There should be two RWCs
-
@Blackheart said in There should be two RWCs:
@Kirwan These are just two of the real up sets in the history of the RWC...out of hundreds of boring games.
-
@Chester-Draws said in There should be two RWCs:
I don't believe being thrashed and humiliated by another team that is vastly superior in every aspect of the game is beneficial to either team.
And yet every nation and their dog want to play the ABs. We get told off because we don't play the PI nations often enough, yet those games are largely ritual humiliation for them and a chance to run third-stringers for us.
So which is it? We need to play minnows more? Or less?
Not us, but the other "tier ones". History shows that developing minnows have a chance against them which would be beneficial.
The problem with expanding established competitons is the clubs simply won't permit encroachment on the calendar.
-
I love the RWC and the minnows in it.
There's been no absolute blow out as yet, two great upsets, and a couple of belters.
Put me down in favour of the Plate.
I could buy an argument for a 16 team comp.
Otherwise watching the Tier 2 and frankly Tier 3 teams is one of the pleasures of the Cup.
And it's huge for them to play the game's super stars.
-
@booboo said in There should be two RWCs:
@Blackheart said in There should be two RWCs:
@Kirwan These are just two of the real up sets in the history of the RWC...out of hundreds of boring games.
https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/topic/472/2023-expanded-world-cup-in-south-africa
-
@mariner4life said in There should be two RWCs:
World Rugby does have some things to think about though. There has been a very definite regression from a couple of nations who are World Cup mainstays. The Samoans are a far cry from their 1990s heights, and seem to be getting worse. Given where their players come from, you would think they will continue to regress as their player base become 3rd and 5th generation kiwis and Aussies.
Canada too seem to get worse nearly every cup.
This is countered by the improvement in Georgia and Uraguay (hell, and even Namibia if you remember them from 2003). Not enough is done getting these teams playing top nations and meaningful tests between cups. Even the horribly corrupt FIFA and UEFA do this better than rugby.
I was impressed with how organised Russia was.
-
@jegga said in There should be two RWCs:
@booboo said in There should be two RWCs:
@Blackheart said in There should be two RWCs:
@Kirwan These are just two of the real up sets in the history of the RWC...out of hundreds of boring games.
https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/topic/472/2023-expanded-world-cup-in-south-africa
The thought occurred.
-
-
@Duluth said in There should be two RWCs:
Some people think everyone is QP. Pretty sure you are wrong and were wrong about J4R
Hags definitely wasn’t , he visited the politics forum and he was to the right of Genghis Khan . QP wanted Michael Moore to be president
-
@Cyclops said in There should be two RWCs:
We should be making the RWC bigger not smaller. I'm not saying that should be right now, but I think world rugby should have a 20-30 year plan to expand RWCs to 24 teams (4 pools of 6) and then 32 (8 pools of 4).
Segregation won't make the '2nd tier' nations better. To be fair, neither does the RWC alone. World Rugby need to enable regular international competitions at all levels on a regular basis. The first step for that would be expanding RWC qualification. Let's toughen up auto qualifications; following the football example and only allow 2 auto qualies - the defenders and the hosts. Everyone else has to qualify. Having qualification pools stimulate international competition giving teams more regular game time. Have tiers in the qualification pools based on RWC finishes to avoid absolute mismatches but only to a point. Put seedings on the line too. So you might get an Italy-Georgia qualification match where both teams are going to qualify but it means the difference between a softer seeding and a tougher seeding. Getting the teams at the bottom of tier 1 playing the teams at the top of tier 2 more regularly will make the biggest difference to overall quality.
I was discussing this very thing a couple of days ago.
Something that football/soccer get right IMO is the qualification of the WC. It builds tremendous excitement and buy in from the fans. No team is ‘undeserving’ of being at the big show.
Although what we don’t want is the Jags4yearold model of WC qualifiers and friendlies...
-
@jegga said in There should be two RWCs:
https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/topic/472/2023-expanded-world-cup-in-south-africa
Always nice to read the replies in an old thread and someone is arguing the complete opposite of what you think now, you look at the avatar to see who this joker is... and it's you.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in There should be two RWCs:
I was discussing this very thing a couple of days ago.
Something that football/soccer get right IMO is the qualification of the WC. It builds tremendous excitement and buy in from the fans. No team is ‘undeserving’ of being at the big show.
Football has much more depth and competitiveness across nations so it is easier to have pools within regions where you don't always know who will qualify. I remember when Aust and other tier 1 teams had to qualify for the 1999 RWC as there were only 4 automatic qualifiers from the 1995 RWC (1st, 2nd, 3rd and the 1999 hosts, Wales not England). They won that RWC, of course.
Then the IRB changed it to the 8 QF teams from 1999 qualified for the 2003 RWC. The 2011 RWC was the first in which the top 3 teams from each pool qualified for the next RWC. Moving to 12 automatic qualifiers was probably just another example of the tier 1 nations looking after their own self-interests. At least with less automatic qualifiers we would see more tier 1 teams playing tier 2 teams on a home and away basis.
1999 Rugby World Cup – Oceania qualification - Wikipedia