Good point. However this is an issue for the game as a whole to sort out a proper international calender that allows the smaller nations to regularly play the bigger ones.

For example, yes its great that france and a pacific team will be taking part in the 4 nations for the next few years, but what happens to the other teams? Say samoa win this years pacific cup and gain entry to next years 4 nations, then a team like PNG wont be playing the big guns till 2013. How is that good for them?

I'd rather see the international calender look like this in every 4 year cycle:

Year 1:

World Cup

Year 2:

Northern Hemisphere - European Cup involving all european nations including full strength England and France.

Southern Hemisphere - Pacific Cup involving all pacific nations including full strength aus and nz.

Year 3:

Tri-Nations between australia, nz, and england. These 3 teams are the pinnacle of the game and full on tournament taking place every 4 years like the tri-nations in 2004-2006 is a must for me. It can even always be held in either australia or NZ so that it can be marketed like the RU lions tours every 4 years.

Year 4:

Northern Hemisphere - Euro cup same as year 2

Southern Hemisphere - Pacific Cup same as year 2

Year 5:

World cup and so on...



A format like this gives the smaller teams the chance to compete against the big teams every 3 years out 4.

If the international game, the NRL, the NZRL and even the RFL and FRL had any brains whatsoever they would pour money into the PNG game, scour their best junior clubs for the most talented players and bring them in on scholarships and do all it could to make PNG one of the big fish

No where else is the game unfettered by bias media and competition than in that small nation and yet we leave it to founder

Indeed. NZ with a population of 4 million are the current world champs and yet RL is way behind union and probably even behind cricket there. PNG has a population of 6 million who are all into league. The NRL talks about a PNG team joinin that comp in 10 years. Whoop de doo. They should let them in in 2013 before trying to grow the game on the central coast.

Let's just have a tri-nations at Wembley.....4 sold out games pool and final) at 92,000 and the comp has already eclipsed RLWC by 78,000 fans

TBF said this for ages as well.....if we want to be successful internationally we have to follow the Union super 14 model for both the NRL and for the SL.

The NRL should be a pacific league with a PNG representative team, a Fijian team, and a Samoan or Tongan Team along with NZW and a second team in NZ.

Same on the SL....we have to keep Celtic, Catalans the addition of Tolouse in 2012 and hopefully in the not too distant future a flagship irish or scotish team.

If we're serious about a proper international calender we need players from these countries playing top level rugby week in week out. What we also need is Aus and NZ to stop pinching the Pacific Island stars...For me the 2008 WC was perfectly balanced and should have been a watershed for those players playing for Tonga /Samoa etc who will not defect to NZ or Aus for the next few years. To do this we need strong international laws, and also make it so they WANT to play for these teams as much if not more than NZ and AUS. to do this that is the reason I would suggest a WC every 2 years until we can build the international game properly over the next 10-20 years...that way samoan/ tongan / fijian stars will want to play for their country they have the affinity with and not jump ship just to play origin or to play in the 4 nations!

12 nations of completely differing levels. Hard to find the right format, but the Aussies have shown the way slightly in their seeded pool format. Although the final format I still completely disagree with (PNG lambs to the slaughter, and 6 nations playing for one place was a bit harsh).

Super Pool 1 - Aus, Eng, Wal
Super Pool 2 - NZ, Fra, PNG
Pool 3 - Sco, Ton, Ire
Pool 4 - Leb, Sam, Fij

Everyone plays each other once in their pool (2 games each). After that, use a system similar to the play-offs (something that RL fans recognise)...

Week 1:
A) 1st in SP1 vs 2nd in SP2
B) 1st in SP2 vs 2nd in SP1
C) 3rd in SP1 vs 1st in SP3
D) 3rd in SP2 vs 1st in SP4

Week 2:
E) Loser of A vs winner of C
F) Loser of B vs winner of D

Week 3:
G) Winner of A vs winner of F
H) Winner of B vs winner of E

Week 4:
I) World Cup Final - Winner of G vs winner of H



Everyone has something to play for then in each group.

Hope half the grounds we use are the ones listed for use in Yawnion World cup.

Why would you wanna watch a game at Gloucester or Leicester's ground?

Or Twickenham for that matter?!

Good idea regards the tickets.

One reason that the 2008 World Cup was a success was the large number (10,000) of England fans who made the long trip down under to support the team. It was great to see so many at the England venues and around the citiy centres in Oz.

Could we expect to see as many coming over from Oz to support their team and the Cup in general? I personally don't think so.

Not exactly the same incentive though.

Leave a cold and wet UK for sun, sea, sand, beer and rugby.

Leave the sun, sea and sand of Oz for the cold and wet UK.

Why do people keep putting England in their "Super" groups?


The format will hardly change at all, and that's a good thing. The 2008 World Cup format is what every other sport short of soccer should be running.

Ur saying that the 2008 format shouldn't change whilst also querying why people place england in the super group. bit of a contradiction.

Im happy that the RLWC is in the UK but id have loved a pacific islands competition, all sell outs, more competitive nations, this is inly in a dream world, if profits and media wernt an issue it would be amazing.

Oh FFS.



Competition format does not equal team. You understand? Team, no format. Format.....no team!

How the **** does Wales make a super pool! They didnt even qualify for the last world cup!




And France.....are you kidding?


This is how it should be.

Group A
Australia
New Zealand
England (For promotional purposes only. You Poms need to think you are in this level even when you clearly are not)
PNG

Group B
Tonga
Samoa
Ireland
Scotland

Group C
Fiji
France
Lebanon
Wales


Top two from Group A go straight to the semi's.
The third ranked Group A team goes into a playoff with the two two teams from Groups B and C and the third best team from the combined group standings.

Those four teams play off for the right to go into the semis. They get beaten by Australia and New Zealand.

Australian wins the World Cup.


Now everyone must agree that is the outcome we all want.

Thats what we need.

Samoa and Tonga are not far off the pace at all. I'd take both sides over England. They are both moving forwards in huge leaps if you look at the talented players they have coming into the NRL.

Fijians are just good at Rugby League. So thats three teams that just need regular games and good coaching to do well.

Throw in PNG, who need more games, and an Aboriginals and Maori side.....I'd rather watch that then a World Cup from England to be honest!

All this talk about hosting games in Wales, Ireland, Scotland, France, Holland, Belgium, Catalonia and the Isle of Man must stop now. Look at the 2000 tournament - An absolute SHAMBLES of a tournament with games all over the place. Ireland, Scotland and Wales played games at 'home' and at least one of each was attended by under 2,000 people.

At the same time, I feel Scotland/Ireland/Wales games (should they all qualify of course) should be played relatively close to the border. For example, there's quite a few Irish and people with Irish background in Liverpool, so play an Ireland game in St.Helens' new stadium. Scotland - Gateshead/North east region (or even Blackpool, plenty of Scots every time I go there!!)

People mentioning the 2012 Olympic Stadium? GET REAL!! It will only hold 25,000 after the olympics, and it will have a running track!! That's exactly the same set-up as Don Valley and I doubt many of you want a WC game there!!

Wembley is an absolute must for the final. We have 4 years to make this work, and if we can't sell out Wembley, for a World Cup final, in four years, then we might as well pack in.

Id use a similar set up to last year but tweek it a bit. Was thinking this last night....Id go with a super pool of 6...with 4 qualifying....top 2 straight to the semis.....2nd 2 plays the top 2 in pool B of lower teams for the 2 other places.

Therefore most games will be competitive while everything is to play for in every group and for every team - not like last year where it was obvious PNG would never qualify and Eng, Aus, and NZ were shoe ins for the semis!! - the bottom 3 would in the top pool would, if it went true to form, effectively be playing for one space, unless England crash and burn as could always happen then it could be 2 from 4... while England, Nz Aus would all keep interest as instead of basically being given byes to the semis, they would have to perform to fight for the top two to avoid a qualifyer.

Id go for...

POOL A - Super Pool

NZ
AUS
ENG
PNG
FRANCE
FIJI

POOL B

WALES
IRE
SAMOA
SCOTLAND
TONGA
One from USA / Lebonon / Russia / Cook Islands - To play a qualifying tournament in 2011.

I would play one game from each pool every day, with a break day every 4th day to keep the interest in the comp and not just have weekend games.

The pool stages would then last approx 2 1/2 - 3 weeks. After which 1 & 2 from the super group progress straight to the semis and get a weeks break and 3rd from Pool A plays 2nd from pool B AND 4th Pool A plays 1st Pool B in 'Semi Final Qualifiers' .

At the same time and running along side this 3rd and 4th from pool B play 5th and 6th in pool A in 'Plate Semi final qualifiers' to run as curtain raisers and make the Semi final qualifiers a complete event.

Winners of the Plate Semi Qualifiers play the losers of the WC Semi Qualifiers in the 'Plate Semi finals' again to be held as curtain raisers to the WC semis (or alternatively on their own merit in smaller grounds such as doncaster / widnes etc). Meanwhile the winners of the Qualifiers play 1 and 2 from the super group in the WC semis proper.

The following week you have the finals for both the WC and plate with the plate as a curtain raiser.

The beauty of a plate competition is that it gives extra games and therefore revenue and interest and also a realistic goal for all the teams below the top 4/5 teams to aim for. Therefore everyone has something to play for, and all teams are gradually eliminated from the comp,

Ie/ end of the group stage 5th and 6th in pool B go out - rest into plate or WC knockout

End of next week losers of the plate qualifiers go out (2 teams again) - Losers of the WC qualifiers drop into the plate

End of the following week you lose 2 from the WC semis and two from the Plate semis (both can play 3/4 th place play offs) (4 teams lost in total)

End of the last week - 4 teams still in the WC and plate and lose two to leave the two eventual winners.

For me that format gives everything...in the main balanced games / competitive pools/ everything to play for in virtually every game with no dead rubbers some cracking match ups/ and ensures all countries involvement in our festival of world rugby for as long as possible.

Also the whole tournament would take place in 4-5 weeks with mostly 2 games per day and over that course of that time only approximately 10-12 'rest' days where there isnt a game so momentum can really be built up.

In addition that format would also give a total of 40 games (42 if you include a 3rd/4th play off), and is roughly the right number for a credible international tournament.

The other beauty of such a format is that every team leaving the competiton at every stage can be ranked according to their performance, so every game is playing for position without the falisfied 'ranking games' the 2008 WC had. In addition the teams in the bottom pool can afford one bad game or two and still go through, where as in the last WC it was too weighted to the top group (the bottom groups also didnt play enough games - only 2!!) and if you had a bad game you were out....ala france.

For me that set up is the perfect set up for RL, gives us credance and is not in a format that is too falisified or makes it too confusing for the floating specy!! While we dont have loads of blow out scores and most matches will be close affairs!! It takes everything good from the commendable 2008 format, and corrects the small flaws in that system!!

I just hope the RFL are wise enough to use it.....have it as a free one RFL....for the next ideas though I want paying on a consultancy basis

I hope we get a mix of heatlands grounds and expansion areas.

i'd particularly like to see Old Trafford for the opening tie, Wembley for the final...there is no reason why the could not announce the dates over a year in advance and do a lot of publicity

knowing the RFL though, the games will be arranged about a month before, with one half hearted press release.

i think only three sides should have qualified for the world cup so far
aus and NZ as finalists from 2008
england as hosts
the rest should have to earn their places like they did for 2008

same format as 2008 regarding super pool and other pools

best qualifier to super pool,
other 8 to 2 groups of four

top of each pool to play bottom 2 from super pool (quarter final)
top 2 in super pool through to semis

opening game, eng v aus at wemberley!

keep the rest in the heartlands!!!

I still think we should ditch the tradition knock-out method in the cup and use a system RL is renowned in our play-off system. Will guarantee closer matches and make better use of the seeded super pool format.

I'd go one of two ways, using either 4 groups of 3 (with three SPs) or 3 groups of 4 (with 1 SP).

Already said my method for the 4 groups of 3 on the other post.
If it was 3 groups of 4, I'd go...

Super Pool - NZ (Winner), Aus (Finalist), Eng (Host), Qualifier 1
Pool 2 - Qualifer 2, Euro 2, Pacific 3, Repechage
Pool 3 - Pacific 2, Euro 3, Pacific 4, Euro 4

Qualifying competition for the European teams (Lebanon) and the Pacific teams (including USA). Everyone that makes it to the semi-finals qualifies for the WC. The winners play each other for a place in the super group (which guarantees you a place in the PO), with the loser being placed in the other groups along with the other qualifiers. A tournament for the last place can be done in a similar fashion to last year.

Play-offs as follows:
A) 1st in SP vs 1st in P2
B) 2nd in SP vs 1st in P3
C) 3rd in SP vs 2nd in P2
D) 4th in SP vs 2nd in P3

E) Loser of A vs Winner of D
F) Loser of B vs Winner of C

G) Winner of A vs Winner of F
H) Winner of B vs Winner of E

I) Winner of G vs Winner of G (Final)

No.
You will get half a dozen tour groups led by past players maybe a few hundred or so.
Plenty of Aussies based there so that may add up to a few thousand at the games.

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/aug/01/rugby-league-world-cup-2013[/url

Link to an article that discusses more proposals for the tournament.

In the main broadly what has been proposed on these boards.