Welcome to World Footy News
Friday, August 23 2019 @ 04:26 am ACST

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Kurt_D on Tuesday, August 12 2014 @ 11:33 am ACST

I called this scenario when the draw came out, certainly not a good look for the comp. I don't know what was wrong with the format in 2011. Every team turned up with an opportunity to win the whole thing, and within one day the weaker sides had been separated from the big guns. Everyone got to play more games against similar opposition and I don't remember any complaints. Would be interesting to hear from whoever is in charge as to why they decided to move away from this.

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Brett Northey on Tuesday, August 12 2014 @ 11:48 am ACST

We'll certainly look to have a tournament debrief with the AFL afterwards and try to understand the thinking and push for a change in future.

I definitely agree with the comment that we should not be excluding any teams yet, and that IC11 worked quite well, or straight to divisions. I think the AFL should come up with 1 or 2 models they think should work and put that to the countries that were here.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Round 1 Summary - No surprises
Authored by: Cam Homes on Tuesday, August 12 2014 @ 05:47 pm ACST

Two divisions is bloody obvious, everybody accepts that, AFL, competing nations and probably 99% of all comments we see here and other forums agree, but the arguements come down to how to choose the participants in each division. Do like at IC11, eg. wait till all the nations here have a short game seeding rounds or make nations qualify, or seed nations as per last IC as done this time etc. numerous scenarios have been proposed with each of the drawbacks of each chewed over and over, and in almost all cases they are quite valid reasons to do it/or not to do it in any particular way. eg, costs to make trip, debutant nations coming up against veterans, nations with thousands of players to choose from versus p-ant nations etc.etc.etc.

My proposal is pretty simple and I reckon overcomes all the drawbacks mentioned in all the previoua discussions.
1. Tell the nations there will be two divisions.
2. Use the WFN World Rankings to rank the nations, last IC standards three years old, WFN current/up to date. Most nations accept the WFN rankings.
3. Nations notified in advance of how many nations will be in Division one, that way if a nation is just out of the top division leading up to the IC they might just play an international to try and get into the top division. Cut off, say three months prior to IC.
4. Debutant nations "ranked" at bottom of lower/est division.
5. Higher ranked Div 1 nation drops out just prior to IC(eg. Denmark) then highest ranked div 2 nation slots into bottom of Div one.
6. As more teams compete in IC then number of nations in each Div adjusted accordingly. eg. 8-12, 10 -10, 10-12, 12-12 and so on.

Big advantage of this scheme is that everybody knows where they stand before the IC. and completely eliminates the current situation of Indonesia v Nauru PNG v Japan, NZ v Sweden debacle matches that do absolutely nothing for International Footy, Actually does more harm to promoting International footy than good I believe.

Last but not least the AFL must secure a sponsor for the IC.
they have NAB sponsoring the junior national comps. why not a sponsor for the IC. The IC must have brought in at least a 1000 players, support staff and supporters from all over the world who would be taking that sponsors message back home with them.

Bundaberg Rum sponsors international rugby here in Aussie not because they think they can get more rum drinkers to play Rugby, or more rugby players to drink Bundy rum, but because they want the international rugby visitors to take the Aussie Bundy message out into the wider world.