Since the announcement that the UK will host the 2013 World Cup I have been wondering about how the authorities will organise it. While doing this I have come up with my idea of how it should be organised.

England, Australia and New Zealand to get automatic places due to world standing. I would also give an automatic spot to PNG partly due to the format of the last one. Any WC in the UK without France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland would be a disastrous missed opportunity (particularly given the expansion plans of the RFL). So I'd give those four an automatic spot too. I would therefore have 8 set participants with other nations competing for 4 qualifying berths.

'A' seeds = New Zealand, Australia, England, France (Catalans+Toulouse should mean increased playing strength by then)
'B' seeds = Wales, Ireland, Scotland, PNG
'C' seeds = European Qualifier, South Seas Qualifier, Africa & Asia qualifier, Americas* Qualifier

* If no such teams exist could be replaced by second Euro/South Seas Qualifier

Teams drawn into 4 groups of 3 teams.
Draw made to get one 'A' seed, one 'B' seed and one 'C' seed per group.
Each team plays other group members once. Top two of each group through to Quarter Finals. Four teams exiting at group stage go into a knockout plate competition with final as curtain raiser to WC final. This gives their fans more than 2 games and the chance of a big day out on finals day.

This format would give each of the home nations a game against an international "big gun" (England would expect at least one in the KO stages). The one team to drop out of each group would only be certain after all games played so maintains interest. No one team would know they are likely to go out before it kicks off (as PNG did in 200icon_cool.gif. Yes there would likely still be at least one thrashing per group ('A' seed v 'C' seed) but these do no harm to World Cups in Association Football and RU so shouldn't be viewed as avoid at all cost scenarios. Often it is the minnows that provide the charisma and underdog spirit that catches up neutrals and casual observers in such a tournament.

Play group games for Wales' group in Wales, Scotland's group in Scotland, Ireland's group in Ireland and market the hell out of the fact well in advance. This will help garner home support for them and aid expansion plans by creating interest. The fans of the other nations will watch wherever their teams play.

Pool A = England + B seed + C seed
Pool B = Aus + B seed + C seed
Pool C = NZ + B seed + C seed
Pool D = France + B seed + C seed

QF = (1)Pool A winner v Pool D runner up
(2)Pool D winner v Pool A runner up
(3)Pool B winner v Pool C runner up
(4)Pool C winner v Pool B runner up

SF = winner (1) v winner (2)
winner (3) v winner (4)

Gives likely Northern v Southern Hemisphere final so maintaining local interest.

What do people think of this idea? Has anyone got their own idea of format?

At last, a post on the rl12 team format!rl

I may be overly simple, but I would drop the super-group format for this one. I'd have 4 groups of 3:
Oz + EU + PI
Nz + EU + PI
England + EU + PI
France + PNG + ROW

I've marked 3 EU and PI, I think there should be 2 EU and 2 PI designated places and a rechapage for each which would need competition from Rest of World. I'd have an earmarked ROW place to give US/Japan/etc a chance.

Ideally we'd have the 3 PI sides from last WC; Wales, and two from Lebannon, Ireland and Scotland; and then the US.

1st play 2nd in the QF then proceed to the semis. This loses the Superpool marketing of the group stage matches but sets up some god QF/SF matches.

If we went with a superpool format I'd suggest we go with two superpools, i.e.:

England, Nz, PNG

France, Oz, Wales

Then two groups formed from the rest. I'd avoid a group that would be the same line-up as a previous year's 4Nations.

And then we can sit in the attic and read a magical book with the big white flying dog thing.....




Back in the real world, both formats you have suggested would be a complete disaster.

Why don't we just hand the cup to Australia?

people said that before the last world cup too.....

Okay then, why don't we just hold the final between Aus and NZ ?

A bunch of cricket score routs, 3 entirely predictable semi-finalists (England, NZ, Australia) and probably the French getting through after the RFL offer them the chance to have home advantage just to draw some decent crowds.

IMO the super group format is worth persisting with - just swap PNG out for one of the Pacific Island nations made up entirely of second generation Aussies/Kiwis.

The last WC....ever single game counted. Every game meant something.

Thats why we need the super group pool.



I'd change it slightly.....have the top two go to the semi's and the third placed team moving to a playoff with the top team teams (And third best side) from the other two pools.....but thats it.

Super Pool works...

what did it count for? super group was dead after the secpond round of games, arguably after the first game. There were plenty of dead rubbers.



you are delusional.

I hate to say it but he's right you know folks.
The super group format is the only way to go in order to keep things at least semi competitive.

The format may well be the right way to go but to suggest that every game meant something in the last WC is rubbish. All any team had to do in the so called super group was to win one game. Basically England had to beat PNG and after one game they are in the semi's. The games against Aus and NZ didnt make a difference (lucky for England).

The super group is advocated to keep the big three away from the minnows to avoid some pastings.

However with the super group format there is going to be one sacrificial lamb like PNG in 2008 who have no chance of progressing from the group phase. Adrian Lam (PNG coach) was very critical of this at the time and I can't see how any nation would be happy to know they were being dumped on before the tournament starts.

Also didn't PNG get beaten heavily by Aus and NZ so it didn't really cut out thrashings. England just hammered France so you will get some pastings regardless of format.

I think that the cons for the super group outweigh the pros so I don't want to see a super group again.

I think that by putting the big 3 in different groups and letting 2 from each group go through you get a better format than by using a super group.

All the participating nations get the experience of playing a top national side. All nations outside of Australia, NZ and England have a good chance of getting through the groups, as they still effectively compete against each other for the remaining QF places.

I think the best format will come from either 4 groups of 3, or three groups of 4 and NO SUPER GROUP.

You really have a problem with rugby league don't you!
No routs in union of course.....

I agree with the super pool concept, but I do npt agree with the qualifiers playing number 1...

"yeah fellas, proved yourself to be best of the rest, now test yourself againt Australia...."

If, and last time was Fiji, you prove to be the best of the minnows, your benchmark should be number 4, not number 1. Also witht he last format, the outcome of the superpool was to only play t avoid coming 4th.

For this world cup, especially with France, Wales and some of the PI's looking to improve, I'd do something like this (qualifiers are hypothetical)

Super Group (best 3 sides from the last world cup plus the host nation, England)

Australia
NZ
England
Fiji

(A-I) Double header to open world cup @ London (Wembley) - Aus vs Eng, NZ vs Fiji
(A-II) Aus vs NZ @ London (Stoop)
(A-III) Eng vs Fiji @ Hull (KC)
(A-IV) Aus vs Fiji @ Leeds (Headingley)
(A-V) Eng vs NZ @ Manchester (C.o.M)

Group B

France
Wales
Tonga
Lebanon

France and Wales stacked together to give 3 pool games each

(B-I) France vs Wales @ Paris (That 12,000 seater)
(B-II) Tonga vs Lebanon @ Brigend
(B-III) France vs Tonga @ Perpignan
(B-IV) Wales vs Lebanon @ Brigend
(B-V) France vs Lebanon @ Toulouse
(B-VI) Wales vs Tonga @ Swansea

Group C

PNG
Ireland
Samoa
USA

Games for heartlands, + one token game for Ireland

(C-I) PNG vs Ireland @ Belfast
(C-II) Samoa vs USA @ Warrington
(C-III) PNG vs Samoa @ Wigan (JJB)
(C-IV) Ireland vs USA @ St Helens
(C-V) PNG vs USA @ Leeds (Headingley)
(C-VI) Ireland vs Samoa @ Huddersfield

Then quarter finals

Q1 3rd Super pool vs winner group B
Q2 4th Super pool vs winner group C
Bye - 1st and 2nd from super pool

(QF1) England vs France/Wales @ Wigan (JJB)
(QF2) Fiji vs PNG @ Huddersfield

Semi finals

SF1 - 1st Super pool vs winner QF2
SF2 - 2nd Super pool vs winner QF1

(SF1) Australia vs PNG @ Hull (KC)
(SF2) NZ vs England @ Manchester (C.o.M)

Final

Winner SF1 vs WInner SF2

(F) Australia vs NZ @ Manchester (Old Trafford)

I do like the look of that format, especially giving Ireland a game in Belfast

3 groups of 4 would give everyone a good number of games and could still be followed by play offs to decide who finishs where . I think a third place play off would be great especially if it gave some incentive for more internationals against the bigger nations after the world cup.