Steve McNamara was appointed the new England coach yesterday, with former Bradford coach and current Sydney coach Brian Smith appointed as his mentor.
What has been public knowledge for several days, the whole scenario stinks of a copycat New Zealand similarity, which eventually won New Zealand the World Cup. The only difference is that Wayne Bennett is a proven winner, never mind a tactical genius, and was the puppet master in Stephen Kearney's triumph.
The only thing McNamara and Smith have won between them is a raffle.
McNamara was promoted from within after Brian Noble left Bradford to join Wigan in 2006. Since then he has not been able to guide the club to anything near the success Noble did at the West Yorkshire club, having achieved a grand total of zero finals in four years.
Smith on the other hand is a perennial underachiever, and has lost every single major final he has ever guided a team to. That is including English Premierships (pre Super League,) Challenge Cups, and ARL/NRL Grand Finals. He has not won a single thing ash head coach, that that is where the similarity between New Zealand of 2008 and England of 2010 starts and ends.
I don't rate McNamara, and have been saying consistently for a number of years that Bradford will begin to slide down the table. Last year they did. At the same time, McNamara seems to be always hanging onto his club job by the skin of his teeth before an unexpected result goes his way. See Super League round 5, Bradford 22-20 Wigan for a perfect example. Before that game, McNamara was halfway out of the door. After the final hooter went, he had a months grace before scraping a draw against Leeds.
The RFL must have seen the warning signs immediately after the announcement when Bradford fans were happy McNamara was on his way out of their club. Its not often you see a scenario like that in professional sport.
But what's done is done, and I for one am hoping that England do not finish last in this years Four Nations. Last time we went to Australia we badly under performed, and fear Papua New Guinea revenge for that 32-22 win in Townsville will be on the cards. A last place finish will not only erase whatever credibility the national side has recovered over the past 12 months, but it will set off enormous warning bells in the RFL's preperation ahead of the 2013 World Cup.
Showing posts with label World Cup 2013. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World Cup 2013. Show all posts
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Saturday, 27 February 2010
2013 World Cup is set in motion.
Before a ball had been kicked, the 2008 World Cup was under criticism from fans and the media for its ten team tournament structure. The fact that three teams could progress into the semi finals from one group of four was scandalous, a mockery to the sport, and downright embarrassing.
And maybe it was. For those unfamiliar to modern day rugby league, we are not in a position to draw up a "fair" tournament and expect attendances, revenue and TV audiences to remain consistent. The 2008 World Cup was a success because it was biased and because the top nations in rugby league were guaranteed to play each other in the early rounds keeping fans interested throughout the four week competition. It generated a good amount of interest, attendances and TV audiences for the pinnacle of international rugby league. More importantly, it generated enough money to make a profit and wet the appetite of smaller nations for more international rugby league in the near future. So the news this week that the 2013 World Cup will consist of 14 nations, with 12 being granted automatic qualification, should not be criticised until we have the full facts about the tournament structure.
Rugby League hasn’t been afraid of introducing innovative ideas to draw in new fans and dive into fresh territories, all in the name of expansion. The Magic Weekend was considered by the Premier League, albeit on a larger international scale, in that each team plays one more league game on neutral territory. This shows that the Rugby Football League and the Rugby League International Federation must be doing something right if the smartest businessmen in world sport want to copy an idea from a small sport from the north of England. So what new hair-brained scheme must the International Federation some up with to make the World Cup an even bigger success? Here is my ideal tournament structure for a fourteen team competition.
They can start with including the ten teams that competed in the 2008 tournament. That leaves the RLIF a choice of three teams for two remaining automatic places. The most realistic choices would be between Wales (the current European Cup holders,) Cook Islands (who surprised everyone to reach the 2009 Pacific Cup final,) or Lebanon who earned a massive amount of credit from neutral fans for their performances in the qualifying process for the 2008 World Cup.
It’s important for the top three teams to play each other early and carefully seed the competition so that interest is created early on in the tournament. Therefore a ‘Super Group’ is the only way to go. Include Australia, New Zealand, England and the fourth team from the 2011 Four Nations tournament, which would be the last before the World Cup. From there the remaining ten teams are split into one group of four and two groups of three. Have three teams qualify from the groups of four and one from the two groups of three leaving eight teams remaining in the quarter finals. Teams should be carefully seeded to keep TV interest and try to prevent a team whitewashing another.
The groups of three should be the sides of the lowest quality, including the two qualifiers in each group. The winners of the groups of three (pools three and four) will play the winners of the two groups of four (pools one and two.) The runners up from pools one and two will play the team finishing third in both groups. Moving onto the semi finals it would be the winner of those games that meet each other in the first semi final, with winners of the first two quarter finals meeting in the remaining semi final.
The above tournament structure is only a theory, but following the same style of the 2008 competition in seeding the top teams, it will guarantee competitive games as well as giving the better sides in pools one and two an advantage. As I’ve mentioned countless times already, TV audiences and revenue is what will make the tournament a success in this country. The aim is to build on the success of the 2008 competition and provide international rugby league with a secure long term future.
And maybe it was. For those unfamiliar to modern day rugby league, we are not in a position to draw up a "fair" tournament and expect attendances, revenue and TV audiences to remain consistent. The 2008 World Cup was a success because it was biased and because the top nations in rugby league were guaranteed to play each other in the early rounds keeping fans interested throughout the four week competition. It generated a good amount of interest, attendances and TV audiences for the pinnacle of international rugby league. More importantly, it generated enough money to make a profit and wet the appetite of smaller nations for more international rugby league in the near future. So the news this week that the 2013 World Cup will consist of 14 nations, with 12 being granted automatic qualification, should not be criticised until we have the full facts about the tournament structure.
Rugby League hasn’t been afraid of introducing innovative ideas to draw in new fans and dive into fresh territories, all in the name of expansion. The Magic Weekend was considered by the Premier League, albeit on a larger international scale, in that each team plays one more league game on neutral territory. This shows that the Rugby Football League and the Rugby League International Federation must be doing something right if the smartest businessmen in world sport want to copy an idea from a small sport from the north of England. So what new hair-brained scheme must the International Federation some up with to make the World Cup an even bigger success? Here is my ideal tournament structure for a fourteen team competition.
They can start with including the ten teams that competed in the 2008 tournament. That leaves the RLIF a choice of three teams for two remaining automatic places. The most realistic choices would be between Wales (the current European Cup holders,) Cook Islands (who surprised everyone to reach the 2009 Pacific Cup final,) or Lebanon who earned a massive amount of credit from neutral fans for their performances in the qualifying process for the 2008 World Cup.
It’s important for the top three teams to play each other early and carefully seed the competition so that interest is created early on in the tournament. Therefore a ‘Super Group’ is the only way to go. Include Australia, New Zealand, England and the fourth team from the 2011 Four Nations tournament, which would be the last before the World Cup. From there the remaining ten teams are split into one group of four and two groups of three. Have three teams qualify from the groups of four and one from the two groups of three leaving eight teams remaining in the quarter finals. Teams should be carefully seeded to keep TV interest and try to prevent a team whitewashing another.
The groups of three should be the sides of the lowest quality, including the two qualifiers in each group. The winners of the groups of three (pools three and four) will play the winners of the two groups of four (pools one and two.) The runners up from pools one and two will play the team finishing third in both groups. Moving onto the semi finals it would be the winner of those games that meet each other in the first semi final, with winners of the first two quarter finals meeting in the remaining semi final.
The above tournament structure is only a theory, but following the same style of the 2008 competition in seeding the top teams, it will guarantee competitive games as well as giving the better sides in pools one and two an advantage. As I’ve mentioned countless times already, TV audiences and revenue is what will make the tournament a success in this country. The aim is to build on the success of the 2008 competition and provide international rugby league with a secure long term future.
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
An even briefer lookback on 2009
A few things I missed previously. It was great news that we were able to secure the 2013 Rugby League World Cup to be hosted away from Australia. While it was a massive success, the same ingredients need to be applied on this side of the world to develop expansion.
The news that the 2013 tournament will consist of twelve teams, an increase of two on the 2008 World Cup, was greeted warmly by senior member of the trade press. Twelve teams will eliminate the need of a "super pool" in the early stages of the tournament, but I feel this is the wrong option for the RLIF to go in keeping every single game as competitive as possible. The presumed format of four groups of three will mean the big three of New Zealand, Australia and England are separated along with whoever the fourth ranked team are in the RLIF Rankings. Qualifiers will then be dispersed or drawn into the four pools containing one of the major teams.
While the planning is in its very early stage, the news of the possibility that certain games may be used as double headers to attract audiences is very good news. Attendance figures was one of several key factors in the 2008 tournament, with more fans turning up than what was expected to make it a successful tournament. Double headers means that fans will be more inclined to attend, as they will be watching two games instead of one big game in the early stages of the tournament. The like of Australia V Scotland at Warrington might not seem attractive as a contest, but double it up with New Zealand V Fiji no the same day at the same venue, for example, and the punters are getting value for money.
The news that the 2013 tournament will consist of twelve teams, an increase of two on the 2008 World Cup, was greeted warmly by senior member of the trade press. Twelve teams will eliminate the need of a "super pool" in the early stages of the tournament, but I feel this is the wrong option for the RLIF to go in keeping every single game as competitive as possible. The presumed format of four groups of three will mean the big three of New Zealand, Australia and England are separated along with whoever the fourth ranked team are in the RLIF Rankings. Qualifiers will then be dispersed or drawn into the four pools containing one of the major teams.
While the planning is in its very early stage, the news of the possibility that certain games may be used as double headers to attract audiences is very good news. Attendance figures was one of several key factors in the 2008 tournament, with more fans turning up than what was expected to make it a successful tournament. Double headers means that fans will be more inclined to attend, as they will be watching two games instead of one big game in the early stages of the tournament. The like of Australia V Scotland at Warrington might not seem attractive as a contest, but double it up with New Zealand V Fiji no the same day at the same venue, for example, and the punters are getting value for money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)