How have you found the 2007 tournament, is twenty teams and six weeks of rugby too much? The IRB will vote and announce a decision in October but before then you can have your say on the number of competitors at the next Rugby World Cup.
If the number of teams competing is reduced it is surely the smaller teams that suffer and the development of rugby in these nations.
Time to let the 'minnows' play ball!!!!! says
This world cup has been brilliant for the ‘minnows’. It’s about time the IRB and Big 8 Nations let them take part in world rugby more than just letting them make up the numbers once every 4 years.
Georgia, Namibia, Romania, USA, Canada, Samoa, Portugal etc have all done brilliantly well and it was such a shame Georgia didn’t beat Ireland. How good would that have been.
It’s time to expand the tri nations and 6 nations. Currently there is a 6 nations b tournament for teams like Georgia, Romania, Portugal, Russia etc compete in but that’s as far as they are allowed to go. Why not expand the 6 Nations to 8 Nations and have a playoff every year between the last placed team in the 8 Nations and the Top team in the 8 Nations b. While we are at it get the USA and Canada involved. They are northern hemisphere nations after all. Maybe have Georgia and Canada in the 8 Nations A and add USA to 8 Nations B. The USA and Canada are about to set up a north American professional league anyway. Having them in the 6 nations set up would increase the profile of rugby there and help turn them into true professionals. They would also bring some great fans to the event. I was at the Canada v Fiji game today in Cardiff and it was full of Canadian rugby fans. They love it!
Argentina have to play in the Tri Nations. It looks like they will reach the 1/2 finals of the Rugby World Cup and from there who knows. It’s a crime they have not been asked to join already and I don’t think SANZAR will every let them or anyone else as they want all the money for themselves. Samoa, Fiji, Tonga and Japan must also be involved in the Tri Nations and Super 14 as well.
In Europe we need to set up a European League to replace the Guinness Premiership, Celtic League, French Top 14, Italian Super 10 and Heineken Cup with all the clubs split into different conferences (like American Footballs NFL) Less games but of Higher quality (just look how poor the 6 Nations have been in this World Cup and it’s easy to see our domestic Leagues are not helping us) Also allow Georgia, Romania, Portugal, Russia etc to enter 1 professional franchise each into the Euro League.
Come on IRB and Big 8. Have the guts and give international rugby a kick up the backside!
Tim says
RE: RWC Format 2011
I think the RWC should introduce a system similar to the to an IRB 7’s event. There is a similar system in place of 6 pools with 4 teams per pool. The round-robin system in the pool stages happens the same, and then the teams are ranked by the amount of points they have accumulated. There are then Three knock out competitions; Cup, Plate and Bowl. The top 8 teams with the most points from the pool stages progress to the Cup competition, the second tier of 8 teams progress to the Plate competition, and the bottom tier of 8 teams with the least points progress to the Bowl competition.
I am not suggesting increase the number of teams at the RWC to 24 and use the same system, but we could draw parallels.
For example, maintain the same system of 4 pools with 5 teams, with the top two teams from each pool progressing to compete for the cup, ie 8 competitors. Instead, however, of the majority of 12 teams (the bottom three from each pool)being eliminated, there could, and should be another competition.
If the 3rd and 4th ranked team in each pool were to progress into a plate or second tier competition there would be greater impetus amongst the minnows to compete further into the competition.
This way, the majority of teams would progress into knock out stages, instead of the majority of teams heading home after the pool stages. Additionally the majority (16/20, 80%) of teams would gain experience of the real pressure matches that are held by the knockout event, leaving only 4 teams eliminated after the Pool stage.
Simon says
The 2007 tournament has been the best Rugby World Cup so far. Please leave it at 20 teams! The standard of the smaller countries has come on hugely in the last few years and they will improve further as the rugby gospel spreads. I am certain that the major club sides will be signing up a few of the players from these sides and the players will benefit from the coaching. To go back to 16 teams would be a backward step and would harm the future of the sport.
Bass says
I was initially sceptical, but I am coming round to Tim’s idea. Here’s some of my thoughts on it
1. More competitive matches at the lower end of the group (not that that was really a problem :))
2. Give it a real benefit by allowing the top teams automatic qualification for the next World Cup.
3. Use the mid-weeks. The interest is there, people will watch. They might not watch Romania vs Georgia at other times.
4. At least in Europe, some or all of the plate games could be near borders or in neighbouring countries. Free tickets for school children, 10 / 20 euro tickets for everyone else, big allocations to the clubs in the neighbouring countries and maybe a five minute each way local U-12 match at half time. Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Spain, Andorra, the Netherlands and even Italy could have benefited. (You could also make the game a double-header and bring the local country in somehow).
5. Yes, it would have been a huge embarrassment for Ireland and Wales to participate and they would expect to contest the final, but it would not be a cake walk with the likes of Tonga, Samoa, and Georgia qualifying! (In fact Ireland and Wales would have been as strong favourites in the repechage as, er, oh, New Zealand and Australia say!)
I posted the suggestion on the Guardian’s World Cup podcast blog in the hope it might get some comment from the team on Thursday. (I didn’t pass it off as my own idea, tempting though it was – I referenced this page.
Bass says
Time to let the ‘minnows’ play ball!!!!! said it was a shame Georgia didn’t beat Ireland. No it wasn’t – I had hopes of Samoa and Tonga beating England though: now that was a shame!
Joe King says
It’s GOT to stay at 20 teams, or even move up to 24 or so. I had never heard it be suggested that there be a second trophy for those failing to qualify for the QFs. I think that it is an excellent idea. My visions for the future of the Rugby World Cup were more along the lines of the football WC, with 32 teams competing in the finals for 16 second round places, but I think the B trophy idea would bring extra excitement to the competition and would encourage the supporters of the weaker nations to follow the event to its conclusion. “The Big 8” are not so big any more, with Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England all looking very ordinary for at least some of their matches. Even France got undone by a seriously superior Argentinian team. The only team to have really lifted its game is England, and there is still serious doubt in the minds of almost every England supporter about whether they are able to perform well for another game.
I also agree about there being more teams in both the 6-nations and the Tri-nations. Just look at the improvement in Italy’s game since they joined the tournament. Imagine what that kind of annual competition could do for the other nations which struggle to get on the international stage.
I think this world cup has been the greatest yet, and that has been brought about by many of the games being very closely contested and some fantastic rugby being played by some of the ‘lesser’ teams. My ideal final would be Argentina V England, with England winning, but I think it would be very good for the game of Rugby if the Argentinians could come through and win the trophy.
barns says
I reckon what would be really good is if the teams that came 3rd and 4th in their pool had a crossover just like the quarter finals to decide the 9th to 16th place rankings with perhaps a plate or something for the team that wins this lesser set of finals. It seems to me that every win for the weaker teams is huge for them and this would give them a chance for more matches against teams of closer strength.
simon becks says
There are 13 major Rugby Nations World Wide ;
Sth Africa ; NZ ; Australia ; England ; France ; Argentina
Ireland and Wales TIER ONE (8)
Fiji ; Tonga ; Samoa ; Scotland and Italy TIER TWO (5)
The world Cup must start with these teams of course and to them with huge credit must be added Georgia, Canada, Japan and the USA
TIER THREE (4)
After that it is a struggle to find teams of sufficient calibre; Rumania ; Russia; Spain and Portugal perhaps. The Cook Isles and I seem to remember one of the Central African Nations did well a few years ago.
So make 2-3 divisions of it and have an all year round Home and Away league with far fewer exhausting club commitments and no need for seeding. Winner of World Div 1 becomes world Champ for 4 years. I know this is impossible but I’d love to see it.
Simon
Beasty says
I think the world cup should stay at 20 teams but maybe a change of format with possibly an event for the lower nations such as a bowl or plate so they have a realitic tournament to play for.