World Cup format is flawed
15 Dec 2010
MARK KEOHANE, writing in Business Day Sport Monthly, says the World Cup needs to be revamped so that the most consistent team is rewarded.
It says something for the consistency of the All Blacks that we only seem to remember the games they lose. Unfortunately it says as much for the Springboks in their great rivalry with the New Zealanders that we can remember all the games the South Africans win.
The Rugby World Cup, introduced in 1987, has changed the way results are viewed and it has also encouraged mediocrity in between World Cups. Success is defined by who wins a competition played once every four years and the commercial highlight of professional rugby is a seven-week competition, in which the three play-off rounds produce the only strength versus strength match-ups.
Statistically, no sports team in the world (regardless of the code) has consistently excelled like the All Blacks, and no team can boast winning three from four games in over 100 years against all comers. The All Blacks, since professionalism of the sport in 1996, play the Springboks and Australia on average three times a year home and away, yet they still win 60% of the match-ups.
The consistency in New Zealand’s rugby is reflected in 10 Tri-Nations trophy wins in the past 15 years, three Grand Slam triumphs in three attempts over five years and 13 wins in 22 visits to South Africa. The Boks, in the same period, have won three Tri-Nations championships, no Grand Slams and three in 21 Tests in New Zealand.
The All Blacks in the past eight years have also won 42 from 44 matches against northern hemisphere opposition, but lost to France in a one-off at the 1999 and 2007 World Cups and because of this France are said to have New Zealand’s number, despite historically only winning 12 matches in 49 against the All Blacks.
Knockout competitions are cruel and they don’t always reward form or substance, but is it right that one tournament, played every four years, can render everything else in Test rugby meaningless?
In soccer I can understand the prestige of the World Cup because of the number of teams capable of winning the tournament and the quality of the match-ups from the pool stages.
I remain unconvinced that the measure of a team in rugby is who wins the World Cup every four years because the Six Nations and Tri-Nations, as respective tournaments, are more difficult to win.
Rugby only has five teams capable of winning the World Cup, and all have the ability to beat the other in a one-off situation, which is why winning the Rugby World Cup is more a lottery than it is the successful implementation of a meticulous four-year plan.
New Zealand are consistently the best team in the world, even in unsuccessful World Cup tournament years, and they have the record to back up this view. All Blacks captain Richie McCaw has played 94 Tests in the past decade and lost 10. No other captain in the history of the game has achieved this success over a 10-year period, but two of those defeats have come in World Cup play-off matches, in Sydney in 2003 and Cardiff in 2007.
Does that mean the 84 wins and countless trophies count for nothing? Of course it doesn’t and that is why for the Rugby World Cup to be a true measure of who is a world champion and who is a World Cup holder based on a one-off win, the tournament needs to be revamped to a strength versus strength format, which would reward the most consistent team.
The current World Cup format means one of the top five’s tournament can be over because of 40 poor minutes in the only meaningful match they play.
This kind of format will seldom reward the best, and rugby can learn from the North American approach to sport finals in all their major sporting codes. Firstly, it takes winning consistently for a team to get to the final and secondly, once there it takes the same amount of consistency to actually be crowned champions through a best of three, five or seven series, depending on the code.
The luck of a good day and the curse of a bad one is removed from the equation because over a three-match series, for example, the winner will have needed more than good luck to be the champion.
Rugby nations, pre one-off Tests and professionalism, traditionally played a three or four Test series to determine the winner, so why can’t the game revert to strength versus strength at the World Cup?
The opening month of every Rugby World Cup has been a farce with one-sided pool contests. For the event to have greater credibility it needs greater substance.
Strength versus strength would also give meaning to every Test played in between World Cups because teams would be playing to make the top eight of a premier World Cup tournament.
In a revamped model, which makes the use of a squad of 30 essential rather than an option, the top eight teams play each other over a month period. Each team plays seven matches, two a week, and the top two in this World Cup Premier League qualify for a best of three final to be played over a 14-day period. If a team goes two up, there is no consolation third match. Whoever hosts the World Cup Premier League every four years also simultaneously hosts the World Cup Championship League for teams ranked nine to 16.
This way the game is still grown and the incentives are still there without the embarrassment of mismatches that are
a feature of rugby’s World Cup.
It would also remove the lottery element from who wins the World Cup and again force coaches and their respective administrations to honour the true meaning of Test rugby.
It may also end New Zealand’s search for World Cup glory and start South Africa’s search for year-to-year consistency.
– This first appeared in the December issue of Business Day Sport Monthly.
621 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] Show All
19 Dec 2010, 14:48 pm
Kiwis and Italians…
Known for their love of style…?
and as…
Reverse gear specialists?
Chuckles…
19 Dec 2010, 14:49 pm
@Heavens Game :
Sorry Heavens Pane.
Not Carly ……………………….Pete Townsend.
But WHO cares ………….
19 Dec 2010, 15:07 pm
@cane : 602… Why, its Carly Simons backing band, not the Who, but the Cane… Cane for the pain…
You probably think this song is about you…
Only the “Brave”…. LOL
19 Dec 2010, 15:07 pm
Kiwi twat…
19 Dec 2010, 15:19 pm
Cleared the room…
“Brave” Kiwis abound…
Whaddafarkinglarf!!!
19 Dec 2010, 15:31 pm
@Black Panther : for the last time, this is the initial question that seems to have sparked your proclivity for pathetic one-upmanship.
115. TRANSFORMATION :
December 15th, 2010 at 11:31 am
@Black Panther : 114 did Keo really write an article saying “new zealand rugby is kak”?
A simple yes and furnishing of the evidence would’ve sufficed
but no, your kiwi eyes sparkled at the chance to claim some moral mileage hence your subsequent retort of “is this a trap?”.
What “trap”? Why would you see a trap in a simple question? Duplicitous Carly Simon
bwahahaha
@Heavens Game : panty’s inclination for hysterics is lank funny
19 Dec 2010, 15:49 pm
Transie
answer my Question, I’ve answered every single one you asked of me.
Answer my Question. It’s easy, surely.
19 Dec 2010, 15:56 pm
If I’m King of the Hill, a hill that is made up of the Bravery Brothers, then this a 1 moniker I will accept. It’s a bit like saying the Boks are the Kings of African Rugby.
is that what is known as a ‘backhanded compliment’ ?
(you don’t need to answer that one,Transie, because that Rhetorical Question does not require one).
19 Dec 2010, 16:04 pm
Boy George
your Christmas gift to the bloggers on Keo is your continual presence here. It’s a bit like going to hospital with a suspected broken toe and then sitting in the waiting room beside a double-amputee.
There is always someone less fortunate, less able.
Amidst all your bravado above, any possibility of a straight answer to 572 – ie who were you referring to about the miners ?
19 Dec 2010, 16:14 pm
this thread was dead about 250 posts ago. That’s how long it takes to get an answer out of the Bravery Brothers
and still counting
19 Dec 2010, 16:17 pm
@Black Panther : i don’t have to. this to & fro that you seem to revel in is tired, trite, played out…
you major on the minor.
118. BLACK PANTHER :
December 15th, 2010 at 11:38 am
@Transformation :
Is this a trap ?
are you leaving a trail of Keo-crumbs, lulling me towards a deep pit where I can drown in my own moral superiority ?
bwahahahahaha
19 Dec 2010, 16:58 pm
“I don’t have to”.
My God, fella, my young kids are more mature than you !
So you ask loads of questions, pester for answers, calmly infer that I’m a Liar, and yet refuse to answer 1 simple question in reply.
It’s a shame you’ve chosen to lower yourself to Boy Georges standards. Unlike him, I suspect you’re a good fella underneath all this BS you’ve, um, fallen in to the trap of. Oh well.
Have a great Christmas, hope Santa is generous.
19 Dec 2010, 17:07 pm
Reading today’s English papers has been a bit like Keo post-TriN’10.
On Thursday (ie after Day 1, Ashes) all the headlines were ‘Is this the end of Australian cricket ?’ ……’Was this the tipping point that seals Englands domination ?’
the only thing they didn’t say was ‘Aus cricket is KAK’
Well, today’s papers tell a different story.
As Mitchell Johnson might say
“over and out”
Merry Christmas 1 and all, Panther out.
19 Dec 2010, 19:48 pm
@Black Panther : You really need an extended break or get more sessions at your local head doctor
You sound as tired as an old takkie, move out of England and stop blogging on Keo,you will be much happier
19 Dec 2010, 23:44 pm
@Black Panther :
Don’t choke on a mutton bone over Christmas doos…..
20 Dec 2010, 03:56 am
What a bollox article. We have strength vs strength comps every year. The world cup is a showcase for all the rugby playing world. Knockout format means standing up andbeing counted every single game. A pass rate of 60 or 70 is not going to win you the title. It is the same for all sides. No mulligans at the RWC.
20 Dec 2010, 10:12 am
@Transformation : 606. Yup, the duplicitous hysterics are rather amusing. Its Carly Simon and backing band: The Bravery Brothers….
Singing:
“We’re so vain
We probably think this song is about us…”
They also need to be reminded that, at Xmas time, sheep are for eating not other nefarious activities…
20 Dec 2010, 10:30 am
@Black Panther : 609. If I didn’t know better, I would have thought you were trying to say something nice…
But I do know better…
I know Kiwis like you far too well… Its why I can press all your little buttons and get the reaction I always know that I will get…
Carly Panty, you are the kiwi I always thought you would be on Keo:
- Wise beyond measure on Rugby matters
- Incredibly Witty
- Terribly funny
- A rational voice
- A Keo reader’s choice…
Not…
Just try to remember in the new year, that some bug.gers are always just better…
Like HG…
Maybe in 2011 you will be hanging on HG’s coat tails like you do with Skop… But that will not be a lesson learned… Association aint gonna make you a better blogger… Its your own original content that will… You need to have something more to say other than “karma, karm chameleon”…
But have a great Xmas anyway and try better next year…
22 Dec 2010, 02:38 am
Finally some recognition and some common sense. Merry Xmas all.
17 Feb 2011, 19:07 pm
All the major North American sporting codes? One of the biggest (and the most similar to rugby), the NFL, has a knockout system to determine the winner and even the finalists. In any case, saying “the North Americans do i differently” is a very weak argument.
There is an even bigger issue with this article. Whoever said the World Cup is the only measure of a team? Not even South Africans would claim the Boks have been better than the All Blacks over the last 15 years.
Besides, an underdog having a chance at glory is what lies at the root of sport. If 80 minutes is not enough for a great team to come out victorious, then at they did not deserve the World Cup in that moment of time. And that is what the Cup is, a snapshot in time.
Is it always fair? No. Is it glorious? Yes!
How much would Keo’s suggested format suck? A whole lot! Nobody would be excited except NZ, and maybe SA and AUS. A knockout at least provides the slight underdogs (think a Wales or a Italy) a dream of winning at all, and that is how it should be.
A case in point is that horrible “super eights” phase in cricket world cups of the past. How boring was that!!!
19 Feb 2011, 07:26 am
Don’t agree with you on this Keo . If Michael Phelps is the most consistent swimmer between Olympics and loses let’s say the 400IM at the next Olympics , then he is not the Olympic champion in that event in 2012 . One has to get it right on the night .He may have won at the World Championships in the previous year but THE big one is that Olympic gold. Similarly there is the 6N and the TriN comps between RWC’s .While the AB’s have the consistency between RWCs to claim ” best rugby team in the world between RWCs ” it would seem that when the crunch comes and other sides are stepping up for the RWC , the AB’s recede and fall away . Something is lacking – or has been .
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.