Great start but what happens post WRC???

[bushfire]

Been a cracking start to the WRC, haven't been any upsets yet but some great close games and no cricket scores. Some of the so called lesser nations have really shown their guts and given it a right old go. Yet i can't help but feel that the bigger nations and their rugby set ups really need to put a whole lot of emphasis on building the player bases and standards of these smaller rugby countries. Fair play to the now 4 nations, but SH could possibly look at including a couple of Arg regions in super 15, possibly 1 Namibia team, and a Uraguay region? What about a Tongan team or West Sam or Fuji? Perhaps the opportunity to include a united pacific islands team in the 4 nations to build up to 5? In the Heinekan they have run 2 italian teams and occasionally a Romanian team. Whilst these teams are probably way below the ability of mid table teams who dont qualify in NH leagues they do work well for their countries (ignoring their results). Italy especially have been able to build a solid base of Italian players through these teams (Trevisio and Parma usually i think) whilst their international big names are in the top echelons of English and French set ups. Hopefully this will start the Romanian bandwagon also. Possibly Heinekin expands to include a Russian and Georgian team (are a few good Russian players being exported to European teams this year).

I know the biggest hurdle is the money (and it doesn't help that this is the first WC to actually make a loss), but is their anything more important to "Rugby" than expanding it's base and becoming a truly world wide sport ? (like football). Unless the suits who govern the world game see past the present NH/SH big guns then could well see the minnows battling along in earnest but with no back up. Would love the sitaution in a 10 -15 years time that the winners of the WRC could be 1 from 8-10 but will take the RFU to look past the individual big unions and look way down the track.

Anyway, if you are still awake after reading this dribble let me know what you think?

 

[UilamOsa]

The questions you ask will be asked after the next world cup and the world cup after that.

Samoa & Tonga & Fiji have political issues as well as rampant corruption (i'm looking at you Samoa)

Argentina will enter the 4 nations. It will take them a few years to make the adjustments in terms of the different style of play, as well as get over their retiring players.

A combined Island team funded individually and based either at North Harbour or in Aus will get decent gates. But whether the players will remain here when the opportunity for greater coin will be the other issue. With players based directly from the islands, they will usually look to not only support themselves and their immediate family it's also the extended family members as well.

Think Tuilagi and the his brothers...

 

[TRF_heineken]

Ehm

In South Africa's Vodacom Cup there's an Argentinian team called the Pampas and a Namibian team called the Welwitchias(i think).

A lot of Namibian players are also playing for other currie cup and super 15 teams too.

The Pampas did really well this year in the tournament but the teams are not up to scratch to play currie cup or Super 15 yet.

 

[nickdnz]

A Fijian team would not happen in the Super 15 and won't untill Fiji goes some way to becoming a democracy, because of the regulations New Zealand and Australia have on Fijian immigrants with ties to the military, and the fact that PI Nations can't afford to pay their players. Tonga won't pay their players in the RWC, what's the chances they will pay them in a full time club competition?

 

[profitius]

There should be relegation from and promotion to the 6 nations. Better still they could cut down on autumn internationals or scrap them all together and expand the 6 nations to 7 nations so the teams in it now couldn't have any excuses to complain. That would give every country in Europe something great to aim for and really help rugby grow.

 

[LittleGuy]

I hope the chatter about reducing the RWC size is gone, 20 teams is a great size and perfect competition reducing it would be a blow to the game expanding, and outside of Uruguay and Portugal(maybe Spain but a stretch) no teams that missed out can be even slightly competitive at the moment.

 

[UilamOsa]

I hope the chatter about reducing the RWC size is gone, 20 teams is a great size and perfect competition reducing it would be a blow to the game expanding, and outside of Uruguay and Portugal(maybe Spain but a stretch) no teams that missed out can be even slightly competitive at the moment.

I think the first weeks results and performances has put laid to rest that idea.

 

[Peat]

There should be relegation from and promotion to the 6 nations. Better still they could cut down on autumn internationals or scrap them all together and expand the 6 nations to 7 nations so the teams in it now couldn't have any excuses to complain. That would give every country in Europe something great to aim for and really help rugby grow.

I would rather see England play one of NZ/SA/Oz/the PIs (any of them) than see them play a hopelessly outclassed Russia/Romania/Georgia. That goes in terms of England's development, the RFU's cash balance, and my personal interest in the game.

Or, to put it another way, I don't want to see Autumn Internationals reduced to include games against inferior opposition instead.

 

[Seaton]

There should be relegation from and promotion to the 6 nations. Better still they could cut down on autumn internationals or scrap them all together and expand the 6 nations to 7 nations so the teams in it now couldn't have any excuses to complain. That would give every country in Europe something great to aim for and really help rugby grow.

I would like the idea that in the future we can see some form of relegation/ tiered system in European international tournaments, as it will help the game grow.

Problem for me is that the main proponents of this would be singing to another tune if their team was the one in line for relegation.
(This isn't a personal attack btw, just a statement with regards to a collective to group)

The lower tier countries have been competitive so far, but a few results doesn't all of a sudden mean we won't see one sided results like in the last WC anymore, this needs to be approached hollistically.

 

[profitius]

I would rather see England play one of NZ/SA/Oz/the PIs (any of them) than see them play a hopelessly outclassed Russia/Romania/Georgia. That goes in terms of England's development, the RFU's cash balance, and my personal interest in the game.

Or, to put it another way, I don't want to see Autumn Internationals reduced to include games against inferior opposition instead.

Its in Englands interest to help the game grow. If we could get Russia (for example) up to a high standard then the popularity of the game there would grow and they'd be interested in watching more rugby too which means much bigger TV deals. So its in Englands interest in the long term to help the game grow.

Romania has a history of playing rugby, Georgia has just received a €28 million donation from a wealthy business man there, Spain is right next door to France and hosting more and more big rugby matches so progress is being made and its now up to the top teams to help push it along further.

 

[profitius]

I would like the idea that in the future we can see some form of relegation/ tiered system in European international tournaments, as it will help the game grow.

Problem for me is that the main proponents of this would be singing to another tune if their team was the one in line for relegation.
(This isn't a personal attack btw, just a statement with regards to a collective to group)

The lower tier countries have been competitive so far, but a few results doesn't all of a sudden mean we won't see one sided results like in the last WC anymore, this needs to be approached hollistically.

Thats why I said there should be 7 teams in it. If they get relegated from that they can have no complaints.0

There would be some cricket scores starting off but over time the teams would become more competitive, like Italy have become.

 

[Seaton]

Thats why I said there should be 7 teams in it. If they get relegated from that they can have no complaints.0

There would be some cricket scores starting off but over time the teams would become more competitive, like Italy have become.

But Italy had some decent results and wins over Scotland (I presume others as well) prior to being admitted into the 5 Nations, where as none of these Tier 2 countries (I am strictly speaking Europe here) have recorded a win in the last decade. The new teams at least need to be able to compete effectively with Italy/ Scotland without those two having simply having a poor game, and I am no psychology expert, but I can't see how a team getting drubbed by 50 points for 6 weeks in 2 months is an effective way of garnering interest.

Things take time, expansion/ relegation of/ from the 6 Nations should be visited in 2015, assuming there have been wins by the Eastern Countries over the illustrious western teams by then. I am all for development of the game, I might not like it as it will most likely see Scotland drift away into the doldrums as we have in football, but not even I am that greedy.

 

[Peat]

Its in Englands interest to help the game grow. If we could get Russia (for example) up to a high standard then the popularity of the game there would grow and they'd be interested in watching more rugby too which means much bigger TV deals. So its in Englands interest in the long term to help the game grow.

Romania has a history of playing rugby, Georgia has just received a €28 million donation from a wealthy business man there, Spain is right next door to France and hosting more and more big rugby matches so progress is being made and its now up to the top teams to help push it along further.

Its in England's interest to have a better standard of rugby team. Which means sending out our best against opponents who will challenge them and sort the men from the boys.

Its in England's interest to keep the coffers full right now, to help create better grass roots structures and academies.

Its in England's interest to not **** off the clubs by dicking around with the season again without good reason.

And yeah, its in England's interest to grow the game to a certain extent. But the factors balance out. Short term, the status quo suits us far better.

It suits Scotland (heavily in debt, struggling to fill Murrayfield), Wales (clubs financially a bit stuffed, struggling to fill the Millenium) and Ireland (got the new Lansdowne to pay off, struggling to fill it) even better. Particularly Scotland if we're talking about relegation. As LordHope observes, the turkey doesn't vote for christmas.

I am up for expanding the game. I'm not up for sacrificing large amounts of the fun bits of the international calender to do so. Not until the minnows show their presence will actually be fun. Not getting beat all over the shop in the World Cup isn't enough. I'd want to see victories.

edit: As LordHope points out, thats in their interest as well. Getting smashed sideways repeatedly isn't going to help them too much.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

This is why it's a stupid idea to stop the Churchill Cup - while American and Canada are all right because they're having tours, or whatever, now, what about Russia/George/Tonga/whoever else?

 

[psychic duck]

Its in England's interest to have a better standard of rugby team. Which means sending out our best against opponents who will challenge them and sort the men from the boys.

Its in England's interest to keep the coffers full right now, to help create better grass roots structures and academies.

Its in England's interest to not **** off the clubs by dicking around with the season again without good reason.

And yeah, its in England's interest to grow the game to a certain extent. But the factors balance out. Short term, the status quo suits us far better.

It suits Scotland (heavily in debt, struggling to fill Murrayfield), Wales (clubs financially a bit stuffed, struggling to fill the Millenium) and Ireland (got the new Lansdowne to pay off, struggling to fill it) even better. Particularly Scotland if we're talking about relegation. As LordHope observes, the turkey doesn't vote for christmas.

I am up for expanding the game. I'm not up for sacrificing large amounts of the fun bits of the international calender to do so. Not until the minnows show their presence will actually be fun. Not getting beat all over the shop in the World Cup isn't enough. I'd want to see victories.

edit: As LordHope points out, thats in their interest as well. Getting smashed sideways repeatedly isn't going to help them too much.

so, if you don't want any new teams until they win some matches, how are Georgia supposed to rise when they haven't played a 6 Nations side out of the RWC since 2003?

and you didn't like my idea of a playoff, so if you want teams to be beating the status quo but don't want matches between them, what is your criteria for a way a new team can earn it?

This is why it's a stupid idea to stop the Churchill Cup - while American and Canada are all right because they're having tours, or whatever, now, what about Russia/George/Tonga/whoever else?

yes and no, teams like Georgia and Tonga didn't get their Top14/Premiership/Magners League players so get thrashed more than the actual side do, looking back at the England Saxons v Tonga match in June, just 6 players from the starting XV made the World Cup 30

it's the same with the IRB Nations Cup, Georgia don't get Gorgodze, Zirakashvili etc

but if Georgia were given proper matches against Italy, Scotland and Argentina at least once or twice a year they will get their best players for those matches far easier, for example Georgia managed a much stronger side to play proper internationals against Russia and Romania but are under strength in the IRB nations cup

although the idea of playing England Saxons v teams like Romania is a good idea, but realistically the minnows only get players for proper internationals

and in the Pacific nations case, only World Cups and Autumn internationals against the big teams

 

[Peat]

psychic duck - I'd like to see opportunities for the full strength second tier teams to play the 1st tiers/1st tier A teams/1st tier clubs in the Autumn and Summer international windows. When they start showing genuine competitveness and achieving a few results there, then the possibility of joining the 6N should be looked at.

Genuine question - quality aside, would you rather play Russia or England as a Georgian? I know my preference is for my local neighbours, it adds to the fun. Would you rather have a top quality international competition for the Eastern European sides, or be part of the established prestige of the 6N.

You are right though that without full access to their players, its a little bit of a sham. Which comes down to money. Money to pay players and persuade them to make themselves available. And, as the demise of the Churchill Cup shows, England at least aren't happy to be making a loss out of developing rugby worldwide.

 

[Toko_11]

I hope the time when English don't get to decide who Georgia will and will not play comes soon <_<

 

[Teh Mite]

I hope the time when English don't get to decide who Georgia will and will not play comes soon <_<

I've seen the victim card played on this board plenty of times before, but that takes the biscuit.

 

[profitius]

Genuine question - quality aside, would you rather play Russia or England as a Georgian? I know my preference is for my local neighbours, it adds to the fun. Would you rather have a top quality international competition for the Eastern European sides, or be part of the established prestige of the 6N.

Variety would be nice. The problem with rugby is theres not enough teams.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I heard on the news last night that Rugby is the National Sport of Georgia.

One way to help build would be only the two finalists qualifying for the next world cup, so everyone else would have to play some of the lower ranked teams (maybe home and away) to qualify

so if we went out in the semis then we would have to play team like japan and the argies and the island teams over the next four years (its 16 years since we last played japan) and the six nations teams would have to tour through georgia and romainia and spain.

for each of these "big" teams its half a dozen games spread over four years but for the "smaller" ones they get at least three or four big matches a year for the same time