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, 14:20 pm
@pierre :
“apparently” ?
Fiji have never beaten France.
Ever.
Fiji have never beaten SA either.
Ever.
Neither have Argentina.
Ever.
But, then, thats just the luck of the Draw.
*phew*
The tale of 2 RWCs
Draw Fiji in the Qters (2007) -> onward to the Semis.
Draw NZ in the Qters (2003) -> its an early bath.
15 Dec 2010, 14:23 pm
@gunther : Sorry fella. Of course, don;t know what I was thinking….
@bangkok-bok : I think everyone would like to see the eastern cape back in the top flight. No One really takes the Pumas or Leopards of whomever seriously.
15 Dec 2010, 14:24 pm
@gunther :
It is a simplistic view to a complex problem.
The 4-year world cup cycle affects more than what you are leading on, and the solution far more complex than what you make it out to be.
Like I said, the status quo will remain, because we will let it remain.
I mean look at this thread, 99% of Saffa’s are happy with 2 World Cups in 12 years but an overall win % of 60-odd…
Suppose it is the same reason T20 is popular.
15 Dec 2010, 14:24 pm
Stormersboy
Don’t worry.
Happens to the best of us.
Even blackpants.
15 Dec 2010, 14:25 pm
Is this thing about Jinx true? What happened?
15 Dec 2010, 14:27 pm
Pissant
If the problem is so complex why does it not affect New Zealand? Hmm?
T 20 is popular because takes 3 hours rather than 7 hours or 5 days.
15 Dec 2010, 14:28 pm
@PissAnt : You cant win them all Pissant so I will take my 60%…………
15 Dec 2010, 14:29 pm
@iori Yagami : He died suddenly on the weekend. It would seem to have been heart related from what I read, but not sure. Very Sad.
15 Dec 2010, 14:29 pm
@Nils : @ 234
Actually, I agree with you. But fact is, that as much as we can say footballs World Cup ‘can be won by anyone’, it STILL comes down to a hardcore of 5 or 6 teams that DO. And if its not those teams winning, theyre inevitably Runners-up.
We all enjoyed Argentinas 2007 RWC because they progressed further than before. What rugby now needs is a different team – ie Wales or Samoa – equalling or bettering that. We also need new Champions, and France would be a popular ’2nd choice’ to achieve that in NZ.
15 Dec 2010, 14:32 pm
@gunther :
(just between you and me, youre starting to look a bit obsessive and, by extension, your countrymen too)
15 Dec 2010, 14:36 pm
Black pants
Obsessive?
Don’t make me laugh..
That’s rich even by your (very high) standards..
As you were.
15 Dec 2010, 14:44 pm
@stormersboy : Yoh that is sad. His comments would always make the SA rugby magazine……..this is quite sad.
15 Dec 2010, 14:45 pm
@gunther :
You keep mentioning me in posts addressed to others on completely unrelated subjects.
Me thinks you and, by extension, your countrymen may have insecurity issues. Perhaps its time to confront them before you end up cuckoo.
15 Dec 2010, 14:49 pm
@pierre : Um, you’d surely choose the super consistent team would you not? Or are you suggesting that the people of the world in China and India with the casting votes due to their size would vote for the springboks over the all blacks to play the aliens this december because the boks won the RWC in 2007? After the boks just lost to scotland? after the ABs beat the boks 3 times in a row? Really? I think the Saffas would be outvoted on that one and that your comment has created a rod for your own back.
Now the article is flawed in its suggested system but it contains some very good points. Primarily that the RWC is used by weaker teams’ coaches and administrators as an excuse for their shortcomings in between tournaments and that in doing this they devalue the importance and the traditions of international rugby. The main teams that should be concerned about this are, yes, the All Blacks, but also the Springboks. Do you really want England and Australia to be able to lose every game for four years then beat the boks once and claim they ‘have been better all along, they were just building up to the RWC’?
Of course keep the RWC and strive to win it as a great trophy to add to the cabinet. But its main benefit is as a festival of rugby, a chance for minor teams to perform on a global stage, a money earner for the IRB, and a compressed window of tests that can attain global publicity. The victors can be called the World Cup Holders for the next four years and the top ranked IRB team at any point in time can be referred to as the World Champions
15 Dec 2010, 14:51 pm
Blackpants
Is it the overt rather than oblique reference that upsets you!
As for relevance… Who else to to refer to when discussing the pursuit of perfection.
But if it makes you feel better I promise to ignore you.
15 Dec 2010, 14:52 pm
@Black Panther : @259. I agree with your points. Surely, there is a “royal club” in football WCs who sometimes do include new members (i.e., France and Spain in recent decades and hopefully the Dutch in the near future) but still is fairly close unit with chosen ones and a few times we have seen semis consisting from previous winners only.
And yes, in case NZ fail next year, I’d rather see France succeed from all others. And best of luck to the Argies.
15 Dec 2010, 14:59 pm
Nils
I think it could be an interesting tourney
The all blacks are superb but always susceptible..
The Aussies look good in the backs and in the loose forwards but very light up front.
The boks who knows but we can always suprise if we have a full strength team.
France and the Argies look to be going backwards if you ask me.
England are two steps forward one step back at the moment.
So if the black machine stuff the cat somewhere along the line it could be wide open.
15 Dec 2010, 14:59 pm
Bollocks Keo! the team that win the WC are, consistenly, the best side throughout the full tournament. The A8′s were not in 87. like any other WC it is the team that copes best with the pressure that win. The beauty of WC’s is you get one bite at the apple! Should a Olympic medal be decided on a best of 3 basis? i dont think so. I do agree that too that this 4 year build to the WC is a load of **** &
15 Dec 2010, 15:01 pm
@gunther :
It does not affect NZ?
Interesting.
Google RWC and NZ rugby, and see how much it affects them…
You think the fact that they win close to 80% of their games that the RWC cycle has no effect on them as a rugby nation?
My gripe with the RWC is not from a SA perspective alone, it is from a rugby perspective as a whole and how this is not healthy for the game.
@iori Yagami :
Let me never hear you complain about a Bok loss again!
15 Dec 2010, 15:11 pm
@gunther : 267 The truth is, even in their most successful seasons, the ‘Blacks haven’t gone undefeated. And in a tourney like the WC that’s all it takes….
15 Dec 2010, 15:13 pm
@stormersboy : Did u actually read and digest some of the stats at the start of this article?
15 Dec 2010, 15:17 pm
Stormersboy
Honestly why would you want to take the most exciting tournament in rugby and replace it with sn eighteen month snoozefest is beyond.
Knockout tournaments encapsulate the best of sport the upsets, tension and drama, the David vs Goliath etc it’s all there.
Why would you mess with that?
15 Dec 2010, 15:17 pm
Enough from me.
My last thought on this is that the guy on this Sevens interview predicted that Sevens as its own code, will overtake the 15-man code in about 15 to 20 years – personally I think it will be 15 rather than 20… And that would just be tragic.
15 Dec 2010, 15:19 pm
@PissAnt : That day I stop watching rugby and start watching Gridiron! I already have a huge passion for MMA
15 Dec 2010, 15:20 pm
@gunther : Yes, it can be real tight, no matter that ABs look better right now. As for Argies, their golden generation looks gone, hopefully new faces will not let them sink too fast. France – who knows as usual.
Which leaves the same 4 usual suspects remaining. While 3N always a favorite, English usually spare their best for a few weeks in 4 year cycle.
15 Dec 2010, 15:21 pm
@gunther :
Would any other team other than NZ, Eng, Fra, Aus and SA ever win the RWC?
Do you actually think so?
Seriously?
It says a lot about the excitment, tension, David v. Goliath aspect you refer to.
In my opinion that is living in a dream world buddy sorry. The RWC is a farce and does absolutely nothing for the game.
In a sport of over 110 member unions where the ‘supposed ultimate prize’ is only decided by 5, maybe 6 teams, I call it a farce.
15 Dec 2010, 15:25 pm
@bangkok-bok : the initial point i was trying to make is that instead of seeing te requirement from more black players in the team as political inteference crippling our game we should embrace the resources of potential rugby players at our disposal.
The pool is bigger and we are bound to find the players.
Beast, Mujati and Guthro are 3 quality front-row players from the southern part of Africa. If more time is invested, you will find more of them. Locks may be a problem…..
15 Dec 2010, 15:25 pm
Gunther I never keep track of these things, but you are a Bulls supporter are you not?
15 Dec 2010, 15:28 pm
Pisser
How many teams win the sevens?
I am indeed a follower of the blue machine.
15 Dec 2010, 15:29 pm
@gunther : 272 I wouldn’t. Never ever. EVER!!!
15 Dec 2010, 15:29 pm
@GavinH : No, I would not choose the team that has consistently choked in the biggest tournament of them all (and Earth vs Aliens is going to be even bigger and more pressurised than that) five times in a row, irrespective of what they did in between tournaments. Virtuosity is about performing under maximum pressure – a quality that the ABs singularly lack.
China and India, two non-rugby-playing countries whose opinion is really irrelevant, can vote for the All Blacks if they want. I’m sure the aliens will enjoy a bit of oriental food after the ABs choke. They can scream “food poisoning” and “forward pass” to their hearts’ content along with the ABs while the aliens marinade them for the braai.
15 Dec 2010, 15:31 pm
@bangkok-bok : yes actually I did my doubting friend. I like the sudden death concept. It’s what brings the drama and tension that Grunter refers to above.
15 Dec 2010, 15:36 pm
@bangkok-bok : on the white people being tools in the NBA comment.
a few decades ago basketball teams were predominantly white. Coaches and the rest of the fraternity believed that black players were not strong enough mentally to cope with the pressure situations of important games. They would oftern let the token black player play the last 5 minutes of a lopsided game.
If they continued this stereotype and never gave these guys a chance can you imagine how we would have been deprived of the likes of Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul jabaar, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Kobe bryant, Lebron James, etc.
my point is not to resist the possible potential before we actively mine the black talent and have structure in place to ensure that someone like Mvovo is identified way before 17 when he was introduced to the game. (look at him a few years later)
15 Dec 2010, 15:42 pm
@gunther : @ 265
how cruel
*sob*
but, 1 quick Question before you do *sob* ignore me
@gunther : @ 267
“The boks who knows but we can always suprise if we have a full strength team.”
are you Big Hit in disguise ?
15 Dec 2010, 15:43 pm
@gunther :
NZ (8), Fiji, SA, Samoa.
Interestingly, NZ was challenged (for top spot on the standings {winners are decided with highest log points} by a different team almost every year, including SA, Eng, and Aus who ended second).
IN the last 5years since Sevens really picked up speed;
05/06 – Fiji
06/07 – NZ
07/08 – NZ
08/09 – SA
09/10 – Samoa
But the point here is simple, the most consistent teams are rewarded, and since more countries have taken Sevens seriously, NZ’s dominance is no longer the norm as the final 5 years have shown.
I expect England to mount a massive challenge this year and take it.
And since you are a Bulls supporter, I find it interesting how you place so much stock on a singular, knock-out event than overal dominance, same as the Bulls have shown in the last 5 years.
15 Dec 2010, 15:45 pm
@moedeloos : And he will go nowhere- not big enough and pace not fast enough to make up for that.
15 Dec 2010, 15:50 pm
Blackpants
Well I happens to think that a fit fourie de preez and brussel sprout are quite important to our chances next year.
If that makes me a big hit clone then sofuckingbeit
By the way how would you feel if Suarez and Danny couldn’t make the party?
Hmmm?
I’ll leave you to contemplate that…
In splendid isolation.
On top of the hill.
Keo’s very own Daily Lama
15 Dec 2010, 15:51 pm
@PissAnt : @ 276
Its a fair argument. But consider this.
Only since the RWC was formed, has there been a format put in place for nations to Qualify. We now hear the Consecutive-Wins record is held not by NZ or SA but, instead, by Leichenstein (or Lithuania – I forget which L-country it is). You now also have ‘rivalries’ between Baltic States, Scandis, Georgia-Russia etc, where previously none existed. So new countries are coming on board where previously they didnt.
And expect exponential growth in 7s-rugby now that it is an Olympic sport. Watch China and Russia throw enormous resources at it.
Remember that the RWC is still in its infancy. Sure in 2011 maybe only 5-6 teams have a genuine chance of winning it. But maybe, just maybe, at the 2061 RWC there will be another few teams who challenge the top rung. Would that have ever had a chance to happen were it not for a World Cup or Olympics to aim for ?
15 Dec 2010, 15:51 pm
@bangkok-bok : Springbok debut in just 7 years of playing rugby….. not sure i agree with you.
with the right conditioning and focus i see a future for the lad
15 Dec 2010, 15:54 pm
@pierre : I know you would vote against the all blacks but I thought the question was who would the world want to represent them against the aliens. If the world should not vote for the all blacks who should they vote for? England because it performs better than expectations at world cups?
So you honestly think the all blacks would not win a world wide vote to play the aliens because everyone would believe there is a different team that has more of an imaginary term called virtuosity?
This is a very cogent argument you put forward….. i’m convinced.
I don’t follow the relevance of the food poisoning comment. I think Sth Africa played out of their skins and deserved to win 95. I think the ABs were the best team in 96 as shown by their wins in sth africa so if i was picking a world champion team in 96 I would have gone for the ABs. But I guess you would say the 96 series win was irrelevant. For that matter I suppose you would say the 1956 AB series win in NZ was irrelevant as not enough viscosity was required. Same with the 1949 bok series win or the 1921 series?
15 Dec 2010, 16:02 pm
@gunther : @ 287
You mean like in 2009, when the ABs were themselves decimated by injury, eg down to their 7th-choice lock ? McCaw starting back from injury – in a Test ! DC out for all but 1 Test….
when the Boks won 3-0 ?
Tell me, Gunther, we had the Boks “incredible depth” rammed down our throats late-’09 to June’10. If this was the case, then why would injuries to Brussow and FdP cause 3-0 to 0-3 in 1 easy step ?
BS, thats what.
If McCaw and/or DC dont make it to the RWC, NZ will still have a very strong chance to lift Bill. In many ways, possibly even a stronger chance given that when the ABs backs are to the wall, in NZ, they are nigh on unstoppable.
The ABs comfortably won a Series on SA against the World Champions. They did so without A.Mehrtens but, instead, via the play of Simon Culhane & Jon Preston, neither of whom had any part to play for the ABs again. They were average talents in the Donald Duck mould. And they won.
You start making excuses this far out – undoubtedly SA true World Cup status – then youre doomed to failure.
15 Dec 2010, 16:04 pm
@pierre : I’m trying to follow you on this us vs the aliens concept. I’m trying. But I’m having trouble picturing the alien team. So far (and I only have the Butana Komphela definition to work with) I have Mtwarira and possibly Mujati for the aliens. Help me here – who else?
15 Dec 2010, 16:10 pm
@Black Panther :
The full effect of Sevens as a Olympic sport is yet unkown, and it might turn out as you say, but I remain unconvinced.
Specifically given the snubs as recent as a week ago by the home unions against the Island teams.
In my view, Sevens has done more to bring nations together than the 15 man code and a lot of that has to do with the structure of their competition (hence my point we are missing a trick).
In 15 man union, the 4 home unions, France and the 3 SANZAR unions, will close ranks as soon as their dominance and stance is threatened within the 15 man code, as was shown a week ago.
I do not see this change very soon.
Sevens is seen as the ugly sister of rugby, but like I said, it might very well take over as the dominant code in union and that will be a very sad day indeed.
15 Dec 2010, 16:18 pm
@PissAnt :
I share your concerns over the ‘threat’ of 7s.
However, lets be careful how much we become suckers for ‘new fads’ in any sport. When the IPL started, the auction process etc, everyone predicted the almost-immediate loss of the ODI format. We were razzled by the dazzle, it was easy to.
But the sheen is slowly wearing off and even the crowds in India have not grown, but shrunk a little. I cant tell you who won what, other than Warnie won the 1st one.
Well, the more I see of T20 cricket, the more I like ODIs.
7s vs 15s ?
15 Dec 2010, 16:20 pm
Blackpants
You see this is what I mean.
I said to your Latvian cousin that we had a reasonable chance of winning with full-strength team.
Where is the excuse in that?
Did I say we would win?
I don’t know who rammed what down your throat but I never said we had such amazing depth, surely by admitting that some key injuries will affect our chances I am doing the exact opposite?
And please don’t tell me that losing Suarez and Dan the man won’t affect your chances of winning.
That’s just embarrassing
Backs to the wall indeed.
What a larf.
15 Dec 2010, 16:28 pm
@gunther : @ 295
1996 – Culhane & Preston.
There were no excuses to be made then, the Abs ignored Mehrtens untimely injury. And won. No excuses.
Just like there were none from Kiwis in 2009.
But youre full of em.
Oh well, it makes a welcome change from ‘travel-disadvantage’ I suppose. Apparently the tape measure is longer in 1 direction than it is in the other.
What a larf.
15 Dec 2010, 16:29 pm
@GavinH : “Imaginary term”? Dude, are you semi-literate?
I would vote for SA because we tend to win the big ones. Two world cups out of four starts – the highest winning rate by far. (Australia are next with two out of six, i.e. a 33.3% win rate against SA’s 50%).
The All Blacks, with one out of six, are not a good bet.
@>^..^< katman : Corne Krige, Matt Stevens, Michael Catt, Nathan Hines, Dan Vickerman, and many more
15 Dec 2010, 16:37 pm
See pants this is just what I mean.
Any conversation with you turns into trench warfare. It’s about as stimulating as well.
All I said is we would have a better chance with those two back.
Who said anything about excuses????
Now shove THAT up your hairy inbox
15 Dec 2010, 16:44 pm
Gunther
maybe it’s just me then, but every time you mention “IF” it conjures up all sorts of lame excuses in future.
trench warfare ? And to think I’m sometimes accused of the over-dramatic…me thinks you might be suffering from post-shock syndrome, common in many 0-3 drubbings I believe.
15 Dec 2010, 16:55 pm
Aliens should come in very specific time slot to play.
A month of October every 8 years. Please, DO NOT come any other year and any other month.
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.