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 12 … 13 » Show All
15 Dec 2010, 16:59 pm
Gunther
I will, however, take this opportunity to say
Thank You
Given that now discussing excuses-for-success in a RWC context on a rugby blog is now – in your opinion – akin to “trench warfare”, then it does shed some light on your synopsis that I am here contesting my and, by extension, New Zealands “moral superiority”.
Wow.
I understand now.
Really, I do.
15 Dec 2010, 17:02 pm
Blackpants
It is just you.
Now stop humping my leg.
15 Dec 2010, 17:07 pm
That’s not me, Gunther.
That’s called “kicking the habit”, another common withdrawal symptom from extended addiction.
15 Dec 2010, 17:49 pm
I love the Rugby World Cup, a whole bunch of teams get together, play some rugby against a variety of teams, no slacking of because of the knock out stages then i believe you have you win 7 games in a row to win the trophy.
This is the ultimate pressure test because it only comes around every 4 years.
GO BOKKIESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
15 Dec 2010, 17:57 pm
Pierre
so the only crunch games SA has had in the years since isolation is equal to two? 95 and 07 finals
every other game in-between means nothing and this is your reasoning why the world wouldn’t choose a team who win 4 of every 5 games played? you’d rather choose SA who had a winning percentage this year alone at approx. 50 percent? because they’ve shown BMT twice in 20 years
bwahahahahaha.
bwahahahahah
bwahahahahahahaha thanks man, you’re farkin hilarious. !!
15 Dec 2010, 18:13 pm
@poppa69 :
Earth should select Fiji instead.
They beat the 1977 British Lions.
15 Dec 2010, 18:14 pm
BP.
I’d choose Scotland myself.
15 Dec 2010, 18:15 pm
@poppa69 :
Leichenstein
they hold the Earth Record.
15 Dec 2010, 18:24 pm
SA forwards and Lichtensteins backs
what a team.
the aliens wouldn’t stand a chance, probably hindered by intergalactic quotas though.
I just wonder would PDV be coaching the world team or the aliens?
would they also be called the “universal prawns”.
15 Dec 2010, 18:39 pm
Only a complete moron, a dimwit of Malemaesque proportions, would suggest that beating the mighty Fiji, Argentina and England somehow negates losing 13 of the last 22 HOME games against NZ, losing 18 out of the last 21 away games against NZ, and recording a whopping 3 out of 15 Tri-Nations titles. Sadly, there seems to be no shortage of these imbeciles in this country.
15 Dec 2010, 18:52 pm
@pierre : “Rugby Virtuosity” as you use it to mean ‘an ability to win matches that happen to be played in a rugby world cup’ is an imaginary arbitrary term made up by you.
Unless you just meant rugby virtuosity, which a dictionary would define as great technical skill at rugby, but then you would be arguing something completely different ie that the All Blacks do not have technical skill at rugby but the Boks do? So you either made up an ‘imaginary term’ or alternatively you are semi illiterate and don’t know what virtuosity means.
Actually the current bok team hasn’t won any world cups they haven’t played in one.
15 Dec 2010, 19:32 pm
What is flawed is not the RWC format, which is great (albeit the overall standards, not yet), but the matches in between.
Less Grand Slams every year, thanks ever so much; and more S3-Test eries with midweek games, please very much.
Perhaps 1 x Grand Slam tour , between RWCs, by each of the TriN countries.
And a 3 Test tour – with traditional (not artificially selected) opponents midweek – vs England and France. A shame the TriN negates similar Series between those Nations.
Dreams are free but….if we could sync the seasons to then add:-
S15 Champ vs Heineken Cup Champ
4N Champ vs 6N Champ
Then, surely, each Series & 4N/6N title would mean that bit more, instead of the likes of Big Hit and his apprentice, Gunther, wouldnt be pushing the “but if” button in betweens RWCs.
15 Dec 2010, 19:39 pm
Relax blackpants when did I press a but if button?
You are being rather silly.
Can you see england relinquishing their autumn international schedule?
The amount of money involved there is obscene.
15 Dec 2010, 19:59 pm
@gunther :
You seem to be struggling with the concept of this “ignore” me threat of yours.
BH2, I know there is never a good time to storm the barricades but us infantrymen in the trenches are going a little stir crazy what with all these confused instructions coming from the officers. So when you say you dont press the But If button, what, then, did you mean by this:-
267. GUNTHER :
December 15th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
“The boks…can always suprise if we have a full strength team.”.
15 Dec 2010, 20:00 pm
Ifs and Buts and candied nuts…..
15 Dec 2010, 20:02 pm
Ok chap.
Carry on.
15 Dec 2010, 20:13 pm
end of the day, i predict a riot following the slapping the ABs recieve at the hands of the Bokke next year. There will be tears not seen since the 95 final, exotic excuses never heard of before and some you could never even dream of.
15 Dec 2010, 20:42 pm
Why change something if it ain’t broke. The WC format as it stands right now is fine. The smaller countries are busting their asses off to qualify and make it to the big time.
As I said earlier today, the AB’s have the momentum going into the WC. But that happens every 4 years.
If the Boks want to improve their chances of retaining Bill, they have to up their success rate to 80% plus. Not just next year, but every year.
And then winning tournies like the 3N’s becomes more regular. And winning things such as WC’s aren’t a surprise. Or regarded as a lucky packet bonus.
The knock-out phase of the WC is what creates its special appeal. The edge of your seat stuff.
And often it is the semi’s that create the greatest interest.
Sunday 16th October 2011 could be another interesting day in our lives.
15 Dec 2010, 20:42 pm
@cab :
And not a Kiwi to be seen on this blog for months .. bliss!
Crikey Blackpanties, ever heard of the term broken record? No wonder you spend so much time on here, I’m sure your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend encourages you just for a little peace from that constant whining
15 Dec 2010, 20:49 pm
so.
if the ab’s should be accomodated with a gimme for being consistent for the last decade, how about the boks for being consistent for 100 years?
yes ladies and gentlemen, thats how long the boks led the rest of the world in win/loss ratios and to this day we only lag the ab’s.
so why is it such a big thing if the boks and the ab’s win the wc?
15 Dec 2010, 20:54 pm
Without cherry picking from the islands, the All Blacks would be a very average team, so maybe there is a god.
15 Dec 2010, 20:55 pm
And there is nothing wrong with the WC, a great tournament to look forward to every 4 years. Every game counts in between though, and the sooner Divvy & co get that into their heads the better.
Funny how the Kiwi’s found the last WC boring after the quarters. No sh*t, never as exciting when your team is home already with their arses firmly planted on the sofa watching the rest slog it out for the cup.
And as for the easy run the Boks had to the final in 2007, so what. We beat the best in front of us, something the AB’s and Oz couldn’t do. In fact the Argies (who SA beat) snotted the French twice IN France yet the AB’s couldn’t do it on neutral ground. Cry me a river, if you want to see an easy path to the cup look at the 1987 tournament, what a laugh!
For those who don’t know, NZ beat Scotland, Wales and then a French team who were out on their feet after an epic semi. Never mind the fact SA were not even there. Don’t hear them talking down their achievments though do you, what a larf..
15 Dec 2010, 20:56 pm
and not the ab’s.
there can be only one.
15 Dec 2010, 21:14 pm
@Rugby-1 : You beat the “best in front of you” but you didn’t beat “the best” — NZ. Not even once in two 3N home-and-away encounters that same year.
The 1987 ABs, world cup champions, also beat “the best in front of them” to take the title, remember?
SA fluked the biggest lucky break in RWC history by avoiding BOTH teams who, collectively, had consigned them to wooden-spooners in that year’s 3N. Third out of three. Stone last.
15 Dec 2010, 21:19 pm
Not only is the WC format flawed but rugby as a code of sport in a traumatised society is also grossly flawed when the expressed views of, at least 95% non-Black comments are dissected and examined.
15 Dec 2010, 21:23 pm
keo you can change the format anyway you like, nothing will change the fact that rugby is not a true world sport.
Fact is that if there was any consistency in the application of the laws by Mr O’Brian and his esteemed colleagues the All Blacks would not be all that “All Conquering”. To back up my statement one just has to look at the punishment that AB’s get compared to their rest. Lets rather not even look at what kids gloves the AB’s get handled with during matches.
I am getting more & more convinced that the AB’s are given slack to consistently win. This pushes up the TV ratings and in turn fills the IRB faults. Every 4 years the AB’s are treated as equals and they become very ordinary.
15 Dec 2010, 21:24 pm
If New Zealand had made it past the Frogs in the quarter finals you would have ended up playing the Poms and more than likey lost there anyway….and thats the Boks fault. Epic fail.
15 Dec 2010, 21:25 pm
@TheTackler :
The AB’s didn’t pitch for the 2007 WC.
Plain and simple.
Can’t avoid that fact.
You can’t deny it either.
The Boks beat what was in front of them.
Plain and simple.
Can’t avoid that fact.
You can’t deny it either.
I’m struggling to find New Zealand on the William Webb Ellis trophy.
It has a 7 at the end but not 2007.
15 Dec 2010, 21:25 pm
Hi guys, for my collage investigation I am comparing the development of Welsh rugby with that of South African rugby, I need some feedback on a few questions would be very helpful for some good answers…
1) Do you think South Africa has used its rugby player & coaching resources to its full availability?
2) Ar the South African schools standards higher than ever before?
3)Is there more need for black representation in SA rugby although South Africa has won the RWC twice with only 3 black players in the starting 15′s out of both finals?
4)Is there too much emphasis on transformation in South African rugby and not enough players being picked on talent?
5) Are there enough systems and platforms in place to ensure continuous high standards of development for South African rugby?
15 Dec 2010, 21:30 pm
IOL HEADLINE NEWS.
‘Scars of apartheid remain’
” Studies show that despite attempts to heal scars left by apartheid, low levels of trust, inequality and social injustices between South Africans remain a reality, the South African Human Rights Commission said on Wednesday.
“Studies suggest that despite the support of a progressive constitution and various laudable attempts to heal the deep scars left by apartheid, low levels of trust amongst South Africans of all various races continue to be our reality… ,” said HRC spokesman Vincent Moaga.
“This to a large extent is as a result of deepening levels of inequality and social injustices that continue to prevail.”
CLOSE QUOTE
I have been exactly saying this from the first day I commented here and since 95% of posters were negatively affected they do not like the message nor , in particular, the messenger.
Little do they realise I am not here to compete in popularity stakes. I say it as I analyse and see it, for my science dictates that and worse still I am mostly correct especially with calling, even, the results where emotion is not allowed to affected the analysis.
15 Dec 2010, 21:31 pm
Besides the Boks, the only other team to score more than 30 points in a game in the 2007 RWC was Argentina.
The Boks scored 30+ points in two games..and one of those teams we thumped, thumped the team that coincidentally whooped New Zealand’s sorry arse in the quarters…and they say we were lucky to avoid the Kiwis. Epic fail.
15 Dec 2010, 21:32 pm
Posts @ 321
the last AB team to start a Test had 2 non-NZ born players, both of whom completed their entire education in NZ. SA had 1, if not more, with Beast still regarded as an illegal immigrant until a few months ago.
Your theory, much like the common RWC stats quoted regularly here, leans heavily on a difference of only 1
15 Dec 2010, 21:33 pm
@TheTackler : I can understand your frustration, but I do not think that any team in the world will ever have the mental toughness of an Springbok side. The AB’s are to soft, your society does not have the trauma that ordinary SA folk has to go through.
Your beloved All Blacks get the right to cherry pick the best of the Polynesian players, you can choose your best players and your politicians would not dare go against the AB’s.
Just say thank you that South Africa is not allowed to compete against you guys where the playing fields are level.
Even with the worst coach the world has ever seen the Spring Boks still manage to steel wins over you & Australia. Just imagine what the Springboks could be!
15 Dec 2010, 21:36 pm
Predawn at 327
the ABs have never lost to Engl at a RWC: Played 3 Won 3
the Boks have never – ever – lost to Fiji
OR
Argentina
*phew*
15 Dec 2010, 21:38 pm
England woulda thumped you at the time if France could.
Lets see what 2011 brings. Your boys have a good chance going on present form.
15 Dec 2010, 21:40 pm
@Rhys7 :
@329
My genuine answers are as follows:
1. No. The professional component, in particular, is seen by the controllers(from away back when) as being an industry where ‘dom’ non-blacks can earn can loads of money needing little grey matter and they will do their utmost to maintain that control especially in ALL of the old Transvaal & OFS where they dominate all structures and controls.
2. No. They have possibly gone backwards and this is deliberately so.
3 – 5 answers will follow later, honestly.
15 Dec 2010, 21:41 pm
@E.T. : cry me a river! You and only you are responsible on how you feel! Get up from your computer chair and be productive. Teach your siblings how to read & write. Teach them to think for themselves. Teach them that all animals are equal, some is just more equal than others.
You are the master of your own destiny! The blame game will only get you that far, white folk is starting to understand this. Your rhetoric is just plane boring and is self destructive.
Get that chip of your shoulder!
15 Dec 2010, 21:42 pm
Nartjie@ 333
your trauma-tised mental toughness didn’t get you very far at Soccer City, at home, at altitude, with 90,000 rabid McCaw haters screaming in tandem when Richie stretched his hand over the white line.
karma chameleons
15 Dec 2010, 21:45 pm
Tackler is simply and mostly a CONFOUNDED LIAR, getting cheap highs from distorting even positives, out of sheer frustration, borne from a burning desire to actually still want to be in S.A. but being too s hit scared to do so.
15 Dec 2010, 21:45 pm
PreDawn
wouldA ?!
the Old Streetonians Heavies XV woulda won the RWC’07 if they’d had to beat Fiji and Argiesto get there.
15 Dec 2010, 21:47 pm
@Nartjie :
Cry to IOL front page breaking news, deluded one.
Open your peepers so that you can really see and stop peeping.
Now I have things to do.
15 Dec 2010, 21:49 pm
@Black Panther :
Stope being childish. France beat you and so woulda England. You just weren’t good enough to beat France who were beaten by Argentina who were thumped by us. Epic fail.
15 Dec 2010, 21:52 pm
@Black Panther :
At the time, I thought Soccer City was a good idea.
Back to Ellis Park we go.
The AB’s have fond memories of that fine establishment.
15 Dec 2010, 21:57 pm
Stormer
fair play, I, and by extension, we regard Ellis Park as rugbys Everest.
15 Dec 2010, 21:59 pm
PreDawn
let me get this right
so the guy who is relying on
“woulda”
is calling me
anyone
“childish” ?
Ssssssssssure buddy, sure it is.
15 Dec 2010, 22:15 pm
@Black Panther : @Great White Shark :
Play nicely now.
I’m out for this year. Flying to Cape Town tomorrow for two and a half weeks.
Happy Christmas and New Year to all.
Take care.
Travel safely.
See you in early Jan for a bit of analysis and a laugh or two.
15 Dec 2010, 22:17 pm
@Black Panther : 153 you are paranoid…
15 Dec 2010, 22:35 pm
@Great White Shark : nz lose to the poms? i’m sorry ive forgotten what that means could someone from sth africa remind me…..
15 Dec 2010, 22:37 pm
@GavinH : it means your lads couldnt win the trophy.
ours could.
capiche?
or must i put it in a 3000 page dossier
15 Dec 2010, 22:37 pm
@E.T. : some great support for the ABs amongst black south africans though. NZRU must sell quite a few jerseys and flags in sth africa. good for the coffers.
Pages: « 1 … 2 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.