The Kia World Cup and Global Calendar

A World Cup is every four years. We know 2015 will be in England and 2019 will be in Japan. The IRB are not quite at the sophistication of FIFA in terms of their corruption so it's safe to assume 2023 will not be held in either Qatar or Russia.

There are calls to allow 24 teams to compete at the Rugby World Cup. I agree but with an important qualification (excuse the pun). The tournament should be divided into two groups of 12 teams. The top-ranked teams face off against one another in one group and 13 to 24 face off in the other group.

Going by current rankings that would mean the following:

Top-tier pools
Pool A NZ (1), Australia (3), Ireland (5), France (7), Samoa (9), Fiji (11)
Pool B SA (2), England (4), Wales (6), Scotland (8), Japan (10), Argentina (12)

2nd-tier Pools
Pool A Tonga (13), Georgia (15), Canada (17), Uruguay (19), Spain (21), Portugal (23)
Italy (14), Romania (16), USA (18), Russia (19), Namibia (21), Hong Kong (23)

Both tiers play the teams in their pool once. Pool A winner then plays 4th place Pool B, 2nd place Pool A vs 3rd place Pool B, 3rd place Pool A vs 2nd place Pool B, 4th place Pool A vs Winner Pool B.

Semi finals: Game A winner vs Game D winner Game B winner vs Game C winner
Finals from the winners of the semis.

2 teams are eliminated from each pool. They go through to compete for the Bowl final. In the knockout phases, 8 teams are knocked out before the final. They compete in the Plate final. The Bowl and Plate finals are played at different stadiums but before the scheduled kick off for the RWC final.

Of course, the question is how do you arrive at a fair system for deciding on a team's rankings? How can the second and third-tier teams ever hope to qualify for a tournament? We need a rugby calendar that better distributes ranking points. There are 102 ranked teams on the IRB rankings. I won't bother listing them all but they are distributed fairly evenly throughout the world. (http://www.irb.com/rankings/sportid=1/ranking/index.html Is it just me, or is Cyprus not on that list?)

There are certain tournaments that are taboo. Unions depend on them for revenue. I see no problem retaining the 6N, RC, Pacific Cup, South American RC, Africa Cup. But I'd do away with the June and November tours in their current form. Moreover, for every top-tier match, those respective teams are obliged to play a second-tier team and a third-tier team in their region. You might point out that currently the likes of Argentina and Italy or Tonga are second-tier teams but that just means you have to be careful what team you send.

It is at the discretion of the top-tier teams which teams they send to face the second and third-tier teams. NZ could send the NZ Maori or U20 teams to face Tonga or the Niue Islands. England could send the Saxons to play the likes of Georgia or Russia. Whichever team they send represents that union. If they send too weakened a team and lose, then so be it.

The teams need to be sorted into 3 regions: Europe and North America, Africa and South America, Oceania and Asia. The Regions play at rotated hosts and then the final tournament alternates between the different regions. Let's say Wales tours NZ for three matches in July. That means within that calendar year, they have to play three other matches at tiers below from their own region. Every four years in between the World Cup, there is a regional Supercup pitting the top-ranked teams from each region against one another. The rankings are decided from a pre-determined amount of games (let's say randomly 20) and that team's best run of results from those games against the same opposition. The rankings after the Winner of the regional cup (complete with Plate, Bowl formats) determine the seedings for the following RWC in two years time. Similar to the cricket rankings, the top-tier teams need to play all the other top-tier teams in a four-year cycle and subsequently an evenly numbered set of lower-ranked sides.

I'll use NZ as an example. 3 tests in June / July against Wales. 6 tests in RC. 3 tests in November. 12 matches they must play in their region. That means tests distributed against Tonga. Hong Kong, Korea, Cook Islands, Sri Lanka, Phillipines, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Thailand, Chinese Taiepi, China, Niue, Solomon Islands, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Tahiti, Guam, Vanuatu and Indonesia. Those they do not face in that year have to be played the following year.

Feel free to pick further holes in my Swiss-cheese idea but the problem with the current set up is that there are teams who are artificially propped up in the top tier and lower-ranked teams do not get enough meaningful competition or opportunities to progress up the rankings. I also don't like how we see too many games with the same opposition. Nations will lose revenue from not visiting their cash cows but that can be compensated by revenue generated from the regional tournaments in terms of ticket sales and broadcasting rights. We would also do away with this building for the World Cup mentality. Rankings mean a chance to play in lucrative regional tournaments which in turn give seedings to the RWC. Top tier teams will have to manage their resources but get the benefit of developing a larger pool of players. Lower ranked teams get opportunities to secure all-important ranking points and get exposure to more meaningful competition.

I think i prefer groups to be honest Kia:
Purely hypothetical teams for 2019

6 groups of 4.

Group 1
NZ
Scotland
Georgia
Zimbabwe

Group 2
South Africa
Ireland
Romania
Kenya

Group 3
Australia
Wales
Samoa
Germany

There are a few really good clashes the top tier sides....but also the lower tier sides like Zimbabwe, Germany etc can actually get games against 3 sides above them and get the valuable experience.

PLaying a round robin against similar teams is what they do near enough every year...they want the experience of playing the tops sides...or certainly sides better than them.

It also avoids the scenario that Georgia could stroll the group as they do the Euro nations....but then meet Wales in the next round and get beat...thus not playing any further games against stronger opposition.

Purely hypothetical they may be but Group 4 doesn't have any hypothetical sides!

The lower-ranked teams have experience of playing lower-ranked teams from the same region. My proposal is that they get exposure to top-ranked sides from the same region as well as lower-ranked teams and higher-ranked teams from other parts of the world at World Cup time if they qualify.

Not to rain on your parade Kia, but wouldn't Tier 2 just become a drain on tier 1? Less crowds, little interest, then instead of opening up the tournament they are ditched for a more elite style tournament.

Before we know it it's NZ, SA, Aus, France and England + a best of the rest team to play a championship style league system.

Just play 4 groups of 5 teams, and introduce bowl, sheild, and plate, competitiveness on the 7's circuit has become impressive.

GF The current World Cup format sees one pool of death and other pools of shoite.

Why not have some evenly matched pools that offer up a contest right from the outset? Your pools, albeit hypothetical mostly offer up one good game and the rest one-sided affairs that do neither side any good.

Neutralee, how do we know what tier-two sides have to offer when they are marginalised in regional matches with no hope of upward mobility. Kind of like the US and the lower socio-economic bracket. The American dream is drip-fed into their consciousness but they aren't given the same tools to achieve it.

But taking away their rare opportunities at playing against tier 1 nations isn't going to help them! What they need is more games against these nations, segregating them to a 2nd tier competition, of which noone will be interested in except for the handfull of traveling fans will do more harm than good! And will definately get phased out after a few unsuccesfull times.

Thats the beauty of the bowl/plate etc...

Lets take a random group...

Australia
Ireland
Fiji
Georgia

Georgia get 3 bites of the 3rd place cherry, 1 win puts them into the 3rd tier playoff instead of the 4th. Where in they play the likes of Argentina, Samoa or Japan.

If this doesn't happen they still play the likes of Tonga Italy or Romania, all of which are arguably stronger teams than themselves!

In 1 RWC instead of being thrashed 4 times and win by a canter they will have been thrashed at least twice, had a tough game, and gone through to play strong opposition, who have also gone 2:1 or 3:0. Georgia need to be exposed to top tier teams and they need the contest of tight affairs with similar quality teams they wouldn't necesarily get to play.

Kia

But the Tier 2 and lower teams do play teams from other areas.

Georgia v Canada
Zimbabwe (or Kenya) were scheduled to play Portugal before political disruption caused problems. Theyre still trying to reschedule in Portugal with IRb funding.

This AI Georgia will play all sorts but have 1 game against a tier 1 side - Ireland. It could br a cracker.

That is what they want...they play tier 2 sides all the time...the World Cup is the only chance they get 3 good games...and your suggestion could well take that away from them.

The ticketing for the top-tier tournament can mean you get tickets for the second-tier game. In the pool games they could even be at the same ground before the top-tier pool games.

They get games against the tier-one teams who are eliminated from the elite tournament. Moreover, I'm proposing matches against the top ranked nations outside the RWC, which hardly ever happens now.

Let's take your random group. Australia, Ireland, Fiji, Georgia. Georgia are likely to lose all those games and never play another game. In my proposed format, they get to face 4 sides from the top-tier tournament who are eliminated. Let's say Fiji, Samoa, Argentina and Scotland. Not only do they get to play those teams, they also face the top qualifiers of their own tournament and the eliminated teams from the second-tier group get to have more games as well.

Georgia would beat Fiji and run Ireland and Australia quite close....they have a monstrous pack and most of their team are France top 14 players.

Dont underestimate them. Likewise Romania are improving...there are several teams at the level now that they need to push on and be challenged not remain where they are.

The likes of Germany are coming through to take their spots in the Euro Nation leagues.

I'm not underestimating Georgia. Fiji played them in 2012 and won 24 19.

I think you're focusing on the RWC part of my proposal. In my global calendar proposal, there would be guaranteed games against top-tier sides every year. At the moment we are paying mere lip service to sides like Georgia. They have their own European cup and may play higher ranked teams outside of it here and there but really they don't get enough of these matches to prove themselves. I am of the opinion, teams like Georgia are capable of toppling top-ranked sides, especially if those sides don't send teams with enough to absorb what they have to throw at them, much like Wales did when Japan beat the side sent to tour there.

I'm advocating a set-up which sees more of these games between the different tiers and increasing the likelihood of the rankings being moved around. But until we have that kind of set up, we'll continue to marginalise those teams who deserve more of a chance and molly-coddle teams who perhaps are not worthy of their tier-one status.

Or to put it another way, what you think of a second-tier team now is not necessarily what might still be a second-tier team under my proposal.

We could have a RWC top-tier of NZ, SA, England, Australia, France, Ireland, Georgia, Samoa, Canada, Japan, Fiji, Argentina.

Before Welsh fans jump down my throat, that was just a hypothetical example to see how there could be movers and shakers entering the top tier and some surprises in the second tier. Isolated games here and there cannot be suggested as meaningful opportunities for upward movement. Sevens teams like Kenya who nobody gave the light of day before or knew they even played rugby have shown what can happen when teams are exposed to regular competition against higher ranked teams as well as teams of their own level.

If you are a rubbish swimmer, you join a swim squad and pull yourself up by being with people who swim better than you. Rugby is no different.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:The ticketing for the top-tier tournament can mean you get tickets for the second-tier game. In the pool games they could even be at the same ground before the top-tier pool games.

They get games against the tier-one teams who are eliminated from the elite tournament. Moreover, I'm proposing matches against the top ranked nations outside the RWC, which hardly ever happens now.

Let's take your random group. Australia, Ireland, Fiji, Georgia. Georgia are likely to lose all those games and never play another game. In my proposed format, they get to face 4 sides from the top-tier tournament who are eliminated. Let's say Fiji, Samoa, Argentina and Scotland. Not only do they get to play those teams, they also face the top qualifiers of their own tournament and the eliminated teams from the second-tier group get to have more games as well.

You miss understand my point mate, Georgia would at least play 2 more games, in the bowl/plate semi, then the final/loser playoff.

So not only would they get at least 2 games agianst top tier opposition, they get 3 more games against 2nd tier opposition, then teams whos form reflects theirs = Top tier games and competitive games.

In your situation these grown men and professional international players would either play in front of 7 men and his dog in meaningless tier 2 games where there would be little interest, or play warm up for the bigger nations?! Would the likes of Gorgodze go play warm up for the Scottish game?

2 scenarios would happen in your situation, lack of interest would dissolve the 2nd tier, and/or pro players in France or England would not see the point of going to the world cup, and it would become a development tournament for the lower tier teams, then get dissolved.

I feel it is you who are not seeing my point, mate.

There is no bowl/plate semi in the current RWC tournament. As it stands, Georgia turns up, plays three games in a pool and that's been that to date. They play in a Euro Nations cup and every once in a blue moon play opposition that is ranked higher than them. So far Georgia has played 12 RWC games and won two (Namibia and Romania)

If they are more likely to face top-tier teams once every four years, then it's no suprise that is their RWC record. Even if you add in a plate / bowl format to the current RWC, that is still only giving them meaningful competition once every four years. What I am proposing is that every year they are given games against higher ranked sides and a real opportunity at becoming a top ranked side.

Please, read all the OP.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I feel it is you who are not seeing my point, mate.

There is no bowl/plate semi in the current RWC tournament. As it stands, Georgia turns up, plays three games in a pool and that's been that to date. They play in a Euro Nations cup and every once in a blue moon play opposition that is ranked higher than them. So far Georgia has played 12 RWC games and won two (Namibia and Romania)

If they are more likely to face top-tier teams once every four years, then it's no suprise that is their RWC record. Even if you add in a plate / bowl format to the current RWC, that is still only giving them meaningful competition once every four years. What I am proposing is that every year they are given games against higher ranked sides and a real opportunity at becoming a top ranked side.

Please, read all the OP.

In my defence the OP is just too long, and it is scanned by most at best   

I was talking just restructuring the RWC, as I think GF was too (obviously we both scanned)

With regards to playing top tier competition every year where do you suggest we fit it into the calendar, don't get me wrong I am all for it, but you us the AI's and the NH teams lose revenue, if you try it in the summer the SH loses revenue! Noones going to get to touch the 6N or RC!

How do you propose Georgia squeeze in a game or 2 against top tier comp?

OK just gave it a read...

Sadly the rugby wolrd is going the exact opposite way to your idea, creating 2/3 game series to develop revenue, against only the most attractive opposition.

Look at this summer, England France and Wales all played multi game series v the big 3, because they are renowned as the teams that pull in the crowds, Scotland generally play a series v Argentina and the odd game against the SH teams. What did Italy get?

 And we wonder why journalists resort to misleading titles! Thanks for reading all of it.   

This is where I feel the IRB has to step in. If you make it compulsory, you can complain but you send a team because you risk ranking points that lead to lucrative regional tournaments outside the RWC years and you also risk exclusion from future RWCs.

I'm not saying you have to lose the revenue from the current June and November internationals. I'm just saying you have to send another team in its place. Say NZ play England at Twickenham. They can also send NZ Maori to Japan or their U19 team to Niue. England in turn send the Saxons to Georgia or their U19 to Andorra. Georgia wouldn't be facing the top England representative side necessarily but if they take their opposition too lightly and lose, the rewards should go to the second-tier team. Let's face it, they're already used to playing the second squad usually of the top-tier teams in the RWC.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: And we wonder why journalists resort to misleading titles! Thanks for reading all of it.   

This is where I feel the IRB has to step in. If you make it compulsory, you can complain but you send a team because you risk ranking points that lead to lucrative regional tournaments outside the RWC years and you also risk exclusion from future RWCs.

I'm not saying you have to lose the revenue from the current June and November internationals. I'm just saying you have to send another team in its place. Say NZ play England at Twickenham. They can also send NZ Maori to Japan or their U19 team to Niue. England in turn send the Saxons to Georgia or their U19 to Andorra. Georgia wouldn't be facing the top England representative side necessarily but if they take their opposition too lightly and lose, the rewards should go to the second-tier team. Let's face it, they're already used to playing the second squad usually of the top-tier teams in the RWC.

maybe organise a tournament for the representitive teams similarly to what they did in the USA recently (can't remember name)

Ring fence a RWC open the top 20 IRB ranked teams, but the nations with pro domestic leagues can only send representitive sides...

NZ mauris
Ireland woldhounds
Fiji
Georgia
USA

Now that type of tournament would be interesting, could happen alternative years, and give certain nations a chance to host too. I think there would be enough interest to fund it, and get e few decent sponsors, possibly make the top tier clubs fund it through their 2 int window earnings? Issue is it would have to be run outside both international windows, and avoid impacting on leagues.

We had something like that with the Churchill Cup but that went the way of the dodo unfortunately.

We just need to make sure that in the AI's and Summer games not EVERY game is money orientated.

Well done Ireland they have chosen to play Georgia in one of their AI games this year and they will be rewarded with a good physical game against an improving rugby nation.

I have no doubt Georgia coming to Twickenham would still bring a crowd so they wouldnt lose out on much money coming in...as opposed to playing the big 3.

Well done New Zealand for agreeing to play USA.
Yes it is a great marketing tool and hopefully will increase shirt sales of All Black colours etc...but never the less its great to see those sides entertaining the tier 2 sides.

We need to look at these types of fixtures now.

GeordieFalcon wrote:We just need to make sure that in the AI's and Summer games not EVERY game is money orientated.

Well done Ireland they have chosen to play Georgia in one of their AI games this year and they will be rewarded with a good physical game against an improving rugby nation.

I have no doubt Georgia coming to Twickenham would still bring a crowd so they wouldnt lose out on much money coming in...as opposed to playing the big 3.

Well done New Zealand for agreeing to play USA.
Yes it is a great marketing tool and hopefully will increase shirt sales of All Black colours etc...but never the less its great to see those sides entertaining the tier 2 sides.

We need to look at these types of fixtures now.

Oh leave it out, Ireland I can get on board with, but NZ playins USA, a self serving marketting tool if I ever saw one! There is nothing but self interest involved with that fixture, similarly Saracens taking games to the middle east to spread the game   

It absolutely is as i said in my post....but never the less if thats what it takes for Tier 1 nations to play tier 2...then ill accept it.

GF I'm sorry but that's like saying not every penny you make should be spent on yourself. You should also give a portion of your pay away to charities or people in need.

Unless you make it the law, you cannot expect people to do the right thing. I applaud Ireland playing Georgia, Scotland for touring Samoa and Fiji. NZ seem to be playing Samoa at home only because they're bowing to intense pressure. It's easy to play the USA when you can extract some coin out of proceedings.

There needs to be an IRB directive compelling a minimum of games against tier-two competition and those games should be within that top-tier nation's region. Let's say there are between 12 - 14 tests against top-tier countries per calendar year. In addition, you have to play a minimum of five games against second-tier nations. If that means making other regional tournaments as you suggest Neutralee then so be it and the top-tier nations with professional leagues have to send a representative side to compete.

Europe could reinstate the Churchill Cup. NZ could return to the Pacific Cup with a representative side along with Australia A and SA could send a representative side to the Africa Cup. Then in conjunction with that you could have other feeder tournaments alongside that and the bottom teams play off the aforementioned tournaments play against the top qualifiers of the feeder tournaments to gain entry to the next one. The top regional qualifiers apart from the top-tier countries with pro-leagues then face off against the top teams of the traditional top-tier tournaments to find a global winner.

  

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:GF I'm sorry but that's like saying not every penny you make should be spent on yourself. You should also give a portion of your pay away to charities or people in need.

Unless you make it the law, you cannot expect people to do the right thing. I applaud Ireland playing Georgia, Scotland for touring Samoa and Fiji. NZ seem to be playing Samoa at home only because they're bowing to intense pressure. It's easy to play the USA when you can extract some coin out of proceedings.

There needs to be an IRB directive compelling a minimum of games against tier-two competition and those games should be within that top-tier nation's region. Let's say there are between 12 - 14 tests against top-tier countries per calendar year. In addition, you have to play a minimum of five games against second-tier nations. If that means making other regional tournaments as you suggest Neutralee then so be it and the top-tier nations with professional leagues have to send a representative side to compete.

Europe could reinstate the Churchill Cup. NZ could return to the Pacific Cup with a representative side along with Australia A and SA could send a representative side to the Africa Cup. Then in conjunction with that you could have other feeder tournaments alongside that and the bottom teams play off the aforementioned tournaments play against the top qualifiers of the feeder tournaments to gain entry to the next one. The top regional qualifiers apart from the top-tier countries with pro-leagues then face off against the top teams of the traditional top-tier tournaments to find a global winner.

   But how do we insitgate that, when for every week the club games grows more and more rich and powerfull, I get the feeling the international game is running on borrowed time as it is, without having to sacrifice some major earnings.

All the more reason to do something now before union follows in the footsteps of football where the international game is reduced to a sideshow every four years and possibly a Eurocup every four years.

Increase international windows that do not coincide with the business end of club competitions and do not put club finals anywhere near those international windows.

The main obstacles to these proposals is the IRB and a few top-tier nations who wield too much influence and would block these measures for fear of losing their place in the lucrative top-tier.

There needs to be an IRB directive compelling a minimum of games against tier-two competition and those games should be within that top-tier nation's region.

The IRB are a weak governing body and will never enforce such a law. They cant even sort out eligibility issues despite it being constantly at the forefront of the sport.

Then we must overthrow them and install a new ruling body that is strong enough to act against self-interest and conservatism. George Lucas could direct.

Kia for President....

I, Chancellor Palpatine, promise to serve the Rugby Republic and return the international game to its original glory. Join me and together we will rule the rugby world.

Whats your policy on :

A) Rugby Eligibility...hard liner or softly softly?
B) Progression of the lower tier nations?
C) Pie, Peas and Bovril at half time?

a) After 18, representing another country or sport, you cannot switch allegiance to another country. If a citizen of the country, you must be a tax-paying resident of the country you wish to represent for a minimum of 5 years. If not a citizen of the country you wish to represent, you must be a resident of that country before the age of 18 for a minimum of 5 years consecutively.

b) As per my proposal the lower tier nations must also be part of rugby tournaments outside the current ones in which they participate that expose them to top-tier nations. There must be a minimum of games with top-tier teams each year and there must be a regional set up that offers up a true opportunity for lower-tier teams to secure ranking points.

c) Bovril leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to the dark side.

You had my vote till C)

No Bovril on a Friday in mid winter in Newcastle?

Have you ever been to a rugby match in Newcastle on a friday night in Mid winter???   

  

Whisky. Single malt. There's your answer.

Bovril's the devil's work. It is, in fact, the blood of Satan.

A bottle of dog - Newcastle Brown Ale...or as the Soft Southern Fairies call it Newcy Broon Ale   

BUt i love a nice Bovril....call me Satan   

Your thoughts betray you. I feel the good in you, the conflict...Search your feelings.