|
|
Post by England 3 Lions on Jan 28, 2009 22:55:45 GMT 10
Interesting information about PNG. I suppose the only way a match could be held successfully in PNG is if the Queensland Government and/or Australian Federal Government organises everything. That is a whole nother issue... why should those govts spend already tight money on a country and organisation that they probably wont get anything out? Good will and all that is one things... but at the moment everyone is looking to preserve or make money to survive. I suppose they might consider doing it if they are the main beneficiaries of whatever profit is drawn from the matches. |
|
|
|
Post by lvnknights on Feb 7, 2009 6:27:41 GMT 10
I hope that if England aren't successful in their bid to host the cup,NZ and OZY co host it..Some good points put forward..I think that they should try to figure out the most feasible option..England is an expensive place to visit....i don't think you'll see armies of kiwis and ozys travelling up there for it like the balmy army follow england down under..I believe that after the 2008wc success..the next one will potentially be even better regardless of whether it's in England or OZ..I just hope it's down under so that i may have a chance of attending it next time round..Selfish...but true.. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by lvnknights on Feb 7, 2009 6:34:35 GMT 10
That is a whole nother issue... why should those govts spend already tight money on a country and organisation that they probably wont get anything out? Good will and all that is one things... but at the moment everyone is looking to preserve or make money to survive. I suppose they might consider doing it if they are the main beneficiaries of whatever profit is drawn from the matches. PNG isn't good option simply because of the dangers there..I mean spear throwing and shite like that is not good viewing for any of us..I would like to see internationals played there..but only in a safe and secure venue with plenty of security and police monitoring the crowds. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by England 3 Lions on Feb 12, 2009 0:34:40 GMT 10
I suppose they might consider doing it if they are the main beneficiaries of whatever profit is drawn from the matches. PNG isn't good option simply because of the dangers there..I mean spear throwing and shite like that is not good viewing for any of us..I would like to see internationals played there..but only in a safe and secure venue with plenty of security and police monitoring the crowds. ;D I suppose the proposed national stadium to be built in Port Moresby should have protective glass separating the players from the fans.  |
|
|
|
Post by Druzik on Feb 12, 2009 2:22:34 GMT 10
PNG isn't good option simply because of the dangers there..I mean spear throwing and shite like that is not good viewing for any of us..I would like to see internationals played there..but only in a safe and secure venue with plenty of security and police monitoring the crowds. ;D I suppose the proposed national stadium to be built in Port Moresby should have protective glass separating the players from the fans. A proper national stadium compared to the tim shed taht there now would be fantastic... but it has to be said that when games are held it needs to be affordable to the generalpublic. I know that Adriam wants to take Kumul games to other cities to spread the game even more. |
|
jim
Marquee Player
Posts: 1,150
|
Post by jim on Mar 1, 2009 19:20:09 GMT 10
I have been thinking about a possible format for the 2013 WC. Seeing as it looks likely to be 12 teams I was thinking this may be worth a go.
Pool A - 3 Progress
England
Australia
5,6 or 7
8,9 or 10
Pool B - 2 Progress
France
5,6 or 7
8,9 or 10
11 or 12
Pool C - 2 Progress
New Zealand
5,6 or 7
8,9 or 10
11 or 12
Super 6
A2 V B2
B1 V C2
C1 V A3
Semi's
A1 V Winner S6 2
Winner S6 1 V Winner S6 3
Then of course the final and perhaps a 3rd place playoff.
OK so work out a way to qualify teams so that they have seeds. Maybe work it so the top qualifyer from the pacific and europe get in the 5-7 bracket and 2nd in each play for the other spot.
I like this as it sort of keeps the Super Pool but it's not a blatant and gives some lower ranked teams a shot at the big guns and finals. Australia, England, New Zealand and France should be exempt from the draw and placed as such because NZ and France in Pool B&C means there is a strong team in each of the "weaker" pools and having Australia and England in the super pool means we can capitalise on the biggest rivalry in IRL.
Thoughts?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Druzik on Mar 1, 2009 19:37:48 GMT 10
Yeah that could work.
I still think that the top 8 teams should get a qualification through regional championshpis and a 6 nations.
The super 6 I would still call quarter finals... super 6 implies that the top 6 nations are involved, but in the end you dont have team 1 which is not involved and so its not a true super 6.
But the concept there is a good one.
|
|
jim
Marquee Player
Posts: 1,150
|
Post by jim on Mar 1, 2009 19:57:21 GMT 10
Yeah that could work. I still think that the top 8 teams should get a qualification through regional championshpis and a 6 nations. The super 6 I would still call quarter finals... super 6 implies that the top 6 nations are involved, but in the end you dont have team 1 which is not involved and so its not a true super 6. But the concept there is a good one. All good points, I feel an open draw is needed for all teams bar the top four, gives a bit more excitment to qualifyers. However the qualifyers are done there needs to be rankings and a draw based on those rankings similar to RU. |
|
|
|
Post by Druzik on Mar 1, 2009 20:08:01 GMT 10
The other issue is also how long and how many games would be played. So if we go with your idea
weekend 1: 6 games
weekend 2: 6 games
weekend 3: 6 games
weekend 4: Quarters - 3 games
weekend 5: Semis - 2 games
weekend 6: Final - 1 game
So total 24 games over 6 weekends, so 5 weeks, similar to what we had last world cup. I wouldnt bother with the placing games. There is no real point to them.
If its a 4 pools of 3 teams concept:
weekend 1: 4 games
weekend 2: 4 games
weekend 3: 4 games
weekend 4: Quarters - 4 games
weekend 5: Semis - 2 games
weekned 6: Final - 1 game
so again time wise its OK... no more than what we had this time round, but 19 games. We need to make sure that all teams have a week off, this was a big critisism of many of the pool B and C teams that a 3 day turn around in some cases was very hard for semi pro teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druzik on Mar 1, 2009 20:15:29 GMT 10
Yeah that could work. I still think that the top 8 teams should get a qualification through regional championshpis and a 6 nations. The super 6 I would still call quarter finals... super 6 implies that the top 6 nations are involved, but in the end you dont have team 1 which is not involved and so its not a true super 6. But the concept there is a good one. All good points, I feel an open draw is needed for all teams bar the top four, gives a bit more excitment to qualifyers. However the qualifyers are done there needs to be rankings and a draw based on those rankings similar to RU. Yes but here is the point jim... how do you determine the top 4? Why should it be just because of peoples or countries power leverage... teams should get in on merrit... what oif Aus finally one day get beat by all? Should they get special treatment? Some would have argued that France should not be there. If you have ALL teams compete in a regional championships and qualify through a series of tournaments then you at least have a way of comapring teams. So the regional winners and qualifiers in say a 6N the top 4 then form your 4 weighted teams and the 5,6 and the finalists of a second tier 4N go through as well... then have regular WC qualifers for the last 4 spots. I would weight it as a 2 spots to Europe, 1 to pacific and 1 to a repechage. You then have a good base of teams... ones that have got there purely on merrit but have also shown through their success what their ranking should be. |
|
jim
Marquee Player
Posts: 1,150
|
Post by jim on Mar 1, 2009 21:49:36 GMT 10
All good points, I feel an open draw is needed for all teams bar the top four, gives a bit more excitment to qualifyers. However the qualifyers are done there needs to be rankings and a draw based on those rankings similar to RU. Yes but here is the point jim... how do you determine the top 4? Why should it be just because of peoples or countries power leverage... teams should get in on merrit... what oif Aus finally one day get beat by all? Should they get special treatment? Some would have argued that France should not be there. If you have ALL teams compete in a regional championships and qualify through a series of tournaments then you at least have a way of comapring teams. So the regional winners and qualifiers in say a 6N the top 4 then form your 4 weighted teams and the 5,6 and the finalists of a second tier 4N go through as well... then have regular WC qualifers for the last 4 spots. I would weight it as a 2 spots to Europe, 1 to pacific and 1 to a repechage. You then have a good base of teams... ones that have got there purely on merrit but have also shown through their success what their ranking should be. Well in an ideal i would like our International Schedule to look like that too one day. However I don't think we will in the next few years, certainly not before the 2013 WC. How's this, all teams from the 2010 and 2011 4N get auto-qualification and are seeded by their standing in those tournaments. The European Qualifyer and the PI qualifyer won't play in the same tournament so best way I can think is to have those two play each other to determine their seeding. The other 8 spots I would all leave open to qualification. OK I'll think this up on the spot and tinker with it later but here is what I'd go with for WCQ. As said all participants in the 10 and 11 4N are in. Four Groups - Pacifc, Europe, Atlantic and Repecharge. Euroupe - 3 Qualifyers First gauge the amount of teams wanting to participate in Qualifiers, at a guess I'd say around 10 from europe. I would do this in the same way it mwas done last time with two tiers. Tier 2 - Teams ranked 5-10 play off in 2 pools of 3 for 2 spots in the main qualifiers. Tier 1 - Teams ranked 1-4 join the 2 tier 2 qualifiers in the same format as above. Finalists qualify as does the winner of a 3rd place game. 4th Place advances to Repecharge. Pacific - 2 Qualifyers Same as above, although only one tier will most likely be needed here. With one team already in through the 4N that would mean only really 4 candidates with a real hope of making the WC. Finalists in, 3rd place in repecharge. Atlantic - 2 Qualifiers to repecharge OK so your teams from the america's, asia and africa will compete in this. I would have a 3 week series with the 4 teams involved and the two teams ranked 1 and 2 on points go through, no real need for a final IMO. With the seedings I would go for this: 1-5 - Based on 4N results. AUS, ENG, and FRA are given auto spots for crowd purposes only NZ and the PI qualifyer are prone to where the are ranked, whichever is ranked in the top 4 gets a spot in Pool C whilst the other is thrown into the draw. 5-7 - Lowest ranked out of NZ and PI 4N team, E1 and P1 8-10 - E2, E3 and P2 11-12 - 2 Repecharge Qualifiers. |
|
|
|
Post by Druzik on Mar 2, 2009 4:29:31 GMT 10
I guess that is one way to do it... bit complicated... but things always are in RL.
Good to see you thinking about this Jim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi fan on Mar 2, 2009 14:02:14 GMT 10
I think the Semi finalists at the last world cup should get automatic qualification. I don't like the idea of the best teams in the world playing the Netherlands or whatever which would just be a forgone conclusion. I think the same format used in 2008 should be kept but just add a team onto pools B and C. Also, make it that 2nd and 3rd of the super pool has to play the winners of the other two pools before the semi finals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druzik on Mar 2, 2009 16:52:29 GMT 10
Why? Why should we worry about blow out scores when no other sport does... they give teams equal opportunities to compete with the best in teh world.
I think RL needs to finally stop playing the vicitm and take the initialtive. Last night and this morning was friggin painful to watch that there was zero coverage of the WCC on any of the news channels... they gave a 5 min speal about some bloke that catches marlins to surf ... but nothing on one of the more important RL matches of the year.
So frustrating.
|
|
|
|
Post by segnz on Mar 2, 2009 21:05:08 GMT 10
Why? Why should we worry about blow out scores when no other sport does... they give teams equal opportunities to compete with the best in teh world. I think RL needs to finally stop playing the vicitm and take the initialtive. Last night and this morning was friggin painful to watch that there was zero coverage of the WCC on any of the news channels... they gave a 5 min speal about some bloke that catches marlins to surf ... but nothing on one of the more important RL matches of the year. So frustrating. We had live coverage thankfully delayed by the extra time in the FA Cup Final which meant I had less painful English Commentary to listen to ... Get someone decent commentating FFS ... Anyway, result made news here in NZed ... Maybe we should build more in the countries who care about RL first  |
|
