How should the RWC be organised in future? (2)

There seems to a bit of disparity of views about what should happen in the future.

see https://www.606v2.com/t14836-how-should-the-rwc-be-organised-in-future

I feel that there should be fewer sides in the RWC finals to reduce the number of unequal matches yet still keep the finals open to t2 nations.

I openly declare my vote - sixteen.

So in reality TV style, I put it to the public vote...

As I have stated before:

Hosted by one nation having a two tier competition.

16 top ranked sides (forget about qualifications)

next 16 ranked sides.

held at the same time in the same cities.

Tier two is played during the midweek and tier one during the weekends.

I voted for 16.

that's being elitist.

What about growing the game on a world stage?

What about growing the game on a world stage?

true, but the 2011 world cup should have gone to Japan and not NZ

biltongbek wrote:that's being elitist.

What about growing the game on a world stage?

Probably the best place to discuss this is https://www.606v2.com/t14836-how-should-the-rwc-be-organised-in-future

Maybe a clever mod could merge the posts. I tried the edit option but I couldn't find a way to post-create a poll.

I have gone for 16

I understand the arguments about growing the game but the reality is that any country that doesn't have a decent domestic structure is not going to get anywhere.

Rugby is not like football. There are no real upsets. Does it really do the likes of Namibia any good to get spanked by 50 - 80 points in consecutive games? Will that make them better or encourage more people to want to pull on their rugby boots.

The current rankings show that a 16 team tournament would consist of the Tri Nations, the 6 nations, Argentina, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Georgia, Canada and Japan.

Canada it may surprise you to know are 12th just behind Italy.

Namibia are 19th so it just shows the huge drop off in ability outside that 16.

A smaller tournament would get rid of the disparities and mean 4 pools of 4 which should end the 4 day turnarounds for some sides.

A second tier tournament surely serves to cast the net wider than it does by giving more teams the opportunity to compete in a tournament, all right its not the big prize but the reality is the WC is so far out of these sides reach as to be irrelevant.

Also I think it could be dangerous putting professional athletes up against what are amateurs in many teams, Namibia only had a few professional players.

Offer the carrot of of a place in the WC to the winner of the Plate comp if you like with maybe some added funding and assistance to avoid a fall off by the time the next 4 years come around.

That is exactly why I say make it 2 tiers of 16 teams each

BATH_BTGOG wrote:What about growing the game on a world stage?

true, but the 2011 world cup should have gone to Japan and not NZ

You're wrong the 2015 world cup should have gone to Japan and not England.

7

TheGreyGhost wrote:

BATH_BTGOG wrote:What about growing the game on a world stage?

true, but the 2011 world cup should have gone to Japan and not NZ

You're wrong the 2015 world cup should have gone to Japan and not England.

The 2011 RWC was granted to NZ in the full knowledge that it would not make money (and Japan would have been a wild stab on the dark).

England was granted the 2015 on a financial basis.

Japan in 2019 is still a gamble.

The 2023 and '27 finals will most likely be granted to the Celtic Nations/Pro 12 and Oz/SA. Probably oz/SA first then the Celtic combo.

I'd have 8 groups of four in a preliminary competition held in different countries to spread the game and then have the top two from each progress to the final 16.

This provides a greater number of meaningful intense games without making the business end unfair and protracted.

So I've put 32 even though the finals are only 16