Planet Rugby Forum

I've said it before. The Rugby world cup needs to expand. Some of the teams are getting good enough that it's tragic there isn't space for them at the RWC.

Rugby is growing in places it never did before (Brazil, Chile, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands) and getting ever better and better in minority nations (Georgia, Russia Spain, Romania) and the fact is what we consider tier II and tier III is getting ever better and need more integration with tier I as well as more exposure. These teams are in Limbo.

Financially and calendar wise the 6 Nations can't expand and geographically the Rugby Championship is already stretched. Ideally an RWC stretched to 28 teams in 6 groups and have a extra knockout round would help contribute to the development and expose to these nations to the elite tournament in Rugby.

A good case is made here:

http://the1014.com/rugby-world-cup-expa ... velopment/

Personally, I reckon a competition in any sport can wear about one whipping boy per group. Beyond that and the competition's validity and relevance starts to take a hit. As such, introducing loads more sub par teams will just mean more 50+ hammering dished out, and I think that detracts from the idea of, well, a 'competition'.

More feeder tournaments to get the spots in pool play would be better. Much like soccer has qualifying games. Having Brazil in your pool along with Georgia, Tonga and Wales is not helping the tournament as you can't keep adding teams that aren't going to feature in the playoffs

Or, have 1 (or possibly 2) tournaments to see who gets to play the all Blacks in the final.

Like the Americas cup model

Jeff the Bear wrote:Personally, I reckon a competition in any sport can wear about one whipping boy per group. Beyond that and the competition's validity and relevance starts to take a hit. As such, introducing loads more sub par teams will just mean more 50+ hammering dished out, and I think that detracts from the idea of, well, a 'competition'.

I tend to agree with you. Beyond the 6N and RC, you have the islands, Japan and Georgia as reasonable. So that's 15, but then it drops a chunk - US, Canada, Romania, Uruguay, Namibia ...

North America has a chance of getting both national teams up to Georgia, Tonga levels if this Pro League works out.

I can see in the future, a 2 tier European league happening with the bottom and top swapping or having a playoff. The big fear would be the revenue drop if they get relegated from the 6N, so a parachute arragement would be needed just for one year. Ultimately it's all about the money.



I know it is all money and time for players to properly rest/pre season etc, but wonder if during the typically 2 match summer tour, on the same 2 weekends, a select team from each of 6N team, could play against a Championship team. Hell for a runout, instead of the Anglo Welsh which is to be dropped, a club/region/province to play one of these teams, but I guess that interferes with the Championship which appears to run parallel to teh 6N and has 6 teams in it (as well as the Trophy).

Jeff the Bear wrote:Personally, I reckon a competition in any sport can wear about one whipping boy per group. Beyond that and the competition's validity and relevance starts to take a hit. As such, introducing loads more sub par teams will just mean more 50+ hammering dished out, and I think that detracts from the idea of, well, a 'competition'.

And if two Tier 3 teams can only compete with each other, give them a qualifying tournament instead like they already have for the U20s. Run it two years out from the RWC proper with the two finalists going to the big dance. They already in these round robin mini tournaments anyway that involves lots of travel (esp with the Americas teams).


How many people turned up for Canada v Romania during the RWC? How many watched on telly? Will you pay tickets for / sit on your sofa through all of Brazil (esp given how they played against Canada at the weekend) v Hong Kong in an expanded tournament?

I understand the desire to see the game grow but there has to be a cutoff point for any comp and whilst the 21st team might be of comparable quality to 20th it doesnt mean you should expand the field just to accommodate another also ran.

Over expansion just tends to add games for broadcasters but dilute competitions from a sporting pov. 20 teams for a sport like rugby is plenty imho.

I can't see the logic of expanding the RWC so that more teams can be thumped by the top nations. There already are the Nations Cup, the Pacific Nations Cup, the Pacific Rugby Cup and the Americas Rugby Championship for the smaller nations.

However, I think it would be an option to have a Cup competition (Top 8 ) with a concurrent Trophy competition for the rest of the teams at the RWC

I think a 21 team World Cup would be a good middle-ground.

Jeff the Bear wrote:Personally, I reckon a competition in any sport can wear about one whipping boy per group. Beyond that and the competition's validity and relevance starts to take a hit. As such, introducing loads more sub par teams will just mean more 50+ hammering dished out, and I think that detracts from the idea of, well, a 'competition'.

I don't think it would quite work like that though, they would be spread out into more groups so still just one whipping boy per group. Not saying I'm in favour of an increase mind, it's probably something best assessed after the 2019 RWC.

Nieghorn wrote:How many people turned up for Canada v Romania during the RWC? How many watched on telly? Will you pay tickets for / sit on your sofa through all of Brazil (esp given how they played against Canada at the weekend) v Hong Kong in an expanded tournament?

27,153.

Jensrsa wrote:I can't see the logic of expanding the RWC so that more teams can be thumped by the top nations. There already are the Nations Cup, the Pacific Nations Cup, the Pacific Rugby Cup and the Americas Rugby Championship for the smaller nations.

However, I think it would be an option to have a Cup competition (Top 8 ) with a concurrent Trophy competition for the rest of the teams at the RWC

I think that is a better idea but make it top 12 or 16 in the main comp. With Top 8 there would always be one or 2 sides way better than the rest

Just what the world cup needs. Some more thrashings.

Not ready to silly reasoning

Place it in a chamber and heat it at over 500 degrees celsius. It should expand over time. Not sure New Zealand would appreciate you deforming it though

I think people against expansion on competitiveness grounds fail to realize how damaging 5 team pools are to current competitiveness. Scheduling games on 4 days rest is both a player welfare and a competitiveness issue and is inherent to the 5 team pools. The T2/3 teams are basically forced to choose which game to target and field a B team in the other game. This leads to awful matches like USA-South Africa in the last RWC where USA fielded a complete B team against SA because they had a more winable match 4 days later against Japan. Japan learned that lesson the hard way last time where they totally ran out of steam against Scotland, 4 days after fielding their first choice side for a very memorable upset of South Africa. Most coaches in a similar situation would have fielded the B side against SA and we would have been denied a classic RWC match. How many other classic matches have we been denied due to this format? So part of the question is not actually how teams 21-24 compare to the bottom end teams in a 20 team RWC, but rather how they compare to their B teams.

There are some other factors to consider in looking at a 24 team RWC. T3 teams will be able to attract better eligible players if they are more likely to qualify for a RWC. Zimbabwe has been making a push to get high quality eligibles to play for them in the upcoming RWCQs. Who knows what success they'll have in attracting those players, but there is no doubt that they'd have a better chance at attracting those players if RWC qualification were more likely. It's also likely that some of those countries in that range would refocus resources from 7s to 15s if RWC qualification were more likely.

As Super Rugby showed, and 6ns and several other comps - bigger is not better. As I keep telling Mrs Enz (well, used to) - smaller is better

don't keep trying to get perfect water from the well

Smee wrote:I understand the desire to see the game grow but there has to be a cutoff point for any comp and whilst the 21st team might be of comparable quality to 20th it doesnt mean you should expand the field just to accommodate another also ran.

Over expansion just tends to add games for broadcasters but dilute competitions from a sporting pov. 20 teams for a sport like rugby is plenty imho.

Expansion will actually broaden competition here. Competition isn't just "Who can win he world cup", which is realistically 8 teams max. It is about every level of competition and performance. The format I suggested will actually mean fewer group stage blowouts.

Also the number of games would be roughly the same, but rather then another pointless generic group game, we have one fewer and an extra knockout competition game. The quality is actually less diluted and mid-level teams have more to play for with potential knock-out rounds to play for. It also increases the interest there as more teams reaching knockout stages increases media coverage globally.

The tournament right now is to exclusive and limited in it's format. Rugby is also fragile, how can it really expand if Spain are forever blocked from entering a world cup on the limiting spaces or can only do it at the expense of a Romania, Russia, Canada or Samoa? Nothing increases interest or awareness in the sport like being at the World Cup. If that drops for one of these countries the the sport continues to stagnate.

Enzedder wrote:As Super Rugby showed, and 6ns and several other comps - bigger is not better. As I keep telling Mrs Enz (well, used to) - smaller is better

don't keep trying to get perfect water from the well

I do believe an annual competition is different. The RWC got better when it expanded late 90's. The recent Euro's were amount he most exciting, the fact is the competition quality of rugby is greater now at tier 2 and those developments should be supported. Also given the format suggestions, it wouldn't even be more games and we gain a knockout round.

You could have 16 for the Cup and then 16 or 24 for the plate. World Rugby can fund the plate from the Cup. Would make for good curtain raisers.

kiwinoz wrote:You could have 16 for the Cup and then 16 or 24 for the plate. World Rugby can fund the plate from the Cup. Would make for good curtain raisers.

yep, maybe 8 for cup 8 for plate 8 for bowl 8 for shield etc
agree totally re 'curtain raisers' and also you could force the top 8 teams to 'adopt' one of the junior countries during the tournament so they can share coaching and training.

Plates and Shields belong in 7s only

Jeff the Bear wrote:Personally, I reckon a competition in any sport can wear about one whipping boy per group. Beyond that and the competition's validity and relevance starts to take a hit. As such, introducing loads more sub par teams will just mean more 50+ hammering dished out, and I think that detracts from the idea of, well, a 'competition'.

It's crazy how Romania have sunk. They were once a legit rugby nation that could have beaten anyone on their day, with a lot of luck.

The plus side of having more teams is that there will be more competition. Sure, Spain will get 50+ put on them by the All Blacks. But Spain v Portugal would be a great spectacle on rugby's biggest stage. It's maybe okay to have teams that will get flogged by "the best" in the competition. Just as long as there's not just one "the best" that flogs everyone, like in Rugby League, where most of the other national teams are just full-Aussies that aren't good enough to play for Australia (and many not even good enough to play professionally) who qualify for bloody Lebanon or something through a grandmother.

kiwinoz wrote:You could have 16 for the Cup and then 16 or 24 for the plate. World Rugby can fund the plate from the Cup. Would make for good curtain raisers.

That was what the RFU proposed for their RWC '07 bid. It generally got slated on here, but I thought it was a good idea - a genuine second-tier tournament, with something to genuinely play for, rather than simply turning up to get hammered by pros

The criticism seemed to be that it would actually shrink the top tier and deny the best of the second tier the opportunity to play against the best in the world. Which is true, but I think that can be partly resolved by World Rugby pushing a greater number of Tier 1 v tier 2 tests in the annual calendar. Given the amount of top flight test rugby already played, I don't see it as being a bad thing to get tier 1 teams rotating a bit and playing more tests against the likes of Georgia, Romania, Namibia, etc. instead of going for yet another full-strength run at the tri-nations on consecutive weekends in the Autumn (for example).

grievous wrote:Plates and Shields belong in 7s only

Because that's a law?

A trophy and plate competition could run after the group stage much like it does in 7s?

Mog The Almighty wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:Personally, I reckon a competition in any sport can wear about one whipping boy per group. Beyond that and the competition's validity and relevance starts to take a hit. As such, introducing loads more sub par teams will just mean more 50+ hammering dished out, and I think that detracts from the idea of, well, a 'competition'.

It's crazy how Romania have sunk. They were once a legit rugby nation that could have beaten anyone on their day, with a lot of luck.

The plus side of having more teams is that there will be more competition. Sure, Spain will get 50+ put on them by the All Blacks. But Spain v Portugal would be a great spectacle on rugby's biggest stage. It's maybe okay to have teams that will get flogged by "the best" in the competition. Just as long as there's not just one "the best" that flogs everyone, like in Rugby League, where most of the other national teams are just full-Aussies that aren't good enough to play for Australia (and many not even good enough to play professionally) who qualify for bloody Lebanon or something through a grandmother.

Not really that crazy re Romania

c1983 they were at relative strongest, as had State backing in an amateur era. Being a bit of a poor country, its natural that they would have sunk a bit moving into the pro era, but they have always been around rank 16, + or - a few places. They just lost in Spain 22-10, hardly a man-shaming.

I don't think the plate / bowl / shield format would work well, as it would (1) distract a little from the main event, and (2) more importantly stretch the minnows' resources ( limited player stocks) playing in them when their players are probably better off getting back to their main employers (clubs) sooner rather than later (they become less attractive to pro clubs the longer they're away, and the quality of play is probably better at the club, than they would face in a shield-type competition, imho).

Jeff the Bear wrote:Personally, I reckon a competition in any sport can wear about one whipping boy per group. Beyond that and the competition's validity and relevance starts to take a hit. As such, introducing loads more sub par teams will just mean more 50+ hammering dished out, and I think that detracts from the idea of, well, a 'competition'.

If you look at the expanded possible table, moving to 6 groups will lower the number of whipping boys and games per group.

Putting in teams who aren't good enough and will get 80 put past them is dumb. Develop them and work to a point where you have a RWC with 12 genuine contenders for at least the semis and 8 teams you can genuinely see pulling off a couple of upsets. Then see where we are.

eldanielfire wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:Personally, I reckon a competition in any sport can wear about one whipping boy per group. Beyond that and the competition's validity and relevance starts to take a hit. As such, introducing loads more sub par teams will just mean more 50+ hammering dished out, and I think that detracts from the idea of, well, a 'competition'.

If you look at the expanded possible table, moving to 6 groups will lower the number of whipping boys and games per group.

But also reduce the opportunity for the lowest ranked team in each group to have a genuinely competitive match.

It's a stupid idea at the moment.

Mog The Almighty wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:Personally, I reckon a competition in any sport can wear about one whipping boy per group. Beyond that and the competition's validity and relevance starts to take a hit. As such, introducing loads more sub par teams will just mean more 50+ hammering dished out, and I think that detracts from the idea of, well, a 'competition'.

It's crazy how Romania have sunk. They were once a legit rugby nation that could have beaten anyone on their day, with a lot of luck.

Romania are on the up again though.

The plus side of having more teams is that there will be more competition. Sure, Spain will get 50+ put on them by the All Blacks. But Spain v Portugal would be a great spectacle on rugby's biggest stage. It's maybe okay to have teams that will get flogged by "the best" in the competition. Just as long as there's not just one "the best" that flogs everyone, like in Rugby League, where most of the other national teams are just full-Aussies that aren't good enough to play for Australia (and many not even good enough to play professionally) who qualify for bloody Lebanon or something through a grandmother.

As I see it, the current format doesn't stop the All Blacks putting 50+ on the minows like Samoa, Uruguay, South Africa and the like. AN expansion actually requires a change in format, e.g. moving from 4 groups of 5 to 6 groups of 4. This actually lessens the number of potential thrashings given the top 2 spots would be taken up by a Tier 1 country (or Georgia or Fiji) and allows a greater percentage of the matches be between more similar nations. There advantages are numerous. They are:

a) The world cup moves to a more competitive format. Fewer thrashings.

b) A longer knockout stage with 16 teams rather then 8 and shorter group stage with fewer matches, thus more meaningful matches

c) More positive headlines as more countries. Potentially more networks will buy and show the world cup

c) More positive headlines globally as more countries reach a knock-out stage. That can only bring more attention to the game, especially if a Spain or a Brazil made it.

d) More exciting matches and more of them evenly matched.

It's win win. It won't dilute the quality, as stated a number of teams in the top 30 have become more competitive, are able to even beta Georgia (top of tier 2) on their day but are getting frozen out by the current limitations. Rugby is ready to add a Spain, Russia, but would be massively damaging to lose a Canada or Uruguay as a result as what could happen now.

blindcider wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:Personally, I reckon a competition in any sport can wear about one whipping boy per group. Beyond that and the competition's validity and relevance starts to take a hit. As such, introducing loads more sub par teams will just mean more 50+ hammering dished out, and I think that detracts from the idea of, well, a 'competition'.

If you look at the expanded possible table, moving to 6 groups will lower the number of whipping boys and games per group.

But also reduce the opportunity for the lowest ranked team in each group to have a genuinely competitive match.

It's a stupid idea at the moment.

Really? looking at the potential table above would Tonga v Namibia be un-competitive? Uruguay vs Brazil? Romania vs Russia?

Spain have never been to a RWC but just beat Romania who recently beat Samoa. Brazil were very close to beating Uruguay a few weekends ago and Uruguay just beat Canada twice. Germany beat Romania last year. The 4 teams who would almost certainly enter an expanded RWC are Spain, Russia, Brazil, Germany all of whom have beaten or almost beaten sides in the top 20 quite recently and there are a few more rapidly rising behind them. It is getting to the point it would be damaging for one of these to enter a world cup at the expense of one of the other nations. The time is ripe for a 4 team expansion now.

eldanielfire wrote:

blindcider wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:Personally, I reckon a competition in any sport can wear about one whipping boy per group. Beyond that and the competition's validity and relevance starts to take a hit. As such, introducing loads more sub par teams will just mean more 50+ hammering dished out, and I think that detracts from the idea of, well, a 'competition'.

If you look at the expanded possible table, moving to 6 groups will lower the number of whipping boys and games per group.

But also reduce the opportunity for the lowest ranked team in each group to have a genuinely competitive match.

It's a stupid idea at the moment.

Really? looking at the potential table above would Tonga v Namibia be un-competitive? Uruguay vs Brazil? Romania vs Russia?

Spain have never been to a RWC but just beat Romania who recently beat Samoa. Brazil were very close to beating Uruguay a few weekends ago and Uruguay just beat Canada twice. Germany beat Romania last year. The 4 teams who would almost certainly enter an expanded RWC are Spain, Russia, Brazil, Germany all of whom have beaten or almost beaten sides in the top 20 quite recently and there are a few more rapidly rising behind them. It is getting to the point it would be damaging for one of these to enter a world cup at the expense of one of the other nations. The time is ripe for a 4 team expansion now.

Now you are just embarrassing yourself

Morgan14 wrote:I don't think the plate / bowl / shield format would work well, as it would (1) distract a little from the main event, and (2) more importantly stretch the minnows' resources ( limited player stocks) playing in them when their players are probably better off getting back to their main employers (clubs) sooner rather than later (they become less attractive to pro clubs the longer they're away, and the quality of play is probably better at the club, than they would face in a shield-type competition, imho).

It would only be two more games.

blindcider wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

blindcider wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:Personally, I reckon a competition in any sport can wear about one whipping boy per group. Beyond that and the competition's validity and relevance starts to take a hit. As such, introducing loads more sub par teams will just mean more 50+ hammering dished out, and I think that detracts from the idea of, well, a 'competition'.

If you look at the expanded possible table, moving to 6 groups will lower the number of whipping boys and games per group.

But also reduce the opportunity for the lowest ranked team in each group to have a genuinely competitive match.

It's a stupid idea at the moment.

Really? looking at the potential table above would Tonga v Namibia be un-competitive? Uruguay vs Brazil? Romania vs Russia?

Spain have never been to a RWC but just beat Romania who recently beat Samoa. Brazil were very close to beating Uruguay a few weekends ago and Uruguay just beat Canada twice. Germany beat Romania last year. The 4 teams who would almost certainly enter an expanded RWC are Spain, Russia, Brazil, Germany all of whom have beaten or almost beaten sides in the top 20 quite recently and there are a few more rapidly rising behind them. It is getting to the point it would be damaging for one of these to enter a world cup at the expense of one of the other nations. The time is ripe for a 4 team expansion now.

Now you are just embarrassing yourself

My mistake. But that doesn't render the results I just listed invalid. The fact is all the teams suggested that would enter a world cup would be potentially competitive with another team in an expanded world cup.

I'm not sure i agree that the RWC needs to be expanded. I think more promotion of the game in those countries you named would work better eldanielfire. Nearly everywhere seem to have a rugby championship with their country involved, that should be more of the focus.

bessantj wrote:I'm not sure i agree that the RWC needs to be expanded. I think more promotion of the game in those countries you named would work better eldanielfire. Nearly everywhere seem to have a rugby championship with their country involved, that should be more of the focus.

How do you think "promotion" of the game would work? Maybe some headlines building up to one of the biggest sporting events in the world? How damaging would it be if say a USA, Canada, Uruguay or Romania didn't qualify at the success of Spain or Russia. Suddenly Rugby may well be promoted less in that nation.

Oh and I don't believe RWC entry alone is all World Rugby should be doing.

eldanielfire wrote:

bessantj wrote:I'm not sure i agree that the RWC needs to be expanded. I think more promotion of the game in those countries you named would work better eldanielfire. Nearly everywhere seem to have a rugby championship with their country involved, that should be more of the focus.

How do you think "promotion" of the game would work? Maybe some headlines building up to one of the biggest sporting events in the world? How damaging would it be if say a USA, Canada, Uruguay or Romania didn't qualify at the success of Spain or Russia. Suddenly Rugby may well be promoted less in that nation.

Oh and I don't believe RWC entry alone is all World Rugby should be doing.

The problem is the world cup is once every four years when the championships are annually so you have more chance to promote a 'big thing' than you would with a world cup. Are there any studies to show the impact WC qualification makes? One off surprises, one off hits always make a good story but I'm not sure if they then lead to sustained growth. I know the six nations sides already play a ridiculous amount of rugby but one of them stopping off in South America and taking on a side that isn't Argentina in a one off game could be pretty valuable.

bessantj wrote:I know the six nations sides already play a ridiculous amount of rugby but one of them stopping off in South America and taking on a side that isn't Argentina in a one off game could be pretty valuable.

That is what the 'B' sides should be doing.

Chips wrote:

bessantj wrote:I know the six nations sides already play a ridiculous amount of rugby but one of them stopping off in South America and taking on a side that isn't Argentina in a one off game could be pretty valuable.

That is what the 'B' sides should be doing.

Yeah that's what I was thinking, even a developmental side playing Brazil or Chile would be big news there.

Chips wrote:

bessantj wrote:I know the six nations sides already play a ridiculous amount of rugby but one of them stopping off in South America and taking on a side that isn't Argentina in a one off game could be pretty valuable.

That is what the 'B' sides should be doing.

They don't want to play B sides (would you?). They want Test matches. It's why the Churchill Cup ended for example.

Balanced pools would make for a better RWC in my opinion.