World Cup Draw - & how should it be done?

[rowan]

I won't go into the absurdity of only eight berths being available for the 80 or 90 teams involved in qualifying, while 12 teams progress directly on the basis of their performance at the previous instalment four years before, but seeding the tournament three years prior to the event is almost as inane, especially based on rankings immediately after a series of friendly encounters involving teams in the rebuilding process.

The draw should be done in the year of the tournament when qualifying has concluded (with the possible exception of the repechage) in a made-for-TV event, FIFA-style, to promote the game. The top 4 teams could then be seeded according to rankings, and the remainder be drawn from a European pod, an Americas/Africa pod, an Asia-pacific pod, and a final pod of 'left-overs.'

So right now you'd have NZ, England, SA & Australia as your seeded teams, France, Ireland, Wales & Scotland in your Euro pod, Argentina, Canada, the US &, say, Nambia, in your Afro-Americas pod, and Fiji, Samoa, Tonga & Japan in your Asia-Pac pod. That would leave, for example, Italy, Georgia, Romania and, say, Uruguay, as your likely 'left-overs' pod.

NB: FIFA actually has a 'left-overs' pod which is referred to as an 'ancillary' pod. This part of the draw can be manipulated to ensure a maximum geographical spread. For instance, Uruguay would not be drawn into the same group as Argentina...

[Lizard]

I agree that it would improve things if there was some method of ensuring geographical spread within pools. It is silly having 2 Pacific Island or 2 ENC teams in the same pool. Doing the seeding so far out is also ludicrous. I thought this was going to be looked at by World Rugby?

[rowan]

If SA and/or Australia slipped out of the top 4 you'd transfer them to the appropriate geographical pod and demote, say, Namibia and Tonga to the left-overs pod, while Italy and/or Georgia would move up to the Euros pod (if were two European teams who'd moved into the top 4).

& would it mean that Americas teams could never again meet the African qualifier? Not necessarily. If World Rugby felt the need, it could adjust the pods next time around and align the Americas with Asia and Oceania with Africa.

Also, if the tournament went to 24 teams, you'd seed 6 based on rhe rankings (currently NZ, England, SA, Australia, Ireland & Wales), have a Euros pod (France, Scotland, Italy, Georgia, Romania and, say, Russia), an Americas-Pacific pod (Argentina, Canada, USA, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga), and a left-overs pod (Japan and, say, Namiba, Kenya, Uruguay, Spain & Hong Kong). NB: Namibia & Kenya would not be drawn in SA's group, Uruguay would not be drawn in Argentina's.

[Which Tyler]

Without going into the rest of the details (I generally agree) but since when was the 6N "friendly"

[rowan]

I thought they were doing it after the AIs...

[Which Tyler]

Nope, after the 6N, it's the IRB's fudge to bring the draw closer to the competition. Something make me think they weren't taking it too seriously

[Puja]

I agree that it would improve things if there was some method of ensuring geographical spread within pools. It is silly having 2 Pacific Island or 2 ENC teams in the same pool. Doing the seeding so far out is also ludicrous. I thought this was going to be looked at by World Rugby?

This was the result of them looking at it - it was supposed to be done after the AIs this year, but they've shifted it back till after the 6N. A load of help to SA and Argentina that is, given that they're in 5th and 9th respectively and won't play any more games after the AIs anyway.

World Rugby's defence is that they've got to have maximum time to sell tickets, arrange hospitality packages, etc and, with Tokyo hosting the 2020 Olympics, they're worried about losing out and being overshadowed if they don't start early. I guess there's no real obvious time to set it - anything that's greater than 1 year away is too far out and that would leave them far too little time for organisation. I guess 2017 is as good a time as any.

I won't go into the absurdity of only eight berths being available for the 80 or 90 teams involved in qualifying, while 12 teams progress directly on the basis of their performance at the previous instalment four years before...

Would there really be a huge amount of point in reducing the number of automatic qualifiers? I mean, let's just say we reduce it to 8, then we'd have England, Japan, Georgia and Italy having to qualify. Japan and Georgia already dominate their regional competitions anyway, so their qualification is as close to guaranteed as it is ever likely to get and, even if you could crowbar qualifying games into the England and Italian seasons, the games would be uncompetitive to the point of being dangerous. Heck, even the 8 places that are up for qualification are pretty much guaranteed. Two of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga will qualify from the PNC, Romania will be the automatic European qualifier, USA will likely beat Canada to qualify, Canada will likely beat Uruguay to qualify, and Namibia will likely win the Africa Cup to qualify. For the remaining two spots, whichever Pacific Island didn't go through will beat one of Spain/Russia to qualify and the repechage will consist of Uruguay, Kenya/Zimbabwe/Madagascar, Hong Kong and Russia/Spain, with it being a toss-up between Uruguay and Russia/Spain as to who qualifies. Sad as I am to say it, qualifying is mostly a foregone conclusion and I don't see that there'd be any extra value in letting England put 150 points on Germany.

What would be far more interesting is when we expand to 24 teams. That way you can give an extra African qualifier, an extra Americas qualifier, and extra Asia qualifier and an extra European qualifier, and will open up the repechage by removing some of the big beasts from it. I hope it will be very difficult to pick the qualifiers for 2023, whereas I would be willing to put money on naming 18/20 of the nations who will take part in 2019 right now (with Africa 1 and repechage being the only ones that I'm not 100% confident on).

Puja

[Lizard]

Even if England had to qualify (again) I expect they would do something like in the Pacific where the dead cert qualifier just plays a one-off match against the winner of whatever regular tournament there is between all the teams that would never qualify. Eg for 2015, the Cook Islands won the FORU Oceania Cup also involving PNG, the Solomons and Tahiti. Fiji then inevitably smashed the Cooks 108-6.

[Lizard]

I’ve had look to see if early seeding has been a real problem. I think that really there was only an effect in 2015, but the data set is limited (rankings began only in 2003).

I’ve had a look at the pools for each world cup and the rankings for the top 12 teams immediately prior to the opening game. Ideally, each pool would have one team from each of 1st-4th (call it Band A), 5th -8th (Band B) and 9th-12th (Band C). Here are the pool make-ups by Bands for each tournament.

2007: ABC, ABC, ACC, ABB. This was pretty fair - swap Arg (6th) for Ita (9th) between Pools C and D and it would have been perfect.
2011: AAC, BBC, ABC, ABC. This was fair - swap Fra (4th) for Eng (5th) between Pools A and B and it would have been perfect.
2015: AABC, ACC, ABC, BB. This was a joke. You would need to swap Ita (14th) from Pool D with Eng (4th) in Pool A, then also switch Fra (7th) from Pool D with Sco (10th) in Pool B.

[Lizard]

The problem is now self-perpetuting. 4th place in a pool of death does not automatically qualify so it is now quite likely that we will get an unseeded qualifier (Fiji) being one of the top 10 teams in the world that will be given a "4th" spot in a pool already containing 3 of the top 13.

[Lizard]

The most practical answer, preserving the early seeding date, is to seed unoccupied qualifying berths as if taken by the highest ranked team eligible for that spot and assuming higher spots available to that team are taken by higher ranked eligible teams i.e, if seeding was done today:

Band A (1-4): NZ, Eng, Aus, Ire
Band B (5-8): SA, Wal, Sco, Fra
Band C (9-12): Arg, Oceania 1 (Fij), Jap, Geo
Band D: (13-16): Ita, Oceania 2 (Sam), Oceania 3/Europe 2 playoff (Ton), Europe 1 (Rom)
Band E: (17-20): Americas 1 (USA), Americas 2 (Can), Africa 1 (Nam), Repechage (Rus)

This would also nicely solve the geographical spread issue.

[rowan]

Would there really be a huge amount of point in reducing the number of automatic qualifiers? I mean, let's just say we reduce it to 8, then we'd have England, Japan, Georgia and Italy having to qualify. Japan and Georgia already dominate their regional competitions anyway, so their qualification is as close to guaranteed as it is ever likely to get and, even if you could crowbar qualifying games into the England and Italian seasons, the games would be uncompetitive to the point of being dangerous. Heck, even the 8 places that are up for qualification are pretty much guaranteed. Two of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga will qualify from the PNC, Romania will be the automatic European qualifier, USA will likely beat Canada to qualify, Canada will likely beat Uruguay to qualify, and Namibia will likely win the Africa Cup to qualify. For the remaining two spots, whichever Pacific Island didn't go through will beat one of Spain/Russia to qualify and the repechage will consist of Uruguay, Kenya/Zimbabwe/Madagascar, Hong Kong and Russia/Spain, with it being a toss-up between Uruguay and Russia/Spain as to who qualifies. Sad as I am to say it, qualifying is mostly a

Leaving aside the fact Japan didn't have to qualify for 2019 anyway, this just helps make my point. This is the first time that they and Georgia will not have had to qualify. That flies in the face of arguments that the top 12 nations playing qualifiers would just be a waste of time anyway. Not for some of the teams, they wouldn't. 12 is just too many. It certainly should be few than half. I said I wouldn't go into it but personally for me qualifying reached its apogee in 1999, when Home Unions competed against ENC teams and Australia played a tough qualifying tournament with the Pacific Islands. There were a few blow-outs, sure, but you get those in soccer, too. However, the major rugby nations, with the ironclad grip they had on World Rugby at the time, used that as a pretext to avoid going through the same process again, which was clearly a major step backward for the development of international rugby. I would reduce it to eight maximum, and then if one of the big guns had to compete with the minnows now and again after failing to reach the QFs, so be it. A Russia or a Spain gets its dream date with one of the Home Unions, for example.

On the other hand, if we were to follow the so-called 'foregone conclusions' rationale trajectory, we could just use the rankings to determine all 20 qualifiers. Then why not have them determine the quarter-finalists too, the semi-finals and the finalists as well. In fact, why have a World Cup at all when we could just declare the top team in the rankings the World Champion every four years? Because that would defeat the purpose of staging a tournament, obviously.

[Puja]

Would you deny that 18/20 of the spots are pretty much predetermined though? Especially the way that qualifying is set up by the IRB, there is pretty much no way that Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, USA, Canada and Romania won't make it through. I agree with your point that there should be more places available for teams to qualify, but you see it as there only being 8 and I see it as there only being 2 (with one of those only available to Africa).

Puja

[rowan]

Yes, they should just go one way or the other. Have a proper qualifying tournament with the majority of the spots up for grabs, or else do the whole thing by the rankings with the possible exception of a wee repechange tournament to determine the final one or two berths. I think most would prefer the former option. After all, if Japan can beat the Springboks in the tournament proper, anything could happen in qualifying...

[Puja]

Yes, they should just go one way or the other. Have a proper qualifying tournament with the majority of the spots up for grabs, or else do the whole thing by the rankings with the possible exception of a wee repechange tournament to determine the final one or two berths. I think most would prefer the former option. After all, if Japan can beat the Springboks in the tournament proper, anything could happen in qualifying...

I don't think adding England, Japan, Georgia and Italy in would make any more sensible a qualifying competition though. If anything, it would devalue it further by increasing the proportion of it that was a procession.

That's not to mention that allowing 3rd place in groups to qualify automatically gives a lot of nations something to aim for in the RWC. It's the boobie prize for England and Italy, but for Japan and Georgia, it was an achievement. If we are going to criticise the qualification, then those automatic qualifiers should have opened up more opportunities for teams in their region. It's not particularly equitable for Japan to work to not need the Asia qualifying spot and then it gets taken away and reallocated to a region where teams didn't perform. The whole system has been set up to deliver pretty much the same result as last time and ensure that the favoured teams get an easy route through. If Asia and Europe had kept the same automatic qualifying spots, then we'd've seen fireworks as the PIs and the Americas fought amongst themselves for one too few free places.

Basically, I'm just waiting for the expansion to 24 before expecting anything particularly interesting or equitable to occur.

Puja

[rowan]

"Basically, I'm just waiting for the expansion to 24 before expecting anything particularly interesting or equitable to occur."

Me too. The fact that automatic qualification was extended to add spice to the five-team groups is merely an indictment of the 20-team format. What kind of World Cup needs to spice up its matches with the promise of direct qualification for the next? If that's what they're playing for, then obviously five teams per group is too many. Go to 24 teams with six groups of four, from which 16 will qualify for the second round (octavos). You can be certain that will eliminate the dead rubbers and ensure every single match counts.

[Puja]

"Basically, I'm just waiting for the expansion to 24 before expecting anything particularly interesting or equitable to occur."

Me too. The fact that automatic qualification was extended to add spice to the five-team groups is merely an indictment of the 20-team format. What kind of World Cup needs to spice up its matches with the promise of direct qualification for the next? If that's what they're playing for, then obviously five teams per group is too many. Go to 24 teams with six groups of four, from which 16 will qualify for the second round (octavos). You can be certain that will eliminate the dead rubbers and ensure every single match counts.

The only problem with that format is that it's very hard not to qualify from your group. Only those who finish bottom and the two worst 3rd places don't go through, removing a lot of the excitement from the opening rounds.

I'd actually be interested in a format like 1999, and having 5 groups of 5, with 5 group winners going to the quarters, with the other three spaces filled by playoffs between the 5 runners up and the best 3rd place. That way you'd have to succeed to progress, rather than being able to get through by not quite failing as badly as others.

Puja

[rowan]

"The only problem with that format is that it's very hard not to qualify from your group. Only those who finish bottom and the two worst 3rd places don't go through, removing a lot of the excitement from the opening rounds."

But I see that as it's main strength. As I said, no more dead rubbers; no more making up the numbers. Second tier nations will have a realistic chance of progressing, and tier 3 contenders will at least have out an outside shot. As for the tier 1 nations, they'll waltz through, of course, but after that anything can happen, and a 16-team second round would throw up a lot more variables and remove some of the predictability of the World Cup post-group stages. We saw this with the FIFA World Cup, where African teams immediately started to come through for the first time, followed by the US and Saudi in 94.

[Puja]

"The only problem with that format is that it's very hard not to qualify from your group. Only those who finish bottom and the two worst 3rd places don't go through, removing a lot of the excitement from the opening rounds."

But I see that as it's main strength. As I said, no more dead rubbers; no more making up the numbers. Second tier nations will have a realistic chance of progressing, and tier 3 contenders will at least have out an outside shot. As for the tier 1 nations, they'll waltz through, of course, but after that anything can happen, and a 16-team second round would throw up a lot more variables and remove some of the predictability of the World Cup post-group stages. We saw this with the FIFA World Cup, where African teams immediately started to come through for the first time, followed by the US and Saudi in 94.

I'm in favour of improving the chances of Tier 2 and Tier 3 nations to get through to the knockouts, but I'd rather not do it by dropping the bar so low that you could step over it. Qualifying for the second round *should* be at least mildly challenging and with only 8/24 in any danger, it's entirely possible to go through by winning one match by a point and getting thumped in your other two. It's like the recent Euros in football where the first round was largely an irrelevance because you had to lose all your games not to proceed through.

A 5x5 tournament does still give 11 places to progress out of the groups, which opens up more places for smaller nations to progress without handing it to them on a plate.

Puja

[rowan]

Well, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Either your tier one teams are going to cruise through, or your tier 3 teams are only ever going to be there to make up the numbers. I prefer the former scenario, personally, and let's face it, a team like New Zealand is always going to cruise through, so why bother playing four games in the group stages when at least 3 of them are meaningless? Ditto the other major playing nations, barring the occasional freakish Pool of Death scenario . . .

[Puja]

Well, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Either your tier one teams are going to cruise through, or your tier 3 teams are only ever going to be there to make up the numbers. I prefer the former scenario, personally, and let's face it, a team like New Zealand is always going to cruise through, so why bother playing four games in the group stages when at least 3 of them are meaningless? Ditto the other major playing nations, barring the occasional freakish Pool of Death scenario . . .

The difference though is between NZ cruising through and Scotland cruising through. I'd rather have the Tier 3 nations making up the numbers than have them still making up the numbers and still getting through to the second round. You say no dead rubbers, I see nobody really being under any threat before the second round and it's just a case of which of the minnows loses most significantly. The pools become warm-up games for the real competition which is just a straight knock-out. What I don't want is a tournament where there's no competition, nothing riding on the games, for the first three weeks.

Puja

[rowan]

I see your point of view, but that is what they used to say about the 20 team format. In 2003 when, for the first and only time, the 8 foundation members of World Rugby made it through to the QFs, the local press immediately seized upon this to suggest the 'real tournament' was just starting. Forget the fact Argentina almost beat Ireland and Scotland were lucky to get by Fiji. As for as the local press was concerned, the 'real' World Cup was just beginning. Besides, there will be plenty riding on the games at the group stages for the second and third tier teams as they'll be battling for survival. The tier one teams might have it easy at this stage, but their battle for survival will follow in the second round, QFs and semis. & this latter stage will come quicker, and involve twice as many fixtures, under the 6 X 4 teams group format. Everyone's a winner. Whereas now we have protracted group stages with uneven scheduling, leading to just three rounds of knock-outs. The best tier 3 teams can hope for is to gain some experience, while tier 2 teams are just hoping they can snatch a win or two. In fact, there hasn't even been a tier 2 team in the QFs since Fiji in 2007.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Without going into the rest of the details (I generally agree) but since when was the 6N "friendly"

I wasn't aware of rugby having any friendlies. It has Tests.

[rowan]

You may not be, but World Rugby is:

"SCHALK BURGER - SCOTLAND V SOUTH AFRICA - INTERNATIONAL FRIENDLY"
http://www.worldrugby.org/photo/3674

"Cedric Heymans (FRA) - Wales v France - International Friendly"
http://www.worldrugby.org/search?s=friendly

"DUBLIN, IRELAND - NOVEMBER 22: Irish players celebrate after winning the international friendly match between Ireland and Australia at Aviva Stadium on November 22, 2014 in Dublin, Ireland. (Photo by Ian Walton/Getty Images)"
http://www.worldrugby.org/search?s=friendly


"TOKYO, JAPAN - JUNE 15: Team Japan and Craig Wing of Japan celebrate victory after the international friendly between Japan and Wales at Prince Chichibu Stadium on June 15, 2013 in Tokyo, Japan"
http://www.worldrugby.org/photo/4643

"FUKUOKA, JAPAN - AUGUST 22: Felipe Berchesi of Uruguay kicks the ball during international friendly match between Japan and Uruguay at the Level 5 Stadium on August 22, 2015 in Fukuoka, Japan"
http://www.worldrugby.org/photo/90849

Still, what would World Rugby know??

[Puja]

I see your point of view, but that is what they used to say about the 20 team format. In 2003 when, for the first and only time, the 8 foundation members of World Rugby made it through to the QFs, the local press immediately seized upon this to suggest the 'real tournament' was just starting. Forget the fact Argentina almost beat Ireland and Scotland were lucky to get by Fiji. As for as the local press was concerned, the 'real' World Cup was just beginning. Besides, there will be plenty riding on the games at the group stages for the second and third tier teams as they'll be battling for survival. The tier one teams might have it easy at this stage, but their battle for survival will follow in the second round, QFs and semis. & this latter stage will come quicker, and involve twice as many fixtures, under the 6 X 4 teams group format. Everyone's a winner. Whereas now we have protracted group stages with uneven scheduling, leading to just three rounds of knock-outs. The best tier 3 teams can hope for is to gain some experience, while tier 2 teams are just hoping they can snatch a win or two. In fact, there hasn't even been a tier 2 team in the QFs since Fiji in 2007.

I find that to be an argument for my side - the first stage becomes boring if it's perceived to be challengeless and I don't know that we want our main advertising medium to seem uncompetitive for the first half. England, Wales, Australia, South Africa and Scotland all faced real peril in the 2015 group stages and France and Ireland couldn't afford to switch off when having Italy in their group. 2015 was the best tournament so far because there was real uncertainty in the pool stages and close competition all around. I do see your point about catering for the minnows, but the tournament is richer for being threatening all the way through, to my mind.

Also, weren't Argentina a Tier 2 side in 2011? And Japan were desperately unlucky not to get through last year.

Puja