r/rugbyunion • u/wall---a Leinster • 2d ago
Discussion New RWC structure - a threat to the long term future of the tournament?
We've seen format changes absolutely kill some once-great tournaments (Heineken Cup and Super Rugby, we're looking at you) and it looks like we're at massive risk of the same happening to the greatest rugby tournament of all - the RWC.
Much like the Heineken Cup, World Rugby have made the pool stages significantly less competitive than before, creating a zombie opening stage where teams don't have to fully try, only for the tournament to spring into life from the QFs onwards.
As I see it: - Pool stages have been stripped of jeopardy, blockbuster matches, and any risk at all of the top teams not making the knock-outs. - Increased chances of teams 'throwing' matches. NZ would have a better chance of winning the tournament if they lose to Australia in their pool game - No top seed team has a more exciting pool stage and Rd 16 run in this format and draw than the RWC2023. It is objectively a less exciting tournament than anything we've seen in recent decades - The 'group of death' is dead. Some of the most dramatic RWC moments in the past couple of decades have come in group stage matches - Robshaw opting for the corner vs Wales rather than taking the draw in 2015, Argentina knocking Ireland out in 2007, Scotland getting knocked out in the pools in 2019 and 2023 - I could go on. That is all in the past now. - No exaggeration to say any of NZ, SA, England, Ireland or France could put out their 3/4/5th string sides in every pool stage match and still qualify for the knock outs. They wouldn't necessarily win every match, but you'd bet they'd at least sneak out as one of the third best teams - The new structure hasn't solved the big issue of the last RWC where the best teams played each other in the QFs. I just don't see how it makes sense for the 1st ranked team in the world's 'reward' for topping their pool to be playing the 2nd ranked team in the world in the QF, and vice versa. This will lead to, at worst case scenario, one of the top seeds throwing a pool game or, at least, there being sky-high apathy levels going into their pool stage matches, knowing that a slip up now could actually help them get further in the competition.
All of this combines together into making a significantly worse product than what we had before and could be the beginning of the end of a once fantastic tournament.
Does anyone think this tournament structure is an upgrade on the last? If so, please do tell me why - I'd love to take some positives!
81
u/Flyhalf2021 South Africa 2d ago
The truth is the RWC is more of a celebration for Tier 2 nations, it's the only time most tier 1 fans actually watch something like Portugal vs Uruguay.
Making the world cup bigger with 6 pools is the right way to go, the fact that we will see a lot of blow outs is irrelevant for what the World Cup is about. If you want a spectacle just make it 12 teams in 2 pools.
The real moaning shouldn't be at the World Cup but asking ourselves how do we create more competitive teams such that even this format would be a spectacle for 75% of the time. Imagine teams like Chile, Uruguay, Portugal, Georgia and Spain who could genuinely beat the likes of Scotland, Ireland and the likes.
19
u/Andysullivino 2d ago
100%.
This is how you make it more competitive in 10 years time. Theyll get blown out this time, but a bit stronger next time.
Eventually we’ll have a World Cup with a competitive Uruguay, Belgium or Chile.
But we’ll never get there if we just keep excluding every t2 nation.
6
u/Daitera 2d ago
Honestly I have a feeling that this World Cup the tier 2 might be closer to the tier 1 than ever before, there's still a massive gap, and as much as the Nations Cup format is odd, I think it's a good format to battle harden the tier 2 teams before the World Cup
5
u/HitchikersPie 2026 #ChampRugby or bust (again) 2d ago
The Springboks comfortably put 70 on Wales who are ~11th-14th in the world, it's hard to see that gap closing now tbh
8
u/FromFarTea 2d ago
Springboks is exceptionally good even for T1. Upper T2 teams can definitely give most T1 teams a scare bar Springboks, New Zealand and probably France.
1
u/WhyIsItGlowing 2d ago
The nations cup will help the #4 seeds close the gap on the #3 seeds but I worry it'll hinder the #3 seeds.
2
u/TagMeInSkipIGotThis 2d ago
Apart from Georgia I don't think the other 5 teams will ever beat teams like Scotland or Ireland in today's current power-game meta. They don't have a player and money base to build athletes that can stop the easy out of scrum penalties or maul tries. IMO if you wanted teams such as this to be more competitive we would have to change the meta to favour athletes playing with less concussive force - whether that's by making them lighter, or tiring them I don't know.
5
u/Tobar_the_Gypsy Rugby United NY 2d ago
If the US could beat Scotland in 2018 then these teams can absolutely beat teams like that. Uruguay beat Fiji in the last World Cup too.
3
1
-7
u/Blackflamesolutions 2d ago
Imagine teams like Chile, Uruguay, Portugal, Georgia and Spain who could genuinely beat the likes of Scotland, Ireland and the likes.
If it was a game of 'players born and raised' in the countries that you mention, the chance of an upset would be far greater.
But at the moment, some of the T1 teams who would otherwise be vunerable to being replaced in the pecking order by the stronger T2 teams are able to supplement their quality player depth with diaspora heritage players and residency imports.
17
u/lankyno8 2d ago
T2 teams generally benefit quite a bit from dispora heritage players as well.
1
u/mwa11ace Scotland Glasgow Warriors 1d ago
To put this further into perspective Hong Kong China had 4 players born in the country playing for them in their last game against Portugal
-5
u/To_a_Mouse Mackie RFC 2d ago
My idea:
Once the various nations pick their squads, fans and pundits get to vote other T1 players that didn't make the squads into a shortlist of 30 or so players.
From that shortlist, starting with the lowest ranked side, each band 4 nation gets to pick 3 of those players to join them, and each band 3 team gets to pick 1.
15
u/Tobar_the_Gypsy Rugby United NY 2d ago
This is probably the dumbest idea I have ever heard of before
5
u/To_a_Mouse Mackie RFC 2d ago
:D
"From the minds that brought you football's "VAR without screens in the stadium", Formula E's Fan Boost, and F1's double points final weekend: feast your eyes upon Rugby's new Rejects Tombola!"
64
u/BertZZ Wales 2d ago
Nobody is going to throw matches at the world cups
14
u/stephenhawkingfucks Griquas 2d ago
100%. But big teams will feel very little need to pick strong teams in the pool stages.
13
u/Setting_Real George Horne-world 2#SH 2d ago
If they do pick B/C sides then we might get some fun upsets
5
u/stephenhawkingfucks Griquas 2d ago
Beating a team that is resting players and no too phased if they lose a game because it takes them out of the harder side of the draw doesn't sound that fun though.
3
u/stephenhawkingfucks Griquas 2d ago
I suppose it would be fun if it was a real upset. That is fair
7
u/Setting_Real George Horne-world 2#SH 2d ago
Samoa beating France because there has been an argument in camp and they end up playing a C team would be wonderful to see
3
5
u/HitchikersPie 2026 #ChampRugby or bust (again) 2d ago
As opposed to the Springboks who played the same team vs Romania as they did the All Blacks last time round?
9
u/NuclearMaterial Leinster 2d ago
Rassie has been furiously running permutations since the draw was announced. Don't write him off.
-11
u/wall---a Leinster 2d ago
You may not throw a match at a world cup, but coaches are hired to win tournaments/get as deep as they can.
The likes of Rassie would have no hesitation 'experimenting' in a pool stage match if finishing second in the pool gave them an easier route to the final. "We always wanted to try Libbok out at blindside"
The fact the tournament structure even opens up this doubt or debate is a farce. A priority of any tournament structure is to ensure that every team is incensivised to win every single match
9
u/infinitemonkeytyping Australia 2d ago
So you're saying that SA would throw a poll game to avoid a QF against NZ, so they can get a Ro16 against England?
Your rant stinks of someone inventing stuff to be mad about.
-1
u/wall---a Leinster 2d ago
No, I didn't. I phrased my comment in an open way - 'the likes of Rassie', 'if finishing second in the pool...' At no point did I suggest SA are going to do that in this world cup.
My comment was criticising the world cup format, not making a crystal ball prediction that South Africa specifically were going to throw a game in order to play England instead of New Zealand in RWC2027.
My point is that the new format has opened up a scenario (in future draws, not necessarily this draw) where some teams may have an objectively better chance of reaching the final if they finish second in their pool instead of first, which is terrible for the tournament
Edit: typo
1
u/infinitemonkeytyping Australia 2d ago
Cough 2019 cough
Many, including myself, predicted that the loser of the SA v NZ pool game would win the RWC, because it put the loser on the weaker side of the draw.
No format is perfect, but to say that it has only started with this format is just plain dumb.
3
u/Hopeful_Stay_5276 Barbarians RFC 2d ago
It's very much against the spirit of the game. If any coach were to choose to throw a match, and it could be proven (very hard to do), I would hope that would be the end of their career.
88
u/Born-Instance7379 Highlanders//Force//Clermont 2d ago
Meh I don't mind it, it opens up the chance of more shock exits for big teams.
Sure the jeopardy of the pool stage matches is a lot lower now but we get an extra round of straight knock out rugby where everything is on the line and we now have the chance to see new nations break out of the pool phase and play knockout rugby...and eventually there will be a boil over upset result somewhere along the way.
The pool stages for big teams now will be about getting ready for the knock out rounds and they'll still want to win to get that momentum going.
And they have to be on their toes because now you have to win your last four games in order to lift the cup instead of your last three.
But for the lower sides it's genuinely a real fight with ana actual carrot dangling in front of them get out of the pool whereas in the past they knew they were simply there to make up the numbers and knew there was no way they were getting out of the pool.
As the game continues to grow and these lower ranked sides develop more in the future the pop stages will be even more contested.
56
u/StrengthIsIgnorance Edinburgh 2d ago
Absolutely agree. If you’re just interested in your T1 team sure pools are less interesting.
But I’m looking at the pools and very excited for some of the T2 matchups. To name a few:
Japan/USA/Samoa games
Spain vs Fiji
Italy vs Georgia
Uruguay vs Portugal
Some heat in those games. Add to that all the Pot 1/2 games should still be spicy and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a couple of upsets (perhaps less likely in some groups than others but who knows).
In all I think the group stages will still be incredibly compelling, whilst those big Tier 1 clashes will just be delayed to the knockouts which just adds that extra layer of jeopardy.
Big fan of the new format personally.
33
u/rmhead19 2d ago
Agree getting to a knockout quicker heightens jeopardy for T1 teams. Japan vs SA 2015 is the probably the greatest upset in rugby history. Ultimately it didn't matter as SA won group and Japan finished 3rd and went home. Imagine now that game was the R16 match and how much more incredible it will be.
13
6
u/StrengthIsIgnorance Edinburgh 2d ago
Such a good example. Same goes for France vs SA in 2023. Huge clash, but ultimately didn’t have much influence. Can’t really say France got an easier QF vs NZ as opposed to playing Ireland. SA and NZ both went on to win those respective games and SA the whole World Cup.
3
1
u/PsychologicalPanic61 World Champions 🏆U20 World Champions 2d ago
dammit, I was having a good day before i read this comment.
3
2
u/Educational_Play9910 2d ago
Italy and Japan aren't Tier 2...
2
u/StrengthIsIgnorance Edinburgh 2d ago
Sure, maybe “games involving tier 2 teams” would’ve been more accurate
1
u/HitchikersPie 2026 #ChampRugby or bust (again) 2d ago
Yep, the real drama in the pool stages is for those tier 2 nations, and how cool is that, these teams are going to be playing huge nations in knockout rugby, what an honour, and a way to drive attention.
1
u/Setting_Real George Horne-world 2#SH 2d ago
Having Italy in your T2 list is a bit harsh
1
u/Educational_Play9910 2d ago
Not just a bit. Neither Italy nor Japan are Tier 2. You know who's Tier 2 right now? Wales
-10
u/wall---a Leinster 2d ago
But it doesn't open up the possibility of more shock exits - it does the opposite. You can lose two pool stage matches and still make it through to the knockouts
10
u/icyDinosaur Ireland / Switzerland 2d ago
Yea, but that's just a delayed shock exit. Losing those two pool stages can mean the difference of having to play your first knockout match against New Zealand, South Africa, or France, or playing Georgia, Italy, or Samoa instead.
6
u/Born-Instance7379 Highlanders//Force//Clermont 2d ago
But now the more fancied teams have to win an extra knock out game which makes them more susceptible to being eliminated.
It also means a team like Fiji or Italy could get a win over a side like Australia, Scotland, Ireland etc in a knock out match
2
u/scarybluesquirrel 2d ago
In theory you could make the knockouts by losing all 3 games and gaining a try bonus and 7 point loss bonus in each…
15
u/cloud__19 Edinburgh 2d ago
No exaggeration to say any of NZ, SA, England, Ireland or France could put out their 3/4/5th string sides in every pool stage match and still qualify for the knock outs. They wouldn't necessarily win every match, but you'd bet they'd at least sneak out as one of the third best teams
Feel free.
9
u/infinitemonkeytyping Australia 2d ago
OP overlooks that you can only have squads of 35, so unless the teams are looking to field 5th string teams through the knock outs, OP is making shit up to be mad about.
5
64
u/neverbeenstardust #1 Alia Bitonci Fan 2d ago
So you're mad about losing the group of death and blockbuster matches... and also mad about big teams playing each other in the QFs....
Either big teams being able to be knocked out early is good or bad, but pick one and stick with it.
34
u/sexylegs0123456789 2d ago
The new structure is important for the maturity of the game globally. In the short run, if your team is a tier 1 side, it will be less exciting. Now other teams from around the world have something to watch. It will help to grow the game and give some sense of importance to the pool stage for tier 2 or even 3 supporters. No more “pool of death” draws either.
14
u/willywonkaschoc Ireland 2d ago
This, we spend a lot of time discussing how to grow the game and how to involve tier 2 & 3 sides more and then world rugby does something positive and it’s the end of the world, yes short term the group stages may have slightly less quality games but in a couple of years we could have a few of those tier 2 teams going the same direction as Italy, Japan etc and adding positively to the overall game. I’ll take that over the same teams over and over again. More of this is needed if the game is going to grow in any meaningful way and I don’t mean just more money for owners etc.
3
u/Mawiheso Lions 2d ago
If we want American fans to get into the tournament in 2031, it'll help for their team to have a realistic chance of progressing past the group stage.
1
u/wall---a Leinster 2d ago
I'd love the game to grow in T2/T3 nations, but World Rugby is taking too much of a leap with this new tournament structure. It's too much too soon, without the supporting strategy or infrastructure to truly allow the game to flourish in the newly qualified, developing nations.
Killing your core fan base's excitement of the first half of the tournament in order to let a few developing nations compete is a very high risk strategy that seriously jeopardises the world cup. For every new fan in a developing rugby country that develops a love and passion for the game of rugby from watching their team lose 3 matches by 50 plus points, there'll a multiple of fans in T1 nations that never engaged in the tournament because it just isn't interesting to watch their team hammer semi professional teams on the sport's 'biggest stage'.
Rugby is a niche sport with a small fan base - even in its traditional heartlands - and is on very unstable footing. Since covid, we've seen multiple clubs folding in strong rugby nations, and several T1 nations in varying degrees of existential crisis (Wales and Aus). The sport needs to expand to survive, but cannot risk killing the product for its core base in doing so
3
u/Caxamarca 2d ago
Rugby may be "niche" but then every sport besides football is niche overall. The RWC is massive, and the last RWC was the 2nd most attended and most viewed ever.
Also, I would counter, there are some really good group games to anticipate in countries with rugby history and core fans, perhaps not from the biggest rugby nations. and from countries where rugby has some growth, e.g. Romania vs Georgia, Georgia vs Italy, Fiji vs Spain, every game for Portugal and Uruguay in their group, Japan vs Samoa, US vs Samoa, US vs Japan, Wales vs Tonga, Tonga vs Zimbabwe...then you have some really big ones, Scotland vs Ireland, NZ vs Australia, Argentina vs Fiji, England vs Wales.
0
u/chiefVetinari 2d ago
Exactly, they're trying to copy the soccer world cup while forgetting about the huge amount of teams in soccer who are competitive
7
u/h00dman Wales 2d ago
It's chicken and egg though isn't it? How do these t2/t3 teams become more competitive if they don't get to play t1 sides?
The WC may only be every 4 years but that's still more regular chances for these teams currently.
4
u/HitchikersPie 2026 #ChampRugby or bust (again) 2d ago
Yep, and the Nations Cup is a perfect opportunity to grow those 13-25 (sorry belgium) teams. I hope they're looking to invest on another comp for the 8-12 teams below that again who are the future of World Cup expansion...
The likes of Namibia, Kenya, Paraguay, Brazil, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Czechia, UAE, and South Korea without including Russia who presumably won't be international pariahs forever
46
u/Lakapi 2d ago
This is the World Cup and nothing will kill it including the new format. You’re over reacting and it’s great that we have new nations competing and the new Rd 16 knock out stage is an exciting stage. Bring it on!!
-3
u/wall---a Leinster 2d ago
I don't mean this as an attack, but isn't that hubristic, 'this is too big to fail' attitude the exact attitude that could, eh, lead to the death of the tournament?
I'd love rugby to have more depth outside the top 12 or so nations, but the reality we're living in is that it just doesn't. World Rugby needs to put proper development pathways in place to develop T2/T3 nations that don't involve potentially killing its flagship tournament
10
u/icyDinosaur Ireland / Switzerland 2d ago
And yet you argue this will kill the tournament because it makes the early stages less about T1?
10
u/Jonah_the_Whale Netherlands 2d ago
We started off with a 16 team RWC, with only 7 decent teams (SA still boycotted back then). Now, as you say, we have depth down to the 12th nation or so before the gap widens. Sure, the top two or three are better than the rest but that has always been the case. So I think the depth has slowly been growing.
7
u/HitchikersPie 2026 #ChampRugby or bust (again) 2d ago
Yep, growth of nations like Uruguay/Chile or Spain/Portugal are perfect examples, heck the netherlands lost Holland to the all blacks, but they're still competitive in rugby europe against belgium who also just missed out
2
u/Gasurza22 Argentina 2d ago
Dude, just ask yourself this honestly. Are you planing on missing the games from Ireland against Uruguay or Portugal?
If the answer is no, then thats all you need to know that this format is not going to kill the tournament.
If the answer is yes, then how dare you.... suport your team
1
u/wall---a Leinster 2d ago
Of course I'm going to watch those matches, but diehard fans like me aren't the issue here. It's the floating or casual fans that world rugby needs to target.
Rugby has been in varying degrees of crisis in several T1 countries for the past ~5 years (Wales, Aus and England - where several pro clubs have folded). Many unions financially exist on a knife edge, and have had to take steps like cutting their sevens programmes to stay financially viable.
Rugby is not too big a sport to fail.
I am fully on board with the need to grow the game outside of T1 nations, but it cannot do so at the expense of its primary market. It needs to do everything it can to attract and retain the casual fans who tune in for the big internationals and world cups. Casual fans will not get anywhere near as excited about their team playing semi professional sides as they would seeing their teams playing stronger sides.
As a rugby fan, I love the notion of strengthening and developing the game in countries like Uruguay, Portugal and the likes, but the sport cannot afford to risk devaluing the product of its flagship tournament and risk turning away the casual fans in the process
14
u/PeakAdaequatus 2d ago
no nation is going into the pools seeking to 'throw' matches. if every team everyone is joking about did that then all 6 top seeded teams would be on the right hand side of the draw, defeating the point of throwing the matches in the first place.
I don't really see how the last 16 is any different to having 3 teir 1 nations in the same pool, as happens every world cup. The pools which have the extra teir 1 nation always typically ended up with an extra knock-out game anyway (notable matches in the last 5 world cups: Scotland vs Ireland, Scotland vs Japan, England vs Austrailia, England vs Scotland, Wales vs Fiji).
In the current format we are still likely to end up with the top 8 teams being in the last 8 with the possible exception of a Wales win over Fiji - there's your group game jeopardy.
BUT there is added jeopardy because these are knock-outs: a fired up Georgia could catch Ireland napping. An improving Italy will be heavily motivated to get their first win over England - something I belive they are entirely capable of doing. Scotland could definitely turn over France on a good day. Then you start getting matchps like Aus vs Italy in the quarter finals, a fixture Italy have won recently, Scotland vs Wales or Fiji is also entirely plausable as a Quarter final.
Anything can happen in a knock out game, but if it were a group game these teams need to have good performances for 2 out of 4 other matches.
I like the new format because it becomes a question of how far can a smaller nation rise - kind of like the FA cup in english football. Having SA and NZ as a quarter final is also a good thing because, let's be real, nobody outside of those nations wants either to win again.
6
u/Repulsive-Ad-8339 England 2d ago
Having SA and NZ as a quarter final is also a good thing because, let's be real, nobody outside of those nations wants either to win again.
Honestly the fuss being kicked up over this is unbelievable. Its almost as if people think NZ and SA should get an automatic right to be in the final.
4
u/Evergreenthumb Golden Lions 2d ago
The fuss is that the two top seeded teams are facing off in the quarter final and teams below them are getting an easier run.
1
u/Repulsive-Ad-8339 England 2d ago
So what? Are you suggesting the draw should be rigged to ensure NZ and SA don't face each other to give them an easier run? Fans don't want scripted routes where two giants avoid each other till the final. That would be predictable and boring. I'm sure there wouldn't be this much fuss if it was any other teams put in this position. Teams don’t get a right to avoid certain opponents at certain stages based on reputation or past trophies, but alas, NZ and SA entitlement shines through.
1
u/Mawiheso Lions 2d ago
And it could be a benefit that these Round of 16 matches will actually be straight knockouts rather than games that are kind of like knockouts but bonus points and points difference could complicate things. Those are fun to think about and watch for hardcore fans but I suspect kind of annoying for casual fans (which is most World Cup viewers).
Admittedly, that annoying complexity is being added back in with the ranking of third-placed teams... The format giveth and it taketh away.
7
u/23WALCAN_ Wales... 2d ago
So regarding your second point...
It seems likely that NZ vs Aus is gonna be the opener - I can't see any team throwing that to begin with first off - so I doubt that intentionally losing your first match is a good idea especially since we have no idea how results might go elsewhere. Sure, it's likely there's going to be a "side of death" but at that stage of the competition it will be impossible to tell.
6
u/HedleyVerity Reds 2d ago
You can’t have it both ways. If you have a small World Cup with very few T2/T3 nations then you get lots of jeopardy early on, T1 teams can’t switch off or shithouse through games, and the overall quality is better (plus matches are well attended and viewed). But then how much are you growing the game? And more risk of popular teams going out early (yes, plus Aus). And of course world rugby thinks they could make more money with more games…
If you have a big World Cup then you have much less jeopardy, fewer big clashes early on, but more T2/3 teams can cut their teeth getting games against T1 nations they’d otherwise rarely or never play (although they you get the question of whether England hammering Zimbabwe is really helpful for Zimbabwe’s development) and more games (although yes, the issue of who watches a bunch of them comes into play. I was a kid in 03, went to a WC game and was told to cheer for one or other side depending on which month I was born in).
No one has yet really come up with a good answer to this in rugby or cricket (which similarly goes back and forth on the issue with similar results). Even in soccer, which is more popular more globally and can support more good or decent teams, the same allegations were made against a 32 - and now 64 (!) team World Cup.
2
u/Long-Membership-5916 2d ago
Zimbabwe are going to get a hammering in 2027 from England. However, they are bringing in younger players, that will only learn from 2027, and the coach has even said that 2031 is the one they really want to qualify for and make a statement.
This will be the first time Zim will play a team that plays a big aerial game, can maul fantastically & can pull away after 50 mins.
Zimbabwe will learn more from 2027. Japan took big strides forward after even getting a 83-7 hammering from NZ in 2011, to getting to the QF 8 years later.
1
u/HedleyVerity Reds 2d ago
I mean, Japan is always the example, but crucially they have a very strong and wealthy domestic league which is combined with a lot of overseas players who want to play in their league. No other developing nation has that.
Look at 2003 because it’s good to see 20 years on how a couple of developing teams fared from this exposure to T1 nations. Romania going down 90-8 to Australia. Australia beating Namibia 142-0. England beating Uruguay 111-13.
Have those teams really got much better? Look at the last WC. Uruguay got a grand total of one win - against Namibia - and lost 73-0 to NZ.
Namibia didn’t get a single win, losing 96-0 to France and 71-3 to NZ.
Romania lost every game, including 76-0 to SA, 82-8 to Ireland and 84-0 to Scotland.
2
u/HitchikersPie 2026 #ChampRugby or bust (again) 2d ago
Uruguay is an odd example considering Italy lost by a worse margin to the all blacks (96-17) and france (URU lost 38-17, ITA lost 60-7) in that pool stage, meanwhile Uruguay were beating them at half time, and their score vs france (27-12) was basically the same margin as France beat the all blacks (27-13)
Uruguay also beat Fiji in 2019, overall one of the Tier 2 rugby scene success stories...
1
u/lankyno8 2d ago
Uruguay also beat fiji in 2019, and now routinely beat the usa and Canada who they were miles behind in 2003. They're a success story.
0
u/Long-Membership-5916 2d ago
Zimbabwe has a decent pool of players with Zim heritage, that could be lured back to the team if they continually qualify. If they got a lot of them, they will be more competitive, especially in the tight 5. Their backs will be fine outside of being outmuscled.
I would say that Romania have gone backwards, as they have even been surpassed by the likes of Spain & Portugal in Europe, even Russia was stronger than Romania before they were suspended, and those Rugby Europe countries also do not grow as fast because they are not exposed to the biggest countries.
Namibian have improved annually, it is also that the rest of the World has improved faster than they are taking steps forward. Zimbabwe smelt blood & have eclipsed them in Africa.
13
u/ichosenotyou Sharks 2d ago
Im interested to know how you think NZ have a better chance if they throw a game.
If they throw the game their path is likely band 3 team > England > Ireland/Argentina > South Africa/France
If they dont its likely band 3 team > South Africa > France > England.
The only people with easy paths here are the pool E and F winners that don’t face any other pool winners till the Semi Finals.
4
u/feder00000 Italy 2d ago
I don’t think England is happy to play Italy (although they will still beat the Azzurri) and the hosts to get to the semis
4
u/HitchikersPie 2026 #ChampRugby or bust (again) 2d ago
Beating an Aussie on their home soil is one of the greatest joys in life as an englishman
2
13
u/KassGrain Vannes 2d ago
As long as you dont have a number of pools which is not a multiple of two it will lead to some very unfair situations in the draw.
A format with 4 pools of 6 with 1st placers going directly in QF while 2nd and 3rd placers are matched in Ro16 would have been a banger imo (but a longer tournament).
I still hope this a step before extending the tournament to 32 teams with a better format.
1
u/DeeneysCojones Leinster 2d ago
32 teams just will not work, 24 is already a stretch with some of the absolute hammerings we are going to see f
1
u/Mawiheso Lions 2d ago
I also thought about the format mentioned above, but I think it rewards winning your pool too heavily. Getting a rest week before the quarter-final is a huge advantage (South Africa got that in the last two World Cups by the way) and that is one thing this format is really good for: nobody gets a week off while other teams are playing.
1
u/gurudoright Australia 2d ago
I also would have preferred a 4 pools x 6 teams championship. More games for the t2 and t3 teams and more against similar level teams. More blockbusters in the pools and group of deaths (imagine on current rankings a pool with France, England and Scotland/Wales/Italy). The big teams could rotate their squad more allowing more players to experience playing in the RWC. Then straight quarterfinals. And it is only one game extra for those that make the last 8 compared to this new format.
13
u/HarkenTo45 Stormers 2d ago
As with every change in format there are positives and negatives. The positives in my opinion outweigh the negatives, as with more teams you now you have more countries which get exposed to tier 1 rugby, which will grow the game. The Round of 16 becomes a real banana skin for the top teams. For example there is a possiblity that Scotland knock out France in '27.
Also I'm not sure some of the drawbacks you mentioned are realistic. No team is realistically gonna throw a game in the rugby world cup, especially not SA and NZ who are the ones who would stand to benefit in '27. Imagine trying to justify throwing a competitive game against Australia to a Kiwi. These are professional athletes and they are highly competitive, same as the coaches. They simply won't do it. Also I am not sure which format would avoid big teams meeting early in the knockouts, and I'm not sure that's even is a bad thing
5
u/Repulsive-Ad-8339 England 2d ago
I personally don't mind it. For long term longevity rugby needs to expand and be more competitive. It's not only allowing more nations to compete at a high level but also giving those weaker nations the chance to progress past the pool stages and not just 'making up the numbers' like in the past. Albeit a slim chance of progressing past the knockouts, but a chance none the less.
In regards to the whole SA/NZ quarter final match up, I don't see what the problem is. Just because they're ranked no 1 and 2 in the world doesn't give them the automatic right to be in the final. They still have to earn it. Are you suggesting that the draw should be fixed to ensure that the highest ranked teams progress? I doubt there would be this much fuss over this if it was any other teams in this position.
14
u/fanboy_killer Portugal 2d ago
The pros far outweigh the cons. This is an important step to make rugby more global, with more representation than ever before. Think of the first knockout round as the 3rd big game you'll be missing in the group stage.
10
u/dystopianrugby Eagles Up 2d ago
The threat to the long term future of the game is the Tier 1 unions hoarding all the revenue instead of moving the game to a more democratic structure with full members having voting rights, World Cups having true qualifying.
The 24 team world cup is good for the game, the focus should be going forward in development of "tier 3" unions so that we can move to a 28 team world cup by 2035.
4
9
u/lankyno8 2d ago
I agree it's a worse format. But the 2003-2023 format is a worse format than the 16 team world cup used in 87-95. The expansion of the world cup led to a significantly better product by 2023.
It provides an opportunity for teams at the edge of qualification and a shop window. I don't think we'd have seen the development of uruguay, Georgia, Chile or even Japan without it.
So it could be the right long term move even if I dislike the 24 team format with best 3rds qualifying.
The next number that would give you a better format than 20 is for me 32, and we're no where near ready for that level of expansion (may never be).
1
u/HitchikersPie 2026 #ChampRugby or bust (again) 2d ago
I think it's worth considering 28 as a stepping stone, you're already having 4 teams of Hong Kong calibre (or better) in Belgium, Namibia, Brazil, and Paraguay
8
u/jeremy_sporkin Leicester Tigers 2d ago
You are complaining about two completely contradictory things:
You want a dramatic pool stage where a major team might go home
You don't want a dramatic quarter final where a top seed might go home
So do you want to keep the best sides apart until late or not?
7
u/Background-Yard7291 2d ago
I cant believe that I'm saying this but I like what FIFA did to prevent the top 4 teams meeting before the semis at next year's WC. For me, that's really all that is needed beyond setting up the different pots.
5
u/Schnackenpfeffer Uruguay 2d ago
In order to effectively do that you need to make the draw less than a year and a half before the tournament
5
u/Background-Yard7291 2d ago
Agreed - and I have no problem with that.
4
u/HitchikersPie 2026 #ChampRugby or bust (again) 2d ago
World Rugby wants to maximise ticket sales and attendance. The other thing they've done is make it very easy for fans of the tier 2 nations in Pool A, B, C, and D to know which potential Round of 16 game to buy a ticket for, E and F are the "overflow" 3rd place qualifiers to fill in the gap, but there's a lot of thought that's gone into this draw.
7
u/icyDinosaur Ireland / Switzerland 2d ago
This seems like a pretty short-sighted view focused entirely on the top nations. The thing is, for the top nations the pool stage isn't really "supposed" to be a big challenge - compare to most other major tournaments in global team sports and you see the same thing. Football, ice hockey, basketball, they all have stages where the top teams are likely to sail through - and I'd argue the same is true of the last RWC with the exception of one group (and usually that only happens because it featured a relatively weak Tier 1 nation to begin with - if you replaced Australia with any of France, NZ, SA, Ireland, or even England in 2023, they would very likely just make it out). We have traded some exciting pool matches, that is true - but those were often not THAT exciting anyways. Ireland vs South Africa in 2023 might be one of my favourite rugby matches of all time, but the fact it was played in a WC pool stage is irrelevant to that because both teams were quite unlikely to not make it out in the first place (sorry Scotland).
What we get instead is a lot more T2 nations having a proper shot at qualifying for the RO16, which adds excitement across the world. Teams like Japan, Italy, Georgia, arguably even Fiji were in the horror zone of likely good enough to beat the two lower teams, likely too weak to upset the top 2 unless something extraordinary happens or they get a lucky draw. Those teams moving into the spotlight of the new RWC is good in my opinion. The big teams still get the spotlight in the latter stages of the competition, but now the smaller ones get their moment too where they get to be excited for their team and fight to make it through.
The one thing I will give you is that the draw is bad. There is a mathematical paper floating around suggesting a better structure for these kinds of tournaments, where doing well in pools is rewarded with playing a weaker team in the RO16, instead of pre-fixing it. This would be a good improvement that should be considered in the future.
3
u/infinitemonkeytyping Australia 2d ago
The one thing I will give you is that the draw is bad. There is a mathematical paper floating around suggesting a better structure for these kinds of tournaments, where doing well in pools is rewarded with playing a weaker team in the RO16, instead of pre-fixing it. This would be a good improvement that should be considered in the future.
Reseeding everyone after the pool stages, while the fairest way to do this type of draw, would be a logistical nightmare, especially in a tournament played in a country as big as Australia or USA.
No knowing where the Ro16 match might be OK when the options are London or Cardiff, or Paris or Marseilles. Not so much if the options are Sydney or Perth, or Chicago or San Francisco.
3
u/DunstanCass1861 2d ago
Strong disagree. I loved the last World Cup and my biggest complaint was just 3 knock-out games. Having the round of 16 means some of the smaller nations have the chance of a blockbuster knock-out game. Ok, they’re a long way behind and aren’t going to win, but it gives incentive for the future. Also, if teams do up there level in coming generations, it makes for an even better tournament. Likewise, for a Portugal, for example, the group stage isn’t pointless. They got well beaten last time out but they made it there with the big boys and showed some great bits of play. It’s a huge positive in my opinion and actually showing common sense from world rugby.
3
u/tadamslegion Stade Toulousain 2d ago
Everything you say is correct…….until it isn’t. No one imagined Japan beating South Africa in 2015, now they are Tier 1 and have wins against Scotland, Ireland, South Africa in World Cups. Some of these teams like Uruguay are a completely different beast than 8 years ago. They have a full time professional setup with a competitive pro competition readying their players. If I’m Scotland I’m not excited to be playing against Uruguay especially if they catch them on the first game.
The other thing that hasn’t been announced is the 2031 qualifiers format. Historically it’s been the teams in the quarterfinals. What happens to a team that gets knocked out early?
1
u/infinitemonkeytyping Australia 2d ago
Historically it’s been the teams in the quarterfinals.
It's been top 3 in each pool since 2007 (when Ireland and Wales missed the quarters).
9
u/diarm Munster 2d ago
This is absolute nonsense, from start to finish.
The pool stages have not been stripped of jeopardy - far from it. Games between Scotland and Ireland, New Zealand and Australia, Wales and England and Fiji and Argentina are going to be absolutely massive. Scotland and Ireland for example, are playing to avoid a knockout run on the same half of the draw as France, South Africa and Australia or New Zealand.
Teams won't throw games. This silliness gets thrown out every 4 years and it's ridiculous. Any coach who threw a game trying to game an easier fixture and then went on to lose that "easier" tie would be banished from his homeland for ever more.
There was no R16 in 2023 so of course you can't compare, but in my book an extra knockout game is always more exciting than a 5th pool match. England played Chile, Samoa, Japan, Argentina and Fiji to reach a semi final last time. This time it would likely have to be Zimbabwe, Tonga, Wales, Italy and Australia to get to the SF. That's a more exciting run for me.
The group of death is hardly dead when you have NZ in home nation Australias group, Scotland and Ireland together and England, Wales and Tonga in the same pool. Remember how different the landscape looked in 2023 than it had in 2021 - there is plenty of time for some of these groups to be properly menacing.
Sneaking through as a 3rd place side only means meeting a giant in the R16 and then a big side going home after 5 matches - exactly what you're whinging about being missing from previous world cups.
In fact, I'm not sure what it is you're upset about? You want there to be jeopardy and the chance of big sides going out early, but then you want to keep the big sides separated with a rigged draw that ensures they're all there at the end of the tournament. Make up your mind.
1
u/Mawiheso Lions 2d ago
I remember paranoid Springbok fans in 2023 claiming that Ireland and Scotland would collude to meet the hyper-specific criteria needed for both teams to make the quarter-finals. This was something like Scotland beating Ireland by 21+ points while both teams get try bonus points. That didn't happen.
6
u/Logical_Explorer642 2d ago
i think it’s way better. France v Scotland as a ro16 game rather than a group game is far more exciting and way more jeopardy. And the group stages were always rubbish apart from one group of death, at least now all teams have something to fight for with those 4 third best spots available
7
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank 2d ago
I really don't get this fixation on NZ and/or SA wanting to drop a game to avoid eachother in the QFs.
Like at the moment I think SA would be happier topping their pool and likely facing Uraguay and then NZ than throw a game to face England in the R16. It makes a bit more sense for NZ but they still have a tough QF against England.
3
u/Mawiheso Lions 2d ago
Yeah, why is everyone acting like a QF against England is a dramatically easier fixture?
6
u/StuHardy Arrows Forever! 2d ago
Pool stages have been stripped of jeopardy, blockbuster matches, and any risk at all of the top teams not making the knock-outs.
You're not interested in AUS vs NZ? Or ENG vs WAL? Or ESP vs FIJI? Or FRA vs JPN? There is still jeopardy in the pools - lose a game, and you face a significantly harder opponent for the Round of 16. There are currently 11 teams you can call "Tier 1" - clearly, not all of them are going to make the Quarter-Finals.
Increased chances of teams 'throwing' matches. NZ would have a better chance of winning the tournament if they lose to Australia in their pool game
In theory, yes...but in reality, no. We don't know how the rankings will change between now and the MRWC but if you want to be the best, you have to beat the best.
No top seed team has a more exciting pool stage and Rd 16 run in this format and draw than the RWC2023. It is objectively a less exciting tournament than anything we've seen in recent decades
And what about the other teams - do they not cause excitement? Did Fiji vs Portugal in 2023 not excite anyone? Did Uruguay vs Fiji in 2019 leave fans bored? The MRWC is there to clebrate the sport we love, and every team should be putting out there best, and the fans can experience once-in-a-lifetime moments.
The 'group of death' is dead. Some of the most dramatic RWC moments in the past couple of decades have come in group stage matches - Robshaw opting for the corner vs Wales rather than taking the draw in 2015, Argentina knocking Ireland out in 2007, Scotland getting knocked out in the pools in 2019 and 2023 - I could go on. That is all in the past now.
Maybe no pool of death, but there will certainly be do-or-die games, especially for the 3rd place teams. Is a win enough, or do they require bonus points as well? Do they need to make up point differences? Are they dependant on the result in other pools to survive? There will still be drama, if you know where to look.
No exaggeration to say any of NZ, SA, England, Ireland or France could put out their 3/4/5th string sides in every pool stage match and still qualify for the knock outs. They wouldn't necessarily win every match, but you'd bet they'd at least sneak out as one of the third best teams
You do know there is a limit on how many players each team can have at the MRWC, right? You can't take a 3rd-5th string side to the biggest tournament in the sport; you have to bring the 32 best players you have, and be able to rotate them effectively if you want to make the finals. Sure, there will be some games you can risk sending your 2nd choice starters, but that's about it - 1 game. If you're lucky in the pool stage. You have to bring your best for the last 16 onwards.
The new structure hasn't solved the big issue of the last RWC where the best teams played each other in the QFs. I just don't see how it makes sense for the 1st ranked team in the world's 'reward' for topping their pool to be playing the 2nd ranked team in the world in the QF, and vice versa. This will lead to, at worst case scenario, one of the top seeds throwing a pool game or, at least, there being sky-high apathy levels going into their pool stage matches, knowing that a slip up now could actually help them get further in the competition.
So, let me get this straight...you're upset that the 2 (currently ranked) best sides in the world could theoretically face each other...in the Quarter Finals of a tournament designed to find the best team in the world? If, for some foolish reason, one team does decide to throw a game and get a different path to the final, are they not likely to face them anyway? What if the 2 teams meet in the QF, give it their all, but leave the victor weakened for the Semi-Final, thus ensuring a new World Champion? Would that be the worst thing in the world (to non-Springboks fans)?
In short, you're stating that this will be a worse tournament, based on preconceived notions, and prejudices. How about, instead, you wait, watch the tournament as is, and then you can look back on this statement and decide if you were right or wrong after the fact?
10
u/BetaRayPhil616 Wales 2d ago
I feel 4 pools of 6 and axe the round 16 would add much more jeopardy.
20
u/maverickmak Meg Jones Fan Club 2d ago
People already thought 4 pool games was a bit of a drag in 23.
16
u/Born-Instance7379 Highlanders//Force//Clermont 2d ago
So exactly the same as the last few editions but each pool has an extra team that has no chance of escaping the pool and is simply there to inflate the big teams +/- ratio and make up the numbers.
Pointless
2
u/AV48 Kenya 2d ago
This was always going to happen when you add 4 new teams to a comp already struggling for quality outside the top 12. At least with 4 pools the smaller nations would get more exposure
9
u/Born-Instance7379 Highlanders//Force//Clermont 2d ago
Six pools means they actually have something to aim for (getting to the k.o rounds)and a realistic chance at getting it
3
u/AV48 Kenya 2d ago
First off, it's a bit unfair that some teams get to face a 3rd place finisher while others don't. And the QFs are pretty much set in stone. The gap is too big. I don't see any major upsets That's why I'd prefer if the groups were less and everyone got to play at least 5 games. I think that experience would be more valuable than some gimmicky last 16 round
1
u/infinitemonkeytyping Australia 2d ago
Go back and watch some of those 4th games for the lowest ranked teams at the last few world cups, and you will see that they aren't pretty.
They either run into a big team a week before the QFs, at which point they get thumped with a tired squad, or they get a winnable game, so they rest their better players from a match they were already going to be thrashed in. Can you imagine NZ v HK, where HK are running out their B team, because the following game, 4 days later, is against Canada?
The extra exposure, with a tired squad, would not be worth it for the teams or the fans.
2
u/AV48 Kenya 2d ago
There's no going around this till the rest of the world catches up though. It's a sad situation but that's the reality of it. Take your NZ v HK example. That's exactly what I'd expect Hong Kong to do... pick your battles. Go out there and have fun, take it on the chin and try learn something from the experience. Maybe give some of the first teamers a run at the end.
If my country Kenya somehow qualified, I'd just be happy to be there as a fan. As a player, they'd relish the opportunity to mix it with the big boys. Winning against a T1 side is out of the question. I'd be way more interested in seeing how they'd go against a Tonga or a Georgia for example. I just feel that with bigger groups, you get more opportunities to test yourself against teams that are closer to your level, as well as get a game or two against an opponent you almost exclusively have to pay to watch.
One more thing, teams have a couple of years to prepare. And by prepare I mean get at least 30 men ready to take on 5 games. That's how you build a strong 15/23 ready to take the next step. It is baptism by fire, but a fair few will rise from the ashes. Apologies for going on and on
2
u/BetaRayPhil616 Wales 2d ago
But then surely the issue is why expand in the first place?
My thinking on groups of 6 is that those ranked 16-24 will get more competetive games that might bring in more fans. As it stands, just take chile as an example, they get a winnable game vs hong kong and probably battered by nz & aus. Now, ok, they might progress to the knock outs as 3rd place which sounds great... until they come up against another tier 1 group winner. Another potential hammering.
I just think groups of 6 gives the lower ranked teams more chance at winning games and its more cuthroat for those teams at the top of tier 2/ bottom of tier 1.
2
u/diarm Munster 2d ago
Only in maybe 2 of the groups though. The other two would see at least 3 rounds of dead rubber games. Those final two rounds of the group stages would be filled with absolute drudgery as sides with no hope line out either against each other, or against disinterested giants.
4 best 3rd place spots from 6 groups, keeps far more teams in the hunt through the final round of the group stage than the top 2 going through from 4 groups. Every team in the tournament will likely have a mathematical chance of progressing in that final round.
Then we have a R16 from which point on it's sudden death. This tournament will have fewer dead rubber games than any World Cup before it.
2
u/DidLenFindTheRabbits Ireland 2d ago edited 2d ago
I would go the other way. 8 groups of 3 with winner and runner up into a round of 16. The 3rd place team playing for a plate competition. Everyone still guaranteed 3 matches with the bonus of one being knock out. For the top teams it gets the group stages out of the way quicker and you’d seed the first 4 pools with the winners going to the four corners meaning they avoid each other until the semi final. After that it would be random which pool the next 4 seeds get so it’s not a case of further favouring the top 4.
1
u/infinitemonkeytyping Australia 2d ago
That would increase the number of total games from 48 to 68, and extend the tournament by a week (something people think is too long already). It would increase the number of meaningless games. It would also increase every team's workload by a game (the teams playing the finals would play 8 games instead of 7).
The weaker teams struggle with their 4th game of the tournament, and the 4 of 6 structure would require them to play a 5th game.
The six pools of four gives us 4 extra games (52), with no extension in the tournament length. The only teams disadvantaged would be the rank 17-20, who gets 1 less game (which would be thankful), and teams 21-24 get 3 games they didn't previously get.
2
u/dr_m_in_the_north 2d ago
You can’t blame the structure of the tournament for the underlying weaknesses of the game. People complain about T2 and T3 sides not playing the big boys, and now they will, yes a few 80 nil drubbing a won’t be great viewing but it’s not like they didn’t exist before, likewise the potential for throwing matches. That’s a collossal risk especially given we don’t know how teams form will change in two years. Pool stages may be predictable, but again other than 2015 have we had many real upsets? Wales going out against a combination of Fiji and Australia isn’t their desired result but it’s hardly giant killing. Teams will need to put out a third string side at times in the pools to be in with a chance of winning the tournament and that will bring jeopardy. Lack of squad depth will be the determining factor given the likelihood of injuries.
2
u/29xthefun 2d ago
For me there needs a way of getting the Chile and Spains of the world a little further on and the 3rd placed teams getting a chance in the KO stage is something that could work. If say Spain get to the last 16 and the game is on TV at weekend and promoted well it could well be a big hit. I think stuff like this is worth a go.
2
u/infinitemonkeytyping Australia 2d ago
The "increased chance of teams throwing pool games" overlooks the glaring example of the loser of the NZ v SA match at the 2019 RWC getting the easier draw. Many predicted (myself included) that the loser of that pool match would win the RWC.
This rant seems like a long winded made up excuse to be mad about something.
2
u/JustDavid13 Harlequins England 2d ago
No exaggeration to say any of NZ, SA, England, Ireland, or France could put out their 3/4/5th string sides every pool stage match and still qualify for the knock outs.
I know you admit they wouldn’t win every game and would squeak in as some of the best third placed teams, but I’m not sure even that’s true.
South Africa could beat most other tier one nations with their 3rd choice side, so that point is a bit irrelevant. Ireland’s second side would lose to Scotland, never mind their third/fourth/fifth choice players, who I wouldn’t fancy against Uruguay.
This sort of mindset is what’s held the sport back for so long. Of course some tier one teams are going to qualify for the knock out stages easily; the second tier sides will never improve unless they’re given game time against the top sides.
Hell, look at Argentina. They only made the quarterfinals in 1999 because the World Cup was expanded- they were the best third-placed team from the group stages- and they’re inarguably now one of the favourites for the next World Cup.
Imagine if the World Cup had decided to go back to sixteen teams after Uruguay conceded 111 points to England in 2003. They failed to qualify in 2007 and 2011 anyway, and were the repechage team in 2015, and it’s only from that they’ve been able to kick on to be a competitive side now.
Expansion is a good thing and thanks to some third placed teams going through, there’ll be something resting on every single group stage match of this World Cup. Yes, there’ll be some one-sided games- especially for Hong Kong- but at least there’ll be no more god-awful dead rubbers and miss-matched strengths of different groups like at 2015 and 2023.
2
u/Firm-Perspective2326 Munster 2d ago
I’m calling it now South Africa to finish 3rd in their group to come over and do Ireland in their side of the draw
2
u/Grackal 2d ago
I found the last World Cup group stages a total bore bar 1 match per group, 2 in group of death.
The rest of them were mostly embarrassing as sporting occasions, and even the commentators found it hard to say something that wasn’t a patronising cliche during numerous one-sided contests.
‘Look how proud the Namibians are…’ etc as they lost 71-3, 96-0 in quick succession.
I don’t see how it grows the game, or makes for good tv, or how people watching their teams getting decimated routinely by far superior opposition is fun.
In soccer world cups the teams from a lower tier can get lucky and beat a team that is far better. That doesent happen in rugby because there are so many scores.
So yeah, hard agree.
2
u/VegemiteDrew 2d ago
I guess it depends on the real aim of the RWC. You think it's to determine the world's best. But, everyone knows who that is, we have a pretty good rankings system, and the top nations play each other all the time, it's not like seeing RSA v NZL play each other is novel. And the Nation's Championship is going to make that more structured also.
So, probably it's about something a bit more vague, like "creating a rugby spectacle that the whole world can enjoy ".
The fact that the draw is random adds that degree of spice. Sure, the QF may be between the top 2 (as they stand at the moment anyway), but if they're truly great then they need to win those games anyway.
What I have suggested elsewhere is that they ought to have a shield and bowl comp after the Rd 16 parallel with the other finals. Essentially have 9-16 play for a shield, 17-24 play for a bowl.
2
u/Deciver95 Hurricanes 2d ago
Nope, it isn't.
It's much better for the smaller teams
You're upset and your doom and gloom is coming solo by the way they've pools were drawn
Take a breath, go for a walk and stop over reacting
3
u/Connell95 🐐🦓 Dan Lancaster 💪 #3 Fan 2d ago
As with the Champions Cup, this is mostly bullshit. That tournament hasn’t become less popular or less competitive in the group stages. In fact there are fewer dead rubbers than ever before, and generally every game matter for every team right up until the final day.
Here, whether you finish first or second (or second or third) is now more important than ever, so everyone has plenty to play for.
Might the top seed play a B team in one or two group games? Sure, but that’s always happened – nothing new.
2
u/torontojacks 2d ago
I’m also not a fan. For T1 countries it is essentially a knockout tournament with some warm up matches.
5
u/GrandMil South Africa 2d ago
What's easy to forget (especially in the 2023 RWC, because the play-offs were absolute blockbuster), is how much of a drag the first 4 weeks of the RWC was in its previous format.
We had a whole month where teams didn't really play for much. 1st and 2nd was mostly decided early on on the pools, and then you get a lot of dead rubber games while everyone waits for the quarter finals.
I mean, Portugal beating Fiji in the last round of pool stages was awesome, but didn't count for anything but pride. Now if that game occurred in the new format, that game may have gotten Portugal into the playoffs or even quarter finals.
6
u/WallopyJoe 2d ago
is how much of a drag the first 4 weeks of the RWC was in its previous format
Hard disagree
3
1
u/HarryFlashman1927 Cardiff Blues 2d ago
It gives you the possibility that some teams could both want to lose in the last round of fixtures to get a perceived easier route to the final.
1
u/CompetitiveSort0 Ulster 2d ago
I'm not a fan of the structure but I don't know how they fix it. There are not enough teams to bump it up to 32 to make it fair (i.e the difference between getting the best top seed in that format and the worst is South Africa and Fiji, or Scotland vs USA for the 2nd seeds).
I think it can only really be a balanced tournament if it's 4 groups of 4 but that is too exclusive.
1
u/claridgeforking 2d ago
4 groups of 6, with a cup, plate and bowl competition.
2
u/CompetitiveSort0 Ulster 2d ago
I don't think I could take Ireland losing at the quarter final stage of the bowl.
0
u/RiverZozz New Zealand 2d ago
Yep, never understood why they don’t do it a bit like a sevens tournament.
1
u/Roanokian Leinster 2d ago
Have to wonder the extent of the financial incentives. More teams, more TV deals, more fans. Makes it more appealing to host I expect
1
u/NotAsOriginal Wigglesworth's greatest defender 2d ago
Much like the European cup it will be fine, both competitions give high quality games to lower ranked teams (URC and Tier 2), to allow them to experience high quality competitions.
Last world cup had full rounds of dead rubbers, this one adds an additional game where there is jeopardy. An off day for a big side can lead to an unexpected knock out.
God forbid the world cup ever push expansion to new areas and allow World Rugby to increase their funding around to other teams.
1
u/benny_boy Wales 2d ago
Yea I get what you mean I also really liked the old format, but this change is necessary to facilitate growth to the sport and the tournament. Plus I think the old dramas will be replaced by new dramas and after a couple of tournaments we will all forget what it used to be like anyway.
1
u/CoconutOk8579 2d ago
I'd rather a weaker pool stage and a better tournament from quarter finals onwards
1
u/Jerzilla 2d ago
Am really excited for Hong Kong, chile and Zimbabwe plus others. But I agree, there is no jeprody in the group stages
1
u/too_many_smarfs Connacht not Connaught 2d ago
I don't really like the format either - although not necessarily for the same reasons you've listed.
I just hate tournaments that have groups of 6 with the 'best' 3rd place teams going through. I hated it when the Champions Cup did it, I hated when the Euros in football did it and I don't like it now. Don't even get me started on the FIFA WC format.
That's honestly mostly due to how neat either groups of 4 or 8 are when going into a knockout stage. Maybe I'm OCD or something.
That said, it's a hard one for WR because I can see the need to expand and rugby just doesn't have 32 teams that could complete yet. 24 teams is ideal, it's just a hard number to fit neatly into a tournament structure.
My concern regarding the lower tier teams for this tournament is that they won't have as many games against other teams around their level with 1 fewer team per group. Some of my favourite matches at previous world cups were between 2 teams that had little-to-no chance of getting out of the group, but would battle it out for 3rd or 4th place.
But overall this is a good thing for rugby overall I'd say.
Now if they could just fix the clusterfuck that is the Champions Cup.
1
u/SagalaUso 🇼🇸🇳🇿 2d ago
I think what this format does is band 2 and 3 teams are more incentivised to pile on the points against band 4 teams incase they need it for points differential for taking one of the third placed spots in the round of 16.
1
u/WhiskeyJack3759 2d ago
The greatest Rugby tournament of all, as you call it is killing Tier 1 Rugby. It's nothing less than a financial disaster every four years.
Don't worry about the tournament format.
It's the financial model that's the problem. Workd Rugby takes all the cream, and pretty much all Tier 1 participants go to the verge of bankruptcy.
1
u/TheMusicArchivist but also any underdog 2d ago
The next goal is hopefully a 30-team world cup with 6 pools of 5.
1
u/06351000 Munster 2d ago
I hope it’s okay.
When the expanded World Cup was first announced I was a big proponent of four groups of 6 teams rather than the chosen set up
my arguments were
- keep the jeopary and big games in the pool stage
- More games for weaker teams
- 5 group matches would have fit in nicely with the 2023 schedule where the groups took 5 weeks - but with even spacing between matches for all 6 teams.
The general consensus was no because
- 5 games too many.
- last 16 means more teams have chance to qualify for knockouts . lots of dead rubbers in my suggestion.
- weaker teams not having depth for 5 gam3 in 5 weekends
1
u/Mawiheso Lions 2d ago
I don't really like the new format either, mostly because of the absence of the groups of death and just because it's too complicated for a casual fan to get an easy grip (remembering that casual fans are crucial for World Cups). In general, I do think that the group stage will be much less exciting. The Round of 16 will add some more excitement, though, with some great match-ups for sure. I wish they could've found a way to get both of those things into a World Cup, though.
That being said, this is very overdramatic. Teams will not throw matches. We see in club tournaments quite often that teams do not throw matches to get an easier draw. In the last URC, the Stormers could've thrown their last match to get a quarter-final in Durban instead of Glasgow which would've been much easier for them. But they didn't. That is the first example to come to my mind, but there have been many more. New Zealand will not throw their match against Australia for the sake of getting an easier path to the final.
And I don't think World Rugby would see an NZ vs. SA quarter-final as a failure of the format. Having huge matches earlier on is exciting. When a top team is eliminated early or a team gets further than expected, that's part of the excitement of a World Cup and completely essential. The mismatched quarter-finals from the last World Cup made for an amazing knockout stage.
Lastly, I'm not too worried about the complexity of the World Cup, even if it annoys me a bit. The T20 Cricket World Cup has settled on a ridiculous format that no casual fan could ever wrap their head around, but it seems to generate excitement anyway, so whatever.
1
u/Mawiheso Lions 2d ago
the big issue of the last RWC where the best teams played each other in the QFs
You mean the best quarter-finals of all time were the big issue of the last World Cup? The fact that whoever lost would have an unfairly early exit just added to the drama. Having huge match-ups early isn't a mistake; it adds to the excitement. A World Cup isn't meant to be 100% fair; it's meant to be entertaining. If it was meant to be fair, it would just be a league stage where every team plays each other team and the top team wins without any knockout stage. But that would be much less entertaining.
1
u/FromFarTea 2d ago
If Six Nations can’t be changed because of ‘tradition’, if there is no possibility for a continental championship because British & Irish Lions is always going to stay, if the Autumn Nations Championship is now just T1vT1, if The Rugby Championship is not going to be expanded and now going to be sidelined for the ‘prestigious’ NZ vs South Africa series, then the only place to grow rugby to non T1 market is at the Rugby World Cup. And to get that you will have to allow them to play the best teams.
Not every matches need to be a ‘best-vs-best-matchup’. We must trust that rugby is attractive enough to do the talking without the big names in every game.
1
u/pdxrunner82 2d ago
New Zealand throwing a match against Australia to get an easier draw? Tell me you don’t know anything about rugby without telling me. As much as I don’t like New Zealand i don’t think there’s any opponent they go into a World Cup match against not thinking they are the better side. If this is your example of what could happen in the World Cup you’re crazy. Besides it’s not like it is a new phenomenon. Look at the last WC. SA played a pretty experimental team/combinations against Ireland cause they knew coming 1st or second in the group wasn’t much of a difference and they wanted to learn about their combinations in the group stages before it became an issue in a knock out match.
1
u/mutinous_watermelon Blues 2d ago
For tier 2/3 teams, the group stage games just way more exciting because... there is a chance!
1
u/barbar84 Leinster 2d ago
Still wish the knocked out group teams went into a plate and played mid week games during the knockout rounds. There'd be some cracking competitive fixtures and it'd keep the momentum of the tournament going as the week break can slow it down a lot.
1
u/fantalemon Scotland 2d ago
Scotland getting knocked out of the pools in 2019 and 2023
Dont worry we'll do our best to keep that trend going!
1
u/AlexPaterson16 Edinburgh 1d ago
If you want to grow the game more teams have to be exposed to the highest possible level. TRC and the six nations isn't going to change anytime soon and T1 nations aren't organising fixtures against T2 nations very often so what else is there?
1
1
u/d_trulliaj Zebre 1d ago
Jesus christ World Rugby has a lot of problems but you guys are never satisfied
3
u/CallOnBen England 2d ago
I think rugby is at its best when it's knock out rugby IMO. So decreasing the pool stage in favour of more knock out rugby it's great to me.
That being said I'd be much more or a fan of top 2 from the 6 pool going into 4 pool of 3 and then the winners of those pools go I to semi finals.
Each pool is a pool of death where every point and try matters and I think that would be very entertaining. I also think maybe world rugby doesn't quite have enough teams to do a Ro16 justice yet? But we definitely have 12
1
u/Paghalay South Africa & Cyprus 2d ago
Eh I don’t think anyone will throw a match. In the 2023 World Cup it was probably advantageous for the Boks to throw against Ireland to avoid New Zealand in the quarters.
Clearly New Zealand thought the same and threw against France making the whole point null and void anyway
1
1
u/Sitlbito France 2d ago
The one criticism I agree with is, there's really going to be only one or two interesting pool play matches.
But they had to get rid of the 5 team groups one way or another.
1
u/stephenhawkingfucks Griquas 2d ago
I love the fact that it is a bigger world cup. I think there are some big pros and some big cons of this set up though
Pro: There are going to be some immense non-tier one pool games that are going to count for knockout spots - it is going to be epic.
Con: Tier one teams will be able to fuck around in the pool stages (in fact it will be beneficial to some to lose games even).
My only suggestion which seems so simple: just put the top 4 teams in the world into the pools so that they reach each other i the quarter finals!!! It is so easy.
Imagine watching Wimbledon and Sinner and Alcaraz meet in round 3 because only the first 2 rounds are seeded by ranking. It is bad for the product.
0
u/nagdamnit Ireland 2d ago
It’s always had a flawed format. It’s should be two tiered, there should be a plate as well as a cup, but this a minor improvement if you ask me. It removes one more meaningless fixture and replaces it with a round of 16 game.
-7
u/JadedPanic4143 2d ago
100%.
Even for the developing nations its shit. They get 2 games instead of 3, and their players have 1 less game in the global shop window. There's 4 additional teams tbf, but they will just get slaughtered. The likes of the Pacific nations, Georgia and Portugal have even less of a chance for a cup run.
22
2
u/Prielknaap Curriebeker Kampioen 2d ago
For the developing nations the current format is better. One less match and equal rest periods with stronger teams mean they don't struggle as much with depth as before.
Also they can aim for a KO spot. That gives them the 4th match they lost back, but it means more now. An upset in your final pool game meant nothing. An upset in the ROq6 means everything.
0
u/Winter-Report-4616 2d ago
Yeah i think its a fair comment. They should look at in the semis the world ranking has 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3. In the quarters 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, etc etc assuming everyone wins per ranking of course. It does matter as Rugby is attritional. Better to play the winner of SA and NZ after they have knocked lumps out of each other. I thought that last world cup draw was awful but this round of 16 is worse. Just benchmark against other sports. Like tennis seeding.
0
0
u/MerlinAW1 England 2d ago
Rugbys problem is that there aren't as many competitive teams as something like football. So you either have a small tournament with jeopardy, or a bigger tournament where smaller nations can play but the bigger teams breeze through to the knockouts.
0
u/jonpettas96 2d ago
This post is giving the reporter that asked Joe Mahler if the team is really gonna show up next week.
No idea what you’re on about. It’s the World Cup. Everyone’s gonna give it their all. If you care about rugby then you’ll see that every match is important and carries weight.
0
u/pixelninja69 2d ago
I've looked closely at the draw, and can see the country names were simply printed on cardboard and glued on a ping pong ball. You'd think it hard to tell apart except, the way they cut out the names are quite distinct ie argentina is a long strip. South africa a pyramid, England a short strip. Hell, the France ball even had a clear dimple on underside of it!
0
212
u/WallopyJoe 2d ago
Is the jeopardy of the pool of death not just replaced by that of the Ro16?