Rugby World Cup 2019

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually looking at the fixture list the weird format throws up more anomalies. In some cases a team may have a recovery period of just 4 days between games, but in other cases as much as 9 days. I know in football there is often discussion at the knockout stage of the effect of one fewer day of recovery, but in this tournament you may have a team with only 4 days of recovery playing one with 9. That doesn't seem particularly fair.

[Nearly Sane]

Looking at the timings of past World Cups with 20 teams this is going to be the 2nd shortest. The 1999 version finished in 37 days, all the rest since then have been longer. The 16 team WCs took 30/31 days.

[ProfessorDavey]

Looking at the timings of past World Cups with 20 teams this is going to be the 2nd shortest. The 1999 version finished in 37 days, all the rest since then have been longer. The 16 team WCs took 30/31 days.

Which rather proves my point - so by adding 4 additional teams (who will likely lose all their games and by nigh on cricket scores) you need to extend the tournament from less than a month to over 6 weeks.

The world cup should revert back to 16 teams, which would provide benefits all round, not least a genuinely competitive qualifying tournament to get to the finals in the first place.

[Nearly Sane]

Depends on what you see as the aim of the World Cup.

[ProfessorDavey]

Depends on what you see as the aim of the World Cup.

Struggling to see any aims that are helped by a 20 team world cup - not least helping to develop rugby in lesser nations. They aren't helped by the current situation in which the qualifying tournament is ridiculously easy (and therefore not particularly competitive) but having qualified the finals tournament itself is ridiculously hard and therefore also not competitive.

Much better to have a much more competitive qualifying tournament and thereby ensure that those teams that do make it to the finals aren't simply whipping boys. Bit by bit those teams will develop and get better.

[Nearly Sane]

That's surely just a question of whethwr you think (a) the quality drop is at a specific level, and (b) that not appearing at a WC and having a tougher qualifying is better for participation in the sport than an appearance there.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's surely just a question of whethwr you think (a) the quality drop is at a specific level, and (b) that not appearing at a WC and having a tougher qualifying is better for participation in the sport than an appearance there.

I think it is pretty hard to argue that there are more than 16 teams in the world that are in any way competitive in the world cup, and by that I mean have any likelihood of progressing from the group stage (i.e. finishing in the top 2 in a group) or automatically qualifying for the next tournament as a third placed side in a group.

And we've had 20 team tournaments since 1999 and this hasn't really changed, so there isn't really evidence that increasing the size of the tournament to 20 teams has been successful in helping develop those lesser sides to be more competitive.

So as an example - Namibia - comfortably qualified for every 20 nation world cup (sometimes unbeaten) yet their record in the finals is played 19, lost 19 - and conceding over 1100 points in the process.

[Nearly Sane]

So your idea of going to back to 16 is based around the 'We should do something. This is something. Let's do this.'approach?

[Outrider]

Struggling to see any aims that are helped by a 20 team world cup - not least helping to develop rugby in lesser nations. They aren't helped by the current situation in which the qualifying tournament is ridiculously easy (and therefore not particularly competitive) but having qualified the finals tournament itself is ridiculously hard and therefore also not competitive.

Much better to have a much more competitive qualifying tournament and thereby ensure that those teams that do make it to the finals aren't simply whipping boys. Bit by bit those teams will develop and get better.

In order to raise the quality of the game in the currently less-successful countries, it needs to be in the public eye more, in order to gain converts.  Four-yearly festivals, whilst the pinnacle of the game, do not replace strong national or international leagues with week-in, week-out competitions building up a fanbase.  Even the annual international competitions aren't that successful at this - look at Italy's performance in the six nations, especially when you consider that a significant portion of the team that's fielded when they do play are nationalised Italians from other countries.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

So your idea of going to back to 16 is based around the 'We should do something. This is something. Let's do this.'approach?

Not really it is based on:

1. Making the tournament format cleaner and fairer - fewer anomalies in terms of rest between fixtures and crucial allowing the final group games to be played at the same time (which has been standard in other tournaments for years)

2. Making the tournament drag less - shorter, more intense - game after game - over in a month or less.

3. Narrowing the gap between the competitiveness of the qualifying tournament and the actual finals - so you can't have a team that has easily qualified for the past 6 finals (with 28 wins and just 7 defeats) yet are so poor that the've failed to win a single game in the finals after 19 attempts.

4. And in doing 3 actually support the development of those lesser teams so that if you can be successful in qualifying you are likely to have a decent chance of some success in the finals.

5. Fewer pointless (or rather cricket score by one team) and completely one sided games in the finals which rather undermine the credibility of the tournament.

6. Fewer games involving minnow vs minnow that hardly anyone is interested in and are played in grounds one third full.

[ProfessorDavey]

In order to raise the quality of the game in the currently less-successful countries, it needs to be in the public eye more, in order to gain converts.  Four-yearly festivals, whilst the pinnacle of the game, do not replace strong national or international leagues with week-in, week-out competitions building up a fanbase.  Even the annual international competitions aren't that successful at this - look at Italy's performance in the six nations, especially when you consider that a significant portion of the team that's fielded when they do play are nationalised Italians from other countries.

O.

That's right - rugby really has failed to develop any team beyond the big 9. Italy have been in the 6 nations for years but haven't really contributed or developed. But that isn't helped by its non-competitive nature - by that I mean that there is simply no down side to finishing bottom - you are back in the tournament next year come what may. Perhaps relegation would shake things up.

Actually I think the situation is getting worse. In the first few world cups (87, 91, 95) there was always one team from outside the big 9 involved in the knockout stages. Since 1995 this has only happened once in 6 tournaments.

[Outrider]

1. Making the tournament format cleaner and fairer - fewer anomalies in terms of rest between fixtures and crucial allowing the final group games to be played at the same time (which has been standard in other tournaments for years)

If the groups were to be more competitive that might be more of an issue, but I agree the last games in each group should ideally be played at the same time.  As it is, though, with a higher priority on trying to capture TV audiences, they don't want to split smaller nations' audiences between the big team in their group and their national team.

2. Making the tournament drag less - shorter, more intense - game after game - over in a month or less.

With the physicality of the game these days, unless you make fundamental changes to the laws of the game, you need to have those sort of gaps in order to avoid serious injuries.

3. Narrowing the gap between the competitiveness of the qualifying tournament and the actual finals - so you can't have a team that has easily qualified for the past 6 finals (with 28 wins and just 7 defeats) yet are so poor that the've failed to win a single game in the finals after 19 attempts.

4. And in doing 3 actually support the development of those lesser teams so that if you can be successful in qualifying you are likely to have a decent chance of some success in the finals.

Whilst the IRU does need to address that, there's not very much in the format of the World Cup itself that would help.  If the tournament were to be downsized to just the 'major' nations, it would be the old politics of the established nations crowding out the smaller, developing countries.  I think more needs to be done to develop the game in the Pacific Islands, where it's fanatically followed but the talent has a tendency to flow to other places.  A better publicised and maintained second tier of international competitions and trans-continental club competitions would also help, but then you start to run into the problem of a congested fixture list again.

5. Fewer pointless (or rather cricket score by one team) and completely one sided games in the finals which rather undermine the credibility of the tournament.

6. Fewer games involving minnow vs minnow that hardly anyone is interested in and are played in grounds one third full.

You can't have both of these - if you aren't going to have 'minnow vs minnow' games, then you're either only going to get cricket scores (and trouble arranging the tables?) or you're going to exclude the smaller nations from the top event which is going to reduce interest in the game in those places.

The best thing that's been done is to finally break the stranglehold the established nations had on hosting the tournament, let's hope that continues, because having a local involvement builds interest.  I think it would also be useful - certainly in the European game - to ditch the Six Nations once every four years to hold a European Rugby Championship and give the Russias and Georgias of the continent a chance to compete.  Perhaps having relegation and promotion from the Six Nations based upon that tournament would live things up, give more teams a chance to compete at the top level more regularly and start to bring up the standards across the continent.

O.
[/quote]

[ProfessorDavey]

If the groups were to be more competitive that might be more of an issue, but I agree the last games in each group should ideally be played at the same time.

You can only have the last games played at the same time if you have groups with an even number of teams. Removing the weakest team will undoubtedly make the overall group more competitive 

As it is, though, with a higher priority on trying to capture TV audiences, they don't want to split smaller nations' audiences between the big team in their group and their national team.

I can't image there is much TV audience for, lets say, Namibia vs Canada. I doubt that removing the weakest team from the group would have meaningful impact on overall tournament audience and income and that will be massively tipped toward games between the big teams.

With the physicality of the game these days, unless you make fundamental changes to the laws of the game, you need to have those sort of gaps in order to avoid serious injuries.

Perhaps so, but the current format means that the gap between games is being driven by the lop-sided format rather than the needs for recovery hence the huge difference in time between games from 4 days to 9 days. With 16 teams and 4 them groups and a consistent 5 or 6 days between games in the group stage you could comfortably have that part complete in less than 3 weeks with greater guaranteed rest between games than we have now with the group stage taking a month.

Whilst the IRU does need to address that, there's not very much in the format of the World Cup itself that would help.  If the tournament were to be downsized to just the 'major' nations, it would be the old politics of the established nations crowding out the smaller, developing countries.

But I'm not suggesting reducing the tournament so much that it would be just the established nations, there are 8 of those (or 9 if you include Argentina). With 16 teams there would still be 7-8 positions for non established teams. And I'd prefer only the teams who get through to the knockout stages to automatically qualify for the next world cup. That would mean there would be at least on established team in the qualifying and potentially not making the finals with a non established team taking their place.

I think more needs to be done to develop the game in the Pacific Islands, where it's fanatically followed but the talent has a tendency to flow to other places.

I agree and the asset stripping of these teams to established nations doesn't help.

A better publicised and maintained second tier of international competitions and trans-continental club competitions would also help, but then you start to run into the problem of a congested fixture list again.

Again I agree but you have to make it mean something. And a more competitive qualifying tournament for the world cup would be exactly that - the second tier teams playing their hearts out for finals qualification, rather than currently where a team that has lost all 19 of their finals games has sailed through qualification unbeaten or (in the case of 2019) with a 100% record.

You can't have both of these - if you aren't going to have 'minnow vs minnow' games, then you're either only going to get cricket scores (and trouble arranging the tables?) or you're going to exclude the smaller nations from the top event which is going to reduce interest in the game in those places.

I'd only exclude the four current weakest sides, so down to 16 teams from 20. And yes you can have both - going down to 16 teams would reduce the number of completely one sided games and also remove the minnow vs minnow (which actually are also often one sided and also irrelevant as the weakest team is often so much worse than even the fourth placed side.

The best thing that's been done is to finally break the stranglehold the established nations had on hosting the tournament, let's hope that continues, because having a local involvement builds interest.  I think it would also be useful - certainly in the European game - to ditch the Six Nations once every four years to hold a European Rugby Championship and give the Russias and Georgias of the continent a chance to compete.  Perhaps having relegation and promotion from the Six Nations based upon that tournament would live things up, give more teams a chance to compete at the top level more regularly and start to bring up the standards across the continent.

O.

Yup all good suggestions. Something needs to be done to shake up the system and my biggest bug bears aren't the World cup which apart from the weird 20 team, 5 team group format is by far and away the best tournament in rugby and the only one that looks appropriate to the 21stC rather than being perpetually stuck in the amateur age. No my biggest bug bears are the endlessly tedious, repetitive and non-competitive (in world terms) 6-nations and the non-sense that is the British Lions, where we effectively capitulate to the dominance of the SH teams by accepting that we can only have a hope of beating one of them by putting together 4 NH teams.

[Outrider]

I can't image there is much TV audience for, lets say, Namibia vs Canada. I doubt that removing the weakest team from the group would have meaningful impact on overall tournament audience and income and that will be massively tipped toward games between the big teams.

World-wide, probably not, in the current 'rugby playing' nations, certainly not.  In Canada, though? In Namibia? Why make the fans there choose between their national side and the perennial powerhouses when at this stage the tournament is still about trying to reach out to those smaller nations?

Perhaps so, but the current format means that the gap between games is being driven by the lop-sided format rather than the needs for recovery hence the huge difference in time between games from 4 days to 9 days. With 16 teams and 4 them groups and a consistent 5 or 6 days between games in the group stage you could comfortably have that part complete in less than 3 weeks with greater guaranteed rest between games than we have now with the group stage taking a month.

At the expense of having fewer of the tier 2 and 3 nations taking part, and failing to reach as much of the potential new audience.

But I'm not suggesting reducing the tournament so much that it would be just the established nations, there are 8 of those (or 9 if you include Argentina).

Nine if you include Italy...

With 16 teams there would still be 7-8 positions for non established teams.

So, conceivably, with a missed tournament because they fail to qualify, no top-class international competition for your home tier 3 team for an entire generation's schooling?  That's a lot of potential players to miss out on inspiring during the age-range you really need to get them hooked.

And I'd prefer only the teams who get through to the knockout stages to automatically qualify for the next world cup. That would mean there would be at least on established team in the qualifying and potentially not making the finals with a non established team taking their place.

I'm not sure I like the idea of automatic qualification at all, but with the top-tier nations playing as much as they do already I don't see a way around that.
 

Something needs to be done to shake up the system and my biggest bug bears aren't the World cup which apart from the weird 20 team, 5 team group format is by far and away the best tournament in rugby and the only one that looks appropriate to the 21stC rather than being perpetually stuck in the amateur age.

See, for me the World Cup isn't the pinnacle, it's equal parts festival and competition - it's as much about getting those odd mismatches, the tier 3 nations against a leading light.  Yes they're likely to lose, heavily, but it may be the only chance some people have to see their country play the All Blacks, or France, especially for the African and American teams.  The World Cup is a global advertising campaign, and only really gets into being a competition in the latter stages.

No my biggest bug bears are the endlessly tedious, repetitive and non-competitive (in world terms) 6-nations and the non-sense that is the British Lions, where we effectively capitulate to the dominance of the SH teams by accepting that we can only have a hope of beating one of them by putting together 4 NH teams.

Except that the Lions haven't done particularly well against the Southern Hemisphere, certainly not significantly better than the individual nations.  That said, I'd be perfectly happy to ditch the Lions tours in exchange for the European championship.

The six-nations is a fantastic championship, but I think it needs a relegation place to Tier 2 to spice it up - there's no penalty to being the wooden spoon, and no way in for the 2nd tier.  With a 6/5/5/4 championships record for England/France/Wales/Ireland, it's competitive - certainly by comparison with the All Blacks taking something like 15 of the last 20 Rugby Championships/Tri-Nations titles.  As to whether the Northern Hemisphere is competitive against the Southern Hemisphere that's not the fact that they don't play each other itself (although that would help) so much as the ethics and style of the game are different - in the Northern Hemisphere we don't typically try to walk the line of laws, we don't constantly try to work at the edge of what's acceptable in the same way that the Southern Hemisphere sides do.  Arguably that's the 'professional' vs 'amateur' argument, but there's something to be said for not adopting the 'win at all costs' mentality.

Northern Hemisphere rugby is a nicer game to watch, and a better version of the game to introduce your children to the sport with.  Southern Hemisphere rugby is approaching football levels of cynicism, deception and just plain arseholery, and if you have to adopt that to win the game, then it's a Pyrrhic victory.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nine if you include Italy...

Nope - Italy are only 'established' because some committee decided to expand the 5 nations and allow them in (just as the tri-nations did with Argentina) - they aren't established in quality terms. They have never got out of the group stages of the world cup. Argentina on the other hand have been in the knockout stage in each of the last 3 world cups and in the semis twice in that time.

In recent years Argentina's record is as good as any of the NH sides.

[ProfessorDavey]

World-wide, probably not, in the current 'rugby playing' nations, certainly not.  In Canada, though? In Namibia? Why make the fans there choose between their national side and the perennial powerhouses when at this stage the tournament is still about trying to reach out to those smaller nations?

I'm not really sure that is how it works for minority sports in a country. Those who are keen fans will be watching the biggest tournament regardless of whether their team is in the competition or not. Those who aren't rugby fans wont be watching whether or not their nation is in the world cup, not least because as a minority sport there will be pretty well zero publicity and coverage in those countries. It may be that the tournament isn't even available to watch.

To give an example - the Basketball world cup has just finished (who knew) - I'm sure hardcore basketball fans in England were glued to it, regardless of the fact that England didn't make the tournament. However I cannot see that loads of non basketball fans would have sought out the matches and sat glued to their tvs had England been there.

[ProfessorDavey]

Northern Hemisphere rugby is a nicer game to watch, and a better version of the game to introduce your children to the sport with.  Southern Hemisphere rugby is approaching football levels of cynicism, deception and just plain arseholery, and if you have to adopt that to win the game, then it's a Pyrrhic victory.

Disagree on this.

Who knows what will happen in this tournament but one of the things I love about the world cup is watching SH teams who simply are in a different league - their technical ability is awe inspiring so often. Something that NH teams might aspire to, but cannot replicate. Kind of the difference between watching Man C in their pomp tearing a team apart, or Barcelona, compared to a plodding mid table team - lots of hard work but without the technical skills and talent.

And on cynicism etc - rugby is full of it world wide. The game is riddled with professional technical infringements - but at least the SH teams can actually play.

[ProfessorDavey]

See, for me the World Cup isn't the pinnacle, it's equal parts festival and competition - it's as much about getting those odd mismatches, the tier 3 nations against a leading light.  Yes they're likely to lose, heavily, but it may be the only chance some people have to see their country play the All Blacks, or France, especially for the African and American teams. 

Frankly I cannot see the point in watching South Africa beating the USA 64-0 or Namibia losing 87-7 to Wales or (the Daddy of them all) Australia beating Namibia 143-0. These kind of mismatched games have no place in a elite finals tournament (not qualifiers). It is embarrassing.

And why is it the only chance to see their team playing the big boys - there are friendlies and other exhibition or warm up matches. But if they want to play the big teams in the world cup they need to be good enough - not necessarily to win but to be competitive. And reducing the number of teams incentives them - they need to be in the top 16 teams, not the top 20 to get into the tournament. And to do that they need to be better and that cannot be a bad thing.

[jeremyp]

True - but I don't think that necessarily explains the differences in recovery time allowed. Interestingly I was reading an article on team sports recovery time and that indicated that recovery from football and rugby were longer than for other team sports, yet effectively the same as each other, with 48 hours minimum needed.

I am pretty sure that survey of yours is problematic even without looking at it. You only have to look at a football match and a rugby match to realise that the results are superficially absurd.

What is this recovery time defined as? Is it the time required to "recharge the batteries" or does it include recovering from minor knocks (rugby players have many more of those than footballers)?

How are they measuring that 48 hours? Are they looking at a load of players and taking the average time to recover? If so, it is plausible that football is more demanding in fitness terms - after all footballers spend more time running about the pitch in a game - but rugby player recovery times are made longer by the two or three players with bumps and bruises who take longer to recover.

I take your point about proving strength in depth and being able to sub players but I see two problems with that:

1. The fans play to see the best teams in the World play each other, not their second teams.

2. It reduces further the number of teams that have a chance of winning. Wales have a chance of winning this tournament. However, that would probably disappear if they had to stress their players further. They don't have huge strength in depth.

Maybe they should reduce the number of teams in the tournament. That would also reduce the problem of the no hoper games. But on the other hand it also reduces the possibility of no-hopers ever becoming hopers.

I agree with you that the tournament goes on for too long but there are pros and cons to any of the ways to resolve that issue. Maybe reduce the entry to sixteen teams but only the top eight ranked teams get in automatically. The other eight places are decided in a preliminary tournament.

[Outrider]

Nope - Italy are only 'established' because some committee decided to expand the 5 nations and allow them in (just as the tri-nations did with Argentina) - they aren't established in quality terms. They have never got out of the group stages of the world cup. Argentina on the other hand have been in the knockout stage in each of the last 3 world cups and in the semis twice in that time.

In recent years Argentina's record is as good as any of the NH sides.

Sorry, that was the point I was trying to make, I just didn't do the counting I was intending to imply that it would Italy that was questionable instead of Argentina...

O.

[Outrider]

I'm not really sure that is how it works for minority sports in a country. Those who are keen fans will be watching the biggest tournament regardless of whether their team is in the competition or not. Those who aren't rugby fans wont be watching whether or not their nation is in the world cup, not least because as a minority sport there will be pretty well zero publicity and coverage in those countries. It may be that the tournament isn't even available to watch.

If the tournament isn't available to watch, that's again a failure on the part of the IRU, this is supposed to be their showcase event they should be out touting it everywhere.  The established fans will watch who they want to watch and the uninterested will watch football or basketball or somesuch, but there's always going to be some, kids maybe, who hear their country is playing and tune in to see what it's about.  Social  media gets a hold of it, they get the bug and watch the rest of the tournament - that's part of how sports take a hold in new places.

To give an example - the Basketball world cup has just finished (who knew) - I'm sure hardcore basketball fans in England were glued to it, regardless of the fact that England didn't make the tournament. However I cannot see that loads of non basketball fans would have sought out the matches and sat glued to their tvs had England been there.

I knew - I didn't watch, I'm not a basketball fan but I have tried it, but I kept up enough to know that the US got knocked out much to everyone's surprise and that Spain took the title in the final against Argentina.  My youngest two are a little young for sport just now, but in a few years time it's the sort of thing that would get mentioned, and if they show an interest we'll see if we can find a way to watch.

And why is it the only chance to see their team playing the big boys - there are friendlies and other exhibition or warm up matches.

But in the money-making world of test match rugby New Zealand, England, Australia, even Scotland and Italy don't play the likes of Namibia or Zimbabwe at friendlies.

Who knows what will happen in this tournament but one of the things I love about the world cup is watching SH teams who simply are in a different league - their technical ability is awe inspiring so often.

That's been the case for about thirty or forty years, up until the last five or six - the professional leagues in Europe, particularly England and France, have made a step-change in the technical capability.  We still don't have the youth and school set-up to mass-produce them (or the links to steal them so effectively from the Pacific Islands) to have the strength in depth, yet, but we can compete on technique.  What we still lag behind on is the instinct, the ability to react to the situation without having to think - the few that have it don't have team-mates around them with the same nous to be able to so ruthlessly take advantage of it.  On the other hand, what we do have that the Southern Hemisphere doesn't is a level of tactical and strategic discipline - if we can hold our shape, if we can maintain the concentration we can starve them out - but that's hard to keep up for eighty minutes and more, and it's doubly difficult if you're having to chase the game.

And on cynicism etc - rugby is full of it world wide. The game is riddled with professional technical infringements - but at least the SH teams can actually play.

I'd have to disagree - there's a level of cynicism, there's always the flankers who are proud of being an inch from off-side, but there isn't the same level of cynicism.  The two-man spear tackle on Brian O'Driscoll at the start of the Lions tour in 2005 is the epitome of the All Black attitude - he was a threat, and they were willing to risk two cards in the first game to take him out of the series.  You just don't get that level of criminality in the game in the north.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am pretty sure that survey of yours is problematic even without looking at it. You only have to look at a football match and a rugby match to realise that the results are superficially absurd.

Then I suggest you take it up with the academic researchers of that study - because clearly you think you know better than leading researchers who based their findings on a range of additional academic studies.

Actually re-reading the paper it took 72 hours for test results (which were both physical activity and biochemical) to return to baseline for football and rugby, not 48 hours. The point is that it was the same for both although longer than for other team sports. Sure the physical demands of football and rugby are different but that doesn't mean that one might take less time to recover from than the other. Sure there is more 'contact' in rugby but football players play a longer game and will travel far greater distances during the match.

But that isn't really the point - I was talking about h world cup format. The current format (due to the 5 team groups) limits recovery to just 4 days in some circumstances yet allows up to 9 days in others. This seems unfair and also potentially dangerous if you consider 4 days to be too short between games. A 4 team group format would allow a consistent 5-6 day rest (fairer and safer) while still keeping the games coming thick and fast and taking less time to get through the group stage overall.

[ProfessorDavey]

The two-man spear tackle on Brian O'Driscoll at the start of the Lions tour in 2005 is the epitome of the All Black attitude - he was a threat, and they were willing to risk two cards in the first game to take him out of the series.

It was an awful tackle no doubt about it but awful tackles aren't confined to the SH teams. 

You just don't get that level of criminality in the game in the north.

Really - clearly you didn't watch the 2011 world cup semi final and Sam Warburton's equally awful spear tackle - arguably worse as there was far greater momentum involved.

Bad tackles aren't the preserve of teams in one hemisphere only.

[Nearly Sane]

Some good matches so far. Having the NZ v SA match so early was an interesting marker. The France Argentina result makes it tough for Argentina to get through group stage. And the Aus Fiji match should have had a red card for Australia.

[Nearly Sane]

So it was the shite Scotland that turned up