Seeding... RWC fails again.

[loudnconfident]

Hi

It's absurd that the 4 top sides (in no particular order, but they are a clear gap ahead of the rest) are NZ, SA, Ireland and France. And they are all on one side of the draw.

Do the RWC seed the sides too early?

IMO Wales were seeded too low and that hurt England in 2015. But England benefit this year (as do Wales/Oz)

I think the football WC is seeded much closer to the tournament - something rugby could learn?

[Puja]

Oh, absolutely. Spare a thought for Romania, who stumbled into qualification through Spain screwing up eligibility *again*, only to be rewarded with teams 1, 4, and 5, with Tonga (15) getting to call upon a load of expats as the fourth side. No wonder Andy Robinson bailed.

Meanwhile, Portugal (ranked 18), who were below Romania in qualifying and only even got into the repechage because of Spain's screw-up, are in Pool C, featuring teams 7, 9, 13, 14 (Australia, Wales, Georgia, Fiji). That pool will be competitive, but possibly not in the same way as Pool B is. Kinda like the rugby league world cup where all the good teams are in one pool and all the rest are in a pool on their own so there's not too many murderings.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Hi

It's absurd that the 4 top sides (in no particular order, but they are a clear gap ahead of the rest) are NZ, SA, Ireland and France. And they are all on one side of the draw.

Do the RWC seed the sides too early?

IMO Wales were seeded too low and that hurt England in 2015. But England benefit this year (as do Wales/Oz)

I think the football WC is seeded much closer to the tournament - something rugby could learn?

Way too early. Im sure I read something years ago about problems with logistics, but that seems like bollocks to me. The football world cup can manage it and they get more spectators in a shorter period of time I'd suggest.

[Which Tyler]

Rugby doesn't have the same draw as football.
Football can just rock up, anywhere at any time, and it'll be huge, with facilities freed up to make room.
Rugby just... can't.
Commercial and logistical pressures will want as early a decision as possible (this applies to football as well, but it's powerful enough to say FU).

If you want a lead time of anything less than about 18 months (and that's probably pushing it) the that means saying goodbye to any large country hosting it, or expanding the game to smaller rugby nations, or having much in the way of travelling support.

18-24 months in advance seems the optimal to me.
IIRC previous world cups have been 34 months in advance, but shifted to 24 months for Japan - which seemed about right to me.

Going by memory, 2023 suffered more than usual because of Covid - IIRC the seedings were back to 34 months in advance, but based on rankings from 12 months previous - because Covid meant a years worth of weakened teams, cancelled matches and a whole shit-tonne of trouble, and no projected return to normality, so January 2020 rankings (immediately after the previous RWC) were considered the latest fair reflection.

[Puja]

Rugby doesn't have the same draw as football.
Football can just rock up, anywhere at any time, and it'll be huge, with facilities freed up to make room.
Rugby just... can't.
Commercial and logistical pressures will want as early a decision as possible (this applies to football as well, but it's powerful enough to say FU).

If you want a lead time of anything less than about 18 months (and that's probably pushing it) the that means saying goodbye to any large country hosting it, or expanding the game to smaller rugby nations, or having much in the way of travelling support.

18-24 months in advance seems the optimal to me.
IIRC previous world cups have been 34 months in advance, but shifted to 24 months for Japan - which seemed about right to me.

Going by memory, 2023 suffered more than usual because of Covid - IIRC the seedings were back to 34 months in advance, but based on rankings from 12 months previous - because Covid meant a years worth of weakened teams, cancelled matches and a whole shit-tonne of trouble, and no projected return to normality, so January 2020 rankings (immediately after the previous RWC) were considered the latest fair reflection.

Agreed that rugby needs certainty earlier, but does that include knowing the exact fixture list nearly 3 years in advance?

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Agreed that rugby needs certainty earlier, but does that include knowing the exact fixture list nearly 3 years in advance?

No, hence suggesting 18-24 months in advance, and IIRC WR agreed ahead of Japan 2019 (I think it was a somewhere in between, so after the June internationals but before the Quad Nations - so 28-odd months.

Fixture list doesn't need to be known, but which city your team is going to be based around does.
Not so much in Europe, where everywhere is reachable in a few hours and good transport links (even Paris to Perpignan is just about do-able there and back in a long-arsed-day) - but South Africa? Australia? USA? Even New Zealand, you'd want to know which Island to be on - that's teams and travelling fans.

Costs to teams could be mitigated, by transferring all of those costs onto WR (or more likely, the host), so that hotels and training facilities are all arranged and booked out 3 years in advance, only finding out who for later - currently, I think this is left to the individual unions to arrange (and let's face it, top nations would point-blank refuse to stay somewhere that Uruguay or Kenya would be blown away by) - but fans, and package holidays, need to know where teams will be based - far enough in advance to sell packages.

[loudnconfident]

A couple of articles - The Mirror suggests that future seeding will be nearer the tournament, and a whinge from SA

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-un ... r-29339732

"The sport’s governing body confirmed its intention for the draw to be held closer to future Rugby World Cups, starting with Australia 2027.
World Rugby said it is able to make the change because of a new ‘hosting model’ that sees the international federation create collaborations with the host union"

I haven't seen this reported elsewhere tho(?)

https://www.sarugbymag.co.za/early-draw ... world-cup/

[loudnconfident]

Some mainstream acknowledgement - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65274660

"Fance 2023 bosses have said the Rugby World Cup will be "amazing from the start to the end" despite the uneven pool draw.

The top five sides in the world all find themselves on one side of the draw, with the sixth to 10th-ranked teams on the other.

Michel Poussau, executive director of France 2023, says there is never a perfect time to draw the pools.

"The reality is rugby has never been as competitive," he said.

"Yes, at the moment you have number one to number five [on one side], but it was completely different a couple of years ago, and it might be different [come the tournament].

"That is a consequence of rugby being so tight in terms of rankings and the levels of the various teams.""

[Puja]

"Yes, at the moment you have number one to number five [on one side], but it was completely different a couple of years ago, and it might be different [come the tournament].

It will probably surprised no-one to learn that this is bollocks. It is technically possible for England or Australia to break the top 4 before the tournament starts, but that would require New Zealand to lose every game (or lose all but one by >16 points and draw the game against Australia, if we want England in the top 4 instead of Aus). While it is entirely possible for someone to overtake Scotland in 5th, that would hardly be "completely different".

Puja.

[loudnconfident]

Probably a spokesperson's damage limitation
In 2007 ,- a pal living in France told me - many supporters travelled just for the QFs/SFs/Final.

Paris was full of p#ssed-off Kiwis when England played France in their SF - France having famously beaten NZ in thei QF.