How to improve the RWC Format

We at RugbyRefs.com think that this would be an excellent format, While this may indeed be true, on whose behalf are you talking when you say "We at RugbyRefs.com"?

The majority.

Originally Posted by Robert Burns

The majority.

did we vote?

I like the idea of a bowl contest. The teams are there already and might not get a chance to play other quality sides in the near future.

Regarding turnaround times - I wonder how this would have all looked if Christchurch had been available?

Originally Posted by Dickie E

Regarding turnaround times - I wonder how this would have all looked if Christchurch had been available?

No different.

There is no escaping the fact that with five teams (an odd number) in each pool, only four teams in each pool can play on any given weekend, and one team in each pool has a bye. Either you have a bye round for each team in each pool every weekend, and therefore extend the length of the pool stages by one week, or some teams have to play mid-week to catch up.

The only way around this is four or six team pools, so 16 or 24 teams in the RWC, or if you want to keep 20 teams, then five pools of four (shades of 1999 RWC)

Originally Posted by Dickie E

did we vote?

I, for one, welcome our new rugbyrefs.com overlords.

I think the IRB can learn alot from what FIFA do and do well.1. make clubs release their international players as required (not just the rwc)2. have international weekends (applying for both the northern and southern hemisphere competitions).The big problem with the bowl competition is the cost, as long as it doesnt price the fans out it would be a great concept.Finally force the tier one nations to better support other nations. I cannot remember the Wallabies going to play Namibia for example. Force them to go their to spread the rugby word! The problem will be (as always) who will pay...

Here is what would make me more likely to watch more of the competition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1YmS_VDvMY

Wasting time with a whole month of matches, of which only an extremely small minority will actually matter for qualification for the interesting bit, is never going to appeal to anyone who isn't already a reasonably dedicated fan. That's the true strength of FIFA's competition; you've got 32 teams, most of them have some hope of qualifying for the next stage, and there's very rarely a group that you can look at and say "they're definitely through and they're definitely out", so a large proportion of the group matches actually generate some interest.

Now, maybe this is an acceptable tradeoff for the benefits gained by giving the minor nations guaranteed matches against the big boys. In that case, how about hiving the pool phase off from the knockouts and playing them seperately? You could play the pool phase months before the knockouts (or perhaps in two 2-week phases?) in relative anonymity and then hit hard with a major publicity blitz for the bit people are actually going to be interested in, rather than tying the millstone of the pool phase round its neck...

Pool stages work well for the RWC in my opinion.

The fans are already there because they are watching their team, by adding the bowl competition you add in an extra dimension to the game.

The bowl knockout would be just as exciting as the main cup, with teams now matched against others who did equally well in their group.

if we went with how the group stages ended you would have the following games:

Tonga v Georgia
Scotland v Canada
Italy v Fiji
Samoa v USA

Although you can say Tonga, Scotland, Italy & Samoa should win, you would not stake too much money on it,

Then having a possible semi of:

Tonga v Scotland (Tonga beat France, but Scotland higher ranked...very tough).
Italy v Samoa (Italy beat France this year, Samoa beat Australia and gave South Africa a run for their money).

It all points at more great rugby, without having to adjust the current format very much.

80% of Fans stay around longer, buy beer, stay in hotels, buy merchandise. Instead of now where 60% of fans go home.

Here is the introductory bit of the RFU's proposal for 2007. They worked out all the details and I found it pretty impressive, but it was too innovative for the IRB alickadoos.

The Alternative Tender

Two top sporting events that capture the imagination of audiences worldwide are the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. The key to their success is scale.
Our vision for the structure and format of the RWC 2007 will give it a scale to challenge the Olympics and the
FIFA World Cup as sporting spectacles.
Building upon the success of previous RWCs, we also want to create an event of such impact that it makes a significant difference to the development of the sport and fulfils the mission of the IRB 'to promote, foster, develop, extend and govern the Game'.
So what are we suggesting?
An 88-match Event that is divided into two tournaments: the RWC and the RWNC. The two tournaments will be inter-linked and will be played over a 45-day period, commencing on a Friday and concluding on a Sunday.

We are proposing three major innovations:

• a revised second phase for the RWC Knockout rounds to include a Super 8 stage that will replace the traditional quarter-finals
• a reduction in the number of teams in the RWC from 20 to 16
• the introduction of a second tournament, the RWNC for a further 20 teams to run in parallel with the main competition.

These innovations will bring commercial, developmental and competitive benefits.

Commercial Benefits
We believe our Preferred Option will deliver a number of substantial commercial benefits to the IRB and the world game:

• more matches between the seeded sides in the RWC will increase television audiences to the benefit of broadcasters and sponsors
• the delivery of an additional 40 matches to the existing format will increase market size and enhance the value of the property to sponsors
• more countries means more markets for broadcast rights sales
• the costs of running the RWNC will be covered by the increased surplus from the overall Event. Neither the participating nations nor the IRB will be asked to make a financial contribution
• substantially enhanced income streams for RWC Ltd and the IRB
• the potential of a significant reduction in the IRB's costs to fund the running of qualifying competitions for 2007 and 2011.

Developmental Benefits
We are confident that our Preferred Option will deliver some key benefits for the development of the global game:

• increased international involvement to 36 teams will provide an additional 16 participating nations compared to the Traditional Tender
• coaching and officiating development opportunities for countries in the RWNC through exchanging ideas, improved training methods and sharing best practice
• the encouragement of greater international Volunteer participation to help improve and develop the administration of the game worldwide
• the proposed linking of the two Tournaments provides a competitive pathway for teams from developing Unions.

Competitive Benefits
We believe our Preferred Option will deliver a number of competitive benefits for players, spectators, broadcasters and commercial partners:

• to win the Tournament, the champion nation will have to have played five of the top eight seeded teams which is not the case with the Traditional Tender
• the quality of the competition will be improved by minimising non-competitive matches through the reduction in the number of teams in the RWC
• with eight Super 8 matches there will be an additional four high quality matches compared to the quarter-final stage in the Traditional Tender.

In the following sections we detail how the two tournaments will be structured.

I think the RFU proposal for a two tier competing involving a 16 team main and a 20 team secondary competition is simply infeasible. but a bowl competition would retain interest and provide a second level of competition, but one which was integrated on

Originally Posted by Davet

I think the RFU proposal for a two tier competing involving a 16 team main and a 20 team secondary competition is simply infeasible.

That original application went into a lot of detail explaining just how it would all work. It looked highly feasible to me.

It's got merit, but the main competition must allow all teams a chance, the second tournament should be a split from the knock out stages. IMHO.

Otherwise you won't get games like Tonga France, Georgia Scotland, etc...

Originally Posted by Robert Burns

It's got merit, but the main competition must allow all teams a chance, the second tournament should be a split from the knock out stages. IMHO.

Otherwise you won't get games like Tonga France, Georgia Scotland, etc...

Does that mean the top 8 teams would ineligible for plate, bowl, saucer, etc?

I'd stick with current format. In the 7s it gets too confusing & valueless having a lot of minor prizes.

Originally Posted by Dickie E

Does that mean the top 8 teams would ineligible for plate, bowl, saucer, etc?

I'd stick with current format. In the 7s it gets too confusing & valueless having a lot of minor prizes.

Actually, those games in Sevens are not valueless at all. They allow teams not in the cup round to still accumulate table points.

As an aside, tickets to the Wellington leg of the 2012 IRB Sevens went on sale at 09:00 on Tuesday.

By 09:03, all 39,000 were gooooone!!!.

A mate of mine at Ticketmaster tells me it was 162 seconds, beating last year's record of 210 seconds.

Originally Posted by OB..

Here is the introductory bit of the RFU's proposal for 2007. They worked out all the details and I found it pretty impressive, but it was too innovative for the IRB alickadoos.

The Alternative Tender.........In the following sections we detail how the two tournaments will be structured.

Well?

a Super 8 stage that will replace the traditional quarter-finals

Only just noticed this! Dear sweet mother of Mary and Joseph no! That's literally the worst possible thing you can do. That's why the cricket World Cup suffers so badly and never gets any momentum going; you spend a month playing meaningless games with nothing on the line, then you advance to the next stage with shouts and great action...in which you play more games where nothing's on the line! They claim to be learning lessons from FIFA but this is absolutely and totally dead wrong. You have to have immediate consequences after a month of not very much happening. You simply have to. That idea is not about improving anything other than the next attempt to screw money out of sponsors and TV companies, and they even admit it:

with eight Super 8 matches there will be an additional four high quality matches compared to the quarter-final stage

The simple fact remains; knockout matches good, pool matches bad. All knockout matches have simple, basic, inherent drama that even the most thrilling pool match lacks.

Originally Posted by Ian_Cook

Actually, those games in Sevens are not valueless at all. They allow teams not in the cup round to still accumulate table points.

As an aside, tickets to the Wellington leg of the 2012 IRB Sevens went on sale at 09:00 on Tuesday.

By 09:03, all 39,000 were gooooone!!!.

A mate of mine at Ticketmaster tells me it was 162 seconds, beating last year's record of 210 seconds.

Fair call re. table points. I was thinking more of the spectacle

Here's me at last year's Wellington 7s

Attachment 1767

speaking of Wellington 7s. Maybe this year we should have had it the week immediately after the WC to capitalise on all the visitors in NZ.

I wonder if many visitors will go straight from NZ to the Gold Coast (there's 5 weeks between events).