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, 10:55 am
@Couchcoach : Great post CC and agree 100%. I can allay your fears about us winning the next WC. I am willing to bet my house, my 5 dogs and my new Hilux on the fact that we WON’T win the next WC. I would be HUGELY surprised if we make the semis!
15 Dec 2010, 11:00 am
If the AB do eventually win the trophy , will they share it with the surrounding islands …maybe they can keep a quater and pass the rest on …….don’t worry , they won’t win it .
15 Dec 2010, 11:01 am
Other than in 1991 – the All Blacks have either lost to the host nation or France. That is pretty consistent over 20 years.
15 Dec 2010, 11:01 am
Just a little reminder people……WE HAVE WON THE WORLD CUP…end of story, It’s in the record books and always will be…….oh, but the springboks wern’t there,that’s right and just like in 91 no one was bothered…..Don’t kid yourselfs,rugby playing countries barely gave you a thought
15 Dec 2010, 11:03 am
@seanbokpool : You are delusional. If they don’t win it they will get slaughtered by their own people. The moment will just be too much for any team facing them at home in the finals! They will play to within an inch of their lives!
15 Dec 2010, 11:06 am
@bokke baiter : So you take that piece of tin over 5 years of ******* **** rugby and an abysmal record?
15 Dec 2010, 11:10 am
@Couchcoach : “Building towards a WC has become the mantra of the mediocre, the buzz phrase of the buffoon and the motto of the mad.” – are you talking about Robbie Deans? he has a 55,6% win ratio currently and yet his job is secure…
15 Dec 2010, 11:12 am
And here is the problem with a mediocre season and the RWC.
2010 was no less mediocre than 2006.
2007 saw a 25% return in the 3N.
By the end of 2007, Jake and the team were national heroes.
RWC forces the game into 4 year cycles.
4 Year cycles does not support sustainability, so we will never see any other country challenge for the top 6 as the status quo currently stands.
15 Dec 2010, 11:15 am
Of cause they cared …why did the AB rebel side come out…and got slaughted at that .Say whatever you want , without the Boks , the 1987 was not the WC …and you know that (wrer’d be on 3 now )
15 Dec 2010, 11:22 am
@seanbokpool : 1987 was the real deal as SA’s absence wasn’t missed by anyone. The team that won in 1987 had changed a lot since the faux-AB 1986 “Cavaliers”.
It hurts the yarpies’ delicate feelings to know the rugby world moved seamlessly on without them for almost a whole decade and might have done so indefinitely had they not fallen in step with the outside world.
15 Dec 2010, 11:22 am
A thought…
Wasn’t there a Sevens World Cup recently?
Wales won it if memory serves???
So which is more important, the Sevens world series or the Sevens World Cup?
15-man union is missing a trick.
15 Dec 2010, 11:24 am
@kevin w : “Other than 91″? Well, there’s the old black swan theory isn’t it? What a pointless statistic!
15 Dec 2010, 11:26 am
keo and pissant exactly right. Exactly what anyone with any modicum of common sense will understand. Wc comp is a Russian roulette type competition where you gotta hope all the bases are unloaded when you pull the trigger. Its flawed and has resulted in total wrong priority in terms of results orientation. Get it right for 6 weeks out of 4 years and you get hailed a hero while deep down back at the ranch you nothing of the sort.
Win 70% of all games up to and including WC then can call yourself world champions. By fluking a tournament where no one above rank 6 gets to compete last round then you know its flawed as correct means of determining best team in the world.
A fluke is a fluke anyway you wanna peel it. World rankings on a direct best vs best comparison is actually who holds world top dog crown.
15 Dec 2010, 11:26 am
Phew
Looks like Keo finally accepted that offer from Paddy O’Bumchum.
Its only taken him, what, 9 months before he realised NZ rugby wasnt “k@k” afterall.
I suppose Ryan is busy writing his counter-argument.
15 Dec 2010, 11:31 am
@Black Panther : 114 did Keo really write an article saying “new zealand rugby is kak”?
15 Dec 2010, 11:32 am
@kevin w : In 2007 SA met NZ twice and lost both times. By 26-21 in Durban and by a massive 33-6 in Christchurch.
They also met Australia that year, and lost by 25-17 in Sydney to earn — yet again — the dreaded yet familiar old 3N wooden spoon.
And, by a huge stroke of luck, they avoided these two sides in their route to winning the 2007 RWC. Fluke of the century!
15 Dec 2010, 11:35 am
Boks beat New Zealand exactly 3 times between 2004 and 2007 all at home, once in 04, once in 05, once in 06 by exactly 1 point and that was it. Rest of the time Boks lost 7 from 10 and twice at home. Record vs NZ was exactly 30% in 4 years yet never met them in WC 07 and by fortune of events became world champs by default and No.1 rank team by virtue of beating no team ranked higher than 6 due to ranking points doubled in a WC comp.
15 Dec 2010, 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 ?
Transie, youre the forensics expert – that is a question I should be asking of you.
15 Dec 2010, 11:39 am
A quick hypothetical question… What would the Boks win ratio and consistency have been like, had they also had the benefit of playing without crappy political interference. Let’s say the politicians allowed the Boks to select the best coach, the best players regardless of colour??
I bet the AB’s wouldn’t have had half the dominance they enjoyed in the last 20 years.
Prior to being excluded fom international rugby, what was the win ratio of the Boks vs the AB’s??
Yes the Boks have been inconsistent, but glory be, would any other nation hab\ve remained as competitive in such a complex enviroment.
And we all know the kiwi success in the last 20 years is because of the influx of Polynesian players in their rugby!!
Lets have the statisticians bring the win ratio’s prior to the Boks ban, and now to the fore.
Boks will still be contenders in 2011, and I can imagine the kiwi publics nerves, as the likely scenario is the AB’s vs the Boks in the semi’s!!
The Boks will be back to their full complement of stars, and they know how to play percentage “world cup” rugby.
The kiwi bluster is just that… deep down they are terrified, knowing that the current scenario, of the AB’s on a roll, is consistent with every other year preceding a WC, which they have failed to capitalise on!! The pressure and expectation is going to be huge!!!
1. Guthro/Beast
2. Bismarck/Smit
3. Jannie Dup/CJ
4. Bakkies/Flip vd Merwe
5. Matfield/Bekker
6. Brussow/Burger
7. Juan Smith/Alberts
8. Spies/Kanko
This pack will be enough to dominate the lineouts, match any scrum, and be a powerful driving force in the rucks and mauls!!
9. Fourie duP/Mc Leod
10. Steyn/Lambie/Pienaar
11. JP Pieterson/Mjekevu
12. Jean de Vill/Olivier
13. Jaque Fourie/Juan de Jongh
14. Habana/Movovo
15. Steyn/Kirchner
Fourie is a genius at controlling the match, and the backline with du preez there will be able to score tries. Maybe not as flash and sauve as the AB’s and Wobblies, but excellent at playing the defensive game, with enough flair to capitalise on errors!!
Please tell me that the kiwis, are so cocksure, that they would bet a house against this team that took them apart in 2009, with so many new guys lurking. Young guys coming through like Jaco taute, vd heever, Killian, Phillip vd Walt, Coenie Oosthuizen, Josh Strauss, Deysel etc
I say stop being so negative, and know for sure this Bok team will be feared in MNZ next year!!
15 Dec 2010, 11:42 am
@Transformation : Of course I am talking about Robbie Deans…who else would I be referring to?
15 Dec 2010, 11:44 am
Good article. Im sick of the WC being an excuse. The boks can get their winning stats up and be a force like the ABs. This will be possible because then our coaches will be judged on their winning % of test matches and not the world cup. Victories in the WC should not even be part of the statistics, considering that you can get a lucky draw. PDV 64% winning record, would not be good enough in New Zealand, why should it be in SA?
15 Dec 2010, 11:44 am
Okay, so I’ve thought about this flawed World Cup format and I, like keo, have a few suggestions:
16 teams enter the tournament, and they are all seeded. Before the first round, each team seeded 1 to 8 draws the name of a team seeded 9 to 16. They then swap backs with the lower seeded teams for the first phase of the competition. For example, the All Blacks draw Portugal, and the AB forwards have to complete the first round with the Portuguese backs, and vice versa. This round ends with a big braai and kareoke.
Round two sees 120 mystery red cards handed out randomly to players across all 16 teams. These red cards will be effective for the entire round and the affected players will watch from the stands, dressed in another country’s supporter kit. Their places in the teams will be filled by sports stars from various other sporting codes – weight lifters, swimmers, tobogganists, darts players etc. Tries in this round count 25 points each and there is one referee for each player.
Round four is a series of long-kick competitions, or “dryfings”.
Round five, also known as The Final, is where speed dating meets rugby. In one 8-hour long match, each team is on the field for four minutes at a time, overlapping their opposition’s four minutes by two minutes. So everyone ends up playing everyone roughly 32 times. It’s up to the teams to keep their own score, because this could get messy.
I think this is fair and will reward consistency. Feedback welcome.
15 Dec 2010, 11:46 am
@skopiskoobidoo : Agreed boet! We are not worthy of anything close to the ABs and the WC is a joke. Even Helium uses it as an excuse as he dangles the WC in front of the weak-minded like a juicy carrot so that we forget about the fact that we have a team that is a joke.
15 Dec 2010, 11:46 am
Pissant
How does a revamped format change the four year cycle?
World championship premier division series challenge?
You can keep it.
15 Dec 2010, 11:47 am
WC is a bullsh’t baffles brains comp anyway you wanna look at it and is totally flawed, besides the fact that it rewards mediocrity as long as timing and fortuition works to your favor.
It also places way too much expectation on coaching staff getting it right eventually who would otherwise be measured on yearly averages and not on a once off knockout fluke, which also would ensure they don’t gamble everything on an overrated prestigious bullsh’t story and take more risks in advance. Results should be measured year for year not once every 4 year cycle.
15 Dec 2010, 11:47 am
@seanbokpool : Cooment at 75.
“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 )”
So in your estimation the All Blacks would be a better team if it wasn’t for their players of colour? You can fark off right now p03s!
15 Dec 2010, 11:48 am
@TheTackler : 2007 World Cup:
Australia lost to England – England lost to South Africa twice in the same tournament.
New Zealand have a record of losing to France or the host nation. 2007 France was the host nation – NZ lost to them.
Fluke of the century … nah I don’t think so.
15 Dec 2010, 11:50 am
Oh and it is easy to win a WC. The k@k boks with a ****** win ratio manage to luck out and win it, anyone can. Even freaking Romania. If the ref plays ball, (like Dickenson did), even Scotland can knock the boks outta the WC.
15 Dec 2010, 11:50 am
@Cheetah 4 Eva : which players are you referring to that has weakened the Boks side due to political interference?
Actual players during actual games?
and best coach is very subjective. I think Nick Mallet is a good coach. Everyone north of the Jukskei thinks HM is the best coach.
Keo will tell you Jake is the best coach. WP supporters will tell you that currently AC is the best coach.
not a good basis to start your argument there.
15 Dec 2010, 11:51 am
@rossoneri : so based on your logic, anybody that wins a gold medal at the olympics is not worthy unless they hold the world record in that event?
“I beat Usain Bolt, but it means nothing because he has recorded faster times between the olympics”.
15 Dec 2010, 11:52 am
@kevin w : OK, so who will NZ, the host country, lose to in 2011?
15 Dec 2010, 11:55 am
@Couchcoach : They should be the favourites to win – just like 23 years ago when they hosted and won it the last time.
15 Dec 2010, 11:55 am
The stats to the talking.
After winning a World cup what would most teams consider the next biggest challenge.I’d say winning a test in New Zealand. In 2003 prior to the World cup , champions to be England beat the Kiwi’s on their hometurf.
The next team to win on New Zealand soil were the World Cup winning boks in 2008.
So between 2003-06-14 and 2008-07-12 , over 5 YEARS , only the 2 teams that won World Cups could beat the Kiwi’s over there.
That’s fair enough for me.
15 Dec 2010, 11:55 am
I get why Spain are the winners of the SWC. They really do have the best players in their team. They operate as a unit and were ranked 1 or two going into the WC and won the last Euro. They play beautiful football. The Uefa CL team came from Spain. They had proven long before the WC that they were a threat, and they did the business when it mattered.
When the Boks won the WC, it was bullshit. They had a **** ranking, they got their arses beaten regularly in the time prior to the WC. They played ugly rugby.
It felt the same as when Greece won the Euro. Just so unworthy.
15 Dec 2010, 11:56 am
That proves that on both occasions a pretty damn good team won.
15 Dec 2010, 11:56 am
@moedeloos : Dude, I will have any of those you mentioned before I have Helium
In any event, SARU president said publicly that PDV was not a pure rugby appointment
As for players who are there because of the colour of their skin/political stance:
1. Ricky January
2. Luke Watson
3. Solly Tybilika
4. Adi Jacobs
5. Wayne Julies
6. Chili
Fingers are getting tired
15 Dec 2010, 11:58 am
@kevin w : C’mon Kevin. An indivdual track or swimming event is not the same as a team sport and you know it. You made a bad analogy.
A good one is when Kim Clisters won the US open, because Serina walked out of the match. Kim is known as the US Open Champion, but she didn’t beat the better player.
15 Dec 2010, 11:58 am
@moedeloos : have a look at the stats. Mallet had a good record of 71% with the boks. But he’ll doesnt want to coach the boks again. So if you look at the stats HM is the best coach. Especially if you look at the way he turned things around at the bottom-of-the-log- bulls. Always look at the stats
15 Dec 2010, 11:59 am
@kevin w : OK, fair enough. I thought you would be philosophical and say that the only team that could beat the AB’s are the AB’s – the host nation
15 Dec 2010, 11:59 am
@rossoneri : and if Holland had won … would that have then made the SWC a rubbish tournament that means nothing.
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
15 Dec 2010, 12:00 pm
Lilly
Pull your head out your bum.
You can’t “get” a tournament based on the outcome.
If the best team going into a tournament won every time what would be the point of watching?
15 Dec 2010, 12:01 pm
@Black Panther : no man this is no trap! did he really write an article like that, that yourself Black Panther read?
15 Dec 2010, 12:01 pm
@kevin w : Do you rate Federer on how many Wimbledons he has won? Let’s say Wimbledon became the World Cup of tennis- and given his record there would you still not rate him as being one of the bests of all time? I think we are dealing with two very different issues here: who is the best rugby team on the planet and who gets a lucky shot at winning world cups? People tend to value the WC at the expense of having the agony of sitting through 100 games where you are ashamed to wear a Bok jersey- oh- but it’s balanced by the fact that we have won a WC. I think the same logic applied means: turn off your TV sets for four years and then switch them on again ONLY for the WC so that it can give you a 4 year hard-on again.
15 Dec 2010, 12:01 pm
@Couchcoach : dont forget earl the pearl rose
15 Dec 2010, 12:02 pm
@gunther : Point taken. Just proves to me how ludicrous it is to build towards a WC when it is such a lottery and how this incessant excuse is totally illegitimate.
15 Dec 2010, 12:04 pm
@Jeez : oh my goodness, how could I ever forget him? The saviour of Bok running rugby…and Eddie Andrews…and Lobberts…and Quinton Davids
15 Dec 2010, 12:05 pm
Oh dear blackpants seems to have succumbed to poopas ailment…
Let’s hope it’s not serious.
15 Dec 2010, 12:06 pm
@kevin w : Holland too were worthy. Great players. Sneider had just won CL with Mourhino and could possibly have been Balon D’or. Also the Netherlands are ranked right up there.
@gunther : I’m just saying Gunther. If Romania or Scotland, or Wales beat the Boks. You must embrace your mantra of it’s a great spectacle and admit that they are better teams than the boks. Could you? Of Course not.
15 Dec 2010, 12:09 pm
@bangkok-bok : Not at all mate. But it’s about BMT. The Aussies have ruled the cricket world for the last 20 years and they have the WC record to back it.
Why don’t the AB’s? food poisoning, bad refs, forward passes.
So let’s leave Federer out of this … rather compare team sports like cricket and rugby. The baggy greens have done it in cricket, which is left far more to chance (pitches, conditions, weather, delhi belly etc.), but the fact that AB’s can’t do it in rugby is because its a nothing tournament which too much emphasis.
I don’t dispute the AB’s rule the rugby world, but i also don’t dispute they are chokers in the WC where teams like SA keep it together. Credit where credit is due.
15 Dec 2010, 12:10 pm
@Couchcoach : if ricky ever gets another cap…
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.