RugbyRebels

What do people think?

The main change this time is that everyone has at least 6 days between each games. I think that had to happen, but I have struggled to get into the tournament. I know that is partly because I'm in a bad timezone and because Scotland have only played one game before today, but I don't think I'm alone.

I reckon if they are going to keep the gaps between games, which they should, they should increase the tournament to 24 teams in four groups of 6. If you did this:

- You could still fit the tournament in the same time period. Everyone would just be playing every week. I don't think that's an issue player welfare wise and it would be good for the flow of the tournament. I dont think I'm the only Scotland fan to feel a bit disconnected at the moment. We played and lost to the World Champions two weeks ago and then, while we haven't played, our competitors have been busy and basically sewm up the group. It also is a bit fairer (e.g. Tonga are playing every week, they just started later).

- It would mean there are a few more one sided games, but it would also mean a few more competitive games for the smaller teams. Ideally it would come with a shield tournament for the 4th placed teams (and 4th would get automatic qualification for the next WC), but in any case it would be good to see teams like Portugal or Namibia have more than one realistic chance at a win each time. The next rung down who didn't qualify aren't that bad anyway.

- It would let them have four or five (preferably) full days. Games Friday to Tuesday would give the tournament a bit more flow. It stops and starts too much at the moment, you wouldn't known it was on half the time. This is particularly an issue given there are only a few competitive games each round.

I think I'd be more inclined to shrink it than expand it for competitive purposes and probably in terms of keeping the drama as well. There are player welfare considerations for those going deep into the tournament - not usually Ireland - and with an extra pool game the squad size would probably have to go up again which advantages the bigger nations even more.

On balance I'd leave well alone. I like a couple of days analysis on the previous round and then a couple of days build up to the next one

One scheduling thing I don't understand is why they've set up the four 'top of the pool' clashes to happen only on the first (Fra/NZ, Eng/Arg) and third (Ire/SA, Wal/Aus) weekends. Surely it would be better to spread them out over four different weekends? (Next weekend seems to be a particularly quiet one.)

Cameo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 5:05 pm What do people think?

The main change this time is that everyone has at least 6 days between each games. I think that had to happen, but I have struggled to get into the tournament. I know that is partly because I'm in a bad timezone and because Scotland have only played one game before today, but I don't think I'm alone.

I reckon if they are going to keep the gaps between games, which they should, they should increase the tournament to 24 teams in four groups of 6. If you did this:

- You could still fit the tournament in the same time period. Everyone would just be playing every week. I don't think that's an issue player welfare wise and it would be good for the flow of the tournament. I dont think I'm the only Scotland fan to feel a bit disconnected at the moment. We played and lost to the World Champions two weeks ago and then, while we haven't played, our competitors have been busy and basically sewm up the group. It also is a bit fairer (e.g. Tonga are playing every week, they just started later).

- It would mean there are a few more one sided games, but it would also mean a few more competitive games for the smaller teams. Ideally it would come with a shield tournament for the 4th placed teams (and 4th would get automatic qualification for the next WC), but in any case it would be good to see teams like Portugal or Namibia have more than one realistic chance at a win each time. The next rung down who didn't qualify aren't that bad anyway.

- It would let them have four or five (preferably) full days. Games Friday to Tuesday would give the tournament a bit more flow. It stops and starts too much at the moment, you wouldn't known it was on half the time. This is particularly an issue given there are only a few competitive games each round.

I think the current setup is working pretty well. Player welfare would of course be an issue if there were 6 team pools and no off weeks, but this could perhaps be mitigated with sightly larger squads to allow more rest time for individual players (so there'd be more of an A team and B team within each squad).

I'm more in favour of 24 teams with 6 pools of 4 and a round of 16. Same number of games, but could fit into a shorter period because there'd be an even number in each group, so everyone would play each weekend. It would also have the significant advantage that it'd give lower T1 and higher T2 teams (like Italy, Georgia, Samoa, Australia) access to the knockouts that they otherwise wouldn't get.

The only downside would be fewer all-T2/3 games, so nothing like the Georgia vs Portugal game, but that could be ameliorated by having a plate competition for the bottom 8 who don't qualify for the last 16.

Puja

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 6:34 pm I think I'd be more inclined to shrink it than expand it for competitive purposes and probably in terms of keeping the drama as well. There are player welfare considerations for those going deep into the tournament - not usually Ireland - and with an extra pool game the squad size would probably have to go up again which advantages the bigger nations even more.

On balance I'd leave well alone. I like a couple of days analysis on the previous round and then a couple of days build up to the next one

I've put this elsewhere

IMO, the RWC itself should be 16 teams.
Expansion should be in the form of a qualifying tournament 12-18 months beforehand (with the RWC draw taking place immediately afterwards).

I'd have that tourney (4 pools of 6, top 2 go through) as 5 matches each in the June/July window, and draw the pools based on rankings at that point (before the QN starts).
If the practicalities allowed (and I doubt that they would) I'd then have a knock-out phase for everyone from the 24-team tourney who failed to qualify for the RWC "proper". If not practical, then each pool could be held in a different country (say hosted by the 3rd seeds?).

For me, the question would be when to make the draw for the qualifying tournament, as it would affect touring plans that are put in place a decent way in advance.

It would mean that, if we took the rankings as of 1st January 2021 to the hold a 2022 qualifying tournament (excluding the 2019 quarter finalists, and excluding any geographic considerations), the pools would have been.
Pool A: Scotland, USA, Spain, Namibia, Netherlands, Kenya
Pool B: Argentina, Samoa, Uruguay, Canada, Brazil, Korea
Pool C: Fiji, Italy, Romania, Hong Kong, Belgium, Germany
Pool D: Georgia, Tonga, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, Chile

You'd expect the top seed from each group to win, but there are viable upsets (except Scotland), then a proper fight between each pool's 2nd and 3rd seeds.

Assuming the top 2 seeds, then (with the proviso that rankings would have been changed as a result of different matches happening at that point) from the rankings end of July 2022, this world cup would likely be
Pool A: Ireland, Wales, Argentina, Tonga
Pool B: France, Scotland, Japan, USA/Spain
Pool C: South Africa, Australia, Samoa/Uruguay, Italy
Pool D: New Zealand, England, Fiji, Georgia

I don't think it would be possible to get a single weekend full of dead rubbers there.