World Cup Draw - & how should it be done?

[rowan]

I wouldn't say the tournament is threatening all the way through. Probably it hasn't been since 5-team groups were first introduced at the 2003 snore-fest. 2007 was saved by the upsets, notably Argentina reaching the semis and Fiji the quarters, and last year only really by Japan's astonishing victory over SA. Aside from that, there wasn't a great deal on offer that would have interested anyone but the diehard rugby fans. & I think you would agree that one of the main reasons we have a World Cup is to promote the game to the global audience and grow the game. So what's going to grab their attention more - groups stages that involve five teams, many mismatches and dead-rubbers, unequal scheduling and take almost 3 weeks to get through; or an extra round of knock-outs in which two quality teams, invariably, will be playing for their immediate survival? If you look at this purely from the perspective of the spectators, I think there's only one answer.

[Puja]

I wouldn't say the tournament is threatening all the way through. Probably it hasn't been since 5-team groups were first introduced at the 2003 snore-fest. 2007 was saved by the upsets, notably Argentina reaching the semis and Fiji the quarters, and last year only really by Japan's astonishing victory over SA. Aside from that, there wasn't a great deal on offer that would have interested anyone but the diehard rugby fans. & I think you would agree that one of the main reasons we have a World Cup is to promote the game to the global audience and grow the game. So what's going to grab their attention more - groups stages that involve five teams, many mismatches and dead-rubbers, unequal scheduling and take almost 3 weeks to get through; or an extra round of knock-outs in which two quality teams, invariably, will be playing for their immediate survival? If you look at this purely from the perspective of the spectators, I think there's only one answer.

I think you're underestimating the appeal of the group stages of 2015. There was no a single score over 60 points and very few mismatches - even Namibia vs NZ had moments for the crowd cheering Namibia. Group A saw England go out, Group B was in the balance right the way to the last game, Group C... okay, was a wash, but Group D had France and Ireland striving to avoid NZ and Italy getting close to an upset.

I think from the perspective of uninterested spectators, what we want to avoid is giving the impression of a niche and uncompetitive sport that doesn't have a global appeal. Like the RLWC - everyone knows that it's England, New Zealand, Australia and a load of other Australians who have another passport. It's a joke until the semi finals.

If knockout games are more enthralling than pools, wouldn't it make as much sense just to have a knock-out tournament?

Puja

[rowan]

No, I don't think a knock-out tournament is the answer either, because that eliminates the variables that make the tournament interesting. FIFA has got the formula right, in my view, and that's why it's World Cup has long been the biggest single sporting tournament on the planet, by far, and other sports has strived to emulate it. Four team groups are quick and simplistic and determine the course of the knock-out rounds, thus creating the intrigue for the excitement to follow. Protracted five team pools which involve unequal scheduling and, in rugby's case, require three weeks to play, do not have that effect. The only thing keeping the spectators interested are the major upsets, if there are any. I doubt many people in the world even knew the All Blacks had played Namibia, outside of diehard fans, Kiwis and Namibians themselves. & probably even the die hard fans didn't care. What we're weighing up is the value of the groups stages against the value of the knock-out rounds in terms of promoting the game to the global audience, and my view is the emphasis should shift from the former to the latter - where the quality is generally much higher as well.

[Puja]

I do see your point regarding the 4 team groups, but I don't want that at the expense of making the group stage too easy and thus even less interesting. The ideal solution is the one that the football uses, which is 32 teams, but we're obviously not there yet.

Puja

[rowan]

Just another point about five team pools: Many people thought the minnows improved at last year's World Cup because the margins weren't as wide as at previous tournaments. But if you look at New Zealand, for example, it's clear they treated some of their games as though they were midweek fixtures during a tour. That was actually one of the keys to their success. At past World Cups they'd gone out and played every single game as though it were the final, and that softened them up for the crunch matches ahead. The point being, while that change in approach paid dividends for the All Blacks, it detracted a little from the group stages, because every game really should be treated like a final. That's what the spectators pay to see, and it's what the global TV audience tunes in to see.

[Puja]

Just another point about five team pools: Many people thought the minnows improved at last year's World Cup because the margins weren't as wide as at previous tournaments. But if you look at New Zealand, for example, it's clear they treated some of their games as though they were midweek fixtures during a tour. That was actually one of the keys to their success. At past World Cups they'd gone out and played every single game as though it were the final, and that softened them up for the crunch matches ahead. The point being, while that change in approach paid dividends for the All Blacks, it detracted a little from the group stages, because every game really should be treated like a final. That's what the spectators pay to see, and it's what the global TV audience tunes in to see.

And you think a group stage in which one victory is probably sufficient to progress will result in every game being treated like a final?

Puja

[rowan]

Fair point,I suppose, but the difference is, again, that the group stages would be done and dusted early on. Also,finishing first, second or third in your group will determine your opponent for the next round, so you still wouldn't want to slip up at all.

[Lizard]

As keen as I am for rugby to grow world wide, I think a 24 or 25 team tournament is too big a stretch, no matter how you slice, dice and format it.

If 5 places were added, you would probably give Europe, Africa, America and Asia another guaranteed spot each, and then have a repechage involving the next best teams from those regions.

The teams we would realistically be talking qualifying about are probably Russia, Spain, Germany, Portugal, Belgium, Namibia, Kenya, Uruguay, Hong Kong and Korea. At the moment we basically get two of them.* A 24 or 25 team format would mean 6 or 7 of them, and probably not the top 6 because that would include 4 more European teams and World Rugby would want a better geographical spread.

Having a Namibia or a Uruguay or 2 adds some "Eddie the Eagle" type human interest to the cup, but more of that does not mean better.

*I'm assuming that the following would inevitably qualify: all 6N, all RC, all PIs, USA, Canada, Japan, Georgia and Romania.

[rowan]

Well, it's certainly not going to happen in 2019, so the challenge is there for World Rugby to help more teams develop with a view to expansion in the 2020s, and the quickest way for that to occur would be dispense with the tiers and encourage more interaction and opportunity for progress. I have little doubt the ENC is holding Georgia back right now, while it's difficult to see Namibia going anywhere while most of its games are against other African nations - but not the Springboks. Russia & Spain have been to the RWC before, did not disgrace themselves, and probably would not do so at the present either. Personally I thought the tournament went from 16 to 20 much too soon (apparently the US failing to qualify for 95 was the catalyst), but it turned out to be surprisingly successful. I was in Spain for five years and about the only time you saw rugby in the newspapers was during the 99 RWC.

[rowan]

So 6N, RC, REC is over and in there must be a Draw for 2019 RWC in Japan on 10th May.
There will be a Group of death when Argentina enters in any group

1st Basket:
New Zealand
England
Australia
Ireland

2nd Basket:
France
Wales
Scotland
South Africa

3'd Basket:
Argentina
Japan
Georgia
Italy

4th Basket:
Europe 1 - Romania (For Sure)
Americas 1 - (USA/Canada)
Oceania 1 - Fiji
Oceania 2 - Samoa

5th Basket:
Africa 1 - Namibia
Europe2/Oceania3 - Tonga (for Sure)
Americas 2 - USA/Canada
Repechage winner:
Europe 2 - Spain/Russia
Africa 2 - Kenya
Asia 1 - Hong Kong
Americas 3 - Uruguay

[Lizard]

As I said ages ago, they really should have a means of separating teams geographically. An England/France/Italy pool alongside NZ/SA/Arg would be a bit dull.

Georgia being seeded is a double-edged sword. They will have one less shot against a better team than if they had to qualify, and miss out on the chance to directly make their point against Italy (will this fixture ever be played?). On the other hand, they will have two winnable games and a very good chance of qualifying directly again.

[rowan]

I've always maintained this as well. Having 4 European teams in one group, or two Pacific Islands, or the only 2 African teams at the tournament, is downright stupid. It doesn't require geographically-based pods, just a certain amount of administration. For example, if SA is drawn into the same pod as NZ or Australia, fellow Rugby Championship member and 2015 semi-finalist Argentina should be omitted from the 3rd basket when the draw for that group is made. Similarly, Africa 1 should be omitted from the final basket when the draw is made for the group containing SA. The problem with the repechage slots is that the draw is invariably made before these are determined, meaning the geographical location is unknown at the time.

[Lizard]

The repechage only provides one team, which in all likelihood would hardly ever play any top sides whether nearby or not. We can also make a pretty educated guess that the slot will go to a European side or Uruguay.

The problem is that anything other than a random system of allocating teams from bands 1 - 3 would cause accusations of bias, particularly in a pool of death scenario (inevitable given there are 9 generally competent teams in the world).

So what would be the "best" draw from Bands 1 - 3. Having three 6N sides in band 2 makes it difficult.

NZ/Wales/Georgia
England/SA/Japan
Aust/France/Italy
Ireland/Scotland/Argentina

[rowan]

The repechage only provides one team, which in all likelihood would hardly ever play any top sides whether nearby or not. We can also make a pretty educated guess that the slot will go to a European side or Uruguay.

The problem is that anything other than a random system of allocating teams from bands 1 - 3 would cause accusations of bias, particularly in a pool of death scenario (inevitable given there are 9 generally competent teams in the world).

So what would be the "best" draw from Bands 1 - 3. Having three 6N sides in band 2 makes it difficult.

NZ/Wales/Georgia
England/SA/Japan
Aust/France/Italy
Ireland/Scotland/Argentina

I thought there were 2 repechage spots this time. My mistake. In that case, Pacific Island 3 should romp home, and you'd want to keep them out of the same group as Fiji & Samoa, if possible. If it were Uruguay or an African team, you'd like to separate them from Argentina and South Africa & Africa 1 if at all possible.

FIFA simply manipulates the draw in circumstances, and there's no reason why rugby couldn't do the same. Admittedly, there have been accusations of bias made against the football code when the draw had been manipulated, but if rugby did it purely on geographical grounds, as outlined above, I'm pretty sure no one would be too upset about it.

[rowan]

The repechage only provides one team, which in all likelihood would hardly ever play any top sides whether nearby or not. We can also make a pretty educated guess that the slot will go to a European side or Uruguay.

The problem is that anything other than a random system of allocating teams from bands 1 - 3 would cause accusations of bias, particularly in a pool of death scenario (inevitable given there are 9 generally competent teams in the world).

So what would be the "best" draw from Bands 1 - 3. Having three 6N sides in band 2 makes it difficult.

NZ/Wales/Georgia
England/SA/Japan
Aust/France/Italy
Ireland/Scotland/Argentina

I thought there were 2 repechage spots this time. My mistake. In that case, Pacific Island 3 should romp home, and you'd want to keep them out of the same group as Fiji & Samoa, if possible. If it were Uruguay or an African team, you'd like to separate them from Argentina and South Africa & Africa 1 if at all possible.

FIFA simply manipulates the draw in circumstances, and there's no reason why rugby couldn't do the same. Admittedly, there have been accusations of bias made against the football code when the draw had been manipulated, but if rugby did it purely on geographical grounds, as outlined above, I'm pretty sure no one would be too upset about it.

Also, with only one repechage spot available, and the third Pacific Island team among those competing for it, there's not much likelihood of a World Cup debutante at the next installment, which will make two in a row. In fact, there have only been 3 this century so far - all European: Georgia, Portugal & Russia. Bring on expansion, I say

[rowan]

Dark blue - qualified, light blue - may qualify, red - failed to qualify, grey - didn't enter

[Lizard]

I thought there were 2 repechage spots this time. My mistake. In that case, Pacific Island 3 should romp home, and you'd want to keep them out of the same group as Fiji & Samoa, if possible. If it were Uruguay or an African team, you'd like to separate them from Argentina and South Africa & Africa 1 if at all possible.

FIFA simply manipulates the draw in circumstances, and there's no reason why rugby couldn't do the same. Admittedly, there have been accusations of bias made against the football code when the draw had been manipulated, but if rugby did it purely on geographical grounds, as outlined above, I'm pretty sure no one would be too upset about it.

Actually, I think the mistake is mine. There are two seperate Oceania qualifying routes although they potentially collide at the World Repechage stage.

For the teams that WR definitely wants at the tournament (Fij, Ton, Sam) they had the usual Pacific Nations Cup but with USA, Canada and Japan not included (so they can play their own regional qualifying gigs). Fiji won so is Oceania 1, Samoa was 2nd so is OC2. Tonga will have a home and away play-off against Europe 2* of which the winner will qualify directly as Repechage 1 and the loser goes into the World Repechage for another shot.

For the teams that WR wants nowhere near Japan there is the OCeania Cup route. This is generally won by PNG or Cook Islands (i.e. South Auckland CI Society), although for some reason the Cooks didn't enter last time (2015). The winner of that goes into a play-off against the best non-Japanese** team in the 2018 Asia Rugby Championship i.e HK or Korea. The winner of that play-off goes into the four team World Repechage tournament including EU2/OC3, Asia1/OC4, Africa 2 and Americas 3 (I think) the winner of which qualifies as Rep 2.

So technically there is only one "repechage" place but there is also a direct Europe/Oceania Play-off place. Tonga could get through either way.

*This is simply the winner of a home-and-away playoff between 2nd place (but not counting Georgia as automatic qualifer so actually 3rd place) on aggregate over REC 2017 & REC 2018 (probably Spain or Russia) and the winner of RET 2017 (probably Portugal). Got it?

**Qualified as host

[rowan]

Interesting points. I often think the increase from 16 to 20 teams was premature and if they'd left it as it was we'd not only have a much more competitive RWC tournament, but one with more credibility and prestige. 16 was the perfect fit - 6 Nations plus SANZAAR, two teams from the Pacific Islands, and one apiece from the Americas, Asia, Europe and Africa. It would have meant the teams turning up would have had to have been at the top of their game. Those under-performing, as Canada and Romania have been recently, would not have made it to the big event.

That may seem paradoxical, given my expansionist views, but in 1999 the organizers made the decision to bring in four more teams who would not have a snowball's chance of getting anywhere, and in doing so sacrificed the quality and competitiveness of the event. So if that's the road they're takinng, they should have stayed on it, instead of claiming now that they couldn't possibly expand because it would only be bringing in four more teams who won't have a snowball's chance of getting anywhere.It's either one direction or the other, none of this sitting on the fence, and 20 teams is just an awful number because of the uneven scheduling at the group stages.

World Rugby might have been better served developing the qualifying system, which had reached its apogee for the 1999 event with 5 Nations teams competing with their European counterparts and subsequent champions Australia playing in a tournament with the Pacific Island trio. If it had been kept at that, and with only 3 direct qualifiers, imagine the battles we would have witnessed for the remaining 13 spots! I can't help thinking that's what it should all have been about. Instead we have a bloated tournament that is all but an invitational, with 2nd tier teams rocking up as if of right almost regardless of their form entirely.

To illustrate my point, if they'd stuck with 16, Samoa, the US, Uruguay and Spain would not have qualified in 1999. Of those teams, only Samoa made any significant impact, reaching the quarter-final repechages, only to be comfortably beaten by Scotland.

In 2003 Tonga, the US, Uruguay and Georgia would have failed to qualify, with the only win by any of those teams being the Teros over the Lelos. Uruguay also conceded a ton against England.

In 2007 Tonga, the US, Georgia and Portugal would have failed to qualify. Tonga won two games and took the subsequent champion Boks down to the wire, while the Lelos thumped Namibia and gave Ireland a scare. But the US and Portugal were winless, the latter conceded a ton against NZ, and none of the 4 progressed beyond the group stages.

In 2011 Fiji, the US, Romania and Russia would have failed to qualify. The former, unable to bring a full strength team, were woeful, Romania failed to win a game, and the US could only manage a hard-fought victory over their former Cold War foes. NB: Georgia would have debuted here.

In 2015 Samoa, Canada, Romania and Uruguay would have failed to qualify. Samoa managed only to beat the US, while Romania's only victory was over Canada - who, like the Teros, lost all of their games. NB: The US would have returned for the first time in 20 years, leaving the lacklustre Canucks at home where they belonged.

Anyway, this is just food for thought. It's all done and dusted now, and now that they've expanded the tournament once and opened the gates to 3rd tier minnows, they might as well do it again for the sake of consistency, more equitable scheduling, and to promote the game internationally in the absence of a particularly interesting qualifying system.

[Lizard]

It’s a tricky one, given steep disparity in ability across the top 20-30 sides.

I can see a 16-team tournament working but not under the old qualifying structures that exclude, by design, one of the PI teams each time. Fairness would need to override a desire for geographical spread with qualification being based purely on WR ranking or a comprehensive cross-regional qualification programme. Either of these could easily result in only one team from all of the Americas (Arg) and one African team (SA) competing. Realistically though, WR has crossed this Rubicon and politically cannot go back to a smaller, more elite RWC.

20 teams provides more of a global feel to the tournament (I think I’ve previously made my case against a 24-team set up and this is a different issue) but I agree that the 12 automatic places is a bit of a stitch-up. Requiring some better teams to play qualifiers would be a nice way to increase the number of “tier 1” v “tier 2” matches as well. I would be happy with quarter-finalists and above qualifying (plus the host if necessary). That would have added England, Georgia and Italy to the European qualifiers for 2019 and frankly Europe is largely where the issue lies. The gulfs between SA/Rest of Africa, Arg/Rest of South America, Japan/Rest of Asia would make it pointless to ask the better teams to qualify.

It would have been very straight forward if only Semi-finalists had automatically qualified. The 6N could simply have been treated as a qualifying tournament for Europe 1 – 5, with last place playing off against the REC winner for Europe 6. Having only 4 automatic spots would also open up the possibility of cross-tier qualifiers in the Pacific (loser of the Bledisloe series plays winner of PNC home and away to determine seeding?) and Africa (SA whomping whoever).

The counter-argument for 12 automatic places is that it gives the teams not realistically in the running for the play-offs another incentive in their pools. Frankly, I don't think this is necessary. Would Georgia have taken Tonga lightly in order to focus on Argentina? In fact, the tournment is devalued by the strategy of mid-rank sides playing a second-string team against the giants and focussing on beating their peers to secure qualification for next time.

[Lizard]

Just quickly, if you had Q-Finalists only as automatic qualifiers (and excluded the host) and set up a 16 team, 4-pool global qualifying tournament to fill 12 places, seeded strictly on World Rankings, you would currently get these Pools:

A: Eng (rank 2), Rom (16), USA (17), Port (24)
B: Fij (10), Ita (15), Spa (18), Ken (23)
C: Jap (11), Sam (14), Nam (19), Can (22)
D: Geo (12), Ton (13), Rus (20), Uru (21)

Matches invovling England aside, that would be a cracking tournament. You could replace England with Argentina (9) if you took the top-ranked 8 as automatic qualifiers.

[rowan]

I think most would agree that more of the qualifying spots should be up for grabs, and that the move away from independent qualifying tournaments to reliance on existing regional championships was a big step backward (albeit a massive cost-saving measure).

As for the size of the tournament, a 16 team event basically entailed the tier 1 teams and the best of tier 2. The 20 team tournament basically entails all the tier 1 and 2 teams and the cream of tier 3.

I think most would agree that the number of competitive tier 3 teams has increased significantly this century, and it has therefore become more than feasible to expand again in the next decade, especially as it would allow for more equitable scheduling.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I think most would agree that more of the qualifying spots should be up for grabs, and that the move away from independent qualifying tournaments to reliance on existing regional championships was a big step backward (albeit a massive cost-saving measure).

As for the size of the tournament, a 16 team event basically entailed the tier 1 teams and the best of tier 2. The 20 team tournament basically entails all the tier 1 and 2 teams and the cream of tier 3.

I think most would agree that the number of competitive tier 3 teams has increased significantly this century, and it has therefore become more than feasible to expand again in the next decade, especially as it would allow for more equitable scheduling.

I don't know why you think people would agree with obviously contentious statements.

I would have automatic qualification for qfists and qualification for the rest. I see no benefit in spending the money to have an indpendent qualifying tournament when one can raise the profile of the other tournaments as well as save the cash.

What makes you say that the number of tier 3 teams who are competitive has increased? Competitive with whom? Certainly not with tier one.

[rowan]

I think most would agree that more of the qualifying spots should be up for grabs, and that the move away from independent qualifying tournaments to reliance on existing regional championships was a big step backward (albeit a massive cost-saving measure).

As for the size of the tournament, a 16 team event basically entailed the tier 1 teams and the best of tier 2. The 20 team tournament basically entails all the tier 1 and 2 teams and the cream of tier 3.

I think most would agree that the number of competitive tier 3 teams has increased significantly this century, and it has therefore become more than feasible to expand again in the next decade, especially as it would allow for more equitable scheduling.

I don't know why you think people would agree with obviously contentious statements.

I would have automatic qualification for qfists and qualification for the rest. I see no benefit in spending the money to have an indpendent qualifying tournament when one can raise the profile of the other tournaments as well as save the cash.

What makes you say that the number of tier 3 teams who are competitive has increased? Competitive with whom? Certainly not with tier one.

On your first point: That comment is based entirely on the comments I have read from contributors to this forum and others, and was intended in that context, although I didn't spell it out. As to what the wider international community wants, I haven't actually seen anything published in that regard; so it's difficult to tell.

Re your second point: I mentioned that attaching qualification to existing competitions was a massive cost-cutting measure, but it was a step backward for the development of the international game as it effectively removed international competitions from the agenda. That's a no-brainer. The main issue with attaching them to continental championships is that you might end up with a scenario whereby Russia, invariably the ENC's third team, narrowly loses an away-match to Spain (as occured this year), and on that basis misses out because it happened to be the one year in four that the regional competition doubled as a World Cup qualifying tournament. If you asked the players and fans which they preferred, I would guess it would be the old system with independent qualifiers, notably those which took place for 1999, pitting tier 1 teams against their tier 2 & 3 counterparts in the final stages, and actually producing the subsequent world champion.

As for your final point: I think the rankings will reflect this, with the steady rise of nations such as Kenya, Germany and Brazil, while Spain seems to be back to its best and Algeria's arrival on the scene makes for another strong Northern African contender. You're probably aware, also, that I watch a lot of these games, and I am quite sure (as an ex-NZ rugby hack) that the quality has improved vastly over the past decade or two, right across the board.

[Puja]

So what would be the "best" draw from Bands 1 - 3. Having three 6N sides in band 2 makes it difficult.

NZ/Wales/Georgia
England/SA/Japan
Aust/France/Italy
Ireland/Scotland/Argentina

Best draw for me:

NZ/France/Argentina/Samoa/Tonga
England/Wales/Georgia/USA/Namibia
Australia/Scotland/Japan/Romania/Canada
Ireland/South Africa/Italy/Fiji/Uruguay

Pool of death and pool of mild inconvenience for NZ and Ireland respectively and some good competitive matches for Georgia and Japan, both of whom I'd like to do well.

Puja

[rowan]

I'd like to see as even a geographical spread as possible, as well as some fresh encounters, while also trying to keep a balance in terms of overall strength, of course. ie:

NZ, Wales, Georgia, Fiji, Canada
England, Scotland, Argentina, Samoa, Namibia
Australia, France, Japan, Romania, USA
Ireland, South Africa, Italy, Tonga, Uruguay