16 or 20 teams for the 2011 Cup
The International Rugby Board are reviewing the number of teams to take part in the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Syd Millar has said they will decide by October this year as to if they will reduce the finalists to 16 or remain at the current 20 teams the format which has existed since 1999.
It will be a real shame if they reduce the numbers, many of the smaller nations know they have little chance of competing against the top tier countries but it is obvious by how hard they try that they love the opportunity to play sides they would never meet in normal circumstances and who knows they may just cause an upset!
Vince Mann said,
September 14, 2007 @ 10:31 am
I think that MORE Countries should be allowed to play if they are prepared to field a team. It’s usually the under dogs that give a better performance and make the game more interesting to watch.
Peter said,
September 14, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
20 is a good number for the finals, the original number to teams competing for places was 96 and whittled down to these. It would be a shame if it is reduced to 16. Only thing is it is a lot of rugby in a short space of time and 4 days is not enough recovery time for squads without a good balance of top class players
Robert said,
September 22, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
The IRB should keep the number of World Cup team at 20. The IRB should be trying to expand and include smaller rugby nations such as Japan and the USA. In the long run it will pay dividends. Also, give Japan the 2015 WC.
Stretch said,
September 25, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Leave the number of teams at 20, the extra coaching sessions for the non-professional teams has improved the smaller nations abilities and probably raised the rugby profile in these countries. Enticing new countries to reach the finals with the money and coaching benifits has been a master stroke by the IRB.
ps. I agree with Robert, Give the 2015 world cup to Japan.
Maureen said,
September 30, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
I agree leave the rugby world cup as it satnds. If the numbers are reduced countrys like Samoa and USA will never qualify against the bigger teams!
mark said,
October 2, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
I think the IRB should be going foward and not backwards,If they want rugby to take off then 24 teams.
Jorge Ferrada said,
October 15, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
I am from Chile southamerica, and I started to watch PUMAS in the world cup and you don´t know how pride I am of this guys, the company that I work for alsosponsors to our national rugby TEAM (Condores) and also we are working in a special project with the young rugbiers of Eastern Island which is part of our country.
About the issue to reduce the teams for the next World Cup, it would be a shame because it would make the sport less competitive, so if we want better rugbby lets open to compete, it is the only way to have in all the expression a WORLDWIDE leader in rugby, don´t make it an small club.
greeting from CHILE, Jorge
Peter said,
October 15, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Hi Jorge
Good to hear from you and good luck with your rugby in Chile. If you would like to write about your experiences and what is happening with your club, or what you are doing with Eastern Island, then have a look at the forum and sign up to write on: http://www.rugby15.co.uk/forum/
Sean Fisher said,
October 22, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Leave the World Cup alone!!!! It’s a WORLD cup, not just a competition for the same old traditional countries.
There should be 20 teams still, but they should be looking to expand not reduce, 24 mabye by 2023, there are not enough members at the moment but I think eventually it should move to 32 like football within the next 30 years.
If you reduce the number of teams how are smaller nations ever going to make the knockout stages let alone getting new countries into the competition.
The world cup would be boost 100x by getting leading teams outside the world cup in, such as Chile, Russia, Spain, Morroco, Tunisia, Korea, Germany, Moldova etc. The game would then be truly GLOBAL & a real WORLD CUP!
I agree, give RWC 2015 to Japan & RWC 2019 to Argentina or Canada
duncan green said,
October 28, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
lets be fair 20 is an ackward number. if you have 4 groups of 5 teams have either not enough time between games or to much. 16 is a far easier number for organizational reasons. however in order to promote the game worldwide you need to give the widest number of nations the chance to compete at the highest level & for that reason i think we should go to 24 teams. however i think the main reason a reduction to 16 is a possibility is that NZ doesn’t have the stadia to cope without sharing with Australia, something its not keen on doing after being ditched from co-hosting in 2003. Japan 2015 & Argentina 2019 Canada/USA 2023 next 3 RWC but with 24 teams