Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

    Is there a case to be made for a pre-ordained placing system to be used at the World Cup, rather than the current open draw?

    You could retain the apparent need for geographical separation, but do what they do in the Rugby, and set out beforehand that eg the top seed in Group B will meet UEFA #3, CONCACAF #2 and CAF #4, rather than just a random team from those continents as now?

    Each continent could work out its own system for ranking qualifiers (CONCACAF and CONMEBOL's are ready-made), and you could make sure that (at least in theory) the strongest qualifiers from each didn't get lumped together. Also, it would potentially make the qualifiers themselves a bit more lively as teams knew where they stood in the finals draw?

    #2
    Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

    A sure-fire recipe for "England! 'F'…", no doubt.

    Comment


      #3
      Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

      The whole thing should be seeded on the basis of qualification form or the FIFA rankings or whatever is the most meritocratic way of ensuring that the groups are all relatively equal. The final should in theory pit the #1 seed versus the #2 seed (assuming they both win their respective groups and therefore stay on opposite sides of the draw).

      The very uneven nature of the group draw is a pet hate of mine, whereby a team such as Ghana (who were the only team to score a goal versus Germany and were exciting to watch in all three of their games) miss out on the second round by virtue of playing in an extremely tough group whereas Mickey Mouse outfits like Nigeria make them because they were lucky enough to get a more favourable draw.

      Comment


        #4
        Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

        Looking back, I'm impressed with how many finalists and champions came from G.O.D's. (I mean, I figure they all would've ended up like the 1994 group all tired and battered.)

        Germany in this one, Italy in 2002, and Argentina in 1986, and Italy in 1982.

        Comment


          #5
          Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

          I wouldn't laud the RWC system for picking teams in a group too much.

          They decide the slots for most teams nearly three years before the tournament which is absurd and has produced it's own Group of Death for next year with Wales, Australia, England and Fiji in Pool A.

          .

          Comment


            #6
            Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

            With Uruguay, Hong Kong, Russia and Zimbabwe currently competing for the role of cannon fodder in that group.

            I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest that the RWC grouping decisions should be a model for anything. Their process is completely ludicrous.

            Comment


              #7
              Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

              Do you even have to qualify for the RWC if you're one of the bigger nations?

              To really copy that model, FIFA should just say two years before 'The top 16 are in the finals - the rest of you scrap it out.'

              Comment


                #8
                Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

                You do have to qualify, however big a nation you are. However the first twelve places are awarded to those finishing in the top three of each group at the previous tournament.

                For the 1999 tournament only the hosts and top three from 1995 were given automatic qualification. This meant that England had to qualify, beating the Dutch by 110 and Italy by eight, both in Huddersfield. Meanwhile Scotland scored 85 against Portugal and Spain.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

                  I still find the idea of a rugby World Cup about as amusing as the gaa having an Asia county board.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

                    The Rugby World Cup started in 1987, and has since had five different winners.

                    Over the same period, the football World Cup has had five different winners.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

                      Four.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

                        Ah, crap, I can't count anymore.

                        It still has been a more competitive competition than many people who don't follow the sport might think.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

                          Would Rugby World Cup be the next biggest single sport international event after football's?

                          Or is there something very obvious that I'm missing?

                          .

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

                            Define 'big'. I'd imagine the TV audiences for the cricket World Cup are vast in the Indian subcontinent

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

                              I was thinking of actual attendances but you've probably got a point on TV audiences.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

                                It has to be up there in terms of actual attendances, given that I don't believe the regional Olympics-like competitions (Commonwealth, Asian, Pan-American, etc) draw large crowds for many sports.

                                The last Cricket World Cup in the subcontinent drew 1,229,826 (25,098 per match), whereas the 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand drew 1,477,294 (30,777 per match), while the previous edition in France drew 2,263,223 (47,150 per match).

                                I'm not sure that the Australia/New Zealand Cricket World Cup next year will beat that.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

                                  Those figures for France 2011 are amazing, you have to imagine they have a good chance of exceeding them next year though.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Avoiding the Group of Death, Rugby World Cup style

                                    Harry Truscott wrote: Would Rugby World Cup be the next biggest single sport international event after football's?

                                    Or is there something very obvious that I'm missing?
                                    Tour de France. 2.5m spectators over two days in Yorkshire, another 1m for Cambridge-London. Those appear to be exceptionally high numbers to watch a stage (the British love for a sporting event of whatever sort, rather than being mad-keen cycling fans, imho), but even if it is only 200,000/day on average, that would clock it in around 4m per year.

                                    Edit - the claim is around 12m each year.

                                    Comment

                                    Working...
                                    X