With the World Cup just three years away - how should we host it? They are planning to bring it up to 14 teams, so how would you do it?

Australia and New Zealand should play a final.

The rest shouldn't waste their time and energy taking part.

That's a little mean, don't you think - what would the Cook Islands have to say to that?

Sadly you have got that spot on.

With a team of Australians v New Zealanders?

Or a team of Australians, Samoans, Tongans, Fijians and New Zealanders representing Australia v a team of New Zealanders, Australians, Samoans, Tongans and Cook Islanders representing New Zealand?

It's about time the RLIF were pro active and announce the format of the competition and likely venues.

Best format for me would be

16 teams
4 groups of 4

Top two qualify for quarters, then semis and a final

Bottom two in each group, play for the World plate which could be played at smaller grounds and would keep income coming into the smaller clubs

Keep it simple rather than the so-called super pool which made the game look amateurish.

Don't say it too loudly, the RFL specialise in this field. 1st placed team not being champions and no P&R is enough to prevent me trying to get converts to attend our games.

Model it on the 1995 world cup with big crowds played in the heartland

just like the 2009 4nations..........oh hang on..

Game 1> Australia v New Zealand
Game 2. winner plays PNG ( KO 20 minutes after the first game)
Game 3.winner plays Hybrid team of AFL Line backers and 25 league props fron the NRL that didn't make it to their national squad.....(this game starts 5 minutes after the one above finishes)
Games 4-5 -6----etc...etc...etc....

England v France in the final and.......France win


In 1 post I have raised the profile of International RL in the Northern Hem and.......shown how to beat the crim.

That's a bad case of the clap you have there

Not the first time.

There's going to be 14 teams. And it's going to be played in the UK. That's all we know. So anyone saying "I'd have a 16-team comp" or "we should have games in France, etc." aren't really contributing as these aren't possible formats with the information we know.

Apart from a possible opening game in London, the Final at Wembley, and maybe a NZ or Australia game in London to take advantage of the expat population, then I would have all the rest of the games in the North.

Group A: England + 2 others.
Group B: Australia + 2 others.
Group C: New Zealand + 3 others.
Group D: 4th Seed + 3 others.

3 group games. Group A and B have one cross-group game as the opening game (England vs Australia opening the tournament then). Opening game at Wembley on a Saturday afternoon, followed by a NZ game based in London (take advantage of all the RL fans down south).

Top two in quarters. On from there...

Think you've forgotten that the Kiwis have met the match against England or Great Britain on several occasions of the recent past, with England and Australia contesting the most recent Four Nations final, running them close for an hour.

If the post was, as I imagine posted in jest, then ignore this reply.

Not that I've got anything against the idea of the plate, but why is it the role of a World Cup to provide revenue for regional or lower league teams?

It's not but these games would be better in a smaller stadium and a better atmosphere would be generated. Could play plate games as curtain raisers to quarter finals also

I wonder if there`s anyway of incorporating a grand final element to a world cup.

Its a fairly unique format to league.

Perhaps an 11 team format that could lead could lead to a 7 team finals

Grp A 3 teams playing for a position in the finals
England
Aus
NZ

Then 2 groups b and c of 4

top 2 in each take up the remaining 4 places based on results

so the finals may look like

1 aus
2 grp b winner
3 grp c winner
4 Eng
5 grp b runner up
6 NZ
7 grp c runner up

Give 1st a game off and have quarters of 2v7 3v6 and 4v5

Then give 1st a team call for the semis.

super pool was a good idea, stick with it
playing all the games in one country was a good idea, stick with it
playing games at a variety of grounds but in areas with established rugby league fan bases was a good idea, stick with it
making all the matches affordable was a good idea, stick with it
holding the final in the area where most rugby league fans regularly turn out was a good idea, stick with it

in fact just copy the 2008 model entirely (include 1995 ideas too if you need english examples), mistake to expand the team numbers but hopefully we can stick at one mistake please Mr RLIF

Top Tier - Australia, New Zealand, England
Middle Tier - France, PNG, Wales
Lower Tier - The other 8. (Scotland, Ireland, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands etc)

Two "Super Groups" of 3 (Randomised from top six, but using tiers to ensure the top three aren't all together).
Two "Minor Groups" of 4 (Randomised from the other 8 ).

Everyone plays each in their group once over 3 rounds, thus ranking within each group. This would be done over around a 2 week period.

4th Place in Group A and Group B do not reach finals.

[iSuper Qualifier 1[/i: Winner Super Group A vs 2nd Super Group B
[iSuper Qualifier 2[/i: Winner Super Group B vs 2nd Super Group A
[iElimination Qualifier 1[/i: 3rd Super Group A vs 3rd Group A
[iElimination Qualifier 2[/i: 3rd Super Group B vs 3rd Group B
[iElimination Qualifier 3[/i: 1st Group A vs 2nd Group B
[iElimination Qualifier 4[/i: 1st Group B vs 2nd Group A

Losers of Elimination Qualifiers are out

[iQuarter Final 1[/i: Winner Super Qualifier 1 vs Winner Elimination Qualifier 2
[iQuarter Final 2[/i: Winner Super Qualifier 2 vs Winner Elimination Qualifier 1
[iQuarter Final 3[/i: Winner Elimination Qualifier 3 vs Loser Super Qualifier 2
[iQuarter Final 4[/i: Winner Elimination Qualifier 3 vs Loser Super Qualifier 1

All losers Eliminated

[iSemi Final 1[/i: Winner Quarter Final 1 vs Winner Quarter Final 3
[iSemi Final 2[/i: Winner Quarter Final 2 vs Winner Quarter Final 4

All losers Eliminated

[iFinal[/i: Winner Semi Final 1 vs Winner Semi Final 2

why on earth have you included Wales in a 'middle tier' when they are ranked 12th in the World rankings and included Fiji (ranked 4th) in a lower tier?

You might want to see how England fare against PNG in the 4 nations as well before having them as lesser team than England!

you mean like playing in London?

I'm sure he meant the likes of Hemel, Guiseley, Whinmoor, and Wigan St Pats. I'm sure he wasn't hoping to use the WC as some kind of subsidy to the championship mid-tier leagues

14 is a ridiculous number for a finals. It should be 12 or 16 and given the lack of competition I'd suggest 12. Then 4 groups of 3 with the top placed side in each group qualifying for the semi finals, losers of this play in a 3rd v 4th match, and the winners through to the final. Simple.

Does anyone know why we've got 14 teams qualified for the finals? If it wasn't for the fact it's an RFL decision, it would be unbelievable.

Given it's 14, we're almost certainly going to go down the route of a "super group" again which was very unprofessional.

That was two years ago. Wales won the European Cup last year. Fiji came 3rd in the Pacific Cup, knocked out by a team ranked 14th in the RLIF rankings. The RLIF rankings mean very little two years on.


I think England will be fine. They got to the final last year, didn't they?

Mind you...

Steve McNamara?