Rugby World Cup general discussion
-
-
@Bovidae said in Rugby World Cup news:
England is the new France by dominating the RWC ref panel.
With the lopsided draw the ABs are more likely to get the English or Aussie refs in the QFs.
Barnes I don't mind (because we know what to expect) but Pearce and Dickson scare me somewhat. Seem to ref a different style to what our players are used to.
-
@Crucial said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Bovidae said in Rugby World Cup news:
England is the new France by dominating the RWC ref panel.
With the lopsided draw the ABs are more likely to get the English or Aussie refs in the QFs.
Barnes I don't mind (because we know what to expect) but Pearce and Dickson scare me somewhat. Seem to ref a different style to what our players are used to.
Yep
Land based game not flying
-
If rugby were cluedo it was Barnes, in the stadium, with the faulty whistle
Reckon this is the strongest panel of refs yet although not sold on the Georgian.
-
SENZ secures radio broadcast rights for 2023 Rugby World Cup
SENZ will have all the action from the 2023 Rugby World Cup.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Rugby World Cup news:
If rugby were cluedo it was Barnes, in the stadium, with the faulty whistle
Reckon this is the strongest panel of refs yet although not sold on the Georgian.
In fairness, he's improving
-
-
World Cup format set for shake up
World Rugby is reportedly considering expanding the Rugby World Cup, starting from the 2031 edition, as part of their ongoing efforts to promote the global growth of the sport.
-
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
World Rugby is reportedly considering expanding the Rugby World Cup, starting from the 2031 edition, as part of their ongoing efforts to promote the global growth of the sport.
Less is more you fucking idiots
-
-
-
one assumes that 24 teams means 6 pools of four. With 6 pool winners and two best runner-ups going through.
Which will make the pool stages even more irrelevant, and see the minnows cop harder poundings as the lower ranked sides try and get their points diff up as high as possible.
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby World Cup news:
one assumes that 24 teams means 6 pools of four. With 6 pool winners and two best runner-ups going through.
Which will make the pool stages even more irrelevant, and see the minnows cop harder poundings as the lower ranked sides try and get their points diff up as high as possible.
IMO, They won't cop harder poundings for the reasons you mention, because the minnows only have to handle 3 games rather than 4, and the scheduling will be even with even numbers in pool, rather than 5. So, no short turnarounds, which used to shaft the minnows up until 2015 before WR attempted to even it out a bit in 2019 draw.
A more valid reasoning for assuming they may cop bigger poundings though is because we're adding 4 weaker teams, but I also don't think there's any/much difference between 19th and 24th best team in world at moment. (but if adding teams on geography e.g. Asia 2 or Africa 3, then that is a lot weaker than the 11th best European country etc)
The 5 team pools are a real weakness iMO from a tournament integrity POV, with WR having to play God a bit with the draw.
-
Obviously. The holy grail for a tournament structure is either 16 teams or 32 teams.
The 20 team tournament has been a reasonable compromise IMO of structure v competitiveness v expansion.
And after 20 years with 20 team structure they got it to the point where the pool stages were really interesting by the 2015 and 2019 tournaments.
A 24 team (6 pools of 4 qualifying into a Last 16) structure will make the pool stages less interesting for fans of the top 10 countries (who are the majority obviously in sheer numbers) but more interesting for teams 11 to 20, and by adding 21 to 24 - then obviously they'll find it more interesting than not competing at all.
And to be honest, the Round of 16 is equivalent of a 'Matchweek/matchday 4' and will be virtually the same as the Pool of Death(s) last round we currently have, in terms of interest and drama. The real payoff for Round of 16 , (being better than current last weekend of pool play, rather than equivalent to it), will be a further 20 years into the future.
24 teams is clunky outcome, that I'd suggest you'd want to move on from as quickly as possible. Even 28 teams (7 pools of 4 qualifying into a Last 16) would be infinitely more interesting at the pool stage.
Soccer spent 4 tournament with 24 teams (1982 to 1994), I'd suggest the 28 team compromise as soon as possible. As 32 teams still seems a long way away.
-
if it was me trying to "grow" test rugby i would cut the RWC to 16 teams, but make every team bar the hosts and the defending champions qualify.
That way you have a glowing pinnacle of a tournament, and you also force NZ and Aus to play games in Fiji/Tonga/Samoa/Cook Islands etc, and the 6 Nations sides to play in Germany and Poland. Meaningful test matches against tier one one sides at home will do more i reckon than their current ritual slaughter for content every 4 years.
In rugby, more is almost always less. We are not soccer, we will never be soccer. FIFA are expanding the World Cup, because they can (even though i think it's a dumb move). They have a team like Egypt at 35 in the rankings, a nation with a multi-level professional competition, and a national team that boasts the 2nd best striker in the world's biggest league. Rugby has the Czech Republic at 35, who have 5,000 registered players, most of which are kids.
-
It is about the top 24. That means adding the likes of Canada USA and Spain with Russia Hong Kong Kenya and Brazil battling for a spot. Without the Rwc incentive these countries will continue to fester. They are leagues ahead of Czechs and not far below Namibia Chile etc.
-
I think this whooshed past everyone
"The possibility of holding the event between June to September is being explored..."
Grow up
-
Tonga set to unleash seven world class former tier one internationals at RWC 2023 | Rugbydump
