Do we need a World cup?
-
How about having a level playing field and a more league style type of competition where the top 8 or 10 teams play each other home and away over the course of say 2 years. This in my mind eliminates travesties such as teams getting easier runs in knock out tourneys,vagaries of skitz French refs,and teams approaching test matches inbetween World cups as "friendlies". What say you?
-
No. To the above.
Yes to WCs
-
Yes.
The fact WR bottled the world league concept is the problem (although the comp proposed was shit) they do need to look at a global season.
Breaks june/July and december/Jan meaning both hemispheres miss the worst of their respective summers/winters leaving c36 weeks of rugby, so addresses burnout too.
-
Can't we have both?
-
I don't mind a regular competition at the highest level, but it presents a bunch of problems:
-
Smaller nations get locked out of showpiece events
-
Getting everyone to agree to a global season
-
TV rights questions over how / who gets paid, which intersects with:
-
Getting World Rugby to agree to drop their biggest cash cow
On the last point: we're probably going to reach a point that the IOC have with increasing demands of profitability, and leaving host nations with debt for RWC. So the model does need a rethink.
-
-
As for "easier runs" - you're only going to solve that problem by improving the game globally. Rising tide lifts all boats, and we have seen it taking effect in the improved performance of smaller nations.
Japan leading the bunch, with Georgia and countries like Uruguay also doing their bit. These nations were getting 100-point floggings not so long ago, and the biggest margins this RWC were:
NZL v CAN - 63-0
NZL v NAM - 71-9
SCO v RUS - 61-0
RSA v CAN - 66-7
RSA v NAM - 57-3I think RWC could really use a "Plate" competition for the 3rd-place pool finishers - in this case Scotland, Italy, Argentina, and Fiji - in order to keep them involved another week or two. But as you can see from that list, you end up with 2 x 6N, 1 x TRC, and an unaligned nation.
-
@NTA have always liked the idea of a Plate. But for me it would be 3rd & 4th in pools.
Could even add a Bowl for 5th placers.
-
@NTA biggest issue for a plate type comp would be the cost to these nations staying on longer
-
As for SA having an easier knockout run this time:
They beat all three winners of the other Pools in consecutive weekends.
I buy the 2007 run was less challenging than some, but not this time.
Our perceptions of current Japan and Wales need to re-read somewhat I think.
Just because they didn't beat us (who lost to the losers of the final) doesn't mean they had it easy.
-
@taniwharugby said in Do we need a World cup?:
@NTA biggest issue for a plate type comp would be the cost to these nations staying on longer
Isn't that paid for by the event?
-
@taniwharugby said in Do we need a World cup?:
@NTA biggest issue for a plate type comp would be the cost to these nations staying on longer
That will have to come out of WR's purse if they want to improve the game globally as they say
I'm backing Australia to host 2027: there will be plenty of room for visiting fans given nobody here is likely to go
-
@booboo no idea, but keeping them on longer would mean less profit for WR...
-
@taniwharugby said in Do we need a World cup?:
@booboo no idea, but keeping them on longer would mean less profit for WR...
But there would be more revenue from extra games?
-
@booboo said in Do we need a World cup?:
@taniwharugby said in Do we need a World cup?:
@booboo no idea, but keeping them on longer would mean less profit for WR...
But there would be more revenue from extra games?
And more development of the tier 2 teams involved, which is why WR is earning money for.
-
@booboo in Japan I reckon they'd have made it, but would other countries embrace those games as much when they had the bigger ones going on still? Would the tv rights have earned that much more for those games (to be aired in countries likely to play a plate)
-
@taniwharugby said in Do we need a World cup?:
@booboo in Japan I reckon they'd have made it, but would other countries embrace those games as much when they had the bigger ones going on still? Would the tv rights have earned that much more for those games (to be aired in countries likely to play a plate)
The lower tier games become the midweek fixtures, so once 40 games of pool play are over:
WEEK 1
Wednesday - Plate QFs
Match 41: Pool A third v Pool C fourth
Match 42: Pool B third v Pool D fourth
Thursday - Plate QFs
Match 43: Pool C third v Pool A fourth
Match 44: Pool D third v Pool B fourth
Friday - Cup QFs
Match 45: Pool A winner v Pool C runner up
Match 46: Pool B winner v Pool D runner up
Saturday - Cup QFs
Match 47: Pool C winner v Pool A runner up
Match 48: Pool D winner v Pool B runner upWEEK 2
Wednesday - Plate SF
Thursday - Plate SF
Friday - Cup SF
Saturday - Cup SFWEEK 3
Friday - Plate Final
Saturday - Cup Final -
A plate would be a waste of time. No one would care because it would be meaningless and if they did care it would distract from what we are meant to be focusing on. I wouldn't mind seeing an emerging nations world cup for non Rugby Championship and Six Nations teams.
-
@booboo said in Do we need a World cup?:
As for SA having an easier knockout run this time:
They beat all three winners of the other Pools in consecutive weekends.
I buy the 2007 run was less challenging than some, but not this time.
Our perceptions of current Japan and Wales need to re-read somewhat I think.
Just because they didn't beat us (who lost to the losers of the final) doesn't mean they had it easy.
I think my perception of the tournament was that SA, England and NZ were clearly the three strongest teams.
Wales were a bit further back - as Mike pointed out, they had a chance to win the Cup at 16-16 vs SA - but, I think it would have been a bit of a burglary. France probably should have knocked them over in the QFs and the bronze play-off tested their depth.
France and probably Oz the next best.
I think whoever got the winner of Japan/Scotland should have been getting the easy pass to the Semis - except that Ireland had an awful tournament. Much the most disappointing "contender" - if they'd had a stronger team than Scotland as the second seed in their pool they wouldn't have made it out.
I think I want to see a bit more sustained improvement by Japan. A year ago, we fielded a third string makeshift combo against them and put on 60 points.
-
@booboo said in Do we need a World cup?:
As for SA having an easier knockout run this time:
They beat all three winners of the other Pools in consecutive weekends.
I buy the 2007 run was less challenging than some, but not this time.
Our perceptions of current Japan and Wales need to re-read somewhat I think.
Just because they didn't beat us (who lost to the losers of the final) doesn't mean they had it easy.
lol we d give the Japs a hiding. We smacked Wales around with ease. Have you been watching at all? Im all for giving the opposition credit where its due,but this is too far man. SA got lucky,we should of thrown the pool game if we knew how it was going to go.
