Alternative World Cup Draw

World Cup 2011

Group A: New Zealand, France, Tonga, Japan, Canada
Group B: Argentina, England, Scotland, Georgia, Romania
Group C: Australia, Ireland, Italy, United States, Russia
Group D: South Africa, Wales, Fiji, Samoa, Namibia

European nations: 9
Oceania nations: 5
Asian nations: 1
African nations: 2
American nations: 3

However, these don't seem to be well distributed to me.
Pool A: Two Oceania nations, One European nation
Pool B: Four European nations
Pool C: Three European nations
Pool D: Two Oceania nations, Two African nations

In the FIFA World Cup there were 4 pots for the draw: Seeded teams; Asia, North/Central America and Caribbean & Oceania; Africa & South America and Europe. This ensured that a maximum of 2 teams from Europe in the same World Cup pool. There were also rules to prevent unseeded South American countries being paired with seeded South African countries, and unseeded African nations being drawn with South Africa (the only African seed). This ensured that all pools had a nice mix of countries.

In the Heineken Cup we also have rules to prevent teams from the same countries being drawn together, despite the fact that every club is allocated to a pot on ability (first seeds, second seeds etc), rather than on geographical location.

The World Cup draw was made in December 2008. From the World Rankings, we had:
New Zealand (1), South Africa (2), Australia (3) and Argentina (4);
Wales (5), England (6), France (7) and Ireland (8);
Scotland (9), Fiji (10), Italy (11) and Tonga (13).

And from that we drew:
Group A: New Zealand, France, Tonga, Americas 1, Asia 1
Group B: Argentina, England, Scotland, Europe 1, play-off winner
Group C: Australia, Ireland, Italy, Europe 2, Americas 2
Group D: South Africa, Wales, Fiji, Oceania 1, Africa 1

Now, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think the spread is right. I'm going to impose some restrictions on the draw (explaining what I'm doing) and then assume that the draw will happen as close to the real draw as is possible.

I'd argue with 5 countries from Oceania, the 4 highest seeded Oceania nations should be kept apart (as happens with the Heineken Cup). The 4 Highest seeded Oceania nations are all in the top 3 tiers, and Tonga should have been kept from New Zealand. So after the first two "rounds" had been drawn, we would have had:

Group A: New Zealand, France
Group B: Argentina, England
Group C: Australia, Ireland
Group D: South Africa, Wales

And therefore Tonga and Fiji have to be in Pools B and D. Keeping nations in their "correct" group wherever possible, we have:

Group A: New Zealand, France, Scotland
Group B: Argentina, England, Tonga
Group C: Australia, Ireland, Italy
Group D: South Africa, Wales, Fiji

Then, with 8 European nations automatically qualifying, I would have said that Europe 1 and Europe 2 should be drawn in the pools that have just 1 European nation, so that is now Groups B and D.

Group A: New Zealand, France, Scotland
Group B: Argentina, England, Tonga, Europe 1 (Georgia)
Group C: Australia, Ireland, Italy
Group D: South Africa, Wales, Fiji, Europe 2 (Russia)

We then have to draw Oceania 1 (Samoa) and Americas 1 (Canada). Samoa can be drawn in any pool, but Canada wouldn't be able to be drawn in Pool B with Argentina (not that there is a fourth seed spot in Pool B). This will give us:

Group A: New Zealand, France, Scotland, Americas 1 (Canada)
Group B: Argentina, England, Tonga, Europe 1 (Georgia)
Group C: Australia, Ireland, Italy, Oceania 1 (Samoa)
Group D: South Africa, Wales, Fiji, Europe 2 (Russia)

Then we have to draw Americas 2 (USA), Asia 1 (Japan), Africa 1 (Namibia) and Play-off winner (Romania). Americas 2 can't be in the same pool as Americas 1 or Argentina, so can take their place in Pool C (as they did in real life). Africa 1 can't be in the same pool as South Africa, so have to move to either A or B. Asia 1 and play-off winner can take place wherever. So I will keep Asia 1 in their current place (Japan in Pool A), move Africa 1 (Namibia) to Pool B, swapping Play-off Winner (Romania) to Pool D. This would give us final World Cup pools of:

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

The first points I notice are that Group B and Group D are easier, while Group A and Group C are harder, but I assure you that as an England fan it wasn't my intention to give England an easier pool (after all, why would it, it's not like the IRB are going to bring this in). But what I wanted to acheive was to make the pools more balanced geographically and I think I have acheived that.

Now, before you say that Group B is far too easy (and that probably would have been the weakest World Cup pool in history!) I think it may be worth noting at this point that that Pool B could have happened with the current system as it is.

So what does everyone else think. Should the Rugby World Cup draw take into account geographical factors so that each country does play others from all around the world? Or should we just leave it the way it is?

Before I go, I'll just leave you with a hypothetical draw using the then seedings and my restrictions, but not trying to stick to the real draw, but more a wishy-washy sense of fairness. I'm going to pair 1 with 8, 2 with 7, 3 with 6 and 4 with 5, (using todays rankings to rank the teams within the pots).

Fiji (the strongest Oceania third seed) join with Argentina (the weakest non Oceania top seed) and therefore Tonga with South Africa. Allocating Scotland and Italy is a coin toss at the moment, but I'll come back to where they're going.

I'm then pairing Europe 1 (Georgia) with the lower ranked non-European 3rd seed (Tonga) and similarly Russia with Fiji. This leaves us with 3rd seeds Scotland and Italy and 4th seeds Samoa and Canada to be allocated into Pools A and C. I will pair Scotland and Canada (stronger 3rd and weaker 4th) and therefore Italy and Samoa, and give England's Pool (C) the one I'd least like to have. Then, making sure Namibia aren't drawn in Pool B with South Africa and USA aren't born in Pools A or D with Canada or Argentina we get:

Group A: New Zealand, Wales, Scotland, Canada, Japan
Group B: South Africa, France, Tonga, Georgia, Play-off winner
Group C: Australia, England, Italy, Samoa, USA
Group D: Argentina, Ireland, Fiji, Russia, Namibia

So that's how the draw could have panned out had it been made using IRB World Rankings on 1st December 2008 but using my restrictions. I think that's a very interesting draw (there are of course a load more permutations), in terms of quality and variety of teams in pools.

So now I'll throw it over to all of you. Wow that was long!

You have far too much time on your hands...it's idealistic to have countries from the same region separated but, honestly, I wouldn't be too fussed about it. The only gripe I have with the way the groups are drawn is that they were drawn three years ago. Argentina being a number one seed in the world cup coming up is ridiculous but that's the way it is I suppose.

They do it in the HCup why not the World Cup

And yes you do have far too much time on your hands, but well done it's an interesting article

Anything to not have to face Scotland on 1st October!

...the fear, I think, is setting in.

"Group D: Argentina, Ireland, Fiji, Russia, Namibia"

If only

Ha, I know I have too much time on my hands. I didn't intend this article to be that long, just looked again at England's World Cup fixtures and for some reason it really hit home that we had 4 European teams in the group.

mrsuperclear, I'm not going to fuss about it, it's just something I noticed and wondered if regional aspects could be brought into it. The draw was taken 3 years out from the World Cup so the teams (and I guess fans) could sort their logistics out.

Stag, you could say that Ireland deserve that now, because they are 4th in the World so they deserve to have the easiest top seed. Then again, if we used the rankings now we'd have something along the lines of:

New Zealand, Argentina, Italy, Samoa, Japan
Australia, Wales, Scotland, Canada, Romania
South Africa, France, Tonga, Georgia, USA
Ireland, England, Fiji, Russia, Namibia

I'll stop making hypothetical World Cup draws now

On a side note Scotland have disappeared from the IRB World Rankings!

http://www.irb.com/rankings/full.html

Should be between Argentina and Fiji.

red_stag wrote:

"Group D: Argentina, Ireland, Fiji, Russia, Namibia"

If only

Could have (Should have? ) been entirely possible in the RWC draw in 2009. England, as top seed, drew Argentina. But the draw was before the 6 nations, after which Ireland moved to 4th in the international rankings. Had the draw taken place after the 6N rather than the autumn series, the group above was possible.

Robbo - check your pms

greybeard

Argentina were the top seeds as they were ranked 4th (draw was made on 1st December 2008). England were ranked 6th in the World and were second seeds. That last draw I did in the first post was entirely possible on the 1st December 2008.

EDIT: http://www.irb.com/rankings/archive/date=2008-12-01/histranking.html

Full World Rankings at the time of the draw. Tonga were a 3rd seed and Samoa a 4th seed despite their respective rankings because Tonga had qualified by that stage (due to World Cup 2007 performance) and Samoa hadn't. Scotland were in the rankings too, so we know their disappearance happened between December 2008 and now

Interesting.

I don't think rugby is at a point where it needs to do this for the World Cup - to take Group B Argentina, England, Scotland, Georgia and Romania. That for me is a pretty good mix of nations, since Georgia and Romania are teams that very rarely will play against Scotland or England despite being in Europe, while England have played Australia three times in the last year which is more than they have played any European team in the same period.

Ah Robbo chief I know you're not fussed about it and it's a very interesting read seeing different hypothetical groups Yeah I heard that the reason they drew it three years previously was for the New Zealanders to get their logistics sorted. I don't have a clue why they need three years as opposed to just one. The football world cup has 12 more countries involved and is only drawn six months or so beforehand and they do grand so I dunno what the craic is with needing three years for logistics. It is what it is but I see no reason why they couldn't draw the world cup even just a year beforehand for the 2015 one.

mrsuperclear
I completely agree with you, the point about the football world cup hit me when I was emptying the dishwasher (see, I do other stuff too! ) They don't even settle qualification until November just 7 months before, so it would be nice if rugby could get it's act together a little bit! A draw based on the IRB Rankings after the 2010 Autumn Internationals would have been okay (and not just because England would have been a top seed!), would have given teams a good 10 months to sort out their logistics while being close enough to the World Cup so that the groups will be about right (in the fairness stakes).

World Rankings on 6/12/10 - http://www.irb.com/rankings/archive/date=2010-12-06/histranking.html

snoopster
You make a good point in that we don't regularly play Georgia or Romania, like I suppose European teams do in football and clubs from the same country do in their domestic leagues (and therefore are kept apart in the HC). Maybe it's as much to do with styles as anything else, all the teams in Pool B (including us) are reputed as foward-based teams and I'm afraid of a stodgy boring group stage! But if we had a group of Australia, England, Italy, Samoa and USA then we would have a nice variety of playing styles. Even if you swap Italy out and put Scotland in (not afraid of them as IanBru suggests, they don't even have an IRB Ranking...)! Anyway, I digress. It's not necessary, but in my opinion it is preferable.

robbo277 wrote:greybeard

Argentina were the top seeds as they were ranked 4th (draw was made on 1st December 2008). England were ranked 6th in the World and were second seeds. That last draw I did in the first post was entirely possible on the 1st December 2008.

Ah, good point and my little grey cells are not what they were.

Still, post 2009 6N Ireland and Argentina swapped, so it could have been that group anyway (I will ignore the fact that with Argentina top seeds and Ireland second it could have happened regardless because I've started digging and I just can't stop)

The seedings were based entirely on the IRB Rankings of the 12 teams that automatically qualified. So if it was done after the 2009 Six Nations, Ireland would have been a top seed. Performance in the 2007 World Cup didn't come into it (other than the effect it had on the IRB Rankings), otherwise New Zealand and Australia would have been second seeds.

Good point about the styles of play - I was thinking in terms of trying to get a mix of teams who don't play each other as often, which happens since the big teams don't play minnows very often outside of WCs. Though despite reputation, England have been very much a ball in hand, running team for the last year and in fact have perhaps gone too far that way. So with us and that magnificent Scottish backline with people like Parks, Lawson and "FFS Hugo" Southwell bringing their silky skills I expect a lot of exciting rugby...