Restructuring of RWC.

There are a number of things the IRB is doing wrong in my opinion, and we have spoken about the scheduling of matches and the short turn around times some of these teams are getting.

But the other thing really bugging me is how serious is the IRB in recognising the minnow teams. Someone else mentioned the idea of having plate, and shield rounds once the pool matches are over, and I think it is a great idea.

Currently 7’s use it to great effect and even in the JWC it is done. Players play for a specific finishing position whether it be for 1st, 3rd or 8th place.
During the pool rounds we have lots of matches to peak our interest, but what happens when the semi final week and final week starts. By then the minnows have been home already and forgotten.

Even the teams being eliminated in the quarter finals go home with a noddy badge that says they got a quarter final spot.

Would it not be good to have the quarter final eliminated teams play their own knockout and play for spots 5-8?

The same goes for each team that ends 3rd in their pool, 4th in their pool and 5th in their pool.

Let just use a simple example. Let’s just for argument sake say this is how the pools end up.

Pool A
New Zealand
France
Canada
Tonga
Japan

Pool B
England
Scotland
Argentina
Georgia
Romania

Pool C
Ireland
Australia
Italy
USA
Russia

Pool D
South Africa
Wales
Samoa
Fiji
Namibia

So the top two goes into a quarter final round.
SA vs OZ
WAL vs IRE
ENG vs FRA
NZ vs SCO

Now the victors go on to play for 1st to 4th.

What about the 5th to 8th place? Firstly there will be 4 more matches, creating revenue and filling those last few dull days in between the finals matches.

Now let’s take the next 4 teams who came third.

Canada vs Argentina
Italy vs Samoa
These four will play for places 9th to 12th

The 4th placed pool teams
Tonga vs Georgia
USA vs Fiji
These four will play 13th to 16th

Last four teams.
Japan vs Romania
Russia vs Namibia
These four will play 17th to 20th.

It will in total create an extra 16 matches for the IRB to collect gate money and tv revenue.

The eliminated teams have so much more to play for, and instead of just saying they came last in their pool, they can fight to gain 17th position. In my opinion this will create more interest in those particular “minnow” countries and they don’t just feel like “also turned up” participants. In my opinion currently the smaller teams are being patronised, they get the short end of the stick with schedulaing, get slaughtered by the big teams and then sent home, more emphasis can be put on them, and make the RWc special for them too.

What do you guys think?

where do those 16 extra matches play, and where does the TV schedulers put them.?

Tv companies won't buy the rights to show these matches and there will be less money raised.

Too much rugby on TV can also turn people away.

Billtong, it was myself that suggested it (I think) and i definatly agree. People maybe don't give some matches a chance, but equally matched 'minnows' can still provide breathtaking viewing. i see no reason why tv wouldn't cover these other matches. The finals at least. Or perhaps online only coverage.

One thing a disagree on is that Japan will not come bottom of that group! They will beat Tonga and Canada. Mark my words! and they will be great matches for watching!

Hi, clive, yeah I just made the positions up, there is plenty of reason for TV to show these matches. Even if the revenue from these tests a at a quarter price of the other matches it is money that can go directly towards those teams.

Damage, in the last two weeks there is only 2 matches per week, to fit in another 16 is no problem.

But I think you've all missed something!


The IRB doesn't really care about the smaller nations.

It's only interested in SA, NZ and AUS

Exactly ( but I would add, 6 more teams to that list.)

To be honest, while a good endeavour I can't see it working.

Plates etc are ok for the quickfire tournaments, like 7s, but in a World Cup once you're out I'd imagine there would be very little interest in prolonging your participation. Would players hearts be in it? This isn't a tournament that is played across Hong Kong, London, Canda, etc in the space of 12 months, this is the pinnacle of rugby played every 4 years and getting knocked out hurts.

Crowds sit around all day at 7s tournaments so there's always someone watching, but playing out a plate match in front of diminishing numbers gives the wrong image of a World Cup and I can see that happening as well, unfortunately.

To be honest I don't even like the 3rd/4th place play off idea.

Biltong....love it, but I'd even perhaps try have the minows go into a round robin group. We need to give them more exposure to playing test rugby.

@ damage_13
How about the empty mid week spots between 1/4 and 1/2 finals.

HERSH wrote:But I think you've all missed something!


The IRB doesn't really care about the smaller nations.

It's only interested in SA, NZ and AUS

You mean the same IRB in which the (much wealthier) Home Unions have more votes than the 3N?

As conspiracy theories go that one's up there with the faked moon landings one.

The IRB is very biased towards the top 8, not the top 3.

Well it could be to make sure there is interest, the extra games played are by the other teams that did not make it through for an automatic qualification for the next world cup.
Highly likely would not work, but would make sure there is still interest in the games

Where do we draw the line ? If all the above was done people will always want more.

When player welfare and the amount of Rugby professional Rugby players play is a hot topic, do we really need another two brusing test matches, just to decide who finishes 7th or 8th!

Shields and Plates etc work in the 7s as they are two day events and the games are short. Also Countries are playing for Series points so the further teams go in some competitions the more points they score in the overall table, so the matches have real context. What real context would a 17th and 18th playoff game have at this World Cup?

Cymroglan wrote:Too much rugby on TV can also turn people away.

Cymro are you mad man, there can NEVER be to much rugby on tele

I like the idea of a bowl type competotion though.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:Too much rugby on TV can also turn people away.

Cymro are you mad man, there can NEVER be to much rugby on tele

I like the idea of a bowl type competotion though.

I agree but if this World Cup was in the NH can you imagine how many complaints we would have that rugby was interfering with their soaps.
Moving the fringe games to ITV 4 would not be very appealing to advertisers at the end of the day it's all about money.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

HERSH wrote:But I think you've all missed something!


The IRB doesn't really care about the smaller nations.

It's only interested in SA, NZ and AUS

You mean the same IRB in which the (much wealthier) Home Unions have more votes than the 3N?

As conspiracy theories go that one's up there with the faked moon landings one.

The IRB is very biased towards the top 8, not the top 3.

I'm not to sure Kiwi, the IRB seem to change the rules to meet the requirements of the SH teams year after year, also SH refs seem to ping England a lot despite Eng not doing anything different than anyone else at the breakdown area.

There are dark forces at work against NH teams within the IRB, FACT

I agree with greybeard.

teams are here to play their best in a chance to win the Web Ellis, anything else would'nt be the same, with tier 2 teams fielding 2nd teams against any tier 1s in the hope they can win the plate.

it wouldn't work.

It should stay the same, except ...

I reckon teir 1 teams should be drawn out the hat and x2 teams should have to play mid week. This should be done two years or so in advance.

Also teams with a 3-4 day turn around should be allowed 2 extra players in their squads.

The lead up to the World Cup Finals should also be televised with the TV stations buying the finals rights having to show a % of the last area group matches on an even spread.

The IRB need to 'big up' these matches and advertise them, this is a nations chance to play in the Rugby World Cup Finals, where teams stand to gain the experience of facing some of the greats.

Everyone likes supporting the underdogs and its great to watch variety and other nations with different cultures, playing styles and physiques. In rugby it actually matters and can STILL mean teams can compete and score points/Trys and THATS what its all about.

Trying your best, for your country and selling your sport

I've suggested this a couple of times on other threads. The difference for me was that I would only have the top of each pool go through to a semi final. No chance of teams throwing games then eh?

biltongbek wrote:But the other thing really bugging me is how serious is the IRB in recognising the minnow teams. Someone else mentioned the idea of having plate, and shield rounds once the pool matches are over, and I think it is a great idea.

I did suggest this for a European Cup, basically have 4 pools of 4 teams, and let them play each other as a normal pool, then go directly to to the semi finals, in a Cup, Shield, Plate, and bowl competition.
Using the Current World Cup teams, and qualifing statistics it would look something like this.

Pool A
1 New Zealand
2 France
3 Canada
4 Japan

Pool B
1 England
2 Argentina
3 Scotland
4 Georgia

Pool C
1 Ireland
2 Australia
3 Italy
4 Tonga (Moved from Pool A)

Pool D
1 South Africa
2 Wales
3 Fiji
4 Namibia

Samoa, Usa, Russia, Romania eliminated as non qualifiers.
You play the pool games as normal, then teams go straight into semi finals. so youd have:

Cup
New Zealand(Pool A winner) Vs England (Pool B winner)
Ireland (Pool C winner) Vs South Africa (Pool D winner)
*The 2 winners would go into the final, the 2 losers into a 3/4 play off.

Shield
France (Pool A runner up) Vs Argentina (Pool B runner up)
Australia (Pool C runner up) Vs Wales (Pool D runner up)
*The 2 winners would go into the final, the 2 losers into a 3/4 play off.

Plate
Canada (Pool A 3rd place) Vs Scotland (Pool B 3rd place)
Italy (Pool C 3rd place) Vs Fiji (Pool D 3rd place)
*The 2 winners would go into the final, the 2 losers into a 3/4 play off.

Bowl
Japan (Pool A 4th place) Vs Georgia (Pool B 4th place)
Tonga (Pool C 4th place) Vs Namibia (Pool D 4th place)
*The 2 winners would go into the final, the 2 losers into a 3/4 play off.

Using this system there would be less teams and less games, 6 pool games across 4 pools = 24 games, and 16 final games = total 40 games.

Currently in the 2011 World Cup we have 10 games per pool, with 4 pools of 5 teams, and 8 knock out games (4 quarter finals, 2 semis, a 3/4 play off and the final) = total 48 games.

you're loking at Samoa as a non qualifier?

biltongbek wrote:you're loking at Samoa as a non qualifier?

Yes, remember only 2 of the Island teams used to play in the 16 team tournaments, Samoa missed the 1987 World Cup, Tonga missed the 1991 one, Fiji missed the 1995 one. under current qualifying rules Samoa wouldn't of been in the tournament as Fiji and Tonga were automatic qualifiers for this one, while Samoa (the lowest ranked team) had to qualify.
Usa don't make it as Americas 2, While Russia (Europe 2) and Romania (Play off winner against Uruguay) Don't make it either..
Namibia and Japan will make it clearly as there must be at least 1 African and Asian team involved.

In 1999 they moved to 5 pools of 4 teams, but there was uproar when 8 teams had to play 4 Quarter-final play-off games only 4 days before the quarter finals themselves.

England play Tonga on the 15 of October,
England play Fiji in a Quarter-final play-off on the 20th of October
England play South Africa in a Quarter Final on the 24th of October
*England played 3 games in 9 days.

Scotland played Spain on the 16th of October.
Scotland then play Samoa on the 20th of October in a Quarter-final play-off.
Scotland then play New Zealand on the 24th of October, in the Quarter Finals.
*Scotland play 3 games in 8 days.

Every team that had to play a Quarter-final play-off lost heavily in the Quarter final 4 days later so the idea was scrapped.

I think it would be better then just to take a certain date before the RWC, say 12 months, use the IRB rankings to select the top 16 teams.

That is anyway the only real use I see for the world rankings to be honest.

biltongbek wrote:I think it would be better then just to take a certain date before the RWC, say 12 months, use the IRB rankings to select the top 16 teams.

That is anyway the only real use I see for the world rankings to be honest.

Well the IRB is screwed either way to be honest.
They need to generate revenue to invest in smaller countries and promote the game, however they are at the mercy of TV companies who clearly want to maximise their audience so put the best games at peak times to achieve this.
If they don't listen to the TV companies then they won't get the best amount of money to help Nations.

Then again if they reduce the tournament from 20 teams to 16, then they reduce the weaker Nations limited exposure to top level rugby, and lose the interest and exposure generated in that country from their team competing.

In 2003 they wanted to change the World Cup back to a 16 team tournament, however the tier B Nations resisted it and insisted it stayed the same. So the only solution is to leave the system as it is, or have games over lapping, so we get less revenue and less to invest in weaker Nations.

If Einstein was creating a code for this problem it would look like this:
--> --> -->

AlynDavies wrote:They need to generate revenue to invest in smaller countries and promote the game, however they are at the mercy of TV companies who clearly want to maximise their audience so put the best games at peak times to achieve this.
If they don't listen to the TV companies then they won;t get the best amount of money to help Nations.

you know this is something that has always bugged me. The super XV has the exact same scenario.

Why is it that generating money first, is seen more important than setting up the best tournament structures for the sport to have better quality competition and longevity for their players.

I understand money is important, but should never be to the detriment of the sport.

I don't know the figures we are talking about here, but let's say the IRB, SANZAR et all start putting their foot down and say to these media moguls this is how it will be, you buy it the way it is or we find somerone else. There has been a culture in rugby where the Unions allow themselves to be led by the noses by media moguls and the media moguls have come to realise just how weak these negotiations have become. They simply demand what they want.

Rugby needs to realise they are providing a product for someone to buy, that product first and foremost has to be quality. The sustainability comes from money yes, but perhaps if the Unions were a little more creative and not depend on TV money to sustain the sport we will be able to move on from there.

biltongbek wrote:I understand money is important, but should never be to the detriment of the sport.

Ok lets be honest here, how about you tell the players to cut their World Cup pay in half and have more favourable fixtures, I bet all those whinging Samoan clowns would soon change their minds!
There in a professional sport and that means generating money, and if that means the All Blacks sell their brand for a few $, then they are more than happy to do it. Sad fact of life but true.

Yeah, that is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me rugby.

damage_13 wrote:I agree with greybeard.

teams are here to play their best in a chance to win the Web Ellis, anything else would'nt be the same, with tier 2 teams fielding 2nd teams against any tier 1s in the hope they can win the plate.

it wouldn't work.

Thats already happening. Japan fielded a poor side against NZ to save players for tonga and canada. the minnows are here to get 3rd place. that is their prize!
I would suggest that offering them a chance to go into a 'plate' QF , SF , F would be exactly what they would want. If i were any of the minnows, i'd be very proud of going home with silverware as the best team outside of the top 8!

To suggest their hearts wouldn't be in it, as someone did, is ludicrous.

I agree wholeheartedly Sir.

England actually had a cracking idea for the 2007 world Cup, they wanted a 16 team 4 pool tournament, and while it was going on planned to run a second 4 pool 16 team tournament for developing nations, so they could be at the World Cup and enjoy the exposure.

France won the 2007 tournament though.

I agree it should be in place.. but not so many competitions... just the main cup and a plate.

In 50 years time the same 5 sides will still be contesting the latter stages of the RWC, we have to give teams something to aim for, to build on and to take back to their country and say... look what we achieved, now please invest in our sport and get kids playing.

Ok so these games will not be as popular as the Cup KO stages... it doesn't mean they won't be excellent matches. You could double up matches one after the other... which is already done in the UK. This would bring more supporters to the matches... 2 for 1 and 4 sets of fans.

In some of the tier2+ matche in RWC07 we were seeing attendances of 30K plus so the interest is there... it just needs to be marketed well.

Well there is no reason why we couldnt go straight to semi finals now with our 4 pools and have 5 seperete competitions based on their pool placings.