International Cup format

[A Living God]

A major problem with the tournament was the massive disparity in the quality of the teams competing. A way to solve this problem while still maintaining a single division , for a 16 team competition, would be to place the top 8 teams in groups A and B and the bottom 8 teams in groups C and D for the group stages then bring them together for the finals.

Group Stage
Group A
1st ranked team, 4th, 5th and 8th
Group B
2nd ranked team, 3rd, 6th and 7th
Group C
9th ranked team, 12th, 13th and 16th
Group D
10th ranked team, 11th, 14th and 15th

Elimination Finals
E1: A3 (third in group A) vs C2
E2: B3 vs D2
E3: A4 vs C1
E4: B4 vs D1

13th place: C3 vs D3
15th place: C4 vs D4

Quarter Finals
Q1: A1 vs Winner E4
Q2: B1 vs Winner E3
Q3: A2 vs Winner E2
Q4: B2 vs Winner E1

9th place: Loser E3 vs Loser E4
11th place: Loser E1 vs Loser E2

Semi Final
S1: Winner Q3 vs Winner Q4
S2: Winer Q1 vs Winner Q2

5th place: Loser Q3 vs Loser Q4
7th place: Loser Q1 vs Loser Q2

Grand Final
G1: Winner S1 vs Winner S2

3rd place: Loser S1 vs Loser S2

 

[benjamin]

Surely under Semi Finals you meant winners and not losers?

Good idea but if I read that right it would require seven distinct match days and several teams would be playing on all of them. Too much.

Prior to the tournament I was a little critical and thought the AFL should have insisted on two separate divisions of eight, despite the wishes of the countries. But looking back I think what they did worked well.

The middle eight countries were fairly evenly matched, which was the main reason they couldn't go the two divisions way. Those middle eight were also "competent" enough that when they played the top four the blowouts weren't too bad. There was even a changing of the world order with SA displacing the USA in that top four and Nauru and Canada turning a few heads.

The ordering of the pools phase was clever.
Rd 1: 1v3 and 2v4
Rd 2: 1v4 and 2v3
Rd 3: 1v2 and 3v4
I think the aims here were to:
1. Save the best (most even) games for last, and
2. Avoid the 4's running into the 1's in the first round.

Of course it meant some blowouts early but that is inevitable. And the countries appear to have accepted it as a necessary evil. Looking at the results there might have been a big gap between 11 and 12 which (no coincidence) is also the difference between the experienced nations and those that were in their first IC. Perhaps there is a message there for next time.

It would have been nice if the second phase was a full round-robin too, but that would have required a sixth match and you wouldn't have been able to schedule a Grand Final within that structure without a seventh.

My only gripes:
1. Round 4 should not have been preset according to which groups they came from, but rather 1v4 and 2v3 according to their win-loss-percentage record in phase 1.
2. The poolings could have been geographically more creative.

But all-in-all I think what they did worked well.

 

[blueswade]

I agree that the format was good, unfortunetly the bottom 4 teams were not up to standard but that was to be expected given that they have been playing for less then a year. In reality those teams probably should have done what Germany did this time round and Sweden did last time round and focus on their domestic competition before sending a team down. I would say Germany would have to be more advanced then what those bottom 4 teams are given they have had a comp and regular internationals for a while.

I think the 2 division would not have worked given that 12 teams are competitive. On the seeding Japan and Nauru would have been in division 2 and both of them finished in the top 8 and if the draw was different i think Naura could have finished higher then 5th.

So overall I think it was a success and you only have to look back to the first cup in 2002 to see just how teams can improve
In 2002 South Africa finished last and were as competitive as the bottom 4 team this time round loosing to New Zealand 163 to 1 point and the USA 132 to 4.
Japan lost to Naura 119 to 14 and PNG 147 to 0

Both team were still not very good at the 2005 cup but did improve a lot and this time round South Africa finished 3rd with the help of the AFL funding and bad umpiring against Ireland while Japan did well to defeat Samoa which was a major upset.



So overall I think this format is the best and the AFL only wanted 5 games, maybe in the future depending on how many new nations compete you could look at a top divison and a 2nd division but if there is only 16 then I think this is the best way.

 

[Stealth bomber]

I'm not convinced there's really a completely "fair" way to do it unless you draw it out several more games, which doesn't appear logistically feasible.

Looking at the final standings from top to bottom, I actually think every team is generally placed where they should be, plus or minus one spot.

 

[fishmonger]

I could see 3 massive problems with the format of the 2008 IC.

Firstly, the disparity between the quality of the sides was a major letdown for both players and spectators. It should be a two division format.

Secondly, the elimination format meant that some really good sides (ie USA, Nauru and Canada) were left out of the finals because of one result (which could have just as easily been influenced by the weather or injury).

Compare it with the AFL finals series where up to 4 sides get a second chance.

The top two of each pool should have had a second chance game.

Finally, the matches should have been played at suitable venues with seating and facilities and with at least half played at night.

I heard one of the coaches, I think it was Canada tell his players that he wasn't even sure where the players toilets were. He called back a few players who were heading for the park's public toilets. An Aussie would have just gone to the nearest tree, but I'm sure that's not the sort of image that the AFL would want to portray of our game to the world.

 

[cos789]

Now that the IC is finished is the time to criticise and offer suggestions for improvements . Yes it would be good to have divisions , but I think in this case under the circumstances it was the correct call .I can see the reasoning behind the venue in having the quantity but if anyting these teams
deserve a bit more quality .So I'll repeat an earlier suggestion of mine .If possible locations should be shared out as much as possible .We saw the RSA in Perth two weeks before the IC playing in the WAFL .Imagine if it was possbible for another team to have the same itinery .They could actually play before or after a WAFL match before a reasonable crowd and with some promotion .Then move onto Victoria .No extra transport costs and maybe the WAFL clubs could organise some accomodation ..