News24

What is the point of the RWC?

2011-10-18 07:05

Dear Editor,

No matter who won what, South Africa could never play New Zealand in the RWC Final 2011.

Now we have a French team in the final. A team in my view that would be beaten 9 times out of 10 anywhere in the world by New Zealand, Australia or South Africa.

What is the point? At least they have no chance to beat the ABs in the final. Imagine this French team being crowned World Champions.

The Rugby World Cup competition is broken. The only way to ensure that the best teams have a chance to compete at the top is to use a Currie Cup or old Super 14 Rugby system, where every team plays the other teams. France plays SA, NZ, AUS, England, Wales, Ireland etc. Whoever is in the top 8.

The second tier nations also play a shorter competition on its own and the top two qualify to compete in the first tier nation’s competition.

We then use the four years between World Cups to setup ratings and bonus points for the RWC. Meaning, at the end of each year if you are the number one team in the World you get two points for example, which you can start within the competition. The runner up gets one.

So if you are the best team in the world for three years you can start with 6 points this will force all the countries to make sure that their best teams are chosen for every test match. Not this mediocre four-year mentality all aimed at success at the RWC.

Heinrich

Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.

Comments
  • hnievd - 2011-10-18 07:19

    My point exactly

      Christo - 2011-10-18 07:34

      a World cup is not a world cup if the AllBlacks didn't play the Boks. We didn't play them in this or the previous World cup. Yes we won the 2007 cup but it is bitter sweet because we didn't play the best. they will feel like this because they didn't play us this year. I really like your suggestion but I think the "Hardegat IRB", will never consider changing anything.

      BA - 2011-10-18 12:58

      I think you have a point, but it would be a better competition by simply following the same format as the European Cup of Nations in soccer/football. There is still a 1 season competition and there are still knockout games, but it is a much fairer competition with less chance of bought referees, etc.

  • Schalk - 2011-10-18 07:19

    I will second that

      sean.redmond3 - 2011-10-18 12:00

      I will third that.

  • Keith - 2011-10-18 07:25

    Yes this makes sence. I was also wondering how Wales, who the Boks beat, end up with a Semi Final game whereas we get knocked out in a Quater Final. It would be nice to see all the top teams play against each other.

  • gkleingeld - 2011-10-18 07:31

    I agree the compition is broken, not by the format, but rather the bad officiating at the matches, two big games were thrown by the bad ref's namely, Rolan and Bryce Lawrence. The final should have had Wales and the AB's/ Boks.

  • Robin - 2011-10-18 07:33

    Nonsense. If thats your thinking then lets let every golfer "Have another go" to get their hole-in-one, or let every F1 race be run a couple of times to find the best winner by averages, or let a cricketer bat because the ball that got him out was too good. The point of sport is to win the contest that you are in.

  • Carl - 2011-10-18 07:34

    you write well for a drunk person

  • Henri - 2011-10-18 07:37

    Not a bad but idea, but leave the extra points. sub divisions and top teams should not play against each other. Let the good ones fight it out, and the less fortunate ones fight amongst each other, agreed !!!!

  • Brian - 2011-10-18 08:09

    I wholeheartedly agree with your article in it's entirety.

  • Gungets - 2011-10-18 08:37

    My only complaint is that it isolates the smalled nations who otherwise do not get a shot at playing the best sides. They do not care that they might take a bit of a clubbing, it is a lifetime experience for them. Add to this by noting that many players from smalled countries get "noticed" during the world cup and get to play professionally in leagues in Europe. I think you might be throwing the baby out because a few refs did a dump in the water. If you are goin to fix something, first fix the laws, the impossible to ref laws like the ruck/maul laws, and then coach the refs properly on the simplified laws. Coach line judges on making calls on infield issues like forward passed. And use technology in a wider sense. Allow reviews on in-field play, with the 4th official allowed to make calls on foul play. Put Bryce Lawrence on a diet and an exercise program so he can keep up.

  • jacques.steffen - 2011-10-18 08:43

    "So if you are the best team in the world for three years you can start with 6 points this will force all the countries to make sure that their best teams are chosen for every test match. Not this mediocre four-year mentality all aimed at success at the RWC." Heinrich, those are your words, meaning that the AB's should have started their RWC campaign with a 6 point advantage because they have been nr1 for three years now? Also, are you trying to tell me that PDV did not choose his best team for the 2011 RWC?

  • Marcus - 2011-10-18 08:59

    I maintain that the draw is wrong. Team number 1 in the world on one side of the draw, team number 2 on the other, then 3, then 4 on the other - and so we go on! In such a way, you will not get a weaker team coming through to the final. If they make it through, then they would have had to beat a top team! The result is a poor quality, and one sided final! This is an IRB brainchild so ensure a Northern Hemisphere Team makes a Final!

      Peter - 2011-10-18 09:13

      Oh rubbish!!! If Australia had not lost to Ireland they would have had the opportunity of going to the final as the number 2 ranked team n the world. Think before you utter such nonsense!!!

      Evan - 2011-10-18 09:26

      Think there is sense to your comment, in the end this world cup had all the strong teams in one group of quarter finals and the weaker teams in the other. Consider the paths both France and Wales have taken? I still think that the author of the article has a point. Leading up to any world cup there should be a point system in place that ranks the teams. With the ranks in place the top 8 teams go through into a round-robin type playoff, with the final being the best of three games. It all might be rather complicated but at least in the end you don't have a premature final like we did between NZ and Aus. In many ways this WC has not exposed rugby as much as it has the referees, I think they must bring in as much gadgetry as possible and a panel of external refs who can over rule bad decisions.

  • Derek - 2011-10-18 10:30

    I'm not sure if this wouldn't be too unwieldly. Basically the Aussie loss to Ireland upset the apple cart. However tennis type seedings for one to play 4 and 2 to play 3 in the semis should work provided the 4 top seeds win their games. I must admit I am also sick of the medioctity especially from SA between WC's and this never ending planning for the world cup. Play your best available every test and rather rest players during S15 and Currie Cup!

  • jean.s.devilliers - 2011-10-18 10:39

    I agree,this world cup and the way that the whole system is structured is a farce.Its not a true reflection of who the best team is.

  • margaret.mead1 - 2011-10-18 11:24

    I like this idea a LOT. Will it ever happen? I think a post-mortem of this RWC should give cause for serious consideration of this idea.

  • gideon.redelinghuys - 2011-10-18 11:36

    Your first statement is incorrect. There were many combinations of winning-losing that would have lead to a South African vs NZ final. One of the simplest ways this could have happened is if Wales scored two more points in the South Africa vs Wales game. Which would have lead to Wales winning the game and (continuing with the trend the world cup went) Wales would have been number 1 in their group. From their it would have been expected that South Africa would have played their quarter and semi game against a northern hemisphere game and ended up in the final with NZ. For the rest of the letter, it tends to be sport with a good amount of randomness or luck that are the most popular. For example, Powerlifting is a boring spectating sport because a spectator could simply look at a powerlifter's training results before the competition to gave a 99% prediction of who will end up where. Compare that with a sport like soccer where one goal is the difference between winning and losing, leading to a poor team to try and defend as well as possible and get luck with a goal.

  • Jesse - 2011-10-18 11:59

    The format is not broken. If you are the best in the world then you should be good enough to win the cup no matter what teams you play. It is not a leauge format but a knockout. The point of a World Cup is not to see the best two teams compete in the final? If it was, why do we bother? Why not hand the top two teams a final every four years while the other teams can rest? Your argument is senseless.

  • Zion - 2011-10-18 14:08

    If a round robin method was used to accommodate 20 teams then a total of 190 games will be played. If the play-offs are now added it would mean 7 extra games. ie a total of 197. If two divisions were used the better teams having 8 teams in the top division and 12 teams in the lower division then the top division would be playing a total of only 28 games without the semi final and final added( there will be no Quarter final) The lower division will play a total of 66 games excluding the quarter, semi, and final. (7) A team in the lower division will play only 11 games while a team in the top division will play only 7 games. In both cases the play-offs are not included. If a round robin was used for the current twenty teams every team would play every other team which adds to 19 games per team. By the end of the tournament 80% of all the players will be injured.

  • Zion - 2011-10-18 14:09

    If a round robin method was used to accommodate 20 teams then a total of 190 games will be played. If the play-offs are now added it would mean 7 extra games. ie a total of 197. If two divisions were used the better teams having 8 teams in the top division and 12 teams in the lower division then the top division would be playing a total of only 28 games without the semi final and final added( there will be no Quarter final) The lower division will play a total of 66 games excluding the quarter, semi, and final. (7) A team in the lower division will play only 11 games while a team in the top division will play only 7 games. In both cases the play-offs are not included. If a round robin was used for the current twenty teams every team would play every other team which adds to 19 games per team. By the end of the tournament 80% of all the players will be injured.

  • Warren - 2011-10-19 01:00

    The ppol system is poitnless in my view for a RWC; when have France, England, AB's, Australia and the Boks ever failed to make the last 8? hence the rality is that the whole pool system is designed to qualify only 3 teams as 5 others are always going to make it through. I believe they should move to a sevens format whereby there is a Cup division and a Plate divison. This will ensure two things, the top teams play better opposition and the minnows have something to play for. Watch the quality of the rugby improve when you play strength against strength.

  • Tc - 2011-10-19 06:55

    As long as the All Blacks win! This is a GREAT occassion.

  • pages:
  • 1