Who thinks that the RWC format should be changed to a "BEST OF 3 GAMES" format from the 1/4 Finals onwards?

Question

So that the "BETTER" team and the "MOST DESERVING" will actually win and "FLUKES" and chances of outside factors such as poor weather and refereeing can be avoided?

Just like similiar to an NBA Playoffs.

EDIT: Im not a bitter AB fan... I just think the MORE rugby THE BETTER! Who agrees with me!

Answer 1

Mate, I vote you for president of the IRB (International Rugby Board), the more rugby the better. And that does definitely ensure that the best teams get through.

Or they could divide the top 8 into two separate pools and have all 4 top teams create another pool, and have they top two play off for the finals...think about the amount of rugby we are missing out on because of these stupid knock-out finals.

Answer 2

It would last forever! It's fine as it is. It's just a pity that some teams don't play before the quarter finals. But more games, no, you will kill the players!

Answer 3

yes, i agree. but then all the players would winge that they'd have to play 6 extra games.

Answer 4

For one it would take entirely too long for the tournament to be completed if it went to a best of 3 series.  NCAA march madness is great because of the upsets, I like the upsets.  Everyone (including myself) thought the NZ was going to dominate and just roll through the tournament, England and France upsets were very surprising but enjoyable.  I do agree with you on the fact that I would have like to seen more of the better teams, like seeing the all blacks or AUS advancing and playing in the finals, but the unpredictability of the way the world cup is now is great.

Answer 5

It would make the tournament alot longer and more drawn out.

But you have to agree if they made this change the All Blacks would be absolutley unbeatable

Answer 6

no, too long and physically demanding.

Even of this was not the case would games not become a bit repetitive, a super 8 system like in cricket would be better, or maybe too groups of 4?

But I say leave it, luck is a part of sport and watching the underdog prevail is one of the most pleasing aspects of all sporting competition

Answer 7

I dont agree with that at all, the competition is long enough and there isnt any such thing as a "fluke"! The team who plays better on the night and scores more points deserve to go through!

Answer 8

I see your point because the best team would most likely be victorious.

It would make the RWC too long though. I also think it would be boring to see the same teams play each other 2 or 3 times.

Part of the challenge of winning a WC is putting in a good performance on the day and coping with the pressures of finals football.

It doesn't matter that the ABs have only won 1 world cup. Look at our overall winning record throughout history against all the teams.

Besides.... only one team has won it more than once (that could change soon). It would be boring if we won it every single time.

Does the title of world champions actually mean anything?? Look how the poms have performed over the past 4 years. Whenever we played them I didn't care that they were the world champs. It wasn't like... we gotta beat them cause they have the world cup!! I just saw it as another game of rugby.

Even though we haven't been world champions for years people still regard us as the best. We are the team to beat. Ask anybody honestly who they would rather win against... the cup holders or the ABs.

Edit:

Fair enough "the_lipsiot" that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. We have not performed to our potential at RWC's but before this tournament we still had the best overall record at RWC's. NZ had made it to the semi-final stages in every single RWC (the only team to do so), we are one of only 4 teams to win it, we are still the only team to have never lost a match in pool play, we are one of only two host nations to win the cup (who said that was easy eh?), we have scored the most points and won the most games.

We have dominated the tri-nations.... I dont think this counts as "endless meaningless friendlies and tournaments" like you put it. There have been many high pressure victorys in big games. I genuinely think the players and fans would rather be the best team in the world and win nearly every game but lose a one off game at the RWC than be a team who underperforms all the time but manages to pull off a lucky win and take the RWC.

The ABS are still the best team (currently and of all time), their record speaks for itself. It is true that we haven't won as many RWC's as we would have liked but that's how it goes.....

Answer 9

I DONT AGREE! The RWC is very long as it is now, we don't need more games to lengthen it any longer and exhaust people with too much rugby.

Answer 10

Definitely not - it's fine as it is.

There is the logistics of adding another 6 weeks to the length of the tournament (you'd have to have around a week between each game).

Nothing you can do about refereeing glitches but, over a tournament, these should even out. Surely poor weather is the same for both sides?

The knock-out stages are most exciting purely because they are knock-out and anyone can win. To perpetuate and spread the game further we need to bring smaller sides into rugby and, by reducing their chances of winning agains the bigger sides, you will also reduce the enthusiasm for the game.

**EDIT**

Hey jonboy,

You Kiwis can go blabbing about who the best team in the world is for as long as you like - but, when it comes to winning a high pressure tournament rather than a friendly, you guys always choke.

Ask your own players whether they would rather win endless meaningless friendlies and tournaments against all and sundry, or win the World Cup and guess what the answer would be?

**EDIT**

Hi Jonboy - thanks for the response. Yes, the nice thing about rugby is that we all have our own opinions and don't get nasty with each other. I don't deny the ABs are a brilliant side but, don't you agree that the RWC is all the better just because it is a knock-out and that the minnows do have the chance to win in a "one-off"? Bloody well done to the likes of Argentina and Fiji I say.