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] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 » Show All
15 Dec 2010, 06:22 am
Rather than change the RWC format, why not change to the breakdown laws to favor these dragons?
15 Dec 2010, 06:24 am
WTF ?
if i was an All blacks id be insulted.
they are that good they should have no problem wining the world cup in any format.
why tweak things to suit the AB’s everytime?
and there’s no guarantee they or “the most consistent team” will win that revamped tournament.
in the Ab’s case it will just mean they need all they help they can get from the irb to win.
Lottery or not every team that makes it to the World cup deserves a chance to win regardless of their previous form.
and lets be honest bar for the kiwi’s everyone else watches RWC to see who will knock out the Ab’s
15 Dec 2010, 06:25 am
Well said!
15 Dec 2010, 06:28 am
stupid article (slow news day…although there isn’t necessarily a correlation)
15 Dec 2010, 06:51 am
This article has as much to say about the consistency of the All Blacks as the lack of consistency of the Boks.
The AB’s have the momentum going into the WC – don’t they every 4 years – and are pre-tournament favourites to win next year. On home ground. The table has been set.
As for the Boks, what everyone wants is for them up their success rate overall. Since the professional era started, there are too many Bok coaches with win-rates in the 50% – 65% area.
If the Boks are to match the AB’s for consistency, a win-rate of in excess of 80% should be aimed at.
The Boks should never have to play a test at home wearing the underdog status.
The Boks should never have to play any 6N team in the NH with a less than 50% chance of winning.
15 Dec 2010, 07:07 am
The RWC already rewards the most consistent team. The team that successfully wins 7 games in a row wins the title, not sure how you can award consistency any more than that.
“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?”
Meaningless to whom? The only people I have ever heard say everything outside the World Cup doesn’t count (and actually meant it, jokes about A4Ys don’t count) are losers who have no other rebuttal to their own teams poor performance.
It is usually the English (after they finally managed to win one), whose claims that nothing else counts got louder and louder as their team fell further into obscurity after their ’03 success.
But increasingly a lot of Bok supporters have sadly been resorting to the same boring retort, which disappoints me.
15 Dec 2010, 07:12 am
This is annoying, why do we always kiss the All Blacks ar.ses, this is pathetic, show me one world cup that rewards consistency. Its the AB’s own fault they cant win it, people talk about dumb rugby, they too and guilty of it, cup rugby is a different beast and you would have though they would have learnt by now
15 Dec 2010, 07:19 am
“why do we always kiss the All Blacks ar.ses… ”
Because they’re simply the best rugby team that has ever been.
Daylight between the best and the rest.
You know that.
15 Dec 2010, 07:22 am
what a load Keo! If you want to end New Zealands search, change your strategy on the day and win at all costs. Don’t think you are bigger than the game and ‘deserve’ to win and who knows, they might just live up to their potential
I heard the beast is off to the lions? another contractual spat on the way then!
15 Dec 2010, 07:42 am
Don’t he dof keo.
If you don’t like the unpredictability of a world cup then don’t have one.
Rather have a world series instead.
But then don’t complain if everybody finds it boring.
You can’t reward consistency in a knockout tourney so deal with it.
It only comes around every four years so it’s not supposed to fill that role. It’s about BMT
Thats what the world rankings are for.
Furthermore on the predictability of the thing, who would have predicted SA vs England in the final last time around?
15 Dec 2010, 07:42 am
@TheTackler : That sounds like something the Kiwi’s would say, they weren’t so sh.it hot last year and I don’t agree with all the ar.se licking they get from South Africans
15 Dec 2010, 07:49 am
@CaptainQuirk : Are the contracts the unions issue over there all written by ex-props instead of lawyers or something?
Also has anyone noticed the reply arrows are in French? Repondre a ce commentaire = reply to a comment. Good to see the little French I learned when 9yrs old is still coming in handy
15 Dec 2010, 07:50 am
That’s what makes the RWC so good. Any top team can win it.
15 Dec 2010, 07:53 am
@gunther : Exactly. Has anyone seen the World Series in baseball?
Best of seven against the same two teams – even if it wasn’t baseball (which is boring enough as is) that would be boring as batshit!
Plus then what happens if the All Blacks can’t win this new format either, which is apparently even more important than the current world cup??
15 Dec 2010, 07:55 am
@CaptainQuirk :
yep sounds like beast is going to the lions
lions = Manchester city , buying everyone and anyone that can play.
15 Dec 2010, 08:01 am
Keo must be dating a kiwi bird.
It’s the only reason to write such a fatuously maladroit article.
15 Dec 2010, 08:01 am
@christianels22 : They had a bad year in 2009 but still didn’t get the wooden spoon! They came second.
Not like SA — the perennial wooden-spooners in 3N and s12.
15 Dec 2010, 08:13 am
Keo is just trying to stir and this article unfortunately just doesn’t.
Really really stupid article.
15 Dec 2010, 08:13 am
And — looks at the scoreboard — they’ve WON ten out of fifteen titles (first places) and have only failed to come first five times.
Coming last? Just not an option.
15 Dec 2010, 08:26 am
The pool games may be a farce but i reckon wales, fiji and samoa are most probably going to give us a bloody hard run for our money. fiji and samoa’s unstructured play usually has a way of getting under the springboks skin
15 Dec 2010, 08:49 am
I don’t think KEO is pro NZ infact he is being very tricky and trying to stur up anti nz comments, which is expactly what is happening. Your a tricky little devil KEO
15 Dec 2010, 08:53 am
keo is spot on, the team that wins the world cup are WORLD CUP CHAMPIONS but bot world champions, the latter should be reserved for the most consistent team over a specified period of time, then this nonsense of “judge me at the world” by coaches will be exposed as the farce that it is!
15 Dec 2010, 08:54 am
“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 stage”
Lets see, eight teams have won the SWC, of which one can be disregarded (Uruguay in the early days) Three other teams have won it once (England, France, Spain) Which means, realistically, at any world cup the contenders are Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Italy plus AN Other. I reckon that makes about five.
15 Dec 2010, 08:55 am
“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.” Funny, the closest sport to rugby in North America is American football and last I checked not only the superbowl, but the entire playoff series consists of one-off matches. Please, try get the facts straight, This isnt baseball or basketball!!
15 Dec 2010, 08:56 am
Gotta agree with the rest of the crowd here ,stupid article. Keo has run out of news ,but this is milking it. O well , at least it ain’t another Luke Watson story
15 Dec 2010, 09:00 am
oNE PROBLEM THE ab HAVE IS THEIR iSLANDER PLAYERS CAN’T TAKE THE PRESSURE …TRINATIONS AND SIX NATIONS ARE PRESSURE GAMES BUT NO WHERE CLOSE TO THE PRESSURE OF THE WC…….AND PLS DON’T TELL ME ITS EASY TO WIN THE WC CAUSE THE MIGHTY AB WOULD TRADE ALL THOSE OTHER TROPHIES FOR THE WC !! ( and pls don’t count the 1987 cause we weren’t there )
15 Dec 2010, 09:02 am
Ag jinne. Take Golf. If all there was to play for was the world ranking Tiger would have won for the last 10 years plus, and you wouldn’t have half the amount of people watching. The majors, like any tournament give all comers a mathematical chance of winning, and hold a Major Golf Title. Ernie, Retief, Louis and company would be far less relevant if that were the case.
Same with Rugby. It would be boring to watch the AB’s lead the log for the year, with others mostly fighting over 2nd place.
Knockout tournaments bring the underdog up a level, and that’s what the public want, and sport is about: entertainment at it’s most basic level, and the entertaining the viewing public at that.
FA Cup anyone? Soccer World Cup anyone? How often do the no1 ranked team win these? About as often as the all blacks win world cups if you ask me.
Come now Mark. You can do better than this. At the Christmas egg nog early this year?
15 Dec 2010, 09:07 am
@stormersboy : keo has had issues with the world cup for some time now…
There is life beyond World Cup
Keo. in his Business Day column, writes that the game of rugby is stronger than a six week World Cup competition and it is ludicrous that leading players should be wrapped in cotton wool and withdrawn from the domestic scene in order to try and win the damn competition.
No coach can plan to win the World Cup. A coach can plan to get to the play-offs, but once in the semi-finals it becomes a lottery. A poor 20 minutes, as New Zealand discovered in 1999, is all it takes for an empire to crumble in the play-offs.
Too much emphasis is being placed on the World Cup and too many other competitions suffer unnecessarily because of it. The World Cup is not the cash cow that feeds rugby in South Africa, New Zealand, England and the like. It is the all-year round fare that pays the salaries of players and brings in the revenue.
In South Africa the leading Springboks won’t play in the Currie Cup for the next two seasons and there is a proposal to use them sparingly in next year’s Super 14. New Zealand, whose obsession with the World Cup is even greater than South Africa’s, has withdrawn players from the domestic NPC and also wants most of the World Cup squad protected from the demands of the 2007 Super 14.
It is madness.
Here’s an option. Why not can the Super 14 and Tri Nations next year. Why not can all rugby between now and the 2007 World Cup. That way no coach can have an excuse about injuries or player fatigue. That way there won’t be a squabble about player payments because there won’t be any money to pay them.
How rugby’s prominent investors can stand by and allow national coaches to pick and choose when their stars play is beyond comprehension. Imagine if the likes of England, France, Brazil, Germany, Spain, Holland and Italy’s national coaches had asked to withdraw all their national squad players from all club competition a year ago to prepare for the World Cup? It would never have been entertained because soccer is professional, whereas rugby still tries to marry amateur romanticism with corporate commitment.
Soccer sees the World Cup as part of the calendar. It does not represent THE calendar.
Thierry Henry and Steven Gerrard, to name but two, have played close to 50 matches this season. But they go to soccer’s World Cup as two of the most influential players when assessing France and England’s prospects. It is the nature of the profession.
And that is what rugby after 11 years of legalized player payment still can’t come to terms with. It is no longer a sport where you pick and choose what suits you and do it for the love of the game. It is a job that comes with responsibility to those who pay the bills.
This entry was posted on Monday, May 22nd, 2006
15 Dec 2010, 09:11 am
ERC expects more from Venter
2010-12-14 23:00:03
The European Rugby Cup, the body which runs the Heineken Cup and the Amlin Challenge Cup, wants no repeat by Brendan Venter, Saracens’ director of rugby, of the weird ‘interview’ he had with Martin Gillingham of Sky Sports after Saracens lost to Racing-Métro at Vicarage Road.
In October the ERC fined Venter €25 000 for his outspoken criticisms after Saracens’ match with Leinster. This time Venter has annoyed the ERC by not saying anything much. All he did was repeat Gillingham’s questions in a nonsensical way, his face deadpan. The interview has been a hit on You Tube and may just become the most famous/notorious post-match rugby interview of all time.
The ERC is not amused.
It’s statement reads: “The ERC would like to point out that it expects key representatives of clubs participating in its tournaments to engage with the media in a co-operative and respectful manner, and is therefore disappointed by Mr Venter’s approach throughout the interview.
“Share ERC has asked Saracens to confirm that Mr Venter will not adopt the same approach, or one in anyway similar, when giving media interviews before or after Friday’s Heineken Cup Pool 3 game between Racing-Métro 92 and Saracens.”
15 Dec 2010, 09:16 am
Keo, when you are not sucking up to Jake or dissing PDV for everything under the sun, you are actually not a bad journalist.
This type of article is what drew to me to your site initially just after the Strauli days.
Keep on writing objective, factual and accurate articles with good use of stats (like this one) and it will be enjoyed more by all and sundry.
Nothing like a well researched, thought-out piece of work. Pity we get subjective, trailor trash from most journos on the site.
15 Dec 2010, 09:19 am
@seanbokpool :
You’re just a big D00S aren’t you. There must always be one farking idiot to mess up my good day and there you are. BIG D00S.
15 Dec 2010, 09:20 am
It’s just a mind fark how dominant the ABs have been in the last 10 years.
15 Dec 2010, 09:22 am
Lilly
Come now…send Mr Rainyface away
Always so angry
15 Dec 2010, 09:27 am
Most will know I hate the World Cup, for many of the reasons mentioned above.
But it was interesting to listen to comments last week prior to the George Sevens…
Now the only thing I hate more than the World Cup, is Sevens rugby.
It just does not stir anything in me, it is like 20/20 cricket, another thing I despise whilst loving test cricket.
But I could help wonder and to some extent agree when some guy mentioned how Sevens will one day overtake the 15-man game.
a) For the entertainment value attached to Sevens and how it is a game simple enough for everyone to understand and follow.
b) How close the top 8 or 10 teams in Sevens are. Yes you still have your AB’s, Fiji and Samoa’s who are and still is strong in the game, but you get the smaller teams now consistently beating the bigger ones.
So perhaps we just might take something from Sevens and incorporate it into the 15-man code?
15 Dec 2010, 09:30 am
Mark another thing you forgot to mention is the value attached to tests these days (traditional tours vs. 3N and 6N every year).
The intensite we had in traditional tours is only still felt when the B&I Lions visit any country, and whether they visit us or NZ/Aus, it is something all of us follow because of the immense value of this series.
It just gets so damn boring seeing the same guys play in the same competitions year in and year out whether in Super rugby comps or 3N.
15 Dec 2010, 09:31 am
KEO, it’s because the ABs are the top team (rankings) that they always tend to get the easiest path to the knock-out stage. That’s how the planning worked. If you ask the boks whether they’d prefer to be the top team, and thus get the easiest path to the knock-out stage, they’ll take it. All this talk of ‘stronger opposition in the pools’ improves their chances… I doubt they believe it themselves. Sounds more like an excuse for the 4 years prior the World Cup.
No. The ABs have only themselves to blame for the WC-exits, and they know it. 2011 they’ll most probably come better prepared… and less arrogant.
As for the format… our biggest problem is to get more teams on the same level as the top 5. Wouldn’t it be fantastic to have quality USA, Canada etc teams. (At least we can say the top5 have a realistic chance of winning the WC… League has only 3, with Aus always the faves)
15 Dec 2010, 09:32 am
@moedeloos : Are you Keo?
15 Dec 2010, 09:32 am
MARK KEOHANE, writing in Business Day Sport Monthly, says the World Cup needs to be revamped so that the most consistent team is rewarded.
Idiot. The team that wins all their games wins the World Cup!! What is more consistent than that.
The Kiwi’s are not the most consistent team because they dont win all their games at the World Cup.
15 Dec 2010, 09:32 am
@PissAnt : What, like avoiding rucks, hard hits, driving malls and power scrums and let people score tries with huge gaping holes in the field? Those tries are NOT exciting.It’s a bit like basketball: run, pass, shoot. Run, pass, dribble, shoot. *yawn* Some of the best game of rugby are wars of attrition where they are low-scoring yet entertaining games of ‘chess’. Sevens rugby is like non alcoholic beer- it looks the same, but it isn’t
15 Dec 2010, 09:35 am
Agree with Keo,Now Keo,will you also admit that the 07 Springboks under Jake White were not the best team in the world?Beating USA,Samoa,Fiji,Tonga,Argentina and England cannot be classified as a triumph worthy of the mantle world champs.In my book any way.I think at last Keo has given us hints to say Jake White was really a rubbish coach who got lucky.
15 Dec 2010, 09:36 am
@Bouts : Yes that would be great. Having many strong nations playing rugby. The IRB should check how FIFA incorporated the smaller nations in Football.
15 Dec 2010, 09:36 am
@Bouts :
There is no doubt that the IRB is failing rugby, pretty much the same way rugby administrations of each country fails the code.
Just look at how the NH unions refused to overturn an IRB ruling to have the Pacific Island teams call up previously capped players to play for them (born in the Pacific Islands of course).
I see no reason why second tier countries cannot call up players born in their country, capped elsewhere first, but now back in their country.
15 Dec 2010, 09:37 am
I think that the format does reward consistency. Win 7 games in a row and you lift the trophy.
Furthermore, even if you loose a pool game, you have the chance to make the finals.
Ultimately, however you create a competition, knock out stages, are knock out stages, and if as a team, you have a issue dealing with pressure, you cannot change global showpieces to accommodate for that.
Essentially, no team has lifted the RWC without winning 7 games on a trot. We can argue that this year the AB’s won 15 in a row. Boo Hoo. SA won 17 in a row in 1998, yet we lost the RWC the following year after a loss to the Aussies. Nobody called for a revamped format to reward the Boks then.
15 Dec 2010, 09:40 am
@bangkok-bok :
If it was that obvious I would have mentioned it in my post.
But perhaps a world series format based on a points system is a better approach.
And a simplified approach at ruck situations is something to be seriously considered (you have over 150 rucks on average a game).
15 Dec 2010, 09:40 am
@PissAnt : Agree on that one- that rule needs to be changed! A player from Fiji plays one game for Oz- gets dropped- is still young enough but can never represent Fiji. Disgrace!
15 Dec 2010, 09:41 am
Knock out competitions will always be the best.
Nothing can match the intensity and pressure.
2007
Fiji beat Wales and went to the quarters.
Argentina made it to the semi-final ahead of NZ&Aus, who would have thought that.
World Cup format is flawed. Tri-Nations should be every second year.
3 Match test series’s and international tours should be brought back. Would love to see the Boks for example going to France in July for a 3 Match series. And club games etc.
15 Dec 2010, 09:42 am
@PissAnt : The world series format I can live with- fewer rucks and hard ruggers I can’t
15 Dec 2010, 09:42 am
Dont agree with this article at all.What I like about the wc is that it tests ur composure more that anything else.In a knock-out it is more about ur mental ability than skills and physicality.If we go with Keo’s argument,there should not be grand slams in tennis.Caroline Wozniacki will then be able to b nr1 4 many years through her consistency throughout the year.So 2 Robin Soderling&Davydenko a few years back.Laughable I say.
15 Dec 2010, 09:44 am
@BULLET :
Here is the problem and something I believe you missed from Keo’s post…
If it is easier to win a World Cup than it is to win a 3N, then there is something wrong.
15 Dec 2010, 09:44 am
Keo says there are only realistically 5 teams that could win a WC. Who is the fifth? SA, NZ, Aus, Eng and???
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.