<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: World Cup 2013 &#8211; One Step Forward Two Steps Back!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/world-cup-2013-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/world-cup-2013-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/</link>
	<description>For all the latest international and domestic scores</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:41:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: druzik</title>
		<link>http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/world-cup-2013-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/comment-page-1/#comment-2632</link>
		<dc:creator>druzik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 02:41:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/world-cup-2013-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/#comment-2632</guid>
		<description>My guess... end of 2011 or early 2012... it needs to be there so that nations in the Qualifiers know who they will be up against... that&#039;s the way I see it anyway. But who knows.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My guess&#8230; end of 2011 or early 2012&#8230; it needs to be there so that nations in the Qualifiers know who they will be up against&#8230; that&#8217;s the way I see it anyway. But who knows.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: roml357</title>
		<link>http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/world-cup-2013-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/comment-page-1/#comment-2627</link>
		<dc:creator>roml357</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jun 2010 08:51:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/world-cup-2013-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/#comment-2627</guid>
		<description>When will they come out with the draw you think?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When will they come out with the draw you think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: druzik</title>
		<link>http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/world-cup-2013-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/comment-page-1/#comment-2619</link>
		<dc:creator>druzik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:49:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/world-cup-2013-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/#comment-2619</guid>
		<description>Well that part of the games has not been set in stone so we&#039;ll see what comes about. What you have there certainly is a possibility. Who knows. I can see why you went the way you did, and its a perfectly good structure... my structure was made more form the TV point of view, there would be 2 extra games compared to your&#039;s, so 27 as opposed to 25 but some might argue that&#039;s not so much a of a big deal. Who knows we&#039;ll see what happens.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well that part of the games has not been set in stone so we&#8217;ll see what comes about. What you have there certainly is a possibility. Who knows. I can see why you went the way you did, and its a perfectly good structure&#8230; my structure was made more form the TV point of view, there would be 2 extra games compared to your&#8217;s, so 27 as opposed to 25 but some might argue that&#8217;s not so much a of a big deal. Who knows we&#8217;ll see what happens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: roml357</title>
		<link>http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/world-cup-2013-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/comment-page-1/#comment-2614</link>
		<dc:creator>roml357</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:53:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/world-cup-2013-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/#comment-2614</guid>
		<description>I pretty much agree on the structure you have for the groups but I dont agree that the 2nd placed nations in the c and d groups should have another chance. ITs a bit like recycling. Should just be the top winners from c and d and the top 3 from pools a and b. You have your 8 then get into the quarters by playing winners c and d play winners a and b for 2 spots in the semis and 2nd place a plays 3rd place b and 2nd place b plays 3rd place A. I would only do it this way because c and d come from weaker groups and need to prove themselves. Would a macintyre system work here?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I pretty much agree on the structure you have for the groups but I dont agree that the 2nd placed nations in the c and d groups should have another chance. ITs a bit like recycling. Should just be the top winners from c and d and the top 3 from pools a and b. You have your 8 then get into the quarters by playing winners c and d play winners a and b for 2 spots in the semis and 2nd place a plays 3rd place b and 2nd place b plays 3rd place A. I would only do it this way because c and d come from weaker groups and need to prove themselves. Would a macintyre system work here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: druzik</title>
		<link>http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/world-cup-2013-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/comment-page-1/#comment-859</link>
		<dc:creator>druzik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:31:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/world-cup-2013-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/#comment-859</guid>
		<description>Look yes you need a qualifying tournament... but its not about teams like Germany and that being able to get in to the WC as such. Its the fact that they get that chance to compete on a higher level than what they normally would. Its all about establishing rivalries and building up the profile of the sport. For example if you were to get a Germany v England game or a Russia v Germany game... two big rivalries in sport in general where the game could be sold on these lines.

Lebanon has a good rivalry with Ireland now too and we are getting rid of that clash from happening of a regular basis now. See you talk about the incentive of a WC... its been taken away from those other countries now... they dont have that incentive anymore to train hard and keep dreaming. Yeah you will get blowout scores in the qualifiers, but that where they are meant to happen no?

Since you will have NRL and ESL players in the countries like Ireland Scotland Wales etc... then Greece, Malta, Morocco could easily sustain a good campaign against any country drawing on similar players. The Czechs are actually quite good and Germany though a very hot an cold nation in terms of form can push some of those nations. Ukraine is the dark horse as everyone I have spoken too reckon they can pretty much smash anyone up to Serbia and Italy... where it could be an interesting match up.

But we will never know now will we. :(

I would have bitten the bullet and gone to 16 teams (though 12 would have been much better) with 4 spots fought out by 12 nations.

But the biggest issue is this one of killing off the eligibility rule, its will make things a complete farce once again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Look yes you need a qualifying tournament&#8230; but its not about teams like Germany and that being able to get in to the WC as such. Its the fact that they get that chance to compete on a higher level than what they normally would. Its all about establishing rivalries and building up the profile of the sport. For example if you were to get a Germany v England game or a Russia v Germany game&#8230; two big rivalries in sport in general where the game could be sold on these lines.</p>
<p>Lebanon has a good rivalry with Ireland now too and we are getting rid of that clash from happening of a regular basis now. See you talk about the incentive of a WC&#8230; its been taken away from those other countries now&#8230; they dont have that incentive anymore to train hard and keep dreaming. Yeah you will get blowout scores in the qualifiers, but that where they are meant to happen no?</p>
<p>Since you will have NRL and ESL players in the countries like Ireland Scotland Wales etc&#8230; then Greece, Malta, Morocco could easily sustain a good campaign against any country drawing on similar players. The Czechs are actually quite good and Germany though a very hot an cold nation in terms of form can push some of those nations. Ukraine is the dark horse as everyone I have spoken too reckon they can pretty much smash anyone up to Serbia and Italy&#8230; where it could be an interesting match up.</p>
<p>But we will never know now will we. <img src='http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>I would have bitten the bullet and gone to 16 teams (though 12 would have been much better) with 4 spots fought out by 12 nations.</p>
<p>But the biggest issue is this one of killing off the eligibility rule, its will make things a complete farce once again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/world-cup-2013-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/comment-page-1/#comment-852</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:57:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rugbyleagueinternationalscores.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/world-cup-2013-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/#comment-852</guid>
		<description>A tiered qualifying competion would reduce the chance of teams having 100 plus points put past them. I think eight teams fighting it out for two places is fair enough if you think about it like this:
Two competitions where the prize is a place in the World Cup. What bigger incentive and reward could there be for a country to train hard, compete and win? I&#039;m absolutely sure that if say Lebanon were to win the competition you&#039;ve mentioned they&#039;d be over the moon. If they won the comp AND booked a place in the World Cup it would mean so much more.

What are the chances of Germany, The Czech Republic, Greece, Malta, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Morocco or Catalonia being able to get a competitive team together to play in a series of qualifiers? Do they have domestic leagues at present? I know that the game (only one year old) in Catalonia is in the balance and that the trip Belgium last year was expensive with a few players unable to make the journey.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A tiered qualifying competion would reduce the chance of teams having 100 plus points put past them. I think eight teams fighting it out for two places is fair enough if you think about it like this:<br />
Two competitions where the prize is a place in the World Cup. What bigger incentive and reward could there be for a country to train hard, compete and win? I&#8217;m absolutely sure that if say Lebanon were to win the competition you&#8217;ve mentioned they&#8217;d be over the moon. If they won the comp AND booked a place in the World Cup it would mean so much more.</p>
<p>What are the chances of Germany, The Czech Republic, Greece, Malta, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Morocco or Catalonia being able to get a competitive team together to play in a series of qualifiers? Do they have domestic leagues at present? I know that the game (only one year old) in Catalonia is in the balance and that the trip Belgium last year was expensive with a few players unable to make the journey.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
