World Cup Expansion Poll

[rowan]

The 20-team format's protracted group stages are the big turn-off. Fans can't keep track of what's going on, unequal scheduling and byes make the tables confusing (and have drawn complaints from participating teams), and they take over 3 weeks to complete. A return to 4-team groups will solve all of those problems and place the emphasis squarely on the higher quality knock-out rounds - thus making for a much more enthralling tournament overall, and also adding a little more unpredictability.

Just to summarize that, it means 1 more round of knock-outs (ie 1 more game for each of the top 16 teams), and two less rounds of group fixtures (ie one less game for the 8 teams which do not progress). Therefore the overall quality of the tournament may actually improve marginally, rather than decline. Under the current format, the top 4 teams play 7 games, the next best 4 play 5, and the remaining 12 play 4. Under a 24-team format, the top 4 teams will still play 7 games, the next best 4 will still play 5, and the next best 8 teams after that will still play 4. But the bottom 8 teams will only make 3 appearances, rather than 4. So that's where the difference will lie, with the bottom 8 teams. The top 16 will still play just as many, but of a marginally higher quality overall. You'll have more action per round in a tournament that will involve 4 more games in total but take about a week less to complete. It's a winner from every angle

[Beerlicious]

I still think let the game grow in those competitions you mention, which will.make qualifying tougher, hell make all teams except the holders and host qualify too and the game will get stronger. Then maybe in 2031/35 it could maybe expand for growth driven by overall quality.

There is no reasonable chance to grow it behind this point. What else do you want without playing the top dogs? Germany had 9000 people watching the win against Portugal last year in Hanover. Spain had 25.000 people watching their cup final. But to qualify from Europe means basically beating Romania ( a group 4th in 2015 btw.) or at least three to four former World Cup participants. The European nations i.e. was 5 former participants and Germany. After the relegation of Portugal it is 4 + Germany&Belgium. And Germany even beat Uruguay in 2016, but will probably finish 5th in the European nations, just 2 places short to even make the repechage.

If you love rugby and loving means showing the world how good it is, you HAVE to expand the world cup. 24 teams are absolutely reasonable now, and even more in 2023, when the nations have 8 more years to actually push for those extra 4 places available, which btw will still be a big fight.

In Europe there are at least 5 teams outside of the world cup at least on the same level as Uruguay (Russia, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Portugal), same goes for Africa with Kenya, Zimbabwe and maybe even a team like Uganda or Madagascar/ Marocco/ Tunesia if they would receive more funding.

SA has Brazil and Chile and maybe Columbia going for it. Asia has Hong Kong, Sri Lanka and South Korea.
So there are about 12 teams competing for those 4 more spots - all within range to get on the level some world cup participants already have.

Honest question: what else do you want them to do, for you to justify an expansion? Beat a tier1 team? No tier1 has played the oldest continental Union Germany for bloody 160 years. Georgia is number 11 in the world ranking and never got any tests at all until recently. So how can you even reach this level if they don't play you at all? Simple compromise solution expand the RWC to 24 teams.

[rowan]

Exactly, it can and should happen, but any such decision to expand requires a commitment to vital groundwork in the interim, notably in terms of increased integration which will provide the fringe teams with the top level experience necessary.

Many of the world's major sports events have been expanding recently and rugby shouldn't be left behind. Moreover, this will put it even further beyond league's reach, because there aren't even 24 creditable league-playing nations, let alone enough for a World Cup of that size.

The 24 team model operates very smoothly, allows for more games per round without increasing the length of the tournament, and eliminates the need for byes. During the group stages there would be 2 or 3 games per day - a process that would continue for about two weeks.

Most importantly, four more teams get a crack, rugby makes headlines in four more nations, while the number of teams progressing through to the knockout rounds doubles, providing the second tier's perennial also-rans with something more realistic to aim for - and something other than mere participation to celebrate.

Everyone's a winner

[rowan]

The 2015 World Cup took 44 days. Using the rankings/last results example presented earlier in this thread, here is how a 24-team tournament could be played comfortably in 38 days. Main features are two weeks of multiple games daily during the group stages, then week-long breaks from the 1/4s through to the final.

Round 1

Day 1 Friday
NZ 79-15 Canada
Georgia 24-7 Russia

Day 2 Saturday
England 28-10 USA
Japan W/L Namibia
Australia 90-8 Romania
Fiji 39-20 Spain

Day 3 Sunday
Ireland 40-9 Samoa
Argentina W/L Germany
Wales 17-7 Tonga
France W/L Kenya

Day 4 Monday
SA 18-20 Italy
Scotland 43-12 Uruguay

Round 2

Day 5 Tuesday
Canada 16-15 Georgia
Russia L/W NZ

Day 6 Wednesday
USA 18-28 Japan
Namibia L/W England

Day 7 Thursday
Romania 7-26 Fiji
Spain 10-92 Australia

Day 8 Friday
Samoa 28-12 Argentina
Germany L/W Ireland

Day 9 Saturday
Tonga 18-38 France
Kenya L/W Wales
Italy 20-36 Scotland
Uruguay 3-134 SA

Round 3

Day 10 Sunday
NZ 43-10 Georgia
Canada 35-3 Russia
England 60-7 Japan
USA W/L Namibia

Day 11 Monday
Australia 28-13 Fiji
Romania 21-18 Spain

Day 12 Tuesday
Ireland 20-43 Argentina
Samoa 55-9 Germany

Day 13 Wednesday
Wales 19-10 France
Tonga W/L Kenya

Day 14 Thursday
SA 34-16 Scotland
Italy 29-5 Uruguay

Day 15 Friday bye

Octavos

Day 16 Saturday
England 41 Georgia 10
Australia 23 Samoa 32

Day 17 Sunday
NZ 47 Tonga 9
Wales 32 Canada 23

Day 18 Monday
Argentina 20 Italy 18
France 10 - Ireland 9

Day 19 Tuesday
SA 32 Japan 34
Scotland 37 Fiji 25

Days 20 - 22 bye

Quarters

Day 23 Saturday
NZ 24 France 19
Argentina 20 Wales 24

Day 24 Sunday
England 15 Scotland 9
Samoa 5 Japan 26

Days 25 - 29 bye

Semis

Day 30 Saturday
NZ 34 Wales 16

Day 31 Sunday
England 60 Japan 7

Days 32 - 36 bye

3rd

Day 37 Saturday
Wales 33 Japan 30

Final

Day 38 Sunday
NZ 24 England 21

[rowan]

Germany's win over Romania today and Spain's over Russia, following Brazil's decisive victory over Chile in the rain last week, surely strengthen the case for expansion...

[rowan]

6th weekupdate: The majority of respondents favor expansion to 24, and of those all but one favor expansion in 2023. A third of respondents prefer the status quo.Nobody wanted expansion to 32 nor contraction to 16, while one respondent had different ideas.

[rowan]

Safe to say the majority of participants here were in favor of expansion. So how would you allocate the 4 extra places (presuming it were 4)? Personaly I think Europe, Africa and the Americas should receive another direct spot each, but Asia/Oceania does not appear to warrant that just yet. So perhaps two repechage tournaments could run, one involving Eurasian teams (Europe & Asia) and the other involving the rest (Africa& Americas). So we'd probably see either Kenya or Zimbabwe qualify directly from Africa behind Namibia, Russia or Spain qualify directly from Europe behind Romania & Georgia, and Uruguay qualify directly while Chile or Brazil would enter the repechages. Meanwhile, the likes of Hong Kong and Korea would have a slightly easier job in the repechages, faced with Europe's 4th & 5th teams, who might be Russia and Germany on current form, for example.

Thus, Kenya, Spain, Uruguay qualify directly (on current form).
Russia & either Tunisa or Chile likely to come through the repechages.

[rowan]

Agustin Pichot recently stated that World Cup expansion remains many years away. I just wonder how long they think people will continue to be interested in a tournament that, with few exceptions, just keeps repeating itself every 4 years. We know who's going to qualify - with one or two exceptions at the most - who's going to be in the quarter-finals - with one or two exceptions at the most - and which twelve teams are not going to be in the quarter-finals - with one or two exceptions at the most. We also have a pretty good idea of who is going to be there at the very end, and if New Zealand don't at least appear in the final everyone will nearly die of shock. In a word - monotonous!

[Sandydragon]

Som4 pools of 6 teams, which adds another week to the tournament. Or, 6 pools with 4 teams with top of each pool plus 2 others going through to keep the tournament the same length. With 6N and SH major teams spread out, some pools will be easier than others, but that can be the case now. The 6 pool option would actually reduce the overall time the tournament takes which may not be such a bad idea.

However, another 4 teams who have little realistic chance of progressing; what’s the point? Perhaps if the RWC went down the championship, plate and shield route that would add some real value for the minnow teams.

[rowan]

Yes, obviously you'd go with the 6 pools of 4 teams model which would slightly reduce the length of the tournament, but add more matches into a more compact time frame and allow for equal scheduling.

There are an increasing number of fringe teams at around the same level as Namibia and Uruguay now. Aside from previous qualifiers Russia and Spain, we saw Germany beating Romania last year, Brazil beating Canada and Chile beating the likes of Kenya and Germany itself. & Hong Kong beat both Chile and Kenya, albeit playing at home. Newly promoted Morocco is another team I'd keep an eye on this season.

Also, the addition of 4 teams would not necessarily dilute the standard of the tournament at all, as the weakest teams at the event would only be playing 3 games apiece, whereas they now play a minimum 4. & the emphasis would move from the lopsided group stages to the more evenly contested knockout rounds, with an increase from 8/48 to 16/52.

Aside from giving 4 more nations a place on the big stage, the main advantage of a 24-team format is that it would scramble things up, almost certainly ensure every tournament did not look more or less the same, increase the possibility of top teams being eliminated at an earlier stage, and provide non-tier 1 teams with a realistic chance of making the knock-out rounds.

[Sandydragon]

I’m not sure how an increase would make the elimination of a top side more likely in the pool stages. Unless pools are chosen purely at random, the it’s likrly that there will be 2 top tier sides plus 4 others in each pool. With 8 QF slots, its likely to be th same teams going through, maybe with less consistent teams occasionally missing out, I,el Wales missing out for Fiji or Samoa. But that can happen now anyway.

Using Wales as n example, we normally get one other top tier side, a PI team and 2 others. In the new format as suggested below, we could just have a PI team plus 2 others. At the moment, that realistically means one game to focus on (provided we are in the top 6 at rating s time and don’t end up with h ABs). Until there is significant improvement in other nations, like Japan have shown, the quarter finalists will be very predictable for the most art, hence why I’d like some other competitions to kick in once th pools are completed.

[rowan]

Yes, I meant the early exits could come at the first stage of the knock-out rounds, following the group stages and leading to the quarter-finals. One slip-up in the group stages, where most of the tier 1 teams are going to face at least one other tier 1 opponent (and probably at least 1 tier 2 opponent) - and you end up facing the All Blacks or Springboks just to get through to the quarters.

I agree a few more teams need to be brought up to speed first, but if we look at the progress which has been made over the last decade or so, it's perfectly conceivable several new teams will be hammering at the door a decade or so from now. Incidentally, when this format was introduced to football in 1986 it immediately resulted in the first African teams making it through to the knock-out stages and the quarters became more of a lottery. Rugby badly needs this right now.

[Sandydragon]

Are you suggesting a knock out round prior to the QFs?

[rowan]

Yes, like the 1986 - 1994 FIFA World Cups.

[cashead]

Like in 1999? What a fucking garbage world cup that was.

[rowan]

No, not like 1999, which was a 20-team World Cup, and prematurely expanded, IMHO. As I said, like the 1986 - 1994 FIFA World Cups, which were outstanding successes (notwithstanding the negative tactics employed in 1990), and which were the first tournaments to see African teams progress from the group stages and really make an impression. Rugby's World Cup right now has something of a groundhog day feel about it, with 19/20 encounters being won by the pre-match favorite, and pretty much the same teams appearing in the post-group stages every time, the same dozen also-rans heading home, and these days anything other than an All Blacks victory would be a major upset. Meanwhile, we don't even see new teams qualifying for the event anymore. It's not quite as mickey mouse as the league equivalent, but has a long, long way to go to match the football World Cup as a truly competitive global event.

[rowan]

A silver lining to the European World Cup qualifying fiasco is that it may actually support the case for expanding the tournament in the 2020s. Clearly Romania, Spain and Russia were all champing at the bit to qualify, and all of them were good enough too.

& then there is Brazil's meteoric rise, which, given the size and rapid growth of its club competitions, is likely to continue. The miracle comeback win over an Argentina XV in Buenos Aires last month was only the latest in a string of upsets by Os Tupis, with victories over the US and Canada already achieved in the ARC.

On the flip-side, not a great deal of progress appears to have been made in the other regions. The fact a Hong Kong team comprised almost entirely of foreign-born players cruised through the Asian qualifiers really does bring home just how minor the sport remains outside of Japan on the Asian continent - and that's a continent that holds about 3/5 of the world's population!

The African qualifiers will be played over the next couple of months and it will be interesting to see if any progress has been made there, and whether anyone can seriously challenge Namibia's domination. Zimbabwe look promising, with PDV coaching the side and a number of foreign-based professionals making themselves available.

Kenya had an impressive win away to Uganda recently, though that probably tells us more about the state of the Cranes, tbh. Anyway, here's hoping someone can head off Namibia - or alternatively come through the repechages - to show us there is more to African rugby than the Boks and Welwitschias.

[rowan]

Winners:

1987 Australia & New Zealand
New Zealand 29–9
France

1991 European Union
Australia 12–6
England

1995 South Africa
South Africa 15–12 (aet)
New Zealand

1999 Wales
Australia 35–12
France

2003 Australia
England 20–17(aet)
Australia

2007 France
South Africa 15–6
England

2011 New Zealand
New Zealand 8–7
France

2015 England
New Zealand 34–17
Australia

Titles:

Team Champions Runners-up Third Fourth Quarter-finals Top 8 Apps
New Zealand 3 (1987, 2011, 2015) 1 (1995) 2 (1991, 2003) 1 (1999) 1 (2007) 8
Australia 2 (1991, 1999) 2 (2003, 2015) 1 (2011) 1 (1987) 2 (1995, 2007) 8
South Africa 2 (1995, 2007) – 2 (1999, 2015) – 2 (2003, 2011) 6
England 1 (2003) 2 (1991, 2007) – 1 (1995) 3 (1987, 1999, 2011) 7

[Lizard]

Seems the idea is being considered by WR for 2023 or 2027

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... teams-2023

[Lizard]

If you look at the current top 24 ranked teams, you've got 4xTRC, 6x6N, 3xPI, 2xAsian, 5xENC, 2xNth.Am, 1xSth.Am (non-TRC), 1xAfrca (non-TRC).

Expansion could do away with the current convoluted repechage systems but I expect WR would keep it or possibly give Africa 2 qualifying spots. In any event, a seeded 6 Pool draw based on the current rankings would be:

A: NZ, Tonga, Georgia, Portugal
B: Ireland, Japan, Italy, Canada
C: Wales, Fiji, USA, Namibia
D: England, Argentina, Samoa, Hong Kong
E: Australia, France, Romania, Spain
F: Scotland, South Africa, Uruguay, Russia

[Puja]

I like the repechage. It may be convoluted, but it means that every team in the world has a chance of qualifying, no matter how remote. Plus it's good in making sure deserving teams get to the RWC, even if they're in a competitive geographic area.

I'd be very much in favour of a 24 team RWC for 2023. Teams will reach a ceiling if there's nowhere realistically for them to aim for and getting the likes of Brazil, Hong Kong, and Germany into the tournament will drive growth. Plus a second round will also give teams like Georgia, USA, and England something realistic to aim towards.

Puja

[rowan]

Wonderful news. But it will inevitably face resistance from some: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-unio ... 504sk.html

[rowan]

I'm convinced, if it goes ahead, they need to run with the same format FIFA used for its 1986-1994 World Cups. Some have suggested 6-team pools, cross-overs and plate competitions for 5th, 7th, 9th etc, but that would only prolong the tournament and clutter it up with meaningless fixtures, particularly toward the latter stages when the focus should be squarely on the final. The tournament needs more variety and a few new faces, while the second tier need a more realistic chance of progressing from the group stages because after 8 tournaments that prospect is looking less likely than ever, which is tedious.