You would say that now though would'nt you.

Here is my detailed plan for the World Cup in 2013, along with Stadiums, and little marketing ideas that could be used by the RFL. Similarly to the Irish Special Olympics 2003 (?), to identify big Rugby Towns with smaller nations with perhaps a smaller fan base. I put in: Halifax, Barrow, Widnes, St Helens, Hunslet, Workington, Whitehaven, Huddersfield, Castleford, Wakefield, Leeds, Batley, Dewsbury, and I also put in the 13 teams (minus England) in the draw for the World Cup, and I thought that there 'Partner Town' during the World Cup could take training sessions, and go into Schools, while also pressing Tickets for £5 to the Nearest Venue involving there partners. Here were the Partners;

Halifax, Ireland
Barrow, Scotland
Widnes, Fiji
St Helens, Lebanon
Hunslet, Australia
Workington, Samoa
Whitehaven, Wales
Huddersfield, Papua New Guinea
Castleford, France
Wakefield, Russia
Leeds, Cook Islands
Batley, New Zealand
Dewsbury, Tonga

Very Successful in Ireland. Oh god. I have to much free time.

There are too many games in that format. The teams in groups C and D would have to play 7 games. How would that all fit in to a tournament that would probably only be 5 weekends? Also, what will the teams in groups A and B be doing when the teams in groups C and D are playing not only an extra group game, but also an extra play-off game? Just waiting around? And it's a week longer if you win the group.

It's a good effort, but it's not viable for them reasons.

It's just ridiculous. For three teams in a group of four to get a semi final spot in one group, and only one team from ten to get the other is just stupid, not a very reasoned argument I concede, but it's true.



As I said in my original post, I do want 4 groups of three.

It's a seeded group format. There's nothing ridiculous or unprofessional about it. It wasn't the best seeded group format IMHO, but it did its job (no blow-outs for the lesser established nations). The only thing I didn't like about it was PNG were lambs to the slaughter.

In an ideal world, we'd have an even group stage. But there's no point if the quality of teams is so vast that the games would be a forgone conclusion. Nearly every game in the last WC could have been won by either team.


I'm not really a fan of groups with three teams in (or odd numbers altogether) as it means teams will have different rest periods (a complaint about the last WC apparently as well). 14 teams will probably mean this will again be the case, though. Unless of course the do cross-group games?

Top Tier consists of the three teams that are basically permanent members of the 4 Nations.

France qualified for and subsequently played in the 4 Nations.
PNG have done the same (beating the mighty...Cook Islands) and will play in the 4 Nations this year.
Wales won the 2009 European Cup, essentially meaning they are one of the Top 3 NH nations. They also have a team in the Top Level competition in their area, akin to France and New Zealand, unlike PNG.

I don't see why Wales shouldn't be considered one of the leading nations for RL? Especially by 2013 if the Crusaders keep improving.

Personally I would be pushing for a 5 Nations to replace the 4 Nations after the World Cup. Keep rotating between Northern Hemisphere and Southern, having the number of teams biased 3-2 to where it is hosted.

eg. In the Northern Hemisphere have England, France, Wales, Australia and New Zealand; and the Southern Hemisphere have Australia, New Zealand, PNG, England and France.

The bottom team of the three locals has to play in the EC/PC to qualify when the 5N comes back to their hemisphere. Would give France/Wales/PNG/others a fair crack at the Top 3 every so often and a go at someone their own level at the same time, to see how far they are progressing.

It needs at least some matches on terrestrial television imo. I would personally keep the Super Group and have something like this;



Every team would have to play 6 games to reach the final but it does require an extra round because of uneven group numbers and more matches overall than other formats.

Damn you and your fancy pictures!

Although I wasn't keen on the format at the time, I think we should keep the 'super group' as it is more attractive to TV viewers and crowds.

we don't want to see ridiculous games like Australia thrashing Russia 100-0 again.

as for venues, I would largely stick to the heartlands...although I would like to see Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France play games at 'home' particularly in Wrexham and Perpignan, where SL has obviously taken off.

I would also like to see the flagship England-Australia game taken to a big ground, maybe even Wembley (close the upper tiers and sell the bottom tier first) with cheap tickets on offer. We need to make our biggest international fixture a big event and stop holding it at medium sized grounds like Hull, Hudds or Wigan.

what the game really needs is the fixtures and venues announced well in advance, and not the usual RFL trick of announcing it all a month beforehand...and then wondering why the press and public aren't bothered.