if one is knocked out the other has little or no opposition left and by the timehe has gotten to the final he is likely to play against some unknown and interest will have wained.

In any sport the idea of seedings has only one purpose.

Put the top two teams on opposite sides of thegraph, and by seeind they will meet in the final, unless upset by someone in previous rounds.

In my view there should be two world cup tournamnets with two different strucutres, one as it is now, and the other a mini world cup where the top teams are invited and they play a single round robin hosted in one country and the log leader takes the spoils, no knockouts, no seedings or anything is required, you front up against all teams and if you win the most matches you win.
Besides that wil also give you the exact seedings for the actual RWC tournament.

Imagine in a four year cycle you have the RWC Cup trophy, and the RWC League trophy, there will be no place t hide.

I would pin more weight on the League winner than the cup winner as they had to play all the teams. And another nice tournament hosted by one of the teams. Should bring in a truckload of money.

But surely, if the hosts, say, Japan, were given top seeding in their group it would be irrelevant who they were drawn with, because they'd get pumped anyway?

Well if they get top seeds, then the rest move down one.

So,

1. Japan
2. NZ
3. OZ
4. SA
5. WAL
6. ENG
7. ARG
8. FRA
9. IRE
10. SCO
So looking at Ireland and Scotland one of them might be lucky to draw the pool with Japan as top seed, the other will play two of the top nations and there for have a much more difficult taak to qualify.

biltongbek wrote:Seeding in any knock out tournament is vital.

It is the same principal as tennis, you can't have the two est tennis players meet each other in the quarter final, simply because if one is knocked out the other has little or no opposition left and by the timehe has gotten to the final he is likely to play against some unknown and interest will have wained.

In any sport the idea of seedings has only one purpose.

Put the top two teams on opposite sides of thegraph, and by seeind they will meet in the final, unless upset by someone in previous rounds.

In my view there should be two world cup tournamnets with two different strucutres, one as it is now, and the other a mini world cup where the top teams are invited and they play a single round robin hosted in one country and the log leader takes the spoils, no knockouts, no seedings or anything is required, you front up against all teams and if you win the most matches you win.
Besides that wil also give you the exact seedings for the actual RWC tournament.

Imagine in a four year cycle you have the RWC Cup trophy, and the RWC League trophy, there will be no place t hide.

I would pin more weight on the League winner than the cup winner as they had to play all the teams. And another nice tournament hosted by one of the teams. Should bring in a truckload of money.

Ireland upset the seedings in the World Cup last time in a dramatic fashion...and what did we get? A real tournament of excitement, nerves and upsets. Seedings when they work as they're intended to (and as you describe) can be the ritual procession of boredom in my opinion. Do we REALLY want to see the two 'best' tennis players slog it out one more time, with their familiar grunts and familiar banana peeling habits? Or do we want surprise and drama? An Australian New Zealand final might have been a good game of a certain style but it wouldn't have had the drama of the one that transpired. Seeding systems should be careful before pronouncing what 'people' want. Sponsors will want and TV companies will want but people (fans)... they don't really know what they want, until it happens.

So you won't mind if pools work out like this due to no seedings.

Pool 1
SA
NZ
ENG
IRE

Pool 2
WAL
FRA
SCO
ARG

Pool 3

SAM
FIJ
JAP
CAN

Pool 4
USA
TONGA
ITA
GEORGIA

biltongbek wrote:So you won't mind if pools work out like this due to no seedings.

Pool 1
SA
NZ
ENG
IRE

Pool 2
WAL
FRA
SCO
ARG

Pool 3

SAM
FIJ
JAP
CAN

Pool 4
USA
TONGA
ITA
GEORGIA

If that's how it turns out, that's how I wouldn't mind it. I don't care about them (pools) and I'm not overly concerned that they exist either. I just don't look at rugby for the bookwork, biltong. And no, that's not a stab at anyone. We all have different views and different reasons why we love rugby or any sport we might watch. But for me... playing three other sides in any pool competition is just that - one game at a time and I don't care who they are.

If the top seed happens to be knocked into a pool with other top seeds well tough...fight your way out of it if you think you're good enough. The real competition starts when you get off the plane, in other words - not a few weeks in when you've offloaded your cobwebs onto the cannon fodder teams. I just don't psychologically feel the threat of pools. If Ireland gets Australia, New Zealand and Wales...so be it...game on. Exciting adventure. Winner takes all. I just don't worry about how pools are organised - ever.

Pool 2
WAL
FRA
SCO
ARG

I'd take that pool (depending on ref...)

You've got to have seedlings, it'd be rediculous not to.

Biltong, have oz thrown the towel in?

What would it look like with Japan seeded, probably not a biggie is it?

EBOP wrote:You've got to have seedlings, it'd be rediculous not to.

Well they themselves are kinda ridiculous, for a team like Samoa and others. Not only are you coughing against big name brick walls in every game... not only don't you have the same resources to readily choose and drop players, you do all of it with the one arm behind your back in the guise of more frequent games. Seedings are not necessary, they're expedient for the standard bearers. An all over blind lottery would on average be just as likely to throw minnows in with sharks and allow sharks to avoid each other in the early rounds (all by the law of averages) with the only difference being that it would be fairer.
It's not going to happen and I'm not agruing for the ending of seedings...but neither would I ever use the word 'necessary' when discussing them.

EBOP, knew I forgot someone.

I do beleive there must be seedings, isn't that the benefit of being a top nation?

SecretFly wrote:

EBOP wrote:You've got to have seedlings, it'd be rediculous not to.

Well they themselves are kinda ridiculous, for a team like Samoa and others. Not only are you coughing against big name brick walls in every game... not only don't you have the same resources to readily choose and drop players, you do all of it with the one arm behind your back in the guise of more frequent games. Seedings are not necessary, they're expedient for the standard bearers. An all over blind lottery would on average be just as likely to throw minnows in with sharks and allow sharks to avoid each other in the early rounds (all by the law of averages) with the only difference being that it would be fairer.
It's not going to happen and I'm not agruing for the ending of seedings...but neither would I ever use the word 'necessary' when discussing them.

Fly with all due respect mate.

This is the world cup, it is like Wimbledon, it isn't there to do any favours to lower ranked countries, I know it sounds harsh, but it is there for the best teams to go through to the knock out rounds, that is where the money is, you think the broadcasters will pay the same money for a QF between Samoa and Japan as they will for SA vs OZ?

Being a top nation IS the benefit...money, sponsorship, reputation, feeling good. Competition itself though, should be fair. If it's just a fiction and movie set whereby the top sides do the harlem globetrotter stuff on the minnows then just call it that - a circus

biltongbek wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

EBOP wrote:You've got to have seedlings, it'd be rediculous not to.

Well they themselves are kinda ridiculous, for a team like Samoa and others. Not only are you coughing against big name brick walls in every game... not only don't you have the same resources to readily choose and drop players, you do all of it with the one arm behind your back in the guise of more frequent games. Seedings are not necessary, they're expedient for the standard bearers. An all over blind lottery would on average be just as likely to throw minnows in with sharks and allow sharks to avoid each other in the early rounds (all by the law of averages) with the only difference being that it would be fairer.
It's not going to happen and I'm not agruing for the ending of seedings...but neither would I ever use the word 'necessary' when discussing them.

Fly with all due respect mate.

This is the world cup, it is like Wimbledon, it isn't there to do any favours to lower ranked countries, I know it sounds harsh, but it is there for the best teams to go through to the knock out rounds, that is where the money is, you think the broadcasters will pay the same money for a QF between Samoa and Japan as they will for SA vs OZ?

I'm not trying to change the format and neither do I watch tennis (since McEnroe's and Borg's time when I was truly into it) but neither in a discussion am I going to go along with the flow and pretend it's anything but a showpiece for the 'top' sides and a slave trade for the lower ones who are allowed in to fill up the guest appearances list and nothing else. I'm not dead against the idea but I will call a spade a spade and that's all I'm doing here.

SecretFly wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

EBOP wrote:You've got to have seedlings, it'd be rediculous not to.

Well they themselves are kinda ridiculous, for a team like Samoa and others. Not only are you coughing against big name brick walls in every game... not only don't you have the same resources to readily choose and drop players, you do all of it with the one arm behind your back in the guise of more frequent games. Seedings are not necessary, they're expedient for the standard bearers. An all over blind lottery would on average be just as likely to throw minnows in with sharks and allow sharks to avoid each other in the early rounds (all by the law of averages) with the only difference being that it would be fairer.
It's not going to happen and I'm not agruing for the ending of seedings...but neither would I ever use the word 'necessary' when discussing them.

Fly with all due respect mate.

This is the world cup, it is like Wimbledon, it isn't there to do any favours to lower ranked countries, I know it sounds harsh, but it is there for the best teams to go through to the knock out rounds, that is where the money is, you think the broadcasters will pay the same money for a QF between Samoa and Japan as they will for SA vs OZ?

I'm not trying to change the format and neither do I watch tennis (since McEnroe's and Borg's time when I was truly into it) but neither in a discussion am I going to go along with the flow and pretend it's anything but a showpiece for the 'top' sides and a slave trade for the lower ones who are allowed in to fill up the guest appearances list and nothing else. I'm not dead against the idea but I will call a spade a spade and that's all I'm doing here.

I also no longer watch tennis for the same reason.

Yes you could call it a spade, but commercial professional sport is about getting the best to compete at the end of the tournament, the fans, broadcasters everyone demands that the finals must be tense and competitive affairs.

FIFA world cup works exactly the same way.

Personally I'd love NZ to be in that pool Biltong. It doesn't have France in it and instead of having Portugal, Italy and Scotland in our group for example we'd be in much better shape for the quarter finals with the group you mention than the group we had in 2007 for example. Playing the best brings out the best in you as we find only too often against France. Instead of spreading the seedings around we should be spreading our seed around. A world in union and a sticky goo. (That's not a ghost it's a sperm). And I mean the fans not the players. And I mean precisely the female fans. Oh forget it, I'll get me coat. (that's a coat, not a coke).

Kia, if you have one pool with SA, NA, ENG, SAMOA, you will be carrying injuries to the extreme by the time you get to knock out rounds.

And your point is mate... Sounds a dreamy prospect to me. Why not put France in that group too.

Speaking of tennis didn't the grand slams tournaments used to operate a 'challenge' system whereby the defending champion automaticallly qualified for the next final. Now that's a (nearly) closed shop.

In general I think seeding is required to give the tournament some proper structure. You could get some really unbalanced groupings if you just took everybody from one pot. Perhaps fairer though. Having said that, nations play ranking games between the tournament and why shouldn't they be rewarded for doing well. Sport should be inclusive and fair, but at the end of the day it's all about who is best.

sugarNspikes wrote: Nations play ranking games between the tournament and why shouldn't they be rewarded for doing well. Sport should be inclusive and fair, but at the end of the day it's all about who is best.

I'm only doing a devil's advocate on this and I'm not being stroppy just pointing out the continuing faults. You say sport 'should be' inclusive and fair but then you admit that at the end of the day - it ain't.

Fair point and a true one because 'best' gets to be best how? Yes, by 'ranking games'. You get rewarded with high ranking points by beating high ranked sides. But you can only put yourself in the position of beating those sides by actually playing them in the first place. Now, how often does Russia get to play against Australia? How often does Japan get to play ABs? How often does the USA play SA? Reward for going up in the ranks is World Cup seedings but the higher ranking games are closed off from the steerage passengers

Speaking of tennis was`nt it a joke when Wimbledon claimed to be THE best Tournament in the world.When Pancho Gonzales was THE Worlds best and was barred.Woman from UK winning the title when the REAL Champs were barred.My whole gripe with the RWC is it purports to be a knock out tournament,A TRUE Tournament has no seedings.IF all The top seeds were in the same group TOUGH.That would mean the lesser sides had a real chance would`nt it?The odds on the 4 top sides being drawn by lot in the same group would be astronomical.The knowing what you have do from day one[barring a surprise result] also diminishs it for me.I KNOW the reasoning BUT it would be nice to know that IF you get out of your group.That you would meet a team again drawn by lot which would make it less cut and dried.

emack2 wrote:Speaking of tennis was`nt it a joke when Wimbledon claimed to be THE best Tournament in the world.When Pancho Gonzales was THE Worlds best and was barred.Woman from UK winning the title when the REAL Champs were barred.My whole gripe with the RWC is it purports to be a knock out tournament,A TRUE Tournament has no seedings.IF all The top seeds were in the same group TOUGH.That would mean the lesser sides had a real chance would`nt it?The odds on the 4 top sides being drawn by lot in the same group would be astronomical.The knowing what you have do from day one[barring a surprise result] also diminishs it for me.I KNOW the reasoning BUT it would be nice to know that IF you get out of your group.That you would meet a team again drawn by lot which would make it less cut and dried.

At last, someone agrees. I don't feel so alone now!!! And the point about the astromical odds on all top seeds falling into the one pool was one I was going to make but I thought it best to leave the argument there. Thanks for mentioning it.

I agree with you too fly! I don't see why the top teams should have an easier route to the knock out rounds, the current system is in many ways quite predictable, look at the 'shock' when Ireland beat Oz and so effectively changed the whole layout of the knockout stages. Everything else went to plan so to speak.

On the original point, making Japan a no.1 seed wouldn't make a huge amount of difference would it? Maybe they would beat the lower ranked team in the group but thats about it?

guys, it is not about getting an easier route to the final. It is about elminating the toughest competition if there is no seeding.

You can't have one weak as mud pool, and one strong as iron pool.

There is no logic in it.

biltongbek wrote:guys, it is not about getting an easier route to the final. It is about elminating the toughest competition if there is no seeding.

You can't have one weak as mud pool, and one strong as iron pool.

There is no logic in it.

Why is there no logic, biltong? Because we think the weak as mud pool won't be of sufficient quality to interest the audience? Well, they will interest the followers of the sides in it, they will interest expats all over the world of the sides that are in it.

Plus, is two weak sides playing each other always a bad visual game? No, not so - it can be very exciting stuff as the defences are usually poorer and the gung-ho can often be infectuous. Every parent that has children playing in school teams knows how 'into' it they get when they go watch games. Competitiveness is proportional. The weak sides would be heavily competitive with each other.

Then! Then, when one of two of them make it into the quarters - then the really interesting bit unfolds. Will the mud pool team really be the innocent thrown to the lion or will they surprise people and throw the WC on its head and increase the drama? If they do, the WC hits new heights of interest in areas where it doesn't now reach. If they don't and collapse, then all is right with the professional world and one or two top sides will go on and compete for the title, just as planned.

Where is the lack of logic in that scenario?

I see no real need to accomodate the host nation into a top seed position. They already have the advantage of playing all of their games at home. The top-seeded sides have always earned their statuses through hard work, playing well and winning on a fairly regular basis. The hosts have bidded for and won the right to stage the event.

Having said that I'm with you on seeding, not so much that I don't believe in it but I don't necessarily think it should affect the draw. You can't get more fair than drawing everyone at random without allowing general ratings to organise the competition in the stronger's favour.

biltongbek wrote:So you won't mind if pools work out like this due to no seedings.

Pool 1
SA
NZ
ENG
IRE

Pool 2
WAL
FRA
SCO
ARG

Pool 3

SAM
FIJ
JAP
CAN

Pool 4
USA
TONGA
ITA
GEORGIA

Using the format (ie A1 Vs B2 etc) and finish (whoever got furthest in the World Cup gets the win) from the last World Cup:

Q1: A1 (New Zealand) Vs B2 (Wales)
Q2: B1 (France) Vs A2 (South Africa)
Q3: C1 (Samoa) Vs D2 (Georgia/Tonga)
Q4: D1 (Italy) Vs C2 (Fiji)

S1: Q1 (New Zealand) Vs Q4 (Italy)
S2: Q2 (France) Vs Q3 (Samoa)

F: S1 (New Zealand) Vs S2 (France)

You'd get the same final. Even in this highly unlikely scenario. Obviously England/Ireland could cause a shock in Pool A, Argentina/Scotland could in Pool B, Australia would have to come into it somewhere, either South Africa or Samoa could beat France etc, but the best teams will still make it through, just with a couple of newer faces in the knock-out stages.

robbo277 wrote:

biltongbek wrote:So you won't mind if pools work out like this due to no seedings.

Pool 1
SA
NZ
ENG
IRE

Pool 2
WAL
FRA
SCO
ARG

Pool 3

SAM
FIJ
JAP
CAN

Pool 4
USA
TONGA
ITA
GEORGIA

Using the format (ie A1 Vs B2 etc) and finish (whoever got furthest in the World Cup gets the win) from the last World Cup:

Q1: A1 (New Zealand) Vs B2 (Wales)
Q2: B1 (France) Vs A2 (South Africa)
Q3: C1 (Samoa) Vs D2 (Georgia/Tonga)
Q4: D1 (Italy) Vs C2 (Fiji)

S1: Q1 (New Zealand) Vs Q4 (Italy)
S2: Q2 (France) Vs Q3 (Samoa)

F: S1 (New Zealand) Vs S2 (France)

You'd get the same final. Even in this highly unlikely scenario. Obviously England/Ireland could cause a shock in Pool A, Argentina/Scotland could in Pool B, Australia would have to come into it somewhere, either South Africa or Samoa could beat France etc, but the best teams will still make it through, just with a couple of newer faces in the knock-out stages.

Except Wales would win pool 2 so would play SA in the quarters so SA would go through to the final, whilst the French could easily beat the all blacks at a RWC so you could end up with a SA v France final. or if wales pulled off a shock win over the boks a wales france final. or if NZ beat France and NZ v Wales final, it would make the semis pretty meaningless and only a couple of the quarters would be big games.

i dont understand whats wrong with the seedings? If teams want to be top seeds if very simple ,be in the top four when the time to seed comes .Its not rocket science and im sur the good folks at the IRB know it would be bad for business to have 3 of the 5 top ranked teams in the same group. It can never work out .Its as simple as that

Right,these are my thoughts NOT just on seedings but on the RWC and Lions tours.Firstly the Seedings should be done in THE RWC year NOT 4 years in advance.The Qualifying remaining as now,THERE should be no Tournament finishing 14 days before a RWC.IF there is a 4Ns/6Ns in the same year[ to my mind there should`nt be].Then it contested by FULL STRENGTH sides NOT hiding players to save them for a RWC.In the case of the Lions the intinery should be on traditional grounds.That is provincial and test Matches interspersed ALSO test players of the home Nations should appear in there provincial matches as of yore.NOT hidden to save them being injured,while the Lions side are being weakened by injuries.It`s called Ethics,NOT stacking the decks,also at least in the case of tier one sides.They should be trying to win every match in an RWC
NOT like France in 2007 and 2011 when they did just enough to qualify.IF France v Tonga 2011 had been a horse race there would have been a stewards inquiry.

Seedings need to be done earlier for practical reasons.
Its not enough time in the year of the cup to find out who will be based where, for accommodation for the teams and visiting fans, ticket sales- which occur a year prior to the tournament etc the arrangements of which need to be done at least 2 years in advance.

So the tournament is stuck with that.

Seedings are a must for most tournaments for two reasons.

One is to maximise profits. A non seeded draw for example at Wimledon could see Nadal, Federer and Djokovich all meeting each other first two rounds. Wheres the revenue in that with 2 out of the 3 out on day 3 of the tournament. Extend that scenario to rugby and you have the same thing.

For the participants, winning a tournament requires players to build towards a final. they're unlikely to play their best in the first round but as they've proven are good enough to make a final. So to avoid a hard draw a player needs to build his ranking up to avoid the top seeds earlier. So their earlier 'efforst' are rewarded at the tournament.

Using the tennis example you could have the 100th ranked player get to Wimbledons final without beating a player ranked above 80. Then meets Nadal and is smashed off the court 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 without winning a point.

Then everyone one will cry...what a mismatch...how did that happen...who wants to watch this junk.

Durrrrr!

Durrr indeed, anyone who thinks otherwise is well and truly barking up the wrong tree, IMO. Nothings stopping the low ranked teams from making the play off stages, they just need to beat ABs/SA/Oz/wales/Poms, etc in the pools. They don't historically, so havn't deserved to go further.

The idea of a RWC is that ANYONE can win it otherwise its pointless to compete.IF there has to be seeding the easiest way is the Semi-Finalists from
the previous RWC.Looking back i wondered when I became disenchanted with the RWC.Probably after 2003 before then Players from SH seeking a Pension in NH or Japan were at the end of there Test Careers.ALL the SANZAR countries only selected Home based players.Up until the end of 2006 the 3Ns was contested by Full Strength sides more or less.Since then it has become an after thought in RWC years.I wonder when Jake White decided to concede the 3Ns in 2007 before or AFTER he had lost at Home to the AllBlacks.I also wonder what the fans would have thought of there coaching teams.IF they had failed to deliver the RWC in2007 and 2011 respectively.I originally loved the idea of the RWC now I hate what it has become.

EBOP wrote:Durrr indeed, anyone who thinks otherwise is well and truly barking up the wrong tree, IMO. Nothings stopping the low ranked teams from making the play off stages, they just need to beat ABs/SA/Oz/wales/Poms, etc in the pools. They don't historically, so havn't deserved to go further.

Exactly.

If you look at it with a logical head, having no seeding system whatsoever means you can have on one 'side of the draw' the top 10 nations and on the other side the bottom 10. The final would then be between the top nation (who disposed of no.2 through 10 earlier in the tournament) and the 11th nation.

At the moment that would be NZ v Scotland, which whilst that doesn't sound too bad, even Scotland who probably deserve more of a rank of 10 or 9 anyway, would get spanked off the park about 50 point to 10. In a final. No thanks.

In a seeded system, you see, if the final *was* NZ v Scotland, Scotland will have presumably beat at least the likes of Wales, SA, Argentina, something like that, to get there, and would be more eligible to put up a fight.

With a seeded system you get drama anyway, because things never go to the book.

Someone mentioned "well Russia never get to play Australia so their ranking can never go up" - oh come on. Russia don't put as many resources into the rugby, for as long as Australia have - when that comes about Russia will start getting results against Romania, Georgia, Italy, Scotland, Wales, France ... then they can play Australia and climb the rankings organically, like every other team does. Your problem is with expanding the game, not a seeding system, which is designed to build up the tension as the tournament progresses. When the tournament starts there's matches everywhere so not all matches have to be glorious fests. When the SF round comes about there's of course less to see, so you want those matches to be quality, not New Zealand spanking Scotland 40-0 which let's be honest is a match for the pool stages.

Taylorman wrote:Seedings need to be done earlier for practical reasons.
Its not enough time in the year of the cup to find out who will be based where, for accommodation for the teams and visiting fans, ticket sales- which occur a year prior to the tournament etc the arrangements of which need to be done at least 2 years in advance.

So the tournament is stuck with that.

How do the FIFA World Cup and UEFA Euro Championship manage to hold there draws only Six months out from the main tournament? All there teams manage to find accommodation etc. Teams particularly in the FIFA World cup are making much the same trips as those in the Rugby World Cup.

Also if the draw is made so early to allow the participants plan ahead, why make it before all the qualifiers are actually known?

Seeding’s are here to stay (I would prefer only the top 4 be seeded) and the World Rankings are to be used to determine them, then making them 2 years before the competition starts is unfair. With the difference between 4th/5th, 8th/9th and 12/13th so crucial teams should be given to the last possible chance to find their place in the rankings. After the last World Cup draw, Scotland spent a lot of the next year or so inside the top 8, yet even if they had reached 4th with a Grand Slam win, would have been 3rd seeds based on their ranking a YEAR previously.

Obviously there has to be a cut-off point and one point and given the need for planning in advance, it should be at the conclusion of the AIs the year before the World Cup. Giving teams almost a year to plan their Accommodation and it would come at a time when almost all the World Cup participants are playing against each other, giving some real context to those fixtures also.

EBOP wrote:Durrr indeed, anyone who thinks otherwise is well and truly barking up the wrong tree, IMO. Nothings stopping the low ranked teams from making the play off stages, they just need to beat ABs/SA/Oz/wales/Poms, etc in the pools. They don't historically, so havn't deserved to go further.

If it ain't fair, don't change it. That's economics talking. Economics requires the Haves and the Have Nots.

No, don't change it (much too complicated to change things for now and I'd hate to see the complexity of the attempt that would assist low ranked sides become higher ranked by giving more opportunities to play high ranked sides in the interval years between WC! - or - to give them an equal play and break period throughout the competition itself )
So no, don't change it - but don't attempt to call it fair either.
As I said earlier, our Rugby WC is a club and aren't we all privileged to be part of such an exclusive one. And I'm really not against being part of it - but 'deserving' to be there is not part of the entry fee.

Was the orginal point that Japan should be a first seed to give them a shout but that the rest would be done as before. So the big 3 would still not be in the same group. I think that every host country should be first seed.

Hosting is a bonus - business wise, sponsorship, TV rights, tourism etc.
Home advantage is a bonus... sometimes not much of a one but a quantifiable one nevertheless in scientific terms.
I think saying hosts should also get a seeding bonus is stretching the bonuses a little too generously... afterall, the WC is not always going to be in Japan or Azerbaijan! Sometimes a higher ranked side will be host and they won't need such an automatic extra 'advantage' - and their visiting opponents won't need them having the extra 'advantage' either.

I place 'advantage' in quotation marks because I don't believe seedings or pools predict advantage - anything can happen in any pool in any given year - but that it's considered an 'advantage' given to a host country is again sliding too much away from the pretention of fairness.

When Japan host it will they lose a shed load of points as they will be at home and it will be double

At the moment Japan would lose points, dramatically, to the following teams:

Romania
Russia
Namibia
USA
Georgia
Fiji

These teams, though, Georgia and Fiji aside, they would be expected to beat, especially on home soil.

Would lose some points to:

Canada

Would lose only a few to:

Scotland
Samoa

And would lose no points to any other side. The IRB rankings are quite sensible - they won't unfairly punish Japan. They have home advantage , can't lose that many points to sides with way more points than them, and should deservedly lose a lot of points if they submit to a team such as Namibia in their back yard.