The 2021 World Cup, likley to be in the UK, is to increase to 16 teams. I just hope we haven't forgotten the 2000 World Cup and stick to the format of 2 super pools, with 2 pools for the minnows. The top 8 teams, across 2 pools should make some great group stage matches, the top teams spread across all 4 pools would produce far too many walkovers. www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... -world-cup

The 2021 World Cup, likley to be in the UK, is to increase to 16 teams. I just hope we haven't forgotten the 2000 World Cup and stick to the format of 2 super pools, with 2 pools for the minnows. The top 8 teams, across 2 pools should make some great group stage matches, the top teams spread across all 4 pools would produce far too many walkovers. www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... -world-cup

Why do people care so much about 'walkovers'? The RU World Cup has a huge amount of one-sided matches and nobody cares.

Obviously we all want smaller teams to do well to just add more legitimacy to our international game but I do think the groups are manufactured a bit too much, what's wrong with just drawing the teams out of a hat and having 4 random groups of 4 teams instead of trying to help certain countries get through. As headhunter said, so what if there are one sided matches?

It would seem lots of people. The 2000 World Cup had an avg attendance of 8500, the 2013 World Cup had an avg attendance of 16400.

To go back to using a similar format to the 2000 World Cup would be madness. Yes union do it but we are not union.

Probably because the organization of the 2000 WC was literally the worst I've ever seen for any sporting event, anywhere, ever. Two of the quarter-finals were at Castleford and Widnes FFS. Blowout scores were the least of the problems with that tournament. Remember that that was the era of Huddersfield-Sheffield Giants, Gateshead Thunder etc. It's not relevant to anything happening currently. International RL is a million miles ahead of where it was then.

What about sponsors, viewing figures and selling tickets for the games or is that no longer important.
The plain fact is, there are 3 decent national teams, 4/5 "second tier" nations and then some also rans.

The structure of the comp is difficult to get right but, just imagine if England, Australia New Zealand and France were all in one group, with just 1 nation to qualify

Because you run the risk of all the top nations being in one group, I'm struggling to think of any sports WC that does an entirely random draw. I may be wrong but I think the Union WC effectively "picked" which nations they wanted in each group and I think the football WC seeds the groups on rankings and geographical locations.

I don't have a problem with 16 teams, the more the merrier for me. All I'd do is ensure the captain for each nation is actually from that nation and ensure that the post game TV interviews are with that captain and not another Aussie.

I'd go with the super group route again, seemed to work well last time.
Group A (3 teams qualify)
Australia
England
Fiji
Ireland

Group B (2 teams qualify)
New Zealand
France
Samoa
Papua New Guinea

Group C (2 teams qualify)
Wales
Scotland
Tonga
Italy

Group D (1 team qualifies)
Cook Islands
USA
Serbia
Canada

there are clear failings with the super group plan, there are some positives, and it does fit us in some ways, but it is certainly 'dressing for the job we have' and not 'dressing for the job we want'

i also dont think that it gives the smaller sides enough games, especially when most of them play so few internationals in total, and its even more of an issue when its even rarer for those squads to get all their eligible players playing.

Good points.
Maybe have fewer but larger groups? 2 groups of 8? Then every nation plays at least 7 games? That may be too many to fit in though.

Difficult one isn't it. 7 games would be too many and that'd leave us with a long World Cup and an extra 9/10 games for our top players.

Seeded groups works well for other sports, I think that's the way they have to go. Sure, there'll be some blowout scorelines, but ultimately we want a credible & structured International game, and I don't think 'Super Groups' like we saw in 2013 are the way to go.

Doesn't matter if there's 4 or 40 teams in it it will still consist of a semi final line up of Australia, New Zealand, England and one other

I Would go with 15 teams, 3 pools of 5 so all teams get at least 4 games.top 3 to semis, best placed 2nd team to also qualify.

Probably yeah, and with attitudes like that towards the International game, it always will be. Luckily there are a few within the game who have the foresight that our sports needs a more competitive International game and are working towards that 9this being a step in the right direction).

Same structure, but top two in each group plus two best third-placed sides to the quarter finals. England, Australia and New Zealand to be the seeded team in each pool, random draw below that. Quarter-finalists also pre-qualify for the next World Cup, to give them some certainty in terms of development and looking ahead.

Having two third-placed sides qualify would mean that even those sides losing their first two games would have something to play for other than pride in the last two.

Id go with seedings and draw 4 groups split into two sides so 3+1 rounds allowing some blockbusters in the pools, top 2 from each pool go into semis

Say
Group A
England
Samoa
Ireland
PNG

Group B
Australia
Tonga
France
Wales

England play:
3 group teams ie Samoa, Ireland & PNG and top seed from Group B ie Australia.