Rugby World Plate

[crossref]

Time to raise (just as we do every RWC) the question of why don't they have a Rugby World Plate competition

The bottom three from each pool could go into a plate, to be played midweek, in between the Cup competition, with the final the day before the RWC final

I think it would be really popular and tuey would have no trouble filling smaller stadiums, and all the tier 2 teams would have the opportunity to engage in meaningful competitive games they do sorely need

 

[DocP]

I have been banging on about this for a while in my circles. I actually thing there should be plate and shield. So in the group, 3 & 4 go into the plate, 5 into the shield. Losers from round 1 of the plate then end up in the shield.
Not sure how logistics would work but I think it would be popular, gives the weaker sides something to play for and gives them much more exposure on the world stage.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

It'd certainly give Australia something to aim for.

 

[crossref]

I have been banging on about this for a while in my circles. I actually thing there should be plate and shield. So in the group, 3 & 4 go into the plate, 5 into the shield. Losers from round 1 of the plate then end up in the shield.
Not sure how logistics would work but I think it would be popular, gives the weaker sides something to play for and gives them much more exposure on the world stage.

Or perhaps -

3rd and 4th go into Vase : QF / SF / Final

5th place go into Plate : and just have SF / Final

I could easily see 20,000 attending QF/SF and 30,000 at a final - epxcially if venues are near to the Cup venues,

 

[DocP]

Or perhaps -

3rd and 4th go into Vase : QF / SF / Final

5th place go into Plate : and just have SF / Final

I could easily see 20,000 attending QF/SF and 30,000 at a final - epxcially if venues are near to the Cup venues,

I do like that but with the T1 nations that would now be in the Plate I'd personally like to see the losers of the QF of Vase into the Plate. Also means everyone gets more than just 1 extra game.

 

[Decorily]

I do like that but with the T1 nations that would now be in the Plate I'd personally like to see the losers of the QF of Vase into the Plate. Also means everyone gets more than just 1 extra game.

Do they really want extra games I wonder!

 

[BikingBud]

It'd certainly give Australia something to aim for.

Do they really want extra games I wonder!

I really do wonder.

Go home, move on or stay with potential for further embarrassment?

Eddie has crocodile skin but the players may be more fragile.

 

[crossref]

I do like that but with the T1 nations that would now be in the Plate I'd personally like to see the losers of the QF of Vase into the Plate. Also means everyone gets more than just 1 extra game.

i am thinking that there is only time for three rounds - as it all has to be fitted in before the RWC final.

It would need quick turnarounds to fit in four games.

If we go to 24 teams next time it's easier - that splits into a Cup, a Plate and a Vase, each with eight teams,

 

[Volun-selected]

Hard to argue against any of these ideas, I can see 3 distinct advantages off the top of my head:

1. It increases the number of matches, many of which will now be competitive (which generally makes them more entertaining which is what fans want).
2. It increases the revenue stream (which is, ultimately, what WR are really concerned with.
3. It gives Tier 2 teams more first class games (which can only help as they look to close the T1 T2 gap). And as per #1, players may be more open to a couple of extra close matches than a one-sided embarrassment.

I could see an argument from the player welfare angle, but if we work on the principle that at the start of the tournament every team has signed up for 7 matches then we must make sure every team plays no more than that.

Unless, of course, the T1 groups don’t want that gap closed…

 

[didds]

My immediate thought is there is always a group of death - 3 tier 1 nations.;
Given that means in all likelighood that 3rd tier 1 nation would end up in the next level competiton, presumably a tier 1 nation would win it every time in all likelihood. And potentially just create more circa 100-0 drubbings en route?

 

[DocP]

My immediate thought is there is always a group of death - 3 tier 1 nations.;
Given that emans in all likelighood that 3rd tier 1 nation would e4nd up in the next level competiton, presumably a tier 1 nation would win it every time in all likelihood. And postrentially juust create more circa 100-0 drubbings en route?

Aus, Sco, Ita haven't drubbed anyone by circa 100 points.
Would just give the T2 nations another competitive game, which yes they may lose but it'll be a lot tighter than that, and you never know, may get a turn over on the day.
And for those that are the weakest of the bunch, they would be in the Vase which further protect them from the poundings

 

[didds]

Aus, Sco, Ita haven't drubbed anyone by circa 100 points.

Scotland 84 Romania 0.



draw the drubbing line where you will. 50 points scored to not many against is a spanking for example
Italy 52 Romania 8
Im not convinced Scotland v Uruguay, would be much different.

 

[crossref]

My immediate thought is there is always a group of death - 3 tier 1 nations.;
Given that means in all likelighood that 3rd tier 1 nation would end up in the next level competiton, presumably a tier 1 nation would win it every time in all likelihood. And potentially just create more circa 100-0 drubbings en route?

another factor to consider is that iWR plan to increase the RWC to 24 teams so no more group of death exactly. Although it's still the case that we have 8QF places and 10 Tier 1 nations so potentially the Plate Final is just 2x Tier 1 teams, rather negating the whole point of the competion :-(

 

[didds]

another factor to consider is that iWR plan to increase the RWC to 24 teams so no more group of death exactly.

24 teams - 4 pools x 6 ? or 6 pools x 4?

the latter would avoid a group of death but presumably require a 1/8th finals... though youve now got 12 teams into that round...
the former would need 3 out of the group to avoid a GoD scenario. But now you've got 12 teams in the next round...

but 6 x 4 woulds indeed avoid the GoD scenario pretty much (notwithstanding rankings when the pools are drawn versus when the RWC comes around 2.5 years later etc).

 

[crossref]

24 teams - 4 pools x 6 ? or 6 pools x 4?

the latter would avoid a group of death but presumably require a 1/8th finals... though youve now got 12 teams into that round...
the former would need 3 out of the group to avoid a GoD scenario. But now you've got 12 teams in the next round...

but 6 x 4 woulds indeed avoid the GoD scenario pretty much (notwithstanding rankings when the pools are drawn versus when the RWC comes around 2.5 years later etc).

or it might be a format similar to what they have been doing in Europe - two 'pools' and everyone plays four of the other pool (I hope not)

but the problem for the 'Plate' is that however the pools work, there are only 8 QF slots in the Cup - so [at least] two Tier 1 nations will always end up in the Plate.

 

[didds]

but the problem for the 'Plate' is that however the pools work, there are only 8 QF slots in the Cup - so [at least] two Tier 1 nations will always end up in the Plate.

indeed. As per my #10

 

[crossref]

Brian Moore with the same idea

12ft |

12ft.io

 

[Dickie E]

so what's the correct nomenclature for the finals?

The winner of the final gets the Rugby World Cup (so far, so good)
The loser gets what? The Rugby World Cup Silver Medal?
The 3 v 4 play off game is called the Bronze game. So the winner of that gets the Rugby World Cup Bronze Medal?

Then the suggestion is that 4th through 8th get nothing and 9th gets the Rugby World Cup Plate?

Certainly sounds messy enough for WR

 

[didds]

so what's the correct nomenclature for the finals?

The winner of the final gets the Rugby World Cup (so far, so good)
The loser gets what? The Rugby World Cup Silver Medal?
The 3 v 4 play off game is called the Bronze game. So the winner of that gets the Rugby World Cup Bronze Medal?

Then the suggestion is that 4th through 8th get nothing and 9th gets the Rugby World Cup Plate?

Certainly sounds messy enough for WR

Im not disagreeing with that sentiment at all, but isnt this what happens in Sevens competitons? ie those qualifying further in thr tournament reach a stage whereby they could win nothing, but those the beat win a (lower level) competiton?

Or does notbody care about that 'cos still sevens is a bit of not-kick and giggle ?

 

[Dickie E]

Im not disagreeing with that sentiment at all, but isnt this what happens in Sevens competitons? ie those qualifying further in thr tournament reach a stage whereby they could win nothing, but those the beat win a (lower level) competiton?

Or does notbody care about that 'cos still sevens is a bit of not-kick and giggle ?

Keep up, its called SVNS now. Apparently vowels were just a distraction