The format for the 2008 World Cup in Australia was always going to spark debate. Regardless of how perfect it may be, Rugby League fans have a knack of finding fault somewhere. I’ll be honest - I’m just happy that the tournament is going ahead, especially after the failings of the last one.

The 2000 World Cup (held in Great Britain and France) was a financial flop, plunging the governing Rugby Football League [RFL] into debt and the future of the competition into doubt. The media were early to lay into lop-sided scorelines and international minnows peppered with Australian and New Zealand nationals hitting the credibility of the tournament. This filtered through to the supporters and manifested itself in some low crowds. It was a wholly disappointing affair, especially after the successes of the 1995 World Cup.

Thankfully, Australia stepped in to revive the RL World Cup as part of their domestic game’s centenary (mirroring the 1995 competition in Great Britain). To combat the criticisms of the last competition and recently similar competitions (namely the 2003 RU World Cup and the 2007 Cricket World Cup), the Rugby League International Federation [RLIF] introduced a number of stipulations and an altered finals format.

On one hand, Papua New Guinea are acknowledged as a 'super power'; on the other, they have virtually no chance of emerging from the group stages, and the RLIF know it


Firstly, each squad must contain a minimum of six players registered in their national domestic competition for at least one year, or at least six players who have played for their junior international team within 18 months prior to the tournament. The development addresses a major criticism from the 2000 competition aimed at Lebanon - a team then put together from Australian players with Lebanese origins.

The major difference from previous competitions concerns the qualifying pool format. For Australia 2008, the RLIF introduced a ‘Super Pool’ containing the international game’s elite, all of them automatic entrants, whereas two other pools will contain qualifiers. The obvious idea is to try to prevent heavily one-sided games:

2008 RL World Cup Format

Group A: Australia, England, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea.

Group B: France, Fiji, European qualifier 1 (Scotland or Wales)

Group C: Tonga, European qualifier 2 (Ireland or Lebanon or Russia), Repechage (one from USA, Samoa, and runners–up from European qualifiers 1 and 2 )

Qualifying semi-final: Group B winners v Group C winners

Semi-finals: Group A runners-up v 3rd Group A; Group A winners v Qualifying semi–final winners.

Final: Winners of semi-finals.

In the main, it is the ‘Super Pool’ idea that has inflamed the critics. Who’d have thought we would see another so-called ‘Super’ group implemented so soon after the calamitous cricketing fiasco in the West Indies? Having said that, I’m not particularly against the idea per se, as the RLIF are caught between a rock and a hard place in trying to big up the competitiveness of the international game.

Is it a plain admission of the lack of strength in depth in the international game? Well, yes; but there is no use in hiding it - strength in depth is lacking in cricket and Rugby Union too, but it does not stop them having highly-publicised tournaments. And Australia could still dish out a number of punishing displays against their ‘Super’ group rivals anyway. Also, potential drubbings could merely be transferred from the group stage to the semi-finals instead. As the saying goes: ‘It’s swings and roundabouts’.

The good thing about the ‘Super Group’ format (and a major reason for its introduction) is that it pits the minnows against each other, and some potentially exciting match-ups. Although I’m sure they’d all be fired up playing against the Australias and New Zealands of this world, we all know what the results would be.

Granted, it’s not a perfect finals system for international Rugby League, but then what is? I am quite content with it, bar one detail - the treatment dished out to Papua New Guinea, who have to be the biggest losers in the whole deal.

Originally introduced as a replacement for tribal warfare, Rugby League is the country’s national sport, but of late the Kumuls have been somewhat neglected by the major international teams. For years, they cried out for meaningful international games. The RLIF have finally paid out on the request; going from virtually nothing to handing PNG the task of taking on the might of the world’s most powerful international sides.

“It is like sending the lamb to the slaughter house,” according to Sir Bob Sinclair, chairman of the Papua New Guinea RFL, who are set to lodge an official complaint over claims of not being consulted about the World Cup draw process.

It is a shame to see a proud RL nation treated in this fashion. On one hand, PNG are acknowledged as a ‘super power’; on the other, they have virtually no chance of emerging from the group stages, and the RLIF know it. It’s not as if the rankings reflect this, either -the RLIF have the Kumuls down as No.7 in the world ladder. The team in fourth are Tonga - one place ahead of France. Perhaps then, with this new format, there was little alternative and there was always going to be a loser.

Overall, I’m already looking forward to the tournament. Despite the lack of strength in depth, as a kid, some of my best early memories of watching Rugby League were getting up early-morning with my dad to watch international games on TV. They were an exciting novelty, as was the 1987 RU World Cup. It is imperative for Rugby League to have a stronger international game, and fingers crossed the 2008 World Cup will build some bridges towards achieving it.

Will it succeed? I sincerely hope so. I believe the Aussie crowds will lap it up during their domestic game’s centenary year, and the decision to host the final in Queensland is a bold but inspired choice. But spare a thought for the poor Kumuls…

How could the 2008 Rugby League World Cup organisers have been fairer on Papua New Guinea? Sportingo welcomes your views.