I think the worry all along was big, big hammerings like the world cup in 2000 but I don't think the two biggest results were games that could be said to have been similar to the Aussies v Russia for example. I think the extra two slots could be managed and if they really wanted to do something similar with the groups again the could have 4 groups with 3 going through from each group and all group winners going into the QF with the other 8 teams in to the second round knock out. It would probably mean that we wouldn't get an England v Aus game in the group stages but I am all for that as it happens at every world cup and splitting them at the start into seedings is the right way to do it.

I would like to see more publicity on the qualifying for the cup and I am a fan of the rule coming in post this tournament where players declare allegiances to Major and Minor nations so are available to a minor nation if not selected for a major nation due to having to wait 2 or 3 years.

Say what you like about the dual nationals but the standard at the minor nations at this world cup has made them extremely competitive on the whole.

Anyone agree?

Depends on development of other nations between now and then. We have seen a good competitive tournament so far and my concern would be that adding two teams might weaken that. If we look at who missed out can you really say they would be competitive? Russia, Lebanon, Serbia, Canada etc. None of them would be compeitive with the tier three nations imo so what value does it add having them in, we currently have (arguably) three tiers of International competion, adding a fourth tier isn't a good idea imo. I don;t see anyone not in this RLWC being in that tier3 strength. RL is a unforgiving game with no where to hide if you are not competitive. 100-0 scorelines do no one any favours.

Ideally the RLWC would be 4 groups of 4 with top two from each group going through to qtrfinals but the tier 4 countries do not have NRL/SL players to call upon generally so are no way able to compete with likes of Samoa, Scotland, Tonga etc who do.

Lebanon missed out this time by a bees dick to Italy. It came down to one Josh Mantellato kick from the sideline being the difference.
I think Lebanon would have actually been a better side than Wales and Cook Islands to name a few.
Canada also made a late charge and weren't that far off being good enough to knock off USA - they just weren't given a chance to play them in a qualifying game.
We could have had 16 in this WC if they had been prepared to make late changes. Lebanon did ask.

I don't know what you think a 'tier 3 nation' is but Lebanon and Jamaica would have been at least as good as Wales and PNG.

I disagree, PNG has tens of thousands of players to call upon plus some NRL/SL experienced pros. Jamaica has what? How many FT pros can Jamaica put out? Wales had 75% squad of professional players.

Reality re Canada and lebanon was that the squads they played in the qualifiers did not contain as many full time pros as the squads that showed up for the RLWC. ie did the Italy team that played in the qualifiers look anything like this RLWC team? If Lebanon or Canada has 6 or 7 SL/NRL players they can call upon then great, if not they care going to get hammered.

Cook Islands has a smattering of NRL/SL full time pros plus a fair few playing in second tier semi pro comps like NSW cup. Again unless a country like Lebanon, Canada or Russia can call upon the same they are cannon fodder for the likes of Tonga and Samoa, let alone NZ or Australia.

Now an emerging nations WC is something worth considering! Maybe the RLWC should be a 12 team comp 3x4 pools and an emerging nations WC of ten teams, games played as warm ups to the RLWC games.

That would be good

I would increase it to 15 teams plus an emerging nations team composed of players that have played in a Wc qualifier for teams that didnt make it - max three from one team.

If they were to get rid of the big three, it would be quite an exciting competition .

Under the current format you could easily slot an extra team into groups C and D, the question is whether an equal seeded 16 team tournament would work

I'd increase the next WC to 16 teams with the following format.

Group A)1,4,7,11 Ranked teams
Group B)2,3,8,12 Ranked
Group C)5,9,13,15 Ranked
Group D)6,10,14,16 Ranked

Top 2 teams from A & B plus Group Winners from C & D to quarter finals.

The teams finishing 3rd in A & B play the runners up in C & D to determine the final 2 quarter finalists.